Poll: Which would you rather see adopted?

[donrhummy]

Which of these situations would you rather comes true?

[Machka]

Definitely NOT the first one!!!!!!

Bicycles are vehicles of the road ... they should be on the road with the rest of the traffic!

[robs02elantra]

Definitely NOT the first one!!!!!!

Bicycles are vehicles of the road ... they should be on the road with the rest of the traffic!

+1. We just need more respect from other drivers. And a 500$ tax rebate.

[chicbicyclist]

I would choose "Other". Start redevelopment in the inner cities first, then encourage dense projects(anything but one story buildings!).

An increase in bicycling should be easier then.

[thelung]

I chose the last option because I would like to never have to deal with cars again, but I don't think heavy handed authoritarian laws are the way to go about doing this. I would like to see an end to automotive and oil subsidies, and a redesigning of cities to actually make them convenient, livable, and sustainable for people, rather than their current designs that put cars before anything else.

[CommuterRun]

I think if 50% of commuters switched to bikes it would have the widest positive impact, meaning of all the options in the poll this one would affect the most people in a positive way.

The tax break is more likely to happen, sooner, but of the other options, commuters switching to bikes is the most realistic.

Your town/city puts bike lanes EVERYWHERE, separated by concrete lines from the cars.
This one would benefit no one except the contractors that build them. I completely agree that bicycles are vehicles and belong on the road.

Every car becomes electric/solar powered.
Even if this were implemented next year, it would take a great many years to phase out the cars that are in use today and would be of the most benefit to the manufacturers and dealers.

50% of the commuters switch to bikes
I don't know if the percentage will ever be half, but cycling is growing and will continue to grow as gas prices rise. This would benefit everyone in a number of ways, not the least of which, there would be half the amount of daily pollution from cars.

You get a $500 tax break for commuting on a bike.
This is the easiest to implement, but is very self serving. Although it may compliment the one above.

Every commuter must use a 1/2-size car for commute.
This will never happen in America and will benefit no one except car manufacturers and dealerships. It would also be unenforcable.

Cars (except for buses, taxis) are outlawed in cities.
This one is just rediculous.

[Domromer]

#1 it's the most realistic thing that could happen and it would make big changes, I think a lot more people would ride if they never had to mix it up with cars

[bluehurry]

Completely agree w/CommuterRun. The infrastructure isn't going to change, so completely giving up the car is difficult to impossible for a large percentage of the population. I think that baby steps are the way to go, and it would be a great big baby steps if commuting habits change and 50% of commuters bike instead of drive.

[patc]

Why not allow more than once choice on this poll?

1- If there is any separation, concrete or otherwise, its not a bike lane. I want bike lanes on most major roads, available space permitting. I don't want side-paths, I see them as being about as dengerous as sidewalks. I would rather see "human powered vehicle" lanes than bike lanes.

2- Moving to electric or solar powered motor vehicles would be a good step, but fails to address the other problems of cars.

3- Tax breaks would be a minor incentive, I think, although one I would welcome.

4-Sometimes a half-way solution is worth it, other times it just delays the inevitable.

5- I am all for banning cars from urban cores. "Cars" here being defined as personal use vehicles. The first step would be to ban cars from downtown areas, other then for people who live there (most of whom don't have cars anyway).

[MarkS]

None of the above. A national speed limit of 45MPH or lower would accomplish more than special lanes, special incentives, and mandatory car-downsizing. It would level the playing field, making electric cars and mass transit immediately competitive. It would make it possible to open virtually all roads to bikes. And it would drastically reduce our energy dependence, which would take the pressure off more important uses like home heating, agriculture, and plastics. It would help prevent war, drought, and global warming and set an example for other countries which are rapidly catching up with us.

[BroMax]

...
Cars (except for buses, taxis) are outlawed in cities.
This one is just rediculous.

If that seems too extreme, there are more moderate practises that are in place now. For example, London charges a toll to drive into high traffic areas; some old cities with streets made more for horses and pedestrians than motorcars have car-free zones with perimeter parking--I've seen this in Europe but in America it's rarely more than a few blocks converted into a pedestrian mall; in Portland, Oregon it's just to darn inconvenient to drive on the west side of the river, so I park and ride the free rapid transit as do others who drive into (or close to) the city. I live about twenty miles beyond the most distant reaches of the transit district.

