From personal experience in town meetings:

* City roads are narrow and don't have empty space just waiting to be painted green. Bike lanes will cost you parking spots or a car travel lane. This gets huge pushback.

* Dangerous drivers must be removed from roads. You can be hit, killed even, with video evidence and the driver may escape punishment entirely.

* Cities (or specifically NIMBY residents) must stop resisting increased density, mixed use, and useless parking minimums. Not everyone wants to live in a suburban development, miles from useful amenities.

* Bikes and alternative transportation are compliments and need to be developed together. Biking to transit hubs is huge. It's not just green paint wherever it fits.

>City roads are narrow and don't have empty space just waiting to be painted green. Bike lanes will cost you parking spots or a car travel lane. This gets huge pushback.

Both should be sacrificed in order to break the car-infested cities. I imagine the pushback must be annoying to deal with, yes, but there's just no way you're going to be able to reconstruct your cities to be safe with this absurd amount of space dedicated to cars in cities of all places.

I suppose we might be on the same page here, though it's not entirely clear to me at the moment.

100% agree with the rest of your comment.

Dangerous <everything> must be removed from roads. There is a non-negligible amount of bikers skipping red lights, or using the sidewalk (forbidden in many cities), or even going the opposite way on one-way streets. The rationale in most cases is that a bike is not a motor vehicle and thus should not observe the same rules. This is a problem even in a scenario without cars, as it leads to collision vs. other bicyclists or pedestrians.

This behaviour from a few individuals pushes anti-bikers to protest even more, making it harder for these initiatives to thrive.

As ridiculous as it sounds, a deterrent similar to a license plate may become a necessity.

Not to say that behavior is okay but you're comparing apples and oranges. Drivers kill tens of thousands of people a year. Bikes are responsible for <1 person a year on average. People citing misbehavior by some cyclists need to get some perspective.

Meanwhile, the driver who hit me (in a bike lane) defended himself to the cop by saying "it's hard to not hit bikers". He was not even given a warning. I had video evidence from a helmetcam.

> you're comparing apples and oranges

More like comparing apples and shotguns.

> People citing misbehavior by some cyclists need to get some perspective.

And some first aid for being run down by a cyclist, sure.

Setting up a cycle lane in place is cheap, but not easy (at least in North America, people will always complain about the "war on cars").

Also, setting up a good cycle lane can be more expensive than you think. If you have a nice bike lane that spreads over 5 km but there's a 200 meters gap in it because of a bridge which was too narrow to keep the bike path, then you don't have a nice lane at all.

I've never understood why bicyclists can't just use the sidewalk for most of the commute. I get that it becomes impractical in dense areas where people are actually walking but most of the roads I travel along have vacant sidewalks.

Assuming we're not talking about the extra-wide sidewalks common in city centers which sometimes also host designated bike lanes, ordinary sidewalks that I've seen throughout the US and Europe are nowhere near wide enough to fit even a single cyclist passing alongside a pedestrian without a risk of collision. Add multiple pedestrians walking alongside each other, other hazards such as parked cars, less competent cyclists such as children, or pets (on or off leashes) and it quickly becomes a recipe for disaster for one or both of the sidewalk users.

Also, bicyclists in cities tend to travel closer to the speeds of cars than pedestrians, and tend to have more similar dynamics such as turning radius and stopping distance which infrastructure for cars is already designed around. Additionally, car drivers are licensed and there is an expectation of awareness that they must exhibit. This makes it far easier to place slower-moving "hazards" in their path than adding faster-moving vehicles in the path of pedestrians.

On top of everything else mentioned in the sibling comments, riding on the sidewalk is illegal in many locales.

https://www.sallymorinlaw.com/bicycle-accidents/riding-your-...

The most dangerous part of a sidewalk for a cyclist are places where they intersect roads. Drivers just aren't expecting sidewalk users moving at bike speeds.

Some areas have long stretches of sidewalk without intersections those are fine for cycling assuming they have little pedestrian traffic or are wide enough to pass safely.

This is pretty much my conception of when cyclists should be using the sidewalk instead.

Another thing to consider is that in many areas it's not legal for cyclists to use the sidewalk.

Most sidewalks aren't appropriate for cycling. The exceptions I was describing are mostly found in big commercial developments, target, walmart, etc. Around me they tend to build wide sidewalks, well separated from the busy road. Here's an example:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9146941,-92.3196647,117m/dat...

But most sidewalks aren't like that they are crossed regularly with driveways and end at a road every block. Every driveway is dangerous because drivers just don't look for people moving at bike speeds(2-3x faster than a pedestrian) on sidewalks. I personally know two people hit while cycling on a sidewalk because somebody pulled into a driveway and didn't see them.

