As I alluded to in the previous community post, this will probably be the last Reno video. I am moving to Seattle in a few months, so any other video ideas I had are going to be shelved until after the move.
you're coming to Seattle!? WELCOME!!! There's good bike infrastructure if you look in the right places and really crappy infrastructure if you look in the right places. Ride the burke-Gailman trail from Golden Gardens to Redmond! It's awesome. We're slowly building up a network of regional trails that makes it possible and easy for bikers to bike from the east side to the west side.
03:05 "More people can ride a bike then can ride a car..." It might be noteworthy to mention that the dutch bicycle network is accessible to more groups then only bicycles. If there is no sidewalk, pedestrrians are allowed to use the bike paths. Mobility vehicles for people with a disability are also allowed to make use of the bike infrastructure, as are mopeds/scooters (with certian restrictions. And finally, emergency vehicles are allowed on the bicycle paths to by-pass traffic jams, and avoid getting stuck in traffic.
The emergency vehicle provision is interesting, you'd have to have much wider bike lanes than we tend to build in North America (or my hometown of NYC at least) BUT it would be a very good argument for BRT lanes in places like Houston.
The emergency vehicle provision is interesting because sometimes that accommodation includes mountable curbs instead straight curbs between road and bike lane. And observations have shown when you make a curb too easily traversable for an emergency vehicles, you invite regular cars to to do that too by driving in and parking in them.
you overlooked one thing in this video - once a bike lane is built, it's permanent and can never be undone, that's why we need so much input and feedback to make sure that we don't make a mistake. the feedback processes are definitely not a way of dragging out and watering down proposals so they're self-fulfilling failures that get removed nearly as soon as they're built.
And not only is this comment wonderfully sarcastic, but it also holds more weight with asphalt lanes themselves, which are added with _(in comparison to this)_ very few considerations.
@@IMatchoNation Thanks. Initially i didn't understand as I am not native English speaker but after reading your comment and again reading the original comment I was able to understand the sarcasm.
I had never heard of the crow design manual, seems like an invaluable resource for those advocating for better bike networks. Thank you Dutch transportation engineers!
Also, I imagine people complaining about Reno heat have never been to Phoenix. Summers days easily go above 110 degrees, yet biking is still somewhat bearable in that kind of extreme heat. I’ve biked fairly decent distances (2 miles) during hot summer days in September, and aside from my head being hot due to wearing a helmet, my body didn’t feel too terrible.
I bike around phoenix on an electric bike and it isnt too bad as long as you bring water and use the breeze from riding to keep cool. The biggest obstacle for cycling in Phoenix is the lack of adequate infrastructure and few destinations within biking distance.
I wish I knew what riding in dry heat is like. I remember visiting New Mexico and being amazed how dry your body stays despite the heat. I live in Tennessee where you soak in your own sweat because it takes forever to dry. Riding a bike then having to stop moving is a sweaty ordeal.
As a fellow Reno resident, i notice when i’m turning from McCarran to Lakeside, I catch myself not looking for pedestrians when approaching the yield sign and instead, looking for traffic. Our city is definitely not built with pedestrian safety in mind
One thing I'm surprised you didn't bring up as part of the design is Strava's heatmap. My city has tended to prioritize expanding bike infrastructure on streets that already see the most bike traffic. It's certainly not a silver bullet, but I think it's useful to take existing routes into consideration since they're probably already some of the better routes and will see the most rapid adoption.
Conversely, a heat map like that might be showing you where there is less need for bike lanes, because cyclists already feel safe. I know my routing is based almost entirely on avoiding dangerous roads, not convenience.
@@SnakebitSTI While I do think that's a valid and useful way to look at it, I also think that for a city's first experiences with bike routes, making bike routes that are guaranteed to be liked means less pushback, more feedback about design, and it starts inertia for bike-friendly processes - all of which mean that future bike routes will be easier & more automatic for the city in the future.
Great video. I'm so glad to see you and other urbanists influencing, educating, and motivating others about the benefits of bike infrastructure and urbanist design.
Nice. One thing I think the manual misses is the idea that people move to places that are most ideal for their needs. Maybe Im just crazy, but the reason I moved to a more expensive suburb was because the bus and bike infrastructure were subpar, so I moved to a place that I could walk to work. If the networks were to improve, I would be much more likely to move to a smaller, cheaper, place and bike/bus to work.
