As Gas Prices Soar So Does City Biking 342
Hugh Pickens writes "As California's gas prices hit record highs, the millions of dollars spent in recent years on commuter bike lanes and public transportation projects in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other major cities are being seen in a new light by many drivers. Jason Dearen reports that San Francisco is seeing a 71-percent increase in cyclists in the past five years, and Los Angeles is reporting a 32 percent increase from 2009-2011. Both findings gibe with the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, which found a 63 percent increase in bicycle commuters from 2000 to 2010 in the nation's 70 largest cities. 'In some ways it's a perfect storm of events that is starting to take place,' says Claire Bowin, head of policy planning for Los Angeles' planning department. Getting people out of cars 'is a very daunting task, but on other hand we have largely benefited from a growing community here that is demanding these things.' Los Angeles is building almost 1,600 miles of bike infrastructure (PDF) over the next five years. Los Angeles County's Metrolink, which features open train cars for bike riders is seeing record ridership. Changing attitudes about cars — caused by climate change — are helping these efforts as people in their twenties and thirties have adopted biking in larger numbers than previous generations (PDF)."
Biking is better (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Bicyclists darn sure do pay taxes for roads.
Interstates are paid roughly 100% with federal gasoline taxes. Bicyclists don't pay those taxes, but don't use interstates either.
State roads, depending on the state, are paid approx 10% - 50% with state gasoline taxes, the rest with general revenue. Bicyclists do pay general revenue.
Local roads -- which are most roads -- are paid for with state/fed grants and a big chunk of local taxes. The most common local tax is property tax, and bicyclists typically live somewhere, and therefore pay the tax directly based on the home they own or indirectly through their rent.
If gas taxes paid 100% of the road maintenance costs, US gas taxes would rival the UK.
Re:Just Think (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it is. 15 miles one way is exactly my commute, I use a heavy mountainbike and I am fat. A lighter person on a light road bike would have it even easier.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Besides, bicycles don't damage the road, they are far too light for that. Their ground pressure is similar to a pedestrian.
Re:Biking is better (Score:2, Informative)
Sure it increases your fitness levels, but with all the smog and pollution I very much doubt that cycling or jogging to work is actually healthier for you.
Deaths per mile traveled are spectacularly higher, and the bicycle always "loses" in an accident, even vs pedestrians, something to do with height of head above ground and road rash. People are notoriously bad at estimating risk, so that's no surprise that something supposedly health is actually unhealthy.
You're "about" four times safer driving on road than biking. I realize its not politically correct but roads are for cars and motorcycles, not for bicycles. Use the correct tool for the job. Or at least buy sufficient life insurance for spouse and kids if you insist on biking.
You'll hear a lot of imaginary tradeoffs where you can either drive, or bike commute, therefore either no exercise or exercise. However, bike commuting is so incredibly slow, that if I biked I'd never have time to exercise other than bike riding... a "eh" cardio and a good leg workout, but the rest of me would suffer. I find it interesting that the vast majority of serious athletes commute by car, which pretty much says it all.
Re:Winter Biking? (Score:5, Informative)
Minneapolis/St. Paul: It's becoming more common to see folks using incredibly fat-tired mountain bikes in all weathers, but regular bikes (even road bikes) are now seen every winter, even below 0F. Credit to determined riders and cities that make an effort. Bike trails are plowed by specialized equipment, although at a delay like you mentioned, riders still venture out on the streets. Thanks to all for using bike lights, even during the day.
Re:Biking is better (Score:5, Informative)
However, bike commuting is so incredibly slow, that if I biked I'd never have time to exercise other than bike riding
Compared to what? I commute on bike each day, using 25 minutes each way. In a car, I would be using 15 minutes. For me, the saved time would not be used in a gym. It would most likely be used on my back side. Net result is 50 minutes of exercise each day that I would not be getting if I drove a car. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that situation.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Everything will cause damage, if there's enough of it - it may take longer, but to suggest that the impact is zero is crazy to say the least.
Road damage is proportional to the weight of the vehicle...raised to the fifth or sixth power (not a typo, damage is proportional to weight^5 or weight^6). Bicycles and cars don't damage roads, it's almost all caused by trucks...and freeze-thaw cycles in colder areas. Here's one paper summary (sorry, the full paper is behind a paywall).
whoops, here's the link:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00423118908968916#preview [tandfonline.com]
Re:Biking is better (Score:4, Informative)
I would like to see a source for that. One of the first pages that I found on Google reads: "However, there is no reliable source of exposure data to really answer this question: we don't know how many miles bicyclists travel each year, and we don't know how long it takes them to cover these miles (and thus how long they are exposed to motor vehicle traffic)." [bicyclinginfo.org].
