In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit | Hacker News Reader

In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

motherboard.vice.com

137 pointsweston85 comments

Copenhagen has had bicycle highways for a while now.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/04/launching-copenhagens-b...

The elevated highway that mjn mentioned is only a few hundred metres long while the new highways have 300Km planned.

Similarly, Auckland's proposed cycle network includes a number of cycle highways and connections: http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Region...

And they don't just support cycling as a way to get around in town: Many roads between villages/cities have dedicated, separated and wide bike paths going parallel to them, which makes cycling great even for longer commutes.

The pictures in that article don't really give a sense for how bicycle-friendly that city is. I went there for a conference last September, and the fact that there were bikes and bike lanes everywhere as well as more bike parking at every train station than you can imagine really stuck with me.

That and the lack of worry about theft. At a coffee shop and going to the bathroom? Just leave your laptop, wallet, and cell phone on the table. I couldn't physically do that if I tried, after growing up in Chicago.

Fellow Chicagoan. Could not imagine doing that. Happy to know there are still places like that in the world though.

I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build this alongside major freeways so that you won't have to claim eminent domain and go through private properties. This would take up a max of an extra 10-15 feet on the side of freeways. Now, in LA a lot of freeways are built out so much that there's not even 10-15 ft without hitting a building or house, but there are a lot of areas this could work. Sometimes it takes 3 hours to go 10 miles in LA during rush hour, and this could make everything better.

As an LA motorcyclist, I can tell you that almost no one would want to bike 10-15 ft. from the edge of the freeway. It's extremely loud and unpleasant, and there's a significant amount of debris that would need frequent removal.

The 237 bikeway in the South Bay runs on either side of a 6 lane freeway. Sometimes it's right up next to it (on the other side of a metal fence) and other times it's a few dozen feet away. It can be a little intimidating. I try not to think of those NASCAR crash videos where the cars go right through the (far stronger) fences and just pedal on.

Most of the good bikeways around here are their own routes which exist on their own merits and don't sync up with the roadways. The few which manage to parallel a highway and are still enjoyable have a decent separation.

Such a bike lane would be loud and unpleasant, but if separated from the road it would be similar in loudness and unpleasantness to the Williamsburg, Queensboro and Manhattan bridge bike lanes, which are widely used.

That said, it would likely not work because the distances are much further in LA, and following the path of the freeway is not going to be the most direct route on a bicycle.

No. The cars and semis will be going 55-70 mph, typically 5 lanes each way. It is incredibly loud. The bridges you mention don't have traffic like this.

Why not just build a wall as a sound barrier to push the noise upward and over the bike lane?

Listing all the problems with any idea of a bike lane along a freeway will tire me out (starting with: there's no space, high barriers are regarded as ugly, there's no way to make the interchanges work, the freeway under road overpasses will permit larger road widths only with enormous expense, we can't even build carpool lanes and light rail, people won't stand for the construction delays). Let's not do this.

Agreed mturmon; an open-air LA-freeway-adjacent bike path poses many technical, aesthetic, scale-of-access, cost and possible health issues.

I do not think a freeway-adjacent bikeway would be popular with cyclists if open-air. LA has a freeway-adjacent bus rapid transit line (the "Sliver Line") which isn't very popular at 12K avg boardings in March 2013, compared to the far more successful rail-route-replacing "Orange Line" at 30K+ avg weekday boardings for the same month.

The Orange Line has a parallel bike lane which is popular with cyclists and pedestrians, even into the evening as it's well-lit and well-landscaped.

Edit: Reference for LA Metro system boardings: http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/

The barriers might be there anyways because of nearby housing. I'm not sure how it works in the LA area, but along 101 in the bay area had plenty of biking options (I used them personally), and it seemed to work out. However, although I could deal with it for commuting, its not something I would do for pleasure.

The air quality is still going to be incredibly bad.

No they don't but they do have subway trains rolling on an all metal bridge which make them unpleasant.

>would be similar in loudness and unpleasantness to the Williamsburg, Queensboro and Manhattan bridge bike lanes

Lol nope. You clearly haven't been on a Californian freeway.

