Are Bike Lanes Ruining Cities?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2023
- Fact-by-fact Citations:
PHV - Personal Hire Vehicle (rideshare)
LGV - Light Goods Vehicle (e-commerce-type delivery)
TNC - Transit Network Companies (Uber, Lyft)
Business owners worry bike lanes bad for their business- Volker and Handy 2021
e-commerce and ridesharing (PHV) make major contributions to congestion. PHVs have grown significantly (grew by 66% in 3 years). PHVs move riders from public transit to cars, putting more cars on the road. (London) - Understanding and Managing Congestion in London, Integrated Transport Planning 2017
PHVs/TNCs increase congestion - Diao 2021
It is increasingly recognized that perceived roadway safety is one of the strongest predictors of bicycle traffic volume. Also, bike lanes save lives. “Safety in numbers”. - Kondo 2018
Bike lanes at the expense of car lanes only nominally increases car commute times (simulation) - Nanayakkara 2022
In NYC, narrowing car lanes to accommodate bike lanes actually increased average speed. In corridors where 2 car lanes were lost, vehicle speeds were not affected - NYC 2014
Seattle road congestion can be eased and vehicle speeds increased assuming up to 18% penetration rate of micromobility (factoring commuter age, tour and trip purposes, time of day, and weather limitations). # of severely congested road segments falls by 10%. - Fan & Harper 2022
Many studies show that merchants consistently overestimate fraction of customers arriving by car. Arancibia 2019
TfL (2016) says bike superhighways increased # of people per hour by 5% within 2 weeks of opening www.forbes.com/sites/carltonr... (Can’t find original report)
Transport for London FOA: separated bike lanes are moving 5X as many people per hour per m2 as the main carriageway usa.streetsblog.org/2017/11/2...
Bikeways can move ~5X as many people per hour as cars: nacto.org/publication/transit... www.theurbanist.org/2016/05/2...
Articles by Daily Mail and Visordown cite (unlocatable) Sunday Telegraph study about emptiness of bike lanes and argue bike lanes are causing traffic and pollution www.visordown.com/news/indust...
Simulation: Cycle Superhighways can reduce traffic flow, but improves traffic speed - Bhuyan 2020
Rideshares were 8% of all Boston traffic in 2018, 13% of SF traffic - Fehr and Peers drive.google.com/file/d/1FIUs...
Rideshares are biggest contributor to traffic increase in SF. Erhardt 2019
Highly utilized bike lanes may appear empty transportist.org/2016/03/30/o...
2021 London congestion levels about the same as 2019 levels, before bike lanes were installed: www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/dec/o...
TNCs mostly substituted for public transit - Diao 2021. 43% - 61% of TNC trips substitute for public transit, walking, or would not have been made - Erhardt 2019
59% of Boston rideshare trips put another car on the road Gehrke 2019
Cities with better public transit had stronger congestion effects from TNCs - Dhonorkar & Burtch 2021
Works cited:
Arancibia, Farber, et al. (2019), “Measuring the Local Economic Impacts of Replacing On-Street Parking With Bike Lanes”.
Bhuyan et al. (2020), “Analysing the causal effect of London cycle superhighways on traffic congestion”
Dhanorkar & Burtch (2021), “The Heterogeneous Effects of Peer-to-Peer Ride-Hailing on Traffic: Evidence from Uber’s Entry in California”
Diao et al. (2021), “Impacts of transportation network companies on urban mobility”
Erhardt et al. (2019), “Do transportation network companies decrease or increase congestion?”
