NIMBYs ruin everything, I doubt they were really concerned about the whales.
You see the same BS with bike paths through residential neighborhoods. Despite studies showing that bike paths increase property values, residents bitch and moan about safety/crime. They basically figure that poor/non-white people will bike into their neighborhood and rape/pillage/burn everything.
So you get a bunch of environmental concern-trolls funded by wealthy people who don't want to admit that, really, it's about race/class.
Except that these studies are rather suspect and/or very narrow.
The situation for actual residential neighborhoods is at most unclear.
Yep, there too not.
Evidence for bike lanes in the US comes from very methodologically suspicious studies (e.g. the Portland State one) that were heavily influenced by hyper-local effects and neglected to look at nearby businesses.
Some of the more honest studies found the opposite effect. E.g. the LA study has shown that the non-sabotaged section had more revenue growth than the road-sabotaged section.
There are also clear cases of bike lanes destroying businesses: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2022/dec/26/stringers-46...
I'm an anti-bike activist. Bike lanes work only in _very_ narrow cases:
1. In densified hellscape cities, like Manhattan, where normal traffic is simply impossible.
2. In small tourist destination towns.
3. On university campuses and around them.
And that's pretty much it.
Which, as the comment stated is not at all what bike lanes actually deliver (higher property values, white folks in silly clothes).
This would be the first time im hearing about something like this. It sounds like the bike path was very successful.
Do you have more information?
I'll trade you streets and you can deal with the 3 dead kids from traffic incidents over the last 5 years
You are supposed to yield to traffic when opening your car door into a lane. The "sanctimonious" cyclist is justifiably mad because you violated his right of way and placed him at risk of severe injury.
https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Some_Puerto_Rican_Guy
The only criminals on a bike that I'm aware of are bicycle thieves.
And, to be fair, it's only easy to identify them after it's too late.
Citation needed. This is an extraordinary claim; you are going to need more than one single study done on a tiny sample with no control variables.
I would definitely be more interested in a property with bike infrastructure, although that is just one tiny sample with no control variables:)
Well, yes, when you're talking about residential areas. Home owners don't want a wall of strangers around their home all the time - it makes it difficult to spot the ones with ill-intent.
I mean, if that wasn't true, homes in gated communities wouldn't be more expensive than standalone houses.
> I would definitely be more interested in a property with bike infrastructure, although that is just one tiny sample with no control variables:)
You'd think that (I certainly did), but the price for homes in gated communities are far far higher than the equivalent in non-gated.
Which is why I want to see this hypothetical study that shows that residential areas closed to non-residents are cheaper than residential areas open to the public.
Because, a simple look at home prices shows this to be wildly untrue.
The majority of people do not live in gated communities and even gated communities have access routes outside the gates.
That wasn't the claim the poster made. The specific claim was that bike traffic through residential areas by non-residents increase the value of properties in that residential area.
>> Read on - what they were really afraid of was the dirty/smelly poors coming onto their precious island.
>> You see the same BS with bike paths through residential neighborhoods.
GP could not have been clearer in his implication that having public traffic pass through the residential area increases the value of that property in that area.
Which is complete nonsense when you look at residential property prices in area which has a through-flow for non-residents/the public and compare to areas which are effectively gated off for residents only.
Buying a house in an area that is limited to residents traffic only is damned expensive.
I'm not sure that your own implication that property prices are inversely proportional to the ease of commute to where all the people and jobs are is well evidenced by representative studies either. Even if the GP was talking about gated communities, which he wasn't, they're still usually nowhere near as expensive as being cycling distance from central San Francisco or London.
I'd invite you to take a look at the Springwater Corridor in Portland. It is plausible that ubiquitous bike paths would not have the same problem, but it is difficult to fault someone for taking one look at that disaster and wanting it to come to their own quiet neighborhood.