Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   The case for bike lanes (https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=1175107)

asmac 06-08-19 07:24 AM

The case for bike lanes
 
Good economic arguments in favor of bike lanes.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bik...alth-1.5165954

mcours2006 06-08-19 07:43 AM

Good luck convincing your typical moto-commuter the benefits of bike lanes. The only thing the short-sighted motorist sees is that cyclist on the bike lane in front of him hindering his upcoming right turn.

And the article mentions Lawrence Solomon. Pfff! That guys is a piece of work...environmentalist my a$$. :rolleyes: He's a lobbyist for big oil.

cyccommute 06-08-19 09:22 AM


Originally Posted by mcours2006 (Post 20968519)
Good luck convincing your typical moto-commuter the benefits of bike lanes. The only thing the short-sighted motorist sees is that cyclist on the bike lane in front of him hindering his upcoming right turn.

I think you have this the wrong way Ďround. Motorist, in general, would like to see bicyclists relegated to bike lanes and bike paths...preferably a long distance from any road and never intersecting with any road. In other words, they would like to never have to deal with them. But if they do have to deal with them, relegate them to the bike lane ghetto.


And the article mentions Lawrence Solomon. Pfff! That guys is a piece of work...environmentalist my a$$. :rolleyes: He's a lobbyist for big oil.
I can see your point about Solomon. Iím not a fan of anyone who denies science but this article does make a good point. I donít have a problem with traditional painted lanes running next to parked cars (or curbs), i.e. the old ďunprotectedĒ lane. If there is something in the lane like a debris or a pothole or an opening car door, itís relatively easy to move out of the lane into the travel lane away from the obstacle.

Protected lanes, on the other hand, bug the crap out of me. I hate them with a burning passion. They are narrow, often crammed up against a curb, run over the top of all kinds of holes (man hole covers, poor patch jobs from plumbing repairs, potholes, etc.), are filled with debris and, in the case of floating parking lanes, hide bicyclists from motorists until the intersection. Some in my city are even two way flow for a (roughly) 8 foot wide lane. Iíve witnessed and experienced many close calls at those intersections. I simply refuse to use them.

Gresp15C 06-08-19 10:55 AM

Indeed, I also prefer unprotected bike lanes. In addition to the aforementioned problems, they are also hard to keep cleared during the winter.

Maelochs 06-08-19 11:21 AM


Originally Posted by cyccommute (Post 20968642)
Protected lanes, on the other hand, bug the crap out of me. I hate them with a burning passion. They are narrow, often crammed up against a curb, run over the top of all kinds of holes (man hole covers, poor patch jobs from plumbing repairs, potholes, etc.), are filled with debris and, in the case of floating parking lanes, hide bicyclists from motorists until the intersection. Some in my city are even two way flow for a (roughly) 8 foot wide lane. Iíve witnessed and experienced many close calls at those intersections. I simply refuse to use them.

I could not be more in support of your position.

As it is the city, county, and state tend to ignore bike-lane maintenance, and bike-lane layout is ridiculous (lanes ending mid-block, or at the peak of a hill, or in a huge hole or high curb, with half the lane crumbling away or the whole think filled with washed-down debris.) Make the bike lane Exclusively for bikes and they won't get maintained even as an afterthought, as happens now.

It is pretty freaking scary to be doing 18 mph alongside a line of cars doing 45-55 mph (in a 35-mph zone) and to have to suddenly jink left into traffic because there is some obstacle in the bike lane which would make me crash into traffic----but what would I do if there were Nowhere to go to avoid the obstacle? And if the dividing wall on my left was less than four feet high, I would go right over it and into traffic anyway.

But ... whatever. I started riding before the term "bike lane" was invented, and I will probably still be riding when we run out of fossil fuels .... Politicians and activists and scholars can continue their verbal battles for their own entertainment.

Maelochs 06-08-19 11:47 AM

This article is a farce.

“Closer to home, a 2012 study from Oregon found that in the city of Portland people who biked to a bar, restaurant or convenience store spent 24 per cent more per month than those who drove. The cyclists spent more than drivers because they visited merchants more often.”

