Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?

[Big Don]

San Francisco Ponders:
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?

City Backpedals on a Cycling Plan
After Mr. Anderson Goes to Court
By PHRED DVORAK
August 20, 2008; Page A1
The Wall Street Journal
Excerpt:

SAN FRANCISCO -- New York is wooing cyclists with chartreuse bike lanes. Chicago is spending nearly $1 million for double-decker bicycle parking.
San Francisco can't even install new bike racks.

Blame Rob Anderson. At a time when most other cities are encouraging biking as green transport, the 65-year-old local gadfly has stymied cycling-support efforts here by arguing that urban bicycle boosting could actually be bad for the environment. That's put the brakes on everything from new bike lanes to bike racks while the city works on an environmental-impact report.
Cyclists say the irony is killing them -- literally. At least four bikers have died and hundreds more have been injured in San Francisco since mid-2006, when Mr. Anderson helped convince a judge to halt implementation of a massive pro-bike plan.(It's unclear whether the plan's execution could have prevented the accidents.) In the past year, bike advocates have demonstrated outside City Hall, pushed the city to challenge the plan's freeze in court and proposed putting the whole mess to local voters. Nothing worked.
"We're the ones keeping emissions from the air!" shouted Leah Shahum, executive director of the 10,000-strong San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, at a July 21 protest.
Mr. Anderson disagrees. Cars always will vastly outnumber bikes, he reasons, so allotting more street space to cyclists could cause more traffic jams, more idling and more pollution. Mr. Anderson says the city has been blinded by political correctness. It's an "attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic on behalf of the bicycle fantasy," he wrote in his blog this month.
*************
Interesting.

Thoughts?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Let me think......

One Bike or one Humvee.....
One Bike or one Prius.....
One Bike one less Buick....
One Bike one less Volkswagen....

I don't know... I am thinking maybe...just maybe... that bikes cause less pollution... no engine.... no exhaust (unless you count exhaling)... but I could be wrong

 

[Flying Crane]

I think the problem is in convincing the masses to embrace anternative transportation like bicycles. People don't want to give up their humvees or SUVs or buicks or even Prius.

Granted, in some areas the distances are just too great for bicycles to be a good option, and severe weather can interfere as well. But people need to accept it and use it, or the full potential won't be realized.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Let me think......

One Bike or one Humvee.....
One Bike or one Prius.....
One Bike one less Buick....
One Bike one less Volkswagen....

I don't know... I am thinking maybe...just maybe... that bikes cause less pollution... no engine.... no exhaust (unless you count exhaling)... but I could be wrong

While I agree with this logic it is the same on the main roads for vehicles in general. If one vehicle is going slower then this may cause a back up which causes more vehicles to be in the area longer and actually produce more CO2 emissions than if they got a little less fuel economy but got in and went through faster. So, bikes on the main rods could cause a slow down and cause more pollution. But, one has to start somewhere. One has to create the bike lanes to get people riding and then to get full bike lanes that do not inhibit the flow of vehicles and or buses.

The issue of fuel economy and emissions is funny to me. Many of the solutions are not always the best for the other. They can be but it is not always the case. Meeting higher emission levels (* lower numbers allowed *) might cause a program to use more cells per square inch in a catalytic converter. This converter may have to run hotter to meet the lower emissions which means more fuel being pumped into the converter to keep it hot to make sure complete burn has occurred by the time it goes out the tail pipe. Of course, as time goes by new technology comes out and new ways of doing things helps but over time I have seen this and other methods that are counter to fuel economy to meet emission regulations. This does not mean we should release to no emissions and go for fuel economy. It is step by step process that requires sometimes making progress in one area while the other may or may not be an improvement.

 

[Xue Sheng]

It really all comes down to how they design the Bike lanes. If they are in fact taking form the existing road (like they have in a few areas around where I live) then I have no doubt few people will use them since they are still rather dangerous. It amounts to a white painted line on the side of the road where the emergency lane use to be only it is about half as wide and the emergency lane was and I have yet to see them cause a traffic jam but then I have yet to see a whole lot of people use them too.

If like Beijing where they are separated by a rather hefty fence and not taking any of the roads then more people will use them.

But I will say this if they built them in my area where I was not wondering if I was about to get run over I would ride a bike a lot more places.

This country is all about cars so I kind of believe if it comes down to 1 guy screaming my car will go slower and 500 saying but bikes are the way to go the few will out weigh the many on this issue.

 

[Rich Parsons]

It really all comes down to how they design the Bike lanes. If they are in fact taking form the existing road (like they have in a few areas around where I live) then I have no doubt few people will use them since they are still rather dangerous. It amounts to a white painted line on the side of the road where the emergency lane use to be only it is about half as wide and the emergency lane was and I have yet to see them cause a traffic jam but then I have yet to see a whole lot of people use them too.

If like Beijing where they are separated by a rather hefty fence and not taking any of the roads then more people will use them.

But I will say this if they built them in my area where I was not wondering if I was about to get run over I would ride a bike a lot more places.

This country is all about cars so I kind of believe if it comes down to 1 guy screaming my car will go slower and 500 saying but bikes are the way to go the few will out weigh the many on this issue.