I have no idea why we build bike lanes between the road and on-street parking as if the bike lane is a buffer between moving and parked cars instead of road-parking-bikelane-sidewalk, where the parked cars could act as a barrier between fast deathtraps and cyclists
Your exposition with the problems of Reno is one of the several reasons why I left that city more than decade ago and ended up in KC. Its still rough up here for bikes too but the citys core design in the 19th century with long boulevards and parks has made it easier to add bike lanes as of 3 years ago.
I'm very tempted to send a gift copy of this CROW design manual to the City of Minneapolis. Their recent blunder with Bryant St couldve been helped with this. The redesign absolutely needs to follow it. Can't fit busses, sidewalks, boulevards, bike lanes, parking, and through lanes all within a 55' ROW. Not enough room!
Excellent video, and correct on all points. Two improvements for your message came to mind while I was watching your video. First, while people choosing bikes instead of cars does lower the cost of living, it does one more thing for the town which is much more important. Most of the money spent on cars leaves the local economy. Cars are expensive and built elsewhere. The same is true with gasoline. The money spent on these things leaves the local economy never to return. However, money saved by cycling ends up being spent in the local economy - at local restaurants, bars, stores and services, and homes. In aggregate, this can be a major impact economically. Second, in several places, you mentioned removing parking or travel lanes in order to install bike lanes. However, in those areas in the video, it was apparent that the travel lanes were excessively wide, and overly wide travel lanes have been shown to promote speeding and increase crashes, severe injuries and deaths. Simply narrowing the lanes is sufficient to reduce speeding and improve safety - and this would likely provide ample space for parking- protected bike lanes in the areas shown on the video. Thanks again for sharing your excellent analysis.
It's not a technical issue, but political chicken-and-egg issue: You need a population of cyclists who will support bike infrastructure, otherwise politicians who invest in it get voted out. But you need safe infrastructure to build up a cycling constituency, because while 60% of a population will cycle with protected lanes, only 1% will cycle on roads with cars. Once it gets started this dynamic can become self reinforcing, as it did in Holland in the 1990s but starting it is very very hard. This is where we American urbanists are stuck. Also cars are expensive so they tend to generate large and profitable industries behind their creation and maintenance. These then form a powerful interest group that are invested in maintaining their subsidy. And once the subsidy becomes as deeply ingrained as it is in America, most people don't even realize it IS a subsidy. This is why many libertarians apply extraordinary scrutiny to spending on walking, cycling and public transit infrastructure, but shrug when billions of public dollars are spent on highways or parking. Because they don't even see it as a subsidy; it's taken for granted. But if every single road was a toll road, and every house had to pay for the maintenance of its stretch of street, and every parking space was metered to the value of the land it occupies, then the true cost of cars would be seen by the end user, rather than hidden and distributed.
The "pay for your own stretch of road" bit could be done easily. Just add another item on the owner's bill along side garbage collection and reduce the property tax by the amount of the new item. It'd be easy to calculate, too. The council knows how big all the plots of land are, they know how much it costs per kilometre to redo the road, and how long it lasts.
One thing I disagree with is that US urbanists aren't "stuck". Really it took the Netherlands about a generation to get where it is today. And they began from a starting point that was never as bad as the US. You see pictures of Dutch cities of the 70s and they're still much denser than the standard US suburb masquerading as a city. We're making progress now and frankly that only started in maybe the mid-2010s and only got some real momentum behind it with the pandemic. By that measure, yeah there's reason for frustration but the needle is starting to shift. So combine all that together and we're probably looking at a 50 year project starting around 2015 or so rather than the Dutch 30 years, but that still is not "stuck."
The problem with the true cost of car infrastructure is that it's over our existing revenues already in so many jurisdictions and only through federal subsidies and new developments is it on life support.
This is a brilliant distillation of the issues. Additional hidden subsidies include the long-term as-yet-incalculable costs of remediating CO2 and pollutant emissions.
Those last few clips need a trigger warning my god lmao I ate shit the other day because of a post in the middle of the side walk and before that a sidewalk that just ends, in your case a slope too. Like 🤨🤨🤨
New to your channel, but i wanted to say I loved the clips you used. Firstly, the fact that you obviously went out looking for other cyclists on the roads and found... 3? Second, the clip at 8:46 when you were talking about replacing parking with with bike lanes really illustrated your point well with the double lines and the absolutely atrocious usage of space. It's really easy to imagine one side of the parking being converted to a double bike lane and keeping the parking on the other side. It would be a lovely place to bike, and I imagine the one side of the street devoted to parking would be more than enough if having parking on that street was deemed absolutely necessary. Thirdly, the clip at 10:39 with the pickup truck was hilarious. He obviously kept on rolling forward to try to muscle you into stopping and then suddenly realized you weren't going to stop so had to jam on the brakes. Had me in stitches. Also, I wanted to say maybe more people on bikes would help reduce traffic accidents? I've never been to Reno, but there seemed to be an awful lot of cars missing front bumpers and sporting unpainted body panels.
