Exactly. So an average of 800.000 people can benefit in Amsterdam of this budget, but only 750 car owners can benefit from two to three parking garages.
@@tubetuur not even that because parking garages are rarely filled. so lets say 200 the only garages that are filled, are tiny ones under housing complexes. because... you know... they're used?? but car infrastructure is expensive. roads cost an average of 3 million per mile add the cost of parking with it gas enviormental costs, and all you can get is that it is unpayable.
@@awesomeatronik no? they are build by the government, then "oh no.. we promised free cheap parking but the cost are too much" and then they sell it for a fraction of the cost to a company who then increases the cost of parking there amsterdam has done this sooo many times and yet still build garages as if it wont happen AGAIN.
Testing has shown time and time again that road wear increases exponentially, not proportionally, with weight, bike infrastructure should theoretically last significantly longer than the roads cars and more importantly heavy trucks drive on.
You’re right, but you also have to keep in mind all the cables, tubes and utilities underneath the roads that do need to be replaced or maintained. For those, 30 years is a long time.
Minor point of pedantry, but wear is proportional to weight to the fourth power. It's still polynomial growth, but yes, wear is not directly proportional to weight.
So important to remember that our cities are not permanent and they are always being constantly renovated and updated. Which is why it’s important that we never stop fighting for the future we want
@@Bioniking Do people forget that cars haven't always existed, and that putting that infrastructure in place for them was also a major change at one point?
This is EXACTLY how we got our excellent infrastructure. We don't rip out what is new, we replace things in a regular maintenance schedule according to well-thought out standards. But from what I gather, it would be revolutionary for US cities to have maintenance schedules (including financing)...
Most cities half ass it and put bike lanes on roads that go 45mph or as much as 55mph. Most care are going 5-10 over the speed limit which makes it extremely dangerous for bikes. They absolutely need their separate roads
Not only is the initial cost cheaper, bycicle infrastructure requires much less maintance. The reason our roads break down is because cars are extremely heavy. Roads for bikes, mopeds, pedestrians can last indefinitely
In San Antonio, TX, the city bought land to create a paved Greenway Trail system. There are over 100 miles of connected trails, across the city that enable cyclists to be on safe trails versus dangerous roadways. Although, I would prefer more common, shared infra that accommodates a combination of autos, bikes, and pedestrians; this local Greenway has also enabled a safe cycling and commuting option for San Antonio.
@cbailey2376 About 35 years ago, I lived and cycled in Dallas. At the time, White Rock Lake was being extended to North Dallas, but even then it was overrun with riders. We are very fortunate with the path San Antonio has taken under a vision of former Mayor Phil Harberger. Part of the expansion and maintenance is funded with .25% local sales tax. Visitors come from Austin to assess the development. Hope Dallas will consider an extended Greenway option. Safe cycling!
That's a lot better than just sticking them right next to car roadways if you ask me. Just like drivers, cyclists can be absolute idiots and sometimes straight-up dangerous assholes. Giving a separate but still usable thoroughfare is the ideal solution, IMO.
The main problem in most of North America is they have to start at absolute zero: Many stroads don't even have a sidewalk to start with and even their residential streets are often to dangerous to bike on due to wide lanes and high speeds. So just waiting 25 years until the road is "due" (and usually much much longer for residential) might work here in Northern Germany, where when they really forgot a bike lane some 50 years ago you still can use a sidewalk or take another route.
Part of that is a matter of scale the us is massive as are its major cities (by area), and th other is that in the 60's and 50's cars were set as the preferred mode of transportation so all cities after thst point were designed that way.
@@John-Wolfe Hamburg was a wasteland after the war and everybody saw the car as the most important thing of the future. So in the 50s they build a main arterial: Three lanes per direction. But also with bike lanes on both sides that still meet current design standards - not as a "safe alternative", but to keep the slow bicycles of the road.
@@John-Wolfe American cities are bigger and less dense, but not so big that building bike infrastructure is useless or impossible, especially since we have relatively dense downtowns still. Besides, all it takes is a few relatively simple changes to zoning to make our cities better, allowing them to grow in smarter ways
You don't even have to wait for the road to need maintenance to implement bike infrastructure. It's cheap and easy to just throw down some portable concrete curbs to define protected bike lanes and reduce car lanes. You get more bike infrastructure without rebuilding the entire street, you don't have to wait, and it will be more appealing to the public if people don't have to be afraid of getting hit by a car or "doored" by a parked car.
Absolutely not, reducing car lanes to make room for slow ass inefficient bikes is utter idiocy. Negatively effecting hundreds or thousands, to begin a dozen people. Y’all are so entitled it’s unbelievable.
Cycle infrastructure saves money overall long term because of th3 reduction in hazardous air and noise pollution and increase in exercise resulting in a healthier population. Plus cyclists are more likely to stop at small shops on the way home and boost local economies
Plus just the costs of the actual materials used. There's a reason Roman roads lasted so long, they didn't have 2 ton monstrosities crushing them. It's crazy, in every statistic or metric I come across public transportation is just the better solution.
It's not just cities we need to rethink. We also need to rethink suburbs. This might be more productive than rethinking cities, because as designed suburbs are economic losses and totally dependent on cars for transportation.
@@Dangernoodlle you can live in a small town or on the outskirts of it. we just need to stop romanticizing suburban life because it's literally not convenient. one of the saddest things is that kids grow up doing nothing and unable to gain any independence because they can't go anywhere without their parents driving them
In the UK the quality of the cycle lanes is shocking. The new ones near me is horrible to cycle on. really rough ride, and it's better to cycle on road or footpath.
Cost is recouped with the value of everything gained thru it ...but then the city and govt institutions have to recognize that healthy living and neighborhood design is important. That's where we fail.
You have to live in a bike city like Amsterdam to really appreciate what the change brings. 20min ride to wherever you are going. Bike and pedestrian become king. Heightened level of awareness. Improved physical wellbeing. Improve air 'taste'. Your body becomes your gasoline. Appreciation of environment I.e outdoor spaces. Improved human interaction. *Endless benefits*
@@RisingFlag100But the reason people are unwilling to use them is because the infrastructure is bad, not the other way around. Also, everyone advocating for bikes accepts that cars are still a necessity for long journeys
@@RisingFlag100 that's the lamest excuse for inefficient land use. Just because you have lots of land doesn't mean you should use it inefficiently. Classic sunk cost fallacy
@@RisingFlag100 and maybe the reason more casual cyclists don't use the bike lanes here in the states is because they are poorly designed and are usually unseparated from fastmoving traffic
@@RisingFlag100 our cities were not built for cars, they were bulldozed for cars in the 60s and 70s. Auto industry lobbying killed off street car systems that even small towns had in abundance in the 1920s and 1930s. You don't have to build infrastructure specifically for bikes in order to make an area cycle-able, you just have to not exclusively make it for cars. and the climate is a weak excuse for car-dependent development, there are plenty examples around the globe of cities in hot and cold climates with excellent public transit and ability to walk/bike...
