> Add green dye to the asphalt instead of adding a layer of green paint.
We've had green bike lanes here for many years. I've never noticed any of them fade. We're supposed to lay new streets for one lane, for a problem which hasn't happened yet?
We've had green bike lanes here for many years. I've never noticed any of them fade. We're supposed to lay new streets for one lane, for a problem which hasn't happened yet?
The key word in your post is "here". These things vary by location - for example, anywhere that uses snowplows, a superficial treatment (paint, even thermoplastic) will wear away in a very short period of time. Centrelines here are repainted every year or two (or ten, on roads that aren't considered very important).
That’s really not the whole country, no matter how much a minority of SV’ers want it to be. Parts of the country are really spread out, parts are brutally cold, windy, and rainy, and yes some parts are lovely and sunny and packed to the gills. The problem is that evangelists for Bike Jesus never seem to accept that, and there’s always one or two who claim to live in Antarctica with a family of 6, and all while only riding a bike.
Finland is sparsely populated and almost entirely subarctic. Malta and Cyprus are tiny islands with year-round sunshine.
You might think that bad weather and low population density are insurmountable obstacles to the widespread adoption of cycling, but you'd be objectively wrong. The key factor isn't climate or density or hills or infrastructure, it's culture.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-le...
Let’s look at the other end of the scale, Denmark. Average summer day is 68F, which is terrific for a bike ride. The average winter high is 32F, which is freezing, but not terrible. Denmark’s wettest month is June with an average of 80mm of rain, contrasted with Malta which has three drenching month’s averaging between 97mm and 108mm.
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/these-are-the-most-bikeable...
The winter does deter people, simply as evidenced by seeing fewer fellow cyclists during my commute. One nice perk is that the city clears the bike paths quite promptly.
Strongly agree on the spread out part, though that is (in part) a symptom of widely used planning doctrine in North America (parking minimums, maximum lot coverage, and very wide minimum lane widths). Cold, wind, and rain are all issues, but they can be overcome (and have been in some jurisdictions) - not for everyone, but if a few percentage do it it's better for everyone.
Most cycling activism I see focuses as much on advantages for drivers as anything. The North American population has been urbanizing at a high rate - for a few decades, that was accommodated with suburbs and car based transportation. Many cities are now at the point where key corridors are congested for hours morning and evening (and expanding these corridors, at great cost, would only buy a few years or a decade of congestion relief). Cycling (and transit) are both low capital cost methods to relieve congestion - get an extra 5% commuting by bike and another 10% going by bus, and you have a lot of growth room available for cars. But both these need density to be reasonable: if you have density to begin with (European and Asian cities), mass transit and cycling are obvious/sensible responses. If you're starting with a low density area, it takes incentives to get past some inflection point of density. (Or stop growing, but not many cities are doing that, and none willingly)
> The problem is that evangelists for Bike Jesus never seem to accept that, and there’s always one or two who claim to live in Antarctica with a family of 6, and all while only riding a bike.
Flamebaiting exaggerations like this really do no one any good, and are against the intention of this website. Check out the comment guidelines. [0]
I would say the opposite.
Apart from the weather (which is a big part, but still), they are perfectly poised for biking.
North eastern cities dense, relatively flat and have no way of building more roads or accommodating new cars / parking spaces. Cycles also work very well in tandem with public transport ( when allowed on it).
On the other hand, I think SF and SV are not suited for bikes at all. Apart from last mile connectivity, everyone is still dependent on cars for every other task.
Beyond the weather, Caltrain is unusually bike-friendly rail, with ~100 bike racks per train (on multiple special bike cars per train). Palo Alto boasts an 87 'bike score' (higher than Minneapolis or Portland) and a network of bike boulevards that discourage through car traffic. San Francisco is investing heavily in rearranging streets for protected bike lanes, and there are plenty of SF city dwellers without cars.
Stability, slippage, being exposed to freezing cold and wet, the lack of an engine assist, no heat, two fewer wheels, and did I mention cold?
Just throw in the same effort that you do to keep car lanes open, and you’ll be fine.
Open for a car and open for a bike are different. You can drive through some snow, slush and ice, but I hate biking on ice and slush. In addition to the safety factor, it a miserable experience. It’s also not unheard of for roads to get too bad for cars, never mind bikes.
All in all I’m sort of disappointed that the reaction to raising obvious drawbacks is weapons-grade denial. Trying to sell people on a less safe, less comfortable, less reliable, means of transportation by throwing infrastructure projects at it is a problem, and why so many people are sick and tired of bike evangelists. Never mind the fact that a lot of people have disabilities that prevent that kind of hard work, have families and long commutes (please don’t throw another infrastructure project at that), are too old or infirm to bike through a Colorado summer, never mind winter, and so on.
It’s really a form of quiet elitism dressed up as environmentalism and social consciousness at worst, and a lack of understanding of just how huge the US is at best. Bikes probably do make more sense if a majority of your population lives in one or two cities, otherwise it just doesn’t.
No one is trying to force the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped to ride bikes. They can still use their cars, taxis and buses while the city is plowing the bike lanes for us healthy adults that like to ride our bikes to work.
Do note that while I say that harsh winters pose no problems to biking in general, I’ve found my self taking the bush in the worst winter weathers in Reykjavík. Which brings the point home that bike infrastructure is not mutually exclusive to other transportation.
Doesn't seem true where I live. Maybe you have a study to support this claim?\
> Bikes probably do make more sense if a majority of your population lives in one or two cities, otherwise it just doesn’t.
Cities in general seem to be conducive to bikes. Not sure why the whole country needs to live in just one or two cities or how that could logically follow.
Nationwide, you’re more than twice as likely to die while riding a bike than riding in a car, per trip, according to a 2007 study led by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Laurie Beck. Bike riding is also about 500 times more fatal than riding in a bus. Though Beck didn’t run numbers on subway and commuter rail systems, they may be the safest form of transportation of all. Despite a series of well-publicized accidents and maintenance issues, Metrorail and Metrobus reported just two injuries per million riders in 2015.
per trip
exposure rates such as the number of trips, distance,
or hours walked and cycled [...] are crucial in
measuring the safety of these 2 nonmotorized modes.
I've done many cold winters with a bicycle, and with a car, and there's no clear winner. For me it comes down to how far I'm going, what I need to carry with me, the quality of the roads and drivers, whether there's a bus route, and availability of bicycle storage versus car parking. I've never found traction to be a serious issue. If it's bad enough to avoid the bike, it's bad enough to avoid the car, too, and I'll walk or take the (chained) bus.
Still, the feeling of well-being that comes from moderate exercise and the joy of seeing the world in another way makes up for it. Most drivers are smart enough and courteous enough that I would recommend it to anyone.
You're not supposed to lay new streets. First of all, you can tear up single lanes, so no need to do the whole street. Secondly, you probably should already be tearing up a significant fraction in order to provide proper separation. But most of all, there is no need to replace them: just add the green dye when you're replacing them on their regular maintenance schedule.