Louisiana State University

[cajun]

Is paying for public parking garages "smart"? If users are charged, is this considered a revenue stream? If profitable, then why is the public sector competing with private lots?

What unique taxes, licenses, or fees to cyclist contribute? Are these vehicles, which are treated as a car on public roads despite being slower (thus uses equal or MORE road capacity than an automobile), insured? Does the act of riding a bike contribute to fuel taxes of any kind?

LSU has a parking crisis. Baton Rouge, by and large, does not. What works for one doesn't necessarily apply to the other. I'm not saying lanes wouldn't be used nor am I saying they should not be built.....I'm posing a question of how it is to be paid for.

If used as transportation, it's a tax loophole. If used as recreation, it's a subsidized gym. From Baton Rouge's perspective, this is "fiscally irresponsible" growth. Not "smart" growth.

This "smart" branding is foolish. I'm wondering what kind of insecurity a person must have to drink that particularly flavor of cool aid. It's a branding like "Smart Car" or "smart Water"...and nothing more.

I ride regularly for recreation. Trails belong in the parks and rec budget. When cyclist start paying unique taxes, holding isurance, and can move around without obstructing traffic, then we'll start calling them legitimate means of transport. Until then, vehicular traffic lanes should be limited to vehicles that contribute to the pot.

Let's turn this question around to a more simple question of principle: If cyclist get their own lanes or free reign into vehicular lanes in city streets with no regulation, taxes, or insurance......is it fair that the owner of a motorcycle or car be subject to those unique liabilities?

For those "fairness" minded individuals who never met a tax they didn't like, this should be clear cut.

Edited November 15, 2012 by cajun

[buckett5425]

Is paying for public parking garages "smart"? What unique taxes, licenses, or fees to cyclist contribute? Are these vehicles, which are treated as a car on public roads despite being slower (thus uses equal or MORE road capacity than an automobile), insured? Does the act of riding a bike contribute to fuel taxes of any kind?

LSU has a parking crisis. Baton Rouge does not. What works for one doesn't necessarily apply to the other.

If used as transportation, it's a tax loophole. If used as recreation, it's a subsidized gym. From Baton Rouge's perspective, this is "fiscally irresponsible" growth. Not "smart" growth.

This "smart" branding is foolish. I'm wondering what kind of insecurity a person must have to drink that particularly flavor of cool aid. It's a branding like "Smart Car" or "smart Water"...and nothing more.

Must everything be assigned a dollar value with a potential to be taxed? Do somethings not stand outside of such a realm or conservative litmus test? What is the purpose of a park, other than to increase quality of life, provide a public space for civic engagement, promote exercise, and contribute to the general beauty of our communities? But as we all know, parks are a public investment and when properly designed, promote economic activity, increase quality of life, and increases a cities odds of attracting new high tech industries.

We have built cities around cars, we know the problems that has created. Diversifying our city will only increase it's potential, not detract from it. Urban density promotes economic activity and costs less for taxpayers to maintain. Bike lanes help make density and "smart growth" more viable and a better option than traditional suburbia.

"Smart growth" advocates acknowledge growth will happen, but they simply argue what type of growth should be allowed? Should we be promoting single entrance subdivisions on two lane roads that stress the limits of our infrastructure, as we have for the last 60 years, or possibly is there a "smarter option" that promotes a "smarter" suburban growth?

The Smart Growth Summit is in two weeks. I will be there, I would hope everyone will be able to attend.

http://summit.cpex.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_growth

[cajun]

Welcome back.

The level of debate on this forum kind of went south after you left, and I truly hope you post more.

As far as building cities around cars.....we are 100% guilty. There's no denying that auto-based streets and highways played a huge role into America's economic competitiveness for decades, but our tendency towards sprawl got us into trouble.

Government policy helped create sprawl. There had to be a reason to leave the cities, and cheap financing available to fuel construction. There had to be a highway to use in the suburbs.

I can see connectivity and regulation of developments and building codes being "smart" growth, but painting bike lanes on a public street.....not so much.

My argument is no conservative litmus test and really isn't political. If anything, I'm simply pointing out that cities that wish to combat sprawl will undermine their own efforts if they don't spend wisely and carefully- especially on things like this.