--- has ridden a motorcycle in NYC, CA, Detroit, etc...

On the Manhattan Bridge bike lane, my current daily bike commute, you ride within a couple feet of incredibly loud subway trains. It's definitely louder than the segment of my old daily bike commute when I rode on Interstate 5.

The L.A. River bicycle path is at times right in between I-5 and the river. I'm sure there are other paths adjacent to a freeway.

Yes. That's the best example in LA that I know of, of a bike path right adjacent to a freeway. Here's the rose-colored glasses description:

http://thelariver.com/guide/biking/glendale-narrows-elysian-...

Cycling right next to a freeway sounds gross. All you need to do is take some back roads, slap down some speed bumps, sharrows and other things to slightly annoy cars, and call it a day: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/348902

Nice and cheap, plus you get bikes away from cars entirely, not simply relegated to the side of a high traffic, high speed street. I think it's the best option for any city in the US where there just isn't the political will to do anything more.

You could also take unused railroad tracks and pave over them. It's been done elsewhere. Nice, long, straight bike paths.

Yes, that is a fantastic option, and why Minneapolis has such great bike path, I believe. But, you've got to have the tracks first, and I'm not sure many cities do. And even then, you can't choose where your paths go.

Or the train company owns it and expects to use it "someday" so they stonewall.

Are there any concepts where you can pave down the center and on the sides of tracks? To keep the track useful for later use, but to still allow cyclists to use them?

This strikes me as a terrible idea for two reasons.

1. Slim bike tires getting stuck in the grooves left for the train tracks.

2. Big trains with a ton of inertia running at ~50-60 mph using the same route as cyclists going at ~10-20 mph.

I'm not speaking of city tracks, where the rails are integrated with the pavement. I'm talking about tracks where they have ties in the center, and using concrete in the center between the rails to create a path.

Also, I'm not implying using it for high-speed trains and bike trails at the same time. I'm suggesting being able to go back to use of the paths for trains, and not tearing the tracks out.

Thanks for that video. Really cool to see what they've done!

3 hours to go 10 miles. It's amazing that people could let it get so bad. I remember watching shows as a kid in the 1970's about how you couldn't get Californians out of their cars. They're not the kind of people who believe in mass transit. They just thought you should make the roads wider.

I guess it still needs to get a little worse.

LA is slowly improving its transit situation from what it used to be, though unevenly. A light-rail line from downtown to Pasadena was opened in 2003, and the subway system is finally being extended, it seems, through some of the more densely populated area of the westside: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_Extension

The Metrolink commuter-rail system also runs 500 miles of track, and is now a reasonable option if you commute during typical rush-hours. However, it has very little service outside traditional commute hours, and its overall ridership is not very impressive, especially given the size (it gets less daily ridership than the much smaller subway does).

The biggest issue with public transit in LA for commuting is the last mile problem. It's similar to the "last mile" problem of fast fiber optic cables to slow copper wires to homes. Here the issue is efficient and fast rail transit to extremely inefficient bus system for that last few miles from stations to work. I once tried to plan my commute using public transit and here's what I found:

1) Drive to rail station for park and ride? About 10 minutes, great.

2) Light rail to station nearest to my work place? About 30 minutes and covers 90% of the distance, awesome.

3) Station to my work place? About 1 hour using bus system...

I'll just drive instead since even with bad morning traffic I'll still get there faster because the bus system is really really bad.

I get a bit upset when I think about it because I can get there 90%, but that last bit is ruined by the stupid bus system.

In Europe, when we only need to cover a short distance like a mile, we typically use an antique means of transport called "walking".

In Europe they have these paths from a bygone era commonly known as sidewalks. In the US, we frequently have ditches which drivers treat as roadside garbage dumps.

LA's MTA has a bike locker rental program, find out here [1]. It's worked for me; stash a beater bike at the "work end" of the train commute and ride the "last mile".

If the "work end" is in Burbank, here's the info on their bike locker rental program [2].

There may be a wait list.