[Roody]

Your town/city puts bike lanes EVERYWHERE, separated by concrete lines from the cars
Absolutely not. Bikes should be taking over the streets, not getting pushed off them.

Every car becomes electric/solar poweredSolar would be OK, but it will be a long time before the technology exists. Electric is still causing global warming, so it's unacceptable to me.


50% of the commuters switch to bikes
That would be cool, a good base to build on.


You get a $500 tax break for commuting on a bike
Nice, but the money could be better spent on something else.

Every commuter must use a 1/2-size car for commute Not a bad idea, but not my first choice. Probably the most likely to actually happen, however. I didn't vote for this one, but probably would if the poll allowed do-overs.
Cars (except for buses, taxes) are outlawed in citiesThis is the one I actually voted for. Get rid of the worst of the congestion and the most concentrated pollution, and make city centers a haven for sane transportation,

[genericbikedude]

I want them to ban cars, then I want them to give me $500, then I want a solar-powered blender on every corner making organic smoothies for the masses of thirsty cyclists, from fruits and veggies planted where the asphault used to be.

::SIGH::

[Machka]

#1 it's the most realistic thing that could happen and it would make big changes, I think a lot more people would ride if they never had to mix it up with cars


Even if they did that (which, thank goodness, will not likely ever happen) ... I'd still be riding on the road with the cars. I feel MUCH more comfortable there than on some sort of path with other bicycles, pedestrians, and who knows what all.

[Lamplight]

None of the above. A national speed limit of 45MPH or lower would accomplish more than special lanes, special incentives, and mandatory car-downsizing.

Not sure about where you live, but around here most people pay no attention to speed limits as it is. Sometimes I'll ride in my brother's car with him and he will literally be the only person I encounter going the speed limit. If there is a driver behind him, they WILL ride his bumper until they can pass him.

[MarkS]

Not sure about where you live, but around here most people pay no attention to speed limits as it is. Sometimes I'll ride in my brother's car with him and he will literally be the only person I encounter going the speed limit. If there is a driver behind him, they WILL ride his bumper until they can pass him.Just because some people disregard laws doesn't mean that we shouldn't have them. With that theory, we wouldn't have any laws. During WWII, people AND law enforcement realized that it was their patriotic duty to enforce and abide by 35MPH limits. We need a new ethic that recognizes that our survival as a species and a country depends on conserving oil. Compared to the other choices in the poll, a 45 MPH speed limit is easy, inexpensive, and non-bureaucratic to implement and will achieve instant results.

[Lamplight]

Just because some people disregard laws doesn't mean that we shouldn't have them. With that theory, we wouldn't have any laws. During WWII, people AND law enforcement realized that it was their patriotic duty to enforce and abide by 35MPH limits. We need a new ethic that recognizes that our survival as a species and a country depends on conserving oil. Compared to the other choices in the poll, a 45 MPH speed limit is easy, inexpensive, and non-bureaucratic to implement and will achieve instant results.
That's true. It would just be nice if the speed limits around here were actually enforced more often. When I was a teenager I would speed sometimes, but after a few tickets I learned better. :) Now nearly everyone speeds all the time but rarely gets ticketed for it.

[CommuterRun]

Not a jab at anyone, very self serving and not gonna' happen.

I'd like the government, federal, state or both together, to buy me a new bike, of my choice, every year as long as I can document that I rode at least 300 days the year prior. Heck, I would even start back keeping my log if they did this.:D

[attercoppe]

Only if you trade in your "old" bike each time for reuse by someone else. Too much waste otherwise.

[CommuterRun]

True, didn't think of that, and a good idea. But I would also like the option to remit the used value of the bike in cash, in lieu of turning it in. Just in case it's a bike I really like.:)

[mrkott3r]

$500 off a bike sounds good to me!
In all seriousness the last one sounds the best.

[donrhummy]

Even if they did that (which, thank goodness, will not likely ever happen) ... I'd still be riding on the road with the cars. I feel MUCH more comfortable there than on some sort of path with other bicycles, pedestrians, and who knows what all.