Well … is it because they were dirt poor and shopped daily at convenience stores? Are they out panhandling for spare change for generic cigarettes and cheap malt liquor?

Why would people who ride bikes shop more?

Oh …. Wait. “However, the same data shows that for trips to the supermarket, bikers didn't keep up with drivers on overall spending.”

So, people burning calories cycling eat less food? Or fewer people with children cycling so that the household grocery bill is lower? Or … they live on cheap malt liquor and generic cigarettes from convenience stores?

“In France, a recent study covering six cities found that cyclists spend more money per week in shops than drivers. Research from Copenhagen has shown similar results.” Well this is Absolutely relevant. It’s not like Copenhagen isn’t a direct analogue for Manhattan when it comes to cycling infrastructure.

In the section above, some studies show more, some less, traffic when bike lanes are installed. So basically …. No one has a clue what the actual situation might be, or whether it is completely site-specific.

“According to a 2004 study in Indianapolis, Ind., homes within one kilometre from the city's Monon Trail were selling for about 11 per cent more than similar homes farther away.

“A 2006 University of Delaware paper looking at past research from across the U.S. concluded that ‘the majority of studies indicate that the presence of a bike path/trail either increases property values and ease of sale slightly or has no effect.’”


Or …. Houses near to bike trails tend to be farther away from low-rent neighborhoods and interstates, and in areas with lower density and less traffic …. So yes, I could see why people would pay a premium for that.

“A 2011 U.S. study analyzing 58 projects in 11 different cities found that for every million dollars spent cycling infrastructure projects created 11.4 local jobs compared to 7.8 jobs for road-only projects.

“The study says a bike lane ‘which requires a great deal of planning and design will generate more jobs for a given level of spending," than a road alone, employing more construction workers and engineers while utilizing less materials.’

“Nonetheless, bike lane budgets can still produce bad news for local leaders even in bike friendly cities.”


So … bike lanes require a lot more planning because they have to be squeezed in a mong the roads most people actually use, and hopefully in some cases actually connect places people actually go …. Sometimes ….

And of course, they require more personnel on the street because bike lanes need to be woven in through existing roads, gas, water, and sewer lines, utility line underground or on poles …. Material cost is low because a bike lane is four feet instead of 14, and is mostly factored in with the cost of building the road for auto traffic …

All that adds up not to “more jobs” but “more cost.” (Because these jobs are taxpayer-funded, the do not generate revenue, they use it. "More jobs" is good when they are jobs which make money, and share some with the workers and management, who then put that money back into the economy. Government jobs are pure cost--the money come out of the economy as taxes, a small portion goes back in.) Cheaper than building roads …. But not a lot, because they are much more labor-intensive from planning to finishing.

No wonder civic leaders get flak for spending on bike lanes---one percent of the population uses them, and for 99 percent of the populace, there is no perceived benefit—and as the above studies show, possibly no real benefit.

“Celebrity academic and urban planner Richard Florida of the University of Toronto asserts that many members of the so-called creative class of workers are bikers.”

LOL. Yeah, in Florida, Texas, Oklahoma …. Lots of high-tech genius workers bike to work in 99-degree heat … for sure.

So …. Whether or not there are industries which attract those workers, if a city build bike lanes, they will come? Huh???

“He's argued in editorials that cities seeking to attract these valuable workers should build bike lanes and noted that cities with a higher number of bicycle commuters also tend to have higher wages.”

Wait … so bike lanes drive up wages?

Wow … I guess “celebrity academic” is a very uh …. “Special” category.

Maybe the deal is, Only people who either make very little money and cannot afford cars, and people who make a lot of money and can afford nice bikes and good jobs in companies which offer showers, lockers, schedule flexibility and all that can afford to bike to work?

Fact is, in most families, both parents need to work, and the hustle of getting kids to school and/or day care and getting through rush-hour traffic precludes the use of bikes for transportation.

“Over two terms, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel poured millions into bike lanes, winning the best bike city in America title. While opening new bike lanes in 2012 he said ‘you cannot be for a startup, high-tech economy and not be pro-bike.’"

Highest gun deaths too, as I recall ….. He opted not to run for reelection.

