15 ms·

The Economics of Bike Lanes

171 points by marbu 15y ago

rjprins 15y ago
This discussion about the value and use of bike lanes keeps amazing me. It seems many people hold a negative view without having good arguments, almost religiously. Living in the Netherlands, the benefits of separate bike lanes (to point of a separate transit system) are so incredibly obvious. It's not some cultural particularity, it's because cycling has been made easy, nice (most of the time) and safe here. (see http://hembrow.blogspot.com/ http://hembrow.blogspot.com/) People who don't accept the rationality of the whole thing, probably have difficulty imagining a city with a cycling network. And when you show them the Dutch system, they have problems imagining the change it requires to get there. That is why Copenhaganize is a good campaign, because it shows the change is possible
- Symmetry 15y ago
  I know that for a lot of people in the US, their experience with bike commuting involves being stuck behind a bicycle on a road that doesn't have bike lanes, causing a certain amount of free-floating antipathy towards bikers.
  - davidw 15y ago
    There's nothing that causes drivers to seethe with anger like losing whole seconds of their lives to happy people cruising along on bicycles.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      The unlimited point-to-point mobility provided by a car allows people to optimize their routines almost down to the second, so losing 30 seconds behind a cyclist can make the difference between being on time and being late. Though this can be disputed, I would argue that aggressively minimizing time spent in transportation (and thus maximizing time spent at work or leisure) is beneficial to the economy and society.
      - potatolicious 15y ago
        ... except I know way too many people who voluntarily subscribe to 50-60 minute commutes in a car instead of simply living closer to work. Optimizing for less time spent in transportation is nice, but there's a balance - both for yourself and society. A bunch of gas-guzzling one-ton hunks of steel squeezing their way down a packed freeway, with only a single passenger inside each... hardly seems beneficial to the economy, society, or the environment.
        nitrogen 15y ago
        The commute isn't necessarily voluntary -- living closer to work may not be viable (especially for non-programmer types who work in the city but don't make enough to afford living there with their family), or may lack certain features (like a private yard or swimming pool) that make the commute worth it. I'm not advocating for the status quo of one giant inefficient beast of steel per person, just explaining why some drivers get upset about small delays. It is my opinion that any transportation system that completely replaces the current road system will need to allow for the type of minimal-latency point-to-point mobility we now enjoy with cars (during off-peak hours, at least). The reason I believe this is that people are easy to move, but businesses, houses, and other resources are not. Extra mobility allows us to match the right people with the right resources in less time.
      - davidw 15y ago
        They have a similar viewpoint here in Italy, where they don't stop for pedestrians at crosswalks. I once helped a "little old lady" cross the street, not by taking her arm, but by striding out to stop the flow of cars, who were very aggressively minimizing the time spent stopping for other users of the road.
      - tomkarlo 15y ago
        Except for when they're stuck in traffic, which is pretty much the norm in any city on any weekday. I used to live in NYC, and taking the subway, walking or biking was far more time efficient than taking a cab, much less driving your own car. LA wasn't really any better for driving, but the distances were usually to far for bikes, and mass transit was miserable.
  - dpark 15y ago
    And those annoyed drivers then complain about the creation of dedicated lanes that would get cyclists out of the flow of car traffic...
    - Symmetry 15y ago
      Yup, by opposing bike lanes they avoid associating themselves with the bikers that annoy them, even though bike lanes would remove the cause of the annoyance. That's primate political dynamics for you.
- danieldk 15y ago
  Indeed. The following video provides a nice overview of the history and the current state of biking infrastructure in The Netherlands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn2s6ax_7TM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn2s6ax_7TM Also, besides infrastructure, making a city of country bike-friendly also requires changes in legislation. E.g. in The Netherlands a lot legislation has been introduced in the past to protect cyclists, making drivers of motorized vehicles more cautious. The effect on society is profound. Most of my colleagues go to work by bike, public transit, or both. A bike is often many times more economic than a car, reduces oil-dependence, and wide use results in cleaner air.
  - felipemnoa 15y ago
    And you forgot the benefits to your body.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  I'm a daily bike commuter and I would love to see a Netherlands-like biking network in the US, but it's hard for me to imagine anywhere that's not as flat as most of the Netherlands. I could see it here in Portland or maybe Philly, but I don't think it would really increase the numbers of cyclists that much in, say, Seattle, where I used to live (and bike).
  - pessimizer 15y ago
    Chicago is as flat as a board. Reclaimed swamp.
  - hyperbovine 15y ago
    Those cities are the exception, not the rule. Just off the top of my head, Manhattan, Chicago, Denver, Miami, Boston, Dallas, LA, San Diego, Atlanta, D.C., Phoenix are all flat enough for a person in decent shape to get around by bike. I think the winter is a bigger issue than the terrain, but overall I think most Americans could be biking most of the time (given a lot of changes in infrastructure, policy and public health).
    - marbu 15y ago
      When the countryside is flat and good infrastructure exists at the same time, the winter is not that big issue. It's not ideal, but it's not stopping most of the people either. For example people in Sweden have no problem with it: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/winter-cycling-in-umea-sweden.html http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/winter-cycling-in-umea-... The issues of winter cycling are quite small compared to issues accociated with changing the cycling culture and building the infrastructure. So I suppose if Americans made their "flat enough cities" bike friendly, they would cycle even during winter, as other nations with good cycling conditions do.
