Bicycle subsidies and unintended consequences

Tim has pointed out the relationship between gas prices and bike demand. Riding bikes improves air quality if you would have been driving otherwise. The problem, in many places, is where do the bikers get to ride? Luckily the federal government is happy to subsidize bike riding and improved air quality.

From Saturday's WSJ (Building a better bike path):

Cities across America such as Portland, Ore., Dallas and Clearwater, Fla., are grappling with a dilemma. They'll soon be able to tap a big new source of money to build bike paths, thanks to unusually generous provisions for cyclists in the $286.5 billion transportation bill that Congress approved in August.

...

Exactly which bike paths will share in the windfall from the new transportation bill will be up to the states. One exception: $38 million is earmarked for bike paths in Louisville, Ky., a project mentioned in the bill. Bikes Belong, a lobbying group funded by the bicycle industry, estimates that about $1 billion from the transportation bill will go toward trails.

$1 billion for bike paths, but the bikers are ticked because ... they must share the paths! (personal note: my 3 year old is currently trying to learn to share.)

North Carolina State researchers found cyclists unhappy about sharing space with joggers, baby carriages and kids peddling their first two-wheelers. "You've got a mix of elementary students and meatheads," says Theo Petritsch of Sprinkle Consulting, who has researched bike-path use.

One unintended consequence of subsidies to encourage biking is crowding and negative health impacts (i.e., bikers crash into things, including people). Is there a solution?

In some cases, designers say the ideal would be to create separate jogging trails and keep the bike paths only for cyclists -- but a hitch is that usually only shared-use paths qualify for those federal funds. Another approach is to widen the bike paths. That can provide ample room for both bikers and joggers -- but in some cases, increasing the size by 2 feet, or 20%, could double the cost of the path. Still others talk about "traffic calming" -- basically, narrowing paths or adding curves in critical spots to force everyone to slow down.

My take is that we shouldn't count on bikes taking over for cars anytime soon.

Comments

[Dano]

I'm an avid bike commuter and rider. Depending upon nagging injuries, my average this past year is 4 days/week commuting by bike, but I'm an anomaly.

I agree with John. Folks in cars don't pay attention to what they are doing. Folks on bike paths ("meatheads") don't watch what they are doing. There are conflicts everywhere in the city for bike riders.

You have to be a little crazy, aggressive, or glutton for constant scanning to be a bike rider in the city, because it ain't easy. Bike commuting in an autocentric society is a viable option for a small percentage of citizens.

Best,

D

[TFox]

I like to think about bike paths in terms of impedance matching. What are the typical speeds and acceleration characteristics of various types of traffic? Poorly matched traffic which must share the same lanes generates stress and accidents. Commuting bicycles mix with pedestrians about as well as they do with automobiles, which is to say not very well.

[Tim Haab]

In the fairy-tale suburb where I live we have 62 miles of bike paths. Here is how the city promoted the paths:

"Meet your neighbors. Take your family on a leisurely ride for ice cream on a summer afternoon. Enjoy the scenery that is overlooked too easily while driving in a car. Sample the diversity of Dublin's many parks from the tranquil beauty of a wetlands reserve to our community playgrounds, from our active parks to spots with scenic river views. "

Clearly not meant for commuting.

[odograph]

Well, first thing .. I live in an area where I ride "bike paths" of sorts designed by various cities and the county. Some already separate bikes and foot traffic (or horses). It strikes me that the issue is to design the foot/bike/car path for the expected traffic load. Pretty standard stuff.

The second thing is the (huge) time-of-day and day-of-week issue. Generaly: Families and kids are out on weekends. Commuters are out weekday mornings and evenings. Sport riders ride when they can, and I think they are the ones who get most frustrated ... when they try to ride fast in peak family hours.

In some places they split the usage according to time-of-day (or even season). It's treated as "ok" to break the beach boardwalk speed limit in winter, but in summer speeders are supposed to get out on the road and use the side-stripe bike lane.

Ah well, that's a long ramble, but I think the lesson is to let good traffic planners do their planning.

[Dano]

Good point odo: when I lived in Sacramento, all us bike commuters avoided the bike trail, so as to not run over the training-wheel set. But 6.00 am was a great time to be on the trail. Then I got on the bridge that shared my traffic with the stressed-out auto pilots going to work at the Money Store...

But another point is: who is going to pay for separation of uses in a low-tax time period? Many fed and state grants want matching funds for multimodal projects (perhaps the reason for Tim's sales pitch quote). Only the cities with multimodal and pedestrian access priorities will pony up the money for ped connectivity.

Best,

D

[joshua corning]

one unintended consiquense of bike lanes is that they often add substantially to the cost new road construction as well as adding to the width of road easments..they are often required for securing funds from federal sources.

Becouse of the added cost and width issues (can be the differnce for having to buy a persons home in the enlarged easment) they can make a project a no go thus contributing to car congestion.

anyway this article seemed to be a trails and not lanes..but i just wanted to give my two cents.

[odograph]

Note - while we total the costs to bike trials, we might also total more of the benefits. I think there are cases where bike trails have been part of an effective civic renewal program, part of building an area into a recreation destination, or part of increasing value in a suburban community. To name a few.

[Dano]

we might also total more of the benefits.

Hedonic valuation of land rents usu. indicates residential parcels within a few hundred m of trails, greenways and parks have higher values. The health benefits are harder to tally, but soon we should have some early empirical numbers on that too.

Best,

D

[joshua corning]

"Hedonic valuation of land rents usu. indicates residential parcels within a few hundred m of trails, greenways and parks have higher values."

a good arguement for privitizing parks and green ways. :)

Why should I pay for other people's rise in property values?

