Bike lanes on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge are contributing to pollution, drivers say
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/32627207
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/32627207
Honestly unsure what they were thinking with a 5 mile bike lane where the major population centers are a few miles from each end of the bridge and with no safe bike infrastructure between the bridge and those pop centers. Sure you can ride across the bridge but…to where? This project almost feels designed to fail and make bikes look bad.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/32627207
If my math is correct - those sick bikers are just carbo-loading & farting so much they don't even use pedals.
(It's the only way it would make sense.)
-
Honestly unsure what they were thinking with a 5 mile bike lane where the major population centers are a few miles from each end of the bridge and with no safe bike infrastructure between the bridge and those pop centers. Sure you can ride across the bridge but…to where? This project almost feels designed to fail and make bikes look bad.
I'll bet the lane is there purely to satisfy some requirement for including non-car infrastructure, regardless of whether it makes sense in this particular location. It's the same way we get fun bike lanes like these:
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/32627207
the core issue is that there is too little road space for the number of cars that ply that route and too much road space for the bikes that are ridden there.
it seems to one that an easier fix would be for more people to give up driving in favour of riding bikes.
-
If my math is correct - those sick bikers are just carbo-loading & farting so much they don't even use pedals.
(It's the only way it would make sense.)
I can't say anything about your math, but I can say that you didn't read the article.
-
Honestly unsure what they were thinking with a 5 mile bike lane where the major population centers are a few miles from each end of the bridge and with no safe bike infrastructure between the bridge and those pop centers. Sure you can ride across the bridge but…to where? This project almost feels designed to fail and make bikes look bad.
Some years ago now, a bunch of bike lanes got added to the streets in my city. The city did a big project of adding them and afterwards proudly declared that X number of kilometers of bike lanes had been made.
When an investigation was done into how the decision process had gone for where to add them it turned out that the only consideration had been "how cheap is it to add bike lanes in these locations?" Not "would bike lanes actually be used in these locations?" They were solely trying to maximize the kilometers-of-lane-per-dollar-spent so that they could put out that headline with as big a number as possible.
Subsequent studies showed that a lot of those lanes weren't being used by bikes in any significant number. Bike lanes had been added on streets that ran alongside sidewalks that were already designated bike paths. I'm a bike rider myself, some lanes were added in my neighborhood but they somehow managed to put them everywhere except the routes I usually took. The city wound up spending a bunch more money to remove a bunch of the bike lanes that were doing nothing but increasing congestion.
It may be that this was a similar situation, where someone wanted to proudly show off headlines of how they'd pushed for bike access and got X numbers of kilometers installed and those were the only real metrics that mattered.
-
the core issue is that there is too little road space for the number of cars that ply that route and too much road space for the bikes that are ridden there.
it seems to one that an easier fix would be for more people to give up driving in favour of riding bikes.
You’re out of your mind if you think taking out car lanes is going to make people start a 15 mile bike commute to work.
That bike lane is 100% recreational.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/32627207
It has been proven time and again that adding lanes does not reduce traffic, but reducing number of lanes actually can.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/adding-freeway-lanes-traffic-20390021.php
-
Honestly unsure what they were thinking with a 5 mile bike lane where the major population centers are a few miles from each end of the bridge and with no safe bike infrastructure between the bridge and those pop centers. Sure you can ride across the bridge but…to where? This project almost feels designed to fail and make bikes look bad.
Do you live here? There are major population centers on both sides of the bridge (Richmond on one end, San Rafael on the other) and the Ohlone trail + Richmond Greenway means you can ride a bike from Emeryville all the way to the bridge quite easily.
That said it's a beast of a commute to ride. I'd say 90% of the bikers I see on there aren't using it to commute but are using it for exercise/pleasure cycling. I do see about 10% of bikers on ebikes that could make this a viable commute.
-
Do you live here? There are major population centers on both sides of the bridge (Richmond on one end, San Rafael on the other) and the Ohlone trail + Richmond Greenway means you can ride a bike from Emeryville all the way to the bridge quite easily.
