|
Quote:
|
Portland’s Not Perfect, But Offers Bright Ideas For Making Biking Mainstream
Feb 28th, 2011 By Jay Walljasper http://americancity.org/assets/images/rev_logo.png Read More: http://americancity.org/buzz/entry/2919/ Quote:
http://americancity.org/images/buzz/portbike.jpg |
Battle of the Bike Lanes
March 8, 2011 By John Cassidy Read More: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...s-schumer.html Quote:
Rebuttal: The New York City Bike Lane Backlash is Completely Irrational 3rd Party Analysis Of Rebuttal: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...idy-vs-bipeds/ More Rebuttals: http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...party/?partner http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...gedies_commons |
Denver bike-share program rolls into its second season
03/14/2011 By Jordan Steffen http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...o_articles.gif Read More: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17611250 Quote:
Photo of, left to right, Colorado Rapids soccer players Omar Cummings and Conor Casey join Denver Mayor Guillermo (Bill) Vidal for a little bike ride to launch the second-year of the city's B-cycle, and announce improvements to the bike sharing program. (THE DENVER POST | JOHN PRIETO) http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...b-cycle~p1.jpg |
Is New York too New York for bike lanes?
Mar 20, 2011 By Matthew Shaer http://images.nymag.com/gfx/mast/nymag-news.gif Page 1 of 8: http://nymag.com/news/features/bike-wars-2011-3/ Quote:
The biker careers against traffic; the driver veers into the forbidden lane; the jaywalker marches, oblivious. But only the sucker yields. Photo-illustration by Peter Rad http://images.nymag.com/news/feature...110328_560.jpg |
Quote:
My biggest issue with bikes are the ones who give us a bad name by thinking they are above cars and pedestrians, and can function as a moving vehicle and pedestrian at the same time. If someone drove their car down the wrong way on a street, people don't just go "oh he is a car driver, so he can do whatever he wants when driving." That same rule should apply to bicyclist, including messenger bikers and delivery bikers. |
Toronto Set to Launch Bike-Sharing Program
March 21, 2011 By Itir Sonuparlak Read More: http://thecityfix.com/toronto-set-to...aring-program/ Website: http://www.toronto.bixi.com/ Quote:
http://thecityfix.com/files/2011/03/bixi-toronto.jpg |
Bike plan reimagines urban design for a city where the car is king
03.21.2011 http://www.archpaper.com/img/logos.an.masthead01.gif Read More: http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=5243 Quote:
The proposed s-shaped 'diverter' for Los Angeles' Koreatown. Aaron Kuehn http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/ima...dinance_04.jpg Proposed bike station. Deborah Murphy http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/la_...dinance_02.jpg http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/la_...dinance_03.jpg 2010 Los Angeles Bicycle Plan. Courtesy City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/la_...dinance_01.jpg |
Contraflow Bike Lanes Deemed Acceptable by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration
March 22, 2011 By Itir Sonuparlak Read More: http://thecityfix.com/contraflow-bik...table-by-fhwa/ Quote:
|
Seems like waste of time for cities like Portland and Denver to be promoting biking due to their weather. Too much rain, too cold, too high altitude (not enough oxygen). It would make more sense to promote cars and build more freeways. Transportation should be designed for middle- and upper-class people who have to drive their children to school and make up the majority of the population instead of poor people and immigrants.
|
Quote:
|
Doady...You do realize the middle/upper class people of Portland also walk/bike? I live in arguably the most expensive neighborhood in Portland & my son walks to school. Even the wimpiest of wimps can walk/bike in drizzle, no? Also, I have one word for you.... Amsterdam.
|
Quote:
|
In Beijing I constantly saw bikes and motorcycles using the outer lanes of the Third Ring Road’s frontage roads as contra-flow lanes, even though they were never designated as such…of course, Chinese driving’s pretty libertarian already and after living there for a couple of months I got the hang of the organized chaos of the driving culture there.
American drivers, though, have a whole different set of expectations when it comes to road use. Although I’m glad the FHWA has made contraflow bike lanes possible on American streets, communities will definitely need to be careful in applying them. |
Bicycles Empower Women and Boost Economic Development in Uganda
March 24, 2011 By Itir Sonuparlak Read More: http://thecityfix.com/bicycles-empow...ent-in-uganda/ Quote:
http://thecityfix.com/files/2011/03/Uganda_bike2.jpg |
Quote:
|
I'm a college student in Boston. And I've really been contemplating whether or not to get a bike in the city. Boston is suppost to be one of the least bike friendly cities in the US, and you can tell by the lack of bike lanes and the numerous bike thefts on campus. But I really love the biking and it's much more fun than taking the subway to work everyday. For some trips I take it's much more convient too. What should I do?!
