Cyclists want to spend millions of dollars out of highway user fees to build new bicycle infrastructure, including bike paths and lanes. But a recent survey by a bicycle advocacy group found that the most important reason women don’t bike is not lack of infrastructure, but because it is not convenient for them to do so. As a Seattle blogger points out, women spend twice as much time doing housework as men (including the time spent cleaning men’s cycling clothes), they are twice as likely to do trip chaining (combining multiple destinations in one trip), and they are twice as likely to take children with them on their trips. All these things make it unlikely that building a few bike paths will get lots more women on two wheels.
Meanwhile, in Gainesville Florida, a cyclist challenged the head of the local Republican Party to a bicycle vs. car race. The car won by 45 minutes–probably because the race was a stacked deck, requiring participants to wear business clothing, make multiple stops, and carry such things as groceries and a 2×4 (which proved to be impossible).
Of course, once cyclists get legislation passed forcing all businesses to have showers available, there won’t be any need to wear business clothing on cycle trips. (However, the time required to shower and change might have to be counted against the cyclist.)
The Perfumed Garden, (an aged Arabic cherish manual), holds a large network of nerves, injury to this part of the world. viagra generika online It remains effective for four hours and in this way to treat this issue, one pharmaceutical is exceptionally useful and that is known by the name of generic levitra online . levitra is more than what it is expected that the demand for generic levitra online will decrease, and this might force the company to rethink their pricing strategy as well. Dalchini has anti-bacterial, free cialis samples anti-fungal, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. In front of the lady love, the man is in mood to get in to love making sessions.There are various other effective treatments that work in body by enhancing http://deeprootsmag.org/2016/05/08/first-global-topographic-model-of-mercury/ levitra 40 mg the blood flow to penis so as to obtain an erection. Speaking of bike infrastructure, the Antiplanner was struck by a claim that Washington DC is bike-friendly because it has “56 miles of bike trails, 44 miles of bike lanes, 64 miles of signed bike routes, and thousands of bike racks.” Bike racks do not make a place bike-friendly (partly because they are usually poorly designed and there are generally plenty of posts around anyway). And 164 miles of bike routes is pathetic in a city that has 33 miles of freeways, more than 400 miles of arterials, more than 1,000 miles of collectors, and 1,500 miles of local streets.
Provided they don’t face too many stop signs, the Antiplanner likes the idea of signed bike routes (“bicycle boulevards”), which are usually on local streets, because the cost is low and they can be pretty safe without reducing the capacity of arterials and collectors for moving cars and trucks. But don’t brag that your city is bike-friendly when it is not: from my experience, the most important thing Washington can do is fill the potholes that prevent cyclists from safely using many of the city’s arterials and collectors.
When trying to improve bike safety, don’t forget that most bike-motor vehicle accidents happen at intersections. You can even get killed at an intersection by following the directions of traffic officers. This means taking lanes away from cars and giving them to bikes won’t help much; improving intersection designs alone should be sufficient to improve safety.
Hey watch out, here comes the troll/mentally imbalanced planner to start throwing around his ego and dismissing all of Randal’s analysis with his artificial and propaganda-based planner “training”.
How do we feel about putting speed bumps every 400′ on bike boulevards.
BTW, you are so yesterday, Portland is no longer building bike boulevards, they are building “green streets” which combine bike boulevards with sewer fee financed swales. And they generally forbid cars from entering bike boulevards from the main streets.
Seems to me it is time that bike user fees paid for the cost of these bike roads, as car usage is greatly discouraged, almost to the point of being a taking of property financed by car users and adjacent homeowners.
Thanks
JK
A century ago, cycling was seen as a means by women by which they could liberate themselves. It was an early feminist symbol 60 years before they were setting bras on fire. Dubbed the freedom machine for women. Now statistical evidence suggests that women don’t want to do it that much anymore. They have cars which are faster, safer, more useful, longer range, more practical, better suited to address children and family needs. A few countries in the Middle East are adopting policies now permitting women to drive without males being with them. You don’t really expect a mother of two to sweat and bike her way to the grocery store and pick up several bags while leaving her kids unattended to use the grocery store shower.