I think maybe everyone misunderstood this one. There would still be a sidewalk, so the bike lane would NOT allow pedestrians. The plus of separating the bike lane from the car lane this way is you'll never again have cars parking in the bike lane, cutting across the bike lane, or driving in the bike lane. It'll be ONLY bikes.

[CommuterRun]

Your town/city puts bike lanes EVERYWHERE, separated by concrete lines from the cars

Some of the reasons I don't like this one is there would have to be a constant maintenance crew to remove garbage in residential areas and inner cities don't have the space to build such an infrastructure.

The biggest reason I would work against something like this, is that in suburban and particularly rural areas, like this one, it would mean an unnecessary reduction in green space.

[adgrant]

None of the above. A national speed limit of 45MPH or lower would accomplish more than special lanes, special incentives, and mandatory car-downsizing. It would level the playing field, making electric cars and mass transit immediately competitive. It would make it possible to open virtually all roads to bikes. And it would drastically reduce our energy dependence, which would take the pressure off more important uses like home heating, agriculture, and plastics. It would help prevent war, drought, and global warming and set an example for other countries which are rapidly catching up with us.

I think that is a terrible idea. Most cars (rather than SUVs) are quite economical at current highway speeds and 45mph is still much faster than an average bike will travel. To reduce energy dependence we need to reduce the number of cars on the road and eliminate SUVs (and pickup trucks without commercial use). We need to tax cars based on weight (and introduce a weight cap) and increase the number of Lexus lanes on the highways.

Bermuda limits the size of cars that can be sold, taxes cars based on length and limits cars to one per household.

Hopefully high gas prices will curb demand for SUVs and high home heating costs will curb demand for huge houses in the outer suburbs.

[MarkS]

I think that is a terrible idea. Most cars (rather than SUVs) are quite economical at current highway speeds and 45mph is still much faster than an average bike will travel. To reduce energy dependence we need to reduce the number of cars on the road and eliminate SUVs (and pickup trucks without commercial use). We need to tax cars based on weight (and introduce a weight cap) and increase the number of Lexus lanes on the highways.

Sigh. Another person who doesn't get it. The automotive propaganda machine, with all its lying, pretty pictures has done such a good brain-washing job. They show such nice images of SUVs traveling at high speeds through winding, empty, roads and it all looks so good. But the reality is bumper-to-bumper traffic, smog, and congestion.

SUV's are not economical at highway speeds. Wind resistance kicks in at speeds above 35MPH and increases according to the cube of the speed. I ride places where people do 45, and others where they do 55, and I can tell you that the 45 feels a lot safer. I would say 35MPH, but I can only imagine how much whining there would be about that.

The planet is running out of oil. We will run out. Its not a question of if, but a question of when. And the planet is rapidly heating up now. Some scientists say we have less than a decade to turn things around if we're to prevent runaway global warming. Playing around the edges of problems, raising luxury taxes, etc. will not accomplish anything. Dropping the national speed limit to 45MPH will have an instant impact on oil resources. Maybe grandma won't have to sell the farm in order to stay warm this winter. Maybe we'll slow the inflationary spiral that occurs when oil prices get hiked up as happened in the early 70s.

Oh well. I guess while people are munching on grass blades in their unheated hovels, missing loved ones conscripted for the oil wars, at least they'll have all those fond memories of whole afternoons they used to spend in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

[va_cyclist]

Where are all the mass transit options? Light rail, electric buses, etc. I'd rather see the money invested there.

[Machka]

Where are all the mass transit options? Light rail, electric buses, etc. I'd rather see the money invested there.

EXCELLENT point!!! I have LOVED the cities I've visited which have an established mass transit option. Take Paris, for example ... from my limited experiences there, touring around without a motorized vehicle, I'd say that a person would have no need to use a vehicle there ... the train system was very, very good, and they allowed bicycles on it with no problems at all.

[donnamb]

The planet is running out of oil. We will run out. Its not a question of if, but a question of when. And the planet is rapidly heating up now. Some scientists say we have less than a decade to turn things around if we're to prevent runaway global warming. Playing around the edges of problems, raising luxury taxes, etc. will not accomplish anything. Dropping the national speed limit to 45MPH will have an instant impact on oil resources. Maybe grandma won't have to sell the farm in order to stay warm this winter. Maybe we'll slow the inflationary spiral that occurs when oil prices get hiked up as happened in the early 70s.

