Smallwheels

This thread: https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car...atic-cars.html got me thinking about what I have heard on the radio in Los Angeles. There is a plan in place to convert a few major roads in the area to having dedicated bicycle lanes. The plan was passed long ago by the city council and the state. It was set to begin happening in the near future. It seems that enough people complained that the whole project is being reviewed.

A radio host was vehemently ranting against it one night and even invited a bicycle blogger on the show to talk about it. Unfortunately every time the blogger tried to speak the host shouted over him calling him a liar. Essentially the blogger couldn't say two sentences without being bullied and cut off. You could probably imagine all of the things the host was saying against the plan.

There were a few calls to the station from people in surrounding areas who were reporting that when the bicycle lanes were implemented in their areas the drive times doubled or tripled.

A couple of things the host said were that nobody wanted to ride a bus full of stinky homeless people, and that this plan is an overall plot to take away cars from people. I had to turn off the show because the cruelty and lies from the host were just too much for me to endure.

It is sad that so few people in the automobile culture are even willing to learn of alternatives. If there would have been a sane radio host actually wanting to hear logical information, over a million people could have been exposed to how there is a better way to get around.

If all car drivers had to pay the full cost of roads and automobile infrastructure, mass transit and bicycle lanes would be everywhere. Rail lines could actually exist without fear of being pushed out by automobiles. I really wish such a place would come into existence in the USA.

kickstart

Don't take it too seriously, every point of view including cyclists has extremists with ulterior motives such as profit, self validation, or to excuse antisocial behavior.

cooker

A lot of people listen to talk radio in their cars, so presumably he was pandering to his audience.

Walter S

One guy blabbing on the radio. I don't find those kind of comments in general about the LA bike lanes. Do you?

Roody

We had big pushback against bike lanes in the 1990s and 2000s. A modest BL project was proposed that would be fully funded by the federal government--at no cost to the city or county whatsoever. But people jammed the City Council meeting to protest against it, and it was dropped.

Nowadays, new bike lanes are popping up all the time with little fanfare and no real opposition. The day will come when all non-motor infrastructure is "ho-hum" and just a part of routine construction. Of course, there could still be some big battles before that comes to pass.

tandempower

Gas prices are down therefore sales volume is currently the key to revenues. Keep this in mind when you hear pro-driving media content.

Dahon.Steve

I listen to talk radio too but after about 2 hours, I've had enough. There are a number of stations playing Christmas music. It might be time to start listening to this.

B. Carfree

Whether or not there are a lot of people making those comments, the problem is that the people who make the call are making those kind of comments. The bike lanes are one step from being removed from the transportation plan.
Bicycle lanes in LA’s mobility plan might be removed, planners say

It's ironic that L.A. is removing bike lanes from their transplan in favor of travel lanes designed for motorists in the name of reducing congestion at the same time that CALTrans has finally accepted the evidence of induced demand (increased travel lanes induce new driving). They are pretty much condemning L.A. to even worse congestion than they would have had.

California's DOT Makes a Rare Admission: More Roads Mean More Traffic - CityLab

Machka 

We've started listening to this one online ...
Christmas Hope Radio » Hope 103.2

Roody

That totally sucks.

gerv 

After reading the article, seems like there is still some room for negotiation. Re-route the lanes a little... and there is support.

I'll admit I'm amazed that people still think you can build more car infrastructure to reduce congestion.

Artkansas 

Yeah, that's talk radio. As others have said, they are pandering to their audience's tastes. However, it's not to be underestimated.

Artkansas 

They can imagine a fresh new lane right next to them, unfilled with cars. They can't imagine that it will encourage more cars to join them on the freeway until the situation is back to where it was.

Ekdog

Sounds a lot like some of the anti-infrastucture, "cars are just a tool," "buses are full of malodorous ne'er-do-wells," "I know what's best because I was car-free twenty years ago" type of rhetoric we're used to reading in this very forum. I'm not surprised in the least that it's being spewed out on a Los Angeles hate radio program.

Ekdog

Like the recent battle in Coronado, California.

https://youtu.be/fLP9mfLMmnc

tandempower

I think business interests must have a lot to do with it. Another concern might have to do with preventing the use of bicycles as an efficient means of organized crime moving people around. As long as the roads are congested, it's much harder to get away from a crime scene.

Have they looked into toll lanes, rush hour permits, etc.? If not, I suspect they're really not interested in reducing congestion. Maybe they actually want the congestion in order to film a remake of Falling Down.

Roody

Here in Lansing, the bike lane opponents all said something about GM trucks being slowed down if the bike lane were put in. At the time, GM was building car parts in several plants, and trucking them around for "just-in-time" final assembly. GM denied orchestrating the anti-bike movement, but clearly it was mostly GM employees who showed up at the city council meeting to protest the bike lanes.

Roody

It's understandable that people believe adding lanes will reduce congestion, but very wrong. In almost every case, adding lanes initially eases traffic, but very soon more drivers come to the smoothly flowing street, and before long it's even more congested than it was before the widening. On the other hand, adding bike lanes often reduces congestion. Not all the reasons for this are known, but it has been observed many times.

I don't remember the name of the engineer who first made and tested these observations, but Tom Vanderbilt is an author who has written a lot about it.

How We Drive, the Blog of Tom Vanderbilt?s Traffic

bikinglife

True.
I used to see being an everyday cyclist as counter-cultural.

I realized I might right into the culture just fine.

JoeyBike

Same as when the Blogger is cycling on the city streets. Should have felt right at home.

fietsbob

Hate talk against the powerless is good for business, Telling the powerless where the powerful are Screwing Them is Not.




By the way the improvements to the pavements were first done for the benefits of Cycling ,

but the Horseless Carriage pushed them off of it and took it over ,

remember only the wealthy could afford to own a car before Henry Ford's Model T.

tyrion

There's a tremendous amount of money spent on denying climate science, and the same parties that benefit from climate science denial also benefit from denying the advantages of bicycle infrastructure.

Ekdog

Follow the money.

corrado33

Thank goodness in Bozeman whenever a road is repaved it's required to put a bike lane in.

Roody

I'm pretty well known as a strong voice against GHG emissions. But I don't see bike infrastructure as a climate change issue.

For one thing, I doubt if bike lanes will make much real difference in fighting climate change. It's intellectually dishonest, IMO, to sell them as "saving the climate."

For another thing, climate change is a divisive wedge issue in the US. Many people have strong feelings either for or against if. I think that introducing climate change as part of a separate, less controversial issue (such as bike infrastructure). is a strategic mistake. Making the bike lane issue about climate change is just muddying the waters, and making it harder for climate change deniers to support bike infrastructure.

In other words, I think that claiming bike lanes decrease global warming will push people away from support of bike lanes, more than it will pull them in.

Bike lanes are almost always a local investment requiring the support of local people and local politicians. Local business leaders will generally support bike lanes, as they see them as good for the community and, above all, good for business.

That's the best basis for attracting doubters into the bike lane camp:

"Bike lanes are 1) good for business, 2) make traffic flow more smoothly, 3) make the streets safer for kids and adults, drivers and cyclists, and 4) help young and old people have fun right here in our community while getting good exercise. A lot of people will enjoy them while spending money at local stores and restaurants."