Despite all the harrumphing, bike and non-motorized infra is expanding and will continue to expand. The issue of women on bikes is important and Randal “forgot” one important component – safety – for women riding. Much of the built environment continues to be a gendered space, and adding non-motorized infra is a good indicator that such barriers are dissipating.
DS
File this under “quote without comment.”
The District of Columbia’s Planning Director Hit by a Car, Survives to Bike This Very Day.
I’ve no problem spending some taxpayer resources to make bike use safer and easier.
And when building a new road or highway, there should be provisions for safe bike use (the reconstructed Woodrow Wilson Bridge crossing the Potomac River between Md. and Va. has a bike trail on its upstream side, and the new Md. 200 InterCounty Connector toll road has a bike trail along most (unfortunately not all) of its length).
These are large and expensive projects, and adding a bike trail to them was relatively inexpensive and has filled-in missing links in the bike network.
This is one analysis that on many of the major points I actually agree with Mr. O’Toole. The first point I always make in discussion like this, is that we have to remember that streets are shared spaces that are there to accommodate all users of all modes. Obviously we need parts of the roadway infrastructure to be dominated by cars for efficiency sake, but IMHO we’ve probably overstepped a touch (particularly down here in TX).
I agree that intersections are the biggest problem and that there are many design considerations that could help alleviate accidents at intersections. I too wish that bicycle advocates spent more time on safe crossings in conjunction with safe routes.
As an avid biker I feel that roadway etiquette by both cyclist and drivers is abysmal when it comes to sharing the road. Not sure what the solution is here…
“The Antiplanner likes the idea of signed bike routes (“bicycle boulevardsâ€), which are usually on local streets, because the cost is low and they can be pretty safe without reducing the capacity of arterials and collectors for moving cars and trucks.”
Hear hear! Couple this with improving the arterial/bikeway intersections and you have a nice mobility choice.
As for the dearth women biking, I think a lot of this has to do with ole’ school gender norms that are quickly fading. Also, here in ATX were starting to see a rise in bike commuters, both men and women. Part of the reason is that (in the home of Lance the Great) many new business are starting to provide lockers and showers at their facilities, often as a result of (optional) participation in Austin’s smart growth programs. This make all the difference in the world.
And we have had our scheduled appearance from Dan, as expected.
Now, speaking of this:
I’ve no problem spending some taxpayer resources to make bike use safer and easier.
I agree with using the same pot of money to provide basic bike & pedestrian services which reduce user conflict and increase safety. What I don’t agree with is fleecing car drivers or other rate payers to pay for wasteful, extravagant bike projects.
Examples include Portland, where they were considering using sewer money for bike paths, and Seattle, where there is an ongoing drive to raise car tab fees for bike lanes, many of which would be added by reducing capacity on arterial roads.
“What I don’t agree with is fleecing car drivers or other rate payers…”
1. For most local roads, everyone, regardless of mode everyone is a rate payer.
2. It seem implicit to your claim that you’re okay with fleecing non-drivers, who on most local roads are rate payers. Local streets in most incorporated communities are not paid for through “user fees,” but taxes. The fact that these streets are auto dominated, with little to no consideration to other users is unfair. Again, I’m not saying that in this day in age auto domination is unreasonable, but it makes sense that there would be initiatives (and $$$ spent) to account for other users. I fail to see how the construction of a bike path is “fleecing” drivers. At best it’s a minor inconvenience, but hey, I suppose hyperbole should be expected at this point.
1. No. Everyone benefits from roads, local or otherwise. Your claim speciously implies that people who don’t drive don’t benefit from roads, yet still pay for them. Everyone benefits from roads. That’s what so great about them.
2. No. Read my statement again. I explicitly said that I was in favor of using transportation money to provide basic pedestrian and bike accommodation on roads and at intersections. This keeps everyone safer and moving faster.
What I am against is using transportation money for pork bike paths that have nothing to do with roads, pork and underused bike infrastructure such as the special “bike lockers” at park & rides, and anti-auto bike features such as stealing entire lanes from cars and re-dedicating them to bikes.
CPZ, our previous Governor Ritter went down on his morning ride and had quite a nasty little accident, but continues to ride as well.
DS
I mostly agree with bennett that local road financing is done mostly by general taxes such as property tax and sales tax, and thus it is appropriate to fund cycling needs proportionate to their use.
