jade408

The biggest problem is that a lot of bike infrastructure is put up in a haphazard way. People want a network. If you put up a 2 block bike lane with no other bike lanes around it, no one will use it!

I live in a weird city - Oakland, CA. One of the benefits is that Oakland's roads were way overbuilt for the population. We have roads that assumed a population of like 800k+ people, and we topped at maybe 500k people at the peak. Now it is 400k people give or take.

What this means is our roads have excess capacity allover town. The benefit is, they city can easily take away lanes, add bike lanes and make all sorts of adjustments that have minimal impact on actual traffic and travel time in many parts of the city. And slowly but surely this is happening. Our network is incomplete, but increasing.

Bike ridership has doubled in the last decade or so. And that is commuter only data. Anecdotal evidence has the discretionary trips by bike increasing a ton. And it isn't all "hipsters." Bike parking can be completely full in many parts of town on the weekend! Whole Paycheck has about 70 parking spots for bikes and on the weekend they are 75% full!

Build a network, and the will come. Build random lanes haphazardly and they stay home.

jade408

Amen to that! I try to go to meetings. And then people tell me to run for office because I go to meetings.

alathIN

If you were really a libertarian you would object to infrastructure planning that is tilted so heavily towards cars. Build a system at accommodates multiple choices. For years our infrastructure spending has basically been a giant subsidy to the automotive industry.

If you were really going to be a hardcore ideological libertarian, I think you would want something like privately built infrastructure paid for by user fees and then let the market decide. I tend to lean libertarian, but it's an ideology that has some limits.

tarwheel 

The article makes a lot of assumptions and statements that are pure opinion with no basis in fact. First, it contends that transportation planners favor cyclists at the expense of motorists, and that cycling infrastructure is heavily subsidized. I've been to San Diego and ridden quite a bit there while visiting, and I wouldn't say that it has a great system of bike routes, lanes, paths, etc. It's better than some cities, but nothing to brag about. It certainly hasn't been given priority or anything close to equal footing with motor vehicle traffic. The point about subsidization is just ridiculous. Motor vehicle traffic is heavily subsidized across the US, at the expense of every other form of transportation -- including transit, rail, water and probably air. That's one reason why most cargo is shipped now using highway trucks, rather than railroads, canals and other waterways.

I will agree with one point, which is that only a small percentage of commuters use bicycles in comparison to cars and other motor vehicles. I'm not sure about the "build it and they will come" philosophy, but it certainly hasn't happened yet. My city has made a concerted push over the past 5 years to add more bike lanes, marked cycling routes, and greenways. The greenways that are protected from vehicle traffic are heavily used and packed with cyclists, runners, walkers, etc., as soon as they open. However, the greenways are not convenient or properly routed for many bike commuters. The bike lanes and routes that are more practical for commuting are lightly used, and that's being generous.

Although I like having bike lanes, I agree with others that they are probably not necessary as long as roads are wide enough and drivers are courteous and accommodating. I commute on several highly traveled roads with no bike lanes and rarely encounter problems with drivers, and those incidents usually consist of someone honking or yelling at me. The city added bike lanes last year on one of the busiest roads that I commute on, and I have mixed feelings about it. Although it's nice having a clearly marked lane, it provides a false sense of security because many drivers cross over the white line and block it near intersections. The biggest problem, however, is that gravel and glass tend to build up in the bike lane more so than on roads without the lanes, presumably because the lack of car traffic is not helping to clear debris.

idiotekniQues

I'd still prefer the painted bike lanes. They are very cheap to install and I notice drivers that are driving on a lane with a bike lane next to them tend to stay on their side of the lane with that visual barrier, keeping it passable for bikes VS wider lanes without a painted bike lane where cars are all over the place in that lane often making it impassable to bikes.

RubeRad

This is true.

jade408

I agree. But painted lanes need to be practical. A painted lane on a street with 40mph traffic? Only brave people will use that sort of infrastructure. That is very stressful. And completely unaccommodating for an older, slower or less confident cyclist.

I am 100% in favor of infrastructure for people aged 8-80. New York City has added so much great protected infrastructure that as a tourist who has no clue where I am going, I felt fine navigating by bike in many parts of Manhattan. The Westside Highway bike path was safe and convenient. That's good infrastructure.

