Would commuters be more likely to ride a bike if they had the option to ride in a protected lane? New research led by a University of New Mexico faculty member says yes. Protected bike lanes are associated with nearly double the number of bike...
If I understand this study correctly, this is an increase of 11-14 bike commuters per mile of bike lane with a population density of 2,750 a square mile.
My city has 400 miles of bike lanes, therefore we should see an uptick in 5,600 riders?
I’m not sure how this study anticipates other factors limiting utilization such as economic status, weather, or city population size/density but it stands to reason that while a few more bike commuters can be coaxed out of hiding, there are very likely diminishing returns for investment costs and with 2 data points, the projected trajectory is not as linear as the study implies.
The investment costs for protecting a bike lane are almost nothing for any competent city, though. There’s a reason it’s possible for guerrilla urbanists to do it overnight with no money.
If it costs almost nothing for a competent city and your city is spending $150M/year on it, well then the obvious conclusion is that your city isn’t competent! 🤓
But seriously, though, it’s funny 'cause it’s true: almost every city in the English-speaking world is incompetent at building bike infrastructure. The correct way to do it would be routinely as part of the standard operating procedure of maintaining the street. When you break it out as a separate retrofit project and then hold a big public input process about it, of course it’s going to massively inflate the cost.
(Also, I’m pretty sure @regul was talking about the costs only for upgrading bike lanes from unprotected to protected, not the total cost of bike infrastructure in general.)
I would expect it to be the opposite: that the returns would accelerate as the bike infrastructure network becomes more and more complete, until cyclist mode share approaches Dutch levels.
If I understand this study correctly, this is an increase of 11-14 bike commuters per mile of bike lane with a population density of 2,750 a square mile.
My city has 400 miles of bike lanes, therefore we should see an uptick in 5,600 riders?
I’m not sure how this study anticipates other factors limiting utilization such as economic status, weather, or city population size/density but it stands to reason that while a few more bike commuters can be coaxed out of hiding, there are very likely diminishing returns for investment costs and with 2 data points, the projected trajectory is not as linear as the study implies.
The investment costs for protecting a bike lane are almost nothing for any competent city, though. There’s a reason it’s possible for guerrilla urbanists to do it overnight with no money.
My city spends $150 million annually on this stuff.
If it costs almost nothing for a competent city and your city is spending $150M/year on it, well then the obvious conclusion is that your city isn’t competent! 🤓
But seriously, though, it’s funny 'cause it’s true: almost every city in the English-speaking world is incompetent at building bike infrastructure. The correct way to do it would be routinely as part of the standard operating procedure of maintaining the street. When you break it out as a separate retrofit project and then hold a big public input process about it, of course it’s going to massively inflate the cost.
(Also, I’m pretty sure @regul was talking about the costs only for upgrading bike lanes from unprotected to protected, not the total cost of bike infrastructure in general.)
Not asking you to dox yourself, but that number outside of context means very little.
I would expect it to be the opposite: that the returns would accelerate as the bike infrastructure network becomes more and more complete, until cyclist mode share approaches Dutch levels.