Any arguments? Discussion needs some, otherwise it just tossing shit to each other. Completely pointless, and harms both sides.
Bicycles as mode of transportation is relic of the past now. We are not in Vietnam. Public transit, cars and trucks is what move this country.
All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure. You’re begging the question by saying “we shouldn’t spend money on cycling infrastructure because nobody rides”.
When did I say that nobody rides? I just find it ridiculous to compare expenses on non-essential infrastructure with essential infrastructure. Non-essential infrastructure deserves only a small percentage of funding. If we were talking about something like playgrounds or bicycle paths, it would be a different story. Both are non-essential, but both make cities better. So, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which should receive more investment.
I’m not sure why you mentioned, ‘All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure.’ It’s obvious, but it doesn’t explain why we should spend more on cycling paths."
Cycling infrastructure is essential. It’s by far the most efficient form of transport, and not having it costs people their lives.
It returns 5x to the economy what we spend on it, in contrast to road spending, which returns less than 1x what we spend on it.
It benefits everybody, because contrary to the belief of our politicians, building ever more, wider roads does not help with traffic congestion. The only solution to traffic is alternatives to driving. And that means building excellent bike paths and funding excellent public transport—as much as possible, public transport that doesn’t use the same roads as cars, which means light or heavy rail, with BRTs as a supplement. One of the reasons bike paths are able to return 5x is because by reducing the number of cars on the road, those who still do drive—which will disproportionately be those who genuinely do actually need to drive, which currently is a tiny fraction of the total users of the road—can get to their destinations faster.
But if you cared one iota, you’d have heard this already. I’ve said it. Others in this thread have said it. Doubtless this one thread isn’t the only time you’ve seen this debate come up. So what’s your excuse? Do you just wilfully ignore reality and substitute your ideological bias?
You’re delusional mate.
Any arguments? Discussion needs some, otherwise it just tossing shit to each other. Completely pointless, and harms both sides. Bicycles as mode of transportation is relic of the past now. We are not in Vietnam. Public transit, cars and trucks is what move this country.
All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure. You’re begging the question by saying “we shouldn’t spend money on cycling infrastructure because nobody rides”.
When did I say that nobody rides? I just find it ridiculous to compare expenses on non-essential infrastructure with essential infrastructure. Non-essential infrastructure deserves only a small percentage of funding. If we were talking about something like playgrounds or bicycle paths, it would be a different story. Both are non-essential, but both make cities better. So, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which should receive more investment.
I’m not sure why you mentioned, ‘All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure.’ It’s obvious, but it doesn’t explain why we should spend more on cycling paths."
Cycling infrastructure is essential. It’s by far the most efficient form of transport, and not having it costs people their lives.
It returns 5x to the economy what we spend on it, in contrast to road spending, which returns less than 1x what we spend on it.
It benefits everybody, because contrary to the belief of our politicians, building ever more, wider roads does not help with traffic congestion. The only solution to traffic is alternatives to driving. And that means building excellent bike paths and funding excellent public transport—as much as possible, public transport that doesn’t use the same roads as cars, which means light or heavy rail, with BRTs as a supplement. One of the reasons bike paths are able to return 5x is because by reducing the number of cars on the road, those who still do drive—which will disproportionately be those who genuinely do actually need to drive, which currently is a tiny fraction of the total users of the road—can get to their destinations faster.
But if you cared one iota, you’d have heard this already. I’ve said it. Others in this thread have said it. Doubtless this one thread isn’t the only time you’ve seen this debate come up. So what’s your excuse? Do you just wilfully ignore reality and substitute your ideological bias?