-------------

[1] http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/bikes/images/locker_rental...

[2] http://www.burbankca.org/transportation/resources_lockers/lo...

Why don't you bridge the last mile with a bike? I have never been to L.A., but you should be able to just buy yourself a 7th hand old beater and park it somewhere next to the commuter station, then ride the rest of the way.

There's an alternative for the last mile http://www.brompton.co.uk/pages/9035

For reference, how long does it take to drive yourself?

Motorised skateboard?

> I remember watching shows as a kid in the 1970's about how you couldn't get Californians out of their cars.

Southern Californians. I think Northern Californians (bay area) are much easier to get out of their cars.

I think the prevailing opinion of most Californians now is "we'd like to, but can't do it as often as we'd like."

180,000 cyclists and peds did get out of their cars to walk or bike on the most recent "CicLAvia" event [1] [2].

------

[1] https://billrosendahl.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/ciclavia-to-t...

[2] http://www.ciclavia.org/about/

3 hours for 10 miles is about 3X slower than on a bicycle... :O

10 miles in 3 hours is roughly walking speed.

On a much smaller scale, Copenhagen is reviving the idea of a grade-separated bike "highway" in at least one place. A major bicycle commuting route currently goes through a complex congested area (with a bunch of 90-degree turns, pedestrian cross traffic, canals, and even a staircase at one point), but will from next year bypass it on a 1/4-km overpass: http://politiken.dk/ibyen/nyheder/gadeplan/ECE1594066/koeben...

In the rest of the city the goal is to string together something more like arterial bicycle roads, though, rather than fully grade-separated highways.

True story: I moved from southern California to Holland in no small part because of how amenable the country is to cycling.

People like to think that cycling is popular here naturally because the country is flat and densely populated. However, it's easy to forget that during the postwar boom years, a major shift toward cars happened and it took a concerted effort of willful resistance and politically non-expedient measures to bring back the bike paths (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o). Clearly, 1897 was not the last chance the Dutch had to fix their transit system, and with the groundwork they've laid over the years, it now costs only €30 per person in funding annually! (http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/05/487-million-eur...)

Yet I see very little chance of this happening in California, not because cyclists lack a voice, but because we need to create more disincentives to driving. This obviously is a political no-go considering that motorists are by far the majority demographic. It's saddening, though, that there is so much willful ignorance (or apathy) with regard to how we've externalized the true cost of driving, whether it's in the form of:

- damage to the environment

- subsidy to cheap gas prices by the DoD budget (and body count) for controlling the world's oil flow

- casualties from motor vehicle accidents

- health problems resulting from sedentary lifestyles

- zoning rules that require abundant free parking to be available in communities.

We'd probably have to see gas hit $10/gallon and parking lots charge $50/day before Americans start to reconsider. (These prices are actually quite typical in European cities.)

Oddly enough, I think it's good that the Great Recession has caused a lot of Americans to reconsider their car expenses and choose to scale back their lifestyles in ways that are more healthy, safe, and environmentally friendly. I hope this trend (not the recession, of course) continues and if America can set an example of moving away from a car culture, it will do far more good around the world to discourage the growing middle class in China, India, and other developing countries from adopting the same wasteful practices.

In the meantime, though, I'll piggyback on the 40-year head start on bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands. If I sound bitter, it's my sore legs from yesterday's 70km ride talking ;)

Respectfully, I think your analysis is overly simplistic. You ignored the elephant in the room: the geography of the US.

Cycling makes a ton of sense if you live in and around an urban area---particularly when most of your interactions with other people are in that same small area. Despite my love for driving, if I fit that mold, I'd happily adopt cycling as my main mode of transportation. But there are a couple of very common scenarios in the US that maybe aren't so common in other countries:

* Living in a suburb/rural area that is more than a half-hour drive from your place of work (in no traffic). There's a high price to pay in terms of time that cycling would entail.

* Traveling throughout the US. And I don't just mean across the country where trains or buses are appropriate---I mean visiting your friend several towns over. For instance, my friend that I frequently visit is about 30 minutes away by car but is about 100 minutes away by bicycle (back-roads, no traffic, data from Google Maps). Similarly for my parents.