Man up and get a bike but take the risk of getting it stolen etc., or continue using public transportation and play it safe. (Hearing from anyone with experience riding in Boston would be awesome, but I would apprieciate anyone's opinion regardless). |
Quote:
or you could invest serious money in some super-beefy u-locks and chain locks, but the only real measure of bike security is to get the bike off the street because professional bike thieves can beat even the best of locking systems. or you could get a broken-down old beater bike for 30 bucks on craigslist that won't break your heart if it's stolen. that might not be as fun to ride as a nice bike and may require more frequent maintenance, but even a rusty old beater can do the job of getting you from A to B if you put a little elbow grease into it. |
Didn;t see this posted yet....a nice counterpoise to John Cassidy's hit piece a few weeks ago.
The Economics of Bike Lanes – How can John Cassidy get it so wrong? http://olafstorbeck.com/2011/03/11/t...t-it-so-wrong/ 6 Votes As an economic journalist, I absolutely admire John Cassidy. He is one of the best economic writers I’m aware of. Few people can explain utterly complex issues as simply and entertainingly as John does. I wholeheartedly recommend his books on the internet bubble (“Dot Con – the greatest story ever sold”) and the financial crisis (“How markets fail : the logic of economic calamities”). I’ve cited his brilliant interview with Eugene Fama several times. However, as an avid cyclist (from John’s perspective: as a sansculotte of the bicycle lobby), I’m deeply disappointed in him. He recently published a rant against bike lanes in his home town New York City on his blog “Rational Irrationality”. His central argument is that bike lanes come at the expense of free parking. (Many thanks to Andreas aka London Cyclist for drawing my attention to John’s post.) What really annoys my inner economist is that John is using improper economic arguments. He writes: from an economic perspective I question whether the blanketing of the city with bike lanes (…) meets an objective cost-benefit criterion. Beyond a certain point, given the limited number of bicyclists in the city, the benefits of extra bike lanes must run into diminishing returns, and the costs to motorists (and pedestrians) of implementing the policies must increase. Have we reached that point? I would say so. I find it absolutely incredible how such a smart economist can get it so woefully wrong. For a number of reasons his economic arguments are deeply flawed. Free parking isn’t free First of all, John is taking free parking for granted. However, there is no such thing as free parking. As Donald Shoup, Professor of Urban Planning with UCLA, argues in his book “The High Cost of Free Parking”: “The cost of parking is hidden in higher prices for everything else. In addition to the monetary cost, which is enormous, free parking imposes many other hidden costs on cities, the economy and the environment. (…) If drivers don’t pay for parking, who does? Everyone does, even if they don’t drive. Initially the developer pays for the required parking, but soon the tenants do, and then their customers, and so on, until the cost of parking has diffused everywhere in the economy. When we shop in a store, eat in a restaurant, or see a movie, we pay for parking indirectly because its cost is included in the prices of merchandise, meals, and theater tickets. We unknowingly support our cars with almost every commercial transaction we make because a small share of the money changing hands pays for parking. Residents pay for parking through higher prices for housing. Businesses pay for parking through higher rents for their premises. Shoppers pay for parking through higher prices for everything they buy.” Update: The Washington Post has recently published an interesting piece on Washington’s Metrorail, which tries to encourage more people to use their bicycles to get to the station. The piece included some staggering numbers about the costs of parking: Parking spaces cost on average $25,000 each, compared with $1,000 per space for a secured bike cage. “It’s an extremely expensive proposition for us” to expand car parking, [Kristin Haldeman, Metro’s manager of access planning] said. Bike lanes are economically different from parking You might ask yourself if those arguments also apply to bike lanes. Frankly, I don’t think so, because parking is a private good which the free market can easily provide. The same isn’t true for bike lanes. Parking has a market price (the going rate for one hour of parking in Manhattan around 9 am in the morning currently seems to be between $9 and $24. ) If there is high demand for parking in Manhattan private investors can knock down houses and build more multi storey-car park. Unfortunately, however, the free market is not able to provide bike lanes in the same fashion. To a certain degree bike lanes are public goods. If I use a parking pace, John cannot use it at the same time. However, if I was cycling on one of those malicious bike lanes John could do this as well simultaneously. (Of course, bike lanes ultimately have capacity constraints. At some point congestion would be an issue. However, it will take quite some time until they are going to bite. Cyclists need much less