The problem with the stroads where I live is that there are just far too many driveways for a bike path along them to ever feel safe. Yes a path along adjacent roads would kind of work, but those ways are often less direct and more hilly. Would take a ton of money and political will to get those stroads fixed the right way, so it seems like the way forward where I live is to take the easier but slightly less ideal wins to build up more of a base of cyclists and then go for the bigger projects. Definitely a big challenge
It really shouldn't be difficult to make a stroad safer. Just close off every driveway along the stroad and only give access from driveways on side roads. Only a few driveways are actually needed like for an isolated small fast food place. My local supermarket just put bike racks and planters to block the highway entrance and no one complains.
@@AssBlasster ... Transport is tricky in democracy. That you want to travel 10 miles to work and want the cities along the way to restrict their landowners driveways, this is tricky. The ugly truth is govt can't easily force people to do stuff to make nonlocals happen. We all create a political mess when we to earn 10% more take a distant job and then moan how govt hasn't solve quick transport. Pre1900 govt did nothing, everyone walked on dirt paths doing 3mph, now we want daily 40mph 20 miles..... It's amazing it works at all, moaning that it's not a train is pretty ungrateful. .. . I know Africans who immigrate and marvel at a working Dallas hiway getting 5m to work, it's a freaking miracle.... Even in France and Italy 80%.of workers drive to work, biking ain't liked, nonpoor people are lazy slobs, even Europe....
Another issue is in many American cities outside of the older downtown, cities are built of super blocks of arterials and the street networks within those super blocks don't connect to anything. So the only place you can build bicycle paths that connect to anything is on dangerous stroads. There are no side streets because the only streets that connect in these super blocks is stroads. I live in Florida and you can see this especially in South Florida where they are running out of space to sprawl and are actually building much denser housing. Unfortunately all of that density is along the stroads which are huge, often 3 travel lanes in each direction plus 4 or more turning lanes in each direction at intersections. If you look at a satellite, most of South Florida is these giant super blocks with windy disconnected streets within them. I honestly don't know what you could do about places like that for cycling. There even is a strong bike culture in South Florida, but it's the spandex-clad sport biker with an expensive bike variety that will aggressively take the lane where it's dangerous that drivers hate, not the everyday person who would benefit from good biking infrastructure.
@@AssBlasster I mean it's physically possible but the stroad I'm referring to where I live has no side roads to access the businesses so they would have to do quite a bit of construction to make that possible, and I think there would just be a huge amount of pushback. I'm just saying that at this point I feel the political capital should be used elsewhere because that project would be extremely expensive/complex and probably wouldn't increase cycling that much due to other connectivity issues. So if it fails good luck getting the next project off the ground. I like the Strong Towns advice of tackling the next smallest project
@@Dipsoid ... Density is the MAIN helper of biking and walking. Houston is Great, due to poverty till 1970 built densely, poor people and poorer govt don't waste land. And post1980 govt let people build 5 story house on small narrow lot, my friend had 1 it was weird to climb so much to visit his mom up top... And Houston let 20 story offices pop up whereever wanted. Minnesota actually is awful, rich, had huge lawns from 1950 onward...... Paris is all 6 story buildings, no yards. Compare to a Jacksonville and it's maybe just 20% people peer square mile as Paris, SO THAT MAINLY IS WHY BIKING AND WALKING FAILS IN U.S. literally you have to go further to hit a grocery store or friend Ken's house.. Math matters, if Ken is 2km away I can bike, 10km away no biking likely. . . . They hide this, density, but honestly it's the big factor, till mandate no lawns, 5 story buildings, no street parking then cars TOTALLY ARE BEST OPTION FOR MOST. But no city or voters will force density, we build in way that makes even nice bike paths near pointless. .. . . I biked thru college 2 miles even in Minneapolis, density and how close are things within 2 miles matters, either it's dense and MOST Stuff within 2 miles or NOT, that's why some cities have big biking. No conspiracy needed, we built our cities in US to make biking near pointless especially for the 20% with kids under 18, 30% over 60, even in Netherlands biking is mostly the kidless adults to 60 ... Per statistacom even in Netherlands 70% drive to work. . Once built city like golf course with a few buildings only cars work for most, bike paths won't make US into Netherlands .......... We made this choice in 1960s and still allow lawns, wide roads, parking, 1 level houses, 2 level offices, THIS IS WHY CARS WIN AND BIKES SUCK IN U.S. ....... Just being blunt, why don't commentators skip this, just whine about even city council not building bike path for childless yuppies hahaha what a pointless issue, instead admit US ain't Paris it's a golf course with a 2 level building at each hole,.even then golfers use gold carts to not waste 2 hours walking ........... I'm not happy to say this, but truth sucks sometimes...... I admit hard to find density figures for cities, but I'd bet Paris vs Dallas suburb is like 5x, so just 1/5th of your friend circle within 2 miles so weigher get car or lose 80% of friends... Sorry to ramble, am bored......
