
The Economics of Bike Lanes - marbu
http://economicsintelligence.com/2011/03/11/the-economics-of-bike-lanes-%E2%80%93-how-can-john-cassidy-get-it-so-wrong/
======
Jun8
I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking
left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's
tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers
but here it goes):

First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it
funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years
ago, not by applying a kid's natural understanding but (almost) from physical
principles, e.g. conservation of angular momentum (which I recently read from
physics exchange is _not_ how bikes work). So my comments are an outsider's
view to bikers.

I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and
rude. Bikers often say that they should be treated on par with cars (in
matters of passing, etc.), but they themselves operate somewhere between
vehicles and pedestrians, combining the worse characteristics of each. I have
observed _many_ bikers not to stop at stop signs or red lights, because, you
know, they're for cars, jeopardizing pedestrians. A 90kg man on a bike moving
fast is an object you don't want to run into when you're walking. In parks
(e.g. Chicago's long lake shore), although they should share their lane with
people strolling and child strollers, they go about at high speeds. Many
bikers ignore signs where bikes are prohibited on sidewalks and ride them
among people.

And the worst part is you can't say anything, because these guys are living a
healthy lifestyle, right? They are saving gas, etc. Now, this, of course, is
true, but doesn't give them precedence over all other lifeforms on sidewalks.

Next time you don your cool biker's outfit and feeling totally Armstrong,
please try to remember us, lowly people trying to share the sidewalks and
streets with you.

~~~
bkor
All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And
you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation.
I don't get why you would not.

~~~
hack_edu
... all these things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes
that were strictly enforced as DEDICATED bike lanes. Next time you're on a
busy street with bike lanes, pay attention to the number of double-parked
delivery trucks and other stationary non-bike business. These make the road
more dangerous and slower (an important factor in route choice) than a non-
bike lane street.

~~~
dasil003
I agree that bike lanes have safety problems, but let's not take it out on
delivery drivers. Have you ever driven a delivery truck? Quite often there is
not physical possibility of legal parking. At some point lanes are going to be
blocked, and not just the bike line. The best we can hope for is enough
courtesy not to entirely block the street.

~~~
jrockway
So the OP is ranting about cyclists running stop signs, but now we've decided
it's OK for a delivery truck to block an entire street?

This is what annoys me most about drivers of cars: they are quick to criticize
cyclists, but are very slow to criticize their own actions.

~~~
dasil003
I'm not making a judgement call, I'm just saying, it's gonna fuckin happen
because deliveries must be made. You can write all the tickets you want, it
just is the cost of doing business.

Also I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not, but I commute 95% by bike,
over 4000 miles a year.

------
rjprins
This discussion about the value and use of bike lanes keeps amazing me. It
seems many people hold a negative view without having good arguments, almost
religiously.

Living in the Netherlands, the benefits of separate bike lanes (to point of a
separate transit system) are so incredibly obvious. It's not some cultural
particularity, it's because cycling has been made easy, nice (most of the
time) and safe here. (see <http://hembrow.blogspot.com/>)

People who don't accept the rationality of the whole thing, probably have
difficulty imagining a city with a cycling network. And when you show them the
Dutch system, they have problems imagining the change it requires to get
there. That is why Copenhaganize is a good campaign, because it shows the
change is possible

~~~
Symmetry
I know that for a lot of people in the US, their experience with bike
commuting involves being stuck behind a bicycle on a road that doesn't have
bike lanes, causing a certain amount of free-floating antipathy towards
bikers.

~~~
davidw
There's nothing that causes drivers to seethe with anger like losing whole
_seconds_ of their lives to happy people cruising along on bicycles.

~~~
nitrogen
The unlimited point-to-point mobility provided by a car allows people to
optimize their routines almost down to the second, so losing 30 seconds behind
a cyclist can make the difference between being on time and being late. Though
this can be disputed, I would argue that aggressively minimizing time spent in
transportation (and thus maximizing time spent at work or leisure) is
beneficial to the economy and society.

~~~
potatolicious
... except I know _way_ too many people who voluntarily subscribe to 50-60
minute commutes in a car instead of simply living closer to work.

Optimizing for less time spent in transportation is nice, but there's a
balance - both for yourself and society. A bunch of gas-guzzling one-ton hunks
of steel squeezing their way down a packed freeway, with only a single
passenger inside each... hardly seems beneficial to the economy, society, or
the environment.

~~~
nitrogen
The commute isn't necessarily voluntary -- living closer to work may not be
viable (especially for non-programmer types who work in the city but don't
make enough to afford living there with their family), or may lack certain
features (like a private yard or swimming pool) that make the commute worth
it.

