[Lavery]

There are two other reasons bike lanes don't have the kind of demand induction properties that roads do:

-Bike lanes (and ultimately, bike destinations) have way higher humans-per-square-foot of road / parking lot density than cars lanes. The throttling mechanism on behavior for the car example is ultimately drive time, and new lanes quickly become capacity constrained (first at the interchanges; later at the parking; last in the lanes themselves) in a way that slows ultimate travel back to the indifference equilibrium. The equivalent for bikes tolerates a way higher flow of humans.

-Induced demand for cars is in part a function of the fact that you can (up to a point) drive at any speed, meaning that if roads are added that support commuting in from 30, 40, 60 miles away, that can be a doable commute. There is no amount of development that will create a 60 mile bicycle commute. Here, the demand induction mechanism with travel lanes and housing is reversed: you need convenient housing to drive the demand for bike lanes.

[tobylane]

The Embankment in London (Westminster to Blackfriars) lost one of its four vehicle lanes for a kerb separated two way cycle lane. It carries more traffic than the four vehicle lanes, but looks far emptier, which invited much complaint at first. I’m glad to see TfL are still building more cycle lanes, various types to suit the roads used.

[aix1]

Supporting data: p17 of http://content.tfl.gov.uk/segregated-cycling-infrastructure-...

Though I can't say I fully follow TfL's maths on this one.

[0wis]

It is surely true for the density part. However I have now seen bike lanes that are two years old that would be efficiently « unjammed » by doubling. Another great aspect of bike density is that when you double the lane you allow way more traffic. When you are slow and small, you don’t need much space to overtake a slow electric bike.

[sempron64]

The reason bike lanes do not have demand induction effects is because there is inherently low demand. A majority of the population cannot use bicycles for long trips, and even those who can cannot use them for all trips.

Bike lanes are ableist and classist. Only healthy citizens with an excess of time and energy are able to use them for trips. The elderly, children, those with heart conditions, asthma, or many other health conditions, and anyone needing to transport anything heavier than their own body cannot use the lane. In most cities this represents a minority of the population. Creating exclusionary space for bicycles is the opposite of progressive policy and efficient urban design.

[danhor]

If you look at other countries with a lot of bike infrastructure, you can see that your point doesn't really hold up to reality. First, reducing road usage so only those who can't use a bike (for whatever reason) helps everyone, since it allows more efficient transportation and encourages a denser city (see the linked post). (this partially handles time, in dense city centers bikes can be often faster already)

Most people can use an electric bike (this checks the energy part) and with electrical cargo bikes can transport a lot without a lot of physical exertion.

And, last but not least, for those who truly can't use anything bike-like the fan-favorite netherlands allows the use Canta, very small microcars, on bike lanes. These are way cheaper than cars and need less skills to drive, so elderly can drive them as well.

Way better than requiring everyone to drive couple tons worth tens of thousands of dollars after absolving an expensive and time consuming course on how to use them without injuring anybody or worse.

PS. I don't know many children that can drive a lot on roads without a bicycle. That's a very weird example. I don't think many people advocate removing sidewalks in favor of bike lanes.

[URSpider94]

This is wrong on so many levels. I’ve spent years biking in the Netherlands. People from age 7 up into their 70s ride their bikes regularly and safely - so safely that bike helmets are a total rarity. People ride ebikes and even gas mopeds on the bike lanes, and it all works out just fine. People drive electric mobility scooters in the bike lanes. People in wheelchairs have special adaptors that let them pedal with their hands and use the bike lanes. Your statement that most parents are physically incapable of moving their young children on bikes is proven false by the tens of thousands of Dutch parents who transport their kids in bike seats every day.

Bike travel is about as egalitarian as it gets. You can buy a serviceable bike for a couple hundred dollars, with basically no extra costs - compare that to a car, or even a bus pass, and it’s a screaming deal.

[stefs]

i'm speaking from a european city (400k inhabitants) perspective, where everything is rather crowded compared to the american suburb commute.

> A majority of the population cannot use bicycles for long trips

well, bicycling _in the city_ is usually meant for short trips, but 95% of my trips are short trips of less than 10km.

> Only healthy citizens with an excess of time and energy are able to use them for trips

excess of time: on my commute i'm on average a lot faster by bike - no gridlock, no search for a parking spot

energy: carbs are cheap

healthy: cycling improves your health and fitness follows an S-curve. even if the ride is arduous in the beginning, it quickly gets easier

> The elderly, children

personal experience (biased): compared to driving, a disproportional amount of cyclists are elderly or children

> those with heart conditions, asthma, or many other health conditions

i don't know about that. a bike courier i know uses an asthma inhaler, but i haven't asked him about it.

