Atlanta Officials Approve Plans For 31 Miles Of Bike Lanes (Dunwoody: property taxes, costs)

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

Let's use that logic.

So if we build more bike lanes, more bicyclist will use them. That's cool, what a great solution for today.

But what happens in 15 years, using this logic? Won't those bike lanes become congested and we will face terrible bike traffic? Well, then we can just build more bike lanes, right? But if you can't build your way out of a traffic problem, won't this just contribute to even MORE bike traffic? So how are we going to solve the problem of bike gridlock?

As always, the answer is a layered transportation situation.

Long Range:

Interstates / Limited Access Highways
Intercity Rail / Regional Rail

Medium Range:

Arterials / Highways
Commuter Buses
Commuter Rail

Near Range:

Avenues
Bike Paths / Bike Lanes / Bike Tracks
Bus Rapid Transit
Light Rail
Metro Rail

Close Range:

City Streets and Neighborhood Roads
Bike Lanes / Bike Tracks
City Buses
Streetcars
Pedestrian avenues / streets / plazas / sidewalks

The key part to any of this is that you offer alternatives, and never just one mode. If the roads are getting clogged, offer bike lanes, buses and rail. If the bike lanes are clogged, offer roads, buses, and rail. If we have layers, then people can mix and match their routes / modes as they need to.

Upgrades can then be made where needed with out necessarily causing too much induced demand since it's not the only mode available.

[CCATL]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

As always, the answer is a layered transportation situation.

Long Range:

Interstates / Limited Access Highways
Intercity Rail / Regional Rail

Medium Range:

Arterials / Highways
Commuter Buses
Commuter Rail

Near Range:

Avenues
Bike Paths / Bike Lanes / Bike Tracks
Bus Rapid Transit
Light Rail
Metro Rail

Close Range:

City Streets and Neighborhood Roads
Bike Lanes / Bike Tracks
City Buses
Streetcars
Pedestrian avenues / streets / plazas / sidewalks

The key part to any of this is that you offer alternatives, and never just one mode. If the roads are getting clogged, offer bike lanes, buses and rail. If the bike lanes are clogged, offer roads, buses, and rail. If we have layers, then people can mix and match their routes / modes as they need to.

Upgrades can then be made where needed with out necessarily causing too much induced demand since it's not the only mode available.

Great post. This non-linear type of critical thinking is a little too much for some people to do on their own...

[ATLTJL]

So the expectation is that someone will wake up in the morning and say something like, "Well, the bike lane looks clogged today, guess I'd drive." or vice versa?

[CCATL]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

So the expectation is that someone will wake up in the morning and say something like, "Well, the bike lane looks clogged today, guess I'd drive." or vice versa?

I mean, don't a lot of people wake up now and say - "Traffic is going to be horrible today (the President is in town, we might see a flake or 2 of snow, there are big events happening downtown, it's a holiday), I think I'll take MARTA rather than drive?" I know for sure that happens, at least among people in my office. So, why is it impossible for that to happen with other modes of transportation? Point is, you would actually HAVE the option to wake up, look at your various transportation options, and make a decision that is best for you and your family. Right now, the majority of the Atlanta area can't do that - you have to just suck up the time it will take to get from Point A to B in traffic in your car (hence the traffic).

And by the way, it is nearly impossible for cycle tracks to get so clogged up that it would create a traffic jam of bicycles. Bikes take up significantly less space than cars, so you would need an infinite amount more of them to create the car-oriented traffic jams we see today. Look at Denmark, where the majority of the population does actually bike commute. They have the infrastructure, the majority of people use it, and they don't get bike traffic jams. They also have a much greater population density than us, so if it was going to happen, it would happen there before here.

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by onemanarmy

Yes, use the same logic as we do with roads. If you build an extra lane, more cars will follow. Induced demand works for all forms of transportation. See MARTA trains as an example, cutting headway from 15 to 10 created more riders, even when gas prices dropped.

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

Let's use that logic.

So if we build more bike lanes, more bicyclist will use them. That's cool, what a great solution for today.

But what happens in 15 years, using this logic? Won't those bike lanes become congested and we will face terrible bike traffic? Well, then we can just build more bike lanes, right? But if you can't build your way out of a traffic problem, won't this just contribute to even MORE bike traffic? So how are we going to solve the problem of bike gridlock?

Logical Fallacy Alert. No where in my post did I suggest bike lanes where the end all be all for transportation. Given we have dedicated almost all of transportation for ROADS, it will seem LOGICAL that we try other forms of transportation improvements, bike lanes, PEDS, and public transportation.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by CCATL

I will NOT ride a bike in Buckhead or generally anything north of a Midtown/Virginia Highland line. The roads become too suburban-like...hilly, curvy, not a lot of stop lights, etc. Also, people in those areas that roads were built after cars became dominant tend to be a lot more aggressive towards anybody not in a car than in areas of the city where the landscape was built to accommodate non-motorized traffic, from my own personal experience.

There are lots of recreational cyclists in Buckhead and the streets up there are great for that.

However, I don't see many bikers on roads like Peachtree. I rarely see them on major roads in other parts of the city, for that matter.

[CCATL]

Originally Posted by arjay57

There are lots of recreational cyclists in Buckhead and the streets up there are great for that.

However, I don't see many bikers on roads like Peachtree. I rarely see them on major roads in other parts of the city, for that matter.

Yes, but recreational and commuter cyclists use different roads for different purposes. As a commuter, I'm not looking for the road I can get the fastest on to zoom around hilly curves without stop signs or red lights. I'm looking for less traffic and streets with lots of stop signs, red lights, and traffic calming infrastructure. As flat as possible is always good too, although that is difficult in Atlanta.

There are a TON of cyclists on Peachtree, especially from about 10th street southward. I see many going back and forth every day (and I'm one of them).

[wasel]

I'm not against cycling at all but I think it's always going to be too niche to make a difference in traffic.

We have bike lanes along Ashford Dunwoody in Brookhaven (along with a PATH trail) and it's rare to see cyclists on a weekday. I've seen maybe 3 total.

I do wonder how the state is compensated for road usage by cyclists....they should be paying the same fees as electric car owners for example

[kferq]

Originally Posted by wasel

I do wonder how the state is compensated for road usage by cyclists....they should be paying the same fees as electric car owners for example

How does the state get compensated for road use by pedestrians? You will find that for the state the incentives are the same with bike and foot travel.
1) General revenue. Pedestrians increase public safety by putting eyes on the ground. They drive taxes by retail growth. They are a net revenue benefit for the state. Studies show the same thing occurs with cyclists. Less crime, higher retail sales, more retail foot traffic occur when there are more cyclists. This is what the last mile connectivity means: less crime (crime is expensive for the government), more business, more tax revenue, more jobs. This is probably the number 1 reason communities build bike lanes.
2) Feet and bikes don't create potholes in concrete or asphalt and does not create the vibrations that lead to structural bridge wear. There is less destruction of the infrastructure, so it has to be repaired less often. When a bike crashes it doesn't take out a telephone pole, traffic light or guard rail that costs a lot to be repaired. Less money is spent on maintenance per mile traveled.
3) Cycling and walking are good for health which reduces 1) medical costs, 2) disability. There is excellent data showing lower absentee rates for workers who walk or bike to work. This is good for worker productivity and lowering business costs by reducing medical, so businesses want to relocate to these areas. More jobs, more revenue for the state. This is a huge reason why governments are pushing for more feet and bikes: more economic growth.

[J2201987]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

Let's use that logic.

So if we build more bike lanes, more bicyclist will use them. That's cool, what a great solution for today.

But what happens in 15 years, using this logic? Won't those bike lanes become congested and we will face terrible bike traffic? Well, then we can just build more bike lanes, right? But if you can't build your way out of a traffic problem, won't this just contribute to even MORE bike traffic? So how are we going to solve the problem of bike gridlock?

Then you'll have to go on "bicycle diets" to cut down on bike congestion, and be more progressive and introduce horse-and-buggy lanes, 'cuz bikes are bad for the environment, they induce demand, they ruin the "small town" character, etc...