Bike Lanes

[SectorZ]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

[HighwayStar]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

[jamess]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Dpesnt matter. The conversation is about local roads with signals, pedestrians, and bikes. Those are generally funded via property taxes.

Little bit shocked to see people on a road forum not understanding how roads are funded.

[jamess]

I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

Right on red is generally prohibited in the Boston metro. The default is always no, with the restriction lifted only after analysis.

RTOR is very dangerous with the number of pedestrians in the area. Drivers only look left for a gap in traffic and fail to see the pedestrian stepping off the curb immediately to their right.

I mean, pedestrians need to pay attention too; as a distance runner I personally defer to cars and check if someone could potentially turn every time I cross a road (in town, of course, out by home I can do 10 mile runs without seeing a single vehicle). In my 13,000+ miles and 3500+ runs I've only had a driver almost run into me once, in high school. Then again, my local population density is much much lower than the Boston metro.

Its fine for a hobbyist to defer in this way. But we're talking about transportation, and the pedestrian with the walk signal has absolute priority over the driver with a red light. You cannot operate a transportation system where some roadway users have to operate under the assumption that the signal assigning them the right of way is wrong.

[english si]

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Don't say that on Twitter. It's new owner won't take kindly to the implication that the products of one of his other companies deserve to be treated as second class because they don't run on dead dinosaurs.

I live in a country where fuel tax is higher than the US. That, even when coupled with other taxes paid by motor vehicles, doesn't cover the expense of roads.

Roads are a subsidised public good. They are not the private reserve of those who are burning petroleum products as they do so.

[Rothman]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Dpesnt matter. The conversation is about local roads with signals, pedestrians, and bikes. Those are generally funded via property taxes.

Little bit shocked to see people on a road forum not understanding how roads are funded.

Nice high horse you got there, buddy.  But, it appears you don't know how roads are funded, either.

You have to be careful with what you call a "local" road.  If your criteria is just "signals, pedestrians and bikes," you would be surprised how many are federal-aid eligible given their functional class.  In fact, the majority of functional classes designated by FHWA are federal-aid eligible.

This would also be a reason why municipalities and counties are members of metropolitan planning organizations, which control the federally-funded capital programs in any urban area with 50,000 people or more, per federal law.

And that's only the federal side of things.

Here in NY, you also get into state assistance through programs like CHIPS or, more recently Touring Route funding or PAVE-NY ot Pave Our Potholes...all sorts of state initiatives that fund local projects.  That said, a lot of these are funded through borrowed funds (bonds) rather than through tax revenues due to funding eligibility (in NY, you can't use State Dedicated Funds on roads not owned by the State).

Granted, every State is different -- Virginia's "we own everything" being a notable extreme.  Still, the idea that roads with "signals, pedestrians and bikes" are only funded through property taxes is a sign of true ignorance of how transportation is funded.

[SEWIGuy]

I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

NTOR is often considered a good thing in urban areas.

Not by my standards, sitting at red lights when you could turn is a waste of time.

But many drivers have have proved inept in urban areas at determining safe times to turn. Ergo, they lose the privilege to turn on red. Better than banning turns completely, that happens a lot in Seattle these days.

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

[HighwayStar]

I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

NTOR is often considered a good thing in urban areas.

Not by my standards, sitting at red lights when you could turn is a waste of time.

But many drivers have have proved inept in urban areas at determining safe times to turn. Ergo, they lose the privilege to turn on red. Better than banning turns completely, that happens a lot in Seattle these days.

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Laws can be changed.

[jeffandnicole]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Here's the Catch 22 highwaystar must've forgotten about; if we were to build skywalks to separate pedestrians from vehicles, that money will come from transportation funds, reducing the money available to be spent on roads.  Pedestrians bridges are expensive.

[Rothman]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Here's the Catch 22 highwaystar must've forgotten about; if we were to build skywalks to separate pedestrians from vehicles, that money will come from transportation funds, reducing the money available to be spent on roads.  Pedestrians bridges are expensive.

