A Little Financial Food for Thought

By “bike ways” do you mean just putting new paint on existing streets, and taking space away from motor vehicles?

Or, do you mean buying new right-of-way and putting down new pavement just for bikes?

And the article does not mention how much money Portland’s “300-mile network of bike ways ” cost. Don’t you think that is sort of relevant information?

In other words, this article is nothing but a piece of carp.

Portland’s greatest bicycle resource is it’s highway system.

Cars can get off city streets quickly and easily…leaving them with many low traffic streets in neighborhoods.

Also, being inland, and not bounded by water, it can expand easily and keep its density low.

It seems like most of their “building boom” during the heyday of the 00′s was suburban sprawl and single family residences.

Thus they avoided the high priced, high rise, condo fiasco of the Nickles era.

Low density streets, easy access to highways, combine for safe and low cost biking.

Map of Portland:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=portland,+or&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon&gl=us&ei=jkWRTJ6RHoyksQPWtsnYAg&ved=0CCUQ8gEwAA&ll=45.446644,-122.693939&spn=0.787144,1.783905&z=10

By “carp” do you mean a type of fish?

You should travel to Portland.

There are topographical constraints including hills and this major river. There are also plenty of new residential high rise buildings.

What’s “Nickles” refer to?

“… the article does not mention how much money Portland’s “300-mile network of bike ways ” cost.”

Good point. The stretch of I-90 from Seattle to Bellevue cost about $1 Billion per mile – While I doubt Portland’s 300 mile network of bike ways cost anywhere near that, the range of possible costs for a “mile of urban freeway” is vast.

That said, it’s pretty obvious that bicycle infrastructure is far less expensive to build than even the most basic roadway, let alone a limited access freeway built to Federal standards.

“… the article does not mention how much money Portland’s “300-mile network of bike ways ” cost.”

Good point. The stretch of I-90 from Seattle to Bellevue cost about $1 Billion per mile – While I doubt Portland’s 300 mile network of bike ways cost anywhere near that, the range of possible costs for a “mile of urban freeway” is vast.

That said, it’s pretty obvious that bicycle infrastructure is far less expensive to build than even the most basic roadway, let alone a limited access freeway built to Federal standards.

Something like that.

Have they built floating bridges just for bicycles in Portland? If so, how much did that cost per mile?

And how many bicycles per day cross that floating bridge? About 156,000 motor vehicles carrying about 265,000 people cross the I-90 floating bridge each day. Is there a floating bicycle bridge in Portland that carries about 265,000 bicyclists per day?

1. I do travel to Portland.

2. Yes but there is expandability from each. Still, I agree. As I commented in Foreign Policy:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/urban_legends?page=full

All of the old urbs are based on extremely bounded topologies. So, being the “best biking major city” is still worse than what you could expect in a small or mid-sized town with low density and lack of natural waterways.

3. Nickles? He might be related to Patty Murry.

It says “built” but then they show some guys on a street where the “bikeway” is just painted on.

So it seems more like one of those tunnels that the Coyote paints and then the Roadrunner goes through and then the Coyote goes through and flattens on a wall.

Great, then you’ve seen the new residential high rises along the Willamette River on the southern edge of downtown.

The article in Foreign Policy magazine, after the miss-fitted headline and poor choice of photo selection, doesn’t actually argue for suburban development over urban development at all. Plus the author makes some really breathtaking arguments – such as suggesting urban dwellers energy use is because of “air travel”.

Air travel? When an urban dweller flies the plane uses more fuel?

Returning to the point of the article the author does point out that smaller cities might prove better, giving the example of Singapore – with a population of only 5 million. Not sure how to apply that to Portland or Seattle…

Gotcha now on “Nickles” I thought you were referring to spare change.

1. A nice factoid but essentially a lie as the cost of the roadway is simply ignored.

2.In Seattle the bikeway on Beacon hill that is proposed will be three million dollars for just over one mile. If you wanted 300 million miles then I guess it would be $300 million.

3. Thomas st. overpass = $10 million.

oops make that $900 million.

Luckily in Seattle we have a Bike Master Plan that estimated for $265 million we could get trails, bridges, bike lanes, boulevards and all sorts of other stuff throughout about 400 miles of city roadways and trails. That’s a pretty good bang for the buck and is far less than the extrapolations made above.

Pretty easy to ‘build’ something cheaply when the roads and bridges are already there.

John, biking in your suburbs is one type, and it’s fine.

But the “major cities” comparison has major implications for people that wish to bike in those major cities. I’m not going to introduce two fruits, but it’s really important to people that want to live in an urban environment.

“3. Nickles? He might be related to Patty Murry.”

I’m getting a kick out of the new John.

Is your point that if you spend $6 Billion (in 1980′s dollars) on a massive multi-lane freeway you can move a lot of cars, trucks, and buses? Well duh… My point was aimed at the vast range of “urban freeway” costs possible – I-90 was spectacularly expensive to build in it’s day – Of course the “Big Dig” in Boston blew us out of the water. (No pun intended)

Bicycle infrastructure will never completely replace roads or freeways. That’s not the point. But where people are willing and able to ride a bike, why not give us the option? It’s relatively cheap to build, has side benefits for public health, and is affordable for even the poorest citizens. Give enough of us a safe way to bike most places we need to go and you’ll have a few extra parking spots wherever you decide to drive.

