Bike lanes a failed experiment in urban planning

[mazdavirgin]

Great two part series on why bike lanes are a mistake.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-ban-the-bike-how-cities-made-a-huge-mistake-in-promoting-cycling
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-killer-bikes-how-urban-cycling-policies-made-city-streets-less-safe

Some fun highlights:



Cyclists in the EU now account for eight per cent of all traffic fatalities, up one-third in the last decade. In the urban areas, cyclists account for 12 per cent of all road fatalities. In the Netherlands, a great cycling nation that politicians often hold up as a model, cyclists account for 30 per cent of fatalities. The bicycle, where it is most in vogue, is a killing machine: fatalities are five to 10 times that of automobiles per kilometre travelled.

Cyclists now account for 63 per cent of all those seriously injured in road accidents in the Netherlands, up from 51 per cent a decade ago. This rise cannot be attributed to motorists: in 80 per cent of these injuries no motor vehicle is involved. The great majority of cycling accidents are either caused by poor road conditions or negligence on the part of the cyclist — checking smartphones, cycling intoxicated, racing, using the handlebars for baggage, or having poor brakes or tires. When a bicycle collides, it’s likelier to be with another bicycle than a car. Even when a motor vehicle is involved in a crash, the fault is often the cyclist’s for having run a red light, swerved into the motorist’s path, or being intoxicated: evening surveys in two Dutch city centres found 42 per cent of cyclists had blood alcohol levels that exceeded the legal limit; that rose to 68 per cent by 1:00 am.

The politician’s preoccupation with building bicycle paths at the expense of motorists is misguided partly because motorists are not to blame for the overwhelming majority of cycling accidents, partly because more lives could be saved by cracking down on negligent cyclists and fixing potholes, and partly because — according to independent studies not funded by bike-path proponents — cycling infrastructure actually increases accidents, especially at intersections.

[JfuckinC]

Kertesomething bikelane knight will be here soon loll

[JRSC00LUDE]

bike lane denier.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Hallowed_point]

The lane closest to my work in vic park is an epic fail. Very seldom used yet it presents another hazard for motorists.

[HiTempguy1]

And people riding in the winter time :nut:

Perfect example, coworker bikes (has an electric assisted fat tire bike). He had to detour around his normal route as the path was closed. Hit a patch of ice at <5km/h, bike slid out from under him, hurt his back, couldn't ride his bike for 3 weeks :eek: Another coworker decided he needed to run with the clip-in cleat style shoes and peddles on his bike, someone pulled out in front of him on Whyte while he was hauling ass, had to dump the bike. Major road rash, couldn't ride for weeks.

It's f*&king nuts, being in a car worries me enough, let alone a bike. We are talking incidents that massively increase your chances of doing permanent or long term damage to a person.

[Hallowed_point]

But look at all the money they save!!!

[kertejud2]

Kertesomething bikelane knight will be here soon loll

Even quicker since this was already posted in another thread


the direct economic burden associated with cycling megaprojects is staggering...

...is spending 120 million euros on 9,000 new bicycle parking spots alone.

To put this in perspective:

If Lawrence Solomon's company wanted to build 9,000 underground parking spots where they are (underground because that's what Amsterdam is building for bikes), it would cost them $450M to build and $50M a year to maintain. And this is only based on costs of GTA hospitals where the land acquisition costs are still relatively cheap compared to a dense, urban centre like Toronto, nevermind one like Amsterdam. This also doesn't take into account the exponential cost increases of building underground, as these costs would be based on an average underground lot and there are none this big in Ontario. Hell, 9,000 spots would put it third for parking structures total behind Pearson Airport and Canada's Wonderland, both of which are above ground with ample land to build. For comparison sake, Chinook Centre has 1,200 underground parking spots.

http://canadianparking.ca/the-high-cost-of-hospital-parking/

If you want to talk about direct economic burdens of a form of transportation, then the car will lose every time. Especially in an urban setting.


As for the health problems cyclists face, well, they have studied it (not that Lawrence Solomon cares about studies, he works for a climate-change denying think tank. Not just 'sure the climate is changing but human's aren't causing it' type of denier, but the 'don't make policy based on the environment because we aren't doing anything bad and nothing is changing, period' type of denier) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/cycling-is-good-for-you-even-when-the-air-is-thick-with-smog-stu/

The new study, published in the journal Preventive Medicine, compared the effects of both raised pollution and active travel on 'all-cause mortality' – how likely you are to die for any reason in a given period. And the evidence suggests that the benefits of exercise, even in an environment filled with noxious gases, outweighs the problems brought on by no exercise at all.



In a user-pay or market economy, where users pay for the services they consume, bicycle lanes would be non-starters outside college campuses and other niche settings. If roads were tolled to recover the cost of asphalt and maintenance, no cyclist could bear the burden he foists on society. The cyclist has been put on the dole, made a taker rather than a giver to society.

One of the main reasons they don't do this (cities have been looking at user-pay models for decades) is because they can't afford to build the transportation options required when low-income people can't afford to drive anymore. If roads were tolled to recover the cost of building and maintaining them, very few people could afford to operate a car, especially the further away from their jobs they live. Why would anybody believe this crap. People already bitch about gas/road taxes and they already don't pay for this stuff. Yeah sure, bill everybody. Start with an inner city congestion charge ($5 per day) and then toll the major commuter routes ($1 each to travel on Deerfoot, Glenmore, Anderson, Memorial, Stony and Crowchild) and if that's received well move onto all the other streets individually (likely a neighborhood charge would be easiest for residential streets). Then when the total money is collected, adjust as needed to cover the costs. The gas taxes will be maintained to cover for roads that aren't used to pay for them (i.e. $1.1B to upgrade Highway 63 and maintain it). Enforcement costs would also need to be considered, not cheap. But drivers have long been willing to set up money losing agencies to tax and register bicycles so I don't think that will be an issue.

