Misc.: Links about bikes, speeds and traffic, plus a cautionary tale
Posted on August 26th, 2008 – 6:05 AMBy Roadguy
Some random transportation bits, in no particular order….
Alert reader Prof. S. calls our attention to a Wall Street Journal page-one story that ran under this headline: “San Francisco Ponders: Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?” Prof. S. offers this summary:
Basically, it’s a story of a guy who sued to stop bike lanes from being created by pointing out the city failed to do an environmental review, which he argues would show bike lanes are worse for the environment.
There’s also a short video. And no, alert reader Pete, I’m not posting this to restart the bike-car war — few are more weary of that conflict than Roadguy. The only real criterion: I found the story worth reading. (Speaking of Pete, click on his name for a photo essay of his impressively lengthy bike commute.)
Also from Prof. S. and the WSJ is this opinion piece critical of lowering the speed limit.
Alert reader Art, meanwhile, directs our attention to this Q&A, in which the author of the previously discussed “Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)” handles some questions from readers of nytimes.com.
We conclude today with a little anecdote shared by the original Greengirl, whom Roadguy encountered yesterday here in the drab hallways of headquarters. Turns out that, very recently, Greengirl was a passenger in a car in Wisconsin, and the driver decided to make a U-turn at an intersection with a signal. Alert readers like Greengirl know that this is a big no-no in Dairyland, but before she could properly voice her concerns to the driver, the deed was done — and the po-po quickly pulled the car over.
Alas, a transportation blogger can only help those who read him.
31 Responses to "Misc.: Links about bikes, speeds and traffic, plus a cautionary tale"
Matty and Barry - That WSJ piece is for you. I kept meaning to send it to you, but never got around to it. This is the key line from the piece:
Calls for a 55 mph speed limit — and for that matter most other government energy conservation plans, such as urging people to ride a bus or a bicycle rather than driving a car — reflect a mindset that oil and gasoline are more valuable than human time.
Seems the author, Ben Franklin, and myself realize that time is money.
Prof S., you comment makes no sense at all. “Value” does NOT have to imply “money.”
Why do I drive to work instead of bike (even though I tried it)? Because if I biked, that is 2 hours I won’t see my wife and 4-week old son.
So, my time is valuable, but it has absolutely nothing to do with “money.”
Regarding the San Fran gadfly (check out the fellow’s blog if you doubt his gadfly-ness), a good friend of mine had the following to say:
It shouldn’t be too hard to show that bike-friendly places have less auto use, and cleaner air; Pucher’s studies here would be useful as well as Jeffrery Kenworthy’s. Kenworthy showed that environmental degradation (based on energy use) was directly proportional to the accommodation of cars. Hence, NYC has a more benign ecological footprint than LA, even though congestion might be worse (more idling of cars) in New York.
And of course, bike lanes allow cyclists to have minimal impact on the movement of motorists. Even where bike lanes are made possible by a 4-3 lane conversion, we don’t see an increase in congestion. Yet, because speeds are somewhat reduced we find less pollution (as less fuel is consumed) and also a decrease in crashes.
So hopefully San Francisco will do a decent job with their EA and once and for all put to rest these absurd arguments by nut cases.
If I have time later today, I’ll see if I can post links to the studies my good friend mentions. More proof that this topic is nothing more than a hyperventilating distraction: Katheryn Kirsten wrote about it today. That’s a big flashing light that screams, ignore this non-story.
Okay that Rob Anderson character is a little backwards, but at least he got himself a sweet Wall Street Journal “hedcut” — I would pay big money for that! Makes a perfect facebook profile pic.
If the car warriors in the bike-car debates want to welcome a man into their midst who compares bike riders to Islamic fanatics, then I certainly won’t stop them.
Something for the time/money discussion: I think that its fair, when discussing bike commuting, to factor in health benefits - i.e. I don’t bike just to save gas money. The reality is I started biking to improve my health after a co-worker had a heart attack at 41. I needed to get some exercise, too. So with that, here are some numbers:
Here is a breakdown of times attached to activities: 30 min each way to commute by car, 45 each way to do it by bike. I added extra time for gym travel because we don’t have a gym in our building for employees, but some people might.
Car Week:
5 x 60 min = 300min commuting
4 x 90 min = 360min working out
4 x 30 min = 120min gym travel*
total = 830min (13hrs)
total no gym travel = 710 (11hrs)
Bike Week
1 x 60min = 1 car commute / week
4 x 90 = 360min biking
0 working out
0 gym travel
total = 420min (7hrs)
Obviously, where you save the time is being able to work out AND commute at the same time. So bike commuting is saving me time AND money.
sorry - the car week total should be 780 not 830.
“4 x 90 = 360min biking
0 working out
0 gym travel ”
… And burning enough calories to eat lots of Ice Cream :
Priceless.
I forgot to mention… We were pulled over in the Dells during a quick coffee stop on our way to Chicago. After Officer Friendly let us off with a warning, a group of four tourists mugged for a quick snapshot with the still flashing cop car.