- m0nty 15y ago
  > It seems many people hold a negative view without having good arguments, almost religiously. I tried discussing the benefits of cycling with a friend. "Bikes actually use as much energy to produce as cars, since they're made of high-tech materials which use a lot of energy in manufacture." "Whenever I'm stuck in traffic, it's usually down to a cyclist somewhere." "Having several cars is very environmentally friendly, since you can select the one most suited to your requirements at the time." And he gets very pissy if I mention I've just completed a 20 mile ride or whatever, seems to think I'm bragging (which I am, sometimes ;) and it makes him a bit insecure. So yes, emotion trumps reason for some people.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    Those objections have one thing in common: they are all flimsy after-the-fact rationalizations constructed to protect an irrational conclusion that your friend has already decided to believe, i.e. that cars are better than bikes in every way, and to hell with bikes. They're not his real objection to bikes. A good conversational tactic for that kind of situation is to try to get him to agree in advance to what evidence would sway him. If you prove to him that cars are less energy-intensive to produce than cars, or that having several cars is less environmentally friendly than having one decent all-purpose car, will he agree to accept that, and actually change his mind? The purpose of getting pre-commitment here is to avoid the inevitable back-pedaling (no pun intended) and shifting of the goal-posts that would otherwise happen once you rebut his claims.
    - m0nty 15y ago
      This guy has always been one to pull facts out of his arse. As a mutual friend put it, "He seems to have found a way of skipping the evidence-gathering stage of enquiry and leaping straight to the conclusions." It's total BS but the chances of changing his mind are zero. Incidentally, he's not a complete idiot and I've known him for a long time; we've been friends since school. But he does have a massive blind-spot about this kind of thing because, basically, he's in love with his car.
law 15y ago
I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. If that's the case, Storbeck improperly challenged the basis of Cassidy's cost-benefit scrutiny. The value (intrinsic and extrinsic) of bike lanes isn't in question; rather, Storbeck seems to take exception to the fact that these bike lanes are being constructed and rarely used. On the other hand, for anyone who has driven in NYC, parking is always difficult, no matter where you are. Whenever I drive around, I just accept the fact that I will be paying $30 per hour for a garage. Yes, switching over to bicycle transportation is an outstanding idea. However, the change has to be, in a manner of speaking, bootstrapped. There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues.
- dpark 15y ago
  >I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. Just FYI, I'm pretty sure that's not an appropriate use of "libre". "Libre" is more along the lines of "liberty" or "freedom", not "available" or "unused". >There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues This is incorrect. Aside from the network effect, the (under)utilization of an existing bike lane is not necessarily indicative of the expected usage pattern of a new bike lane. Imagine applying this argument to bus routes. Just because the 32 from Manhattan to the Bronx is underutilized, does that mean that a new route 44 from Manhattan to Long Island would also be underutilized? (Obviously my examples here are made up.)
  - law 15y ago
    I'm well aware of the technical distinction between "libre" and "available." I should have said that Cassidy's belief is more in line with "libre," rather than gratuitous. A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking. It's admittedly weak, but it's something to consider. As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority. Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).
afterburner 15y ago
In Cassidy's article, he refers to cars as "four-wheel friends." Perhaps he isn't considering this very rationally at all; I don't think I've heard that kind of touchy-feely attachment to their vehicle of choice from even the most hippie-ish pro-cycling movements. Not a strong argument against Cassidy's article, I admit (he's a journalist, his writing style needs to be engaging), but hilarious anyways.
- hugh3 15y ago
  I don't think I've heard that kind of touchy-feely attachment to their vehicle of choice from even the most hippie-ish pro-cycling movements Sure, that's because a bike doesn't promote emotional attachment, unlike a car. A cyclist enjoys biking, but he generally doesn't attribute that enjoyment to his bike -- he would just as happily swap for another, just as I'd throw out my old running shoes and buy a new pair. Cars, however, promote more emotional bonding. I think because the car moves under its own power it feels more like it's alive. I press the accelerator, the car does what I tell it, and we form a bond just as a rider forms a bond with his horse. On a pushbike you're always keenly aware that it's you who is doing all the work, and the bike is just a tool.
  - jbl 15y ago
    Bicycles can promote emotional attachment. I take pride in my bicycles. There are personalizations that I've made that make my bikes unique in my eyes. One of my bikes would be difficult to replace if it were totalled. I know many other cyclists (athletes and otherwise) who are attached to their bikes. Likewise, I know many people who could care less what kind of car they drive so long as it is clean and runs well. Some people care about what they use, some people don't.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    Methinks you need to meet more cyclists. My brother is a (very) avid cyclist - he even names all of his bikes. Hell, he builds them from scratch, hand-picking components, and is meticulous about keeping all of them in tip-top condition constantly. I don't think one can claim he isn't "attached" to his bike - and I've met his cyclist friends who are similarly reverent about their vehicles of choice. Their attachment to their bikes is about equal to what I see from avid drivers and their meticulously maintained cars.