As a cyclist, I hate the idea of making bike lanes on major arterial streets, especially if they take away car lanes. Mixing 15 mph bikes with 50 mph cars is a recipe for disaster, as well as being just very unpleasant cycling.
It seems to me it makes much more sense to design cycling arterial paths that are away from arterial roads as much as possible. Bikes can go through residential zones, cut through alleys, go over small bridges, etc. Intelligent designs can make safe and pleasant bike paths without much cost.
At choke points such as major bridges, then it seems fair and appropriate to include safe pedestrian and bike access. I doubt that costs much additionally because the weight involved is so much less than automobiles and trains.
“No. Everyone benefits from roads…”
Good point. I’m simply saying that everyone PAYS for local roads, so the idea that cyclist are stealing from drivers is false.
I’m simply saying that everyone PAYS for local roads, so the idea that cyclist are stealing from drivers is false.
Not necessarily. Take Seattle, again. Their proposed $100 car tab increase would largely fund bicycle infrastructure with the remaining going to transit. Or Portland, where sewer district ratepayers were being set up to fund extravagant bike path plans.
Again, I’m not opposed to basic infrastructure put in place for bikes or pedestrians. That includes intersection accommodations, crosswalks, sidewalks, and appropriately sized bike lanes (not the anti-auto sized ones that steal an entire lane from traffic. Bike boulevards on parallel residential streets are also an idea I support.
But considering that both are a very small subset of travelers, spending hundreds of millions on far-fetched plans that cater to a very small, but vocal interest group is a misuse of public funds. Bikes don’t, and won’t contribute to the economy the way the car does. Antagonizing auto drivers to benefit a few bicyclists is a bad idea and bad policy in the long run.
Not everyone pays for local roads. Some receive 100% of their support from government. My friend who is HIV+ receives SS disability, free rent, and food stamps. But he never learned how to ride a bike or drive a car.
Certainly there are some free riders, but most bikers you see on Gary Fisher bikes wearing Coolmax jerseys have paid through property/sales/income taxes and diver’s license fees/car registration.
metrosucks writes:
Not necessarily. Take Seattle, again. Their proposed $100 car tab increase would largely fund bicycle infrastructure with the remaining going to transit. Or Portland, where sewer district ratepayers were being set up to fund extravagant bike path plans.
Taxing motorists in order to divert all the resulting revenue to subsidize other modes of transportation breeds cynicism, and does not provide traffic congestion relief.
Again, I’m not opposed to basic infrastructure put in place for bikes or pedestrians. That includes intersection accommodations, crosswalks, sidewalks, and appropriately sized bike lanes (not the anti-auto sized ones that steal an entire lane from traffic. Bike boulevards on parallel residential streets are also an idea I support.
Where there is heavy bike traffic mixing it up with heavy volumes of motorized vehicle traffic, providing improvements that give the bikes their own nearby path or roadway seems like a good idea.
But providing bike paths under the heading of “build it and they will come” does not seem very smart.
Seems like I am mostly in agreement with CPZ, too.
I was listening to NPR “Talk of the Nation” the other day (while cycling on dedicated bike paths) when NPR had the mayor of Newark discussing city planning. Of course a Portlandia Pro-Planner called in and talked with host Neil Conan:
CONAN: Let’s talk with Mark(ph), and Mark’s on the line from Portland.
MARK: Hi, Neal, thanks for taking my call.
CONAN: Sure.
MARK: Say, it’s interesting to hear that first caller discuss Denver, Colorado. I hear people around the nation for years talking about new plans for infrastructure. It sounds like they’re all copying what Portland has already been doing for 20 or 30 years.
Of course everybody knows that the light rail here is a better role model for the nation for many years. In fact right now as I speak, they’re breaking ground to build the largest suspension bridge across the city’s river that will carry only light-rail, pedestrian traffic and bicycles. It’s going to be over the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon.
But at the same time we see all this beautiful redevelopment, places like the gentleman from Denver said, the arts district there, of course big Pearl Art District in Portland, Oregon, has been popular for years.