I agree the fact that many are dangerous limits the usage.

I prefer for them to be wider and safer for the bikers and also for the drivers and everyone involved.

I would hope that we could get the bike lanes in place. I think it would be great for people's health and for using less fuel for this person and in the end every little bit not used is that much longer we have to find a better solution.

If people drove less aggressively in general and fuel economy in mind then it would be better for everyone.

( Of course I still love taking a car out on the open road and driving it hard. But recently I have been limiting it to closed course tracks at work. *)

 

[Kajowaraku]

Well...it doesn't always have to be so black and white. The problem with cars is also a problem of usage. For example: just take a look at how many cars are clogging the streets with only one person in them. Car-pooling will not only reduce emissions, it will also reduce the amount of cars on the road and cure many assorted frustrations. Also, if you end up being victim of a case of traffic aggression, at least you won't be alone, and you can mob the guy (ok, discount that point as being non-serious, the other guy will probably also have a car full of friends, if he's environmentally responsible , unless thugs don't carpool of course!-).

Also, you'd be amazed how many people actually take their car for small shopping or errands within a few miles of their homes. Most of those could just as well be done with a bike. I agree it's not going to be easy in cities, but cities tend to have more elaborate public transportation, and investing in better PT would probably be even more useful than just painting some lines on the side of the road and stamping a bicycle on it to denote it's designated new purpose (those are indeed dangerous). As for people living in more towns: bikes suddenly become far more interesting (unless you live in a onehorsetown with the closest shop being 76 miles further along the only road in and out of town of course).

anyway, it's not realistic to simply wish cars to go away, or hope we'll all suddenly be using the power of love to fuel our vehicles (them darned hippie inventors really need to work on that some more...). what is more realistic is seing how how apply the options we have at our disposal, and i think providing proper infrastructure for safe and responsable useage of bikes and such certainly has a place in such a responsable paradigm of transportation.

[/rant]

 

[Nolerama]

We're doing something like this for work. However, we're not going for bike lanes, just slowing the traffic down so cyclists can navigate a city thoroughfare more easily.

I've heard the pollution argument before. Mostly from folks who want to drive fast down a 25 mph-posted street.

Making cities more bicycle/pedestrian friendly is a huge trend in US urban areas. As cities become more crowded, it's harder to maintain/drive a car. That's the simple fact. Why pay upwards of $200 just to park your car somewhere near your residence when you can keep a bicycle in your apartment and get around quickly?

Consuming less fossil fuels is also attractive to many environmentally-minded urban Americans. A person commuting to work every day on a bicycle is definitely going to create less pollution in a year than several cars "idling". Potentially idling at that.

Ultimately, it's a perception/lifestyle change. Americans are holding fast to their automobiles. It's become a part of personal and national identity. Well, times are changing. Gas is getting more expensive. It's also finite. Your bicycle has no gas mileage, and helps you explore your own city in a way that driving in a car will never allow.

Cycling to work every day is definitely a boon to personal health, and a lot of cyclists will tell you they are more mellow after a good ride; even if it's only to work.

I believe slower, bike-friendly streets would inspire more to ride their bikes.

Could bike lanes cause pollution? Yes. Noise pollution. From urban motorist bellyaching.

Case in point: we're slowing our street with bump-outs, and maintaining the 25mph speed limit with proper traffic light timing (which gets motorists in/out of our neighborhood faster than them driving the old 45mph and having to stop at a light). Cyclists are more out and about. The street feels safer with pedestrians feeling safe to walk in the neighborhood.

I haven't had to call in a traffic accident in three weeks since this pilot program started. The street doesn't reek of motors going full-throttle or burning rubber from cars stopping suddenly.

We can live without cars. We certainly can.

 

[blindsage]

We have well used bike lanes all over Seattle. The are generally a painted lane to the right of the main car lane. People use them all the time despite the 'danger'. They don't hold up traffic. I'm not a cyclist, and I'm not particularly interested in being one, yes I jump in my car to do errands within a couple miles of my house, because I value my time, but I think those that do choose to bike should have accomodation for their convenience and safety as well. Yes cars dominate, but drivers don't have any right to exclude other transportation means just because they prefer their cars.

 

[JDenver]

How does a lane running parallel on the side of a road create traffic jams?

 

[crushing]

How does a lane running parallel on the side of a road create traffic jams?

I couldn't find that in the article either. Seems like some sort of explanation as to how the 'extra' pollution is created would be a key part of the article. Did I overlook it?

 

[cdunn]

How does a lane running parallel on the side of a road create traffic jams?

If a full lane must be removed from a central artery to create bicycle lanes, then the road will have reduced capacity - if the road was close to free-flow capacity, then this will cause 'traffic jams'. These are a lot of ifs. But... you can't exactly move a building eight feet to the right to make space for a bicycle lane - downtown, trying to invoke eminent domain to get more space would be insane, which means lanes have to be carved out of the road space currently set for cars.

