3 ms·
There is also the "enjoyment factor" that doesn't necessarily need to match up with pure efficiency. Separate bike paths that cut through parks or use their own
by digdugdirk 3y ago
There is also the "enjoyment factor" that doesn't necessarily need to match up with pure efficiency. Separate bike paths that cut through parks or use their own cordoned off streets can make a trip so much more relaxing that it moves up the personal choice hierarchy, even if the time it takes to get somewhere increases.
Not having to dodge F150s or breathe in exhaust fumes can go a long way to upping the desire to ride your bike to work in the morning.
- ilyt 3y agoFrom my experience that only goes from "bad to neutral". I'll gladly waste extra 5 minutes if my work commute cycling path doesn't have to share road with cars or otherwise car-congested area but if it is "just a cycling road" vs "a cycling road near nice forest", most times I go the shorter one.
- digdugdirk 3y agoVery true, my comment was more directed towards what you're discussing. The difference between "sharing a lane with SUVs on a regular street" and "physically separated bike path" is massive, and the lack of bike infrastructure makes cycling a complete non-starter for many.
- bombcar 3y agoAlmost by definition if you are not using a private vehicle you have already given up on the time factor (because while it is possible to find cases where bike/transit/walking beat a car they are rare or less than a block). And on a bike it feels different than on foot - I like walking the nice trail but it is 10 minutes longer than the silly sidewalk, and it just kind of dumps you in nowhere three blocks from anywhere you would like to be.