Jun8 15y ago
I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by applying a kid's natural understanding but (almost) from physical principles, e.g. conservation of angular momentum (which I recently read from physics exchange is not how bikes work). So my comments are an outsider's view to bikers. I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. Bikers often say that they should be treated on par with cars (in matters of passing, etc.), but they themselves operate somewhere between vehicles and pedestrians, combining the worse characteristics of each. I have observed many bikers not to stop at stop signs or red lights, because, you know, they're for cars, jeopardizing pedestrians. A 90kg man on a bike moving fast is an object you don't want to run into when you're walking. In parks (e.g. Chicago's long lake shore), although they should share their lane with people strolling and child strollers, they go about at high speeds. Many bikers ignore signs where bikes are prohibited on sidewalks and ride them among people. And the worst part is you can't say anything, because these guys are living a healthy lifestyle, right? They are saving gas, etc. Now, this, of course, is true, but doesn't give them precedence over all other lifeforms on sidewalks. Next time you don your cool biker's outfit and feeling totally Armstrong, please try to remember us, lowly people trying to share the sidewalks and streets with you.
- bkor 15y ago
  All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.
  - hack_edu 15y ago
    ... all these things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes that were strictly enforced as DEDICATED bike lanes. Next time you're on a busy street with bike lanes, pay attention to the number of double-parked delivery trucks and other stationary non-bike business. These make the road more dangerous and slower (an important factor in route choice) than a non-bike lane street.
gerggerg 15y ago
Great article. To add: It also doesn't help that many of NYC's bike lanes are less safe than just riding in the middle of the road. The streets of Manhattan are a dangerous jungle for bikers. Cabs hit and run on a daily basis. Some of the bike lanes are in between parked cars and the car lanes making the risk even higher. Car doors, pedestrians running out, cars hugging the edge to make a turn, cars double parked. It's a far cry from a dedicated lane. Personal experience time: When I first started riding in NYC it was a cautious, rule following experience. Then after a while you see how little respect you get and how much you genuinely have to look out for you're own life and you stop caring. You perceive every passing car as a potential death/bodily injury threat and pave your own way.
localtalent 15y ago
This is not the place for anecdotal arguments, they aren't productive. Anyone can cite stories of bad behavior on all sides: sidewalk cycling, oblivious jaywalking, and aggressive driving. It's what every cycling article on Gothamist, Streetsblog, and the NY Post stirs up, and I could write out the comments myself and be pretty close to accurate. Nobody wins, and everyone leaves feeling angry - not useful. The article here is refuting a heavily biased New Yorker piece article by specifically refuting assertions based on fallacious assumptions. We are where we are - everyone is behaving badly, and all sides are so deeply entrenched in their beliefs the arguments just cause people to dig in further and the ad homs and strawmen appear. HN is better than this. The situation obviously can't continue, but it's time for a rational discussion of what's most effective, in terms of cost, and transportation efficiency, and safety for the largest number of people. I'm prepared to have this discussion, and while I'll admit bias in a certain direction on this issue I'm open-minded enough to hear all sides. I'd like others to do the same, and we can all get onto having a fruitful and interesting discussion around solutions. Some suggestions for potential discussion topics: - Education/awareness - Infrastructure costs and benefits (street parking, bike lanes, bus lanes, raised crosswalks, etc) - Discussion of network effects - Legislation to punish offenders (relative to cost/potential danger of the offense?) - Maximum efficiency of moving the largest number of people (measure in average trip time) - Externalities (pollution, business impact, etc) - Psychology + behavior understanding and modification
- eru 15y ago
  > - Externalities (pollution, business impact, etc) There are quite a lot of externalities in the quality of living. Compare living in the bike-friendly Netherlands to car-friendly US cities. I know where I'd rather hang out.
mrampton 15y ago
It's all too common (and easy) to lump cyclists into one group -- generally (in terms of policy and public opinion) in a way that encourages dislike. Cyclists are like any other subset of the population and it's unfair to any group to judge them based on the actions of others. That being that, I don't pretend that there aren't cyclists out there who misbehave -- I'm personally very aware of it because they're often the cause of me being treated badly by cars/drivers. As a cyclist, the most effective way I've found to combat this is to be courteous where it matters most -- generally by waving/nodding when you are given the go ahead to cross an intersection by a driver who has the right-away (or more generally, shown any courtesy on the road). Now, that doesn't mean I go out of my way to exude a staid nature on the bike; I'm generally riding as fast as I care to or want to -- but the thing about being on a bike is that speed is (generally) physically governed -- I cannot ride any faster than my body allows. And in most pedestrian settings (i.e. without the presence of significant downhill stretches) this will be between 15 and 30mph (Individual TTs in the TDF will maybe see an avg speed of 30-33mph -- wattage and speed way out of the reach for anyone but the strongest riders on the most advanced machines). I bring this up to make a point, a dangerous cyclist (i.e. the dudes you see running lights and being jerks with disregard to everyone else) is dangerous but only marginally as compared to a