work4bike

Bike lanes are always better for the true commuter.

TerraCottaGamer

Fair enough and I appreciate the fact that you are not just wildly throwing out number. But there are a couple of problems with $130,000 figure.

First, that is average while, if you click through to the report, you will find a median price is at +/- $90,000. So that number would be closer. Still outrageous.

Second, the main issue is that the report only cites 6 sources for that particular figure. That, in statistical terms, is nothing. With only that many sources there is simply no way to have any kind of real accuracy.

Having said all that....I found a document on the internet that is an estimate of road construction costs in the state of Arkansas and the numbers are crazy! So based on that document the addition of bike lanes most certainly could be in the $100,000 without any problem at all.

Here is the doc if you are interested: https://www.arkansashighways.com/road..._JULY_2009.pdf

jputnam

The report doesn't give enough detail to know if the numbers are outrageous or not.

Do the projects include added right-of-way? That can be hideously expensive in already-developed locations.

Are the projects funded with federal grant money? That can add astounding costs because of grant requirements.

At the other extreme, many city streets have room to stripe bike lanes with a simple reallocation of existing pavement. Sometimes, bike lanes are essentially free as a byproduct of other road improvements.

Seattle, for example, has been converting many 4-lane streets into 2+1 -- replace 2 lanes each direction with 1 lane each direction plus a center turn lane. That improves car traffic flow and safety since it gets turning cars out of the through travel lanes, reducing last-minute lane changes and greatly reducing aggressive driving by the type who weave rapidly from lane to lane to pass people. As it happens, that "road diet" conversion leaves extra room on the street, often enough to stripe in bike lanes, though they tend to be door zone bike lanes that more experienced cyclists prefer not to use.

rekmeyata

I don't face angry motorists, the reason a lot of cyclists face angry motorists is because a lot of cyclists think they're above the law and don't need to abide by the same rules cars do, they run stops, weave in out of cars, jerk across the front end of cars that are moving just so they can make a turn, flip motorists off because they honked at their bad behavior, and on and on and on, that's the reason a lot of cyclists have to deal with angry motorists is due to their own bad behavior.

No we don't need a huge infusion of cash, what are you renter? where do you think that cash is going to come from? Property owners of who most do not ride a bike and could care less about bike paths. You want money then start paying for it yourself in the form of a bike registration fee at the time of purchase of a bike of about 15% of the cost of the bike, if people can afford $3,000 for a bike than they can afford an additional 15%. And to make the 15% more attractive it sets up the registration to become a stolen bike locator. so you want all that money then start paying for it out of cyclists pockets directly.

I-Like-To-Bike

"True commuter"? Vice what other kind of commuter, the false commuter? Definitions are in order for such a definitive statement.

genec

Gee I follow the laws exactly and several times a year I face angry motorists... as far as where the money should come from... from the same pool used for all transportation projects... cycling is transportation, isn't it?

Six jours

No True Scotsman.

rekmeyata

No, gasoline tax is design to build and repair roads that cars and trucks use because they damage the road, gasoline tax has no bearing on paying for bike lanes and paths because cars don't use them and thus won't be trashing them. Now if you want to open the use of bike paths and lanes for one way travel by cars then you have a point.

squirtdad

Gas tax pays very little for local roads...most of that is property tax or other general tax sources.

And the federal gas tax fund have been insolvent for years due in part to the reluctance to raise gas taxes.

To add to that electric cars don't pay gas tax either. Many governments are looking at a tax based on miles driven

spare_wheel

Electrics are not even at the drop in a bucket level. It's improvements in dino juice engine efficiency that is the short- and medium-term issue.