As I said earlier, I'm not debating if these lanes will be used (at least at LSU)......but I am questioning the "smart" reasons why any municipality should encourage the use of an untaxed, unregulated vehicle as a solution to traffic and congestion.

Edited November 15, 2012 by cajun

[buckett5425]

Welcome back.

The level of debate on this forum kind of went south after you left, and I truly hope you post more.

As far as building cities around cars.....we are 100% guilty. There's no denying that auto-based streets and highways played a huge role into America's economic competitiveness for decades, but our tendency towards sprawl got us into trouble.

Government policy helped create sprawl. There had to be a reason to leave the cities, and cheap financing available to fuel construction. There had to be a highway to use in the suburbs.

I can see connectivity and regulation of developments and building codes being "smart" growth, but painting bike lanes on a public street.....not so much.

My argument is no conservative litmus test and really isn't political. If anything, I'm simply pointing out that cities that wish to combat sprawl will undermine their own efforts if they don't spend wisely and carefully- especially on things like this.

As I said earlier, I'm not debating if these lanes will be used (at least at LSU)......but I am questioning the "smart" reasons why any municipality should encourage the use of an untaxed, unregulated vehicle as a solution to traffic and congestion.

It's all about reducing the amount of cars on the roads, so that those people who have to drive can do so. Even in a city like Baton Rouge, most people who own a bike and may even choose to live a bike only lifestyle, still own a car, even if it is rarely used. Now, we all know Baton Rouge isn't conducive to such a lifestyle, but in the future it may more accommodating The reason it is important for municipalities to promote smart growth through bike lanes is as follows:

1. Reduces the amount of traffic so that goods and those who must drive can get to their destinations faster increasing productivity.

2. Allows for the creation of urban walk-able neighborhoods that require less infrastructure to support a larger amount of families, reducing the tax burden to maintain those utilities.

3.Increases disposable income for those that forgo car ownership. This increased income is represented in two ways; first, families that eliminate one automobile on average can afford a house $120,000 dollars more expensive than their current suburban "drive till you qualify" home. This new more expensive home in a walkable urban area will be taxed at a higher rate and the city wont be paying for miles of roads to get to the cheaper home. Secondly, with more disposable income, there is more money circulating around local businesses, instead of being spent on vehicle maintenance or fuel, where the money is sent off to some corporation.

4. Smart growth generally by its nature, promotes a healthier lifestyle, increasing the quality of life of those who embrace and overall leading to a healthier more vibrant city with lower healthcare costs.

I am arguing that it is cheaper and more lucrative for a city to be built using smart growth than the traditional suburban model. Now, I understand where your frustration lies, but if Baton Rouge is going to change, we have to start taking those small steps now. It wont be until enough of those small steps are in place that we will all begin to see the bigger picture. I believe after that point, it will be a snow ball effect.

I know you criticize downtown spending frequently, but when I first moved here 6 years ago, every storefront was empty, and now downtown has finally reached a critical mass of positive development. It only goes to show that when things are properly planned and executed, things can positively change, but it took small steps over 15 years for that change to take place.

[cajun]

So your argument is that bicycles should not be taxed or regulated as vehicular traffic and we should not ask questions about the validity of the argument that bike usage will increase in a suburban city with a humid subtropical climate (with more average rainfall than Seattle).....but we should spend tax dollars without asking questions because this is part of the smart growth agenda, which is somehow an all or none proposition?

Edited November 16, 2012 by cajun

[buckett5425]

So your argument is that bicycles should not be taxed or regulated as vehicular traffic and we should not ask questions about the validity of the argument that bike usage will increase in a suburban city with a humid subtropical climate (with more average rainfall than Seattle).....but we should spend tax dollars without asking questions because this is part of the smart growth agenda, which is somehow an all or none proposition?

Do you propose charging fees for people who use sidewalks? Sidewalks that were paid for with taxes on vehicles and gasoline? How do you propose to regulate bike ownership and what sorts of tax revenue do you think that will generate? Will the bike tax deter bike ownership and in fact keep more people in their cars, which requires more expensive infrastructure?

Bike lanes, smart growth, complete streets, what ever you want to call it, it is a good policy, especially at LSU, where most people are unaware of the current laws regulating bike use, for example, it is currently illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. If people learn while in college how to properly share the ROW with pedestrians and vehicles, it will stick with them for life, leading to a change in bike culture over the next decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_streets

(Also, you have to consider average number of days of rainfall, not average rainfall. When factoring that in, Seattle wins.)