Moreover, I think one of the points of TFA is that the bike infrastructures (i.e., bike lanes) is being expanded, which is likely to reduce the accident rate (per bike-mile) by quite a bit.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed. Studies back in the 50's showed that vehicle induced road damage is proportional to the fourth power of axle loading. When people start screaming that bicycles should be taxed "fairly", I suggest that they're taxed at 1$/year, with the provision that all other vehicles are taxed proportionally.
Re:Biking is better (Score:3, Informative)
Sure about that 25 minute figure? I figure I'm doing well if from door to door I can shower and change clothes in 10 minutes so you're somehow claiming it takes 15 minutes in car or on bike.... That also messes up your exercise claim of 50 minutes now you're down to only 30 minutes, which really isn't much (thats about how long I go for a walk every day at lunch, admittedly not "real" exercise). For example, my flex time commute is about 20 minutes when I avoid rush hour (which I almost always do). There's no way I can maintain 75 miles per hour for about 15 minutes on level ground on my bike, so that's an easy 90 minutes or so each way on a bike at realistic long distance (for a daily bike commuter) speeds. Add some shower time and realistic break time (water breaks when its over 100, knock the ice off when its below freezing, etc) and we're up to a good 4 hours of commute per day, vs 40 minutes in my car and 3 hrs 20 mins of some mixture of relaxing exercising /.-posting whatever.
Obviously, biking is not for everyone, in this country it's very easy to design your life in such a way that biking is not a viable option.
Here are my commute stats (I timed each trip several times over a few weeks):
10 miles by car, 12 miles by bike:
1. Car: 47 minutes average. This includes the walk to the parking garage to get my car, and more significantly, finding street parking and then walking several blocks to the office. Best case was 40 minutes, worst case was 1:20 when there was an accident on my commute route and I got stuck in stop and go traffic on the freeway.
2. Bike: 66 minutes average. This includes 59 minutes for biking, and walking into the office, and 7 minutes changing clothes. Oddly, my biking time is almost always constant, ranging from 58 - 60 minutes. It's surprising since I ride through 8 traffic light intersections, so I thought my time would be a lot more variable. I've timed myself for over 60 rides, and the worst case was 65 minutes, but almost all of my rides have been from 58 - 60 minutes.
3. Transit: 73 minutes average. This includes walking to the train station (5 minutes from home), making a train->bus connection, and walking from the bus stop to the office. Best case was 55 minutes, worst was 90 minutes.
On thing I didn't include in these figures is the extra padding I have to allow -- even though on average it only takes about 45 minutes by car, I need to allow 60 minutes of travel time to work to account for delays, so I leave earlier. The same goes for transit, I have to add on another 20 - 30 minutes to my commute to account for delays. Since my bike commute time is so constant, I don't need to pad my departure time.
Re:Its the economy stupid! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I've been bike commuting since 2002 (Score:4, Informative)
Why it doesn't automatically give you a walk signal is beyond me.
At most intersections pedestrians aren't trying to cross the road. So the lights are shorter to keep traffic following. By pressing the button it extends the amount of time on that cycle to give pedestrians time to safely cross the street.
Re:Winter Biking? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just Think (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. The US problem is that you have built all your cities for cars instead of for people. Rural areas are about the same in any western country, you will need a car for some things. I live in Sweden and in the countryside most people need cars to get around as well. Our cities however are built for people, with sidewalks, bicycle lanes and decent public transport.
Having a car engine designed for gas mileage instead of as a penis extension also helps a lot with gas costs. I was in the US last summer and drove around the south with my brother. The car was a small, normal car but it used at least 1.1 litre of gas per 10 km. A comparable car in Europe uses something like 0,6-0,7 litres per 10 km. Plenty of cars are avilable over here that use 0,4-0,5 litres per 10 km, and no, they arent just Priuses.
Re:Just Think (Score:5, Informative)
Hi, 6', 220lbs, 52 here. 9.5 miles one-way over the 300' hill (max grade is 10%), 10.5 if I take the flat route, 12.5 if I take the fewer-cars-buy-groceries-on-the-way route. I have two advantages -- I raced as a kid, so I *knew* what was possible for "old" people, and I have a really bad attitude, which is a force that can be used for good.
So. The first time sucked. The second time sucked. So did the third time. Somewhere in there I did a one-week, 300 mile bike trip with a bunch of boy scouts (sleeping, first three nights, involved finding a part to lie down on that was neither a sore muscle nor a poky bone -- i.e., none of the available parts). That helped a lot, but even afterwards I noticed definite improvement for the next few months.
It continued to slowly get easier for the next three years, and since then has reached the don't-give-a-shit stage. The legs just go, though sometimes I'll noticed that they're sore if I do a lot 4 days in a row. So I would say it probably goes on a scale of weeks-months-years. I know that in the space of a few months there were substantial improvements in my blood chemistry (because you know, cholesterol, triglycerides, crap like that).
What I recommend: (1) do NOT obsess about weight. The weight weenies have ruined cycling in this country. I break bike parts, because the weight weenies wanted to save a few more grams, and the manufacturers complied. I ride a bicycle that weighs 65 pounds. (2) Get good tires. I recommend Schwalbe; they sell sizes that fit very many bikes, excellent quality, low rolling resistance, durable. If you have an old mountain bike or hybrid, you might be able to manage Big Apples (huge slick tires) or Fat Franks. (3) You probably want to avoid those straight flat bars that so many mountain bikes come with. Why do they put those on bikes? I have no fucking idea, they are poison to my wrists, and the same for many of my friends. You want "North Road", "Albatross", "Porteur", or "Left Bank" (I recommend Left Bank). Don't be afraid to complain, don't be too afraid to spend a little money (filled up my wife's car today, that was the cost of a pair of handlebars). (4) Saddle. Not sure I can help you there; I seem to have an iron butt. Brooks leather saddles are popular, look nice, have modest snob appeal, and work for me, but they don't work for everyone. Be wary of the plush-fat-ass saddle; that's a great short-term solution that may not work for very many miles. A little padding might be all you need; you don't want to bruise, but all that squoshy stuff on some saddles will also provide friction over a large part of your butt, and may also squoosh into places that it is not welcome (use your imagination). A hard saddle might be improved by a seat cover, especially a slippery one that provides a trace of padding (Aardvark is the brand I like).
The tire and handlebar advice are doubled if you must ride with traffic -- you want to see the cars, you want them to see you, and you want a tire that will be your friend if you have to eat a pothole or hop a curb because some clown failed to notice you in the road and you need to be elsewhere fast.
Also, lights. I'm not organized enough to keep batteries charged, so I spent money for a dynamo hub, and just run my lights all the time, day and night. Modern LED lights are awesome, though pricy. I built my own (3 caps, 4 diodes, hex-puck mounted CREE power LEDs, stock lenses, aluminum angle for heat sink and mount, acrylic mirror to keep the light out of my eyes, and P clamps and bell clamps for mounting hardware).
Re:Biking is better (Score:5, Informative)
Your missing one of the greatest benefits of bike commuting. When you get to work you feel relaxed and energized.
In any case, bike clothing is practical for cycling. Nobody in his right mind would wear it because of the way it looked. It's kind of like wearing leather for motorcycling; there are good, practical reasons for wearing leather while motorcycling despite the fact that most people look silly in it.
Narrow studded tires, not "fat mountain tires" (Score:5, Informative)
For winter riding, you want relatively narrow tires with soft compound rubber, with studs. About the narrowest studded tire for 700c wheels is around 32mm.
The studs are for ice.
The soft compound is so the tire is compliant in colder temperatures.
The narrowness helps cut through snow down to the road surface.
A fat tire will ride on top of the snow, where there's zero traction.
Re:Biking is better (Score:2, Informative)
There's probably more people driving than riding bikes. Your statistics are skewed.
How many zeppelin fatalities have there been in Denver over the same period?
Re:The US needs more practical bikes (Score:4, Informative)
That one isn't true -- In the Netherlands step-through bikes are still considered a female model (originally made that way to accommodate wearing a skirt/dress), Men's bikes pretty much all have a horizontal bar closing the gap to increase structural integrity. That said, it's not that rare for men to ride a women's bike and vice-versa
While a Dutch bike is comfortable to ride on flat surfaces, they are less suited for hilly terrain -- which is a non-issue in the Netherlands since the whole place is about a flat as can be. They suck to have to climb a hill or bridge on a windy day, though.