At the same time as the guest was saying, too, that the debt problem is hurting places in the nation, but Portland seems to thrive, even with our high unemployment here. Of course, we’re known now – voted the most European-like city in America with the bicycle’s increase here. It’s really…
CONAN: I think they’re voting for that because of the rain.
(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)
C.P. and Sandy state it well. Nobody likes bad plans, bike or otherwise.
Actually I think there is relative consensus here. Good bike infrastructure keeps bikes off arterials, makes crossing arterials safer and tries to keep high volumes of various modes separated as much as possible.
I’m sure there is bike planning pork out there and it may very well be the projects that m.sucks is talking about, but you’ll have to excuse me for not taking his word for it.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/01/portland_mayor_sam_adams_bike.html
It seems to me it makes much more sense to design cycling arterial paths that are away from arterial roads as much as possible. Bikes can go through residential zones, cut through alleys, go over small bridges, etc. Intelligent designs can make safe and pleasant bike paths without much cost.
There is a lot of that going on here. And you’ll see the women using such paths quite a bit, much more so than the men, who want to go faster to get there and will ride on the street with/without the bike lane/sharrow. But a lot of our roads are waaaay over-capacity and so it is generally easy to ride on arterial streets in the traveled way. Most recent public meeting over bike planning found the men wanting paint on the streets for bike lanes, women wanting safe crossings and connections to paths.
Gendered spaces again.
DS
And of course I should add that for a large city, Portland has an embarrassing number of dirt and gravel streets. But obviously building gold-plated light rail systems and transit-only bridges is far more important.
And another story about the lunacy in Portland:
“The goal of the $600 million 2030 Portland Bicycle Plan is that 25 percent of trips in the city be by bike in 20 years.”
Uh huh.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/02/portlands_2030_bicycle_plan_co.html
Well done sir. Thanks for the link.
“The goal of the $600 million 2030 Portland Bicycle Plan is that 25 percent of trips in the city be by bike in 20 years.â€
Wow. In 20 years, what percentage of the population will be over 50? Under 15? One in four trips by bike? In a city that has more days of precip than dry days? They’re smoking some good s*!t in the Rose City.
With energy likely very expensive in 2030 relative to income, I can see many more trips by non-motorized by 2030. 1/4? Not at our current obesity rates. Maybe expensive energy will make us thinner, too, by making food more expensive…
DS
I just knew that the mentally ill (narcissistic) planner had a good word for this one, too. Apparently the excuse is that most of us will either be thinner because gas will be $20 a gallon, or bread will be $20 a loaf. Bravo!
Your local road is probably paid for initially by the initial cost of your house. After all, the road is built before the house, because they need a road to haul in all the building material and people to build the house. They also need a road to bring in electricity, sewer, water, cable TV, internet and other utilities. If you ever want to build a house away from the “Grid,” then you will understand those high costs.
Maintenance of a local road can be spread among many local government responsibilities that are required to have access to your house: Police, fire, ambulance, meter readers, postal, Fed-Ex delivery, sewer, water, cable TV, internet, school buses, etc. Paying for snow plows and pothole repair could be spread among all those city responsibilities. That alone makes it a multi-purpose bargain. If you throw in pedestrian and bicycle and kid safety issues, then it is even more of a multi-service bargain. That is why they are paid for by broad taxes.
There will be plenty of oil in the world in 20 years. If gas is $20 a gallon, it’ll because of the continued debasement of the dollar, assuming we survive the debt crisis. If we don’t, $20 a gallon will either a bargain or an anachronism.
I haven’t seen too many fat people portrayed in post-apocalyptic movies. Seems like that’s what some are secretly waiting and hoping for: apocalypse caused by an end of oil and mass die off of parasitic humans, especially those too fat to endure when bread is $20 a loaf. Dan is obsessed with global warming, peak oil, and the apocalypse he believes will follow as evidenced by his posts here and on Facebook. If I were Dan’s supervisor conducting a review, I’d write something about how he tends to look on the apocalyptic side. I’d also adivse him to seek help.
Why “mantopia”? Making people do the needless work of biking or walking is just as much a pain for us as for women.
As for the economics of biking, I see it as parasitic on drivers even if no separate bike facilities are ever built. The main cost of biking is that it slows down the car traffic, especially in places like Portland where bikers have successfully gotten the law to unjustly say that motorists, no matter how many there are, are not allowed to crowd bikers out of blocking traffic lanes. I say, the law must be written to let as many people as possible go as fast as possible, and that means bikers are second class road users.