That's one area I'm unsure of:  How Minneapolis and Duluth paid for and got their skywalk/skyway systems built.  Wouldn't be surprised if they had private investment (this will be a boon to your building and business!).  I don't know if the transportation revenue would have taken a hit because of them.  They're different than your typical pedestrian bridges.

[abefroman329]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Here's the Catch 22 highwaystar must've forgotten about; if we were to build skywalks to separate pedestrians from vehicles, that money will come from transportation funds, reducing the money available to be spent on roads.  Pedestrians bridges are expensive.

That's one area I'm unsure of:  How Minneapolis and Duluth paid for and got their skywalk/skyway systems built.  Wouldn't be surprised if they had private investment (this will be a boon to your building and business!).  I don't know if the transportation revenue would have taken a hit because of them.  They're different than your typical pedestrian bridges.

Most likely it was an agreement between the owners of the buildings.  Chicago's Pedway has been there for decades, but it was only recently that they put up signs directing pedestrians to/through it.

[abefroman329]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

Guys, guys: HighwayStar is saying that people who ride bikes don't have jobs.

[kphoger]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

Guys, guys: HighwayStar is saying that people who ride bikes don't have jobs.

You're right.  By ellipsis I omitted the portion of his post that said "and keeping the economy running".

The lady driving her '95 Toyota Tercel to her job selling lottery tickets and Red Bull at the corner convenience store:  she's paying for the road and keeping the economy running.

The vice-president of a software company walking to the commuter rail station on her way to work:  she's not.

[abefroman329]

The lady driving her '95 Toyota Tercel to her job selling lottery tickets and Red Bull at the corner convenience store:  she's paying for the road and keeping the economy running.

But she's selling them to black people lazy moochers who are stealing the tax dollars paid by God-fearing white people people who keep the economy running, so...kinda.

[kphoger]

The lady driving her '95 Toyota Tercel to her job selling lottery tickets and Red Bull at the corner convenience store:  she's paying for the road and keeping the economy running.

But she's selling them to black people lazy moochers who are stealing the tax dollars paid by God-fearing white people people who keep the economy running, so...kinda.

Hey, as long as those lazy moochers drive to the convenience store instead of free-riding on their Taiwanese-made bicycles...

[abefroman329]

The lady driving her '95 Toyota Tercel to her job selling lottery tickets and Red Bull at the corner convenience store:  she's paying for the road and keeping the economy running.

But she's selling them to black people lazy moochers who are stealing the tax dollars paid by God-fearing white people people who keep the economy running, so...kinda.

Hey, as long as those lazy moochers drive to the convenience store instead of free-riding on their Taiwanese-made bicycles...

In their Obamacars, fueled by Obamagas?!  Not on my watch.

[jamess]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Dpesnt matter. The conversation is about local roads with signals, pedestrians, and bikes. Those are generally funded via property taxes.

Little bit shocked to see people on a road forum not understanding how roads are funded.

Nice high horse you got there, buddy.  But, it appears you don't know how roads are funded, either.

You have to be careful with what you call a "local" road.  If your criteria is just "signals, pedestrians and bikes," you would be surprised how many are federal-aid eligible given their functional class.  In fact, the majority of functional classes designated by FHWA are federal-aid eligible.

This would also be a reason why municipalities and counties are members of metropolitan planning organizations, which control the federally-funded capital programs in any urban area with 50,000 people or more, per federal law.

And that's only the federal side of things.

Here in NY, you also get into state assistance through programs like CHIPS or, more recently Touring Route funding or PAVE-NY ot Pave Our Potholes...all sorts of state initiatives that fund local projects.  That said, a lot of these are funded through borrowed funds (bonds) rather than through tax revenues due to funding eligibility (in NY, you can't use State Dedicated Funds on roads not owned by the State).

Granted, every State is different -- Virginia's "we own everything" being a notable extreme.  Still, the idea that roads with "signals, pedestrians and bikes" are only funded through property taxes is a sign of true ignorance of how transportation is funded.

We're talking about a specific intersection where a photo was provided. It is on Mass Ave, in Arlington, MA.

There's no need for hypotheticals.

[kphoger]

So it's on a state highway, then.

[Rothman]

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Dpesnt matter. The conversation is about local roads with signals, pedestrians, and bikes. Those are generally funded via property taxes.