Oh well. I guess while people are munching on grass blades in their unheated hovels, missing loved ones conscripted for the oil wars, at least they'll have all those fond memories of whole afternoons they used to spend in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Thank you. And when that day arrives, and we can no longer transport things like food and pharmaceuticals, people like me, who are dependent on daily medication to stay alive, will die. I know it's idealistic, but perhaps my not using a car will forstall that day - by about six hours or so.

[*cough]

just for the record we won't use all the oil, it will just become uneconomical to extract any.

[donrhummy]

Where are all the mass transit options? Light rail, electric buses, etc. I'd rather see the money invested there.

That's covered in the last option. All cars are outlawed in cities except for buses, taxis...so the only thing left is public transportation and bikes.

[donrhummy]

EXCELLENT point!!! I have LOVED the cities I've visited which have an established mass transit option. Take Paris, for example ... from my limited experiences there, touring around without a motorized vehicle, I'd say that a person would have no need to use a vehicle there ... the train system was very, very good, and they allowed bicycles on it with no problems at all.

One funny thing about that though (and this is a random aside), Paris has some of the most polluted air in all of Europe.

[donrhummy]

I think maybe everyone misunderstood this one. There would still be a sidewalk, so the bike lane would NOT allow pedestrians. The plus of separating the bike lane from the car lane this way is you'll never again have cars parking in the bike lane, cutting across the bike lane, or driving in the bike lane. It'll be ONLY bikes.

I know they have this in China (and it works REALLY well there, I've ridden in it and trust me, without it, bikers would be killed by the hundreds there - drivers are crazy in China!) and I think England has it too, but not sure.

[oilfreeandhappy]

I chose the 50% of commuters by bike, because I think some of the others will progress naturally with that base.

[DavidLee]

50% of the commuters switch to bikes, then maybe I'll get some quality racks to safely lock my bike up to.

[Viggen Ed]

Hrm, tough call. The concrete bike lane separation may be extreme, but it could be pretty nice if it compared to the bike lanes found in Amsterdam. They have right of way over pedestrians ( I almost got taken out there walking across a bike lane before I knew what was goin on.... Woulda probably deserved it, too..)

Imagine how many more people we could employ with human-powered Mack Trucks :D

It'd give whole new meaning to the UPS bicycle team.

Job ads: I'm personable and torquey, can spin up to 100+ rpm, but I'm happiest at a bit lower pace.

[MarkS]

I know they have this in China (and it works REALLY well there, I've ridden in it and trust me, without it, bikers would be killed by the hundreds there - drivers are crazy in China!) and I think England has it too, but not sure.Here's a stretch of road with it in So. Cal.

[wsexson]

Cars (except for buses, taxis) are outlawed in cities. This one is just rediculous.
Why?

[wsexson]

Here's a stretch of road with it in So. Cal.
I'm not sure if it represented well in that pic or not, but I don't like the looks of it at all. The "bike lane" is only on one side of the road. How do you avoid obstructions and debris in the lane? It looks like you are trapped in between a curb and a speed bump that runs parallel to traffic.

[cerewa]

Thank you. And when that day arrives, and we can no longer transport things like food and pharmaceuticals, people like me, who are dependent on daily medication to stay alive, will die. I know it's idealistic, but perhaps my not using a car will forstall that day - by about six hours or so.

As I see it, there's a chance that the demise of petroleum-powered vehicles won't stop the most important stuff from getting around. For good or for ill, when the price of energy gets high enough, people are almost certainly going to demand nuclear power plants in a big way. And apparently biodiesel can be produced for far less energy than is used producing it.

Cars (except for buses, taxis) are outlawed in cities. This one is just rediculous.

I don't think it's entirely ridiculous. Although in addition to buses, I think they ought to allow large vehicles like semi trucks and construction vehicles as long as they're used for a legitimate purpose.

Honestly, in congested city centers, single-occupant cars are not exactly giving us a huge amount of societal benefit as compared to how things were before cars were common.