[cajun]

A pedestrian is exercising a right. A vehicle driver is exercising a privilege.

Sidewalks are not used by vehicles, and in their most basic function, provide critical access that makes America's human and property rights possible. We all have the right to use them.

On the other hand....lanes used for vehicular access are treated differently by users and the government. Using a vehicle as a mean of transport on public property is a privilege. It's not required to get around, and lack of a vehicle does not infringe on human rights.

Some vehicles are subject to taxes, and others are not while still enjoying the same privileges of those vehicles yet produce tax revenue. What makes the bicyclist deserve their own dedicated lane and not the motorcycle or the car driver?

Edited November 16, 2012 by cajun

[buckett5425]

A pedestrian is exercising a right. A vehicle driver is exercising a privilege.

Sidewalks are not used by vehicles, and in their most basic function, provide critical access that makes America's human and property rights possible. We all have the right to use them.

On the other hand....lanes used for vehicular access are treated differently by users and the government. Using a vehicle as a mean of transport on public property is a privilege. It's not required to get around, and lack of a vehicle does not infringe on human rights.

Some vehicles are subject to taxes, and others are not while still enjoying the same privileges of those vehicles yet produce tax revenue. What makes the bicyclist deserve their own dedicated lane and not the motorcycle or the car driver?

Once again, I'm not arguing the potential for use of these bike lanes.....but I question the cost benefit analysis of them (or lack of anything like it). Something branded "smart growth" should be pretty clear on that, and it's blatantly absent in every debate on this particular issue.

These ideas require a branding of "smart", which implies that those who question or disagree with them are "dumb"......and I question the soundness of any idea or person who depends on that kind of low level argument to sell to anyone. At some point, the adult in the room will have to ask a few questions, and a good idea will stand up to a little vetting.

Until someone can provide some sort of plan to pay for these "smart growth" principles and the significant changes to existing infrastructure that it demands, then it is just a Christmas wish list. My 9 year old already completed her letter to Santa this year. She even convinces her little brother than she "smart" and he's "dumb" every time they argue.

So, you do support the government subsidizing some forms of public infrastructure because is serves the common good? Sidewalks aren't required, the are desired because they increase safety and property values. Bike lanes are no different.

So you would rather keep the infrastructure we have now, which is dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists? How many more experienced cyclists need to be killed on Perkins Road, which has sidewalks? I think public safety out weighs any cost benefit analysis you may desire. Complete Streets have shown to increase safety for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. In post #254, I gave my opinion, based on different readings, outlining the cost benefit of complete streets over single use streets and developments.

If the term "Smart Growth" hurts your feelings because you are skeptical of it's principles, then please refer to it by one of its other names. In this case, "Complete Streets" is appropriate. I think your frustration lies within the fact that Baton Rouge is currently paying for two different development ideas. There are those people who desire "Smart Growth" and the infrastructure that requires and then there is the opposite, those people who want more roads. Both infrastructures are expensive, however one type has the ability to lower maintenance costs and increase efficiency. The problem is, is that as along as we continue to support and pay for both types of infrastructure, we will get nowhere and only increase the burden on tax payers. That is the platform mayoral candidate Gordon Mese ran on.

Personally, I believe we should maintain our roads as they are, and concentrate our resources on creating a few "walkable" nodes within the community that promote the ideas espoused in the new Future EBR land use plan.

[Antrell Williams]

Firstly, welcome back buckett, we've missed you here.

Secondly, I don't understand your opposition with tax payer funded bike lanes. Public transportation is often subsidized, and offer very little in return in comparison with private owned vehicles.

Bicycles are a means of transportation, they are completely necessary in on and around LSU campus for the safety of the students and drivers, as well as to help decrease congestion.

In response to parking garages, if owned by the state, I absolutely do not believe in charging to park unless if it was not funded by public taxes. Also it would be nice to mandate retail with proper demographics to avoid over saturation.

[dan326]

Maybe bicycles aren't regulated because you can't really get in a wreck like you can on other types of vehicles. And its not tied into the giant motor vehicle money machine.

[cajun]

Buckett, no cost benefit analysis was in any post you contributed on this topic. You said consumers who get rid of a car can afford $120,000 more house than otherwise......does that mean they'll actually spend it on a house? If so, what does that mean to the tax collecting body? That has to translate into more property taxes.