Fan & Harper (2022), “Congestion and environmental impacts of short car trip replacement with micromobility modes”
Gehrke et al. (2019), “Substitution of Ride-Hailing Services for More Sustainable Travel Options in the Greater Boston Region”
Hall & Krueger (2016), “An Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber’s Driver-Partners in the United States”
Kondo et al. (2018), “Where do bike lanes work best? A Bayesian spatial model of bicycle lanes and bicycle crashes”
Integrated Transport Planning (2017), “Understanding and Managing Congestion” (prepared for Transport for London)
Nanayakkara et al. (2022), “Do Safe Bike Lanes Really Slow Down Cars? A Simulation-Based Approach to Investigate the Effect of Retrofitting Safe Cycling Lanes on Vehicular Traffic”
New York City (2014), “Protected Bicycle Lanes in NYC”
Volker and Handy (2021), “Economic impacts on local businesses of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure: a review of the evidence”
![[ไฮไลต์] ฟุตบอลชาย ญี่ปุ่น vs ปารากวัย รอบแบ่งกลุ่ม | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X_BeGaAv1oM/mqdefault.jpg)
Culver City (near LA) installed protected bike lanes on their main street (Culver Blvd). They studied the effects. Sales Tax Revenue on that street significantly increased whereas in the rest of the city it stayed the same. Bike ridership went up significantly. Car commutes took exactly the same amount of time as it did before except for peak times when it was 2 minutes longer in one direction but the same in the other direction.
But city council member, Dan O'Brien, was paid off by a parking garage owner, so they are going to remove the protected bike lane despite hundreds of people showing up to the city council meeting to explain how the bike lane helps them get around.
I read there were other concerns too. There were also traffic jams from drivers having less lanes that some residents complained.
I’m from The Netherlands, and the best option for shops is no cars at all. That’s why every city center in The Netherlands is car free.
Bike lanes in my town were recently empty until a while ago. It just took people a while to get used to them and use them by now they do.
Yeah, that’s actually a great point I didn’t have time to get to in the length of this video: a lot of the new infrastructure is installed on the (well-founded) model that more bikes will be brought out by the new lanes. In the short-term, it can look a bit ridiculous if you don’t realize it’s more of a long-term investment.
Another thing that can cause this effect is that when a bike lane is first built it usually doesn't connect to anything. Next year they extend it to go all the way to the shopping district and it becomes a little bit more useful to a few more people. Then they build a different cycle lane nearby that doesn't connect to the existing one and it isn't very useful on its own, but a year on they connect it to the first one and both cycleways become more useful to more people.
It's surprising how many cities have hundreds of miles of short, disconnected cycle lanes and low cycling uptake. The big thing that London did well with the "Cycle Superhighways" was to make long (10km or more), protected cycleways that connect to each other, extending the length of the network and making every mile of it more useful.
@@LadadadadaYa ya, totally. In fact, the papers I talk about that cover London are specifically discussing the effect of the Cycle Superhighways.
Walking, running, bicycles, escooters, green open spaces, electric buses, electric commuter trains and trams are all parts of a good transportation system. Speak up for improved transportation options in your city. Every train station needs safe, protected places to park and lock bicycles. Children and older adults should be able to ride bicycles to work, school or for fun safely.
The states should really build more pedestrian friendly areas and better walkable cities with good public transportation, before they start adding bike lanes and bus only lanes
They should improve public transportation... before they improve public transportation?
As a multi-modal traveler and professional in city planning, I can say that the usually bike lane implementations are reducing lanes which is causing a build up in traffic in places. Same thing for dedicated bus lanes. Ultimately it seems that the idea is to force traffic to be congested to the point people take alternative means which is a very controlling and bad way design considering everyone does not ride bikes nor want/feel safe to take mass transit, let alone reliability.
Hi Steve, thanks for comment, but I'm a bit puzzled at what you're advocating for here and, based on a few things you wrote, I'm wondering if you watched the video before commenting.
Most major cities have long surpassed the end game for how many people we can keep moving by adding more lanes (see: LA). It's very surprising and counterintuitive but adding driving lanes actually *increases* traffic.smv.org/learn/blog/how-does-roadway-expansion-cause-more-traffic/#:~:text=Similarly%2C%20scientific%20research%20is%20suggesting,it%20actually%20makes%20it%20worse.
Maybe you're thinking that bike lanes are the cause of congestion, instead of the symptom, which the video amply debunks. In all the case studies, none of the removal of car lanes for bike lanes ever produces more than a nominal increase in travel times and, in fact, often improve travel times *for the cars*!