[Chris L]

Definitely NOT the first one!!!!!!

Bicycles are vehicles of the road ... they should be on the road with the rest of the traffic!

Agreed. I know that I feel much safer mixing it up with the cars than on some poorly constructed and undirectional bike path.

As far as the options go, I'm not sure any of them are realistic. Building dozens of bike paths isn't going to happen in most cities because of the cost to local government of resuming the land. Banning cars and the like won't happen because there just aren't enough votes in it. Personally the best idea I've heard is the one from London about charging people to bring a car into a city centre. This, at least, holds people accountable for the external effects of their transport choices.

[CommuterRun]

Cars (except for buses, taxis) are outlawed in cities.
This one is just rediculous.Why?

Like Chris L said, it won't have public support. Not only will it not have support, but there will be so many people fighting against it that a measure like this would never pass and no politician would ever support it unless he/she wanted to face a recall election. Even if it could be passed, the current infrastructure of mass transit in any American city couldn't support all the new riders. Look at the mass transit system in Tokyo, one of the best on the planet, they can't move all the riders during rush hour and they've been in place and working on this problem for decades. One measure they use is to hire "packers". These aren't like ushers who may suggest, "Please, sit here." The packers actually, physically pack people onto the trains. The physical pushing and shoving would never be accepted here, in our litigatinous society, even if the guy were just doing his job. The difference between the Japanese and Americans is the attitude of social responsibility. The Japanese accept something as a way of life when Americans would riot.

Even if a measure like this did pass, not all the cars could be banned. There would have to be loopholes, like Cerewa said, for people that use their cars for work or work from their cars, people that provide goods and services, and for the people that live in the city who have cars. Others would use these loopholes to their advantage, even if they didn't have a legitimate reason.

My parents-in-law live in mainland Japan. One thing they have over there that might work here is a program in place at the company where my father-in-law works. Mass transit fees are subsidized by the company. If an employee drives their car to work it causes the company to loose money and is grounds for dismissal. In other words, if you drive to work instead of taking mass transit, you're fired. That's an idea that I like.

I don't know what that company's policy is on bicycle commuting.

I also like the idea of charging a toll, for everyone, across the board, no exceptions, to drive into a city, but in America this wouldn't stop anybody from driving. It would just give them something else to complain about.

My wife tells me her uncle works for Tokyo Metro Line. Yesterday they carried 120% of capacity. This isn't just seats, but also includes designated standing room. Americans wouldn't stand for this. For the Japanese, it's a way of life.

[patc]

Like Chris L said, it won't have public support. Not only will it not have support, but there will be so many people fighting against it that a measure like this would never pass and no politician would ever support it unless he/she wanted to face a recall election.

Such a defeatist attitude! One step at a time. Some cities (e.g. London, England) have already passed measures to decrease car use downtown. These steps can be implemented gradually, while simultaneously improving transit and well as cycling and pedestrian facilities.

[Roody]

Before you can live it you have to dream it.

In 1900, automobiles were an impossible dream. There was almost no infrastructure suitable for them, they were much too expensive for the average person, and they didn't even work very well. Of course, within less than 20 years all that had changed, and autos had become much more than a dream (well, nightmare might be a better word in this context). So, first you had dreamers, like Ford, Olds and Benz. Then you had new economic realities that made their dream feasible.

When it comes to bicycle transportation, we are the dreamers. We are free to give our dreams any shape we like, and dreaming is never a waste of time.

However, anything we dream will become real only if the economic and social realities change enough to allow it. Many of us see the dwindling supplies of oil as a changing reality that favors our dream. I sure hope we're right! :)

[donrhummy]

Before you can live it you have to dream it.

In 1900, automobiles were an impossible dream. There was almost no infrastructure suitable for them, they were much too expensive for the average person, and they didn't even work very well. Of course, within less than 20 years all that had changed, and autos had become much more than a dream (well, nightmare might be a better word in this context). So, first you had dreamers, like Ford, Olds and Benz. Then you had new economic realities that made their dream feasible.

When it comes to bicycle transportation, we are the dreamers. We are free to give our dreams any shape we like, and dreaming is never a waste of time.