I think both of these scenarios strongly militate toward owning a car in favor of a bicycle. I also think tons of people in the US fit this mold---certainly more so than smaller countries with a much denser overall population. Most of the people in the US live in cities---but the overall population density of the US is much lower than most other countries, which suggests that even if you live in or around a city, you have a much higher chance of having connections with people who live in more suburban or rural areas (than similar folks in denser countries). When that happens, a car is typically the most sensible form of transportation.

Of course, it's certainly plausible that we could own cars that we rarely use but cycle to work every day, for example. But I think that's a more complex dynamic and I don't think I have the tools to properly analyze it.

I also find your enthusiasm for passing laws to legislate your cost/benefit analysis on everyone else to be deeply disturbing, but I'll leave that one be.

> Living in a suburb/rural area that is more than a half-hour drive from your place of work (in no traffic).

That this situation is so common is a symptom of the fact that our cities and towns have been designed around driving. The geography of the US is a comparatively small factor, since (as you mention) most people here live in cities or suburbs.

> When that happens, a car is typically the most sensible form of transportation.

For these sorts of occasional needs, car sharing services work well.

> I also find your enthusiasm for passing laws to legislate your cost/benefit analysis on everyone else to be deeply disturbing, but I'll leave that one be.

This assumes that the status quo doesn't already constitute legislating one group's cost/benefit analysis on everyone else.

> That this situation is so common is a symptom of the fact that our cities and towns have been designed around driving.

I live outside Boston. Which was most certainly not designed for driving. And yet, my analysis holds there too.

> The geography of the US is a comparatively small factor, since (as you mention) most people here live in cities or suburbs.

I think you've taken what I said out of context. I went on to qualify that by saying those people, due to the lower overall population density, have a decent chance of knowing people in suburbs/rural areas that they visit.

> For these sorts of occasional needs, car sharing services work well.

In urban areas, yes. In suburb/rural areas, no. My friend had a similar dilemma, and her solution was to rent a car. Plausible, but is of varying pain depending upon use cases. Her use case was "I need a car infrequently but for long stretches of time."

> This assumes that the status quo doesn't already constitute legislating one group's cost/benefit analysis on everyone else.

No it doesn't. I said nothing about the status quo. I didn't even argue in favor of the status quo.

Do you acknowledge that geography plays a big role in the viability of cycling as a primary mode of transportation? From your response, I can only assume that you don't. If my assumption is right, then I suggest we focus the conversation on that.

Your also assuming an ether or situation if you drive less having a cheaper car seems more reasonable. I bought a 30k car back when I spent 2 hours a day in it, now that I drive ~2 hours a week and kind of wish I had bought a Honda civic instead.

> Your also assuming an ether or situation if you drive less having a cheaper car seems more reasonable.

Where did I assume that? This isn't about whether you have a $30K car or a Civic, just that you have a car...

I moved from Mountain View to Portland for basically the same reason. While Portland isn't anywhere near Dutch levels of biking, the city government takes it seriously enough that I hope it will be nice by the time my daughter is old enough to not drive.

I agree with your assessment that we "need to create more disincentives to driving" and that is the part that is getting the most resistance.

I think the best arguments we can make are selfish ones. Safety, and the damage cars do to communities by taking humans off the streets. Health. Cost.

As a parent who grew up in Suburbia, I think the best thing that I can do for my child is to move to an urban bike-friendly city, because the number one cause of deaths by far for teenagers in the US is motor vehicle crashes.

"In 2010, seven teens ages 16 to 19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries." - http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrive...

In 2012 we took a long road trip through the most bike friendly cities in the US, and settled on Portland. Our first choice was actually Vancouver, BC but its hard for American citizens to emigrate there unless you have a sponsor.

We considered staying in Atlanta and fighting for the type of changes it needs to become a real livable city, but ultimately we decided that it wasn't worth risking our lives and that our energy could be much better spent cultivating the critical mass needed to reach a tipping point in Portland's low-car lifestyle.