> and anyone needing to transport anything heavier than their own body

you're right that there's a limit, but i can impose those same arbitrary limits on cars: "what if i need to transport X which doesn't fit in a car?"

> Creating exclusionary space for bicycles is the opposite of progressive policy and efficient urban design.

it's a safe space for cyclists who are not able or willing to ride on the road shared with drivers. i usually don't mind riding on the road, but as soon as i got my toddler in the trailer i tend to get rather touchy about safe cycling infrastructure.

i'm not sure what you're arguing for though. are you arguing for motorized individual transport, because the disabled, elderly, toddlers prefer cars? or public transport?

[Broken_Hippo]

Bike lanes keep people safe.

Not everyone can drive: We still have roads. And honestly, I've met a few folks that couldn't drive but could bike if it had 3 wheels (physical limitations) and with the electric bicycles, the folks that cannot do it are becoming less and less. In any case, it is nearly impossible to include everyone in everything: Without this, more people are in harms way OR excluded.

Bicycle lanes are great for powered wheelchairs, and folks can go faster than foot traffic then. You can get such things covered for winter (I see it here in town). So long as you maintain them like you do roads, they can be available all year.

Around here, bicycle lanes are generally alongside foot traffic and have shortcuts. Busses are available, though.

[rjbwork]

Bruh. This is just incorrect. I am fat and asthmatic and commuted by bicycle all during college in Athens, GA and and by e-bike for about a year in Atlanta, GA. Cycling, especially e-bikes, is extremely accessible even for quite unfit populations. With my e-bike, rack, and paniers, I can do weekly shopping trips no problem as well.

Besides that, it gets cars off the road meaning that the disabled/unhealthy population you care so much about will have higher priority access to car infrastructure.

[majormajor]

If the healthy and able population overwhelmingly traveled via bike, alternate forms of transit would gain too because currently they are being CRUSHED by the amount of road traffic in many cities. Busses that move at a crawl. At-grade trains limited by traffic intersections. Taxis and ambulances fighting traffic. Etc.

[Tijdreiziger]

What a weird take. Bike lanes do not take away the possibility for those less able to use a car, they strictly add options. You might as well argue sidewalks are ableist.

[burnished]

You're gonna call riding a bike, instead of a car, ableist and classist? Great, let me just go get an expensive to own, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate vehicle so I can really stick it to the rich.

Can you better explain the ableist remark? It sort of comes off like you're being mocking.

[bobbylarrybobby]

Ah yes, it’s bike lanes that are classist. Not the roads that require at least a $10k investment to participate.

[imtringued]

>Bike lanes are ableist and classist. ...

I'm sorry but what you are saying is simply wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canta_(vehicle)

[tdeck]

I think the reason more people don't use the kind of bike lanes we see in the United States is that they're not safe. Cycling in the U.S. means riding on roads with vehicles that aren't expecting bikes and that can easily kill you if the driver makes a small mistake. If you're lucky, some parts of that route will include a painted bike lane, and if you're really lucky that bike lane will be separated from deadly traffic by a physical barrier and won't be adjacent to a line of parked cars that may open their door at any moment and hit you. But neither of these "luxuries" are common in the U.S. or in most countries - bikes are simply an afterthought.

In that environment, it's no wonder that only more physically fit people will be likely to cycle, because you need some strength and agility to quickly course-correct and avoid danger. But these things aren't inherent to riding a bike. If sidewalks were a painted lane down the middle of the street people with disabilities wouldn't be safe walking on them (just as they are sometimes at risk on crosswalks), but that doesn't mean pedestrian infrastructure is ableist. As someone with a disability that prevents me from driving, I'm glad I have good pedestrian infrastructure in my city, and what passes in the U.S. for great bicycle infrastructure. But I wish I didn't have to share the road with cars.

[stale2002]

Providing a multitude of different options, for different people, is the opposite of ableist, I'd say.

The point of equality is not to force everyone to do the same thing.

Instead, it is to address different people's concerns, differently, so that everyone can get what they want.

[TheCoelacanth]

What nonsense. Bike lanes are the only type of traffic lanes that children can use.

Elderly can ride tricycles, often long after they are capable of driving.