The Economics of Bike Lanes
economicsintelligence.com
The Economics of Bike Lanes
1–10 of 203 posts
Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes
#2This 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 http://hembrow.blogspot.com/)
People who don't accept the rationality of the whole thing, probably have difficulty imagining a city with a cycling network. And when you show them the Dutch system, they have problems imagining the change it requires to get there. That is why Copenhaganize is a good campaign, because it shows the change is possible
Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes
#3I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. If that's the case, Storbeck improperly challenged the basis of Cassidy's cost-benefit scrutiny. The value (intrinsic and extrinsic) of bike lanes isn't in question; rather, Storbeck seems to take exception to the fact that these bike lanes are being constructed and rarely used. On the other hand, for anyone who has driven in NYC, parking is always difficult, no matter where you are. Whenever I drive around, I just accept the fact that I will be paying $30 per hour for a garage.
Yes, switching over to bicycle transportation is an outstanding idea. However, the change has to be, in a manner of speaking, bootstrapped. There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues.
Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes
#4This 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 know that for a lot of people in the US, their experience with bike commuting involves being stuck behind a bicycle on a road that doesn't have bike lanes, causing a certain amount of free-floating antipathy towards bikers.
Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes
#5This 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…
Indeed. The following video provides a nice overview of the history and the current state of biking infrastructure in The Netherlands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn2s6ax_7TM
Also, besides infrastructure, making a city of country bike-friendly also requires changes in legislation. E.g. in The Netherlands a lot legislation has been introduced in the past to protect cyclists, making drivers of motorized vehicles more cautious.
The effect on society is profound. Most of my colleagues go to work by bike, public transit, or both. A bike is often many times more economic than a car, reduces oil-dependence, and wide use results in cleaner air.
Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes
#6I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. If that's the case, Storbeck improperly challenged the basis of Cassidy's cost-benefit scrutiny. The value (intrinsic and extrinsic) of bike lanes isn't in question; rather, Storbeck seems to take exception to the fact that these bike lanes are being constructed and rarely used. On the other hand, for…
I don't much care for cycling; I did it for years when I was in school, had enough of it, now I prefer motorbikes. But it's a gross overstatement to say that there is no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently being underutilized; you're completely ignoring network effects. If the cause of under-utilization is lack of cycle paths that cover enough of the journey (i.e. there would be too much navigation of hazardous traffic), it's self-evident that more cycle paths would be justified.
The question then becomes whether or not under-utilization is caused by lack of cycle route coverage. I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that many people used to car transport think cycling through the traffic to be dangerous, and would look more favourably on it if there were separated dedicated lanes.
(If parking is available for 30 USD, then it appears that parking is not actually difficult in NYC. It is expensive, not difficult.)
Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes
#7I 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 applying a kid's natural understanding but (almost) from physical principles, e.g. conservation of angular momentum (which I recently read from physics exchange is not how bikes work). So my comments are an outsider's view to bikers.
I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. Bikers often say that they should be treated on par with cars (in matters of passing, etc.), but they themselves operate somewhere between vehicles and pedestrians, combining the worse characteristics of each. I have observed many bikers not to stop at stop signs or red lights, because, you know, they're for cars, jeopardizing pedestrians. A 90kg man on a bike moving fast is an object you don't want to run into when you're walking. In parks (e.g. Chicago's long lake shore), although they should share their lane with people strolling and child strollers, they go about at high speeds. Many bikers ignore signs where bikes are prohibited on sidewalks and ride them among people.
And the worst part is you can't say anything, because these guys are living a healthy lifestyle, right? They are saving gas, etc. Now, this, of course, is true, but doesn't give them precedence over all other lifeforms on sidewalks.
Next time you don your cool biker's outfit and feeling totally Armstrong, please try to remember us, lowly people trying to share the sidewalks and streets with you.
Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes
#8I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. If that's the case, Storbeck improperly challenged the basis of Cassidy's cost-benefit scrutiny. The value (intrinsic and extrinsic) of bike lanes isn't in question; rather, Storbeck seems to take exception to the fact that these bike lanes are being constructed and rarely used. On the other hand, for…
>I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces.
Just FYI, I'm pretty sure that's not an appropriate use of "libre". "Libre" is more along the lines of "liberty" or "freedom", not "available" or "unused".
>There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues
This is incorrect. Aside from the network effect, the (under)utilization of an existing bike lane is not necessarily indicative of the expected usage pattern of a new bike lane. Imagine applying this argument to bus routes. Just because the 32 from Manhattan to the Bronx is underutilized, does that mean that a new route 44 from Manhattan to Long Island would also be underutilized? (Obviously my examples here are made up.)
Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes
#9I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. If that's the case, Storbeck improperly challenged the basis of Cassidy's cost-benefit scrutiny. The value (intrinsic and extrinsic) of bike lanes isn't in question; rather, Storbeck seems to take exception to the fact that these bike lanes are being constructed and rarely used. On the other hand, for…
Even if free means what you posit, it comes to the same: market pressures that make building parking garages so lucrative will provide the need if street parking is replaced by bike lanes. Also, reread the part about how creating a viable cycling path network, which is safe for the cyclist throughout, will attract many more cyclist to the road, as it has in other cities. The current number of cyclists in NYC is not nearly the potential number of cyclists if a good network of paths existed.
Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes
#10I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. If that's the case, Storbeck improperly challenged the basis of Cassidy's cost-benefit scrutiny. The value (intrinsic and extrinsic) of bike lanes isn't in question; rather, Storbeck seems to take exception to the fact that these bike lanes are being constructed and rarely used. On the other hand, for…
I don't much care for cycling; I did it for years when I was in school, had enough of it, now I prefer motorbikes. But it's a gross overstatement to say that there is no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently being underutilized; you're completely ignoring network effects. If the cause of under-utilization is lack of cycle paths that cover enough of the journey (i.e. there would be too muc…
>(If parking is available for 30 USD, then it appears that parking is not actually difficult in NYC. It is expensive, not difficult.)
That's the key takeaway. When property is at a premium, parking is also at a premium, by necessity. As someone who lives in a city, I like cheap parking as much as anybody else. But cheap parking is just city-subsidized parking.