Little bit shocked to see people on a road forum not understanding how roads are funded.

Nice high horse you got there, buddy.  But, it appears you don't know how roads are funded, either.

You have to be careful with what you call a "local" road.  If your criteria is just "signals, pedestrians and bikes," you would be surprised how many are federal-aid eligible given their functional class.  In fact, the majority of functional classes designated by FHWA are federal-aid eligible.

This would also be a reason why municipalities and counties are members of metropolitan planning organizations, which control the federally-funded capital programs in any urban area with 50,000 people or more, per federal law.

And that's only the federal side of things.

Here in NY, you also get into state assistance through programs like CHIPS or, more recently Touring Route funding or PAVE-NY ot Pave Our Potholes...all sorts of state initiatives that fund local projects.  That said, a lot of these are funded through borrowed funds (bonds) rather than through tax revenues due to funding eligibility (in NY, you can't use State Dedicated Funds on roads not owned by the State).

Granted, every State is different -- Virginia's "we own everything" being a notable extreme.  Still, the idea that roads with "signals, pedestrians and bikes" are only funded through property taxes is a sign of true ignorance of how transportation is funded.

We're talking about a specific intersection where a photo was provided. It is on Mass Ave, in Arlington, MA.

There's no need for hypotheticals.

Mass Ave is definitely federal-aid eligible.  I take it you don't know what I meant by "functional class," then, and didn't even bother to Google it to correct yourself.

Just eat the crow.

[SEWIGuy]

I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

NTOR is often considered a good thing in urban areas.

Not by my standards, sitting at red lights when you could turn is a waste of time.

But many drivers have have proved inept in urban areas at determining safe times to turn. Ergo, they lose the privilege to turn on red. Better than banning turns completely, that happens a lot in Seattle these days.

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Laws can be changed.

Then it's not a "right."

[skluth]

As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Meaning there's no need to have any parking along the street and plenty of room for a couple streets to have bike lanes.

Nope add an extra lane to those streets, no one wants to bike in 100 plus degree weather anyway. Give me an extra lane so my town car can get me there faster.

Houston only gets to 100°F during the summer. Temps are good-to-great for biking the other nine months.

[HighwayStar]

As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Meaning there's no need to have any parking along the street and plenty of room for a couple streets to have bike lanes.

Nope add an extra lane to those streets, no one wants to bike in 100 plus degree weather anyway. Give me an extra lane so my town car can get me there faster.

Houston only gets to 100°F during the summer. Temps are good-to-great for biking the other nine months.

There are perhaps 3 months a year tops where Houston is good for biking. March through November the average high is over 70 degrees, plus high humidity. That is not good weather for anything but recreational biking. For transportation it needs to be cooler and drier.

[hotdogPi]

Keep in mind that people in Houston are used to higher temperatures. 80° there is nothing, while it's moderately hot where I live (Massachusetts) and where you live (Pennsylvania).

On the flip side, I can handle mid-50s without a jacket if I'm moving and not just sitting, but someone from Houston probably can't.

[Rothman]

Keep in mind that people in Houston are used to higher temperatures. 80° there is nothing, while it's moderately hot where I live (Massachusetts) and where you live (Pennsylvania).

On the flip side, I can handle mid-50s without a jacket if I'm moving and not just sitting, but someone from Houston probably can't.

Heh.  A friend of mine from Gardner, MA moved to Texas and shared a video of the Texans freezing in 50° weather at a football game while she layered up a little.

[SectorZ]

As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Meaning there's no need to have any parking along the street and plenty of room for a couple streets to have bike lanes.

Nope add an extra lane to those streets, no one wants to bike in 100 plus degree weather anyway. Give me an extra lane so my town car can get me there faster.

Houston only gets to 100°F during the summer. Temps are good-to-great for biking the other nine months.

There are perhaps 3 months a year tops where Houston is good for biking. March through November the average high is over 70 degrees, plus high humidity. That is not good weather for anything but recreational biking. For transportation it needs to be cooler and drier.

Singapore is far worse for heat and humidity than Houston most of the year, and yet their residents manage to cycle in it just fine.