Excellent and thoughtful video; very useful to see Dutch standards applied to a city like Reno, to show what it would look like, and its feasibility. In response to the moan about the view of cycling as recreation, I think that advocates ignore the degree to which recreational cycling can be a major ally, and drive support for an extensive, cohesive, city wide network as a backbone, to later add further "last mile" connections to. Both Calgary and Colorado Springs have multiuse pathway networks throughout the city, often with grade separated crossings. These are popular, and have popular support, even to the degree that there's strong support for a special trails and open space sales tax that's been around for decades in Colorado Springs. The most recent pathways in the Springs are wide concrete with few at grade crossings; twenty mile rides are possible with few at grade crossings of roads. And these pathways are easily accessible from most residential areas, and even a fair number of shopping centers and office parks. That makes it a far smaller leap to connect the rest, than starting with an on street network, and then dealing with all the intersections, driveways, etc. The Shifter channel has a video about how much better he feels on street cycle tracks are, because they save a few seconds getting to a particular ice cream shop, but watching all the crossings of driveways, commerical and residential, was frightening even to someone who cycle commuted through a major international airport. Most people will be rightly terrified of a system that requires crossing myriad driveways. A cycle commuting colleague was hit by motor vehicles four times. Most people won't risk that. But plenty, from what I see, are quite happy to follow an off street multiuse pathway, even if it means slowing way down near pedestrians. Add a few ways to reasonably safely connect to the rest of stores, cafes, offices, and you'll have a viable network that many will feel comfortable taking (and not be fussed about biking an extra bit to have a safe pleasant experience). It's an opportunity that deserves to be appreciated more, even if it's not a priori seen as "serious" by the already dedicated vehicular cyclist community (the brave 0.1%).
I envy other cities infrastructure. Here in Pittsburgh, protected bike lanes are not possible due to cars not being able to park further than 12" from a curb. HB140 failed in the Pennsylvania legislature because they stupidly added 2 line items that politicians cant agree on (surprise). Driving on painted "infrastructure" is just not safe enough and have personally been almost sideswiped on purpose by lifted trucks angry they have to share the road. Hopefully we can see some real change in this region soon with the exciting NEXTransit projects, additional bike lanes, and more separate bus roads. I would love to hear your opinion of AASHTO GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE FACILITIES compared to that of CROW. Cheers and love your videos!
Okay, rather off topic, but... I discovered this channel only just yesterday and went through almost all of the videos you had on offer already. And through it all, it kept nagging at me that your voice reminded me of someone. I just realized who it is. It's Jay Baruchel. Or more specifically, it's Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III from How To Train Your Dragon, as voiced by Jay Baruchel.
Renoite to Renoite. We all know downtown proper and bike lines aren't the necessities. Reno is basically a few cities connected (and I'm not discussing the obvious neighbor, Sparks) Midtown needs a fully integrated bike network. Lord, Virginia through that area is a nightmare. But with the population moving southward toward Daimonte and northward toward the North Valleys, I don't know how the bike network would work with those long rides. Imagine biking from Golden Valley to Daimonte Ranch. What I will give credit to Reno is that the bus network is actually really good. It's just that the hours are subpar. It's basically a commuter line. It doesn't do anything to lower drivers at night.
At this point, if you didn't already intend on leaving the city, I would say you should be mayor of Reno. Clearly the leadership needs forward thinking people like you.
I’ve been riding my road bike in Reno for about a year now. What I understood is that different areas in Reno treat bicyclist differently. Like Verdi is cool, and northwest Reno like somerett area is okay. But in the more busy areas like downtown Reno and mid town area I always run into the weird people there.
