Bicycle Lanes replacing car lanes in Manhattan - a discussion of WHAT IF

[Rhea]

I'm interesting in a discussion of possible scenarios in which the City of NY and the borough of Manhattan in particular (then extend to any city) replaces current vehicle traffic with bicycle traffic zones.

We've been discussing in my house, WHAT IF NYC decided to take 2 North-South thoroughfares on each side of the island and replaced them with bicycle traffic.

We decided that they should maintain ONE LANE of vehicle traffic for local deliveries and drop offs, with one lane of 15-minute parking. This is to accommodate both businesses and residents to continue where they are. Leaving probably a full lane for one-way bicycle traffic. Maybe two way? I haven't studies the street widths, maybe there are enough lanes in some streets to have 2 lanes vehicles (one way plus one parking) and two lanes of bicycle (one each way)


It assumes the N-S bike traffic must still stop at cross street traffic lights, of course.

What kinds of considerations would need to be made? What problems need to be overcome?




Looking forward to a detailed and well supported discussion

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bicycle lanes are one of those things that sounds good but are almost always a bad idea. The basic problem is they don't go everywhere. It's the same reason I quit riding my bike since we moved here--parts of the route would be dangerous, having safety in only part of it doesn't mean much. They can be useful in limited situations, such as back when I was at the university--the only street with enough traffic to concern me had bike lanes. I could safely bike from home to campus without ever having to go along an unsafe street.

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

 

[laughing dog]

Bicycle lanes are one of those things that sounds good but are almost always a bad idea. The basic problem is they don't go everywhere. It's the same reason I quit riding my bike since we moved here--parts of the route would be dangerous, having safety in only part of it doesn't mean much. They can be useful in limited situations, such as back when I was at the university--the only street with enough traffic to concern me had bike lanes. I could safely bike from home to campus without ever having to go along an unsafe street.

My reading on bicycle lanes suggests a mixed bag of benefits and costs. Depending on their structure, they may reduce or increase congestion, increase or reduce bicycle safety but they tend to improve pedestrian safety.

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Everything I have read about life on this planet indicates otherwise. Do you have a link to support your claim?

 

[lpetrich]

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Don't make me laugh.

I'll work out the numbers.

Improve Your Motorcycle's Gas Mileage with These 10 Tips | HowStuffWorks - some motorcycles can get up to 60 miles per gallon.
notes
MOTORCYCLE TRANSPORTATION FACT SHEET

Motorcycle: 35-40 mpg, Ordinary Car: 21.51 mpg, Light Truck / SUV: 17.22 mpg

How Far Do Americans Drive to Work on Average? claims an average US commute distance of 16 miles. This trip must be done twice a day. That means the following amounts of fuel:

0.85, 1.49, 1.86 gallons/day
3.23, 5.63, 7.03 liters/day
2.42, 4.22, 5.27 kilograms/day
using gasoline density: 0.7489 g/cm^3

I'll now use a chemical formula of CH2 - this gives the amount of carbon released per day:
2.07, 3.61, 4.51 kg C / day

I'll now look at human metabolism. Our usual energy intake is around 2000 food calories per day or 8 megajoules per day. From  Energy density, fats are close to hydrocarbons like gasoline (CH2) and carbs and proteins close to wood (CH2O). Gasoline's energy density is 46.4 MJ/kg and wood's is 18.0 MJ/kg. This means 180 grams of gasoline or 460 grams of wood, or 150 or 190 g of carbon emissions.

So motorcycles, cars, and light trucks out-emit us by factors of 12, 21, and 26, despite being used only an hour a day.

 

[bilby]

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Don't make me laugh.

I'll work out the numbers.