Your response is phrased along the lines of the city designers trying to control people, but this seems to be shooting the messenger: the problem is that the capacity of the roads themselves have already done the controlling! Only so many cars fit on the road before gridlock. If you want to make conditions worse to the point where no one wants to drive, doing nothing will already accomplish that! It seems you're fighting for the right to do something that isn't physically possible anymore due mostly to ridesharing apps and e-commerce deliveries. There's this idea that removing bike lanes will let us travel back in time 20 years but that never was an option anyway.
Lastly, your argument about bikes not being for *everyone* is something I've twice addressed in the video. But the fact that you've brought it up here does betray an interesting narrative that bike lane opponents seem to have: that bike lanes are a religious/culture war, fought by pro-bike people and governments to coerce people into changing their lifestyles. None of the studies listed assume all (or even the majority) of trips would have to be made by bike. Fan & Harper specifically estimate the saturation for the demographics and weather of Seattle as around 18% of trips. What pro-bike people and city planners want you to do is continue to be able to choose. If you choose to keep driving a car, I'm sure you'd appreciate having 18% of the other cars on the road removed so you can get around more easily! Things can improve even without the need for you to change anything that do you.
All this stated, I'm curious what your alternative solution would be, since you describe bike lanes as a "bad way design".
I feel very sorry for the people of the city you are responsible for planning.....
YES
Boy, do I have a video for you to watch! 😂
Bike lanes and reducing traffic lanes have resulted in problems. While downtown city centers in Europe make things more walk able by design, I would do the same studies in car dependent cities, in which the commutes are longer, a lot of housing are separated by income level, and where people commute from neighboring suburbs, office parks, and others for work across town. I would look at places like San Diego, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Virginia, and other places outside of downtown for study. While bike lanes do wonders in cities in which there is public transit to most places, that is not the case in many American Suburbs. Many of these areas people depend on cars to get to work, school, and to places, and need to go places where there are no mass transit lines that are further away than bike distance. As the result, some people need to use their cars and for businesses that rely on such customers, the on-street and off-street parking is necessary. Many US cities are not built to "15 minute city" standards and do not have the metro systems that European cities have either.
Another concern is that some of the bike lane setups create unusual traffic patterns, such as having a single traffic lane, reverse angled parking, or the like. While some of these can be inheirtely safer, they can also be dangerous if the general public does not know how to use them properly. Some of these require drivers to do more complex manuevers, additional mirror checks, non-traditional passing patterns, and other manuevers they might not be used to or not learned yet. It is important that if cities deploy these that they educate the public on their usage.
Hey, thanks for the comment. Can you be more specific about the problems caused?
As for where the traffic studies are done, yes unfortunately it's mostly London and New York which have better public transit than the places you mentioned, though I would point at the simulation studies mentioned here that were done in Seattle (which has approximately equal public transit usage as Baltimore) and a Melbourne suburb, which has next to no strong public transit options (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35409499/).
You mention the 15-minute city window but the Seattle study authors (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922000050) are careful to only assume that trips shorter than 3 miles are substitutable by bikes.
As for the question of how implementable bike lanes are in US suburbs: on the one hand, the densities are low, distances are far, and so the number of trips that can be substituted via bike is probably pretty limited. On the other hand, the abundance of wide roads and open spaces means it's probably easier and cheaper to implement. I've been to a number of US suburbs where separated cycle paths have been put in, not so much for transportation purposes as for recreation and exercise.
@@loodog555 look to the news reports from San Diego. They actually had an adaptive bike lane removed because the public did not know how to use it. In Culver City (just outside Los Angeles they removed one of the bike lanes because the loss of a traffic lane was causing gridlock, traffic jams, and longer commutes for drivers. I saw the same in Baltimore in another news story.