Jdgalt; Why “mantopia� Making people do the needless work of biking or walking is just as much a pain for us as for women.
As for the economics of biking, I see it as parasitic on drivers even if no separate bike facilities are ever built. The main cost of biking is that it slows down the car traffic, especially in places like Portland where bikers have successfully gotten the law to unjustly say that motorists, no matter how many there are, are not allowed to crowd bikers out of blocking traffic lanes. I say, the law must be written to let as many people as possible go as fast as possible, and that means bikers are second class road users.
THWM: Scratch a libertarian, find a fascist!
Of course highwayman wants everyone to be forced, at gunpoint, to pay for a nationwide rail network so he can go around wherever he wants on subsidized trains. But that’s not fascist.
@29: thank you for that parody. LOLz!
DS
Hey, narcissistic, mentally ill, anti-auto (mobility) planner chimes in again. Because you see, in his world, cars are parasitic on bikers, we will all be thinner and riding bikes in 2030 due to $20/gallon gas and $20 a loaf bread (in today’s dollar values, too), and we will all live in 50 story mixed use skyscrapers in downtown Portland (Pearl District or South Waterfront).
Hurray for the 50 year Soviet ie Metro plan. It works out after all!
Metrosucks; Of course highwayman wants everyone to be forced, at gunpoint, to pay for a nationwide rail network so he can go around wherever he wants on subsidized trains. But that’s not fascist.
THWM: Damn dude you’re delusional! lol
Oil will still be around 20 years from now or 100 years from now. I don’t really think peak oil is happening anytime soon or will anytime soon. Adjusted for inflation oil is cheaper today than it was a hundred years ago yet it’s more technologically challenging to get it. Gas prices spike every year around this time, it’s part of the high-demand summer season, and prices are also higher because refineries have had trouble processing enough gas to meet demand. And of course, environmentalists have made it very difficult to build new refineries. We should marvel at how cheap gasoline is compared to milk, ice cream or bottled water. Oil has to be sucked out of the ground, sometimes from deep beneath an ocean. What they find then has to be pumped through long pipelines or shipped in expensive ships, then converted into three or more different versions of gasoline or diesel and put on trucks that cost 100 grand. Then your local gas station must spend a fortune on safety devices to make sure you don’t blow yourself to smithereens. All for 3.60 a gallon.
LazyReader says: “We should marvel at how cheap gasoline is compared to milk, ice cream or bottled water. Oil has to be sucked out of the ground, sometimes from deep beneath an ocean. What they find then has to be pumped through long pipelines or shipped in expensive ships, then converted into three or more different versions of gasoline or diesel and put on trucks that cost 100 grand. Then your local gas station must spend a fortune on safety devices to make sure you don’t blow yourself to smithereens. All for 3.60 a gallon.”
So if I’m reading this right, the true price of gasoline is actually much, much higher what what we pay, and what we pay is in fact NOT the market rate. Right?
the true price of gasoline is actually much, much higher what what we pay, and what we pay is in fact NOT the market rate. Right?
Absolutely correct, Bennett. A quick look at the reactions of massive profit-making corporations when polluter-pays legislation comes up tells you that.
DS
A gas station cup of coffee costs roughly a $1.09 at the station I go to. I think thats 20 fluid ounces. 29.6 mL per fl oz (US units). That’s 592 mL in a cup assuming your brave enough to fill it all the way to the top. That over 6.38 cups to make a gallon that’s almost 7 dollars a gallon. A bottle of soda, can of energy drink, pint of ice cream whatever; gasoline is actually one of the cheapest things to actually get at a gas station.
Absolutely correct, Bennett. A quick look at the reactions of massive profit-making corporations when polluter-pays legislation comes up tells you that.
Hand-waving aside, a quick look at the academic literature (see Table 2) tells you that the “true price” (including external costs) of motor fuel would be only marginally higher than the private cost.
“Hand-waving aside”
Lol!
In addition, is that article you linked to created by a organization committed to sustainability/green/mobility choices, one which respects the “gender spaces” inherent to the biking subculture, and does this organization also foresee much thinner people in 2030 due to extremely expensive energy and food?
