Maelochs

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.