dangerous driver. And this is of course due to the fact that cyclists are limited to pedestrian speeds (30mph going all) and constitute a small fraction of the mass of a car (200lbs:3000lbs+). But they are dangerous (especially to pedestrians -- one reason they should never be riding on sidewalks) nonetheless and I'd love for everyone to show a little more common courtesy. More than that, however, I wish (more) drivers were aware of how threatening they are in their vehicles (sometimes weapons). Never am I more aware of how fragile the balance of life is as when I'm on my bike with an angry driver alongside me verbally berating me. And this is because riding the bike is not as easy as driving a car in the best of times (neither of which is especially difficult) -- but in the worst of times it's much harder. And your being alongside me with your window down is about as bad as they come. Not only do I have to continue navigating the road I now also have to consider you and your intentions. You might just be someone who wants to get something off their chest and be on the their way (still far better to do it when neither of us are moving). Or you might be one of the others who will only find solace once you've swerved at the me or run me off the road (yes, I have been maliciously run off the road; no, it's not so uncommon). So my senses flare and my defensive instincts kick in any time a car rolls up with something to say because the moment you do you change from being a driver of a car to a potentially dangerous and unpredictable stranger with a weapon. I doubt I'm far from the the only one to feel this way based on how inflammatory these situations routinely become. It doesn't help that the law will generally take the side of the driver or find themselves impuissant due to the fact that cars can and do flee the scene with none the wiser (ever try to get a license plate number down from a fleeing vehicle -- they don't need much distance on you to make it hopeless) Now that being that, I understand how easy it is to lump individuals in as belonging to "that group". Despite the number of mean spirited drivers I've encountered, they stand out only because we tend to overlook all the others who are good spirited (and thus never give you cause to notice or appreciate them -- in fact i've only been caught off guard with a car rolling up with a pleasantry/compliment two times). I personally suspect that the malicious drivers themselves are repeat offenders and are responsible for the vast majority of encounters (i.e. if there are 10,000 drivers in an area, and 100 events occur it implies 1% of drivers were involved; what's more likely is that a repeat offending driver causes multiple events over a certain route or a time period which means only a fraction of 1% of the drivers are involved). Which means I should respect you as long as you don't threaten me, and you should respect me provided the same. But let me tell you, it takes just about all my willpower to not rip your head off when you confront me in your car while I'm already giving it my best to be courteous and safe; I do give it my best, though.
protomyth 15y ago
On the economic side, are bikes registered and bike owners paying for tabs each year likes cars in NYC? It would seem that would go a long way towards paying for new bike lanes over parking.
- adrianN 15y ago
  Bikes damage the road orders of magnitude less than cars. Without having run the numbers, I'd wager that the city could actually save some money in the long run if more bike lanes would decrease car traffic.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    It still costs money to put in the lanes. They may last longer, but there is a startup cost. I doubt there is a study that shows more bike lanes would decrease the actual amount of traffic to make a material difference in road maintenance costs.
- jarek 15y ago
  There exist a couple of studies that show the costs of administration of a bicycle registration program is more than the revenue collected when you make the registration cost reasonable. (Sorry, haven't got links right now.) That's before you get into defining exactly which bicycles have to be registered, and figuring out how to enforce it.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    If we are going to put in more bicycle lanes with the bike owners having ownership and not just taking space from the already taxed car drivers, money needs to be collected. The US needs to start actually paying for things. Roads for vehicles (trucks) are at least used for delivery of everyone's goods, bike lanes and trails don't have that secondary use. Car parking removed for bike lanes can be a profit center. I don't understand the "which" part. Wouldn't it be all bikes that are legal on the bike paths? That's how motorcycles work for roads.
jrockway 15y ago
So, I'm going to make one general comment that is sort of a reply to everything. We have to stop making bike policies based on the actions of uneducated cyclists and drivers. Nobody will learn anything without being taught. There are a lot of comments that say, "cyclists make driving dangerous". This is probably true; there are a lot of cyclists that can't bike safely on the road. The solution is not to punish those that can safely share the road; the solution is to teach people how to safely ride their bike in traffic. Then they won't be annoying, they'll be fellow safe road users. Similarly, we need to educate drivers in treating cyclists respectfully. Don't tolerate running stop signs; that's illegal. But you must tolerate cyclists that are taking the entire right lane because they think they need it for their safety. Look behind you, change to the left lane, and overtake on the left. Don't be annoyed, because this is how roads work. There is going to be traffic and some of it is going to be slower than you. That's why there are multiple lanes. Relax, drive intelligently, and you won't even notice the cyclists because they won't seem any different from any other traffic.
protomyth 15y ago
Since the story went dead - you folks in SF might want to read this link http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/10/25/sfmta-allows-taxis-to-block-bike-lanes/ http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/10/25/sfmta-allows-taxis-to-b... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3156628 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3156628