The cost for current cycling levels to recover the capital costs for the Cycle Track Network would occur long before any capital costs were recovered from driving, and that is before you need to pay for capital upgrades (like say, Crowchild over the Bow). Wouldn't take long to have cycling be a much cheaper option for basically everyone except for the wealthy inner city drivers who don't need to use major roads very much.


As for Solomon, he's still pretty upset that London is pushing for its "Ultra Low Emission Zone" in, and Paris has their 'odd and even' driving days and is phasing out gas cars by 2030. Hurts his bottom line.

[suntan]

I don't think you'll ever understand finance, kertejud2.

Part of the problem is you have lived with such a surplus of money for so long, you can do whatever you want and never have any sort of financial shortfall.

[kertejud2]

I don't think you'll ever understand finance, kertejud2.

Part of the problem is you have lived with such a surplus of money for so long, you can do whatever you want and never have any sort of financial shortfall.

Which would mean I could handle a user-fee model for roads better than most, no?

[killramos]

I really wish the CoC would release a new policy statement as an april fools day prank so we could watch kertejud2 try to unashamedly justify it.

[Xtrema]

But look at all the money they save!!!

What money? It's basically a health thing than an environmental thing. I spend more in tires, repair kit and apparels than gas and I don't even ride in winter.

[max_boost]

love it when the government fails

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Hallowed_point]

^ Agree with SP...hop on your purple bike Spendshi and put your money where your mouth is. Show us all how beneficial these bike lanes are.

[kertejud2]

Such a policy would keep DCU and Sutherland (and Keating) out of council, and give more power to Farrell, Woolley and Carra.

[Hallowed_point]

Such a policy would keep DCU and Sutherland (and Keating) out of council, and give more power to Farrell, Woolley and Carra.

Hmmm..on second thought

[Brent.ff]

Strange that the article doesn't talk about deaths per capita of bikers. Of course there are more bikers dying in netherlands..cause theres a lot more bikers.

Also, at least if a biker rides home drunk and kills himself, at least he's not on deerfoot in a jacked F350. Pretty challenging for me to kill someone by slamming into a car on my bike

[kertejud2]

Strange that the article doesn't talk about deaths per capita of bikers. Of course there are more bikers dying in netherlands..cause theres a lot more bikers.

Also strange the article doesn't mention how less people per capita die in traffic accidents in the Netherlands either. Or that while he compared the deaths per Xkms between cars and bikes, didn't bother comparing the bike stats across countries with good and bad infrastructure. Wonder what the results would be...

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2015/02/20150224_Cyclists_Fo.jpg?width=960

Also notice he doesn't actually link any of the studies he talks about. Just trusts people will believe it because they want to.


But the guy is paid to manipulate statistics by the fossil industry to deny climate change, point to the frivolity of electric cars, public transportation is a waste (especially trains and subways, buses are okay provided they're the diesel ones and not the lame efficient ones), nuclear power will destroy us all, coal is clean, etc. It's his job to go against this stuff otherwise he's out on the sidewalk he wants privatized.

[HiTempguy1]

But the guy is paid to manipulate statistics by the fossil industry

:rofl:

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Brent.ff]

So given that in Canada, vehicle fatalities per billion km is under 5... it is roughly 10 times more dangerous to ride your bike to work than drive.

So strictly from a safety point of view, riding as a form of transportation is pretty dumb

If you only drive to work, no? I put~24,000 km on my truck every year, and 3k on a bike..

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Brent.ff]

Not really.. my truck has a lot more safety features to deal with stupid people then my bike does..

[g-m]

Also strange the article doesn't mention how less people per capita die in traffic accidents in the Netherlands either. Or that while he compared the deaths per Xkms between cars and bikes, didn't bother comparing the bike stats across countries with good and bad infrastructure. Wonder what the results would be...

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2015/02/20150224_Cyclists_Fo.jpg?width=960

Also notice he doesn't actually link any of the studies he talks about. Just trusts people will believe it because they want to.


But the guy is paid to manipulate statistics by the fossil industry to deny climate change, point to the frivolity of electric cars, public transportation is a waste (especially trains and subways, buses are okay provided they're the diesel ones and not the lame efficient ones), nuclear power will destroy us all, coal is clean, etc. It's his job to go against this stuff otherwise he's out on the sidewalk he wants privatized.

You sound like zenops and seth

[kertejud2]

So given that in Canada, vehicle fatalities per billion km is under 5... it is roughly 10 times more dangerous to ride your bike to work than drive.

So strictly from a safety point of view, riding as a form of transportation is pretty dumb

That's why I fly whenever I can. Any trip that can be done by a plane, is safer than the same journey done by a car, so it would be pretty dumb to drive. Yet I see people do it all the time.

[revelations]

That's why I fly whenever I can. Any trip that can be done by a plane, is safer than the same journey done by a car, so it would be pretty dumb to drive. Yet I see people do it all the time.

Actually light aircraft (like Cessna), are far more dangerous in terms of death/hr of operating, than cars.

[kertejud2]

Actually light aircraft (like Cessna), are far more dangerous in terms of death/hr of operating, than cars.

One commercial flight will average out your safety for like 40 or so Cessna flights, so it'll be good.