Imagine you're a cyclist, on the sidewalk, trying to cross a four-way stop. If you cross at the sidewalk, you're at extreme danger of being hit by a car making a right turn. This is called a right-hook.

The road infrastructure in the US was built without consideration for bikes and so it's really annoying to many drivers when cyclists use roads but that doesn't mean the right place for cyclists is on the sidewalk.

OK, I'll imagine I'm a cyclist, trying to cross a four-way stop. When I was a teen, I used to do exactly that, riding my 10-speed on the sidewalk. This is how it goes:

Approach the intersection, coasting and then braking. Come to a stop, with feet on the ground. Optionally, dismount. Wait for a big gap in the stream of cars. Walk or ride across the intersection, remounting as necessary, and then continue on riding.

I'm not seeing the extreme danger here. It's not possible for a car to make a right turn because there isn't any car. The cyclist doesn't cross until the cars are gone.

Urban adjustment: there might be a "walk button", and there is a chance that it is actually connected to a traffic signal. Cross only with the walk indicator active.

I don't see any reason why this should be illegal. It's far safer than the alternatives.

> Optionally, dismount.

For sure, one of the advantages of cycling is that you can at any time become a pedestrian by dismounting. This allows you to take advantage of pedestrian crossings. It's going to be really annoying to dismount at every intersection or every ~500ft/155m.

> The cyclist doesn't cross until the cars are gone.

There's a four-way stop by my house that continuously has traffic for a hour twice a day during rush hour.

> remounting as necessary

A key to road safety is behaving in a predictable manner. Cars are supposed to yield to pedestrians at crosswalk but bikes are vehicles.

It's far safer at the intersection to merge into traffic, take the lane and yield the intersection with the same rules as other vehicles.

> It's far safer than the alternatives.

History shows it's not. Sidewalks aren't designed for use by vehicles going 3x the speed of pedestrians.

It's not safe for the pedestrians and it's not safe for the cyclists.

At the four-way stop by your house that continuously has traffic for a hour twice a day during rush hour, how do pedestrians cross? Is it even safe for them to cross?

Whatever the answer, that works for cyclists. Simply dismount, then act like a pedestrian. Maybe the intersection is unsafe for pedestrians, in which case it is also unsafe for cyclists.

The idea that "bikes are vehicles" is a load of nonsense. It's clear that the only cyclists talking to legislators are the ones in the top 0.01% for acceleration and speed. For all the rest of us, we're pedestrians, even if the law pretends otherwise.

The speed difference, mass difference, and energy difference are all terrible for bikes against trucks. Pretending otherwise is silly. We might as well compare an little old person on a bike, just 120 pounds total going 10 MPH, with 210-pound Usain Bolt running at 28 MPH.

The problem of running down pedestrians with a bike is simply solved by not doing that. The cyclist must slow down and give a wide gap or get some sort of acknowledgement that passing is OK. This isn't hard.

These are also the areas that work great for bike lanes, a nice uninterrupted stretch of bike lane without cars turning into them.

Cars and bikes mix better than bikes and walkers. Which is to say not very well. Walkers move in unpredictable ways and freeze when a bike is heading at them. Bikes move more like cars - they get a bit better handling, and are not as fast, but overall they act like cars.

I wouldn't want to bike when there are many cars in the same lane as me, but it is still safer than biking on sidewalks where are many pedestrians.

* It's illegal in most countries

* It tends to be busy with pedestrians (not everywhere, as you mention)

* It's not safe when crossing side-roads

* It's inefficient if you walk at junctions

Riding on the sidewalk is dangerous. Cars do not look for you when moving between the street and a parking lot/driveway/etc.

I have had more close calls with cars riding on at most 10 miles of sidewalk (and that's being generous to be honest) in the past decade than with ~6000mi riding in the road.

In some places it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk.

Also, the width and amount of obstructions on sidewalks varies widely.

You should try it?

I used to do this all the time growing up. But I assume times have changed because it's illegal now.

Depends how walkable the city is.The more walkable it is the more people you will see on the sidewalk.Sidewalks are for pedestrians not for fast moving vehicles.

You know how many in the cycling movement view automobiles as being fast, dangerous, machines clogging up the roads? Many pedestrians view cyclists as a similar fast, dangerous (often rude and inconsiderate) presence on the sidewalk.

There is so much more to cycling safety than this. Many roads don't have shoulders, or don't have the width for dedicated bike lanes. Drivers are often very hostile to bike riders who take up car lanes, esp. if the bikes go under the speed limit and if the cars have to wait at all.

Blindspots. Intersections. Parallel parking/parking in bike lanes. Safe and clean parking of bikes at destinations.