Improve Your Motorcycle's Gas Mileage with These 10 Tips | HowStuffWorks - some motorcycles can get up to 60 miles per gallon.
notes
MOTORCYCLE TRANSPORTATION FACT SHEET

Motorcycle: 35-40 mpg, Ordinary Car: 21.51 mpg, Light Truck / SUV: 17.22 mpg

How Far Do Americans Drive to Work on Average? claims an average US commute distance of 16 miles. This trip must be done twice a day. That means the following amounts of fuel:

0.85, 1.49, 1.86 gallons/day
3.23, 5.63, 7.03 liters/day
2.42, 4.22, 5.27 kilograms/day
using gasoline density: 0.7489 g/cm^3

I'll now use a chemical formula of CH2 - this gives the amount of carbon released per day:
2.07, 3.61, 4.51 kg C / day

I'll now look at human metabolism. Our usual energy intake is around 2000 food calories per day or 8 megajoules per day. From  Energy density, fats are close to hydrocarbons like gasoline (CH2) and carbs and proteins close to wood (CH2O). Gasoline's energy density is 46.4 MJ/kg and wood's is 18.0 MJ/kg. This means 180 grams of gasoline or 460 grams of wood, or 150 or 190 g of carbon emissions.

So motorcycles, cars, and light trucks out-emit us by factors of 12, 21, and 26, despite being used only an hour a day.

Added to which, burning newly grown food is carbon neutral. Food only contributes to the problem to the extent that fossil fuels were used to grow and transport it; The vast majority of the carbon dioxide emissions due to eating food are quick cycle carbon, not fossil carbon, and as such don't contribute to the climate change issue.

 

[barbos]

Why are you talking about motorcycles? Lane is for bicycles, not motorcycles.

 

[lpetrich]

Why are you talking about motorcycles? Lane is for bicycles, not motorcycles.

I was trying to guess what Loren Pechtel might have had in mind.

 

[DBT]

Many may not be able to ride a bike, overweight, disabilities, age....so an all bike path inner city environment may disadvantage a lot of people.

 

[Rhea]

Some articles on city bike routes

https://www.curbed.com/2017/4/18/15333796/best-cities-bike-commute-us-cycling

London announced a plan to spend a billion dollars on bike highways and cycling infrastructure late last year. Oslo wants to transform its downtown into a car-free zone by 2019. German cities are testing out bike-based cargo delivery services. And bike-friendly policies have made Copenhagen and Amsterdam cycling havens.

When it comes to designing cities for cycling, the United States can often seem painfully behind other countries, a toddler in training wheels beside sleek, sophisticated riders on custom road bikes. Our reputation reflects our roadways: The U.S. boasts 4 million miles of roads, but fewer than 200 miles of protected bike lanes.

But while our car-friendly country may have plenty of ground to make up, that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been progress. While the latest statistics from the Census Bureau show an overall dip in the numbers of Americans commuting to work by bike, in cities prioritizing cycle-friendly streets and funding better infrastructure, biking is on the upswing.

https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a23676188/best-bike-cities-2018/

What makes for a great bike city in America? Is it the miles of protected bike lanes? The number of coffee shops? An abundance of stunning places to ride?

Yes to all of that, but as we sifted through thousands of data points and chatted with bike advocates and transportation officials around the country, we determined that the best cities are the ones that don’t cater to one specific type of rider—be it the daily commuter or competitive roadie. The ones that top our list have built systems and a riding culture that benefits everyone—from the kid who rides to school to the retiree who takes a weekend trip to the grocery store.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05...ed-bike-lanes-means-safer-streets-study-says/

Cities that build protected lanes for cyclists end up with safer roads for people on bikes and people in cars and on foot, a new study of 12 large metropolises revealed Wednesday.

Researchers at the University of Colorado Denver and the University of New Mexico discovered cities with protected and separated bike lanes had 44 percent fewer deaths than the average city.

“Protected separated bike facilities was one of our biggest factors associated with lower fatalities and lower injuries for all road users,” study co-author Wesley Marshall, a University of Colorado Denver engineering professor, told Streetsblog. “If you’re going out of your way to make your city safe for a broader range of cyclists … we’re finding that it ends up being a safer city for everyone.”

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/cyclinginthecity.shtml

NYC DOT is pleased to announce the release of Cycling in the City, an update on cycling trends in New York City. This brief examines data from the New York City Community Health Survey and national surveys, on-going bike counts, and Citi Bike to assess how frequently New Yorkers are using cycling as a mode of transportation and how that frequency is changing over time.

Nearly eight-hundred thousand New Yorkers ride a bike regularly. It is estimated that over 490,000 cycling trips are made each day in New York City—triple the amount taken 15 years ago.

In the last five years, NYC DOT has expanded and enhanced the on-street bike network by nearly 330 miles, including more than 82 protected lane miles, with 20 miles installed in 2018. NYC DOT installed over 55 miles of dedicated cycling space in 2018.