[Dano]

Why should I pay for other people's rise in property values?

Because the tiny amount you would pay in taxes would be more than made up for in wealth creation and additions to the social capital of the town, in addition to the services delivered by said raised property values.

Say, aren't you commenting on an economics blog?

Best,

D

[pete]

North of Boone NC in Virginia there is a bike path - horse path. Some of my friends whom ride horses suggest that this combination of traffic is terrible. In Minneapolis they have two separate paths: one for slow traffic (walkers and youth bikers) and one for fast traffic (bikers and inline skates) around the same lake. Yet both examples are for recreation and not commuting. So this problem exist elsewhere as well.

[Adam]

This critcism of bike paths does not match my experience. There's a great bike-path system on the San Fran East Bay, where conflict with pedestrians was minimal. The track follows the BART line, much of the way and has separate bike and ped paths when possible.

For bike lanes on roads, the real problem is parked cars. When there are no parked cars, a bike lane should be smaller than a typical parking lane. However, when there are parked cars, a bike lane will need to be almost as wide as a car lane to account for the obstructed visibility and potential to have doors opened in the biker's path.

[PRN]

I've been bike commuting year 'round for nearly a decade. This isn't for everyone, but it is a feasible option for many more people than currently do it.
IMHO, the commuters/recreational bikers/pedestrians groupings are not nearly as meaningful as is the split between those who are knowledgeable and observant of trail use rules vs. those who aren't. The capacity of an MUT whose users keep to the right except when passing, warn when passing, etc. will be much greater than the capacity of an MUT whose users don't follow this rules.
Also IMHO, creating sharp turns and bottlenecks as traffic calming features of MUTs would be a disaster.

[joshua corning]

"Because the tiny amount you would pay in taxes would be more than made up for in wealth creation and additions to the social capital of the town, in addition to the services delivered by said raised property values.

You still doesn't explain why government needs to get involved...if there is an economic insentive to create the parks then there should be no need for government. No need for me to pay for another persons gain.

"Say, aren't you commenting on an economics blog?"

yup, and allocating public funds for the benifit of a select few is a good example of crony capitalism, as opposed to free market capitalism.

Anyway I am not against parks and greenways( so long as they are truely public and cost effective)...but raising the property values for a select group of privilaged citizens is a terrible argument for them.

[John Whitehead]

Actually, I think that the property value impacts are a reasonable thing to include in a benefit-cost analysis when considering whether to establish a park. In fact, ALL benefits and costs should be considered, regardless of who gets to enjoy them. If we want to inject equity considerations we could apply lower weights to the benefits and costs that rich people enjoy and suffer.

[allen claxton]

Actually, I think that the property value impacts are a reasonable thing to include in a benefit-cost analysis when considering whether to establish a park.

Am I confused, or are there two issues here. One is summing up costs and benefits of bike trails, which you're talking about (that is, increased property values is one part of that tallying process). The other is a more general question of "do people value bike trails," in which case increased property values is taken as evidence pointing towards "yes, people do value bike trails." In dealing with this second issue, it doesn't matter that these property value increases go into some private household's pockets, because it's just a measurement tool. Right?

[John Whitehead]

Allen,

I think it is one issue. If people value bike trails, then they choose to move closer to them, increasing the value of the property close to bike trails. The increase in the property value is a measure of one benefit of the bike trail. This benefit should be included in a benefit-cost analysis of a public project to build the bike trail.

[John Boy]

A major street near me has been re-designed from 4 lanes for cars to 2 lanes for cars and 2 for bicycles. The result is now a steady flow of cars resulting in increased waiting times for those of us trying to enter from side streets (gas a-wastin'); the congestion has now pushed cars onto parallel residential streets. No doubt they will soon add traffic calming to the side streets to slow every down even further. All this means cars are using more gas, emitting more pollutants while the occasional bike rider screams up on the left, scattering the silly pedestrians who dare to put their feet into the bike lane. Bicycle riders seem to feel morally superior and display this attitude, although most of the people I know who bike to work are always glad to suffer a car ride when it rains

[Dano]

Although I'm currently a member of two bike clubs (and formerly a member of another in a different location) and have commuted by bike since 1995, I don't know any bike riders who feel 'morally superior'.

Most of us are just paranoid about meeting up with the metal boxes careening about, piloted by distracted folk talking on phones and thinking that they shouldn't have to share the road with anything that isn't a multiton metal box.

But JB illustrates an unintended consequence: subtracting vehicle lanes results in congestion if alternate modes of transportation aren't supplied.

Best,

D

[travis]

I ride bike for fun, not commuting (as my school is 26 miles each way.

but on backroads around my area, bike groups will form 3 bikes wide, and take up the entire lane (on a single lane road with no passing). they never yield to drivers, and are very arrogent in doing so. It's only a matter of time untill a loaded cement truck comes around (at the speedlimit) 55mph curve and runs over 6 or 9 of them. Do they deserve it? maybe not but they are asking for it.

bike lanes... hmmm, what's wrong with saying "on your left" as you pass the walkers?

and parks? so if it adds value to their home, they pay more taxes on that added value. Which is good for the city both ways. So economically seems it would (simplistically that is) be a good thing.

[guest]

"Hedonic valuation of land rents usu. indicates residential parcels within a few hundred m of trails, greenways and parks have higher values."

a good arguement for privitizing parks and green ways. :)

Why should I pay for other people's rise in property values?

You shouldn't. Bike paths should be funded thru LVT (land value taxation).