4 ms·

That’s only true if you presume that demand for roads remain constant. Ideally you’d hope that cycle infrastructure would offset some road use, which would allo

That’s only true if you presume that demand for roads remain constant. Ideally you’d hope that cycle infrastructure would offset some road use, which would allow the state to reclaim some lanes for cyclists. Given how space inefficient cars are, it wouldn’t require a significant drop in road usage for cyclists to be given all the space they need independent from pedestrians.

sokoloff 5y ago
Most roads around here that are not controlled access are one lane in each direction. Those that aren’t have often had a lane dedicated to buses (and emergency vehicles). There are rarely lanes free to be taken unless cycling becomes so prevalent to displace cars to zero on some routes.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  And that's a really good idea
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Depends on your city I guess. You didn’t specify where you live, but I’d broadly categorize the cities I’ve lived into two categories. The first is car centric, with lots of roads and deep set backs. These cities are amenable to bike and public transit transformation in terms of space, but usually have political resistance to change. These cities will be the easiest to add extra bike infrastructure to, once a political mass is reached. My current city is like this, and the current bike path master plan is trying to add enough paths for 96% of the city to be near bike infrastructure (currently it’s 10%). The second category are really dense, and do not have the space for any extra lanes. But these cities dedicate a huge amount of space for parallel parking. Theoretically the city could remove parking for bikes, but practically this means purposefully pricing people out of car ownership, which is obviously unpopular. These cities should focus on public transit, which is by and far the most space efficient way to move people. For a lot of these cities this is less about installing new lines, which is expensive, but about making the existing system feel cleaner and more dignified. It will always be hard to make improvements when even the crappiest sedan is considered a step up from taking the subway to work.

sokoloff 5y ago

Most roads around here that are not controlled access are one lane in each direction. Those that aren’t have often had a lane dedicated to buses (and emergency vehicles). There are rarely lanes free to be taken unless cycling becomes so prevalent to displace cars to zero on some routes.

adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
And that's a really good idea
ashtonkem 5y ago
Depends on your city I guess. You didn’t specify where you live, but I’d broadly categorize the cities I’ve lived into two categories. The first is car centric, with lots of roads and deep set backs. These cities are amenable to bike and public transit transformation in terms of space, but usually have political resistance to change. These cities will be the easiest to add extra bike infrastructure to, once a political mass is reached. My current city is like this, and the current bike path master plan is trying to add enough paths for 96% of the city to be near bike infrastructure (currently it’s 10%). The second category are really dense, and do not have the space for any extra lanes. But these cities dedicate a huge amount of space for parallel parking. Theoretically the city could remove parking for bikes, but practically this means purposefully pricing people out of car ownership, which is obviously unpopular. These cities should focus on public transit, which is by and far the most space efficient way to move people. For a lot of these cities this is less about installing new lines, which is expensive, but about making the existing system feel cleaner and more dignified. It will always be hard to make improvements when even the crappiest sedan is considered a step up from taking the subway to work.