B. Carfree

Yes, and we're also paying for by-pass operations and cancer treatments that are the result of people getting zero exercise. I, for one, am glad to pay for some features that might eventually encourage Americans to get some much-needed exercise. It beats paying ever-increasing medical bills via MediCare and MediCaid. However, clearly my view is in the minority since we continue to spend almost all of the general funds that pay for most of our transportation infrastructure on car amenities.

genec

And the quote you replied to is why... folks that simply can't see the forest for the trees and believe

rekmeyata

No tax system is a perfect system so it's no surprise the gas tax gets misappropriated. As far as electric cars go right now their getting a pass, but once there is a significant amount of them on the road to start causing a concern among politicians about the tax worry our home electricity rates will rise REGARDLESS if you own a electric car or not to cover the taxes they're not collecting on those electric cars...yes, that is the devil hiding behind that door.

rekmeyata

Whoa your horses there big guy, obviously you're very young in years. Being 61 years old I've known plenty of people over the years who worked out religiously and had to have by-pass surgery, cancer treatments, eat vegan diets etc, and some of those people died. I've also known people who ate like pigs and ate whatever, couldn't stand to walk more than a 1/4 of a block and lived well into their 80's and even 90's and smoked and drank while doing it! So don't go off beating your chest about what were paying for is a bunch of lazy people who don't live healthy lifestyles. A lot of this stuff is more directly related to genetics within your family background, if your family has a history of heart attacks or cancer etc the chances are pretty good no matter how well you live you too will get that illness. The good news is in todays world if you already know you have that genetic flaw you can get prescreened and try to catch it early before it gets you bad.

Now I'm not saying that someone who doesn't take care of themselves is going to live longer than someone who does because the chances are obviously more in favor of the person who does take care of themselves, but it still boils down to genetics. I knew a guy who's entire family all died before 75 of just old age, no diseases, he knew this so from an early age he worked out and ran, he died at 72 in perfect health...except his heart stopped! I knew 2 women who were vegans, one was a professional certified nutritionist and certified physical fitness instructor and she died of cancer at 48; the other worked out but wasn't certified but was in very fit condition and she too died of cancer at 52.

As you get older you will see people who you thought were very health conscious and they will either get very sick or die and you'll wonder why.

CliffordK

It all depends on the lane/trail.

We have a few bike trails that I hit regularly along the Wilamette river that don't follow the roads closely, and are much preferable than dealing with the traffic, and takes a person miles without any cross roads or traffic lights. And, often take me where I need to go.

In fact, that would be my big thing. If a trail goes through a road crossing every 100 yards, I'd prefer to be roadside.

On the other hand, if I can go a mile or so without crossing roads, I'd rather be on the trail. It might also depend on how many pedestrians and other bikes you're dodging.

In fact, in Springfield, OR, I'll take the Rosa Parks Park Trail. I'll take the trail until it starts crossing a road every block, then I'll hop over on to the road, at least when heading southbound.

The other thing to consider. The debris is usually less on the off-road "trails" than the road-side paths.

genec

Well, while that is all true (and I have seen just that... and it is surprising and scary), shouldn't we still do the best we can to encourage the population to exercise... by whatever means they enjoy exercising.

Promoting the car above all else does not do that. Sidewalks and bike paths DO encourage exercise.

Six jours

No. We should do the best we can to leave the "population" (i.e. you and me and everyone else) the hell alone. Coercive taxation is a devious and dangerous way to control a population and has no place in a free society. It's one of those things that may seem attractive when people are being coerced into a behavior you approve of, but that you won't like nearly so much when some other party is in control.

genec

So by that thinking there shouldn't be tax on gas or cigarettes or booze either.

work4bike

I pretty much agree; however, my problem is that of all the bike paths I've ridden on, I've only seen a few that match your perfect scenario. So in that light, I'd just rather have a bike lane, because to build up bike paths to the point where they are not crossing roads very often (which means the cyclist gets the yield/stop sign) and that the paths are not overcrowded with other users, i.e. walkers/joggers, kids, dogs...requires an area not very populated.

And that was my gist of paths not being good for true commuters, no offense to anyone, but if you only live 5 miles from work than a path is fine, with all the road crossing and other obstacles mentioned. However, in my 25+ years of commuting I've had an average distance of much further than five miles, my furthest was 25-mile one way trip. I don't have time to ride leisurely on some path.

BTW, probably the best path I've ridden on was the W&OD trail W&OD Railroad - Main Page, but that was several years ago and not much population density in much of the area of the path, but if the area has been built up since then, I'd imagine that it will have a lot more users and road crossings.

As for where I live, it'd be too much money to make separated bike paths and with the population density and number of roads I wouldn't use them.