171 points by marbu 15y ago

This discussion about the value and use of bike lanes keeps amazing me. It seems many people hold a negative view without having good arguments, almost religiously. Living in the Netherlands, the benefits of separate bike lanes (to point of a separate transit system) are so incredibly obvious. It's not some cultural particularity, it's because cycling has been made easy, nice (most of the time) and safe here. (see http://hembrow.blogspot.com/ http://hembrow.blogspot.com/) People who don't accept the rationality of the whole thing, probably have difficulty imagining a city with a cycling network. And when you show them the Dutch system, they have problems imagining the change it requires to get there. That is why Copenhaganize is a good campaign, because it shows the change is possible

Symmetry 15y ago
I know that for a lot of people in the US, their experience with bike commuting involves being stuck behind a bicycle on a road that doesn't have bike lanes, causing a certain amount of free-floating antipathy towards bikers.
- davidw 15y ago
  There's nothing that causes drivers to seethe with anger like losing whole seconds of their lives to happy people cruising along on bicycles.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    The unlimited point-to-point mobility provided by a car allows people to optimize their routines almost down to the second, so losing 30 seconds behind a cyclist can make the difference between being on time and being late. Though this can be disputed, I would argue that aggressively minimizing time spent in transportation (and thus maximizing time spent at work or leisure) is beneficial to the economy and society.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      ... except I know way too many people who voluntarily subscribe to 50-60 minute commutes in a car instead of simply living closer to work. Optimizing for less time spent in transportation is nice, but there's a balance - both for yourself and society. A bunch of gas-guzzling one-ton hunks of steel squeezing their way down a packed freeway, with only a single passenger inside each... hardly seems beneficial to the economy, society, or the environment.
      - nitrogen 15y ago
        The commute isn't necessarily voluntary -- living closer to work may not be viable (especially for non-programmer types who work in the city but don't make enough to afford living there with their family), or may lack certain features (like a private yard or swimming pool) that make the commute worth it. I'm not advocating for the status quo of one giant inefficient beast of steel per person, just explaining why some drivers get upset about small delays. It is my opinion that any transportation system that completely replaces the current road system will need to allow for the type of minimal-latency point-to-point mobility we now enjoy with cars (during off-peak hours, at least). The reason I believe this is that people are easy to move, but businesses, houses, and other resources are not. Extra mobility allows us to match the right people with the right resources in less time.
    - davidw 15y ago
      They have a similar viewpoint here in Italy, where they don't stop for pedestrians at crosswalks. I once helped a "little old lady" cross the street, not by taking her arm, but by striding out to stop the flow of cars, who were very aggressively minimizing the time spent stopping for other users of the road.
    - tomkarlo 15y ago
      Except for when they're stuck in traffic, which is pretty much the norm in any city on any weekday. I used to live in NYC, and taking the subway, walking or biking was far more time efficient than taking a cab, much less driving your own car. LA wasn't really any better for driving, but the distances were usually to far for bikes, and mass transit was miserable.
- dpark 15y ago
  And those annoyed drivers then complain about the creation of dedicated lanes that would get cyclists out of the flow of car traffic...
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    Yup, by opposing bike lanes they avoid associating themselves with the bikers that annoy them, even though bike lanes would remove the cause of the annoyance. That's primate political dynamics for you.
danieldk 15y ago
Indeed. The following video provides a nice overview of the history and the current state of biking infrastructure in The Netherlands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn2s6ax_7TM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn2s6ax_7TM Also, besides infrastructure, making a city of country bike-friendly also requires changes in legislation. E.g. in The Netherlands a lot legislation has been introduced in the past to protect cyclists, making drivers of motorized vehicles more cautious. The effect on society is profound. Most of my colleagues go to work by bike, public transit, or both. A bike is often many times more economic than a car, reduces oil-dependence, and wide use results in cleaner air.
- felipemnoa 15y ago
  And you forgot the benefits to your body.
joebadmo 15y ago
I'm a daily bike commuter and I would love to see a Netherlands-like biking network in the US, but it's hard for me to imagine anywhere that's not as flat as most of the Netherlands. I could see it here in Portland or maybe Philly, but I don't think it would really increase the numbers of cyclists that much in, say, Seattle, where I used to live (and bike).
- pessimizer 15y ago
  Chicago is as flat as a board. Reclaimed swamp.
- hyperbovine 15y ago
  Those cities are the exception, not the rule. Just off the top of my head, Manhattan, Chicago, Denver, Miami, Boston, Dallas, LA, San Diego, Atlanta, D.C., Phoenix are all flat enough for a person in decent shape to get around by bike. I think the winter is a bigger issue than the terrain, but overall I think most Americans could be biking most of the time (given a lot of changes in infrastructure, policy and public health).
  - marbu 15y ago
    When the countryside is flat and good infrastructure exists at the same time, the winter is not that big issue. It's not ideal, but it's not stopping most of the people either. For example people in Sweden have no problem with it: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/winter-cycling-in-umea-sweden.html http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/winter-cycling-in-umea-... The issues of winter cycling are quite small compared to issues accociated with changing the cycling culture and building the infrastructure. So I suppose if Americans made their "flat enough cities" bike friendly, they would cycle even during winter, as other nations with good cycling conditions do.
m0nty 15y ago
> It seems many people hold a negative view without having good arguments, almost religiously. I tried discussing the benefits of cycling with a friend. "Bikes actually use as much energy to produce as cars, since they're made of high-tech materials which use a lot of energy in manufacture." "Whenever I'm stuck in traffic, it's usually down to a cyclist somewhere." "Having several cars is very environmentally friendly, since you can select the one most suited to your requirements at the time." And he gets very pissy if I mention I've just completed a 20 mile ride or whatever, seems to think I'm bragging (which I am, sometimes ;) and it makes him a bit insecure. So yes, emotion trumps reason for some people.
- pjscott 15y ago
  Those objections have one thing in common: they are all flimsy after-the-fact rationalizations constructed to protect an irrational conclusion that your friend has already decided to believe, i.e. that cars are better than bikes in every way, and to hell with bikes. They're not his real objection to bikes. A good conversational tactic for that kind of situation is to try to get him to agree in advance to what evidence would sway him. If you prove to him that cars are less energy-intensive to produce than cars, or that having several cars is less environmentally friendly than having one decent all-purpose car, will he agree to accept that, and actually change his mind? The purpose of getting pre-commitment here is to avoid the inevitable back-pedaling (no pun intended) and shifting of the goal-posts that would otherwise happen once you rebut his claims.
  - m0nty 15y ago
    This guy has always been one to pull facts out of his arse. As a mutual friend put it, "He seems to have found a way of skipping the evidence-gathering stage of enquiry and leaping straight to the conclusions." It's total BS but the chances of changing his mind are zero. Incidentally, he's not a complete idiot and I've known him for a long time; we've been friends since school. But he does have a massive blind-spot about this kind of thing because, basically, he's in love with his car.