I'm not advocating for the status quo of one giant inefficient beast of steel
per person, just explaining why some drivers get upset about small delays. It
is my opinion that any transportation system that completely replaces the
current road system will need to allow for the type of minimal-latency point-
to-point mobility we now enjoy with cars (during off-peak hours, at least).
The reason I believe this is that people are easy to move, but businesses,
houses, and other resources are not. Extra mobility allows us to match the
right people with the right resources in less time.

------
gerggerg
Great article. To add: It also doesn't help that many of NYC's bike lanes are
less safe than just riding in the middle of the road.

The streets of Manhattan are a dangerous jungle for bikers. Cabs hit and run
on a daily basis. Some of the bike lanes are in between parked cars and the
car lanes making the risk even higher. Car doors, pedestrians running out,
cars hugging the edge to make a turn, cars double parked. It's a far cry from
a dedicated lane.

Personal experience time: When I first started riding in NYC it was a
cautious, rule following experience. Then after a while you see how little
respect you get and how much you genuinely have to look out for you're own
life and you stop caring. You perceive every passing car as a potential
death/bodily injury threat and pave your own way.

------
localtalent
This is not the place for anecdotal arguments, they aren't productive. Anyone
can cite stories of bad behavior on all sides: sidewalk cycling, oblivious
jaywalking, and aggressive driving. It's what every cycling article on
Gothamist, Streetsblog, and the NY Post stirs up, and I could write out the
comments myself and be pretty close to accurate. Nobody wins, and everyone
leaves feeling angry - not useful.

The article here is refuting a heavily biased New Yorker piece article by
specifically refuting assertions based on fallacious assumptions.

We are where we are - everyone is behaving badly, and all sides are so deeply
entrenched in their beliefs the arguments just cause people to dig in further
and the ad homs and strawmen appear. HN is better than this.

The situation obviously can't continue, but it's time for a rational
discussion of what's most effective, in terms of cost, and transportation
efficiency, and safety for the largest number of people.

I'm prepared to have this discussion, and while I'll admit bias in a certain
direction on this issue I'm open-minded enough to hear all sides. I'd like
others to do the same, and we can all get onto having a fruitful and
interesting discussion around solutions.

Some suggestions for potential discussion topics:

\- Education/awareness

\- Infrastructure costs and benefits (street parking, bike lanes, bus lanes,
raised crosswalks, etc)

\- Discussion of network effects

\- Legislation to punish offenders (relative to cost/potential danger of the
offense?)

\- Maximum efficiency of moving the largest number of people (measure in
average trip time)

\- Externalities (pollution, business impact, etc)

\- Psychology + behavior understanding and modification

~~~
eru
> \- Externalities (pollution, business impact, etc)

There are quite a lot of externalities in the quality of living. Compare
living in the bike-friendly Netherlands to car-friendly US cities. I know
where I'd rather hang out.

------
law
I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases
the number of available parking spaces. If that's the case, Storbeck
improperly challenged the basis of Cassidy's cost-benefit scrutiny. The value
(intrinsic and extrinsic) of bike lanes isn't in question; rather, Storbeck
seems to take exception to the fact that these bike lanes are being
constructed and rarely used. On the other hand, for anyone who has driven in
NYC, parking is _always_ difficult, no matter where you are. Whenever I drive
around, I just accept the fact that I will be paying $30 per hour for a
garage.

Yes, switching over to bicycle transportation is an outstanding idea. However,
the change has to be, in a manner of speaking, bootstrapped. There's
absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're
currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues.

~~~
barrkel
I don't much care for cycling; I did it for years when I was in school, had
enough of it, now I prefer motorbikes. But it's a gross overstatement to say
that there is no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're
currently being underutilized; you're completely ignoring network effects. If
the cause of under-utilization is lack of cycle paths that cover enough of the
journey (i.e. there would be too much navigation of hazardous traffic), it's
self-evident that more cycle paths would be justified.

The question then becomes whether or not under-utilization is caused by lack
of cycle route coverage. I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that many
people used to car transport think cycling through the traffic to be
dangerous, and would look more favourably on it if there were separated
dedicated lanes.

(If parking is available for 30 USD, then it appears that parking is not
actually difficult in NYC. It is expensive, not difficult.)

~~~
dpark
> _(If parking is available for 30 USD, then it appears that parking is not
> actually difficult in NYC. It is expensive, not difficult.)_

That's the key takeaway. When property is at a premium, parking is also at a
premium, by necessity. As someone who lives in a city, I like cheap parking as
much as anybody else. But cheap parking is just city-subsidized parking.

~~~
law
The distinction is that it's private parking for $30 USD per hour. Municipal
parking is provided by the taxpayers, just as the bike lanes are. They're
switching out municipal parking for bike lanes when the bike lanes are
underutilized.

~~~
mikeash
The point is that parking is something which _can_ be provided privately, and
which should, in theory (I know that, especially in economics, this doesn't
necessarily mean in practice), cost approximately the same. Bike lanes, on the
other hand, cannot be provided privately.