However, anything we dream will become real only if the economic and social realities change enough to allow it. Many of us see the dwindling supplies of oil as a changing reality that favors our dream. I sure hope we're right! :)

I agree! You shoot for the floor and that's all you'll reach. Shoot for the moon, and you might get to the top of a mountain. ;P

[CommuterRun]

Dream away, but while you're on your next commute count the number of bicycles and motor vehicles you see. Compare the numbers and consider which way popular opinion, and therefore votes, are going to go.

Now when gas gets over $8 a gallon, things might start to take a turn.

Oh yeah, and when cars are not allowed in the city anymore, consider how much nicer it was outside the city. Before the green space and farms were a giant parking lot.

[cyclezealot]

The closest to my feelings is every car must become half its size and also, gas mileage must Double, as well. Actually, I'd prefer methods to also reduce traffic congestion. Guess, that means switching to mass transit or bikes. Wonder the effect of everyone riding bikes on congestion for me on the bike path.

[rajman]

Probably the most feasible and inexpensive option is just allowing an increase in housing, retail, and workplace density in urban areas.

My personal favourite is HWP - housing without parking. Land grants/subsidies would make this even better, but just allowing construction of large numbers of units with no accomodation for parking would still save car-free citizens some of the infrastructure costs for cars that they are bearing now. In my neighbourhood there are several small scale apartment buildings that have large, empty parking lots (the people who live in them either can't afford or don't care to own cars). Free these people from the carrying costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars of unused land - why should they pay for it?

If we build significant numbers of HWP units on major transit arteries (near subways, LRT systems, and frequent bus routes), in areas that have many retail options, we will effectively create a population of car- free citizens.

In many established north american cities (I am currently residing in Toronto) there are significant numbers of this type of construction (predating common car ownership). Build more - let people choose to save money, and give them an option.

It doesn't have to be apartments either - townhouses or detached houses can also be built without parking - giving more space to the residents and more safety for their children. I'm not saying that these residences not have car access, just build it so that there is very limited parking space (deliveries, taxis,garbage collection, Fire dept and Police dept. all need access).

The beauty of the system is a) it provides affordable housing b) saves money for residents, and c) frees up urban land for other uses. No coercion would be required, just individuals making choices to save money. People who choose to own cars are not required to buy the units, and people who choose not to have cars reap the savings from their choices.

The main problem is that city planners and ratepayers groups refuse to believe that high density housing can be built without causing traffic and parking issues. According to the zoning rules my street should legally have over double the parking spots it has now (most of the houses are 90-110 years old on my street). However, the worst parking issue we have faced is having to park a block away.

What do you guys think?

[CommuterRun]

My personal favourite is HWP - housing without parking........
What do you guys think?

I like this idea. Japan already does this and I'm sure other Asian nations do, too. This leaves the option strictly up to the prospective tenant. Need a place to park your car? Live somewhere else.

In fact the wife tells me (she's from Japan and keeps up with goings on over there) that more Japanese in metro areas are opting to not own a car. They use the massive mass transit system for day-to-day living and rent a car if they need one to travel. Much like a lot of members of this forum espouse.

While there are a lot of places in the U.S. where this wouldn't work. Like here, almost no mass transit system. I think it would work in large metro areas, increasing housing density and decreasing sprawl which would result in increased green spaces.:)

[donrhummy]

The closest to my feelings is every car must become half its size and also, gas mileage must Double, as well. Actually, I'd prefer methods to also reduce traffic congestion. Guess, that means switching to mass transit or bikes. Wonder the effect of everyone riding bikes on congestion for me on the bike path.

I like this idea too but I wonder if bike-only lanes that are really and safely separated from car traffic and pedestrians would have a positive influence on the # of cyclists.

[LandLuger]

. . . Most cars (rather than SUVs) are quite economical at current highway speeds and 45mph is still much faster than an average bike will travel.

Who have you been listening too? I gained between 3 and 4 MPG simply travelling 55MPH instead of 65MPH in my 2000 Chevrolet--now sold thank goodness! The overdrive in my wife's Nissan compact will remain locked up all the way down into the low 30's further increasing the savings at 45MPH vs. 55MPH.