law 15y ago

I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. If that's the case, Storbeck improperly challenged the basis of Cassidy's cost-benefit scrutiny. The value (intrinsic and extrinsic) of bike lanes isn't in question; rather, Storbeck seems to take exception to the fact that these bike lanes are being constructed and rarely used. On the other hand, for anyone who has driven in NYC, parking is always difficult, no matter where you are. Whenever I drive around, I just accept the fact that I will be paying $30 per hour for a garage. Yes, switching over to bicycle transportation is an outstanding idea. However, the change has to be, in a manner of speaking, bootstrapped. There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues.

dpark 15y ago
>I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. Just FYI, I'm pretty sure that's not an appropriate use of "libre". "Libre" is more along the lines of "liberty" or "freedom", not "available" or "unused". >There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues This is incorrect. Aside from the network effect, the (under)utilization of an existing bike lane is not necessarily indicative of the expected usage pattern of a new bike lane. Imagine applying this argument to bus routes. Just because the 32 from Manhattan to the Bronx is underutilized, does that mean that a new route 44 from Manhattan to Long Island would also be underutilized? (Obviously my examples here are made up.)
- law 15y ago
  I'm well aware of the technical distinction between "libre" and "available." I should have said that Cassidy's belief is more in line with "libre," rather than gratuitous. A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking. It's admittedly weak, but it's something to consider. As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority. Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).

afterburner 15y ago

In Cassidy's article, he refers to cars as "four-wheel friends." Perhaps he isn't considering this very rationally at all; I don't think I've heard that kind of touchy-feely attachment to their vehicle of choice from even the most hippie-ish pro-cycling movements. Not a strong argument against Cassidy's article, I admit (he's a journalist, his writing style needs to be engaging), but hilarious anyways.

hugh3 15y ago
I don't think I've heard that kind of touchy-feely attachment to their vehicle of choice from even the most hippie-ish pro-cycling movements Sure, that's because a bike doesn't promote emotional attachment, unlike a car. A cyclist enjoys biking, but he generally doesn't attribute that enjoyment to his bike -- he would just as happily swap for another, just as I'd throw out my old running shoes and buy a new pair. Cars, however, promote more emotional bonding. I think because the car moves under its own power it feels more like it's alive. I press the accelerator, the car does what I tell it, and we form a bond just as a rider forms a bond with his horse. On a pushbike you're always keenly aware that it's you who is doing all the work, and the bike is just a tool.
- jbl 15y ago
  Bicycles can promote emotional attachment. I take pride in my bicycles. There are personalizations that I've made that make my bikes unique in my eyes. One of my bikes would be difficult to replace if it were totalled. I know many other cyclists (athletes and otherwise) who are attached to their bikes. Likewise, I know many people who could care less what kind of car they drive so long as it is clean and runs well. Some people care about what they use, some people don't.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  Methinks you need to meet more cyclists. My brother is a (very) avid cyclist - he even names all of his bikes. Hell, he builds them from scratch, hand-picking components, and is meticulous about keeping all of them in tip-top condition constantly. I don't think one can claim he isn't "attached" to his bike - and I've met his cyclist friends who are similarly reverent about their vehicles of choice. Their attachment to their bikes is about equal to what I see from avid drivers and their meticulously maintained cars.