The entire design and build requirements of roads have to be reconsidered to make cycling/scooters first class citizens in cities. As it stands in the US, most cities are pretty dangerous for cyclists.

I live on the west coast in Canada. We have lots of bike lines. It's 30KM of them up and down multiple hills (most people would consider mountains) for me to get to work.

Realistically, you've got to convince me to leave my 3000+sqft house (with bedrooms for all my kids) and yard to move to a 1000sqft apartment in the city (and make my kids share a room) and take on a bigger mortgage so that I'm closer to work. Also how do I get groceries for a family of 5 home on my bike?

Life for the majority of people where I live has not been set up to be bicycle friendly and bike lanes don't change that barrier.

A more realistic proposal is making your neighborhood slightly denser and more pedestrian/bike/transit friendly. Most of the neighborhood can remain single family homes, but a central area should be slightly denser (3ish story buildings with retail on the bottom floor and residential apartments above). Your major transportation needs can now avoid cars in the following ways:

1. This central area should have a connection to a frequent public transit option which can get you to your job. BRT would be the easiest to roll out, but the ideal for most people would probably be some sort of medium/commuter rail with decent WiFi onboard and enough seating/frequent enough trains so that the average commuter can sit and work if they'd like. Obviously this won't take everyone out of their car, but the majority of commuters in your neighborhood could use this instead since it would be faster and more convenient. Ideally there would be trains/buses running at least every 10 minutes.

2. Because there is a retail area close to your residence you can realistically walk/bike to get groceries and do routine errands. Bike paths in your residential neighborhood make this easier because they feel (and are) much safer for everyday people to use instead of sharing streets with cars. Ideally the paths are safe enough for you to feel comfortable with your elderly relatives or children biking on them.

This is obviously very different from how North American suburbs are set up today and would require a large amount of investment and changes in the way that we do public policy and planning. However, it is certainly possible to have suburbs that are bike/pedestrian friendly if you put the infrastructure in place to do so.

Ah. interesting. I generally agree and fully support this method of urban planning, but the results here haven't resulted in more cycling.

What you describe is exactly how my suburb is set up. There are several clusters of mixed housing (single family, town houses, apartments) built around a few retail centers (and the retail centers usually have housing built on top of them). There is also both light rail and regular rail for transportation from the retail centers. I live 3-5K from the various central areas.

Here are my observations:

* cars are really only avoided for people in the residential apartments above or directly attached to the grocery stores. Nobody here rides their bike to shop (based on never seeing bicycles at the grocery store).

* there's still ~ 200M of elevation change inside of that 3-5K range. Only the most hard core are interesting in cycling that on a regular basis.

* It's a 5 minute drive or 30 minute bus ride to get to the light rail centre from my location (others are closer, some are farther). Some are content to take a bus, but many others drive. There are some who cycle but it's a tiny percentage.

* It's wet here all year long, but uncomfortably cold 5 months of the year. Those who cycle for transportation tend to only do it during May/June/July/August.

My guess is that it's not purely elevation/weather based, but that certainly is a factor for people's comfort. E-bikes can help with the elevation issue at the cost of being more expensive of course.

What's the level of bike infrastructure available? It can be surprising how protected people need to feel from cars to use bikes over other modes of transit. I personally only bike in bike lanes and will avoid sharrows and walk my bike on the sidewalk if there isn't a lane available. My partner will only bike on grade separated paths. This leads to us mostly walking or taking public transit since we're in an urban area, but both of us would gladly bike if we had a good network of bike lanes to do so.

E-bikes are magical--riding straight up steep grades without breaking a sweat. They really aren't even that expensive. The tax credit for a single EV car could pay for three decent ebikes in the US.

> It's a 5 minute drive or 30 minute bus ride to get to the light rail centre from my location (others are closer, some are farther). Some are content to take a bus, but many others drive. There are some who cycle but it's a tiny percentage.

That's simply not close enough. The station must be within a 10-minute bike ride to disrupt the car-centric commute. Ideally the rail stops must be spaced about 3km apart, then there's a corridor 5km wide that lets everyone inside use their bikes to commute.

> Also how do I get groceries for a family of 5 home on my bike?

Cargo bike. Also used for getting the smaller kids (too small to bike safely/fast enough) to daycare etc.

Or when living in a properly dense city just bring it with you one backpack at a time. This is what my mother did when I was a kid. Just stopped by the shop on her way home from work.

In the city you should be close enough to the store that you just get the days groceries as you go by.

The lack of affordable 2500sq ft apartments is the big failure. It doesn't cost that much more to build them, and so rent shouldn't be any more than a house payment ($1500/month!). If that doesn't exist it is because zoning won't let them build it. (or more likely they can, but why do that when you can get more $$$ from 3 800sqft apartments each at $1000/month. Until the high profit apartments are filled nobody will build the ones families would actually live in.