The point is, is Portland actually building “bike infrastructure” from scratch, as highways are built from scratch? Or is Portland just putting new paint on existing roads, and taking roadway away from vehicles? If we don’t know what Portland is doing, then how can anyone compare the cost of Portland’s bike lanes to the cost of highways? That is just a stupid, and meaningless comparision, as I assume “bike boy” Cohen is aware. I would just like to see him admit that.

What is your point about the cost of the I-90 bridge? Are you saying Portland built a similar 8-lane floating bridge just for bicycles? If not, then what does the cost of the I-90 bridge have to do with the cost of “bike lanes” in Portland? Is there any reason you brought that up? As a matter of fact, what does the cost of any highway have to do with the cost of bike lanes in Portland?

Bang for the buck? Painting lines and “sharrow” pictures on streets does not create any new infrastruction. It just takes roadway away from motor vehicles and gives it to bicycles.

Are you saying Seattle is going to build a new bridge just for bicycles? Where will it be? And how much will it cost?

For the cost of a single mile? That’s great, too bad most people actually don’t want to get around by bike.

Finishing the last 1.5 miles of the Burke-Gilman Trail will supposedly cost at least $9 million. That is $6 million per mile for a paved trail.

taking portions of under-utilized roads and giving them over to alternative and greener forms of transit DOES create new infrastructure.

it’s a really easy definition, i’m not sure why you are having so much trouble with it, but i can take a wild guess…

The thing that many people don’t seem to consider is that things like bikeability and mass transit are one of those things that people consider when they choose a city to live in.
We don’t have the greatest weather, so how do we sell our city to those people? We have other thinking people. We have mountains. We have water in abundance. And we could have a great biking infrastructure. We have coffee. We have beer. We have salmon (flown in.) Others?
And we have people that miss the Seattle of [insert year they moved here], and will try to keep it that way.

Let’s call it like it is, visual pollution, bureaucrats sitting in their city cubicles, dreaming up ways to justify their existence, defacing public property. What’s the difference really between what it is the SDOT people are doing and the grafitti artists/taggers? None, both are polluting our common areas. No one is better off with this, it is playing. These governments are not suffering from deficits, they have too much money.

Painting a stripe on an existing road is “new infrastructure”? LOL

“Or is Portland just putting new paint on existing roads, and taking roadway away from vehicles? If we don’t know what Portland is doing, then how can anyone compare the cost of Portland’s bike lanes to the cost of highways?”

Portland has a mix, just like Seattle, of Road diets and new bike paths. When a street is underutilized and can support more bicycle traffic by reconfiguring the lane markings, that seems to be a prudent use of public funds. You sound like you’d argue that Seattle’s “road diets” are creating a traffic mess. From my personal experience as a bus driver, cyclist, and motorist in Seattle that isn’t the case. SDOT also has studies that would show no significant increase in traffic. You may have to wait a few seconds in some circumstances, like finding a safe time to pass a bus picking up passengers, but because of the center turn lane, you can virtually always get by.

You obviously view this as a competition and it’s not, or at least it shouldn’t be. Cities need a mix of roads, public transportation, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities. Roads and public transportation systems are far more expensive but allow cars, buses, and delivery trucks to move around the cities. Pedestrian facilities are the least expensive and allow people to safely navigate their local neighborhood or access public transportation. Cycling facilities are in the middle in terms of cost but allows longer distance travel that is still *vastly* less expensive than driving a car. For the trips where a bike makes sense, it saves the traveler and the city, money if room is made for a bike.

“What is your point about the cost of the I-90 bridge?”

Again, my point was that the range of possible costs for “a mile of urban freeway” is vast – I-90 and Boston’s “Big Dig” on the very high end. I was agreeing with you that the cost of Portland’s 300 mile bike network should be spelled out. That said, I doubt it is anywhere near $1 Billion or even $500 Million.

Everyone is sick of “It Is Done This Way Much Better In x City”; almost as sick of it as the appropriate response: “if it’s so goddamned great, why don’t you MOVE there?”

Sure, bikes could just ride in the roads that are currently available. The ones where cars are doing 10-15 over the speed limit and are whizzing by them on the left while people parking on the right absent mindedly open their doors…

If by adding a buffered bike lane at low cost to an under-utilized road encourages more bikers to ride, or at least encourages bikers currently riding to use that road, then I’d count that as increased infrastructure. In addition, studies of road diets have not shown an increase in traffic problems and have also shown that drivers are more likely to do the speed limit on these roads. It’s a win-win, it just sounds bad and counter-intuitive.

Wait a second, sparky. When you say “taking space away from cars to give it to bicycles,” the mental image produced is a fixed number of cars, maybe cars with faces on them like in the Pixar movie, that are all sad because they’re crammed into less space than they need. Oh noes! If only those poor sad cars could use some of that space that mean mr. bicycle is taking up!

In reality, though, building bike infrastructure gets people to use their bikes instead of their cars for more trips. If you, personally, are dead-set on being a driver, like, your attitude is “fuck bikes, fuck walking, I love my car, I am a four-wheeled internal combustion cyborg,” then you should LOVE this, because bikes take up less road space. The more people ride, the easier it is for you to drive.

Grover,

If it allows us to use our transportation infrastructure in a more efficient way (i.e. more bikes) then who cares?