Ah, memories…
DrivingInAKilt - If you were to look at previous posts, I’ve made that point several times. I’ve pointed out that I will sometimes walk home from work (even if it takes longer) because I enjoy getting out of my office and spending some time just walking.
Thanks for the link love, Roadguy!
Greengirl says: “pulled over in the Dells during a quick coffee stop”
there is nothing ‘quick’ about a stop in the Dells. Ugh.
“..I will sometimes walk home from work because I enjoy getting out of my office and spending some time just walking”
And if cars were to wait because of your walking through their intersection, the drivers could then come to Roadguy’s blog to post that your delaying him/her is costing him/her money. You’d have to suffer through those insufferable posts every day as we do now.
I’m actually weighing the costs and benefits of zero commuting. Most of the claims processors where I work have been given the option of telecommuting. I have to weigh the decrease in gasoline burned and wear and tear on my Jeep and an hour spend commuting versus the increase in utilites (natural gas is supposed to go ballistic this winter and I already spend north of $200 a month on heating with the heat turned down when no-one is home during the day.) and lack of access to quick decent food (work has a good cafeteria, at home I eat TV dinners and frozen pizzas.)
The exercise is a non-factor as I make special trips to go walking, rolleblading, bicycling, snowshoeing during the evening and weekends.
Bicycle commuting isn’t for everyone. Car commuting isn’t for everyone. Taking public transit isn’t for everyone. For Mr Anderson to block access to our right to choose our transportation mode is UN American. Shame on this old grumpy man. That WSJ photo sure does capture the grumpy old man attitude. I hope San Fran carefully completes its EIS and continue to stripe more bike lanes.
Jeremy H. says: ” Bicycle commuting isn’t for everyone. Car commuting isn’t for everyone. Taking public transit isn’t for everyone. For Mr Anderson to block access to our right to choose our transportation mode is UN American.”
One can say the same about those self-important imbeciles of Critical A$$ for doing the same thing.
As for the Q & A part with the author of the book about traffic, a post in the comments section said it best in regard to slower traffic staying out of the left lane (and should be required reading for posters such as drivesinleftlane):
“A message to all LLS(Left Lane sleepers): That car that’s been tailgating you for the past 5 minutes has nothing personal against you, and is not trying to prove anything. It’s just kindly asking you to move to the right so that the 30+ car cluster behind you can move on and use the empty highway ahead of you. That car that just passed you on your right, is also kindly suggesting to you that there’s space to your right for you to use. If you’re driving the same speed or slower than the traffic to your right, please move to the right, and let faster traffic pass. And finally, the fact that you’re driving at the speed limit in the left lane does NOT give you the right to lecture, police, or block the cluster of cars that have apparently choosen to go faster than you.”
AMEN.
Morg, to quote Tocqueville: “Americans also refused to defer to those possessing superior talent and intelligence. These natural elites, who Tocqueville asserted were the lone virtuous members of American society, could not enjoy much share in the political sphere as a result. Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted, as he put it, a middling mediocrity.”
Left Lane Drivers = middling mediocrity, as do cyclists who think they are equal to cars, when they are not.
I’m all for having people who think that they alone deserve the left lane pay 1/3 the cost of a 3 lane highway. They should also pay for redoing all the left lane only freeway exits in the Twin Cities. Problem solved.
botski: typical left-lane hog inane babble. No one says they deserve the “fast” lane to themselves, just that slower traffic kindly let them pass. Would a little common courtesy kill you?
The 4-to-3 lane conversions mentioned by Matty isn’t really a fair comparison. When a 4-lane road without turn lanes has lots of turning vehicles, it acts as a 3-lane anyway (since left turning vehicles routinely obstruct the left lane). Restriping to a 3-lane improves the sight distance and yes, it frees up shoulder space for bike lanes or parking. So, converting to a 3-lane does not result in a loss of capacity.
In the SanFran plan, however, it appears that they’re taking out lanes for the purposes of biking, which will definitely impact capacity. At stoplights, going from 3 approach lanes to 2 approach lanes will logically reduce the capacity by a third and lengthen the line of waiting cars by 50 percent.
The question that needs to be asked is, will creating these bike lanes result in enough increased bike usage, even in the long term, to offset the drop in vehicle capacity that they cause? If that answer is no, then it is logical to say that the bike lanes are, environmentally speaking, detrimental. There may be other factors to consider (e.g. bike safety), but environmentally they could easily do more harm that good.
I love SanFran, and it struck me as a pretty easy town to get around in by bike, except of course for the hills…
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz……
Crital Mass this Friday!!!
5:30 Loring Park
PRE-RNC MASS! This one should have the largest turnout in years>> 600+
I respectfully disagree with Joe G’s analysis that converting general traffic lanes to bike lanes results in a decreased vehicle capacity on a road. On the contrary, the road will have a much higher vehicle capacity as bicycles (very much vehicles) take up much less space than cars and trucks (motor vehicles).