My concern about this particular issue is based on the following:

My suburb in Atlanta was developed in a way very similar to 99% of Baton Rouge. We have a town center with walkable historic businesses and street parking that go far beyond what Baton Rouge has to offer outside of downtown. This town center is surrounded by suburban neighborhoods with few connections into the rural street grid layout that is typical for northern Atlanta. 8' were recently added to about 14 miles of major and minor connectors in this particular suburb several years ago. So far, other than my wife an myself, we've seen one other cyclist using them ever- and I only use them to go from my house to the 12 mile bike trail maintained by the park system far way from any street (which is used heavily). Anecdotal evidence.....yes, but it is reason to be skeptical of this "bike lanes at all cost" mindset.....especially considering that those cheerleaders for the bike nazis seem to frequently subscribe to the "anything at all cost" school of thought when it comes to public projects.

Second: most of these lanes are paid for by state taxes in Georgia, and "complete streets" in Louisiana is underwritten the same way. My beef is that these lanes are not free. They are not cheap. In some places, they come at the expense of street parking, turn lanes, or actual travel lanes (which provide far greater access capacity than bike lanes- critical for maintaining a retail environment). I've oultlined how access to property is a basic right in this country, but free travel lanes and use of a vehicle on a public street is not a basic right. It is a privilege that users pay for....and in this difficult time in our country, I see no harm in correcting a glaring inequality for the purpose of raising revenue to pay for the infrastructure demanded by a select few. We've taxed and regulated far smaller things before. In the case of bike lanes throughout Baton Rouge, very little (if any) effort was given in even calculating the potential economic impact.

Until a case is made that these lanes contribute economically in a manner that would offset their cost in X number of years, then this is just a child's wish list.

Antrell: I've voiced my opinion regularly on my discomfort with subsidies for inefficient public transit that sees 0 growth in use and my support for subsidies for any decent idea that has the potential for serving a purpose and providing a positive economic impact for the area it serves. CATS' proposal does not serve its purpose based on the level of detail provided and on their own history of incompetent leadership, poor ridership, and terrible service.

Seeing as how no dollar value has been assigned to the benefit (not even a pie in the sky estimate by a completely unqualified person) of funding bike lanes without taxing bike users, I'm skeptical that they will be worth it in the end. I wouldn't expect someone who has never met a capital outlay project they didn't like to understand. I'm discussing principle, not one particular proposal.

What do you mean by mandating retail demographics? Will this encourage people from the suburbs to return to the city?

Dan: You most certainly can cause harm to person or property on a bicycle. In fact, many cost more than some small cars who shares the roadway with them. They are, in fact, a vehicle. If bike lanes (or any additional vehicular lanes) are installed on public streets, their economic impact should be weighed against their cost- and that is never done on most of these pet projects that are supported by one special interest group or another. The only thing that does not change is that these proposals depend on the support of people who will be just fine with any proposal of spending tax payer dollars for anything with no consideration for how it is paid for or their actual worth to taxpayers.

To everyone reading: I apologize this got into such a heated debate, but I'm glad I can engage you all in discussion. I hope that my concerns with this are more clear at this point, and I am glad I can at least put them out there. I try to bring a unique perspective to this board when I can.

Edited November 16, 2012 by cajun

[buckett5425]

My concern about this particular issue is based on the following:

My suburb in Atlanta was developed in a way very similar to 99% of Baton Rouge. We have a town center with walkable historic businesses and street parking that go far beyond what Baton Rouge has to offer outside of downtown. This town center is surrounded by suburban neighborhoods with few connections into the rural street grid layout that is typical for northern Atlanta. 8' were recently added to about 14 miles of major and minor connectors in this particular suburb several years ago. So far, other than my wife an myself, we've seen one other cyclist using them ever- and I only use them to go from my house to the 12 mile bike trail maintained by the park system far way from any street (which is used heavily). Anecdotal evidence.....yes, but it is reason to be skeptical of this "bike lanes at all cost" mindset.....especially considering that those cheerleaders for the bike nazis seem to frequently subscribe to the "anything at all cost" school of thought when it comes to public projects.