One more thing. I think that for many in US cities to make the switch to bicycles and for people to give up cars, it is going to take a lot more investment. It is not as simple as unbundle, charge fees for. or bulldoze the parking. First of all, I suspect what will have to happen is to build a lot more electric trolley lines, and build a stop close to each suburban residential neighborhood, major office park district, shopping district, high school, college, university, and major community attractions (amusement parks, major theaters, concert halls, stadiums. Aquatic centers. Dance hall, nightclub districts, big parks, stadiums, athletic facilities, arenas, country clubs. Golf courses, beaches, resorts, conference centers, convention centers. Hotels, etc).
@@stphinkle I feel like there is something to be said for evaluating the elasticity of demand in each city. The general result that bike lanes improve traffic situations does come down to the availability of a substitution effect.
Bike lanes being empty isn't a metric. Putting a monitor along a path is what justifies it. But living here in the Bay you don't have to have a metric, you can see the traffic building up over the years along blvds that had lane reductions. Let's take bike lanes out of the convo for a second and just think about lane reductions. There is an impact.
Of course, part of the improvement in traffic is that you’re getting drivers onto bikes that take up less road space, but on the issue of removing lanes alone causing congestion, you’d think that but lane removal can have surprising counterintuitive effects due to induced demand!
Especially since adding more car lanes actually *increases traffic* smv.org/learn/blog/how-does-roadway-expansion-cause-more-traffic/#:~:text=Similarly%2C%20scientific%20research%20is%20suggesting,it%20actually%20makes%20it%20worse.
Everybody intuitively understands the basic equation of "more roads" = "more cars can get through" but most people don't see past that to the basics of supply and demand and the substitution effect. My theory is that a big chunk of challenge is that we've gotten really really used to just how much space cars take up. A car is 80% empty space but we're so used to the car as the space a person takes that we can't imagine there isn't physically enough space on any size road for everyone to have a car.
Look up Henderson, Auckland bike lane protest and you'll see a great example of a great idea, very poor execution of a bike lane and a great way to kill the business in the area as a consequence because of an over reliance on the motor vehicle.
Well, at your suggestion, I just took a dive into New Zealand bike lane politics and mannnnn, you guys get really testy about them! I was reading this whole paper about "bikelash" in NZ:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518302032#bib31
The authors looked at 3 different types of towns that had bike lane protests for different reasons.
In cases, the objections were that the designs were poorly thought out, though the paper itself says a lot of the opposite was due to "re-prioritising road hierarchies" and that underlying all objections, no matter how good the design or public engagement, there was , "an apparent theme of entrenched opposition to bike lanes in any form and regardless of the strength of public engagement or design. This stems from deeply held values about minimising the role of central and local government, the primacy of the private automobile, and aversion to socially progressive policy and planning."
But also, the paper says there were similar fears by business owners as those I mentioned here:
"Retailers are often concerned about the economic consequences of a reduction in customer parking spaces (often over-estimating the economic effects)"
The paper gave me this nugget to chew on as well, "common conservative aversion to cycling as a symbol of ‘liberal’ social movements such as environmentalism".
Some people just hate bike lans for what they represent. The paper did mention that bike lanes routinely receive waaaay more backlash than other similarly-sized infrastructure projects.
All in all, there wasn't much data for what the bike lanes actually did, though in one of the cases, they actually had bus tracking data, which showed that traffic hadn't slowed.
It does seem overall, NZ is in the early days, with far lower bike ridership to start from and little expertise within the country.
If a sauage sandwich is a sandwich, so is a hot dog. You're welcome.
Bicycles make life and cities better.
Ask your local transportation planner and elected officials to support more safe, protected bike lanes and trails.
Every child should be able to ride a bicycle to school safely. Electric bicycles are bringing many older adults back to cycling.
Ebikes makes those hills much less of an issue.. Every city needs to be a bicycle city.
We all need to support healthy exercise and fossil fuels free transportation options.
Add a little more green space, bike lanes and outdoor dining to the city and it is a winner.