Six jours

Gas taxes are largely justifiable, at least when used for travel-related infrastructure.

Theoretically, tobacco and alcohol taxes could be justified when used for certain types of healthcare, but the reality is that those taxes are primarily meant to be punitive and coercive. Which, as I already pointed out, sits fine with folks who don't think anyone should drink or smoke, but won't sit quite so nicely when punitive and coercive taxes are applied to punish and coerce you.

CrankyOne

The U.S. spends considerably more per capita on healthcare ($8,820/yr in 2013 expected to increase to $10,200 in 2015)) than any other developed (OECD) country and over twice the average of $3,770. For all of our extra spending we have about the lowest life expectancy of all developed countries, high levels of chronic diseases, and lower quality of life. Based on our better healthcare system and low cigarette consumption (and high average wealth?) we should have much lower levels of chronic diseases and higher life expectancy not the opposite. Most attribute this primarily to our lack of physical activity with poor diet second*. Active transportation (bicycling & walking) is largely considered the best option for increasing physical activity among populations in developed nations. It would seem that investing in high quality facilities that invite people to walk and ride bicycles more, particularly for shorter daily errands or going to school, would save much more in healthcare costs than the costs of the facilities.

* Other interesting aspects are; our (U.S.) higher auto fatalities contribute minimally to lower life expectancy but not to chronic diseases, our consumption of cigarrettes is low which increases our life expectancy and lower chronic diseases, our healthcare system is significantly better than other countries (though Germany is close) which also increase life expectancy and lower chronic diseases, our low consumption of wine may decrease our health and lower life expectancy.

CrankyOne

Homeowners should care about bike paths because they appear to consistently increase the value of homes. As well, over time they should lower other costs including road maintenance and costs for police, fire, ambulance, healthcare and property damage from crashes. If businesses can build smaller parking lots due to some people walking or riding bicycles instead then the costs for these businesses should be lower and theoretically passed on to consumers.

CliffordK

If you're saying that "drivers" could care less about bike lanes... then it is all a PR and marketing thing.

• Ever drive a car on a narrow curvy road without shoulders and lots of traffic. It can be downright scary.
  Add a 3 foot shoulder... and driving becomes much safer. Ever wonder what bike lanes on country roads are called?
  Even in the city, the bike lanes provide a buffer area. Yes, "dooring" happens. What about climbing out of a car in traffic?
  What about driving down a narrow city road with heavy traffic and cars parked on both sides?
  Oversized vehicles on narrow roads?
  
  
• What about cars that have troubles getting around those pesky bikes on narrow roads?
  Put in a bike lane, and they can just whiz by.
  
  
• Hit a bike, and it is a nightmare for bicyclist and car drivers alike.
  A little safety buffer can go a long ways towards peace of mind.
  
  
• Has anybody ever heard of the law of supply and demand?
  The less people buying gas, and what happens to the gas prices?
  
  
• Will we ever run out of gas?
  Again, the fewer people buying it, and the longer it will last for everybody.
  
  
• Smog?
  Yes, everybody's favorite thing. Bikes are less polluting than cars. Everyone benefits.
  
  
• Carbon Dioxide buildup and Climate Change.
  Yes, there is a lot of debate about it, but why not error on the positive?
  Where do we stop? 0.04% CO[SUB]2[/SUB]? 0.10% CO[SUB]2[/SUB]? 1% CO[SUB]2[/SUB]?
  
  
• I can't stand sitting on my exercise equipment for more than 15 minutes... wonder why it isn't effective?
  Yet, I'm out on my bike for hours at a time. I suppose it isn't a benefit to others, but at least worth consideration.

The truth is that cars need the buffer zones just as much as bikes do.

genec

+1000 for so eloquently stating what everyone here should know... and some seem to be denying.

There really is no good reason for not supporting well designed bike paths... especially if these are built instead of adding yet another lane to a freeway.

Six jours

Cite, please.

The fact is that there are many, many reasons for the slight difference in statistics between first world countries, along with a plausible argument that reporting differences (rather than actual differences) are largely to blame. The topic is obviously far to complex for this subforum, but the short version is that expecting bike paths to increase the lifespan of Americans is too silly to bother rebutting.