Second: most of these lanes are paid for by state taxes in Georgia, and "complete streets" in Louisiana is underwritten the same way. My beef is that these lanes are not free. They are not cheap. In some places, they come at the expense of street parking, turn lanes, or actual travel lanes (which provide far greater access capacity than bike lanes- critical for maintaining a retail environment). I've oultlined how access to property is a basic right in this country, but free travel lanes and use of a vehicle on a public street is not a basic right. It is a privilege that users pay for....and in this difficult time in our country, I see no harm in correcting a glaring inequality for the purpose of raising revenue to pay for the infrastructure demanded by a select few. We've taxed and regulated far smaller things before. In the case of bike lanes throughout Baton Rouge, very little (if any) effort was given in even calculating the potential economic impact.

Until a case is made that these lanes contribute economically in a manner that would offset their cost in X number of years, then this is just a child's wish list.

I couldn't agree more Cajun, it is like the "bridge to no where," bike lanes and sidewalks are pointless in areas where the development is focused towards cars. I know I have expressed this opinion before on this forum.

Putting a sidewalk on Perkins is basically pointless, because all of the buildings are spread apart, single use, with 30' set backs. Not many people will use the sidewalks because walking to your destination isn't feasible. However, we have to start somewhere, and there are a few neighborhoods, including LSU, where bike lanes will have a measurable impact. Only in areas with moderate density, streetscapes, and zero lot lines does it make sense to promote other forms of transportation. The Perkins Overpass area would be a wonderful place to test out bike lanes, and create true streetscapes, but Perkins and Essen, would not. I think we can all agree on that.

[cajun]

I'd actually like to see some investment into the public sidewalks, parking, and lighting in the overpass area.

I think just a little decent research would indicate that there is significant pedestrian activity there.

I'd rather spend a little $$ on areas with proven demand for these services than paying a cool $ million on a stage canopy.

[buckett5425]

I'd actually like to see some investment into the public sidewalks, parking, and lighting in the overpass area.

I think just a little decent research would indicate that there is significant pedestrian activity there.

I'd rather spend a little $$ on areas with proven demand for these services than paying a cool $ million on a stage canopy.

Well, the money for the downtown improvements comes from a dedicated tax and can only be spent downtown, that is why the council ultimately approved its construction even though they disagreed with the cost.

[Antrell Williams]

Buckett, no cost benefit analysis was in any post you contributed on this topic. You said consumers who get rid of a car can afford $120,000 more house than otherwise......does that mean they'll actually spend it on a house? If so, what does that mean to the tax collecting body? That has to translate into more property taxes.

My concern about this particular issue is based on the following:

My suburb in Atlanta was developed in a way very similar to 99% of Baton Rouge. We have a town center with walkable historic businesses and street parking that go far beyond what Baton Rouge has to offer outside of downtown. This town center is surrounded by suburban neighborhoods with few connections into the rural street grid layout that is typical for northern Atlanta. 8' were recently added to about 14 miles of major and minor connectors in this particular suburb several years ago. So far, other than my wife an myself, we've seen one other cyclist using them ever- and I only use them to go from my house to the 12 mile bike trail maintained by the park system far way from any street (which is used heavily). Anecdotal evidence.....yes, but it is reason to be skeptical of this "bike lanes at all cost" mindset.....especially considering that those cheerleaders for the bike nazis seem to frequently subscribe to the "anything at all cost" school of thought when it comes to public projects.

This would be similar to Livingston Parish officials installing bike lanes on Range Ave, in the older section of Denham Springs where the shops are located. I would oppose of that, although

Second: most of these lanes are paid for by state taxes in Georgia, and "complete streets" in Louisiana is underwritten the same way. My beef is that these lanes are not free. They are not cheap. In some places, they come at the expense of street parking, turn lanes, or actual travel lanes (which provide far greater access capacity than bike lanes- critical for maintaining a retail environment). I've oultlined how access to property is a basic right in this country, but free travel lanes and use of a vehicle on a public street is not a basic right. It is a privilege that users pay for....and in this difficult time in our country, I see no harm in correcting a glaring inequality for the purpose of raising revenue to pay for the infrastructure demanded by a select few. We've taxed and regulated far smaller things before. In the case of bike lanes throughout Baton Rouge, very little (if any) effort was given in even calculating the potential economic impact.

Until a case is made that these lanes contribute economically in a manner that would offset their cost in X number of years, then this is just a child's wish list.

