Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Economics of Bike Lanes

economicsintelligence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 203 posts

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#11

Post by davidw »

Symmetry wrote: post #4
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 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.

There's nothing that causes drivers to seethe with anger like losing whole seconds of their lives to happy people cruising along on bicycles.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#12

Post by dpark »

Symmetry wrote: post #4
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 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.

And those annoyed drivers then complain about the creation of dedicated lanes that would get cyclists out of the flow of car traffic...

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#13

Post by afterburner »

In Cassidy's article, he refers to cars as "four-wheel friends." Perhaps he isn't considering this very rationally at all; I don't think I've heard that kind of touchy-feely attachment to their vehicle of choice from even the most hippie-ish pro-cycling movements.

Not a strong argument against Cassidy's article, I admit (he's a journalist, his writing style needs to be engaging), but hilarious anyways.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#14

Post by law »

dpark wrote: post #10
barrkel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#15

Post by mikeash »

barrkel wrote: post #6
law wrote: post #3

I 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…

Parking is easy in NYC, from my limited experience, as long as you have a fat wallet. It's extremely difficult if you're trying to be cheap, but that's only to be expected.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#16

Post by bkor »

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.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#17

Post by mikeash »

law wrote: post #14
dpark wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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.

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.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#18

Post by law »

dpark wrote: post #8
law wrote: post #3

I 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. A…

I'm well aware of the technical distinction between "libre" and "available." I should have said that Cassidy's belief is more in line with "libre," rather than gratuitous. A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking. It's admittedly weak, but it's something to consider.

As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority.

Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#19

Post by law »

afterburner wrote: post #9
law wrote: post #3

I 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 n…

Sorry if you mistook my post for me taking a side. I wasn't. I was just pointing out a peculiarity I noticed in the article. I'm actually for increased bike routes, as that will decrease the number of people injured in bicycle v. motor vehicle collisions. This is my personal view, though.

However, there's a massive distinction that we have to realize: garages are privately-owned, whereas parking is municipally-regulated. The city is switching out public parking for public bicycle paths, and I don't necessarily know if this a net positive economically.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#20

Post by Symmetry »

dpark wrote: post #12
Symmetry wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And those annoyed drivers then complain about the creation of dedicated lanes that would get cyclists out of the flow of car traffic...

Yup, by opposing bike lanes they avoid associating themselves with the bikers that annoy them, even though bike lanes would remove the cause of the annoyance. That's primate political dynamics for you.
Post reply on HN