The clip of you riding on the street with parking next to bike lane just goes to show that having on street parking essentially removes the bike lane a lot of the time. It just becomes dangerous and useless when people park too far into it, doors opening, people standing in it, etc.
One issue I have with this video is that I only saw this guy use the bike lane once, all other times he was using the sidewalk. Remember that a bike counts as a vehicle. Even to the extent that you can get a DUI for driving a bike while intoxicated. Get off the sidewalk and get on the street. You can’t be preaching for better bike lanes if you’re just going to use the sidewalk when they’re provided. Crossing a busy intersection in the crosswalk is likely more dangerous for you as drivers don’t expect a bike to be there (and banning right hand on red is not a solution to this problem). Also, many of the streets in reno have a bike lane, and the ones that don’t are usually plenty wide. I do agree that the part of reno you chose is particularly absent of bike lanes, and most of the side streets that were chosen to be part of the network for that area fit the extra wide description aptly and are fairly low traffic. These streets would be perfect for bike lanes. You also neglected to mention that Reno has been making some progress with respect to bike lanes, especially in the midtown area just adjacent to area of Reno you focused on, but I do agree that they should be more prevalent. In many parts of reno there is lots of excessive parking, but in many of the destination areas where bikes would be pretty common, there is already not enough space for cars, granted more bikes will reduce the number of cars, but removing street parking entirely is not really a valid option. One last nitpick, orient your maps with north at the top, I’ve lived in reno my whole life and I couldn’t even figure out where that was without looking at Google maps. Hope you have a wonderful time in Seattle, it is a lovely city and area.
At a certain point, I'm just going to start cutting the shit in my way down. You put up an unnecessary wall completely blocking access on one side, and I've got a sawzall with a metal-cutting blade.
I have been delaying doing that because I am not confident enough in my [skills] to make the work look "professional" AKA "scheduled and approved". My reasoning is if the finished result looks like it is supposed to be that way: it may stay in place longer.
I don't know if I agree with pilots being a waste of time.. I do think it's important to be clear about what the pilot is trying to learn and design it to address that learning objective. For example, most of North America should be asking "Will people use this infrastructure if we build it" and a useful test would be protected lanes connected from where people live to where they want to go. Too often a "pilot" project is just a protected lane that doesn't connect from anywhere or to anywhere. As you mentioned, our pilots don't need to address what type of infrastructure will solve X problem because we already have answers to that.
I live in Austin and it was pretty good with their biking infrastructure. I biked everywhere. My mileage limit was 20 miles away from me. Anything more I would carpool or use the bus. Now after getting priced out I am forced to drive into the city. I am 20 miles out. Sometimes I drive into the city park somewhere and bike around the city. I still hate using a car though
Great video I loved it. So if they are having all of these community meetings about a bicycle lane then joined the meetings and debate them. I hope you can change your community
0:14 unless i am exhausted, i might get in the car lane from here. That is a sharp turn coming and i cant see farther down the road. High possibility of pedestrians or some obstruction down there. Id also be thinking about those trucks turning right from my left.
When you're thinking of implementing Niederlands (Dutch) msnysls in biking infrastructure, remember what kind of climate zone the country lives in. I've found out the hard way in Poland, when biblical style rain got me between two bus stops here I could have sheltered 😅
Oh shit! I wasn’t expecting my hometown to be featured in the urbanist space. I ended up moving to Boston mainly for college & job opportunities but living in an area where you’re not car dependent makes Reno… difficult to visit back to for the holidays. I know a lot of the developer families in the area and while some of the smaller ones seem to be more pro-urbanism, the big boys like the Damontes, Karadanises and Simons are pretty stuck-in-the-mud car-centric developers unfortunately. Where did you go to HS btw?
10:50 This statement about separation of modes represents an integral cultural difference between the Netherlands and the US. Luckily this difference is less detrimental than the stigma.
Unfortunately, the profit from the car industry(NL doesn't have one) is far GREATER than the health and happines of the people when good infrastructure exists...
From what i understand some drivers seem to think it's either car or bike. I've found that explaining that a bike for ~20 minute distances is ideal compared to a car but as s/he already has a car it should be used for longer distances or pleasure. Then there's the fact a -good- bike costs as much as one mediocre option on a car. İt's AND not EİTHER.