I am not opposed to bike lanes. I use them pretty much whenever I can, and when either a bike lane or a decent shoulder is added to a road, I am very grateful.

Articles like this though …. Well, somebody got a paycheck so I guess it helps the economy.

Rick 06-08-19 11:55 AM

I have been riding long enough that when I started riding bike lanes were a rarity. I prefer wide curb lanes and no parked cars. Where there are no bike lanes the right edge of the road is cleaner. I know that the road being used for a parking lot causes visibility problems and narrows a perfectly usable road. In some major cities like LA as much as 65% of the land mass is used for parking cars. For years states have pulled away from the mandatory use the bike lane or else. Recently it has started to head back toward forcing us to ride in the bike path/ditch full of road debris I do not want to be forced to use a public facility that is not maintained instead of a perfectly good road. I believe that phasing out on the road parking and lowering speed limits in congested areas is more effective at preventing car bike collisions than painted lines that divide the road up.

I-Like-To-Bike 06-08-19 01:52 PM


Originally Posted by Maelochs (Post 20968761)
It is pretty freaking scary to be doing 18 mph alongside a line of cars doing 45-55 mph (in a 35-mph zone) and to have to suddenly jink left into traffic because there is some obstacle in the bike lane which would make me crash into traffic----but what would I do if there were Nowhere to go to avoid the obstacle? And if the dividing wall on my left was less than four feet high, I would go right over it and into traffic anyway..

Me, if I came across a sudden obstacle and could not safely steer around it due to uncertainty about nearby traffic would use my brakes, even stop if necessary (shudder, the horror), until I could go safely around the obstacle. Luckily I seldom have ever suddenly come upon obstacles on city streets that require sudden unsafe steering corrections..

If I was forced to ride in a location where a problem with sudden unforeseen obstacles existed, such as from suddenly opening doors in a door zone on a street in a retail business area, I would think about adjusting my speed accordingly.

Leisesturm 06-08-19 01:56 PM


Originally Posted by Rick (Post 20968804)
I have been riding long enough that when I started riding bike lanes were a rarity. I prefer wide curb lanes and no parked cars. Where there are no bike lanes the right edge of the rode is cleaner. I know that the rode being used for a parking lot causes visibility problems and narrows a perfectly usable rode. In some major cities like LA as much as 65% of the land mass is used for parking cars. For years states have pulled away from the mandatory use the bike lane or else. Recently it has started to head back toward forcing us to ride in the bike path/ditch full of rode debris I do not want to be forced to use a public facility that is not maintained instead of a perfectly good rode. I believe that phasing out on rode parking and lowering speed limits in congested areas is more effective at preventing car bike collisions than painted lines that divide the rode up.

For the love of Pete, Rick. The word is 'Road'. Everywhere you have used 'rode' it should be 'road'. ̶W̶e̶ I cannot debate the finer points of your opinions till you address your overuse (7x!) of an incorrect spelling.

KraneXL 06-08-19 03:14 PM

These articles are too long. Use cliff or I'm not reading them.

Maelochs 06-08-19 03:16 PM

I cannot rejoin this debate until "Pete" is fully and properly identified ... though I don't care to know why Leisesturm seems to love him. :D

Rick 06-08-19 05:29 PM


I have been riding long enough that when I started riding bike lanes were a rarity. I prefer wide curb lanes and no parked cars. Where there are no bike lanes the right edge of the road is cleaner. I know that the road being used for a parking lot causes visibility problems and narrows a perfectly usable road. In some major cities like LA as much as 65% of the land mass is used for parking cars. For years states have pulled away from the mandatory use the bike lane or else. Recently it has started to head back toward forcing us to ride in the bike path/ditch full of road debris I do not want to be forced to use a public facility that is not maintained instead of a perfectly good road. I believe that phasing out on the road parking and lowering speed limits in congested areas is more effective at preventing car bike collisions than painted lines that divide the road up.
As correct as its going to be. This is what I know to be true. This is not a debate because we aren't face to face. I would prefer it to be a fracas. But this will do for now.

Jim from Boston 06-09-19 04:29 AM

The case for bike lanes

I didn’t read the article, but IMO, this was an interesting opposing point of view to protected bike lanes:

Originally Posted by 52telecaster (Post 20680391)
So the mup that runs through my town goes almost nowhere i need to go, except today

Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 18169725)
…Some people, mostly people who are relatively new to cycling, think we should use the few dollars that can go towards improving conditions for cycling by building a few miles of separated infrastructure and place it mostly on urban roads (with the inevitable intersection failures).

Other, more experienced riders, think we would be better served by funding traffic law enforcement and putting in many more miles of proper, six to eight foot bike lanes (not in the door zone) and only putting in separate facilities where there are long stretches of high-speed road without appreciable numbers of intersections.

This difference of opinion wouldn't be such a big deal, but many of the segregationists have been making their public case by convincing everyone that cycling is too dangerous to be done anywhere except on a segregated facility.


Not surprisingly, this has an impact in terms of how many people are willing to even try riding a bike since there is no way to get anywhere in the US without riding on a road. Oddly enough, these people are called and consider themselves "bicycling advocates". If one were to design a fifth-column assault to keep cycling participation down, it would look just like the pro-separation folks.


About congested urban locales such as Boston, I have posted:

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston (Post 20828374)
Just this morning on the 6-7 AM segment of the Jeff Kuhner talk show on WRKO, he discussed proposals by mayor Marty Walsh to decrease the speed limit in Boston to 20 mph, and increase the number of bus and bike lanes. He was vehemently against it, as were many of the callers, with snide comments about cyclists.

I called in as Jim from Boston “speaking for "Boston’s cycling community” and introduced myself as his Number One Fan among Boston cyclists. I made two points: bicycles are entitled to be on the road, and the more cyclists, the fewer other cars, and the more parking spaces available.

Jeff was pretty gracious, but I (accidentally) got cut off. Afterwards, he made some reasonable remarks about my call, but took me to task to speak for Boston’s cycling community, as “another protected class.” (Another WRKO talk show host, Howie Carr, once referred to us as Spandex-Americans. :lol:)

I sent a rebuttal text to the station, FWIW:
:

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston
Hi Jeff,

I called in this morning to “speak for the bicycling community” insofar as I was certain to be the only bicycle commuter to call in. I was speaking for myself, but I am an active participant on an Internet Bike Forum, with much discussion about cycle commuting. I’ve been cycle commuting in Boston for decades so I do claim expertise.

Before I got cut off I was going to make my third point that cyclists are ultimately responsible for their own safety, and I agree with your subsequent comments about cycle-auto collisions.

In the “cycling community” there are two schools of thought about riding in traffic: As Far Right as Possible: close to the curb; or Take the Lane to be out there and visible to cars. Bike lanes encourage the former behavior, likely more tolerated by motorists.

Bike lanes are not that wide, but then cyclist is in the “door zone” in danger of opening doors from parked cars.


Finally,

Originally Posted by Maelochs (Post 20968761)
It is pretty freaking scary to be doing 18 mph alongside a line of cars doing 45-55 mph (in a 35-mph zone) and to have to suddenly jink left into traffic because there is some obstacle in the bike lane which would make me crash into traffic----but what would I do if there were Nowhere to go to avoid the obstacle?

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 20968977)
Me, if I came across a sudden obstacle and could not safely steer around it due to uncertainty about nearby traffic would use my brakes, even stop if necessary (shudder, the horror), until I could go safely around the obstacle. Luckily I seldom have ever suddenly come upon obstacles on city streets that require sudden unsafe steering corrections..

If I was forced to ride in a location where a problem with sudden unforeseen obstacles existed, such as from suddenly opening doors in a door zone on a street in a retail business area, I would think about adjusting my speed accordingly.

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston (Post 15468661)
…My main argument for a mirror, particularly in the urban environment is summarized by Jim’s Law of the Road: No matter how well paved or lightly-traveled the Road, a vehicle is likely to pass you on the left as you encounter an obstacle on the right.”….




Maelochs 06-09-19 07:08 AM

I don't bother with I-like-to-snipe. I doubt he even rides---he needs all his energy to crap on people.

I can say that I am a safe cyclist, in that I have not been hit or hit a car or other obstacle in decades---either I am unbelievably lucky or I know what I am doing and do it properly to suit the obtaining conditions.

However .... the problem with blocked and unmaintained bike lanes, bike lanes installed purely to get "bike-lane mileage" in order to win grant money which go from nowhere to nowhere .... bike lanes (and shoulders) full of holes, crumbling pavement, road kill, etc. are real issues every cyclist who actually rides a bike on the road.

The biggest issues I have with "protected" lanes is that the "protection" is almost never going to be sufficient to stop speeding cars, but will be enough to hem in cyclists who face debris or puddles .... and the "protected" lanes will not be swept because there won't be a street sweeper which fits .... and natural runoff won't clear the lanes either.

Further, salmon cyclists will suddenly become very serious issues, not just comical annoyances....

Further, the issue of when one can turn becomes a most serious issue. Cyclists will not be able to turn at every intersection unless the "protection" ends at every intersection---and drivers will then have to be on the lookout for cyclists coming form behind some barrier and suddenly being in the lane ... and I do not trust drivers.

A four-foot bike lane on each side of the road Should be enough depending on whether a given municipality bothers to do regular road maintenance.

In dense urban areas .... all of this becomes much more problematic because real estate is at a premium and and it is hard to convince drivers to vote for fewer traffic lanes .... or more cyclists. But I would argue that in busy urban areas, the potential for actual cycle-commuting is higher. So basically ... it is too late to do it right in most cities, and most riders probably don't ride in dense urban areas anyway.

Rick 06-09-19 10:29 AM


I can say that I am a safe cyclist, in that I have not been hit or hit a car or other obstacle in decades---either I am unbelievably lucky or I know what I am doing and do it properly to suit the obtaining conditions.

However .... the problem with blocked and unmaintained bike lanes, bike lanes installed purely to get "bike-lane mileage" in order to win grant money which go from nowhere to nowhere .... bike lanes (and shoulders) full of holes, crumbling pavement, road kill, etc. are real issues every cyclist who actually rides a bike on the road.

The biggest issues I have with "protected" lanes is that the "protection" is almost never going to be sufficient to stop speeding cars, but will be enough to hem in cyclists who face debris or puddles .... and the "protected" lanes will not be swept because there won't be a street sweeper which fits .... and natural runoff won't clear the lanes either.

Further, salmon cyclists will suddenly become very serious issues, not just comical annoyances....

Further, the issue of when one can turn becomes a most serious issue. Cyclists will not be able to turn at every intersection unless the "protection" ends at every intersection---and drivers will then have to be on the lookout for cyclists coming form behind some barrier and suddenly being in the lane ... and I do not trust drivers.

A four-foot bike lane on each side of the road Should be enough depending on whether a given municipality bothers to do regular road maintenance.

In dense urban areas .... all of this becomes much more problematic because real estate is at a premium and and it is hard to convince drivers to vote for fewer traffic lanes .... or more cyclists. But I would argue that in busy urban areas, the potential for actual cycle-commuting is higher. So basically ... it is too late to do it right in most cities, and most riders probably don't ride in dense urban areas anyway.
I mostly agree with this. Now if you could only get city planners traffic engineers and the rest of the public to use this kind of intelligence. Much or all of what they call bicycle infrastructure Is forced by opinions of people who have no business making these decisions. When I travel I do my best to avoid on road bike lanes.

fietsbob 06-09-19 01:33 PM

Go before the transportation planning committee and your city council and give them the presentation ..,
Circulate a Petition to get an initiative on the Ballot..
LTE tn the local paper ..... see if you can make a difference, where you Live..

KraneXL 06-09-19 02:40 PM


Originally Posted by Rick (Post 20969997)
I mostly agree with this. Now if you could only get city planners traffic engineers and the rest of the public to use this kind of intelligence. Much or all of what they call bicycle infrastructure Is forced by opinions of people who have no business making these decisions. When I travel I do my best to avoid on road bike lanes.

On the other hand, sometimes they're forced to make accommodation in the absence of any opposing or contradictory opinions. You have to go to the meetings. We all do.