Painted bike lane on a fast street with strip malls and lots of driveways? Not so much.

idiotekniQues

I'd ride on a 40mph road that has a very well marked bike lanes with plenty of space

jade408

It isn't about space on the road for me.

The speed differential is way too high if cars are going 40+, and bikes are going 10-15mph on average. This warrants more physical separation than some paint! If you want more people to ride, you can't put bike lanes on scary roads with fast traffic and expect more people to hop on. I generally avoid cycling any road with traffic speeds higher than 30mph.

I know other people who are afraid to bike on any road with cars. I am on the "adventurous" end for my circle.

L134 

"If you build it, they will ride" has proven not to work

A visit to Canberra, Australia might change your mind.

Spoonrobot 

One of the major connections between cities here has a 3 foot wide bikelane on a 4 lane, 35 mph signed road that drivers usually take at 50+. Combine this with the severe uphill grade and it's terror to ride as my moving speed is generally around 7-8 miles an hour.

I & everyone else I've ever seen on this road on a bicycle, ride the wide sidewalk next to the bike lane.

Dave Cutter

Tax dollars are not "investments". I have a choice in my investments. Tax dollars are moneys taken from the citizenry.... by force.

Using force on a citizen to promote a grand idea.... belittles the position of the citizen to servant of the government.

It isn't that there aren't MANY grand ideas. It is just that once thought through the grand ideas often belittle humans in an effort to aggrandize some...THING. Yes, transportation can be made more "Earth-friendly", or more city space friendly, or more bicycle friendly. But it is not the job of government to promote the friendliness of "things". Government exists to serve those [people] it governs.

Those who advocate bicycles and bicycling as transportation often forget... that to pervert government to make their advocacy easier... they promote tyranny.

RubeRad

Sounds lovely. Can you buy me a plane ticket?

alan s 

I guess I meant to say "spend" rather than "invest," but that should have been implied. Nonetheless, more money spent on public transportation is a win-win for bike commuters: fewer bikes and fewer cars. More people crammed in buses and on trains should be our ultimate goal. I'll also go for anything that results in better pedestrian control, because they tend to get in the way.

RubeRad

So this is the perspective I want to interact with.

I want to hear about how you combine your libertarian perspective on taxation/public spending, with the benefit you (vs the rest of your community) derive from bike infrastructure. Do you feel guilty/conflicted for enjoying/benefiting from public spending you don't support? Would/do you vote for bonds/bills for increasing bike infrastructure?

idiotekniQues

let me rephrase. On a nice 40mph road with biking lanes. Not all roads are created the same and by that extension not all 40mph roads are created the same. If one has turning lanes, buffer to the sidewalk, good signaling, etc... then I don't think 40mph would be bad. I'd ride it.

There are avenues and city streets in NYC which all have the same city-wide speed limit of 25mph (recently changed from 30mph) and some are known as deadly and some are'nt. I don't think throwing up a number like 40mph and applying that across the board is that easy.

Dave Cutter

You misunderstand.

Tax dollars return no profit. In many/most cases government spending (investments) are prohibited from profit... as that would put government in direct conflict with tax paying profit making organizations and individuals.

People like to misuse words to give a false impression (although often not on purpose) people will say "save" or "invest" when they actually just mean wisely spent.

Few cities in the industrialized world are watching their budgets closely right now. I am sure they know what they're doing. Although it may be of little thought to most people that there is a large demographic change in the making and that long term planning is different than patching potholes. Plus... the "parks and recreation" budget... is always the least watched and regulated of the budgets.

So... some cities are taking advantage of todays tax structure before the die off of the baby boomers. And other cities are merely trying to compete and remain popularly viable. With the die-off of such a large segment of the population future taxpayers would be hard pressed to continue or even maintain the current park system growth. Europe has had large die-offs in their history... and maybe we could look at their changes to guess what our own might look like.

I am not "libertarian" in my ideas of spending. It is just that getting government to do our bidding isn't much more than passing the buck. And it's a costly, lazy, buck-passing idea as well.

I have a friend who had been trying to get a medical treatment that the government wouldn't provide for her. She said she was praying for God to get the government to provide the treatment. I asked her... who she was praying to.
If you don't see where this story is going... you'll never see what I am trying to explain with the government structure either.

Dave Cutter

Few government employees are resistant to increased spending (in the budgets and paychecks).

Less cars... mean less individual freedoms. Not every human can easily and/or comfortably wrap their minds around the idea of freedom. Some people just feel better with the idea of well organized, controlled, and regulated populations.

Heck... in the millennia's of known civilizations... individual freedom is an idea only slightly more than a couple hundred years old. Maybe you're right and the free individual thing won't work out after all. But I am still hoping it will.

idiotekniQues

Less cars mean less individual freedoms? Did you recently get into a bike accident with a defective helmet?

Gresp15C

Naturally, "true" libertarianism has its limits, most notably the fact that a certain amount of government activity is necessary to support great enterprises such as car manufacturing. If there are no cars, then there's no point talking about car infrastructure. The countries that have significantly lower government expenditure per capita than the US, are wholly dependent on imports for advanced technologies such as cars and even bikes. The notable exception is China.

In my view, the article misses a couple of points. First, it may be the case that the perception of a pedestrian- and bike-friendly city promotes economic vitality. When they have a choice, business owners and top executives tend to locate their businesses close to where they want to live. I'm seeing this in the town where I live -- an island of vitality in a state that's experiencing sluggish economic growth.

In turn, economic growth can promote tax revenues. That's an example of an "investment" that is not an investment in the business sense of accumulating productive capital. The term "invest" is used loosely, to suggest something that seems like an expense, but that is economically beneficial in the long run.

The other point is that cycling isn't strictly for "transportation" in a utilitarian sense. There's a recreational aspect to most cycling, even commuting. We spend plenty of money on parks, and a bike path might be regarded as a long skinny park with a black stripe down the middle. We have other parks for specialized activities too, such as skating, cross country skiing, golf, swimming, tennis, and so forth. I'm willing to let some of my tax money pay for dog parks, which I will never use. It's impossible to structure a government so that each person's dollar comes back to them in the form of a service that benefits them directly.

alan s 

Kinda wondering the same thing.

Here's my take: the fewer cars on the road, the more freedom I have as a bike commuter. Not saying cars should be outright banned, but the government could play a much larger role in creating incentives for commuters to use public transportation. Increasing the availability of public transportation along with lowering the cost of it, and at the same time dramatically increasing the cost to commute by car via car commuter taxes, which taxes are then used to subsidize public transportation, will enhance my freedom to ride on the road during rush hour. Sure, a few million people will gripe at first, but they'll get used to taking public transportation eventually. Another incentive to limit car commuting is to dramatically increase parking meter rates and parking lot taxes. This is currently being done on a small scale in DC, but they will need to step it up to much higher levels for it to make any difference. If it cost you $50 to drive to work vs. $10 to take public transportation, my freedom as a bike commuter would soar to new levels.

Dave Cutter

You think head injuries are humorous? Or maybe... your sense of humor needs exercised.

My 88 year old Mom can get in her car and go anywhere anytime she wants. So can I, and my son, and my grandson. Never before in the history of humankind has man enjoyed such a high level of individual travel.

No. No head injury on this this of the post.

ThermionicScott 

How in the world hasn't this thread been moved to A&S or P&R yet?

idiotekniQues

not really. When someone says something ridiculous, it's a common joke to make something along the lines of wondering if said statement-making person has had a slight knock on their head recently.

The example of your 88 year old mom makes no sense. Nothing in this thread that I've said has pointed to arguing there is a one size fits all solution for everyone and that solution is a bike. I think cars are great for a lot of things actually - both for things that I need them for and for things others may need them for. Your statement came out of nowhere and is thoroughly flawed.

Saying less cars equals less freedoms as a blanket statement I think just is such a grandiose statement of a high level of WTF? It's nonsensical.

Dave Cutter

In the early days of car manufacturing.... Ohio and Indiana was rife with car makers. Please..... what was the name of the Bill or grants that subsidized that growth? I was under the impression that government merely invaded those enterprises in an effort to rake profit away. Please enlighten me you your new knowledge.