The Economics of Bike Lanes • Hacker News Board

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#21

Post by law » Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 3:15 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #17

law wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction is that it's private parking for $30 USD per hour. Municipal parking is provided by the taxpayers, just as the bike lanes are. They're switching out municipal parking for bike lanes when the bike lanes are underutilized.

The point is that parking is something which can be provided privately, and which should, in theory (I know that, especially in economics, this doesn't necessarily mean in practice), cost approximately the same. Bike lanes, on the other hand, cannot be provided privately.

...which means it should go to referendum, rather than be subjected to executive decree.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#22

Post by hack_edu » Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 3:20 PM UTC

bkor wrote: post #16

Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.

... all these things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes that were strictly enforced as DEDICATED bike lanes. Next time you're on a busy street with bike lanes, pay attention to the number of double-parked delivery trucks and other stationary non-bike business. These make the road more dangerous and slower (an important factor in route choice) than a non-bike lane street.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#23

Post by mchanson » Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 3:27 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

In Cambridge, MA the police have been enforcing traffic laws with bikers. Dunno what effect it has had, but enforcement, IMHO, as a place in getting bikers to obey the traffic laws.

Drivers, on the whole, behave pretty badly too. As a driver, biker, and pedestrian in the Boston area I don't think I would say any of those groups act better than others.

Would love separated bike lanes. Biking in the city is very satisfying, but also nerve racking for me.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#24

Post by mikeash » Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 3:28 PM UTC

law wrote: post #21

mikeash wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that parking is something which can be provided privately, and which should, in theory (I know that, especially in economics, this doesn't necessarily mean in practice), cost approximately the same. Bike lanes, on the other hand, cannot be provided privately.

...which means it should go to referendum, rather than be subjected to executive decree.

Isn't there some sort of city council that decides this sort of thing, rather than a sole executive? Most public works projects don't go through a referendum from what I've seen, which would be impractically unwieldy.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#25

Post by mseebach » Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 3:32 PM UTC

bkor wrote: post #16

Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.

In theory, yes. If you want to see adults behave like they're immortal, spend an hour in Copenhagen bicycle rush hour. Copenhagen bicyclists are actively taught that they are superior to any other mode of transport, and it shows.

And yes, I have cycled in Copenhagen for years and not at all innocent in this matter.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#26

Post by joebadmo » Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 3:33 PM UTC

rjprins wrote: post #2

This discussion about the value and use of bike lanes keeps amazing me. It seems many people hold a negative view without having good arguments, almost religiously. Living in the Netherlands, the benefits of separate bike lanes (to point of a separate transit system) are so incredibly obvious. It's not some cultural particularity, it's because cycling has been made easy, nice (most of the time) and safe here. (see ht…

I'm a daily bike commuter and I would love to see a Netherlands-like biking network in the US, but it's hard for me to imagine anywhere that's not as flat as most of the Netherlands. I could see it here in Portland or maybe Philly, but I don't think it would really increase the numbers of cyclists that much in, say, Seattle, where I used to live (and bike).

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#27

Post by jpr » Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 3:33 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

> I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude.

And I find the behaviour of most drivers to be potentially fatally dangerous to me as a cyclist and pedestrian.

> And the worst part is you can't say anything

And I can't say anything to the drivers because they are sitting in a multi-ton closed cage that they can't hear you unless I yell close to their window.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#28

Post by gerggerg » Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 3:39 PM UTC

Great article. To add: It also doesn't help that many of NYC's bike lanes are less safe than just riding in the middle of the road.

The streets of Manhattan are a dangerous jungle for bikers. Cabs hit and run on a daily basis. Some of the bike lanes are in between parked cars and the car lanes making the risk even higher. Car doors, pedestrians running out, cars hugging the edge to make a turn, cars double parked. It's a far cry from a dedicated lane.

Personal experience time: When I first started riding in NYC it was a cautious, rule following experience. Then after a while you see how little respect you get and how much you genuinely have to look out for you're own life and you stop caring. You perceive every passing car as a potential death/bodily injury threat and pave your own way.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#29

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 3:42 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

[deleted]

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#30

Post by joebadmo » Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 3:42 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

It's complicated, though. I think there's probably at least a bit of selection bias at work. There are plenty of cyclists who take traffic laws as seriously as drivers. But you're not going to notice them as much. And, here, in Portland, it's easy because most (not all) drivers are used to having cyclists in traffic with them and understand how to behave.

I used to live in Seattle, though, which had a lot fewer cyclists, and drivers in general were not used to watching out for bikes, or understanding cyclists' behavior in traffic. So, there, I had a completely different mindset. I saw motor traffic and traffic laws, including lights, stop signs, etc. as obstacles through which to navigate. I had to always be vigilant about where cars were, where they were going, etc. I always had to take care to see if there was cross-traffic (including pedestrian) coming at intersections or not. I didn't really consider myself part of traffic so much, because most drivers didn't.*

To be fair, part of it was that the elevation changes in Seattle are so drastic that keeping momentum through intersections was a lot more important. And it's true that this is the attitude that many cyclists have: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71JZgBLKMTs

* The somewhat paradoxical part about this is that I've actually had more traffic 'incidents' with cars here in Portland. This is because the abundant bike lanes and friendly drivers don't require my full vigilance all the time. Which is obviously not true, but it feels that way. I let my guard down in a way that I shouldn't, and obviously couldn't in Seattle, but it's easy to get lazy here.