space on the street than cars, as this poster impressively shows) The second criteria which defines a public good also applies for cycle paths: non-excludability. Nobody can be effectively excluded from using a bike lane. Hence, it is practically impossible to charge cyclists who are using them. This means that even if there is significant demand for bike lanes the private market won’t be able to deliver them. From an economic perspective bike lanes are rather similar to interstate highways or paved roads. Increasing Returns of Bike Lanes John is suggesting that bike lanes have diminishing returns. I’m afraid this is another point he’s getting wrong. Quite the contrary is true. Bike lanes are probably characterised by increasing returns. Transport for London is using exactly this argument as a justification (see page 8 of this document) for the introduction of the so called “cycling superhighways” : Seeing other cyclists undertaking a safe and direct journey to work is expected to attract people to start commuting by bike, or to cycle more often. The high visibility of the Barclays Cycle Superhighways is also likely to generate increased awareness and consideration of cyclists among different road users. Update: This “bandwagon effect” probably isn’t the most important reason why cycle paths are characterised by increasing returns. Two economists idepentently drew my attention to another issue: network effects. “A few isolated bike lanes don’t help much if you still have to go through dangerous stretches on most trips”, Matthias Doepke (Northwestern University) wrote me. “Once there is a connected network, the attractiveness of biking goes up a lot. That’s where we are in Chicago now – good number of lanes, but no real network yet.” Greg Ip, US economics editor with “The Economist” puts it this way: “Just as you are more likely to buy an Ipad the more applications it has, you are more likely to switch from car to bicycle the more bicycle lanes (and therefore destinations reachable by bicycle) are available. Doubling the number of bike lanes more than doubles the number of cyclists likely to use them.” They are both absolutely right - I’ve missed this point. The number of cyclists is not exogenous Another key pillar of his arguments is that there is just no demand for bike lanes in NYC. When I drive up and down Third Avenue, as I do often, what I usually see are cars and trucks inching along in single file (it’s a two-way street) with an empty bike lane next to them. (On those rare occasions when I do happen across a cyclist, or two, he or she invariably runs the red lights.) At first sight this is true. Only 1% of NYC citizens currently commute to work by bicycle. Nonetheless, John does not have a point here. He is treating the number of cyclists as exogenously given. I’m sure that this is a fallacy. In Amsterdam, for example, 22% of all journeys are being done by bike. Even here in Central London in morning peakthe ratio of bikes to private cars is now 1 to 3. (Felix Salmon makes a similar point.) This is neither due to a biking gene nor to Amsterdam or London being flatter or less rainy than NYC. It’s due to cycling infrastructure as well as a different cycling culture. Both things don’t have to be taken for granted. They can be influenced by policy. Hence the whole argument boils down to one simple political question: Should the government promote cycling? This is a normative question which cannot be answered using economic arguments. My personal opinion as a citizen is: Yes, of course. The private and social benefits of cycling are impressive (the health benefits are nicely summarised by UK’s Cyclists Touring Club) and it’s obvious that cycling is carbon neutral. (Update: Problably I was overrating the emission effect, as a back-of-the-envelope calculation I’ve published on my cycling blog suggests.) Paradoxically, even car drivers are benefiting from cycling (more cyclists mean fewer cars and less competition for parking spaces). (Felix Salmon with Reuters makes a similar point here . Other good replies to John come from Ryan Avent (“The Economist”) and Adam Sternbergh (“New York Times”). I have to accept that John apparently has a different political view on cycling than I have. However, I’m don’t think it’s fair that he disguises his political opinions with flawed economic arguments. P.S.: John, the next time you happen to be in London I would love to convince you how much fun cycling in a big city can be. I’d love to pay for rented cycle and show you around by bike. Afterwards I’d invite you for dinner. And don’t worry, I won’t take you to “Look Mum no hands”. Just drop me an email [o dot storbeck at gmail dot com] in advance. P.P.S: This is probably one of the very few posts I’ll publish on my econ blog as well as on my cycling blog… Update regarding cycling safety: I’ve just published a post on the topic “Cycling in London – How dangerous is it?” on my cycling blog. There I present a spreadsheet and a map with infor |
Another nice rejoinder to Cassidy's hit piece:
John Cassidy Watch, externalities edition Mar 10, 2011 18:21 EST http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...ities-edition/ I’m beginning to think that John Cassidy must have a serious masochistic streak: he’s now back for a third round of smack-downs, after having drawn unanimous scorn for his first two attempts to demonize bike lanes. Cassidy purports to take seriously the question of his negative externalities when he drives his Jaguar. But he gets it embarrassingly wrong: In the case of motor vehicles, there are several negative spillovers, the most obvious of which is pollution and the associated climate threat… A second issue is congestion… This gets things completely backwards. The amount of pollution emitted by today’s cars is actually pretty low, while the amount of congestion they cause is enormous. I’d be happy to introduce Cassidy to Charlie Komanoff one day, the guy who’s actually done all the hard empirical math on this question. The pollution-related negative externalities associated with Cassidy’s drives into Manhattan are tiny, while the congestion-related ones are enormous — well over $100 per trip. And Cassidy’s proposals for tackling congestion are weird indeed: carpool lanes? I have no idea how that’s meant to work on 52nd Street. Meanwhile, the one thing which does work — congestion pricing — is conspicuously absent from Cassidy’s list. All of this rhetoric allows Cassidy to set up a classic straw man: Some would say that reducing New York’s carbon footprint is of such importance that we need to utilize bike lanes and other techniques to further inconvenience car drivers. Actually, John, amid all the thousands of words which have been directed at you since you embarked upon this bizarre crusade, no one said anything like that at all. Big cities like New York are already by far the carbon-friendliest places in America, as Cassidy’s colleague David Owen would be happy to explain to him. But Cassidy drives blithely on: I haven’t seen any cost-benefit analysis backing this up, and, frankly, I don’t think such concerns are driving the debate. If global warming disappeared tomorrow, the bike lobby would still demand more bike lanes. Well, John, here’s a cost-benefit analysis for you. It’s a massive Excel file, It has almost nothing to do with global warming, and it’s completely compelling. The bike lobby has a solidly-grounded empirical basis for the advantages of building bike lanes. You, on the other hand, have an XJ6, an 8pm reservation on Grove Street, and an overgrown sense of entitlement. Cassidy claims that he wants some sort of efficiency test beyond the rule of two wheels good, four wheels bad. Do the putative gains in convenience, safety, and fuel-economy from a particular bike lane outweigh the costs to motorists (and other parties, such as taxpayers and local businesses)? At this point it’s clear that Cassidy has no idea what this kind of analysis — which actually does get done — is involved in these things. He gets the benefits largely right, although I think that he massively underestimates the value and importance of safety gains. If you significantly reduce pedestrian fatalities, as the Prospect Park West bike lane has done, that in and of itself is reason to build it. As for the costs, there’s really very little evidence that motorists and taxpayers and local businesses bear any costs at all. Cassidy’s in such a bizarro world here that he even wonders out loud whether the Prospect Park West bike lane might endanger pedestrians, when in fact it protects them. And when he forays into the issue of pedestrian safety — an issue which the pro-bike-lane crowd would happily make the sole deciding issue for every single lane — he decides that what’s important here is “the growing problem of cyclists terrorizing pedestrians”. Again, without any empirical evidence to back up his assertion that this problem is growing at all, and certainly without any recognition of the fact that cars are much deadlier in collisions with pedestrians than bikes could ever be. Cassidy reckons, in his conclusion, that the question of whether to build bike lanes is not a question of a public-interest transportation facility against private-interest parking spots. Instead, he says, “it comes down to one private user versus another” — presumably the bikers on the lane, versus the car drivers who would otherwise be able to park in those spots. Well, that’s an easy balance to strike. When Cassidy plonks his Jag down on a West Village street and disappears off to dinner, he’s just using up space: he’s not serving any public interest at all, and he’s blocking that part of the road for anybody else who might want to use it. When a bicyclist travels down a bike lane, by contrast, she’s there and she’s gone. She uses up almost no space, and she immediately frees up the lane for the next cyclist to come along behind her. On top of that, every driver who decides to bicycle on one of the new lanes is one less driver for Cassidy to compete with in crosstown gridlock. By rights, he should be loving the way that bike lanes are reducing the number of cars on the road, rather than railing against them. But for all that he claims to be “wonky” in this post, it’s clear that he’s much more interested in coming up with any conceivable justification for his already-existing prejudices than he is in dispassionate analysis. The fact is, it’s the bicyclists who have all the data on their side. The car lobby just has inchoate rants. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 5:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev