A Multitude of Negative Unintended Consequences

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

As with most things foisted upon the populace by moral scold do-goiders.

http://business.financialpost.com/o...ties-made-a-huge-mistake-in-promoting-cycling

 

[davidallen]

Lots of flaws in that analysis...

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Lots of flaws in that analysis...

If you say so.

 

[Medic007]

Lots of flaws in that analysis...

Tell us about the flaws. I'd seriously like to hear your perspective. Some of that article definitely reeked of sour grapes.

 

[davidallen]

Tell us about the flaws. I'd seriously like to hear your perspective. Some of that article definitely reeked of sour grapes.

The idea that bike riders would not pay tolls sufficient to cover the costs of operating bike lanes totally ignores what bike riders do pay for, how they pay for it, and the fact that not just the bike riders benefit from the existence of the infrastructure for instance. If the intent was a thorough economic analysis it would include a lot more variables as well. Finally, sour grapes is a good word for it - traffic in London is a mess with or without bike lanes with TfL having multiple concurrent programs that should be included in the discussion including the Congestion Charge scheme.

Basically, the article was a drive by, not a serious analysis piece.

 

[Medic007]

The idea that bike riders would not pay tolls sufficient to cover the costs of operating bike lanes totally ignores what bike riders do pay for, how they pay for it, and the fact that not just the bike riders benefit from the existence of the infrastructure for instance. If the intent was a thorough economic analysis it would include a lot more variables as well. Finally, sour grapes is a good word for it - traffic in London is a mess with or without bike lanes with TfL having multiple concurrent programs that should be included in the discussion including the Congestion Charge scheme.

Basically, the article was a drive by, not a serious analysis piece.

Thanks for the informative reply.

The only question I have is what bike riders pay for and how they pay it. Oklahoma doesn't have any significant bike initiatives that I'm aware of. What does this bicycle cost sharing/paying look like in Portland?

 

[davidallen]

Thanks for the informative reply.

The only question I have is what bike riders pay for and how they pay it. Oklahoma doesn't have any significant bike initiatives that I'm aware of. What does this bicycle cost sharing/paying look like in Portland?

In London, the vast majority of bike commuters live close in to the city with substantially higher tax burdens than those using Tube or driving. Drivers get hit within the core city with substantial daily fees which pushes them to the Tube/Busses. Employers are incented to support bicycle based commuting translating to really great employers (let you fill in who I am talking about here) subsidize the purchase of bikes for commuters.

I considered (briefly) and declined a position with Amazon in London in part because the cost of commuting was off the charts.

PDX - somewhat the same. A Trimet study showed the average bike commute is less than 10 miles which means most are in the city proper thus paying higher property taxes (translating to higher rents for those who aren't property owners). Some conversation about a bike purchase tax to help support infrastructure across the state - doubt it passes, but seems reasonable to me.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Bike riders who live close in to the city don't move to their location simply because they want to bike. And at any rate, the majority of people who live in this same general locales do NOT commute via bicycle. So, if they own property, the non bike riders are also paying equivalent property taxes and also paying the theorized higher resulting rents, in the cases where they are not property owners.

 

[davidallen]

...the majority of people who live in this same general locales do NOT commute via bicycle...

Correct. But the benefits including reduced pollution, reduced congestion (see the actual stats for the entirety of downtown London as an example), and reduced pollution accrue to all who live and work in the city core. The reduction in health care expenditures have a broad impact as well for all who participate in the healthcare economy. An honest analysis would not gloss over those (and other) factors.

Not saying bike lanes can't be a royal PIA for drivers, just saying that bitching about them is one thing, purporting to show "unintended consequences" requires a bit more work.

 

[purkey]

they've got bikes galore in downtown okc to rent for however long you want...never see anyone on one.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

The idea that bike riders would not pay tolls sufficient to cover the costs of operating bike lanes totally ignores what bike riders do pay for, how they pay for it, and the fact that not just the bike riders benefit from the existence of the infrastructure for instance. If the intent was a thorough economic analysis it would include a lot more variables as well. Finally, sour grapes is a good word for it - traffic in London is a mess with or without bike lanes with TfL having multiple concurrent programs that should be included in the discussion including the Congestion Charge scheme.

Basically, the article was a drive by, not a serious analysis piece.

It was a short piece in a daily periodical. It does reference more in depth studies, though there aren't any links.

Here is a piece from the Evening Standard discussing one of the reports that I believe he references. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...orse-in-the-city-report-reveals-a3361216.html

 

[Inky29]

They have bike share in downtown Dallas and all the bikes do is clutter up the area. They are more of a hinderance than a benefit.

 

[aix_xpert]

Bikes are an interesting issue. In cities where mass-transit is prevalent and popular, central bike paths and sharing programs (such as in London) work marvelously, as it allows a method beyond walking for inner-city travel once commuters reach a city via the Tube, Subway, bus, or other mass transit function. However, for cities without real mass transit (it may exist but is not popular or highly utilized), such as OKC or Dallas, these bike-share stations are mostly wasteful and under-utilized. As usual, there is no one answer that is right for every town, and hopefully the local government can make common sense decisions about whether this type of expenditure will provide a real ROI for the community.

 

[CowboyJD]

they've got bikes galore in downtown okc to rent for however long you want...never see anyone on one.

Weird, I see people on them often.

Just last night for example,

 

[Medic007]

In London, the vast majority of bike commuters live close in to the city with substantially higher tax burdens than those using Tube or driving. Drivers get hit within the core city with substantial daily fees which pushes them to the Tube/Busses. Employers are incented to support bicycle based commuting translating to really great employers (let you fill in who I am talking about here) subsidize the purchase of bikes for commuters.

I considered (briefly) and declined a position with Amazon in London in part because the cost of commuting was off the charts.

PDX - somewhat the same. A Trimet study showed the average bike commute is less than 10 miles which means most are in the city proper thus paying higher property taxes (translating to higher rents for those who aren't property owners). Some conversation about a bike purchase tax to help support infrastructure across the state - doubt it passes, but seems reasonable to me.

Thanks for the response. This isn't a topic that I'v ever put any thought into.