8 ms·

Car requires a lot of infrastructure that are very costly. Traffic control, safety equipment, road bumps (how ironic) because indeed cars are fast and heavy. Bi

Car requires a lot of infrastructure that are very costly. Traffic control, safety equipment, road bumps (how ironic) because indeed cars are fast and heavy. Biking made me realize how much it took to get a full fledged car culture.

kergonath 5y ago
What’s even more frustrating is that most people have integrated that with the “infrastructure you have to have” and then whine about the cost of a bike lane. We seem to have accepted that putting billions into motorways was ok, and use that against any other form of transport.
- gernb 5y ago
  I'm sure this isn't enough money but ... car users pay taxes on gasoline to maintain the roads. Cyclists pay nothing equivalent. Of course cyclists pay normal taxes like everyone else. It does raise the question of should their be a cycle tax. Cars will have a similar problem soon, as they go electric all over the world whatever taxes come from gas will disappear and governments will have to find a new way to pay for the roads.
  - davidrhunt 5y ago
    At least in the US gas taxes and usage fees don't come close to covering the cost of roads [1,2]. In the US all of us pay for roads through other taxes because the use fees and taxes don't cover the cost of the infrastructure. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-history-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-fund-new-infrastructure https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-... [2] https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/
  - kergonath 5y ago
    > car users pay taxes on gasoline to maintain the roads. True. But then it’s counter-productive, because it really does not cover government spending to build and maintain roads (and motorways, and bridges, and tunnels). To be fair, roads are necessary and useful in a modern economy. But the same money on some reliable tracks for freighter trains could be even better in some instances, and now we have people saying that we cannot have that because trains are expensive. True, they are, but the comparison is flawed because we assume that roads are free. Indeed, gas taxes will have to decrease, and that will be associated with increased maintenance costs (EVs and modern cars keep getting heavier, which results in more wear and tear). So it’s possible that at some point people will realise how much the debate is stacked against any alternative form of transport, but I am not too hopeful. Roads are just expected; people don’t really realise they we had to pay for them.
  - storyinmemo 5y ago
    Cycling infrastructure costs far less. Road damage is roughly the square of the vehicle's weight. Also, we don't charge pedestrians for sidewalks. > "Increasing a truck’s weight [from 80,000 pounds] to 90,000 pounds results in a 42 percent increase in road wear. Pavement designed to last 20 years wears out in seven." https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/06/22/murphys-law-how-trucks-destroy-our-roads https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/06/22/murphys-law-how-trucks... > It would take 700 trips by bicycle to equal the damage caused by one Smart Car. It would take 17,059 trips by bike to equal the damage caused by an average car. And it would take 364,520 bike trips to equal the damage caused by just one Hummer H2. https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/ https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh... When this all comes together, every cycling trip I take is a car left parked and that benefits everybody. That's why we don't tax cyclists for infrastructure and why it's counter-productive to raise it as an issue.
    - gamegoblin 5y ago