 

[Metaphor]

Many may not be able to ride a bike, overweight, disabilities, age....so an all bike path inner city environment may disadvantage a lot of people.

This needs to be emphasised. The number of people who can drive or take public transport is a much larger population than the number of people who can bike. Depending on the cost, I think investment in public mass transit would be better.

 

[Jokodo]

Many may not be able to ride a bike, overweight, disabilities, age....so an all bike path inner city environment may disadvantage a lot of people.

A less congested inner city environment is an advantage, not a disadvantage, for those as have a legitimate reason to venture into the inner city with a motorized vehicle.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is needed are not bicycle LANES, but bicycle ROADS, minus cars, meaning lots of construction is needed. Bikes and motor traffic need to be separated from each other, to make bike travel safer and more attractive as an option.

The bike lanes are wasteful and unsafe. If they're kept open to bikes only it's a waste of space, and if other vehicles can cross through them, they're unsafe.

Many may not be able to ride a bike, overweight, disabilities, age....so an all bike path inner city environment may disadvantage a lot of people.

This needs to be emphasised. The number of people who can drive or take public transport is a much larger population than the number of people who can bike.

The bike roads should be wide enough to include a lane for pedestrians, wheelchairs, etc., separated from bikes by a barrier.

Depending on the cost, I think investment in public mass transit would be better.

We already have that.

We also need separate vehicle traffic for those who want to choose their own route and schedule. This can be paid for partly by "user fee" but also partly subsidized. Probably 50% public, 50% user-fee.

And because of the need to reduce carbon emissions, motor fuel taxes should be greatly increased and made proportional to the amount of each vehicle's carbon emissions.

 

[DBT]

Another factor is bad weather. Those in poor health or disabled may not be able to walk half a block or more in the rain, cold or snow to the nearest bus stop. Riding a bike in bad weather is not pleasant even for fit, healthy people.

 

[TV and credit cards]

What is needed are not bicycle LANES, but bicycle ROADS, minus cars, meaning lots of construction is needed. Bikes and motor traffic need to be separated from each other, to make bike travel safer and more attractive as an option.

The bike lanes are wasteful and unsafe. If they're kept open to bikes only it's a waste of space, and if other vehicles can cross through them, they're unsafe.




The bike roads should be wide enough to include a lane for pedestrians, wheelchairs, etc., separated from bikes by a barrier.

Depending on the cost, I think investment in public mass transit would be better.

We already have that.

We also need separate vehicle traffic for those who want to choose their own route and schedule. This can be paid for partly by "user fee" but also partly subsidized. Probably 50% public, 50% user-fee.

And because of the need to reduce carbon emissions, motor fuel taxes should be greatly increased and made proportional to the amount of each vehicle's carbon emissions.

Paved bike roads are much better. I will assume this is not practical for a place like NYC. Where I live, they work. paved bike/pedestrian paths have been around since my youth and have more recently expanded. Once built out, there is a low cost of maintenance.

Bike lanes are unsafe in the US. This is a problem that will pass in time. We've grown up as a car culture. It will not be easy moving away from it. Many nations who have always had bicycles on their city streets have a much lower rate of fatalities. It's a matter of awareness and acceptance.
In densely populated cities, bikes need to replace POVs not pedestrians. Bicycles in traffic jams add to driver frustration and pettiness. There are those who resent seeing bicycles weaving through traffic and disregarding traffic signals. This is mostly pettiness as it's the cyclist who will bear the brunt of any mishaps.

It looks like we are reaching an inflection point regarding electric vehicles. Major auto manufacturers are seeing what Tesla has accomplished not just the incredible feat of starting and apparently sticking as an entirely new vehicle manufacturer, but an all electric one at that and putting in place the infrastructure to support it. Other manufacturers are now playing catch up. Further, these vehicles will not only help reduce carbon emissions but aid in safety for cyclists with their accident avoidance systems. Also, here's to hoping our pandemic puts at least a small dent in city traffic by leaving people to work at home.


More than a hundred years ago, Cleveland established a metropolitan park system. Like our national parks, these green spaces are treasured. Our cities and counties have seen the benefit of these parks with their bicycle/pedestrian paths. The Metroparks, which is it's own political entity works to connect parks, purchase adjacent land, and convert failing golf courses (hurrah!) to the green spaces they deserve to be.