The problem, at least here in the UK, is that urban streets are rarely wide enough to accommodate the sort of segregated cycle infrastructure seen in the video. To fit in cycle lanes often means reducing pedestrian footpaths (or having 'shared use' pedestrian/cyclist paths) or reducing the carriageway to a single lane and introducing a one-way system. Add in that most urban areas also rely on on-street parking for both residents and visitors and the difficulties mount.
america is a little different though for our problems, the shops majority of those closed down over 30 years. Competition for stores is great till everyone goes to cheaper store which then closes the small stores. also when companies can just pick up and move doesn't help either. Larger stores needed more room like walmart, so to fit compacity, they built a larger walmart outside of town and then closed and sold the old walmart that was in town
Those problems are made by the car and not solved by it. Not everyone in the UK can have a car, otherwise it just wouldn't work in dense city centers. If everyone owns a car it's not gonna work at all. On the other hand, if you have fewer cars then there is space where they used to park.
Well, the best practice is to covert those urban streets into bicycle streets, where cyclist have priority and cars are considered as guests, as per Dutch standard.
Im not a cyclist.... but I agree that cyclists need their own lane and everything, so they can be safe and drivers dont have to have a mini heart attack w/e they see a bike on the roar which is the only spot they can be in, in the US, atm
@@patrickponce483890% not a cyclist? Where did you get that statistic? 64% of the Dutch population uses the bike daily or multiple times a week. 26% never uses a bike.
its the most expensive because it's the lowest capacity and it generates no income, unlike roads/cars where you pay taxes on plates, gas/electricity and a license. So until you have to pay yearly taxes on a bike, register it with the state and have a license for it, then bike lanes will be the single most expensive piece of infrastructure per monetary value for a city.
@@TiberiusCowgillbike infrastructure is significantly higher capacity than car infrastructure, like over 10x lol…also car infrastructure is insanely expensive because it needs an insane amount of land, massive flyovers and turn circles, constant road maintenance, systems to help investigate crashes etc, free parking. Taxes and license plate registrations literally makes such a tiny minuscule portion of the cost of car infrastructure that it’s literally negligible lol
And those who are living on and around these infrastructure changes. Its GOOD to incorporate society into this thinking to encourage acceptance of these societal lifestyle changes.
The govts don't want this because they don't make money. By promoting EVs instead of low emission vehicles like motorcycles and bicycles, they can invest in the companies which they are pushing policies on. Follow the $.
Planning is very important. Our city has some designated two-way bike lanes, but they were not well planned. They are only on some areas and a lot of them end up obstructed by parked cars. Crossing streets is also very difficult, many cars are not used to the two way system and accidents are common. I would like to bike, but it is too dangerous for me right now.
I wish they would do something positive like this where I live. Norwich UK is the least cycle-friendly city I have ever had the misfortune to ride in. Here they still think that painting a picture of a bicycle on an existing footpath somehow makes it a bike-lane - except it doesn't!
The car culture is so deeply ingrained people act like the car is an extension of them, they can’t imagine life without it so they’re resistant to change. Not to mention cars can be classist and people like to flex their cars
never really understood why other countrys never had a really good bycycle infastructure, here in the Netherlands every village has it edit: thanks for the information about the bycycle infractructure in other countrys.
you won the war on cars from our perspective. North America is still losing as of right now. Electric cargo e-bike uses a small fraction of what a Tesla would need battery wise, but you see Teslas everywhere.
@@WasephWastarthe Netherlands shows you’re wrong. They built a car centric infrastructure and found out it would not work and then started to change the future plans. There is a reason why people in the USA are less healthy, less happy, more angry, more afraid, more stressed, and so on. Everyone is stuck in traffic and requires to use a car for even the smallest jobs.
The best way is to calculate the cost savings and foot traffic in shops that these changes will undoubtably bring. Cargo bikes should also be considered as low impact ways to help restock shops. Lorries can park out of town, and cargo bikes can deliver the rest
Most city officials don't even care about what makes sense in the moment, never mind the future. Zoning is the best example of this. New builds? "My contributing constituents take priority."
Cycling and proper infrastructure creates healthier communities and reduces traffic congestion. It also helps with less of an impact on the environment. Wins all the way around.
Forbid large cars in NY-city, slow down the speed and only alow smaller electric vehicles on the surface roads. The lower speed and smaller cars makes the need for safety go down, which means cheaper cars. The smaller cars means more cars can fit on the roads so now we can make lanes and parking narrower which means we can reclaim more road for bikes and pedestrians.
We need better public transport and walkable cities in america, the excuse that america is too big is a shitty excuse when railroads built this country and car companies bought out trams and railroads to make more room for cars, you can't go anywhere in america without a car, it's dangerous to walk and bike often times there aren't any sidewalks or bikelanes. Car companies put a chokehold on our country and are squeezing the money and life from us.
Bicycle paths last much longer because the load they carry is much much lower than a regular road. A bicycle with a regular rider would weigh less than 100 kgs and thats nothing when compared to a 1.5 tonne SUV or a even heavier truck.
The majority of the time, it's not their fault, it's the city's fault for making it both a bike lane and parking at the same time, rather than have bike lanes separated from the road entirely
I had a back and fourth a while back with someone about this. They couldn’t comprehend the fact that a two way bicycle lane which is by itself thinner than a regular US Highway lane and doesn’t have to accommodate anywhere as much weight rolling over it would be cheaper than car infrastructure
“Roads are paid for by drivers.” There are studies that have proven that drivers don’t pay anywhere near the cost of the infrastructure they use. pirg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Who-Pays-for-Roads-vUS_1.pdf usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending#
@@hostilepancakesdoesn’t mean that bikes shouldn’t pay their fair share. Or, yknow, they could be considerate and ride on paths/sidewalks (GUESS WHAT???? THEY PARALLEL THE ROAD AND YOU DONT INCONVENIENCE ANYONE)
I hate knowing that all the construction projects in my city are going to be finished looking exactly the same as they did before they ripped it up. I don't expect them to rip everything out at once, but building it right the second time should be priority.
The problem is that cities try to modify the existing infrastructure without making allowance for lost parking for local businesses. Or for the reduced number of traffic lanes causing extra congestion in traffic. Nor do they put in any enforcement for the cyclists who ride like idiots. I ride a bike to and from work. I drive truck for work. Cities need to find solutions that work for both motorists and cyclists. The problem is that they do not get advice from experts thst understand all sides to the issues.
i walk at work, sadly my drive is teh only time i sit down besides my 30min lunch break and (2) 10 min breaks, i roughly walk 10 -12 miles a day. i'm rural but i do have to drive to town
Each additional car added to the road has an exponential impact on commute time. The solution to making roads better for motorists is finding a way to get as many cars off the road as possible via mass transit, safe bicycling, and walkable cities.
@@miles5600 Well aware, LOL. Ohio has the highest mileage of bike trails in America. Largest matrix of bike trails in America is ALSO where I live in SW Ohio. Witnessed them doing so, "As we speak," for well over 30 years.
@@garyseckel295 maybe... But no Ohio cities is among top 50 us cities for biking . Columbus has no rail commute service and Cleveland and Cincinatyi are botyom half of 50 cities on bicycle use modes .. Recreational bike trailsare something completely different than a bike path network for daily commute and transport ... My estimate is that the state is very car dependent !
Bicycle lanes and painting on the ground only stays for about 6-8 months here in Québec. They have the worst contractors in the country. Roads have to be redone every 3 years or so.
I'm all in favour of walking cities and my work is 10 mins by bus or 20 minutes by electric scooter which goes faster than me on a bike, I know because people don't overtake me anymore but god those days I had the car were the best. No wind, no rain, no lugging a heavy scooter/bike everyday, no waiting for a late bus. It was so nice.
In prior decades I would agree. But the climate is breaking down super fast and we just don’t have time now. We have to just get rid of private cars in urban areas as soon as possible. That’s how we’re going to make the change in the fastest possible time.
We can't just get rid of cars. Cars are not the issue. Car centric design is the issue. By giving people access to things like bike lanes and sustainable public tranpsport, we decrease the need for cars.
That is awesome. Life expectancy 25 to 30 years for a street. Here in the Chicago area, they seem to have to resurface the same roads every damn year 😂
Wait until you learn how often cars drive park and swerve into unprotected bike lanes. Over 1000 die a year,over 130,000 are injured. How many drivers are injured by bicyclists hitting their car? 0
The Dutch use the CROW Guidelines. Not everything goes according to plan. But on the whole, narrower lanes for motorized traffic and more space for pedestrians and bicycles, and adding trees and scrubs, make for a much nicer road experience for all.
@@gorganfredman5363 And understood that those traveling in a heavier vehicle always must be ready to stop for lighter ones and pedestrians/cyclists....
Oh no who will think of the person driving the lifted ford f-250 with a steel frame and aluminum body and hundreds of safety features and it's lifted off the road 5 feet. They inconvenienced slightly by the menace of bad bikers!
@@GlorpLorp??? Car infrastructure is the least efficient (read: most expensive) infrastructure you can build. Reducing traffic by building more efficient alternatives (google induced demand it ain't that complicated) saves cities in the long (and relatively short) run. Investing in quality infrastructure makes cities money - it contributes to some 30% of Amsterdam's GDP *growth* per year. A huge portion of a population will utilize quality infrastructure if it exists (go look at any quality city in Europe or Asia). Amsterdam scales better than LA, just fucking scale it. It's not that complicated.
@@callmeconvay7977 Amsterdam is TINY. Read it again. TINY. You are demanding that we fill the ENTIRE United States of America with useless bike infrastructure. You know why it's useless? Because we are MASSIVE. The average American drives 10 to 20 miles to work daily. You expect them to bike 10 miles? 20? Europeans will always struggle with the fact that their countries are geographically tiny.
In Paris, it's a bit of a nightmare. Nothing seems coherent, car lanes and parking spots and sidewalks are being taken over by bike lanes, but cyclists dont use the bike lanes because they can't stand slower cyclists and so cut out on the street to overtake.plus they dont stop at red lights, and some even ignore pedestrians crossing - including harassing and yelling abuse at old people, kids and people with strollers to cross faster or get out of their way. And yes, a couple of times, ive seen them slam on the brakes and yell abuse at pregnant women who were crossing on a pedestrian green light. Infrastructure may be cheap, but good bike etiquette is cheaper.
That's funny, because in urban areas if you go that fast you'll get a nice little fine, in most places in urban areas speed limit is 50 km/h (31 mph) and 30km/h (19 mph)
1) Most roads in cities are not 40 mph 2) roads used to be for pedestrians until car corporations tricked everyone into believe they were for cars and needed to be subsidized by the government 3) our entire world is being consumed by car infrastructure making it impossible to move anywhere without cars. We don't need speed minimums for bikers, we need speed maximums for drivers.
@@efinveecaught7281 1. you don't know how to read. 2. The world is fine, how else would we get farm foods into super markets, getting rid of big road ways is about as logical as getting rid of electricity for the average person. 3. having a bike that *can* go 40 mph is different than saying every bike *has to always* go 40 mph (see point 1)
How about good bike infrastructure also means DAMN GOOD pedestrian infrastructure too! Tired of these damn roads only being accessible to anything that goes over 30 miles an hour and weighs over two tons like people don’t know how to walk anymore
i have a bike i am not a frequent user but i cycle around london and the bike lanes are a blessing as some motorists respect bicycles but most begrudge the space we are takeing up and are willing to take it from us by leaving us no space by hedging us into the parked cars thats is why we leave at least a foot or two from them so when that happens and it always does we have room to save ourselfs. there were 4, 420 serous accidents in one year in the UK all involving cars and that has been repeated year after year with very little change, there are some cylists that give us a bad name but they are harmless but bad drivers kill and put people in wheelchairs for the rest of there life just because they begrudge us not haveing to pay insurance and road tax.
Certain design guidelines work, others dont. Have seen a ton af places that chop off random crap that makes cycling a ton riskier. 'We added a bicycle lane that passes from the leftmost lane to the rightmost lane over a length of 50 ft and then back leftmost after another 20 ft so that they are able to turn' type stuff. Certain places are redesignable for bike infrastructure, others cant be.
"It would be expensive" correct because bikes don't pay taxes. So unless you want to have pike plates and have them pay taxes yes. It's also more expensive in the sense of a per rider basis, a road for cars will transport more people per hour/day/week/month/year than any bike lane would. We have bike lanes in my city and I've never seen anyone use them at all. So combines with the fact that the don't make income, have less traffic flow, and are generally a waste of space as a bike could just use an existing motorway or sidewalk; yes, they are rather expensive than the alternatives.
I am so glad I live in Amsterdam. But I do think that the bicycle infrastructure should be re-designed. also things like the single zone-ing zone-ing etc ..
Bruh my city ain’t fixing a street until there are more craters per square feet than the moon and even then they’ll wait for a couple cars to breakdown to start doing their job.
For me, as a wheelchair user, I would rather the cities spend money makeing paths better for all, making the gutters easier for wheelcairs to cross My town just spent millions on a bike path that I have only seen one person use. meanwhile the paths around the hospital are cracked and broken
@@thatoneguy611he is not a designer my guy, you can't just remove and rebuild a town right away and would require permission from the city and funds. You seriously gotta be unemployed to do this and use your time and effort
Retrofitting bicycle infrastructure onto already narrow roads in the UK is frustrating. What exacerbates this frustration for motorists is that cyclists on UK roads are not actually required to use it, they choke up and slow down roads that are already slow particularly in London.
I can certainly believe that most roads go 25-to-30 years between repaving... Sure seems like they barely last five years before buckling, though. Maybe the materials weren't good; maybe it wasn't packed well enough or heat treated long enough; or maybe it's just that much more traffic wearing it out early... but I don't think _any_ asphalt roads laid in the US today will hold up to anywhere near "25 years" of traffic!?
Of course it's cheap. Close a lane, eliminate parking from one side of a street, and put up jersey barriers to protect the two way bike land. Jersey barriers mean that car clowns damage their own vehicles if they invade bike space, yet can be pushed to the side during winter for snow clearance.
Not only is bike infra (often) cheap to build, maintenance if often extremely cheaper. Imagine any hard road surface of your choice that only carries bikes. Why would that ever wear out? Pedestrian infra is even cheaper, there are paths and stone bridges that have been around since before the middle ages......
Yeah. People dont seem to understsnd that infastructure is expensive but car infastructure has key issues that other transportation infastructure just simply doesnt. All of which are important if we want actually finacially solvent cities instead of cities banking of forerver growth and neglect of old areas to pay the bills and get by
Well, if you look at the infrastructure problems of Amsterdam and other Dutch cities these days they are sort of bike related but in reverse. The city is well adapted to bicycles but now goods traffic have problems with lack of room to bring consumer goods to the stores, forcing shopping areas to move out of the cities which are killing city centres. So sure, you can bike everywhere in these cities but the stores and cafes are being forced out making it less likely that you will take your bike to the city.
They are trying to do this in Austin and of course idiots in cars are driving down the bike lanes because there are no barriers. It's a test on Barton Springs Rd. I hope they replace the paint with a concrete barrier.
@@HigherQualityUploads Nope the changed a couple car lanes into bike lanes and now traffic is terrible and I see absolutely zero people using the bike lanes. They should change them back. All the cars idling stuck in traffic is bad for the environment.
Yeah then where I live in the UK they just do not seam to think anything through. It is just short term thinking with long term consequences. We just get told there is no money and yet they spend so much on garbage project after garbage project.
The entire bike infrastructure budget for amsterdam is about 60m per year… or you can get two to three parking garages.
Exactly. So an average of 800.000 people can benefit in Amsterdam of this budget, but only 750 car owners can benefit from two to three parking garages.
@@tubetuur not even that because parking garages are rarely filled. so lets say 200
the only garages that are filled, are tiny ones under housing complexes. because... you know... they're used??
but car infrastructure is expensive.
roads cost an average of 3 million per mile
add the cost of parking with it
gas enviormental costs, and all you can get is that it is unpayable.
keep that bullshit in europe...
Parking garages are private though.
@@awesomeatronik no? they are build by the government, then "oh no.. we promised free cheap parking but the cost are too much" and then they sell it for a fraction of the cost to a company who then increases the cost of parking there
amsterdam has done this sooo many times and yet still build garages as if it wont happen AGAIN.
Testing has shown time and time again that road wear increases exponentially, not proportionally, with weight, bike infrastructure should theoretically last significantly longer than the roads cars and more importantly heavy trucks drive on.
You’re right, but you also have to keep in mind all the cables, tubes and utilities underneath the roads that do need to be replaced or maintained. For those, 30 years is a long time.
@@denaamisdaanAnd don't forget that UV light contributes to aging of concrete.
You're right the cars and heavy trucks are far more important. Bicycles are for recreational purposes
Minor point of pedantry, but wear is proportional to weight to the fourth power. It's still polynomial growth, but yes, wear is not directly proportional to weight.
Heavy trucks will not reduce, just increase with population demand
So important to remember that our cities are not permanent and they are always being constantly renovated and updated. Which is why it’s important that we never stop fighting for the future we want
Reading that actually made me feel inspired haha
Tell that to the people who want to "preserve the character of our neighborhood." Such an insufferable mentality
@@Bioniking Do people forget that cars haven't always existed, and that putting that infrastructure in place for them was also a major change at one point?
@@raerohan4241Horse drawn carts existed before cars and the space they took up was just as large if not more so.
'Us Drivers' bro you don't speak for anyone but yourself@@user-mj5vx8xj8t
This is EXACTLY how we got our excellent infrastructure. We don't rip out what is new, we replace things in a regular maintenance schedule according to well-thought out standards.
But from what I gather, it would be revolutionary for US cities to have maintenance schedules (including financing)...
Most cities half ass it and put bike lanes on roads that go 45mph or as much as 55mph. Most care are going 5-10 over the speed limit which makes it extremely dangerous for bikes. They absolutely need their separate roads
Those stupid paint ain't enough
Especially when many bikers neglect to use said bike lanes, instead riding in travel lanes and causing problems for everyone else.
These are all over in LA. Painted lanes that place a cyclist between parked cars and vehicles moving well above the speed limit. Total shite!
Not only is the initial cost cheaper, bycicle infrastructure requires much less maintance. The reason our roads break down is because cars are extremely heavy. Roads for bikes, mopeds, pedestrians can last indefinitely
In San Antonio, TX, the city bought land to create a paved Greenway Trail system. There are over 100 miles of connected trails, across the city that enable cyclists to be on safe trails versus dangerous roadways. Although, I would prefer more common, shared infra that accommodates a combination of autos, bikes, and pedestrians; this local Greenway has also enabled a safe cycling and commuting option for San Antonio.
Hello, Dallas, take a memo.
Kudos, San Antonio. 👏 ❤😀
@cbailey2376 About 35 years ago, I lived and cycled in Dallas. At the time, White Rock Lake was being extended to North Dallas, but even then it was overrun with riders. We are very fortunate with the path San Antonio has taken under a vision of former Mayor Phil Harberger. Part of the expansion and maintenance is funded with .25% local sales tax. Visitors come from Austin to assess the development. Hope Dallas will consider an extended Greenway option. Safe cycling!
is there a website that I can see this greenway system on?
That's a lot better than just sticking them right next to car roadways if you ask me.
Just like drivers, cyclists can be absolute idiots and sometimes straight-up dangerous assholes. Giving a separate but still usable thoroughfare is the ideal solution, IMO.
@@crossup13 For sure. The stupid "bike lanes" on roads with zero separation from cars are unpleasant and downright dangerous.
The main problem in most of North America is they have to start at absolute zero: Many stroads don't even have a sidewalk to start with and even their residential streets are often to dangerous to bike on due to wide lanes and high speeds.
So just waiting 25 years until the road is "due" (and usually much much longer for residential) might work here in Northern Germany, where when they really forgot a bike lane some 50 years ago you still can use a sidewalk or take another route.
Part of that is a matter of scale the us is massive as are its major cities (by area), and th other is that in the 60's and 50's cars were set as the preferred mode of transportation so all cities after thst point were designed that way.
@@John-Wolfe Hamburg was a wasteland after the war and everybody saw the car as the most important thing of the future. So in the 50s they build a main arterial: Three lanes per direction. But also with bike lanes on both sides that still meet current design standards - not as a "safe alternative", but to keep the slow bicycles of the road.
@@John-Wolfecities don’t have to be big
@@John-Wolfe American cities are bigger and less dense, but not so big that building bike infrastructure is useless or impossible, especially since we have relatively dense downtowns still. Besides, all it takes is a few relatively simple changes to zoning to make our cities better, allowing them to grow in smarter ways
@@John-Wolfe yeah well that is another problem that US won't adress. Building endless suburbahn hell.
You don't even have to wait for the road to need maintenance to implement bike infrastructure. It's cheap and easy to just throw down some portable concrete curbs to define protected bike lanes and reduce car lanes. You get more bike infrastructure without rebuilding the entire street, you don't have to wait, and it will be more appealing to the public if people don't have to be afraid of getting hit by a car or "doored" by a parked car.
Absolutely not, reducing car lanes to make room for slow ass inefficient bikes is utter idiocy. Negatively effecting hundreds or thousands, to begin a dozen people. Y’all are so entitled it’s unbelievable.
How's a bicycle inefficient?
Cycle infrastructure saves money overall long term because of th3 reduction in hazardous air and noise pollution and increase in exercise resulting in a healthier population.
Plus cyclists are more likely to stop at small shops on the way home and boost local economies
Plus just the costs of the actual materials used. There's a reason Roman roads lasted so long, they didn't have 2 ton monstrosities crushing them. It's crazy, in every statistic or metric I come across public transportation is just the better solution.
It's also just cheaper to build to begin with. But yes, the gap widens even more over time
It's not just cities we need to rethink. We also need to rethink suburbs. This might be more productive than rethinking cities, because as designed suburbs are economic losses and totally dependent on cars for transportation.
Good luck imposing your radical agenda without the use of government tyranny.
@Sirisaac Newton the government made it so we cant build anything in many in suburb locations, thats more tyrannical then just removing the law
Ya and also a much better place to live cities are terrible
@@Dangernoodllesmall brain suburbanite detected
@@Dangernoodlle you can live in a small town or on the outskirts of it. we just need to stop romanticizing suburban life because it's literally not convenient. one of the saddest things is that kids grow up doing nothing and unable to gain any independence because they can't go anywhere without their parents driving them
In the UK the quality of the cycle lanes is shocking. The new ones near me is horrible to cycle on. really rough ride, and it's better to cycle on road or footpath.
never happy
Also the street renewal period in the UK is closer to 70 years, not 30.
I saw they kind of snake back and forth, can you imagine if roads were like that? The problem is they're brute forcing it.
@@Shiggiesmalls02Why would anyone be happy with bad infrastructure?
never used by cyclists
Bike lanes are always empty
Cost is recouped with the value of everything gained thru it ...but then the city and govt institutions have to recognize that healthy living and neighborhood design is important. That's where we fail.
You have to live in a bike city like Amsterdam to really appreciate what the change brings.
20min ride to wherever you are going.
Bike and pedestrian become king.
Heightened level of awareness.
Improved physical wellbeing.
Improve air 'taste'.
Your body becomes your gasoline.
Appreciation of environment I.e outdoor spaces.
Improved human interaction.
*Endless benefits*
This is needed around the world 👏👏👏
@@RisingFlag100But the reason people are unwilling to use them is because the infrastructure is bad, not the other way around. Also, everyone advocating for bikes accepts that cars are still a necessity for long journeys
No it’s not.
@@RisingFlag100 that's the lamest excuse for inefficient land use. Just because you have lots of land doesn't mean you should use it inefficiently. Classic sunk cost fallacy
@@RisingFlag100 and maybe the reason more casual cyclists don't use the bike lanes here in the states is because they are poorly designed and are usually unseparated from fastmoving traffic
@@RisingFlag100 our cities were not built for cars, they were bulldozed for cars in the 60s and 70s. Auto industry lobbying killed off street car systems that even small towns had in abundance in the 1920s and 1930s. You don't have to build infrastructure specifically for bikes in order to make an area cycle-able, you just have to not exclusively make it for cars. and the climate is a weak excuse for car-dependent development, there are plenty examples around the globe of cities in hot and cold climates with excellent public transit and ability to walk/bike...
The problem, at least here in the UK, is that urban streets are rarely wide enough to accommodate the sort of segregated cycle infrastructure seen in the video. To fit in cycle lanes often means reducing pedestrian footpaths (or having 'shared use' pedestrian/cyclist paths) or reducing the carriageway to a single lane and introducing a one-way system. Add in that most urban areas also rely on on-street parking for both residents and visitors and the difficulties mount.
america is a little different though for our problems, the shops majority of those closed down over 30 years.
Competition for stores is great till everyone goes to cheaper store which then closes the small stores. also when companies can just pick up and move doesn't help either.
Larger stores needed more room like walmart, so to fit compacity, they built a larger walmart outside of town and then closed and sold the old walmart that was in town
Those problems are made by the car and not solved by it. Not everyone in the UK can have a car, otherwise it just wouldn't work in dense city centers. If everyone owns a car it's not gonna work at all. On the other hand, if you have fewer cars then there is space where they used to park.
Well, the best practice is to covert those urban streets into bicycle streets, where cyclist have priority and cars are considered as guests, as per Dutch standard.
Bro, footpaths are the BEST thing for biking.
no more car dependent infrastructure!
I am so glad you put this in a little snippet because this quote right here just sums up the importance of design and progress over time so well.
Im not a cyclist.... but I agree that cyclists need their own lane and everything, so they can be safe and drivers dont have to have a mini heart attack w/e they see a bike on the roar which is the only spot they can be in, in the US, atm
90% of Dutch people also aren’t cyclists
@@patrickponce483890% not a cyclist? Where did you get that statistic? 64% of the Dutch population uses the bike daily or multiple times a week. 26% never uses a bike.
They fot it right in Boulder, CO too. Bikes ride with motor vehicles with very few incidents and have been for decades.
"Bike infrastructure too expensive"
"It's the cheapest to build..."
"Oh, well, you're right but I wasn't going to do it anyways."
its the most expensive because it's the lowest capacity and it generates no income, unlike roads/cars where you pay taxes on plates, gas/electricity and a license. So until you have to pay yearly taxes on a bike, register it with the state and have a license for it, then bike lanes will be the single most expensive piece of infrastructure per monetary value for a city.
@@TiberiusCowgill Actually, you are wrong and need to update your simplified view of economics.
@@TiberiusCowgillbike infrastructure is significantly higher capacity than car infrastructure, like over 10x lol…also car infrastructure is insanely expensive because it needs an insane amount of land, massive flyovers and turn circles, constant road maintenance, systems to help investigate crashes etc, free parking. Taxes and license plate registrations literally makes such a tiny minuscule portion of the cost of car infrastructure that it’s literally negligible lol
@@TiberiusCowgill If you look [at] corridor capacity charts you will find that a cycle track can replace a 6 lane freeway for passenger capacity.
@jakub.kubicek except you're wrong.....
commenting for the algorithm. more people need to see this, especially legislatiors
And those who are living on and around these infrastructure changes. Its GOOD to incorporate society into this thinking to encourage acceptance of these societal lifestyle changes.
The City of Vancouver recently spent $1.3 million to create a bike lane that was 0.8 miles long.
Sometimes bike lanes are expensive.
Sounds like they needed to waste (steal) the cash
Yes in Canada different policies then in the Netherlands or anywhere else
The govts don't want this because they don't make money. By promoting EVs instead of low emission vehicles like motorcycles and bicycles, they can invest in the companies which they are pushing policies on. Follow the $.
Planning is very important. Our city has some designated two-way bike lanes, but they were not well planned. They are only on some areas and a lot of them end up obstructed by parked cars. Crossing streets is also very difficult, many cars are not used to the two way system and accidents are common. I would like to bike, but it is too dangerous for me right now.
I wish they would do something positive like this where I live. Norwich UK is the least cycle-friendly city I have ever had the misfortune to ride in.
Here they still think that painting a picture of a bicycle on an existing footpath somehow makes it a bike-lane - except it doesn't!
This is the best way to put it when it comes to about any political issue/ decision that is made. Not just bicycles.
We can't afford NOT to do it now.
Irrational statement.
@@howtubeableirrational statement
@@howtubeableyou sure you read that right?
The most surprising thing is hearing roads need to be resrufaced every 25-30 years. The streets here are torn up every few years for who knows what.
"Bike infrastructure is too expensive", it is a fraction of the size of regular roads and rarely needs maintenance because bikes aren't 1-2 tonnes.
The car culture is so deeply ingrained people act like the car is an extension of them, they can’t imagine life without it so they’re resistant to change. Not to mention cars can be classist and people like to flex their cars
never really understood why other countrys never had a really good bycycle infastructure, here in the Netherlands every village has it
edit: thanks for the information about the bycycle infractructure in other countrys.
Too expensive lol /s
@@tobiasstewart5632 it is litterally one of the cheapest infrastructures
you won the war on cars from our perspective.
North America is still losing as of right now. Electric cargo e-bike uses a small fraction of what a Tesla would need battery wise, but you see Teslas everywhere.
@@kleintje3080 it's too difficult to do and noone ever uses them anyway /s
@@WasephWastarthe Netherlands shows you’re wrong. They built a car centric infrastructure and found out it would not work and then started to change the future plans.
There is a reason why people in the USA are less healthy, less happy, more angry, more afraid, more stressed, and so on. Everyone is stuck in traffic and requires to use a car for even the smallest jobs.
The best way is to calculate the cost savings and foot traffic in shops that these changes will undoubtably bring.
Cargo bikes should also be considered as low impact ways to help restock shops.
Lorries can park out of town, and cargo bikes can deliver the rest
Most city officials don't even care about what makes sense in the moment, never mind the future. Zoning is the best example of this. New builds? "My contributing constituents take priority."
I was just in the Netherlands and was blown away by the bike paths everywhere.
Cycling and proper infrastructure creates healthier communities and reduces traffic congestion. It also helps with less of an impact on the environment. Wins all the way around.
Narrator sounds like my boss and I thought I was at work for a sec
Cycle infrastructure is only needed cos drivers and cyclists won't be careful and considerate...
Forbid large cars in NY-city, slow down the speed and only alow smaller electric vehicles on the surface roads. The lower speed and smaller cars makes the need for safety go down, which means cheaper cars. The smaller cars means more cars can fit on the roads so now we can make lanes and parking narrower which means we can reclaim more road for bikes and pedestrians.
Great! A bike commute to work would only extend it by 2 hours! How fun! Spending 8 hours working and 5 hours biking.
I live in USA. We are slowly understanding this. Wish it was faster.
Resurfacing a road takes weeks, resurfacing a bike path, literally takes a night.
Tell that to the street outside my work building that's been closed for 3 months!
Went to berlin and amsterdam this summer. Damn was public transport good in berlin. And the bike lanes in amsterdam 😩😩
We need better public transport and walkable cities in america, the excuse that america is too big is a shitty excuse when railroads built this country and car companies bought out trams and railroads to make more room for cars, you can't go anywhere in america without a car, it's dangerous to walk and bike often times there aren't any sidewalks or bikelanes. Car companies put a chokehold on our country and are squeezing the money and life from us.
in NYC they occasionally stop road constructions every 25-30 years
Walkabe cities are so much better than car dependant ones
Bicycle paths last much longer because the load they carry is much much lower than a regular road. A bicycle with a regular rider would weigh less than 100 kgs and thats nothing when compared to a 1.5 tonne SUV or a even heavier truck.
in the uk, the last I heard from the government, they are prioritising cycle lanes over any other transport 👍
the thing is some people park on the bicycle lane sometimes I just want to break their windshield
Yeah bike lanes need to be built properly to work
Or the mirrors. 😈🤨
The majority of the time, it's not their fault, it's the city's fault for making it both a bike lane and parking at the same time, rather than have bike lanes separated from the road entirely
That's where police need to do their job and give hefty fines
Get a cargo bike and 4 garage jacks.
Jack up the car and roll it into the car lane. After all, it's their lane.
In my city they keep redoing intersections with no regard for bike planning.
I'm so happy I recognized that voice
I had a back and fourth a while back with someone about this. They couldn’t comprehend the fact that a two way bicycle lane which is by itself thinner than a regular US Highway lane and doesn’t have to accommodate anywhere as much weight rolling over it would be cheaper than car infrastructure
"Everything they're building now is going to be around for 30 years.."
Looks at painted bike gutter...
In the US, the best places for bicycles have SO MUCH THEFT, it is almost crazy to own a bike OR car.
Just like Paris
So make bicyclists bay fees and tolls. Just like cars do. Roads are paid for by drivers
“Roads are paid for by drivers.”
There are studies that have proven that drivers don’t pay anywhere near the cost of the infrastructure they use.
pirg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Who-Pays-for-Roads-vUS_1.pdf
usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending#
@@hostilepancakesdoesn’t mean that bikes shouldn’t pay their fair share. Or, yknow, they could be considerate and ride on paths/sidewalks (GUESS WHAT???? THEY PARALLEL THE ROAD AND YOU DONT INCONVENIENCE ANYONE)
I hate knowing that all the construction projects in my city are going to be finished looking exactly the same as they did before they ripped it up. I don't expect them to rip everything out at once, but building it right the second time should be priority.
I've never had bicycle infrastructure yet somehow my bicycle makes it everywhere I need to go.😊
Do your ride on the roads?
@@tangomango2353I do
Never seen a Businessman or woman,or a Tradesman cycling, especally in the rain, high winds, and snow!!!!!
How would you know what they are they have raincoat on and bike PPE?
The problem is that cities try to modify the existing infrastructure without making allowance for lost parking for local businesses. Or for the reduced number of traffic lanes causing extra congestion in traffic. Nor do they put in any enforcement for the cyclists who ride like idiots.