      I was under the impression it was proportional to the 4th power of a vehicle’s weight: https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-... But this might be measuring something a little different. Regardless, in my city (Seattle), an asphalt bike path near me (Alki trail) is still in perfect condition after a decade of frequent cyclist and pedestrian use, and adjacent car streets are riddled with potholes and cracks despite frequent patching.
      - bombcar 5y ago
        I wonder how this compares to areas that have freeze-thaw cycles. Bikes do a lot less damage to the path, but at the same time bikes and walkers are much more noticing of path damage. The bike path near me was resurfaced recently, it wasn't bad before but it's certainly nicer now.
    - impossiblefork 5y ago
      It's actually the fourth power over the weight of the axle, so almost all road wear is from very heavy heavy vehicles such as trucks and the like.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  That is true. The old ways are an expected cost. Also bike infrastructure degrades very slowly over time.
ars 5y ago
Biking also made me realize just how incredibly useful cars are, which completely explains why cities are willing to spend so much money effort and space for them. I've tried biking walking public transportation, cars are just better. I still bike for certain trips, but it's limited in usefulness.
- nicoco 5y ago
  I would be interested in knowing which country you live in? Can you elaborate what makes you say cars are better?
  - mijamo 5y ago
    I don't own a car and live in a very cycling friendly place, but even I have to admit that a car is very convenient : - you can transport several person at once. If you have kids this is very valuable. - can go longer distances. I wouldn't go more than 15km on my bike as a mean of transportation, as opposed to as an activity in itself - you don't get wet when it rains - you can actually transport stuff. I do my regular shopping on my bike but for gardening I need to rent a car. Same for several things (large packs of stuff, pet food etc.) - you are just more free to go wherever, especially on a weekend. With public transport you are very limited and can't access a lot of wild places. I actually force myself to rent a car once a month so that I go around to different places and not restrict myself to my immediate surroundings and what I can access with public transport. That said, I do not plan to own a car as long as I live in a major city, it is just financially unsound and not really needed for me on a daily basis as I don't have kids.
    - gernb 5y ago
      I ran into this issue moving from the USA (owning a car for 15yrs) to another country where public transportation is the norm. Lived without a car for 15yrs. For the most part I didn't miss the car. I just took it as "life". But, a few friends owned a car and a few times a year I'd met up with them and notice that my world seemed 4x larger with car. They were going all over the place because it was easy and comfortable and while I wasn't a hermit I stuck to easy to get to places. I also joined a surfing group and the person that ran it owned a van and we would not have been able to get to the various beaches without it in any reasonable time frame using public transportation. Another area was running errands. Back in car centric USA I might spend a Saturday going to 3-5 places (Home Depot, Costco, Target, the Mall) and at each place I might buy something I needed and just put it in the trunk and carry on. Where as in my 2nd life I could only go to a single store in a day because I needed to carry what I bought. Maybe that's good but it felt frustating not to be able to get shit done as quickly. Sometimes I could order or have things shipped but it took an extra 10 minutes to fill out the forms, more if there's a line, and then I had to be home to receive the packages.
warent 5y ago
This is making me wonder how light pollution would change if all cars become self-driving

