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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

If by bad weather you mean unsafe weather then I agree. But just because it's raining or cold doesn't make a ride a bad ride. The only time I didn't ride was when conditions were unsafe such as icy conditions or too much snow.

 

[Rhea]

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.

But it replaces it with people no longer using cars.

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.

In NYC, there are many one-way streets. It seems that one way action would reduce this issue.

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.

Is NYC one of these? We live many hours inland of NYC where the weather is both colder and more prone to snow. It is absolutely not accurate to say that 2/3 days are lost. It is more like 1/3 or perhaps 5/12.

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.

So you're saying that cars should not have to wait for pedestrians to cross? When would the pedestrians cross, then?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is NYC one of these? We live many hours inland of NYC where the weather is both colder and more prone to snow. It is absolutely not accurate to say that 2/3 days are lost. It is more like 1/3 or perhaps 5/12.

Depends on the cyclist. Here around Pittsburgh you might lose 30 days a year to bad weather. But even that will get better with climate becoming warmer. Heavy snow and ice are the only two things that will stop a typical commuter who cycles to work. The other major limiter is the route available. Some routes are just unsafe. If there isn't a safe route it's tough to cycle.

 

[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.

If by bad weather you mean unsafe weather then I agree. But just because it's raining or cold doesn't make a ride a bad ride. The only time I didn't ride was when conditions were unsafe such as icy conditions or too much snow.

Depends on the rider. Some are healther and hardier than others. Age is a factor. The older you get may mean a greater reluctance to ride a bike in the wind and rain regardless of it being safe to do so. Plus things like shopping on the home, bags, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Don't make me laugh.

I'll work out the numbers.

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

Geez. Did they not do a traffic study?

 

[Rhea]

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Don't make me laugh.

I'll work out the numbers.

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

When people start removing stored carbon from the earth and drinking it so they can burn it to emit CO2 to the atmosphere, adding to the overall total, then we can talk.

Until then, the fast-recycle of planting food, capturing carbon, emitting it as respiration and then planting some more to capture the exhalation will simply not have the same effect as digging up long-stored fossil fuel.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I love the idea of bike lanes. The idea is awesome! Real world, it varies and depends on so many different factors such as capacity in the road. Look, putting in a bike lane isn't going to magically take enough cars off the road. Cycling in NYC? I can't imagine the balls that are necessary to cycle in NYC. I'd never have considered, and I cycled in the night on Broadway up in the Bronx and up along the Riverdale Expressway. I think a city like NYC is just too congested. Sure, it isn't Mumbai, but it is NYC. I can't see how you can synthesize cycling with automobiles with cross traffic.

Other cities it could work. I know in Akron, they tested a bike lane and it was such a failure, the killed the temporary test program before it even finished. Cities like Akron have deflated population, but now they are drives to figuring out how to encourage people to stop at places, which means more parking. Another term I keep hearing more and more are "traffic diets".

Get ready for some weird shit, Lumpy is right. Bike roads would be a better solution, of course, good luck in finding expendable roadways, though I suppose maybe changing a street to one-way car traffic and one-way bike traffic could be considered. Of course, you need better roads for bikes. Massive potholes... that'd be a problem.

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Don't make me laugh.

I'll work out the numbers.

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

Jesus fucking Christ man! That is about the effort I'm willing to deal with this ridiculous post.

 

[laughing dog]

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Don't make me laugh.

I'll work out the numbers.

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

Instead of waving your hands, provide a link or do the math. And when you do the math, the "food that powers the bicycle" has to be the additional food needed to power the bicycle, not just the normal amount.

 

[bilby]

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

Instead of waving your hands, provide a link or do the math. And when you do the math, the "food that powers the bicycle" has to be the additional food needed to power the bicycle, not just the normal amount.

I don't see how food can be significantly more carbon intensive than gasoline to produce and deliver. And of course, production and delivery are the ONLY fossil carbon emissions due to food - whereas gasoline emits fossil carbon from production, delivery AND use. Burning a steak and chips doesn't add net CO₂ to the atmosphere; Burning gasoline surely does. Both use trucks, ships, etc. to bring them from source to plate; Both use some energy to produce - but in neither case are production and transportation energy anywhere CLOSE to the amount of energy they give when used.

This whole line of argument stinks.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

Instead of waving your hands, provide a link or do the math. And when you do the math, the "food that powers the bicycle" has to be the additional food needed to power the bicycle, not just the normal amount.

We also need to include the food people are eating to produce the bike, and then the people who are mining the aluminum! Those people drive cars, so we have to include those emissions as well to the bike. If we go back far enough in the process, we probably reach an infinite amount of CO2 production. In fact, if we get rid of just one bike, we might cancel out all of our excessive CO2 production.

 

[Elixir]

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

Instead of waving your hands, provide a link or do the math. And when you do the math, the "food that powers the bicycle" has to be the additional food needed to power the bicycle, not just the normal amount.

We also need to include the food people are eating to produce the bike, and then the people who are mining the aluminum! Those people drive cars, so we have to include those emissions as well to the bike. If we go back far enough in the process, we probably reach an infinite amount of CO2 production. In fact, if we get rid of just one bike, we might cancel out all of our excessive CO2 production.