~~~
law
...which means it should go to referendum, rather than be subjected to
executive decree.

~~~
mikeash
Isn't there some sort of city council that decides this sort of thing, rather
than a sole executive? Most public works projects don't go through a
referendum from what I've seen, which would be impractically unwieldy.

~~~
dpark
Imagine if they tried to hold a referendum every time they wanted to put in
some street parking...

------
afterburner
In Cassidy's article, he refers to cars as "four-wheel friends." Perhaps he
isn't considering this very rationally at all; I don't think I've heard that
kind of touchy-feely attachment to their vehicle of choice from even the most
hippie-ish pro-cycling movements.

Not a strong argument against Cassidy's article, I admit (he's a journalist,
his writing style needs to be engaging), but hilarious anyways.

~~~
hugh3
_I don't think I've heard that kind of touchy-feely attachment to their
vehicle of choice from even the most hippie-ish pro-cycling movements_

Sure, that's because a bike doesn't promote emotional attachment, unlike a
car. A cyclist enjoys biking, but he generally doesn't attribute that
enjoyment to his bike -- he would just as happily swap for another, just as
I'd throw out my old running shoes and buy a new pair.

Cars, however, promote more emotional bonding. I think because the car moves
under its own power it feels more like it's alive. I press the accelerator,
the car does what I tell it, and we form a bond just as a rider forms a bond
with his horse. On a pushbike you're always keenly aware that it's _you_ who
is doing all the work, and the bike is just a tool.

~~~
potatolicious
Methinks you need to meet more cyclists.

My brother is a (very) avid cyclist - he even _names_ all of his bikes. Hell,
he builds them from scratch, hand-picking components, and is meticulous about
keeping _all_ of them in tip-top condition constantly.

I don't think one can claim he isn't "attached" to his bike - and I've met his
cyclist friends who are similarly reverent about their vehicles of choice.
Their attachment to their bikes is about equal to what I see from avid drivers
and their meticulously maintained cars.

------
jrockway
So, I'm going to make one general comment that is sort of a reply to
everything. We have to stop making bike policies based on the actions of
uneducated cyclists and drivers. Nobody will learn anything without being
taught. There are a lot of comments that say, "cyclists make driving
dangerous". This is probably true; there are a lot of cyclists that can't bike
safely on the road. The solution is not to punish those that _can_ safely
share the road; the solution is to teach people how to safely ride their bike
in traffic. Then they won't be annoying, they'll be fellow safe road users.

Similarly, we need to educate drivers in treating cyclists respectfully. Don't
tolerate running stop signs; that's illegal. But you must tolerate cyclists
that are taking the entire right lane because they think they need it for
their safety. Look behind you, change to the left lane, and overtake on the
left. Don't be annoyed, because this is how roads work. There is going to be
traffic and some of it is going to be slower than you. That's why there are
multiple lanes. Relax, drive intelligently, and you won't even notice the
cyclists because they won't seem any different from any other traffic.

------
protomyth
On the economic side, are bikes registered and bike owners paying for tabs
each year likes cars in NYC? It would seem that would go a long way towards
paying for new bike lanes over parking.

~~~
jarek
There exist a couple of studies that show the costs of administration of a
bicycle registration program is more than the revenue collected when you make
the registration cost reasonable. (Sorry, haven't got links right now.) That's
before you get into defining exactly which bicycles have to be registered, and
figuring out how to enforce it.

~~~
protomyth
If we are going to put in more bicycle lanes with the bike owners having
ownership and not just taking space from the already taxed car drivers, money
needs to be collected. The US needs to start actually paying for things. Roads
for vehicles (trucks) are at least used for delivery of everyone's goods, bike
lanes and trails don't have that secondary use. Car parking removed for bike
lanes can be a profit center.

I don't understand the "which" part. Wouldn't it be all bikes that are legal
on the bike paths? That's how motorcycles work for roads.

------
protomyth
Since the story went dead - you folks in SF might want to read this link
[http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/10/25/sfmta-allows-taxis-
to-b...](http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/10/25/sfmta-allows-taxis-to-block-
bike-lanes/)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3156628>

------
mrampton
It's all too common (and easy) to lump cyclists into one group -- generally
(in terms of policy and public opinion) in a way that encourages dislike.
Cyclists are like any other subset of the population and it's unfair to any
group to judge them based on the actions of others. That being that, I don't
pretend that there aren't cyclists out there who misbehave -- I'm personally
very aware of it because they're often the cause of me being treated badly by
cars/drivers. As a cyclist, the most effective way I've found to combat this
is to be courteous where it matters most -- generally by waving/nodding when
you are given the go ahead to cross an intersection by a driver who has the
right-away (or more generally, shown any courtesy on the road).

