Was reading an article on the BBc Europe site about several Municipalities in The Netherlands considering using geo-thermal energy to heat bike lanes in the interests of cyclist safety.

Heating road surfaces is nothing new in BC. The 10th St underpass in Kamloops, BC (where I live) and several structures, including the snow shed (avalanche gallery to our European members), have all had elements, similar to that found in a typical oven. Those however, were electric and cost a fortune to operate, despite the effectiveness at keeping the road surface (bridge decks) ice free.

Linky to the article here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20041522

Geothermal, cool, I can get down with that, as long as it's enough to ALWAYS clear the path in all conditions.

There's nothing worse than TRYING to melt the snow and not quite succeeding. It leaves things worse than they were before, slippery and rutty.

I also definitely am NOT down with using any carbon-producing energy to heat paths.

Heated? As long as it uses ZERO energy and the cost to build a bike path with that feature costs nothing more to make. Why should the 99% of the taxpayers pay for something only 1% of the taxpayers use?

You mean like bike lanes in general? Or did I miss some sarcasm?

(Though a better characterization would be 100% of the taxpayers paying for something 1% use. Subtracting 1% from 100% there isn't appropriate.)

Would you approve if 28% of the population were using this? That is the approximate modal share of cyclists in several northern European countries.

I was talking about here in America where only 1% of the population commutes to work. 1% of the population using a heated bike path doesn't even closely justify the price to do that here; and it will be a very long time if ever will America get to 28% of the population commuting to work on bikes. Not sure what country you're specifically from but taxes in Europe are staggering, I'm not willing to have my taxes that high just so I can have heated bike paths.

Heated bike paths --> stoopid. I'm waiting for total climate control: sunny or only partly cloudy, light or no wind, mid-60s please.

I am an American... note my avatar says "san diego."

But the question still stands... if the cyclist modal share came to 28% in the US, (after a very long time) would you then approve geothermal heated bike paths?

Now that I wouldn't mind paying taxes for!!!

Well there some limitations with this idea. First off a heated path in San Diego would be completely useless since you never get snow or ice to make your paths slick, so to use heated paths in my area where it could be useful would still have a problem because most people don't ride in the winter because it's too cold and that's the only time a heated path would be a great idea. Thus we're still back to 1% or less who would actually use a path in the winter, so in that case I would be against it even if the national average was 28% usage. Now if you want to change the numbers to 28% in the winter in snowy climates then yes it would be worth it...but you and I both know that would never happen in the winter.

Forget about installing heat bike paths in the US, take the money and spend it on more "above" minimum standard cycling infrastructure. and in genec's predicament, stop installing "mini freeways" through residential areas for the sake of reducing total motor vehicle commute minutes.

Fortunately for you, the article has nothing to do with heating paths in America.