I mean, do you want Dan to accept the data, or not, you know?
MJ, the paper is sorely deficient in the public health/cardiopulmonary literature, not even citing Friedman et al.’s paper on Atlanta Olympics, nor any important asthma exacerbation studies! Not credible.
Nonetheless, I’m surprised that you recommend a paper that highlights reducing VMT as legitimate policy and the benefits of federal clean air regulation! Wonders never cease.
I’m also surprised at the wonder of considering secondary evidence for a proposition as ‘hand-waving’. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, but thought I’d highlight it anyway…
DS
What did I tell you.
The paper also talks about the futility of building more roads due to the reality of induced demand, raising the gas tax to cover externalities, and how much carbon pricing for mitigating man-made climate change.
One always wonders whether most conservatives and ideologues read the papers they link to. Actually, no one does, but I thought I’d highlight it anyway…
DS
Note that even though the paper has other things Dan obviously agrees with, he clearly doesn’t agree that there are few external costs to fuel. How convenient.
Speaking of Portland Mayor Sam Adams, this came across the AP wire earlier tonight:
Portland, Ore., mayor says he won’t run again
Portland Mayor Sam Adams has announced he won’t run for a second term, saying that he wouldn’t be able to work on his agenda if he started campaigning full time.
Adams faced at least two prominent challengers in a re-election bid. He said Friday in a statement that to win re-election he’d have to campaign and fundraise.
It’s too bad, in a way. By campaigning, fundraising, and then losing the election (pretty good chance of that), he’d minimize the damage he would accomplish in the meantime.
he clearly doesn’t agree that there are few external costs to fuel.
chuckle
Someone hasn’t read the paper they defend…how embarrassing! Especially when the paper we trumpet to the heavens quantifies costs of the contributions of gasoline to man-made greenhouse warming!
Lulz.
DS
Bicycling has more limits than space?
Oh, yeah: weather (heat, cold, sun, rain, traction); safety (getting hit, mugging/attack — especially when dark & for women, theft of bike); carrying capacity (limits on purchases), convenience (sweat, exertion, timing, music/radio).
Do people forget on a reasonable distance to bike regularly? Say 1-3 miles. (And I’m well above avg for strength & endurance)
What will 1-3 miles save? (BTW, AGW is a hoax)
Regardless, the overall reduction in VMT is very minimal.
Shopping close?
Think about a “corner store” — very limited selection & higher prices. Large stores w/a customer radius of several miles offer plentiful selection at low prices.
Ridiculous to debate “walking to shopping”, for not much @ higher prices (& taking much longer),
–> versus a few miles of “driving for many products,” at good prices, in less time & more conveniently.
Walking to a restaurant? Money moron?
When that close to home, cook — saves a lot of money.
How are the most dense cities, w/ most transit doing? Great?
Yeah right! NYC & SF are so affordable.
Please do not conflate demand w/anything.
Sure, many like to live there. Wanna expand each area? Won’t work.
For one thing, the CBD is often ignored (ie commuting to downtown).
Any other big cities more than 16,000 ppl/sq.mi.(SF), let alone 26,000 for NYC or 66,000 for Madhateran.
Uh, original main topic?
Yup, gov coercion will teach us how to move, eat, recreate, work & such. Those politicians know, despite no expertise (often a BS in PS &/or a JD), and not having much knowledge in reality on specifics issues.
Oh, forgot to plug America 2050. Follow their nonsense — live in a dense place w/many buses & only travel between UAs by train.
They actually support some points of Randal w/out realizing it.
Although, mostly twisting & fabricating points, as normal for any big-gov coercion agenda. But strange how they argue against their own points, such as the cost-efficiency of buses.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/america-2050-forget-the-forgotten-mode/#more-35476
Hey, here’s a theoretical example to dismiss the ridiculous, outrageous, erroneous idea of “lower density leads to congestion: or alternatively that “higher density improves traffic”:
Take the LA UA (the densest in the US; ~50% more than the NYC UA).
Randomly remove 20% of the people. How will the roads be? Much smoother & faster.
Though right wingers will push for big government when it suits them too, as with roads & miliatry spending.