I visited Amasterdam (from Chicago) in November of last year, and fell in love with the cycling-centric environment in Hollad. How difficult is it to pick up and move to Holland from the US?

Interestingly the US has a special treaty with the Netherlands for starting a business called the DAFT (Dutch-American Friendship Treaty)[1] that gives Americans preferential treatment compared to other non-EU nationals. I have no idea about the other legal hurdles.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAFT_(treaty)

Yes, so in 1897 we missed an opportunity. Have we completely missed the boat to bring bicycling back as a mainstream form of local travel, like they do is so many European cities? Maybe the biggest challenge is: people need to stop thinking about cycling only as exercise.

The biggest problem with bicycle transport isn't how to get from A-B but what to do with your bike once you arrive. In NYC there are decent bike lanes around (although the tourists stepping out into them make them difficult in certain areas). Do I lock my bike to a pole and hope it doesn't get stolen? Do I use a bike share system (starting roll out now), and walk way out of my way at the start and destination of my journey to find the nearest one? Maybe I get one of those fancy fold up ones and hope my building lets me take it inside.

I've been lucky to work in areas where theft isn't a huge issue. My biggest problem is the weather.

In the hot, humid summers, I wish my building had a shower, or at least some area to change clothes larger and less smelly than a bathroom stall. When it rains, there isn't always an appropriate place to hang dripping, often muddy clothes (and I hope they dry off before the ride home). I'm also lucky to not need to wear a suit, but I don't envy those whose responsibilities include being more presentable.

If the roads aren't covered with snow and ice, the worst part about winter is the darkness, but that isn't something an office building can solve.

If you are commuting, you don't need to cycle as hard as if you were training/racing. Just use a regular pace, like when you walk in the street instead of running. The same energy you use when walking normally will translate to long distances in a bike, because of the energy-efficiency of biking.

That's a good point. I'm young(ish) and tend to race my past self (while following traffic laws). On one hand, what's the point of biking if I can't get to work faster than by bus? But on the other, a more leisurely pace would surely leave me less sweaty while still providing some exercise benefit.

The bike sharing system in DC is sufficiently dense that I can usually just go to my destination and spend a minute finding the nearest station when I arrive.

How do they avoid theft? My town tried bike sharing and within weeks all the bikes were gone or destroyed.

Specialized biked and specialized docks - when you park a bike in a dock, a heavy bolt locks it into place. This is done within an enclosure that covers much of he front wheel, and the only way to get at the lock would be to dismantle the entire apparatus. The bikes themselves have no detachable parts and are _extremely_ distinctive with a street value of "You have the right to remain silent".

> The notion that anyone could profit off of such a venture—a bicycle toll road—seems insane now.

I completely disagree.

Same. Monthly and annual membership or donations, or sponsorship options, etc.

I enjoyed the article, but I'm very hesitant to believe any news sponsored by or affiliated with Vice.

On top of questionable reporting practices, companies can pay to influence the content of articles and the type of coverage.

Examples: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/08/130408fa_fact_...

Careful here. I recommend you watch an episode of Vice on HBO. I had my doubts as well, but the reporting on that show is great and my only criticism is that its too short. The article you posted is just an opinion of that person and she doesn't provide specific examples or lay it out objectively. I just recommend checking it out and then judge it for yourself.

I am kind of cynical but I just assume that's true with most of the media these days.

companies can pay to influence the content of articles and the type of coverage.

Like every other publication in the USA?

http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

There's a significant difference between Vice and the publications (like the NY Times) that PG refers to in his article:

Vice has a POLICY of taking money from companies in exchange for allowing editorial control. As in, they encourage and have acknowledged this practice. They represent a strange, blurry hybrid between an ad agency and a news outlet.

Makes me prefer Vice. It seems worse and obviously deceptive to routinely do what is mentioned in the article and yet have no policy or anything for it. As if that makes it less wrong (the opposite in my opinion).

Check out the real estate section of your local newspaper. It has a long and glorious tradition.