Interesting. That's good that the research shows that bike lanes aren't actually bad for cities in the ways some fear. I think some of that critique is rooted in people and business owners fearing any version of change, no matter what the change is. I remember a similar pattern w/ many bar owners in my state of Ohio passionately opposing the statewide indoor public smoking ban that voters passed at the ballot box, in 2006. Many owners said this would doom their bars, since so many bar regulars smoke. But it actually led to a bar-patio building boom, b/c many of these bars wanted to add a designated open air area for smokers, and many of us non-cigarette-smokers have said it generally makes us more likely to go out to bars and restaurants. It's fortunate when it's win-win.
How bike lanes are controversial?
Yeah, I know, right? On the specifics, I imply this in the video but basically if you look at the social media group for your local municipality on any platform where there are people over the age of 45, you'll get people posting pretty regularly about how bad traffic has gotten and how these empty bike lanes are to blame. I mostly made this video as the ultimate rebuttal of that idea, and also to help nudge the issue forwards as one of the best low-cost solutions to traffic and pollution as congestion get irrevocably worse from increased density and rideshare services.
@@loodog555 IDK, I live in countryside.
In other city center I know there no space to put bike lanes (think of small Italian streets).
Here I have never heard in person anything bad about bike lanes. If there’s space and money they do it. If there isn’t space they don’t. It’s more discussed if they should close small city center from cars or why the hell sone bikers don’t use bike lanes.
I see some of this discourse on newspapers talking about Milan.
@@samuele5931 "If there isn’t space they don’t." Well, of course the issue is that whether or not there's space is up for debate. For your beautiful Old World cities, the streets are so narrow there's a natural element of what we in America call "traffic calming". No one is speeding down the road at 40mph (60kph) and it's pretty clear where a bike lane won't fit. Here, even in most major cities, the roads are mostly wide enough that the cars can fly if there's no traffic.
The first protected bike lane in New York was hugely controversial, just because it took away parking: th-cam.com/video/E85HMNJix_o/w-d-xo.html
Welp, here's a whole paper about "bikelash" case studies in 3 New Zealand towns: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518302032#bib31 Some people really hate them:
"This research also highlights the contested nature of evidence and the limits of evidence itself in swaying opinion and decision-making. At the same time, there is an apparent theme of entrenched opposition to bike lanes in any form and regardless of the strength of public engagement or design. This stems from deeply held values about minimising the role of central and local government, the primacy of the private automobile, and aversion to socially progressive policy and planning. Therefore, alongside high-quality street design, there is a need to proactively challenge the over-inflation that occurs by some interest groups."
They ruined my city
No, but why spend for bikes when we could invest in public transport which is struggling? A frequent bus takes off the road many, many more car than a bike lane, and bikes can usually stay in the trafic (especially if we teach other road user how to respect them)
I agree that public transit is important and more efficient. I do think bike lanes give people a lot more options for things like trip chaining. In order to get people out of cars, we need a mix of options - including options to bike to transit.
I've read plenty of papers saying that bike lanes are a "low-cost" infrastructure upgrade. Unfortunately, I haven't see comparisons in cost to public transit. Ultimately both bike lanes and public transport improvements are good things to have. In fact, many bike lanes double as dedicated bus ways.
Bike lanes are much cheaper to build, and take up far less space than bus lanes and rail tracks; they improve city congestion, and reduce pollution..They pay for themselves in health benefits alone. . But it shouldn't be either or. You should be asking, why some cities spend so much money & space accommodating private cars...
@@FaceAway-xb9hd Wow, so obnoxiously rude. No counter whatsoever just personal bile..Had a bad day, or perhaps life?
I think you are missing the criticism. People aren't concerned about the social engineering impact as much as they are the practical impact on the places where they live. Where i am you see reduction in available parking places for example. And you also see visible increase in traffic congestion (there are other causes of the traffic, but we have all heard the arguments and they just don't match what we see on the ground: and a lot of the data sees to come from activist groups). The other issue is the bike lanes were largely put up during the shut downs, without any real public input. They just started popping up everywhere
Hi and thanks for the comment! Reduction in parking, I concede I have seen no data on. I know that in my city, when they end up removing parking spaces, they prioritize keeping the handicapped spots. But you do have to pick your poison on this: more parking = more cars on the road = more traffic. I think saving the road capacity for those who need to drive due to disability work their work is a good idea.
As for your claim that the data comes from activist groups, I’m afraid that is flat out refuted by the 13 papers described in the video and linked to in the description of the video with in-line citations above those. These are all peer-reviewed papers published in transportation and urban planning journals. But I would welcome any sources you’d like to contribute that I’ve missed.
On the question of the lanes being installed without consulting local residents, I can’t speak to this and don’t have sources one way or the other that specify whether on a national level, these lanes were installed with more or fewer community impact meetings than any other infrastructure project but I’d be open to any sources you’d like to provide.
@@loodog555 Reducing traffic by reducing the number of cars on the road, just means people are having a harder time using the roads. And it isn't producing less traffic. Where I live traffic has gone up. Accessibility is more difficult. And it has made things harder for people with disabilities.
I can't speak to your sources and studies but locally here, I have been following the discussion about bike lanes in our media. It seems to me that the people doing the studies are often also advocates and the results they keep saying should happen don't. All I know is there wasn't sufficient public discussion, the bike lanes appeared suddenly during shut downs (which wasn't a strain until the shutdowns ended). Not it is much harder not just to drive into the city, but to drive around in general (traffic congestion is terrible everywhere). But also the bike lanes are largely unused because our streets and climate are horrible for bike riding.
At the end of the day, this has become the one issue I vote on. And all of the bike advocacy groups I have heard from in my area aren't just advocating for bike lanes for themselves, it is becoming clear they are ant-car. But you really need a car to get around here, especially if you have chronic health issues (which I do). It has made the quality of life worse for a lot of people and there is a lot of anger towards the bike lanes because people feel like they weren't informed about them when they were happening and they feel like people like you are talking down to them like they're plebs
@@loodog555 In terms of sources on the lack of commutation. Try talking to residents. I am from the Boston area. While there are certainly supporters of bike lanes who will repeat every word you just said, if you talk to a broad cross section of society, you will hear the same complain I made about bike lanes appearing suddenly and without much public input. Also this isn;t like adding a cross walk. This was a massive overhaul of the roads. The city I lived in had two lanes on either side to accommodate traffic flow and suddenly they were reduced to one lane. But the same number of people still needed to use those streets with cars so the congestion just got worse. I don't know if there are studies on it. But anyone who drives around can see this with their own eyes. We say the change on a day to day basis and we saw how it impacted things. And try talking to local businesses; you will get a lot of complaints. One of my pet peeves with the bike crowd and the bike lane social engineering crowd is how utterly dismissive they are of regular people raising their concerns. If a candidate came a long and said they were going to tear down the bike lanes, that is all I would need to know about them. Bike lanes may be perfectly great in a place like California. They don't work in Boston
@@Bedrockbrendan I hear you and your complaints are similar to those of others in the debate, but if anyone is framing this as a "cars vs. bikes" thing or in terms of how much urban design can be used to *force* drivers off the roads, they're just backing themselves into an unhelpful tribalism that's only going to breed defensiveness where it's unnecessary. You write:
"Reducing traffic by reducing the number of cars on the road, just means people are having a harder time using the roads"
but this ignores *what traffic actually is*. Every bike you see is one more car that's been sucked up off the road to make more space for you. In the fight for road space, these are ants carrying 10 times their weight in getting people moving somewhere. There are many famous cases like in San Francisco after an earthquake destroyed the Embarcadero highway, where a traffic apocalypse was predicted if the highway wasn't rebuilt and yet... sf.streetsblog.org/2024/02/26/who-regrets-tearing-down-the-embarcadero-freeway the congestion never materialized and the traffic just basically evaporated. It's very counterintuitive but it's been reproduced every time highways are removed, meanwhile the notoriously clogged Katy Highway in Houston has 26 lanes and doesn't get any better the wider it gets. Same thing happened with Amsterdam's terrible highway traffic when they converted over to bikes: www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11od7o6/how_the_netherlands_built_a_biking_utopia_in_the/
Highway lanes have this amazing ability to produce traffic where it didn't previously exist!