This would be similar to Livingston Parish officials installing bike lanes on Range Ave, in the older section of Denham Springs where the shops are located. I would oppose of that, although LSU is a place where this is needed.

The use of bikes in and around campus is a means of sustaining and growing the retail environments on the north and south gates of LSU. Car volume is a larger means of traffic density but what exactly would bikes lanes be taking away from these streets? How would vehicular traffic be impacted in a negative way? I see no harm in raising revenue for a select few that could benefit the majority of people who travel through LSU on a daily basis.

Antrell: I've voiced my opinion regularly on my discomfort with subsidies for inefficient public transit that sees 0 growth in use and my support for subsidies for any decent idea that has the potential for serving a purpose and providing a positive economic impact for the area it serves. CATS' proposal does not serve its purpose based on the level of detail provided and on their own history of incompetent leadership, poor ridership, and terrible service.

Seeing as how no dollar value has been assigned to the benefit (not even a pie in the sky estimate by a completely unqualified person) of funding bike lanes without taxing bike users, I'm skeptical that they will be worth it in the end. I wouldn't expect someone who has never met a capital outlay project they didn't like to understand. I'm discussing principle, not one particular proposal.

Tax bike users, why that nearly defeats the purpose of owning a bicycle for transportation. Where would the laws stop? Would my niece have to have registration and insurance for her bike?

How do you assign a dollar value to bike lanes? A rough approximation could be done, but it probably wouldn't offset the cost of the lanes without more retail, residential, and commercial investment within the areas the lanes serve. That is what takes time, and it might be a bust, who knows? I understand the principle in which you are concerned, however, these aren't bike lanes for Jefferson or College.

You know, there have been a project or two I didn't necessarily agree with.

What do you mean by mandating retail demographics? Will this encourage people from the suburbs to return to the city?

I was referring to parking garages, in order for them to be built, they should have to have 1st floor retail without over saturating the area in which they are built. For example, if a garage was to be built on a main artery, it has to have retail, but only if studies show the area can support it without damaging sales of nearby businesses. If not, the garage may have to be built off of the main artery to ensure that more storefronts will be built on said street. This will certainly not encourage suburbanites to return to the city.

To everyone reading: I apologize this got into such a heated debate, but I'm glad I can engage you all in discussion. I hope that my concerns with this are more clear at this point, and I am glad I can at least put them out there. I try to bring a unique perspective to this board when I can.

Heated? Nah...

I appreciate your concerns and conversation. Lord knows we need it here.

[cajun]

I see what you are saying.....limit retail space to keep the market from being over saturated while still maintaining a storefront.

You can also put public services in the lower floors, such as a police sub station or post office- (both of which could use parking and have storefronts at the sidewalk level).

I've done a couple of projects were you could not identify the building as being a parking deck because the retail and office floors encased the parking structure completely.

On the other hand, I halfway like the parking decks that are not walled off. The New LSU deck is probably the best alternative to that with the bookstore being incorporated into it. I haven't seen it since it was under construction. Seems set back from the street.

Edited November 16, 2012 by cajun

[Antrell Williams]

I see what you are saying.....limit retail space to keep the market from being over saturated while still maintaining a storefront.

You can also put public services in the lower floors, such as a police sub station or post office- (both of which could use parking and have storefronts at the sidewalk level).

I've done a couple of projects were you could not identify the building as being a parking deck because the retail and office floors encased the parking structure completely.

On the other hand, I halfway like the parking decks that are not walled off. The New LSU deck is probably the best alternative to that with the bookstore being incorporated into it. I haven't seen it since it was under construction. Seems set back from the street.

Not individual space, but yes.

There where some of those garages in downtown Houston encased in glass and appeared to be an office building. I don't believe I've seen the one at LSU.

[dan326]

Pretty much everthing is done to make people feel good\from an emotional standpoint, so maybe even if the lanes aren't used, people'll feel good seeing bicycle lanes are availiable... and it'll look good on whoever's website.

Edited November 18, 2012 by dan326

[richyb83]

Cajun & Buckett have had some good debates...i can understand both sides of the sidewalk/bike lane issues.

