3 ms·

That road or lane had to be built. And even with very lightweight traffic, they still require maintenance. Even with foot traffic only, sidewalks eventually nee

That road or lane had to be built. And even with very lightweight traffic, they still require maintenance. Even with foot traffic only, sidewalks eventually need maintenance. I don't think it's controverial to say there are costs involved with maintaining a bike lane. We can argue about how large those costs are, but they are greater than zero and not insignificant. And yes, bicycle lanes increase traffic congestion for cars. A bicycle lane is one less lane that vehicles can use. They impose costs on drivers by forcing them to interact with cyclists who have much slower acceleration rates and slower speeds. Again, I don't think this is controversial. I'm not arguing against bike lanes or cyclists. I'm arguing against them receiving the benefits of dedicated lanes and preferential traffic rules without bearing any of the costs. Both drivers and cyclists should pay for their usage. The fact that drivers don't currently pay all of those costs doesn't mean that cyclists should pay none of those costs.

avianlyric 4y ago
> And yes, bicycle lanes increase traffic congestion for cars. A bicycle lane is one less lane that vehicles can use. Counterintuitively reducing lanes doesn’t generally increase congestion, it normally lowers it. Equally adding lanes also doesn’t decrease congestion, instead it frequently increases. Of course there are situations where this doesn’t hold true, but for most cities today it does. Ultimately adding lanes just creates more capacity for traffic, it doesn’t increase flow rate, because the bottlenecks at junctions etc cause congestion long before the width of the road does. Making a road wider won’t change that. Add a cycle lane does improve things for drivers. By making it possible for people to cycle rather than drive (cyclist don’t spring from nowhere) you reduce the number of cars on the road. A cycle lane can move substantially more people than a single lane of traffic. In most cities building out good cycle infrastructure, the cycles lanes move substantially more people per hour at rush hour than the car lanes ever have. Every single one of those bikes being one less car in car lanes. The net effect of the above is that adding cycle lanes, and making cycling safe and attractive creates a net increase in available road space for those that must drive.

avianlyric 4y ago

> And yes, bicycle lanes increase traffic congestion for cars. A bicycle lane is one less lane that vehicles can use. Counterintuitively reducing lanes doesn’t generally increase congestion, it normally lowers it. Equally adding lanes also doesn’t decrease congestion, instead it frequently increases. Of course there are situations where this doesn’t hold true, but for most cities today it does. Ultimately adding lanes just creates more capacity for traffic, it doesn’t increase flow rate, because the bottlenecks at junctions etc cause congestion long before the width of the road does. Making a road wider won’t change that. Add a cycle lane does improve things for drivers. By making it possible for people to cycle rather than drive (cyclist don’t spring from nowhere) you reduce the number of cars on the road. A cycle lane can move substantially more people than a single lane of traffic. In most cities building out good cycle infrastructure, the cycles lanes move substantially more people per hour at rush hour than the car lanes ever have. Every single one of those bikes being one less car in car lanes. The net effect of the above is that adding cycle lanes, and making cycling safe and attractive creates a net increase in available road space for those that must drive.