New Oakland Bike Lane (Pittsburgh, Monroe: houses, living, fences)

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by Copanut

How many people use them on a daily basis to justify them?

That was kind of the point of my OP. A lot of people seem to be using the bike lanes. During morning rush, it seems that you never look down the street without seeing at least on cyclist in the lane. The number of cyclists I see looks very obviously greater than last year and hugely greater than when I started working in Oakland.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by Copanut

I'm a fairly avid cyclist and I love all the rails to tails that are springing up. But spending all the money on the city bike lanes seems stupid to me. How many people use them on a daily basis to justify them?

I've been dealing with traffic and slower riders on the lane on Liberty in Bloomfield lately, so that would mean they are being used at least somewhat. I have also been dealing with a lot of cars attempting to pull out into me from street parking spaces.

[sealie]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

That was kind of the point of my OP. A lot of people seem to be using the bike lanes. During morning rush, it seems that you never look down the street without seeing at least on cyclist in the lane. The number of cyclists I see looks very obviously greater than last year and hugely greater than when I started working in Oakland.

https://bikepgh.org/2015/06/04/city-...ed-bike-lanes/

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by sealie

https://bikepgh.org/2015/06/04/city-...ed-bike-lanes/

Thanks. I suppose it is too soon for anybody to have counted the Oakland figures yet?

[Blackbeauty212]

Originally Posted by tclifton

Just to be fair, as long as we're supplying "news"; without the suburban folks that you seem to deride so much, the city would be a ghost town.

But keep looking for the rage, if that's what peanut butters your bread!

Just to be fair, without the same City, which you pay NO TAXES TO, YOUR Suburbs wouldn't exists.

Don't need to look for the rage, its everywhere and coming from Angry, Car-Enslaved, "I Want Free Parking" Suburban Yinzers.

[tclifton]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

Just to be fair, without the same City, which you pay NO TAXES TO, YOUR Suburbs wouldn't exists.

Some would, some wouldn't. But it's undeniable that the city wouldn't exist without the suburbs.

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

Don't need to look for the rage, its everywhere and coming from Angry, Car-Enslaved, "I Want Free Parking" Suburban Yinzers.

lol, you're funny!

[erieguy]

I prefer to pay for parking in the city, especially in a lot or garage. Makes me feel my vehicle is safer than looking for a free parking spot nestled somewhere.

[Blackbeauty212]

Originally Posted by tclifton

Some would, some wouldn't. But it's undeniable that the city wouldn't exist without the suburbs.

Oh, please enlighten me it what way would WPA exisit without a "City of Pittsburgh" .... The definition of Suburbs are because of an Out-migration from a Core ... What would be the "CORE" if not the city ... If you have NO CORE, How do you have suburbs?

lol, you're funny!

Thanks - So are you, btw, especially with that ridiculous analogy that the city only exists because of the burbs ... That's Hilarious.

Originally Posted by erieguy

I prefer to pay for parking in the city, especially in a lot or garage. Makes me feel my vehicle is safer than looking for a free parking spot nestled somewhere.

Nothing wrong with that .... every city I've visited or lived, you pay to park. Its a lot in the luxury life of owning your own personal vehicle. You pay for gas, you pay for insurance, you pay tolls, you pay for PARKING. I don't/will never understand this entitlement the Yinzers have to Free Parking.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

Thanks - So are you, btw, especially with that ridiculous analogy that the city only exists because of the burbs ... That's Hilarious.

Many suburbs have their own tax bases and their own employers, bb.

More people commute TO Cranberry, than from Cranberry to elsewhere.



If people want to charge a lot to park, people just won't go there that often. If you want to ban private vehicles and make life a living hell for suburbanites, it just isn't going to happen. People will find a way just to avoid the aggravation.

[PIT2MAD]

For those asking for registration fees/insurance for cyclists, almost every cyclist I've ever met has been willing to pay a nominal fee (proportional to the risk they incur upon the public, which statistically is negligable) for registration and isurance if it ensured that there would be a somewhat proportional investment in infrastructure, public awareness, and an acceptance by society as a viable means of getting around an urban environment.

But would that really happen? Assuming the common sense Idaho Law eventually makes its way to Pittsburgh, and riding on sidewalks is strictly enforced, will the naysayers be content with a $10 yearly fee and giving up the occasional traffic lane to ensure that everyone is covered in the event of an accident and that no one is doing something as socially unacceptable as going through a red light when 99.9% of the risk lies with the lawbreaker?

Is there a single fellow cyclist reading this that would not be willing to pay a nominal fee to ensure all of the above was present on every ride, including broad public support?

Charge me if you want, just don't insult my intelligence by claiming my 160 pound ass on a 20 lbs bike is as much of a threat to public safety in an urban environment as your 1.5 ton car. That's just silly.