An example of nice new sidewalks along Millerville Road,,,with a buffer of a few feet away make things safer. They are not used very much; therefore it should have no problem sharing with bikes. In residential areas of Goodwood Blvd & Sherwood Forest Blvd where bike lanes are shared with drivers; are hardly used... can be a little nerve wracking sharing the road with some drivers. Something needs to be done for Perkins Road...the Overpass area would be a good start!

Sharing bikes with walkers in tighter urban settings is a trickier situation...

Hope one day a bike/walking trail will follow along the Bayou Duplantier watershed(between Perkins & Highland) from LSU to X'Treme SportsPark/Medical Corridor...along Dawson Creek to Mall of La/Perkins Rowe

Edited November 19, 2012 by richyb83

[Antrell Williams]

Pretty much everthing is done to make people feel good\from an emotional standpoint, so maybe even if the lanes aren't used, people'll feel good seeing bicycle lanes are availiable... and it'll look good on whoever's website.

I disagree but do you mean like the bike lanes on George O'Neal?

[dan326]

^ No, I mean if people see any type of bicycle lanes, they might think of ex. how they must be in a "nice" area, the area must be safe, how they don't have to try as hard to be environmental because someone else is being consciensious?, they might fantasize about doing recreational activities....etc.

[cajun]

I think you are on to something, Dan. Plenty of people who support this don't actually use it. The bike lobby has been successful in getting their message accepted by the general public.

The few places where I've seen this done successfully outside of major universities is in cities that are both safer and have a very different climate than Baton Rouge.

They've failed miserably in Atlanta and Houston outside of the recreational trails. Cars are still what you use when you actually need to be somewhere.

The levee top bike trail is a far better investment than bike lanes in Baton Rouge, IMO. It's too hot or too rainy to actually use a bike to get around- but recreational use is common.

Edited November 20, 2012 by cajun

[buckett5425]

I think you are on to something, Dan. Plenty of people who support this don't actually use it. The bike lobby has been successful in getting their message accepted by the general public.

The few places where I've seen this done successfully outside of major universities is in cities that are both safer and have a very different climate than Baton Rouge.

They've failed miserably in Atlanta and Houston outside of the recreational trails. Cars are still what you use when you actually need to be somewhere.

The levee top bike trail is a far better investment than bike lanes in Baton Rouge, IMO. It's too hot or too rainy to actually use a bike to get around- but recreational use is common.

The bike lobby, give me a break? Are they more powerful than the auto industry lobby? God forbid people we suggest our government spend money on anything other than widening roads.

Also we must ask the question, why have bike lanes failed miserably in ATL and Houston, is it because those cities are so suburban that any form of transit other than automobile is unfeasible? Yes! How many times must I make this point, bike lanes on Airline Hwy, Bluebonnet, Seigen, will accomplish nothing. Only in areas with moderate density and great streetscapes will bike lanes actually become a feasible mode of neighborhood transit Cajun, no one is suggesting that the majority of people will ride a bike to work 5 days a week. However, with proper bike lanes, you may ride your bike to the local store once or twice a week. If everybody within a mile of a local neighborhood center, such as the Northgate, Perkins overpass area, Downtown, used the bike lane at least once a week for small local trips, there would be a huge demand for such infrastructure. I dont ride my bike to work, its 8 miles away, but I do ride my bike around my neighborhood and downtown at least twice a week for reasons other than recreation, that is what this is about.

[Antrell Williams]

I think you are on to something, Dan. Plenty of people who support this don't actually use it. The bike lobby has been successful in getting their message accepted by the general public.

The few places where I've seen this done successfully outside of major universities is in cities that are both safer and have a very different climate than Baton Rouge.

They've failed miserably in Atlanta and Houston outside of the recreational trails. Cars are still what you use when you actually need to be somewhere.

The levee top bike trail is a far better investment than bike lanes in Baton Rouge, IMO. It's too hot or too rainy to actually use a bike to get around- but recreational use is common.

Are you able to specifically name the streets in Houston where bike lanes failed? Even in suburban Houston people travel on bikes very often.

[cajun]

Are you able to specifically name the streets in Houston where bike lanes failed? Even in suburban Houston people travel on bikes very often.

People exercise on bikes very often. I lived there for years and saw very few riders for anything other than obvious recreation.

Not that there is anything wrong with that,...but I'm skeptical of anyone that claims that bikes will impact traffic in any positive way in the gulf region outside of places with parking constraints, such as large universities.

Edited November 26, 2012 by cajun