That said it's a beast of a commute to ride. I'd say 90% of the bikers I see on there aren't using it to commute but are using it for exercise/pleasure cycling. I do see about 10% of bikers on ebikes that could make this a viable commute.
I lived there a while ago. Emeryville is what, several miles from the end of the bridge? Pleasure riding sure, but as the article said, no one is actually using these to get to work.
-
Some years ago now, a bunch of bike lanes got added to the streets in my city. The city did a big project of adding them and afterwards proudly declared that X number of kilometers of bike lanes had been made.
When an investigation was done into how the decision process had gone for where to add them it turned out that the only consideration had been "how cheap is it to add bike lanes in these locations?" Not "would bike lanes actually be used in these locations?" They were solely trying to maximize the kilometers-of-lane-per-dollar-spent so that they could put out that headline with as big a number as possible.
Subsequent studies showed that a lot of those lanes weren't being used by bikes in any significant number. Bike lanes had been added on streets that ran alongside sidewalks that were already designated bike paths. I'm a bike rider myself, some lanes were added in my neighborhood but they somehow managed to put them everywhere except the routes I usually took. The city wound up spending a bunch more money to remove a bunch of the bike lanes that were doing nothing but increasing congestion.
It may be that this was a similar situation, where someone wanted to proudly show off headlines of how they'd pushed for bike access and got X numbers of kilometers installed and those were the only real metrics that mattered.
i noticed this in sf too.
-
I can't say anything about your math, but I can say that you didn't read the article.
wrote last edited by [email protected](Oh, did the fart-propulsion give it away? I'll add the "/s" next time.)
-
You’re out of your mind if you think taking out car lanes is going to make people start a 15 mile bike commute to work.
That bike lane is 100% recreational.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Well, that's exactly what I do since last year. I use an electric bike (converted from a mechanical one), and if it takes time, it is actually faster than taking my car (40 minutes vs 1h+).
And I do it even in the winter, when we get bellow zero temperatures. I just dresses warmly.Edit : The bike (Le Petit Porteur Longtail, wasn't yet electrified at the time of this picture)
-
You’re out of your mind if you think taking out car lanes is going to make people start a 15 mile bike commute to work.
That bike lane is 100% recreational.
Imagine moving your body to do something. Not in my america
-
Honestly unsure what they were thinking with a 5 mile bike lane where the major population centers are a few miles from each end of the bridge and with no safe bike infrastructure between the bridge and those pop centers. Sure you can ride across the bridge but…to where? This project almost feels designed to fail and make bikes look bad.
Your argument seems to be that nobody should ever start anything unless it's a complete, end-to-end solution at the end of Phase 1.
-
You’re out of your mind if you think taking out car lanes is going to make people start a 15 mile bike commute to work.
That bike lane is 100% recreational.
That's pretty much what I do daily.
-
I'll bet the lane is there purely to satisfy some requirement for including non-car infrastructure, regardless of whether it makes sense in this particular location. It's the same way we get fun bike lanes like these:
that photo feels like the bike lanes in my city that literally merge the right lane of car traffic into the bike lane at traffic lights. it's like they are trying to kill bicycle riders on purpose
-
Your argument seems to be that nobody should ever start anything unless it's a complete, end-to-end solution at the end of Phase 1.
When the period of evaluation is only 4 years and nothing is done to integrate the solution, then yeah, you probably shouldn’t waste time/money on it.
-
that photo feels like the bike lanes in my city that literally merge the right lane of car traffic into the bike lane at traffic lights. it's like they are trying to kill bicycle riders on purpose
Talking with cyclists it's actually the opposite. It works in the sense that if someone is turning right they will get into the right lane and essentially self block a bicycle from pulling past them on the right side (if a cyclist did that they have a high likelyhood of getting hit as they are pulling into the cars blind spot... Then traffic starts moving and the right turning car just goes and suddenly there could be a bike there).
