I might say that of unprotected bike lanes, but how are well protected lanes a detriment?
As a driver and biker alike I’d much prefer there to be a thick barrier between the cyclist and traffic. It reduces the chances of drivers bumping into or hitting cyclists and ensures that the cyclists cannot unexpectedly swerve into traffic.
Ah yeah. It's no wonder people keep mentioning Copenhagen without telling its dirty little secret. It stayed liveable _despite_ the scourge of urbanism because a third of its population was forcibly (via economic forces) displaced during 1970-s, and it _still_ has not reached the 1969 peak: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/20894/cope...
So it was able to avoid the effects of the density-misery spiral. But it'll get to experience them soon. The transit will become more crowded, traffic more jammed, the crime will go up, and the housing costs (of course) will skyrocket.
And pedestrians that then don't get cyclists on the pavements. And drivers getting less congestion. Someone seriously claiming cycle lanes is bad for a city knows little about urban planning.
> And pedestrians that then don't get cyclists on the pavements
If only. Here roads with bike lanes (protected lanes!) get even more cyclists on the sidewalk. I've asked a few and they seem to trust the sidewalk to be better quality and the obstacles on sidewalk don't need them to slow down often, because people tend to jump out of the way.
Second-order effects. Bikes are nothing but misery generators. They are the absolute WORST commute mode, so people (on average) choose literally anything else when they have that option. We have plenty of proof for that. There are cities with great bike _and_ car infrastructure, and the percentage of bike commutes is about the same as everywhere else.
So the only thing that bike lanes do is sabotage cars and other ground transit.
As a double whammy, bikes are inconvenient (or illegal) to take onto the most rapid and ground transit. And bikeshares are not reliable enough for daily commutes.
All these factors motivate people to move closer to the downtowns, because it becomes inconvenient to live afar. This in turn increases the price of real estate near downtowns, resulting in real estate developers building denser housing. This in turn results in higher rents, smaller units, more crime, etc.
Yes, I have researched this, and I have numbers to back up my words.
Really? because I live somewhere where this works quite well: cycling is on average the best way to get around, especially in terms of door-to-door time, and it's something that a huge fraction of people use. I have basically zero reason to buy a car: even if there was zero traffic on the road it's not worth the quite substantial cost.
(And, to a large extent, the biggest contributor to it being a good place to cycle is the fact that everyone does it: a whole city's worth of protected bike lanes can't make up for a driver who's not used to driving around cyclists. But it is certainly possible to make road layouts that make safe cycling basically impossible, and American city planners seem to have mastered that)
I might say that of unprotected bike lanes, but how are well protected lanes a detriment?
As a driver and biker alike I’d much prefer there to be a thick barrier between the cyclist and traffic. It reduces the chances of drivers bumping into or hitting cyclists and ensures that the cyclists cannot unexpectedly swerve into traffic.
As someone living in Copenhagen, I respectfully disagree.
Ah yeah. It's no wonder people keep mentioning Copenhagen without telling its dirty little secret. It stayed liveable _despite_ the scourge of urbanism because a third of its population was forcibly (via economic forces) displaced during 1970-s, and it _still_ has not reached the 1969 peak: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/20894/cope...
So it was able to avoid the effects of the density-misery spiral. But it'll get to experience them soon. The transit will become more crowded, traffic more jammed, the crime will go up, and the housing costs (of course) will skyrocket.
> Bike lanes make lives actively worse for everyone.
Except for ... cyclists?
And pedestrians that then don't get cyclists on the pavements. And drivers getting less congestion. Someone seriously claiming cycle lanes is bad for a city knows little about urban planning.
> And pedestrians that then don't get cyclists on the pavements
If only. Here roads with bike lanes (protected lanes!) get even more cyclists on the sidewalk. I've asked a few and they seem to trust the sidewalk to be better quality and the obstacles on sidewalk don't need them to slow down often, because people tend to jump out of the way.
> actively worse for everyone
Can you elaborate?
Second-order effects. Bikes are nothing but misery generators. They are the absolute WORST commute mode, so people (on average) choose literally anything else when they have that option. We have plenty of proof for that. There are cities with great bike _and_ car infrastructure, and the percentage of bike commutes is about the same as everywhere else.
So the only thing that bike lanes do is sabotage cars and other ground transit.
As a double whammy, bikes are inconvenient (or illegal) to take onto the most rapid and ground transit. And bikeshares are not reliable enough for daily commutes.
All these factors motivate people to move closer to the downtowns, because it becomes inconvenient to live afar. This in turn increases the price of real estate near downtowns, resulting in real estate developers building denser housing. This in turn results in higher rents, smaller units, more crime, etc.
Yes, I have researched this, and I have numbers to back up my words.
> They are the absolute WORST commute mode, so people (on average) choose literally anything else when they have that option.
Objectively wrong. See the Netherlands.
> There are cities with great bike _and_ car infrastructure, and the percentage of bike commutes is about the same as everywhere else.
Even more objectively wrong. See Amsterdam.
Really? because I live somewhere where this works quite well: cycling is on average the best way to get around, especially in terms of door-to-door time, and it's something that a huge fraction of people use. I have basically zero reason to buy a car: even if there was zero traffic on the road it's not worth the quite substantial cost.
(And, to a large extent, the biggest contributor to it being a good place to cycle is the fact that everyone does it: a whole city's worth of protected bike lanes can't make up for a driver who's not used to driving around cyclists. But it is certainly possible to make road layouts that make safe cycling basically impossible, and American city planners seem to have mastered that)
3 replies →