Now, that doesn't mean I go out of my way to exude a staid nature on the bike;
I'm generally riding as fast as I care to or want to -- but the thing about
being on a bike is that speed is (generally) physically governed -- I cannot
ride any faster than my body allows. And in most pedestrian settings (i.e.
without the presence of significant downhill stretches) this will be between
15 and 30mph (Individual TTs in the TDF will maybe see an avg speed of
30-33mph -- wattage and speed way out of the reach for anyone but the
strongest riders on the most advanced machines).

I bring this up to make a point, a dangerous cyclist (i.e. the dudes you see
running lights and being jerks with disregard to everyone else) is dangerous
but only marginally as compared to a dangerous driver. And this is of course
due to the fact that cyclists are limited to pedestrian speeds (30mph going
all) and constitute a small fraction of the mass of a car (200lbs:3000lbs+).
But they are dangerous (especially to pedestrians -- one reason they should
never be riding on sidewalks) nonetheless and I'd love for everyone to show a
little more common courtesy.

More than that, however, I wish (more) drivers were aware of how threatening
they are in their vehicles (sometimes weapons). Never am I more aware of how
fragile the balance of life is as when I'm on my bike with an angry driver
alongside me verbally berating me. And this is because riding the bike is not
as easy as driving a car in the best of times (neither of which is especially
difficult) -- but in the worst of times it's much harder. And your being
alongside me with your window down is about as bad as they come. Not only do I
have to continue navigating the road I now also have to consider you and your
intentions. You might just be someone who wants to get something off their
chest and be on the their way (still far better to do it when neither of us
are moving). Or you might be one of the others who will only find solace once
you've swerved at the me or run me off the road (yes, I have been maliciously
run off the road; no, it's not so uncommon). So my senses flare and my
defensive instincts kick in any time a car rolls up with something to say
because the moment you do you change from being a driver of a car to a
potentially dangerous and unpredictable stranger with a weapon. I doubt I'm
far from the the only one to feel this way based on how inflammatory these
situations routinely become. It doesn't help that the law will generally take
the side of the driver or find themselves impuissant due to the fact that cars
can and do flee the scene with none the wiser (ever try to get a license plate
number down from a fleeing vehicle -- they don't need much distance on you to
make it hopeless)

Now that being that, I understand how easy it is to lump individuals in as
belonging to "that group". Despite the number of mean spirited drivers I've
encountered, they stand out only because we tend to overlook all the others
who are good spirited (and thus never give you cause to notice or appreciate
them -- in fact i've only been caught off guard with a car rolling up with a
pleasantry/compliment two times). I personally suspect that the malicious
drivers themselves are repeat offenders and are responsible for the vast
majority of encounters (i.e. if there are 10,000 drivers in an area, and 100
events occur it implies 1% of drivers were involved; what's more likely is
that a repeat offending driver causes multiple events over a certain route or
a time period which means only a fraction of 1% of the drivers are involved).

Which means I should respect you as long as you don't threaten me, and you
should respect me provided the same. But let me tell you, it takes just about
all my willpower to not rip your head off when you confront me in your car
while I'm already giving it my best to be courteous and safe; I do give it my
best, though.

~~~
m0nty
Thoughtful response :) Clearly, you're in the US? Because in GB, the situation
doesn't even resemble what you describe. I've had near-misses with cars, but
none of them deliberate, just careless, thoughtless, occasionally utterly
incompetent. No verbal abuse, although on two occasions (for reasons still a
mystery to me) motorists sounded their horns and made obscene gestures. I'm
guessing they found me irresistibly sexy or something, and just had to let me
know... Nobody has drawn up alongside me to tell me what they think of me or
my bike-riding, and I strongly suspect I'd give them a smack in the mouth if
they did.

Overall, most motorists I've encountered are happy to share the road,
appreciate that I'm sticking to the rules and carry lights, etc, and there's
no problem. While parts of the US are making immense progress with promoting
cycling, it seems there are still places where there's a lot more to do.
Still, whenever I do get any hassle from motorists, I just remind myself that
fuel prices are rocketing and in a few years, they'll be cycling too.

~~~
mrampton
Yah, the (unintentional) near misses with cars don't get my blood boiling
anywhere near the intentional ones -- though they can easily be just as
frightening.

I'm in SF and you actually see very striking changes in behavior and attitude
by both cyclists and drivers depending on your route/location. In SF itself, I
find drivers to be pretty considerate with most of the hazards caused by
drivers who aren't paying attention. But 10 miles in either direction will get
you out and away from the city and bring you to more remote locations (i.e.
winding mountain roads, or coastal highways, etc). I encounter far more
aggression as soon as there aren't other cars around -- perhaps they're smart
enough to minimize the risk to themselves (little as it is) by ensuring there
aren't other drivers around to witness it.

Glad to hear it's not like this everywhere, though. And I suspect things will
continue to improve here.