The "empty bike lanes" claim is addressed in the video, but let me try explaining it another way: the way to transport the most people per hour has actually been shown to be a heavy rail (AKA subway) line, with a capacity of about 20,000 people per hour. If you wait and stare as a subway line, it might be 6 or 8 or even 12 minutes before a train comes. This may lead you to believe that the rails aren't being used at all, when in fact they're carrying more than 12 highway lanes' worth of passengers in the same time period (highway lanes are limited to about 1600 people per hour with current occupancy averages).
So then why do car lanes look so used and bike lanes and rails look so empty? The emptiness shows you just how effective they are at keeping people moving. Cars are so space-intensive and we're so used to them, that we actually interpret seeing empty pavement as disuse!
Meanwhile, the notion of trying to coerce drivers off the road is completely unwarranted, since the data show that right now people are actually forced out of the biking they'd rather be doing! The research shows that when bike infrastructure is built, more bikers turn out, irrespective of the simultaneous changes of driving conditions. This means more people actually *want* to bike, but their fear of death is keeping them from doing it more.
I've seen many in your position claim that the terrible traffic conditions are a deliberate plot by the government to make driving miserable, but that would make no sense from a political perspective: who could you hope would vote for you?! As shown in the video, the traffic conditions were getting worse decades ago, long before bike lanes were added and have continued to get worse both in cities that added bike lanes and those that didn't. Installation of bike infrastructure and better transit is actually your only hope for you to be able drive without miserable congestion in the future.
@@loodog555 You aren't listening. You already have your mind made up. There is a very good study that came out I think in 2019, showing bike lanes are more dangerous for cyclists. And we have seen that in Boston. The lanes are dangerous in exactly the way the study predicts. People get too comfortable. There is no protecting a cyclist from people turning across the lanes to enter parking lots and side streets. People keep gettin hit by box trucks.
I think the logic you have about empty lanes proving they are used is utterly absurd. I live in this area. I can see how many people use the lanes. We aren't a bike city. As for every bike being a car off the road. That just isn;t true. Think what you want but there are bike people and car people. And the congestion has gotten so much worse here since they restructured everything for the bike lanes. Like I said before, if a candidate is anti-bike lane I am voting for that person. They have done too much damage to the area already
Don't sell bikes against carbon emissions! It stupid and not effective! People will ride because it convenient, save, fun and heatlty. People will not support bike lines, if you anti-car. Because being anti-car means you are anti-freedom! But Bikes on streets is about freedom!
Thanks, you do raise a good point! Most people will bike as a practical choice, more than as an environmental policy.
@@loodog555 sorry being so dramatic, I got tired to explain normal people, who "have a life " why I commute on bike to work last 18 years! Only miniscule minority use ideology in day to day life! It one thing to write/talk and demonstrate and completely different to use it in your personal life.
@@abupinhus Why does the fact that cycling is also environmentally friendly upset you so much? Like its a bad thing. You also have your own ideology that you seem to be pushing...
@@zivkovicable Good question! Because, when one likes something, he wants to share it. And I like it enough to ride last 15 years 16 miles one way to work. But I can't share something that built on lies. And me and my coworkers don't care about environmental impact, or believe in climate change. And did you really see study, that say that produce oil to drive tractors and trains, so farmers can grow wheat, so someone can utilize his muscle to commute is creates less pollutions that use oil to drive? I doubt it. Cycling is good because it good for humans. It is healthy to move, it fun, it is convenient mostly, it creates independence from public transportation. It converts your commute to your good life! Don't bring unrelated, and specially controversial hypnosis to gain support. When you invoke ulterior motives, I know , that it is not about what good for people, it about some other thing.
@@abupinhus What an unusual workplace, where not one person accepts the currents scientific consensus. ..But let's forget the proven case of man made climate change for a moment.. Do you think burning fossil fuels in inhabited areas is good for human health?