Unfortunately, the cities most likely to suffer from attempts to set aside space in the lanes for cycles are probably those that most desperately need it.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

If you have ever been in San Francisco, you will know that the streets tend to be narrow and jam packed with vehicles a lot of the time. In order to produce bike lanes, it is likely that they will have to reduce the size / number of vehicle traffic lanes, or remove sidewalk space. And the sidewalks tend to be fairly narrow as well, except in some shopping / tourist districts. So there is a fair chance that this may actually cause more congestion, and therefore more traffic pollution, in the long run.

I think the prime point of this, as some have acknowledged, is that there is no "perfect answer" to many of lifes problems. There are costs and benefits associated to all of them. It is up to us as a society to decide what benefits outweigh which costs, and then move forward.

And accept that sometimes, we may be wrong....

 

[celtic_crippler]

I see his point...

You see, a mere reduction of methane by 20% could possibly save over 370,000 lives world-wide. I'll explain...

When you commute in a car the methane emmitted by flatulance is filtered through the cars air system so that by the time it reaches the outside envirnonment it's concentration and strength have been drastically reduced.

Therefore, allowing for more cyclist would increase methane in the atmosphere and cost many more lives.

...yup...that's the ticket.

 

[elder999]

I see his point...

You see, a mere reduction of methane by 20% could possibly save over 370,000 lives world-wide. I'll explain...

When you commute in a car the methane emmitted by flatulance is filtered through the cars air system so that by the time it reaches the outside envirnonment it's concentration and strength have been drastically reduced.

Therefore, allowing for more cyclist would increase methane in the atmosphere and cost many more lives.

...yup...that's the ticket.

While your post is amusing, healthy human flatus contains very little or no methane. The flammable gas in flatus is actually hydrogen, in the form of hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide. The major components of human flatus are nitrogen (20-90%) and hydrogen (0-50%), followed closely by CO2, O2 and methane. All of these gases are, of course, odorless, and the odor associated with flatus is typically from fatty solids, bacteriological breakdown, hydrogen sulfide, and various proteins. You might say that more cyclists would increase CO2 emissions, but this is such a small variable that it's certainly offset by not using a car.

The terrible waste, of course, is not collecting all the hydrogen that's being generated as a green fuel.

As for methane, it's actually a myth that it's contained in bovine flatus. Cows emit methane by belching.........

(BTW, "flatulence" is the generation of flatus. Flatus is the gas, flatulence the making of it......)

 

[Xue Sheng]

I should have asked this before.... are the Bike Riders Smoking

 

[celtic_crippler]

While your post is amusing, healthy human flatus contains very little or no methane. The flammable gas in flatus is actually hydrogen, in the form of hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide. The major components of human flatus are nitrogen (20-90%) and hydrogen (0-50%), followed closely by CO2, O2 and methane. All of these gases are, of course, odorless, and the odor associated with flatus is typically from fatty solids, bacteriological breakdown, hydrogen sulfide, and various proteins. You might say that more cyclists would increase CO2 emissions, but this is such a small variable that it's certainly offset by not using a car.

The terrible waste, of course, is not collecting all the hydrogen that's being generated as a green fuel.

As for methane, it's actually a myth that it's contained in bovine flatus. Cows emit methane by belching.........

(BTW, "flatulence" is the generation of flatus. Flatus is the gas, flatulence the making of it......)

Yeah, yeah...

But it's the point though isn't it?

BTW, don't give the government any more reasons to take my steak and burgers away from me!

 

[Kajowaraku]

Forget bikes! Forget cars! I've had an epiphany on the future of green energy!

I can see how riding rocketcows would really solve traffic jams. A minimal safe distance of 100 yards or so seems in order... And since they're fueled with an onboard hydrogenflatus generator it can truelly run on green fuel (grass, hay, corn, the neighbors' hedge,...).

Sell your car, get a cow!

 

[Gordon Nore]

There might actually be some sense to the claim. I guess it depends on the math. If car lanes are eliminated from busy thoroughfares, then made available to cyclists without actually reducing the number of cars on the road, then I would see where emissions would increase.

How to reduce emissions -- ban drive throughs.

 

[Rich Parsons]

There might actually be some sense to the claim. I guess it depends on the math. If car lanes are eliminated from busy thoroughfares, then made available to cyclists without actually reducing the number of cars on the road, then I would see where emissions would increase.

How to reduce emissions -- ban drive throughs.

Gordon, Not to pick on your post so nothing personal.

I agree if people actually bought a hybrid that shut the engine off at least or shut the engine off and allowed slow speed electric propulsion this would help. But in 2008 when Gas was over $4 a gallon, the number on selling vehicle was still the Ford F-150. The Other Trucks were high as well.

So, why are not more people buying the new hybrid trucks and SUV's?

I am not sure, but I think that people are willing to talk about it but not do about anything about it. But that is my personal opinion.

If one looks at emission levels of vehicles versus 10 years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago you see major improvements, and this is good, but it is a smoke screen. Only recently have the states on their own gone after power sources and carbon emissions and other emission sites to improve them. These are more of the long term source and larger individual sources. I agree what was done with vehicles for emission was good and required, but we need to look at other souces as well.

End Rant