Exactly. In this manner we can readily prove beyond a doubt that the least efficient mode of transport is walking, while the most efficient mode of transportation is to sit atop an oil well, light it on fire and let it blast you to your destination - kinda like how God used volcanoes to blast kangaroos from Mount Ararat to Australia. If it's good enough for God, it should be good enough for the rest of us. Let's cut out the middle-men!

 

[Jokodo]

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Don't make me laugh.

I'll work out the numbers.

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

My best guess is that you're confusing two different metrics: The efficiency of bio-fuel per unit fuel, and the efficiency of exclusively bio-fuel powered engines (a.k.a. muscles). Depending on how and where it was produced, it is certainly possible (and, depending on the specifics, often true) that one litre or X joules worth of plant oil has a worse impact on the environment than one litre/X joules worth of diesel fuel.

But there's a big but: Your typical car uses 1 litre of fuel to move you 15km or less. The typical cyclist doesn't, on the other hand, have to eat one litre of pure fat above and beyond what he'd otherwise eat for a 15 km bike ride - nowhere close.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

My best guess is that you're confusing two different metrics: The efficiency of bio-fuel per unit fuel, and the efficiency of exclusively bio-fuel powered engines (a.k.a. muscles). Depending on how and where it was produced, it is certainly possible (and, depending on the specifics, often true) that one litre or X joules worth of plant oil has a worse impact on the environment than one litre/X joules worth of diesel fuel.

But there's a big but: Your typical car uses 1 litre of fuel to move you 15km or less. The typical cyclist doesn't, on the other hand, have to eat one litre of pure fat above and beyond what he'd otherwise eat for a 15 km bike ride - nowhere close.

Speaking of "big buts", I don't recall eating much more even in the heyday of my bicycling (about 150 miles per week). I do recall I stopped gaining weight. To which one might reply, obviously you were overeating. To which I might reply, welcome to America. So get on your bikes and ride. Ooh yeah, oh yeah.

 

[Worldtraveller]

And note that bikes produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Don't make me laugh.

I'll work out the numbers.

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

Show your work.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Bike lanes are good. Separated, dedicated bike paths and better supporting infrastructure is better. Look at places (mostly in Europe) that have a significant amount of their population that commutes by bike and you can easily see what I mean.

The US is too car centric and self centered to ever go that route though.

Let me address a few of the issues (mostly strawman arguments) by the afore mentioned car-centric USians.

1) Bike lanes cause more traffic/slower traffic. Well, the whole point is get less people to drive and more people to bike. Those drivers need to find alternate routes. So many cities now are so cavalier about saying the same to those of us who commute by bike. Let's see what's easier: going 2-3 miles out of your way when you're biking and have to do all the work, or going 2-3 miles (usually less, since there's so much more car infrastructure) when all you have to do is move your right foot and steer a little? Go ahead, work it out. I'll wait.

2) Some people can't bike due to health issues. Well, if they biked, they might not have those health issues in the first place. Seriously, the people who actually can't legitimately bike is tiny compared to those who are just too fucking lazy to (while fully acknowledging that some jobs and commutes are simply not practical on a bike).

3) Winter/bad weather biking. Get a trike with e-assist and you solve most of those problems with appropriate gear (expensive, but way less so over the long run than a car). For places with bad winter weather, you can go full on velomobile (that's what I did). Based on my experience, by the time it gets bad enough that I can't ride my velo, very few people will be driving either. So it's eminently possible. Also, in some places that actually invest in bicycle infrastructure (like the Netherlands), they use geothermal heating under their bike paths to keep them almost entirely free of snow and ice. So again, it just takes a willingness to invest in the infrastructure.

Driver education is a big part of all of this "infrastructure improvement" as well. The US utterly sucks with regard to maintaining any sort of control over who can or should be allowed to drive.

 

[TSwizzle]

Bike lanes/roads are a waste of time and money in US cities. All they achieve is longer commute times and misery for commuters. Cycling is a recreational activity for young fit people, not commuting.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Bike lanes/roads are a waste of time and money in US cities. All they achieve is longer commute times and misery for commuters. Cycling is a recreational activity for young fit people, not commuting.

Weekdays in the Metroparks, most people on the bike paths are 60+. Old people like biking like they like swimming.

But I agree, this cycling thing is like the internet, It'll never catch on.

 

[TSwizzle]

Bike lanes/roads are a waste of time and money in US cities. All they achieve is longer commute times and misery for commuters. Cycling is a recreational activity for young fit people, not commuting.

Weekdays in the Metroparks, most people on the bike paths are 60+. Old people like biking like they like swimming.

Yeah, it's called a recreational past time.

 

[Elixir]

Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

Food is a prerequisite for being a living human, even if you never go anywhere.
Most of America already eats too much. Burning some of it off by using a bicycle can't possibly log "more expensive than fossil fuel" miles. In fact if you figure in the secondary and tertiary benefits (since that is what you're doing with costs) it becomes not only the least expensive mode of transport, but the ONLY one that features net economic and environmental benefits in excess of cost.