kergonath 5y ago

What’s even more frustrating is that most people have integrated that with the “infrastructure you have to have” and then whine about the cost of a bike lane. We seem to have accepted that putting billions into motorways was ok, and use that against any other form of transport.

gernb 5y ago
I'm sure this isn't enough money but ... car users pay taxes on gasoline to maintain the roads. Cyclists pay nothing equivalent. Of course cyclists pay normal taxes like everyone else. It does raise the question of should their be a cycle tax. Cars will have a similar problem soon, as they go electric all over the world whatever taxes come from gas will disappear and governments will have to find a new way to pay for the roads.
- davidrhunt 5y ago
  At least in the US gas taxes and usage fees don't come close to covering the cost of roads [1,2]. In the US all of us pay for roads through other taxes because the use fees and taxes don't cover the cost of the infrastructure. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-history-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-fund-new-infrastructure https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-... [2] https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/
- kergonath 5y ago
  > car users pay taxes on gasoline to maintain the roads. True. But then it’s counter-productive, because it really does not cover government spending to build and maintain roads (and motorways, and bridges, and tunnels). To be fair, roads are necessary and useful in a modern economy. But the same money on some reliable tracks for freighter trains could be even better in some instances, and now we have people saying that we cannot have that because trains are expensive. True, they are, but the comparison is flawed because we assume that roads are free. Indeed, gas taxes will have to decrease, and that will be associated with increased maintenance costs (EVs and modern cars keep getting heavier, which results in more wear and tear). So it’s possible that at some point people will realise how much the debate is stacked against any alternative form of transport, but I am not too hopeful. Roads are just expected; people don’t really realise they we had to pay for them.
- storyinmemo 5y ago
  Cycling infrastructure costs far less. Road damage is roughly the square of the vehicle's weight. Also, we don't charge pedestrians for sidewalks. > "Increasing a truck’s weight [from 80,000 pounds] to 90,000 pounds results in a 42 percent increase in road wear. Pavement designed to last 20 years wears out in seven." https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/06/22/murphys-law-how-trucks-destroy-our-roads https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/06/22/murphys-law-how-trucks... > It would take 700 trips by bicycle to equal the damage caused by one Smart Car. It would take 17,059 trips by bike to equal the damage caused by an average car. And it would take 364,520 bike trips to equal the damage caused by just one Hummer H2. https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/ https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh... When this all comes together, every cycling trip I take is a car left parked and that benefits everybody. That's why we don't tax cyclists for infrastructure and why it's counter-productive to raise it as an issue.
  - gamegoblin 5y ago
    I was under the impression it was proportional to the 4th power of a vehicle’s weight: https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-... But this might be measuring something a little different. Regardless, in my city (Seattle), an asphalt bike path near me (Alki trail) is still in perfect condition after a decade of frequent cyclist and pedestrian use, and adjacent car streets are riddled with potholes and cracks despite frequent patching.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      I wonder how this compares to areas that have freeze-thaw cycles. Bikes do a lot less damage to the path, but at the same time bikes and walkers are much more noticing of path damage. The bike path near me was resurfaced recently, it wasn't bad before but it's certainly nicer now.
  - impossiblefork 5y ago
    It's actually the fourth power over the weight of the axle, so almost all road wear is from very heavy heavy vehicles such as trucks and the like.
agumonkey 5y ago
That is true. The old ways are an expected cost. Also bike infrastructure degrades very slowly over time.

ars 5y ago

Biking also made me realize just how incredibly useful cars are, which completely explains why cities are willing to spend so much money effort and space for them. I've tried biking walking public transportation, cars are just better. I still bike for certain trips, but it's limited in usefulness.

nicoco 5y ago
I would be interested in knowing which country you live in? Can you elaborate what makes you say cars are better?
- mijamo 5y ago
  I don't own a car and live in a very cycling friendly place, but even I have to admit that a car is very convenient : - you can transport several person at once. If you have kids this is very valuable. - can go longer distances. I wouldn't go more than 15km on my bike as a mean of transportation, as opposed to as an activity in itself - you don't get wet when it rains - you can actually transport stuff. I do my regular shopping on my bike but for gardening I need to rent a car. Same for several things (large packs of stuff, pet food etc.) - you are just more free to go wherever, especially on a weekend. With public transport you are very limited and can't access a lot of wild places. I actually force myself to rent a car once a month so that I go around to different places and not restrict myself to my immediate surroundings and what I can access with public transport. That said, I do not plan to own a car as long as I live in a major city, it is just financially unsound and not really needed for me on a daily basis as I don't have kids.
  - gernb 5y ago
    I ran into this issue moving from the USA (owning a car for 15yrs) to another country where public transportation is the norm. Lived without a car for 15yrs. For the most part I didn't miss the car. I just took it as "life". But, a few friends owned a car and a few times a year I'd met up with them and notice that my world seemed 4x larger with car. They were going all over the place because it was easy and comfortable and while I wasn't a hermit I stuck to easy to get to places. I also joined a surfing group and the person that ran it owned a van and we would not have been able to get to the various beaches without it in any reasonable time frame using public transportation. Another area was running errands. Back in car centric USA I might spend a Saturday going to 3-5 places (Home Depot, Costco, Target, the Mall) and at each place I might buy something I needed and just put it in the trunk and carry on. Where as in my 2nd life I could only go to a single store in a day because I needed to carry what I bought. Maybe that's good but it felt frustating not to be able to get shit done as quickly. Sometimes I could order or have things shipped but it took an extra 10 minutes to fill out the forms, more if there's a line, and then I had to be home to receive the packages.

warent 5y ago

This is making me wonder how light pollution would change if all cars become self-driving