Do research and keep data on the things that interest you and take them to the meetings (including campaign events) and ask questions, but don't be afraid to tell them what you want.

KraneXL 06-09-19 02:42 PM


Originally Posted by fietsbob (Post 20970245)
Go before the transportation planning committee and your city council and give them the presentation ..,
Circulate a Petition to get an initiative on the Ballot..
LTE tn the local paper ..... see if you can make a difference, where you Live..





This.


Originally Posted by Rick (Post 20969997)
I mostly agree with this. Now if you could only get city planners traffic engineers and the rest of the public to use this kind of intelligence. Much or all of what they call bicycle infrastructure Is forced by opinions of people who have no business making these decisions. When I travel I do my best to avoid on road bike lanes.

On the other hand, sometimes they're forced to make accommodation in the absence of any opposing or contradictory opinions. You have to go to the meetings. We all do.

Do research and keep data on the things that interest you and take them to the meetings (including campaign events) and ask questions, but don't be afraid to tell them what you want.

Maelochs 06-09-19 03:07 PM


Originally Posted by fietsbob (Post 20970245)
Go before the transportation planning committee and your city council and give them the presentation ..,
Circulate a Petition to get an initiative on the Ballot..
LTE tn the local paper ..... see if you can make a difference, where you Live..


Originally Posted by KraneXL (Post 20970336)
On the other hand, sometimes they're forced to make accommodation in the absence of any opposing or contradictory opinions. You have to go to the meetings. We all do.

Do research and keep data on the things that interest you and take them to the meetings (including campaign events) and ask questions, but don't be afraid to tell them what you want.

These are the true facts ....

Activism takes effort but has results, particularly at the local level.

What it means, is that sometimes we have to give up riding time to go to political meetings. :(

Rick 06-09-19 03:57 PM


On the other hand, sometimes they're forced to make accommodation in the absence of any opposing or contradictory opinions. You have to go to the meetings. We all do.

Do research and keep data on the things that interest you and take them to the meetings (including campaign events) and ask questions, but don't be afraid to tell them what you want.

I have done some of these things in the past.

Daniel4 06-09-19 06:40 PM

I've ridden in protected bike lanes, unprotected bike lanes and major roads without bike lanes in both in winter and summer. I prefer the protected bike lanes. The snow and debris in them are no different than in unprotected bike lanes.

Motorists do respect that painted line of an unprotected bike lane but at intersections when a car wants to turn right, I prefer the protected bike lane. It gets murky and confusing when cars enter the dotted line of the bike lane to turn right.

There also seems to be a contradiction with motorists and bike lanes. For those who like bike lanes, some think the cost is a waste of money. For those who don't like bike lanes, they also want bicycles to get out of their way.

Studies in Denmark and Copenhagen show that roads cost taxpayers money but bike lanes saves taxpayers money.

There is no trying to convince any motorist if he is not willing to be open minded about it. It doesn't matter. What matters is the politicians who has to decide to continue with the congestion, pedestrian fatalities and pollution or to try to improve it all.

livedarklions 06-09-19 06:41 PM


Originally Posted by Maelochs (Post 20969078)
I cannot rejoin this debate until "Pete" is fully and properly identified ... though I don't care to know why Leisesturm seems to love him. :D

He misspelled "peat". Clearly, he has a mud fetish.

bobwysiwyg 06-09-19 06:56 PM


Originally Posted by Daniel4 (Post 20970563)
Studies in Denmark and Copenhagen show that roads cost taxpayers money but bike lanes saves taxpayers money.

Not doubting this, but curious. Can you point to the study?

Daniel4 06-10-19 07:47 AM


Originally Posted by bobwysiwyg (Post 20970590)
Not doubting this, but curious. Can you point to the study?

34:47

mcours2006 06-10-19 01:18 PM

There is one protected bike lane where I commute. Oddly enough, it turns into a non-protected one, but I prefer the non-protected one. Crossing intersections is safer, IMO, with NP bike lanes as drivers coming out of a street would focus more on the road than they would a bike lane that is segregated.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:42 AM.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.