I ride a bike to and from work. I drive truck for work. Cities need to find solutions that work for both motorists and cyclists. The problem is that they do not get advice from experts thst understand all sides to the issues.
i walk at work, sadly my drive is teh only time i sit down besides my 30min lunch break and (2) 10 min breaks, i roughly walk 10 -12 miles a day.
i'm rural but i do have to drive to town
Each additional car added to the road has an exponential impact on commute time. The solution to making roads better for motorists is finding a way to get as many cars off the road as possible via mass transit, safe bicycling, and walkable cities.
Yes, it’s super cheap to paint lines on a road that say, “This is for bikes now.” I don’t think price is the reason people object.
Hurry up and encourage cycling, America!
They’re doing it as we speak.
@@miles5600 Well aware, LOL. Ohio has the highest mileage of bike trails in America. Largest matrix of bike trails in America is ALSO where I live in SW Ohio. Witnessed them doing so, "As we speak," for well over 30 years.
@@garyseckel295 Nice, Ohio is doing a way better job than most of the country
@@garyseckel295 maybe... But no Ohio cities is among top 50 us cities for biking . Columbus has no rail commute service and Cleveland and Cincinatyi are botyom half of 50 cities on bicycle use modes ..
Recreational bike trailsare something completely different than a bike path network for daily commute and transport ...
My estimate is that the state is very car dependent !
@@lws7394 Simply passing on Published Information. Yes, I was addressing "Recreational bike trails."
Bicycle lanes and painting on the ground only stays for about 6-8 months here in Québec. They have the worst contractors in the country. Roads have to be redone every 3 years or so.
"every 25-30 years" 😂 est bonne
I'm all in favour of walking cities and my work is 10 mins by bus or 20 minutes by electric scooter which goes faster than me on a bike, I know because people don't overtake me anymore but god those days I had the car were the best. No wind, no rain, no lugging a heavy scooter/bike everyday, no waiting for a late bus. It was so nice.
In prior decades I would agree. But the climate is breaking down super fast and we just don’t have time now. We have to just get rid of private cars in urban areas as soon as possible. That’s how we’re going to make the change in the fastest possible time.
It isn't going to happen.
You could ban all cars and it wouldn't solve climate change. It's really just a drop in the bucket when most of the pollution is done by corporations
We can't just get rid of cars. Cars are not the issue. Car centric design is the issue. By giving people access to things like bike lanes and sustainable public tranpsport, we decrease the need for cars.
try & come take my car from me mf see what happens
@@Nazty303 Thanks for showing me that Britain isn’t as insane as America quite yet 🤣
That is awesome. Life expectancy 25 to 30 years for a street. Here in the Chicago area, they seem to have to resurface the same roads every damn year 😂
Hope you enjoy riding your bike in -20 Celsius weather in Canada.
People do.
Just ask Canadian cyclists, or Fins, or Danes, or swedes, or Norwegians.
Hell I'll bet even the Russians use their bikes during the winter.
Hope you enjoy riding your bike in 98 degrees F and 100% humidity. Enjoy your heart attack.
So there’s this crazy invention called the jacket…
@@thatoneguy611 at -20 you are a joke
It's really quite refreshing 😜
Note the lack of curbs in the Netherlands. The curbs we're building in North America are the wrong approach.
You can build all the bicycle infrastructure all you want
Bicyclists are going to be on the wrong lane anyway 😂
Wait until you learn how often cars drive park and swerve into unprotected bike lanes. Over 1000 die a year,over 130,000 are injured.
How many drivers are injured by bicyclists hitting their car? 0
Yeah because if you remove the cars and ride a bicycle, you don’t need lanes.
The Dutch use the CROW Guidelines.
Not everything goes according to plan. But on the whole, narrower lanes for motorized traffic and more space for pedestrians and bicycles, and adding trees and scrubs, make for a much nicer road experience for all.
now if only cyclists would obey traffic signals
If there where safe intersections for bikers.
Now if only drivers wouldn't try to kill cyclists...
@@gorganfredman5363 And understood that those traveling in a heavier vehicle always must be ready to stop for lighter ones and pedestrians/cyclists....
@@TheEsseboycyclists are scum that want all the privileges of motor vehicles and pedestrians at the same time
Oh no who will think of the person driving the lifted ford f-250 with a steel frame and aluminum body and hundreds of safety features and it's lifted off the road 5 feet. They inconvenienced slightly by the menace of bad bikers!
We dont need separated recreational paths for bikes, we need separated lanes on the roads we already have
Amsterdam has 800k residents - Los Angeles county has 10 million people, plus at least 2-3 million illegals.
okay? it also has more space, and obviously more need for public transportation. you literally just need to scale up Amsterdam, bud.
@@callmeconvay7977 more space means more time.
@@callmeconvay7977 so spend trillions of dollars on an infrastructure a small portion of America would use? Amsterdam is tiny.
@@GlorpLorp??? Car infrastructure is the least efficient (read: most expensive) infrastructure you can build. Reducing traffic by building more efficient alternatives (google induced demand it ain't that complicated) saves cities in the long (and relatively short) run.
Investing in quality infrastructure makes cities money - it contributes to some 30% of Amsterdam's GDP *growth* per year. A huge portion of a population will utilize quality infrastructure if it exists (go look at any quality city in Europe or Asia). Amsterdam scales better than LA, just fucking scale it. It's not that complicated.
@@callmeconvay7977 Amsterdam is TINY. Read it again. TINY. You are demanding that we fill the ENTIRE United States of America with useless bike infrastructure. You know why it's useless? Because we are MASSIVE. The average American drives 10 to 20 miles to work daily. You expect them to bike 10 miles? 20? Europeans will always struggle with the fact that their countries are geographically tiny.
In Paris, it's a bit of a nightmare. Nothing seems coherent, car lanes and parking spots and sidewalks are being taken over by bike lanes, but cyclists dont use the bike lanes because they can't stand slower cyclists and so cut out on the street to overtake.plus they dont stop at red lights, and some even ignore pedestrians crossing - including harassing and yelling abuse at old people, kids and people with strollers to cross faster or get out of their way.
And yes, a couple of times, ive seen them slam on the brakes and yell abuse at pregnant women who were crossing on a pedestrian green light.
Infrastructure may be cheap, but good bike etiquette is cheaper.
If your bike cant go 40 mph then it doesnt deserve to be on the road.
And it shouldn’t have to
That's funny, because in urban areas if you go that fast you'll get a nice little fine, in most places in urban areas speed limit is 50 km/h (31 mph) and 30km/h (19 mph)
@@therealpeter2267 Why can people on youtube not fucking read? I said *cant go* not *has to go 40 mph all the time no matter the laws*.
1) Most roads in cities are not 40 mph 2) roads used to be for pedestrians until car corporations tricked everyone into believe they were for cars and needed to be subsidized by the government 3) our entire world is being consumed by car infrastructure making it impossible to move anywhere without cars. We don't need speed minimums for bikers, we need speed maximums for drivers.
@@efinveecaught7281 1. you don't know how to read.
2. The world is fine, how else would we get farm foods into super markets, getting rid of big road ways is about as logical as getting rid of electricity for the average person.
3. having a bike that *can* go 40 mph is different than saying every bike *has to always* go 40 mph (see point 1)
The people that fetishize bikes are just as wrong as the people that love cars. The best future for urban life is trains
Not with my taxes.
Trains cant take people to work tho and people dont have respectful hygiene
No, it' all about options. Trains are fine, but they don't take kids to school or me to the bakery a couple of streets away.
How about good bike infrastructure also means DAMN GOOD pedestrian infrastructure too! Tired of these damn roads only being accessible to anything that goes over 30 miles an hour and weighs over two tons like people don’t know how to walk anymore
Cycling infrastructure also lasts like oh idk 10x longer than any road used by cars.
In my city here in new zealand government paid $110m for 110km or cycle way 😂😂😂😅
Imagine if car infrastructure was that cheap😂
i have a bike i am not a frequent user but i cycle around london and the bike lanes are a blessing as some motorists respect bicycles but most begrudge the space we are takeing up and are willing to take it from us by leaving us no space by hedging us into the parked cars thats is why we leave at least a foot or two from them so when that happens and it always does we have room to save ourselfs. there were 4, 420 serous accidents in one year in the UK all involving cars and that has been repeated year after year with very little change, there are some cylists that give us a bad name but they are harmless but bad drivers kill and put people in wheelchairs for the rest of there life just because they begrudge us not haveing to pay insurance and road tax.
Certain design guidelines work, others dont. Have seen a ton af places that chop off random crap that makes cycling a ton riskier. 'We added a bicycle lane that passes from the leftmost lane to the rightmost lane over a length of 50 ft and then back leftmost after another 20 ft so that they are able to turn' type stuff.
Certain places are redesignable for bike infrastructure, others cant be.
"It would be expensive" correct because bikes don't pay taxes. So unless you want to have pike plates and have them pay taxes yes. It's also more expensive in the sense of a per rider basis, a road for cars will transport more people per hour/day/week/month/year than any bike lane would. We have bike lanes in my city and I've never seen anyone use them at all. So combines with the fact that the don't make income, have less traffic flow, and are generally a waste of space as a bike could just use an existing motorway or sidewalk; yes, they are rather expensive than the alternatives.
Ok, using a road or sidewalk as a cyclist is dangerous and you realize that if people don't use bike lines, that means they are poorly designed
Also more bikes being used is less cars on the street which means less traffic! Its a win for everyone.
Someone here gets it.
I am so glad I live in Amsterdam. But I do think that the bicycle infrastructure should be re-designed. also things like the single zone-ing zone-ing etc ..
Good thing you're not working for the municipality then.
Bruh my city ain’t fixing a street until there are more craters per square feet than the moon and even then they’ll wait for a couple cars to breakdown to start doing their job.
The way they did it in my area was to take the right lane and now traffic is a nightmare. But the 3 bikers who use it daily love it.
Those people sitting in traffic sound like they're making a dumb decision and should consider biking.
For me, as a wheelchair user, I would rather the cities spend money makeing paths better for all, making the gutters easier for wheelcairs to cross
My town just spent millions on a bike path that I have only seen one person use. meanwhile the paths around the hospital are cracked and broken
Sorry my guy but USA don't care about disabled and mentally ill people and poor people ( because they can't drive, )
Sadly in Arizona riding a bike for the most part is hard to do because everything is so far from each other having bike lanes wouldn't help
Everything is so far because car infrastructure needs way too much space
So design your cities to be more traversable by bike.
@@thatoneguy611he is not a designer my guy, you can't just remove and rebuild a town right away and would require permission from the city and funds.
You seriously gotta be unemployed to do this and use your time and effort
@@lilacghoste8366 well no shit. I didn’t say it would be an immediate change at the hands of one TH-cam commenter.
@@thatoneguy611 we aren't talking about cities. You Europeans just can't understand that we live in a bigger country then you.
They need to build more Bicycle 🚲 Infastructure in my city and surrounding cities!
Retrofitting bicycle infrastructure onto already narrow roads in the UK is frustrating. What exacerbates this frustration for motorists is that cyclists on UK roads are not actually required to use it, they choke up and slow down roads that are already slow particularly in London.
I can certainly believe that most roads go 25-to-30 years between repaving... Sure seems like they barely last five years before buckling, though.
Maybe the materials weren't good; maybe it wasn't packed well enough or heat treated long enough; or maybe it's just that much more traffic wearing it out early... but I don't think _any_ asphalt roads laid in the US today will hold up to anywhere near "25 years" of traffic!?
Nicely done I might add.
Just because it works in one country doesn't mean it would work omin another country bike lanes cause alot of accidents they just don't report on them
Of course it's cheap. Close a lane, eliminate parking from one side of a street, and put up jersey barriers to protect the two way bike land. Jersey barriers mean that car clowns damage their own vehicles if they invade bike space, yet can be pushed to the side during winter for snow clearance.
Not only is bike infra (often) cheap to build, maintenance if often extremely cheaper.
Imagine any hard road surface of your choice that only carries bikes. Why would that ever wear out?
Pedestrian infra is even cheaper, there are paths and stone bridges that have been around since before the middle ages......
Yeah. People dont seem to understsnd that infastructure is expensive but car infastructure has key issues that other transportation infastructure just simply doesnt. All of which are important if we want actually finacially solvent cities instead of cities banking of forerver growth and neglect of old areas to pay the bills and get by
Well, if you look at the infrastructure problems of Amsterdam and other Dutch cities these days they are sort of bike related but in reverse. The city is well adapted to bicycles but now goods traffic have problems with lack of room to bring consumer goods to the stores, forcing shopping areas to move out of the cities which are killing city centres. So sure, you can bike everywhere in these cities but the stores and cafes are being forced out making it less likely that you will take your bike to the city.
They are trying to do this in Austin and of course idiots in cars are driving down the bike lanes because there are no barriers. It's a test on Barton Springs Rd. I hope they replace the paint with a concrete barrier.
I hope they change the bike lane into a car lane and actually help traffic.
@@KillerofGodsLow IQ individual
@@HigherQualityUploads Nope the changed a couple car lanes into bike lanes and now traffic is terrible and I see absolutely zero people using the bike lanes.
They should change them back. All the cars idling stuck in traffic is bad for the environment.
@@KillerofGods They should make all the lanes solely for bikes then.
@@HigherQualityUploads Sounds good to me, wouldn't have any tax money cause bikes don't pay taxes
Yeah then where I live in the UK they just do not seam to think anything through. It is just short term thinking with long term consequences. We just get told there is no money and yet they spend so much on garbage project after garbage project.
I loved cycling in the Netherlands but the issue was teenagers walking in the cycle path and some cyclists were flying past us.
In my city in Addis people started using the bike lane to walk around and left the messed up road free