Bike lanes on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge are contributing to pollution, car drivers say
Bike lanes are typically seen as being environmentally friendly. But some Bay Area leaders say the one on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is causing an increase in pollution.
You're viewing a single thread.
If they wanted to cut pollution, they'd ban all cars from the bridge and make it public transit + bike only. Cars aren't idling when there's no cars.
Unfortunately it’s not that easy. They’re still needed for many places, when moving stuff around, when public transportation isn’t developed enough, which is pretty much the case worldwide if you want to go to a specific address
This is a clear example of miscommunication.
Banning all cars from the bridge was not meant as a serious proposal, but just to show that these people do not care about pollution at all.
Meanwhile, you seem to have taken that proposal as serious and that it was calling to ban cars everywhere, instead of just one bridge. Banning cars everywhere is a fringe opinion even here, and I think no one ever suggested you have to "move stuff" with cargo bikes and public transport exclusively. On top of that, I personally don't quite agree with the way you said public transport is "underdeveloped". Yes there are specific addresses you can barely reach pretty much everywhere, but you comment reads as any specific address can't be reached. I think we can expect people to walk a few hundred yards to a bus stop.
Wrong thing to say at the wrong place, do better next time.
Well knowing the community, can you really blame me for understanding it this way?
that it was calling to ban cars everywhere, instead of just one bridge
That bridge is probably the fastest way to go in this direction so I’m making a big deal of it because of this.
I do believe people won’t switch for public transportation if they have to wait more than a couple of minutes or if there isn’t a bus stop nearby. I can’t imagine doing many short daily travel by other means than cars because buses are often super late and turn some short itineraries into long ones, at the point where I regularly find myself in a situation where walking is faster than waiting for the bus
Wrong thing to say at the wrong place, do better next time.
I won’t censor my opinion because I’m somewhere where everyone thinks the same
I can blame you for not reading correctly, yes.
And your aversion to public transport is exactly the point: Do you think maybe the buses are always late because a bridge like that has 50,000 cars bumper to bumper idling on it and blocking traffic? Do you think that there aren't enough bus stops nearby because not enough people use the existing ones?
A single bus takes up 2 cars worth of space and transports 50 times the people. Having functional public transport is way better than adding another lane when the goal is to increase capacity of the bridge or reducing pollution. We should get more people to use them. It's better for them too, since they are now not forced to drive and can check their phone or read books during that time.
No one wants the buses you are describing, but that's exactly why we need to invest more in public transit and don't listen to car advocates wanting "just one more lane™". There are enough cities around the world with good transit options, where people want to take the bus or tram or bike, not because of "culture" but because they simply are the best option. And you won't get there by adding another lane for cars.
P.S.: Do you also visit gay bars and get "censored" when there are no women there? No one's forcing you to comment and not being open to learn is unwelcome here. Have you at least read the rules?
I live in a city with dedicated bus lanes and basically use buses every week
No one wants the buses you are describing, but that's exactly why we need to invest more in public transit and don't listen to car advocates wanting "just one more lane™". There are enough cities around the world with good transit options, where people want to take the bus or tram or bike, not because of "culture" but because they simply are the best option. And you won't get there by adding another lane for cars.
When did I say we should add more lanes for cars? I’m just saying removing a car lane for adding a bike lane isn’t always a good idea, but public transportation should be prioritized imo
P.S.: Do you also visit gay bars and get "censored" when there are no women there? No one's forcing you to comment and not being open to learn is unwelcome here. Have you at least read the rules?
That must be one of the most stupid comparison I’ve heard. Have you read the rules? I’m pretty sure I did and have done nothing wrong. You’re the one being hostile to me for my opinion
I like to think I'm critical, not hostile.
This article is about citizen group calling for a bike lane to be turned back into car lane. You know about induced demand yet? We here can't stop telling people about it. Well, there is an inverse effect just a bit lower called "reduced demand" in the article. Removing a car lane can increase the flow of traffic down the line - provided there are viable alternatives to driving.
So yes, removing a bike lane to add another to cars is bad, even if it was a car lane before. Discouraging driving by removing car lanes is a good way to de-clog this bridge.
This is something that could happen but it’s case by case and not systematic. It should be backed by stats over the previous years