I don't think you are correct at 7:29. 'Disentangled' usually means making routes away from cars the *prefered routes.* NotJustBikes says these things are complementary in his Ontvlechten video. The only times I think cyclepaths are not added in an urban context in the Netherlands is when it's on a *proper* modern arterial road that has absolutely no access function. Those are usually 70km/h too, if I remember correctly.
I wonder if a bike network in the cul-de-sac labyrinths that is suburban hell would be a good start? Imagine that there is a direct path by bike or foot that goes straight across the suburb, perfect for kids during the day and lightly intoxicated adults at night. But fear is what stops this. Fear that kids are not supervised 24/7. Kids that need to learn what American Freedom really means: Stuck in traffic, behind locked gates and doors. Fear thy neighbour,
To add to your fear point: Suburbs in North America are often designed to keep the "wrong kind" of people out. I think the real fear of "15 minute" cities is that shortcuts point both ways. If your kids can go to the park, a homeless person could walk by and check your trash can for bottles!
Drivers waiting longer at lights isn't a fate worse than death, but it is something that will get you voted out. And implementing it unilaterally...that's how you get Eddie Lorton as mayor.
Any Idea on where to download for free? Don't have any money to drop on this expensive ass book, but I want to print out copies for my local planning commission. Any help would be greatly valued.
Saying that people who ride bikes instead of driving cars have more spending money does not really tell the whole story. They only have more money because they DID NOT spend a fortune on a car, on car insurance, on car repairs and especially no gasoline taxes to the government. So, yes, the average retailer has people with more money to spend, but only after the car dependent business sectors are left high and dry. Unfortunately any bike friendly city planning will have to be run past those interest groups first before anything happens. Good luck with that!
It gets too hot here to bike... it gets to cold here to bike... it too hilly and or windy here... makes you what these peoples ideal bicycle conditions actually are... but no they are just making excuses for why they should not feel bad about keeping car infrastructure and not giving it to other more sensible modes of transportation. Anybody who bikes regularly knows the only limit is snow, but we do have plows for that.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 I don’t we should be in the habit of banning particular type of cars, it also just would never happen because voters would generally reject that but we could redesign cities in a way that encourages people to not buy the SUV and instead walk, bike, or commute in a small car. Unfortunately most of North America has been redesigned for the SUV, so there’s a lot of work to be done to fix that.
Pedestrians belong on the sidewalk, not on roads where multi-ton vehicles roam. It's a safety issue first and foremost, a cyclist has zero protection against getting hit by any vehicle so it's best to use what infrastructure is there! In areas without sidewalks, well buddy! you're either somewhere that hits 110 in t he summer or just plain sol. People like their air conditioning, people like their heat and not getting rained on, things you don't get as a cyclist. Always remember, cycling full time is a choice, and you should take your local sidewalks into consideration before making any purchase.
All I’m hearing is get existing sidewalk make them bigger so cyclist and pedestrians can actually use them and not sad pathetic 3 feet wide sidewalks we have now
The problem with your urbanists is that you just think about urban design. You need to make bike riding sexy so thinking outside of the box is necessary. Set up a Tour de France style race throughout your town or throughout the country and get them on television and people will naturally want to cycle as they see it happening so much and the cyclists will look like aspirational figures not just people who can't afford a car.
@@BaiZhijie Indeed I do, as demonstrated by my suggesting it. I write my comment in that slightly provocative way so that it gets attention and sticks in the minds of those who read it, hopefully leading to them dwelling on it long enough to do something with it. Since I don't live in Reno NV nor probably in your city either, I am trying to provoke others to think big picture for their own cities.
People aren’t riding bikes because it isn’t “sexy”. Lmfao. The biggest complaint when the streets are shut down for any reason “the traffic is horrendous because the bike race, marathon, parade” etc. especially the people who live in the suburbs because to them they also “live in the city”
We don’t need to make bike riding “sexy”, we need to make it practical. We need people to see that bike riding is a good method of transportation for kids, office workers, senior citizens, grocery shoppers… not just sexy athletes in spandex.
You say Reno has an over abundance of parking while driving down a street that shows nearly all the street parking being occupied. I would understand it better if there were a bunch of unused parking places being removed, not occupied parking.
How many families have a second car because cycling is impractical? How many would be willing to give up a parking space if they can save $10,000 a year on insurance, fuel, and maintenance?
The topic of this video comes dangerously close into turning into a moral purity spiral. Reno is testing the waters on creating bike infrastructure? Not good enough, bikes are already perfect and we already know everything that needs to be done and anyone who drives a car is an idiot etc. etc. