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

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/in-1897-a-bicycle-superhighway-was-the-future-of-california-transit

by weston • 13 years ago

137 85 13 years ago

motherboard.vice.com

mjn2• 13 years ago

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.

lsanza• 13 years ago

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

backprojection• 13 years ago

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?

kayoone• 13 years ago

uhm no, this was just a highway for bikes.

tnuc2• 13 years ago

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.

mwilcox• 13 years ago

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

larsberg• 13 years ago

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.

toomuchtodo4• 13 years ago

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

konstruktor• 13 years ago

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.

hawkharris2• 13 years ago

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_...

weston• 13 years ago

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.)

IvyMike• 13 years ago

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

onedognight• 13 years ago

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

rdouble2• 13 years ago

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

hawkharris2• 13 years ago

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.

rickdale• 13 years ago

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.

riffic2• 13 years ago

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

josephjrobison• 13 years ago

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.

zevyoura• 13 years ago

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.

rdouble2• 13 years ago

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.

rachelbythebay• 13 years ago

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.

riffic2• 13 years ago

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.

melling• 13 years ago

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.

mjn2• 13 years ago

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).

seanmcdirmid4• 13 years ago

> 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.

danielharan• 13 years ago

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

claudius• 13 years ago

10 miles in 3 hours is roughly walking speed.

pkulak2• 13 years ago

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.

mtowle• 13 years ago

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

corwinstephen• 13 years ago

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

nbloom• 13 years ago

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.

baddox• 13 years ago

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

I completely disagree.

prawn2• 13 years ago

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

svachalek• 13 years ago

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.

JoeKM• 13 years ago

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.

EEGuy4• 13 years ago

* 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/

ry0ohki• 13 years ago

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...

dredmorbius• 13 years ago

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.

seanmcdirmid4• 13 years ago

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.

Samuel_Michon• 13 years ago

“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.

CoreDumpling• 13 years ago

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 ;)

toomuchtodo4• 13 years ago

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?

jschneier00• 13 years ago

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)

jchrisa2• 13 years ago

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.

burntsushi3• 13 years ago

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.

swift• 13 years ago

> 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.

zasyatkin• 13 years ago

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.

brokentone• 13 years ago

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.

jaibot2• 13 years ago

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.

ams6110• 13 years ago

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

pmahoney2• 13 years ago

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.

tirant• 13 years ago

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.

dominic_cocch• 13 years ago

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

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

Related Stories