Or to put it a different way: it isn't 1880. People have always wanted more space, now with cars we can afford it in the suburbs.

Where I live the numbers your suggesting would be amazing!

In Vancouver proper, Average 3 bedroom house price is $2.1M. A townhouse or condo of that size is $1.5M. Your typical house payment is going to be much higher than $1500/month. Rents are probably in the $3K+ range -- I don't actually have data on this. Lots of factors there. I don't think zoning is one of them as there is constantly land assemblies and razing blocks of houses for town houses and condos. I suspect it's more geography: we're up against and ocean, a border and a mountain range.

The cost of building a new house that size is about 200-250k. Everything else is land value. Note that I was taking about apartments ,when land value us as high as you say that supports tall buildings to divide the land costs between more units.

The mountains don't help, but nobody is building the apartments people want to live in.

If you want a good impression of the type of shift that it's going to take to make U.S. streets more bike friendly, you can watch the great YouTube channel NotJustBikes, which overviews some of way the Netherlands' infrastructure is built from the ground up to be not car dependent. While the investment required to build physical bike infrastructure is small compared to other infrastructure projects, building cities for bikes requires overcoming political opposition and indifference, rethinking zoning laws and other harmful, bureaucratic rules and slowly reshaping cities to not rely on cars. It's not simply a matter of chucking a line of paint on a 35 mph road and then complaining when cyclists don't use it.

A very large percentage of the population are uncomfortable biking when there’s only a line of paint between them and automobiles. Separated bike lanes (ideally with physical barriers) increase the percentage of the population that will be willing to bike very considerably. If biking is going to make a major impact, we need that level of infrastructure change on at least some set of major thoroughfares in cities.

Things like protected bike lanes and bike only routes are essential if you want mass adoption. They cost more than paint and require political leadership that is currently lacking.

Often in old European cities there is no space to take away from, unless you cut from pedestrian side, or rebuild whole block to have wider gap. Or you completely remove that single one way lane, and good bye resupplies for the shops/restaurants and good luck to those poor folks that will move in/away. The bigger the city, usually the older it is, and center looks like this - tons of single lane one-ways.

US roads always stroke me as super wide and at least those I saw myself had plenty of space for this.

One example to illustrate the difference - on say Swiss or French car parks, if you park perfectly in the center of the parking spot and if cars around you do the same, even with regular car (say BMW 3 series) you can't just open the door fully, often not even that half-open position in the middle. Significantly wider cars effectively take 2 spaces, but then again not many folks buy them here also for this reason.

>Or you completely remove that single one way lane, and good bye resupplies for the shops/restaurants and good luck to those poor folks that will move in/away.

This is not true - we have streets that have been converted to be fully pedestrian+bicycle, and resupplies/moving in is not really an issue because these vehicles get exceptions. The sign combination 'Motor traffic forbidden / Exception for authorized vehicles' is pretty damn common in my European city.

In the Netherlands they turn those single one way lanes into bike first streets.

That's crappy infrastructure that's effectively inaccessible to most.

Good biking infrastructure is physically segregated infrastructure, which is less trivial to build (though still way cheaper and easier than infrastructure for cars).

Building offices and commercial buildings closer to homes. Most cities are not bikeable because it's just too far to get to anything that isn't a home.

$12 million a mile: Here’s how bike-lane costs shot sky high in Seattle

The larger and more ambitious the project the greater the costs. I imagine a massive upgrade would be even more expensive

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/12-...

Most of that cost was for preserving driving lanes while adding bike lanes. It could just as well be called the cost of car lanes.

Considering what is spent on roads, like for instance, an overpass, is that even very much?

The trick is to get drivers to follow those markings. Where I live I see cars/trucks regularly park on bike lanes with little repercussion. Add to that a hostility between drivers and cyclists sharing the road; this might just be an issue where I live (Toronto)

Cycling lane poles would be ideal, but a lot of drivers push back on this since they see it as precious space being taken away from them.

In places where adequate protection was added, in some cases it was removed because drivers couldn't keep from leaving their lane. I guess drivers getting into accidents on their own is worse than lethal accidents involving cyclists on a bike lane.

https://liveboston617.org/2020/12/16/dangerous-bike-lane-div...

It is space taken away from drivers, but drivers will treat a painted bike line as more space for a car. This is why the only safe bike lanes on a road with cars are ones that have physical protection from cars.

Something tells me there’s a lot more to it than that.

My town painted a few lanes. Bike deaths didn't change. Bike ridership didn't increase.

Paint doesn't do squat for making car lanes safe for bikes.