Feddit.onlineBike lanes on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge are contributing to pollution, car drivers say
www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/bike-lanes-on…
34 Comments
Comments from other communities
Honestly unsure what they were thinking with a 5 mile bike lane where the major population centers are a few miles from each end of the bridge and with no safe bike infrastructure between the bridge and those pop centers. Sure you can ride across the bridge but…to where? This project almost feels designed to fail and make bikes look bad.
kersplooshI'll bet the lane is there purely to satisfy some requirement for including non-car infrastructure, regardless of whether it makes sense in this particular location. It's the same way we get fun bike lanes like these:
that photo feels like the bike lanes in my city that literally merge the right lane of car traffic into the bike lane at traffic lights. it's like they are trying to kill bicycle riders on purpose
Talking with cyclists it's actually the opposite. It works in the sense that if someone is turning right they will get into the right lane and essentially self block a bicycle from pulling past them on the right side (if a cyclist did that they have a high likelyhood of getting hit as they are pulling into the cars blind spot... Then traffic starts moving and the right turning car just goes and suddenly there could be a bike there).
so I saw this comment like a week late after I bought my first adult bike yesterday, and this makes a ton of sense. I'm super worried about getting fucked while crossing an intersection while on a bike because of people turning right especially now. Good to know, thank you!
v_krishnaDo you live here? There are major population centers on both sides of the bridge (Richmond on one end, San Rafael on the other) and the Ohlone trail + Richmond Greenway means you can ride a bike from Emeryville all the way to the bridge quite easily.
That said it's a beast of a commute to ride. I'd say 90% of the bikers I see on there aren't using it to commute but are using it for exercise/pleasure cycling. I do see about 10% of bikers on ebikes that could make this a viable commute.
I lived there a while ago. Emeryville is what, several miles from the end of the bridge? Pleasure riding sure, but as the article said, no one is actually using these to get to work.
FaceDeerSome years ago now, a bunch of bike lanes got added to the streets in my city. The city did a big project of adding them and afterwards proudly declared that X number of kilometers of bike lanes had been made.
When an investigation was done into how the decision process had gone for where to add them it turned out that the only consideration had been "how cheap is it to add bike lanes in these locations?" Not "would bike lanes actually be used in these locations?" They were solely trying to maximize the kilometers-of-lane-per-dollar-spent so that they could put out that headline with as big a number as possible.
Subsequent studies showed that a lot of those lanes weren't being used by bikes in any significant number. Bike lanes had been added on streets that ran alongside sidewalks that were already designated bike paths. I'm a bike rider myself, some lanes were added in my neighborhood but they somehow managed to put them everywhere except the routes I usually took. The city wound up spending a bunch more money to remove a bunch of the bike lanes that were doing nothing but increasing congestion.
It may be that this was a similar situation, where someone wanted to proudly show off headlines of how they'd pushed for bike access and got X numbers of kilometers installed and those were the only real metrics that mattered.
Your argument seems to be that nobody should ever start anything unless it's a complete, end-to-end solution at the end of Phase 1.
When the period of evaluation is only 4 years and nothing is done to integrate the solution, then yeah, you probably shouldn’t waste time/money on it.
If my math is correct - those sick bikers are just carbo-loading & farting so much they don't even use pedals.
(It's the only way it would make sense.)
I can't say anything about your math, but I can say that you didn't read the article.
It has been proven time and again that adding lanes does not reduce traffic, but reducing number of lanes actually can.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/adding-freeway-lanes-traffic-20390021.php
culprithave you tried car pooling or transit?
no the bikes are the problem!!!
DasusI'm genuinely too fatigued to figure out the logic behind this brainfart.
Can someone eli5 pls
Entitled people will grasp at any straw to blame everyone but themselves. While very blue, the Bay Area is still very car centric and people lose their minds over the slightest inconvenience against driving. I suspect their rationale here is that taking a lane away for driving and giving it to bikers means more traffic on the bridge and more pollution. Let’s not forget that all the people in Marin county routinely block initiatives to expand large scale public transit (ie our subway system BART) from SF and Contra Costa counties. They just want to drive their car and keep the “undesirables” out of their neighborhood.
the core issue is that there is too little road space for the number of cars that ply that route and too much road space for the bikes that are ridden there.
it seems to one that an easier fix would be for more people to give up driving in favour of riding bikes.
deegeeseYou’re out of your mind if you think taking out car lanes is going to make people start a 15 mile bike commute to work.
That bike lane is 100% recreational.
DremorWell, that's exactly what I do since last year. I use an electric bike (converted from a mechanical one), and if it takes time, it is actually faster than taking my car (40 minutes vs 1h+).
And I do it even in the winter, when we get bellow zero temperatures. I just dresses warmly.
Edit : The bike (Le Petit Porteur Longtail, wasn't yet electrified at the time of this picture)
No such thing as bad weather, only insufficient/bad gear/clothing.
I would partially agree. No cloth can protect you from strong wind. In such case, I work from home 😅.
But that's like... once or twice a year.
No cloth can protect you from strong wind.
lots of layers and the outermost as leather, is my go-to. But yeah, wind is a bitch. I live in SW Finland, on the coast of the Baltic Sea, at the sort of "outernmost" part of continental Finland in the part where the Baltic Sea makes that sort of Y-shape.
If you just go 50-100 km inland, the weather is way different. You get nice calm winters. Here? It's wet and freezing all the time in the winter, with winds raping your face. It's like tiny ice crystals sand blowing your face. I won't have a single bit of skin exposed when I bike to the store in the winter. Sometimes maybe a part of my face depending on how bad the goggles fog up depeding on the scarf(ves) I'm wearing.
But if I had like 5000e to spend on outdoors gear, none of that would remotely be an issue.
The saying is basically from my army days. As a Finn, we have conscription, so pretty much all males go (and quite a decent part of females as well) [and I'm using "male" and "female" and not "man" and "woman" because that's how the goverment would look at it despite your personal gender identity]. And learning the proper way to gear up is a large part of the military service in Finland.
One night I spent in -40 outside (no need for F or C they converge at that temp). One night I spent sleeping in a tent that I wouldve drowned in had I slept face down. Shit like that. Although you can't really do anything when there's just too much water. Multiple layers and keeping dry is key.
But yeah tldr I prefer a leather outerlayer. Proper leather jacket will keep the wind out. Although usually they're not designed to cover all of you, so you'll need good gloves, scarf, and something to counter the wind through the zipper.
I mean our wind speeds are not like in America I don't think The record gust recorded in my local area is 41.6 m/s (approximately 93 mph) I think. But dammit my windows used to bang like crazy when I lived some 100m above sea level in a place from which I could literally see the harbor in Turku. And the people who owned it were cheap cunts who didn't remodel it after I moved out. (I had a thermometer in my kitchen which topped out at 50C and it hit the top. I had candles in my kitchen melt. and they weren't in direct sunlight.)
Imagine moving your body to do something. Not in my america
dantheclammanWhat’s wild to me is that you can fully support bike lanes, but the moment you suggest we educate cyclist on how they work and cyclists flip out.
Like the mere mention of education sends them into convulsions.
My town put up bike lanes everywhere, and I constantly have to dodge bikes on the sidewalk when I’m walking my toddler. And the bike lane next to the sidewalk sits empty right next to us. Most of the bike lanes are not on the road and if they are it’s never on a main or busy road.
I’ve heard complains that bike lanes can be scary for the cyclists, well you zipping by me and my kid is scary for the pedestrian.
So I think educating cyclists on how bike lanes work and enforcing them is crucial, otherwise what’s the point of them? The sad part is when I say “we should build bike lanes and make sure the people using them are educated on how they work and how the road laws and pedestrian yielding works” and everyone loses their mind.
Its not about education its about proper planning to make them simple. When the lane lasts for half a street then randomly ends or has no plan that's why people stop using them.
What do you mean, "educate cyclists on how bike lanes work"? They are there and you ride on them.
There’s the problem, that’s all you think it is? Is that why cyclists are unable to signal and yield and have any sort of common courtesy. Why is education a dirty word to cyclists?
huppakeeI'm dutch and grew up in the Netherlands, they're so ubiquitous here you learn at a young age and so many people are cycling it is easy to learn from looking at what others do and still we have kids do an exam in the last year before high school, they have to learn the rules and cycle a certain route while people in plain clothes check if you know them.
On the other hand, that is necessary because kids would otherwise learn the rules way later when trying to get their drivers license. I can imagine someone who knows the rules for cars would feel belittled by having to be educated on something 'inferior' after they already got their drivers license.
But I wonder, do people not follow the rules because they don't know them (= they need to be educated) or because they don't like them (= the rules need to be enforced)?
That's a big part of if, it’s not so much a cyclist issue as it’s a “North Americans are inconsiderate assholes” issue, no matter what mode of transport. All the motorists are assholes here, so are the cyclists and the transit riders, assholes all.
"We don't want to eliminate the bikers, that's not what we're trying to do," said Fisher, while advocating the removal of bikelane, thus eliminating the biker. This smell fishy.
That has the same vibe as, "I don't hate black people. I just don't think they deserve to drink from the same fountain, use the same bathroom, or eat in the same restaurant as me!"
Rather than advocate for the removal of someone else's active, green form of transportation, he should be advocating for car pooling, better public transportation, WFH to lessen the burden of commuter traffic, and smaller vehicles.
But then how will they use their Ford F40000 Fleshreaper™ "blood for the car god"© to sacrifice to moloch?
Comparing transportation modes with racism? Damn
They can still bike around in their driveways or whatever they do.
They can still ride on the road, you’re exaggerating
It’ll make it less safe though
Lmao.
And no i'm not exaggerating. The safety of bicycle lane is exactly why there's an average of 140 cyclist using that bridge daily. Removing it will lower it to a single digit, if not 0. Not many people want to risk their life and ride alongside an american driver.
Ok but in that case I will be in the middle of the lane to ensure maximum visibility. I would rather a proper bike lane and I am pretty sure the people screaming because they can't overtake dangerously would rather I had a bike lane even if they don't know it
False. Cars create the traffic, and "one more lane, bro" will do nothing to help. This is a fact played out EVERYWHERE.
Sounds like a car-made problem, man.
Quite curiously, Google Maps seems to suggest that the BRIDGE never has bad congestion, but the highway leading up to the bridge (without bike lanes) is very congested during rush hour, beginning 4km away.
If they wanted to cut pollution, they'd ban all cars from the bridge and make it public transit + bike only. Cars aren't idling when there's no cars.
Unfortunately it’s not that easy. They’re still needed for many places, when moving stuff around, when public transportation isn’t developed enough, which is pretty much the case worldwide if you want to go to a specific address
This is a clear example of miscommunication.
Banning all cars from the bridge was not meant as a serious proposal, but just to show that these people do not care about pollution at all.
Meanwhile, you seem to have taken that proposal as serious and that it was calling to ban cars everywhere, instead of just one bridge. Banning cars everywhere is a fringe opinion even here, and I think no one ever suggested you have to "move stuff" with cargo bikes and public transport exclusively. On top of that, I personally don't quite agree with the way you said public transport is "underdeveloped". Yes there are specific addresses you can barely reach pretty much everywhere, but you comment reads as any specific address can't be reached. I think we can expect people to walk a few hundred yards to a bus stop.
Wrong thing to say at the wrong place, do better next time.
Well knowing the community, can you really blame me for understanding it this way?
That bridge is probably the fastest way to go in this direction so I’m making a big deal of it because of this.
I do believe people won’t switch for public transportation if they have to wait more than a couple of minutes or if there isn’t a bus stop nearby. I can’t imagine doing many short daily travel by other means than cars because buses are often super late and turn some short itineraries into long ones, at the point where I regularly find myself in a situation where walking is faster than waiting for the bus
I won’t censor my opinion because I’m somewhere where everyone thinks the same
I can blame you for not reading correctly, yes.
And your aversion to public transport is exactly the point: Do you think maybe the buses are always late because a bridge like that has 50,000 cars bumper to bumper idling on it and blocking traffic? Do you think that there aren't enough bus stops nearby because not enough people use the existing ones?
A single bus takes up 2 cars worth of space and transports 50 times the people. Having functional public transport is way better than adding another lane when the goal is to increase capacity of the bridge or reducing pollution. We should get more people to use them. It's better for them too, since they are now not forced to drive and can check their phone or read books during that time.
No one wants the buses you are describing, but that's exactly why we need to invest more in public transit and don't listen to car advocates wanting "just one more lane™". There are enough cities around the world with good transit options, where people want to take the bus or tram or bike, not because of "culture" but because they simply are the best option. And you won't get there by adding another lane for cars.
P.S.: Do you also visit gay bars and get "censored" when there are no women there? No one's forcing you to comment and not being open to learn is unwelcome here. Have you at least read the rules?
I live in a city with dedicated bus lanes and basically use buses every week
When did I say we should add more lanes for cars? I’m just saying removing a car lane for adding a bike lane isn’t always a good idea, but public transportation should be prioritized imo
That must be one of the most stupid comparison I’ve heard. Have you read the rules? I’m pretty sure I did and have done nothing wrong. You’re the one being hostile to me for my opinion
I like to think I'm critical, not hostile.
This article is about citizen group calling for a bike lane to be turned back into car lane. You know about induced demand yet? We here can't stop telling people about it. Well, there is an inverse effect just a bit lower called "reduced demand" in the article. Removing a car lane can increase the flow of traffic down the line - provided there are viable alternatives to driving.
So yes, removing a bike lane to add another to cars is bad, even if it was a car lane before. Discouraging driving by removing car lanes is a good way to de-clog this bridge.
Should be noted that Damon Connolly (the legislator trying to shut the bike lane) was convicted for DUI hit-and-run. It says a lot about the current state of political affairs that he was elected to the Assembly as opposed to serving a jail term.
Converting the bike lane to auto lane wouldn't fix traffic anyway. Just beyond the bridge the road is only two lanes (really 1-lane as most of the traffic is getting on the 101 exit). Traffic studies by Caltrans showed that putting 3 lanes on the bridge would actually make things worse.
What do you mean adding more lanes won’t solve traffic?!? TELL THAT TO MY 40 LANE HIGHWAY
These copium addicts will say anything lmao
Honestly, while I'd typically say the solution is to use the bike lane, the bridge is 5.5 mi (8.85km) long, the very shortest commutes between destinations on the two sides is about 7mi (11.25km), taking about 40mins each way. Still the fact that a few hundred cyclists use it each day is impressive, and there would be little car-free access between the cities otherwise.
A dedicated public transit bus lane with frequent service between SMART and BART, would be a lot better of an idea.
No. I want to ride the bridge.
I want to ride my bicycle...
Unless someone is riding at a very slow 16km/h pace, it would take far less than 40 minutes to ride that 11km (without an ebike).
On that note, if someone had the choice of sitting in traffic for an hour, or enjoying a beautiful 40 minute ride over a bridge, I think it would be an easy choice to make 🤗
It's also super windy exactly across the bridge most of the time. Sucks for biking, I never could bring myself to do it
Or a shared lane for buses and bikes? But it might defeat the purpose of providing more comfort and safety to cyclists
This is like complaining that the road shoulders aren't being used.
They're working on that.
Simple: connect BART to Marin. Unfortunately they shot that down years ago as the poors might use it.
That bike lane took forever to get through. It will NEVER be used as much as cars taking up the bridge.
Whining about it is like complaining that sidewalks use up valuable space alongside a road.
Naw fuck that bike lane. Any accident on that bridge during the morning commute causes backups that go for miles. I cross that bridge every day and the bike lane is totally underutilized. It's nothing like the golden gate bridge. That bridge needs replacing anyway, it's old and falling apart.
Maybe they could make it a bike bridge since they are so much lighter than cars.
Yeah, would allow it to last longer.
Reducing the amount of cars on the bridge reduces air pollution even if no one bikes on it. Which, to be clear, they do.