Jun8 15y ago

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by applying a kid's natural understanding but (almost) from physical principles, e.g. conservation of angular momentum (which I recently read from physics exchange is not how bikes work). So my comments are an outsider's view to bikers. I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. Bikers often say that they should be treated on par with cars (in matters of passing, etc.), but they themselves operate somewhere between vehicles and pedestrians, combining the worse characteristics of each. I have observed many bikers not to stop at stop signs or red lights, because, you know, they're for cars, jeopardizing pedestrians. A 90kg man on a bike moving fast is an object you don't want to run into when you're walking. In parks (e.g. Chicago's long lake shore), although they should share their lane with people strolling and child strollers, they go about at high speeds. Many bikers ignore signs where bikes are prohibited on sidewalks and ride them among people. And the worst part is you can't say anything, because these guys are living a healthy lifestyle, right? They are saving gas, etc. Now, this, of course, is true, but doesn't give them precedence over all other lifeforms on sidewalks. Next time you don your cool biker's outfit and feeling totally Armstrong, please try to remember us, lowly people trying to share the sidewalks and streets with you.

bkor 15y ago
All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.
- hack_edu 15y ago
  ... all these things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes that were strictly enforced as DEDICATED bike lanes. Next time you're on a busy street with bike lanes, pay attention to the number of double-parked delivery trucks and other stationary non-bike business. These make the road more dangerous and slower (an important factor in route choice) than a non-bike lane street.

gerggerg 15y ago

Great article. To add: It also doesn't help that many of NYC's bike lanes are less safe than just riding in the middle of the road. The streets of Manhattan are a dangerous jungle for bikers. Cabs hit and run on a daily basis. Some of the bike lanes are in between parked cars and the car lanes making the risk even higher. Car doors, pedestrians running out, cars hugging the edge to make a turn, cars double parked. It's a far cry from a dedicated lane. Personal experience time: When I first started riding in NYC it was a cautious, rule following experience. Then after a while you see how little respect you get and how much you genuinely have to look out for you're own life and you stop caring. You perceive every passing car as a potential death/bodily injury threat and pave your own way.

localtalent 15y ago

This is not the place for anecdotal arguments, they aren't productive. Anyone can cite stories of bad behavior on all sides: sidewalk cycling, oblivious jaywalking, and aggressive driving. It's what every cycling article on Gothamist, Streetsblog, and the NY Post stirs up, and I could write out the comments myself and be pretty close to accurate. Nobody wins, and everyone leaves feeling angry - not useful. The article here is refuting a heavily biased New Yorker piece article by specifically refuting assertions based on fallacious assumptions. We are where we are - everyone is behaving badly, and all sides are so deeply entrenched in their beliefs the arguments just cause people to dig in further and the ad homs and strawmen appear. HN is better than this. The situation obviously can't continue, but it's time for a rational discussion of what's most effective, in terms of cost, and transportation efficiency, and safety for the largest number of people. I'm prepared to have this discussion, and while I'll admit bias in a certain direction on this issue I'm open-minded enough to hear all sides. I'd like others to do the same, and we can all get onto having a fruitful and interesting discussion around solutions. Some suggestions for potential discussion topics: - Education/awareness - Infrastructure costs and benefits (street parking, bike lanes, bus lanes, raised crosswalks, etc) - Discussion of network effects - Legislation to punish offenders (relative to cost/potential danger of the offense?) - Maximum efficiency of moving the largest number of people (measure in average trip time) - Externalities (pollution, business impact, etc) - Psychology + behavior understanding and modification

eru 15y ago
> - Externalities (pollution, business impact, etc) There are quite a lot of externalities in the quality of living. Compare living in the bike-friendly Netherlands to car-friendly US cities. I know where I'd rather hang out.

mrampton 15y ago

It's all too common (and easy) to lump cyclists into one group -- generally (in terms of policy and public opinion) in a way that encourages dislike. Cyclists are like any other subset of the population and it's unfair to any group to judge them based on the actions of others. That being that, I don't pretend that there aren't cyclists out there who misbehave -- I'm personally very aware of it because they're often the cause of me being treated badly by cars/drivers. As a cyclist, the most effective way I've found to combat this is to be courteous where it matters most -- generally by waving/nodding when you are given the go ahead to cross an intersection by a driver who has the right-away (or more generally, shown any courtesy on the road). Now, that doesn't mean I go out of my way to exude a staid nature on the bike; I'm generally riding as fast as I care to or want to -- but the thing about being on a bike is that speed is (generally) physically governed -- I cannot ride any faster than my body allows. And in most pedestrian settings (i.e. without the presence of significant downhill stretches) this will be between 15 and 30mph (Individual TTs in the TDF will maybe see an avg speed of 30-33mph -- wattage and speed way out of the reach for anyone but the strongest riders on the most advanced machines). I bring this up to make a point, a dangerous cyclist (i.e. the dudes you see running lights and being jerks with disregard to everyone else) is dangerous but only marginally as compared to a dangerous driver. And this is of course due to the fact that cyclists are limited to pedestrian speeds (30mph going all) and constitute a small fraction of the mass of a car (200lbs:3000lbs+). But they are dangerous (especially to pedestrians -- one reason they should never be riding on sidewalks) nonetheless and I'd love for everyone to show a little more common courtesy. More than that, however, I wish (more) drivers were aware of how threatening they are in their vehicles (sometimes weapons). Never am I more aware of how fragile the balance of life is as when I'm on my bike with an angry driver alongside me verbally berating me. And this is because riding the bike is not as easy as driving a car in the best of times (neither of which is especially difficult) -- but in the worst of times it's much harder. And your being alongside me with your window down is about as bad as they come. Not only do I have to continue navigating the road I now also have to consider you and your intentions. You might just be someone who wants to get something off their chest and be on the their way (still far better to do it when neither of us are moving). Or you might be one of the others who will only find solace once you've swerved at the me or run me off the road (yes, I have been maliciously run off the road; no, it's not so uncommon). So my senses flare and my defensive instincts kick in any time a car rolls up with something to say because the moment you do you change from being a driver of a car to a potentially dangerous and unpredictable stranger with a weapon. I doubt I'm far from the the only one to feel this way based on how inflammatory these situations routinely become. It doesn't help that the law will generally take the side of the driver or find themselves impuissant due to the fact that cars can and do flee the scene with none the wiser (ever try to get a license plate number down from a fleeing vehicle -- they don't need much distance on you to make it hopeless) Now that being that, I understand how easy it is to lump individuals in as belonging to "that group". Despite the number of mean spirited drivers I've encountered, they stand out only because we tend to overlook all the others who are good spirited (and thus never give you cause to notice or appreciate them -- in fact i've only been caught off guard with a car rolling up with a pleasantry/compliment two times). I personally suspect that the malicious drivers themselves are repeat offenders and are responsible for the vast majority of encounters (i.e. if there are 10,000 drivers in an area, and 100 events occur it implies 1% of drivers were involved; what's more likely is that a repeat offending driver causes multiple events over a certain route or a time period which means only a fraction of 1% of the drivers are involved). Which means I should respect you as long as you don't threaten me, and you should respect me provided the same. But let me tell you, it takes just about all my willpower to not rip your head off when you confront me in your car while I'm already giving it my best to be courteous and safe; I do give it my best, though.

protomyth 15y ago

On the economic side, are bikes registered and bike owners paying for tabs each year likes cars in NYC? It would seem that would go a long way towards paying for new bike lanes over parking.

adrianN 15y ago
Bikes damage the road orders of magnitude less than cars. Without having run the numbers, I'd wager that the city could actually save some money in the long run if more bike lanes would decrease car traffic.
- protomyth 15y ago
  It still costs money to put in the lanes. They may last longer, but there is a startup cost. I doubt there is a study that shows more bike lanes would decrease the actual amount of traffic to make a material difference in road maintenance costs.
jarek 15y ago
There exist a couple of studies that show the costs of administration of a bicycle registration program is more than the revenue collected when you make the registration cost reasonable. (Sorry, haven't got links right now.) That's before you get into defining exactly which bicycles have to be registered, and figuring out how to enforce it.
- protomyth 15y ago
  If we are going to put in more bicycle lanes with the bike owners having ownership and not just taking space from the already taxed car drivers, money needs to be collected. The US needs to start actually paying for things. Roads for vehicles (trucks) are at least used for delivery of everyone's goods, bike lanes and trails don't have that secondary use. Car parking removed for bike lanes can be a profit center. I don't understand the "which" part. Wouldn't it be all bikes that are legal on the bike paths? That's how motorcycles work for roads.

jrockway 15y ago

So, I'm going to make one general comment that is sort of a reply to everything. We have to stop making bike policies based on the actions of uneducated cyclists and drivers. Nobody will learn anything without being taught. There are a lot of comments that say, "cyclists make driving dangerous". This is probably true; there are a lot of cyclists that can't bike safely on the road. The solution is not to punish those that can safely share the road; the solution is to teach people how to safely ride their bike in traffic. Then they won't be annoying, they'll be fellow safe road users. Similarly, we need to educate drivers in treating cyclists respectfully. Don't tolerate running stop signs; that's illegal. But you must tolerate cyclists that are taking the entire right lane because they think they need it for their safety. Look behind you, change to the left lane, and overtake on the left. Don't be annoyed, because this is how roads work. There is going to be traffic and some of it is going to be slower than you. That's why there are multiple lanes. Relax, drive intelligently, and you won't even notice the cyclists because they won't seem any different from any other traffic.

protomyth 15y ago

Since the story went dead - you folks in SF might want to read this link http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/10/25/sfmta-allows-taxis-to-block-bike-lanes/ http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/10/25/sfmta-allows-taxis-to-b... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3156628 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3156628