Well, I was going to post links but for whatever reason, most my links are "server not found", save for Wikipedia.

 

[ruby sparks]

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Er......?

 

[fromderinside]

Some cities, Eugene OR, recognize two things. It rains where they are located. Humans and bicycles are a better mix for traffic sharing than are motorized vehicles and bicycles.

Eugene Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentC...e-PedestrianBicycle-Master-Plan---2012?bidId=

 

[Elixir]

I suggest a visit to Vancouver (esp for Loren: wtf are you talking about???).
That's a place where a full bicycle infrastructure is in place and works to great benefit, especially aesthetics. It's well integrated with the road system and fully regulated for utility and convenience. Caveats include climate, which unlike New York, doesn't include months of freezing weather. Retrofitting an entire city to that effect would be a herculean task though, and not possible in many places.

 

[Jokodo]

Another factor is bad weather. Those in poor health or disabled may not be able to walk half a block or more in the rain, cold or snow to the nearest bus stop. Riding a bike in bad weather is not pleasant even for fit, healthy people.

Those in poor health or disabled could, for example, get taxi vouchers and arrive at their destinations faster, safer and more conveniently than they do now due to lower risk of congestion. And everyone would be healthier due to lower air pollution.

Of course, no-one is proposing a total, unconditional ban on motorized vehicles in inner cities. But a world where, for example, you have to register for a one-day permit at a small nominal fee to bring a car into the inner city if you have to haul something (with longer term permits only for resident businesses and individuals with disabilities/small kids/...), and where those for whom public transport/bikes are truly not an acceptable option get taxi vouchers to make their lives easier, could well a world in which driving downtown when you really need to is actually easier, not harder.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Another factor is bad weather. Those in poor health or disabled may not be able to walk half a block or more in the rain, cold or snow to the nearest bus stop. Riding a bike in bad weather is not pleasant even for fit, healthy people.

Those in poor health or disabled could, for example, get taxi vouchers and arrive at their destinations faster, safer and more conveniently than they do now due to lower risk of congestion. And everyone would be healthier due to lower air pollution.

Of course, no-one is proposing a total, unconditional ban on motorized vehicles in inner cities. But a world where, for example, you have to register for a one-day permit at a small nominal fee to bring a car into the inner city if you have to haul something (with longer term permits only for resident businesses and individuals with disabilities/small kids/...), and where those for whom public transport/bikes are truly not an acceptable option get taxi vouchers to make their lives easier, could well a world in which driving downtown when you really need to is actually easier, not harder.

NY already has Access-A-Ride.

 

[ronburgundy]

Protected bike lanes in cities can often actually increase traffic congestion and therefore carbon emissions. Basically, a protected lane replaces an entire lane of traffic. I've seen Chicago take major and well trafficked 4 lane surface streets and reduce them to 2 lanes (1 each direction) plus a bike lane in each direction. This more than doubled the travel time on those roads. Not only does it force all cars into 1 lane, but every car turning right or especially left, stops all traffic in that direction. And when done in city where the weather impedes bike riding 2/3 of the days of the year (snow, cold, heavy rain, or excessive heat), the number of reduced cars due to bikers doesn't come close to making up for the congestion effects of going from 2 to 1 auto lanes.

But far worse, b/c it's downright absurd, is a new trend I'm seeing where they remove a right turn lane at an intersection in order to create a protected area for the first 10 feet of crosswalk, so that idiots on their phone who don't watch where they are walking can mindlessly walk into the street without being hit. Not only does this mean that cars back up b/c they cannot turn right on red, which is when there are no pedestrians in the crosswalk of the street they turn onto, but cars going straight or turning left must wait behind cars turning right who now must wait for the pedestrians walking on the green across the street they are turning onto. The result is an intersection where cars took 10 seconds to stop and turn right are now taking 2 minutes or more, b/c often only 1 or 2 cars get through on green due no room to pass the person waiting for oncoming traffic to turn left. Sorry, that's a bit off-topic, but it really grinds my gears (pun intended). It is somewhat related though, b/c it creates similar problems and stems from the same political mindset that pushes for protected bike lanes in contexts where it's destructive.