Comments on: John Cassidy vs bipeds

By: archiegoodwin

archiegoodwin — Sun, 01 May 2011 11:48:02 +0000

‘Sorry, John, but the purpose of biking is not to “thrill” you so much that you end up shaking. And you surely know, even if you’re loathe to admit it…’

I think you mean “loath”, the adjective meaning reluctant or unwilling, not “loathe”, the verb.

By: saianjuma1

saianjuma1 — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:57:42 +0000

I did the math. If 8 million people each took up 100 square feet with their car (4.5 x 20 = 90, plus a few here and there for trucks…) it would be 28.6 square miles.
Manhattan is 22.7 square miles

By: Brent123

Brent123 — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:56:29 +0000

Ought not Cassidy spend some time cycling (now, not in the ’80s) on New York streets before recommending that the city remove lanes?

By: Ivan_Karamazov

Ivan_Karamazov — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 01:51:31 +0000

Yuppie is pissed because he can’t park his Jahg-yoo-ah wherever he likes. News at 11.

By: TomLeon

TomLeon — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:56:29 +0000

I have always like Cassidy’s economic reporting. His piece makes me wonder about that now.

By: TFF

TFF — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:21:19 +0000

ohhleary, every rules comes with exceptions. My town beautified the “downtown” (a five-block stretch of the main street), widened the sidewalks, built encroachments for the crosswalks, but really didn’t change much except for removing a right-turn-only lane on one street and adding a couple traffic signals. Net result? Massive traffic jams in one direction where there were none before.

Sometimes alternate routes don’t exist. Sometimes “choosing not to drive” is not a realistic option. This admittedly is a very different situation than NYC, but removing a lane can definitely reduce throughput.

If removing a lane *doesn’t* reduce throughput, you probably aren’t dealing with a natural bottleneck.

By: ohhleary

ohhleary — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:37:36 +0000

margon: Anyone with a degree in traffic engineering would argue differently. It’s an issue of supply and demand: narrowing streets ultimately reduces traffic volume, as people seek alternate routes or simply choose not to drive. It’s the whole conundrum of “nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”

This is why when Prospect Park West was narrowed by one lane, travel times increased by only one second. Traffic volume is not a constant – it can, literally, disappear.

The same concept applies to adding road capacity: widening induces demand, and congestion eventually returns to its previous levels.

By: dr2chase

dr2chase — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:52:34 +0000

@margon – your claims about congestion are incorrect.

It’s been studied for the Prospect Park West bike lanes ( http://www.xoxosoma.com/ppw/ ) and speeding was reduced, travel time (measured without speeding) was increased by less than 1%, and the throughput did not change.

On the positive side, the number of cyclists roughly tripled, the number on the sidewalk was vastly reduced, crashes and injuries (all kinds) were down, despite 3x the cyclists. No pedestrian injuries since the bike lane was installed.

Your claim about reducing the carbon footprint is also misleading. The best way to reduce the carbon footprint of a car, is not to drive it. Failing that, the best way in a city, is to drive a hybrid/EV with regenerative braking (that’s most of them), which gets far better gas mileage in stop-and-go, and when stuck in (hypothetical, imaginary) traffic, does not run its engine.

In a place like NYC, cars are really stupid. They take up far too much space, and are far too dangerous for other people, and the alternatives (bicycle, with or without electric assist) work really well. The #1 reason most people don’t ride, and the main difference between Old Amsterdam and New Amsterdam, is a lack of adequate facilities.

By: Westwit

Westwit — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 20:58:50 +0000

Maybe he’s really “Turbo Teen”.

(For those who don’t know or don’t remember — count your blessings — “Turbo Teen” was a really bizarre 80s cartoon about a kid who, thanks to an accident involving super-science, turns into a car whenever he gets hot. And really, should we be discriminating since someone with that particular handicap?)

By: margon

margon — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 20:40:18 +0000

increased traffic congestion associated with NYC bike lanes isn’t a result of increased motor vehicles on the road; it’s a result of streets narrowed (sometime by more than a full lane) to accommodate the bike lanes and associated “street furniture”. The lanes may or may not be a good idea, but they do slow traffic in NYC, in some cases dramatically, which of course increases carbon footprint of drivers going from here to there.

By: EmilianoZ

EmilianoZ — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:55:14 +0000

The Atlantic Wire made a small feature about the bike lane war in Brooklyn. Cassidy is quoted as well as some other pundits and even Park Slope residents. Felix is completely ignored. Ouch! Talk about dwindling influence.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/ 2011/03/war-over-bike-lanes-hyperbole-gr ows-brooklyn/35703/

By: ny60983

ny60983 — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:55:06 +0000

And shouldn’t an “economist” know what “regulatory capture” means? Whatever he paid for his education, he should demand a refund.

By: dedalus

dedalus — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:26:42 +0000

What’s this? — a John Cassidy ‘takedown’ (finally) . . . ??

Ohh, do I love that.

By: ny60983

ny60983 — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:13:24 +0000

This might be the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen published it in the New Yorker. It’s the level of dumb that basically destroys his credibility on economics. After all, economics depends on things like facts, studies, statistics. Not lazy received wisdom. Doesn’t OneJag (as Atrios has taken to calling him: http://www.eschatonblog.com/2011/03/than k-me.html) have any loved ones in his life who could have kept him from publishing such a credibility-killer?

OneJag thought he writing about biking and cars, but was he was communicating was something entirely different and mostly about him. Oy.

By: ohhleary

ohhleary — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:07:46 +0000

HymanRosen: I’m still waiting for the police department to enforce laws against motorists and pedestrians who violate them. I am sick and tired of having to watch out for motorists who run red lights and pedestrians who jaywalk!

Why the double-standard? If you think that cyclists don’t deserve bike lanes because they break the law, why aren’t you suggesting ripping out crosswalks because pedestrians break the law?