I haven't had a chance to read that New Yorker article yet, but who would you think would benefit from this bike article? Do you think it's a paid placement from a bike manufacturer?

(I'm not being snarky, it's a genuine question.)

This wikipedia article has further details from multiple sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Cycleway

I've seen the original plans on display in Pasadena.

If I told you there was a new form of transport that would allow travel over great distances without having to maintain a horse or use gas, it would be revolutionary right? I can't help but wish the bicycle had a longer time period between when the safety bike and automobile were invented...

Even in countries where it was widely adopted (look at China), the car has a tremendous appeal.

There are parts of Europe where war and high gas prices didn't drive bicycle use completely underground (despite fairly inclement weather), but it's a tough sell.

More's the pity though, I agree.

Back in 1999 on my first visit to Beijing this was true: there were lanes dedicated to the sea of bicycles that was used for commutes. This sea has mostly disappeared, and many of the bicycle lanes used exclusively for bikes before have turned into a mess of parking and extra car lanes.

Using these lanes today for non-electric biking is very frustrating.

* The 1897 Pasadena-to-LA Cycleway looks appealing to this native Angelino [perhaps in part because it's empty in all the photos?], but had it been completed and survived, I would it to be heavily subcribed now.

* Some related thoughts:

___ o My favorite LA commute replaced a 80-minute auto commute with a 90-minute total { auto + Metrolink commuter rail + bike locker + 1.6 mile bike ride } commute. By driving to the "home end" and renting a bike locker (where I kept a bike in storage overnight) at the "work end" of the commute, I solved the "last mile problem". And I got 20 minutes of reading time each way on commuter rail.

____ o Folding bikes [1] solve the "last mile" problem given that (within certain restrictions) they can be taken on-board folded on LA busses [2]. Having put over 8,000 miles on three different folding bikes, I have found them to be practical but at-times finicky.

____ o LA is getting a bike share program under beta rollout in "LA-adjacent"-Anaheim [3]. These bikes use driveshafts (instead of chains) for cleanliness.

____ o Adapting a mountain bike or hybrid bike using an "Xtracycle" attachment [4] creates a long wheelbase cargo bike cable of carrying a week's groceries for a family of four. I have over 2500 miles on one of these. It won't go on public transportation nor on the bike rack of a car, but it can carry up to 300 pounds (if the hills aren't too steep and the load is well-distributed).

____ o My present LA commute is 5 miles, suburban all the way, and takes 30 to 35 min by bike, independent of auto traffic. Taking my auto instead saves 10 to 15 minutes, depending on traffic.

-------

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_bicycle

[2] http://www.metro.net/bikes/bikes-metro/

[3] http://la.streetsblog.org/category/issues/bike-sharing/

[4] http://www.xtracycle.com/

“The plan was to charge bicyclists 10¢ a pop for hopping on the bike-only highway one way, or 15¢ round trip. That's a savings of 50% if you make a day of it, folks.”

Is it just me, or is that math off? The round trip is 50% more expensive than the one way ticket. The round trip costs 75% of what 2 one way tickets would cost, it’s a 25% discount. “If you make a day of it”, savings of 50% would mean a round way ticket costs the same as a one way ticket.

This reminds me of something that came up in Google's Field Trip app one day. It said that there used to be light rail running through Cupertino about 100 years ago (down Steven's Creek IIRC) and it got torn down to make room for the age of the automobile.

The app is just giving me timeouts now though, and I've never seen mention of an old light rail system elsewhere.

As an avid cyclist in California, I sometimes daydream about having the entire 101 and I-5 free of cars, and what a blast it would be to tour with a host of friends. Well, at least until my daydream reminds me that there isn't much scenic pleasure on those highways, and I'd probably get bored 30 miles in.

Minneapolis actually has a bike highway, though it's public and free. I'm not entirely sure why the article calls the idea crazy so many times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Lake_Trail

This sounds like a vintage version of Elon Musk's Hyperloop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop

But Musk hasn't really released any real details about it. How can you comparte this to something you don't know anything about? Or has he released more details?

uhm no, this was just a highway for bikes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com