This illustration from Münster, Germany illustrates this phenomenon well:
http://www.hubsess.com/uploaded_images/26080732636761.jpg
A single general traffic lane can accommodate about 1,800 motor vehicles an hour at full capacity. If that general lane was converted to dedicated bicycle space, it would have a capacity of at least 7,200 vehicles per hour with a conservative assumption that 4 bicycles take the space of one car. This is a much greater vehicle capacity for the road.
Joe is correct to ask the question about the result of adding quality bicycle facilities on peoples’ transportation mode choice. Of course, we cannot predict the future, but we do have many examples to look at to give us a hint at what happens. The city of Copenhagen is the best example of a community that took a bunch of space away from storing and moving motor vehicles in order to create dedicated space for bicycling. Copenhagen’s mode split is roughly 1/3 bicycle, 1/3 transit and 1/3 private motor vehicle. Closer to home Davis, CA has included bicycle facilities in their transportation system for more than three decades. The result is many people choose to travel by bicycle. I can’t recall their mode split off the top of my head, but it’s significant.
If we create high quality space for people to use bicycles comfortably, we see that people do use bicycles comfortably and frequently.
“If we create high quality space for people to use bicycles comfortably, we see that people do use bicycles comfortably and frequently.”
Kinda like the “If you build it they will come” theory. Hey, if we add more lanes to freeways and they still get congested, the same works for bike lanes. People are getting sick of sitting in traffic jams, plus paying for gas and parking just to go three miles to work. I would bet that biking would increase enough to make it all even out.
I stand by my assessment, but maybe I just need to be more careful with my wording. Converting general-use lanes, which can also be used by bikes, to bike-only lanes will undoubtedbly cut down on “automobile” capacity. Again, the question would be if people would switch to bikes in large enough numbers, even over time, to make the offset worth it. If not, you can easily increase the carbon emissions by reducing the efficiency of automobile travel (more idling).
And because bikes move more slowly and have different braking characteristics, I don’t know that the 7200 bikes per hour is a logical capacity. Could be more, could be less, I think it’s more complicated than vehicle size.
The fault with Matty’s theory is in thinking that just because a lane is taken away from vehicles that all of a sudden thousands of people are going to decide to bike to work. Ain’t gonna happen. I’d be surprised if 7200 bikes TOTAL ride to work downtown every day, much less 7200 an hour.
As for J’s “post”, s/he epitomizes the attitude of these morons. Just bursting with pride over ruining the days of several hundred commuters. And for what? They should all be hauled to the Graybar Motel. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw: “nonconformists are all alike”. Just a bunch of sheep, following the herd. BAAAAAA.
It’s a good thing none of those runaway vehicles with faulty brakes or panicked drivers that plow into sidewalk cafe’s, crowded sidewalks and such or red-light runners are never around when Critical A$$ does their thing. That would be a tragedy. I real shame I tell ya.
Morg: “ruining the !!!!DAYS!!!!” (emphasis mine) “of several hundred commuters”
Consider me surprised if some nutcases aren’t scarred for a whole week. Not pointing fingers or anything.
Even though I’m a bike advocate, I won’t do Critical Mass. But I sure wonder where our priorities are. So many anti-massers get worked up into a frenzy, and foam at the mouth. (ahem, Morg?) I wish they would get that angry at other local groups like… maybe street gangs, the Klan, Neo-Nazis, etc…
If a buncha purple-haired kids wanna bike together, let ‘em. I don’t agree with their methods, but they’re not exactly a threat to society.
I think that Critical mass has become counterproductive. At one point it seemed like there was a good idea there, raising awareness of bikes as a commuting option and as a means of trasport that deserved a share of the road. (the name Critical mass comes from the idea that in order for pedestrians and bikes to be safe, there has to be enough of them around that drivers are tuned in to their presence.)But somewhere along the line it turned into bullying by the anti-car crowd. They really seem to be doing more harm then good these days.
Barry - That is the most baffling comment I’ve seen in some time. So because they complain about Critical Mass, they don’t have a problem with Nazis or the Klan? Great example of Godwin’s Law at work there.
Nobody likes those groups, so what’s the point of bringing them up. People bring up Critical Mass here because some people actually defend the hoodlums. You’d do the same if a bunch of cars decided they were going to block up bike paths to “raise awareness” of the joys of automobile commuting (read: annoy people who make an alternate choice with your own self-righteous indignation).
Gentlemen, I’m not saying Critical Mass contributes anything great. That’s why I never go. Personally, I have always thought they were a little crazy–and that they gave the rest of us cyclists a bad reputation.
But what I tried to point out (in an off-the-wall way) was that the level of anger at them from a couple commenters seems a little disproportionate.
Those idiots might cause someone to lose their life because they block an ambulance or car from getting to the hospital. These “people” are despicable and get no respect or break from me. They violate the very rights and freedoms they are advocating in their futile effort to enlighten the rest of us. Sorry, but if someone ran over a horde of critical assers in an effort to get to a hospital to save a loved one’s life, I’d applaud.
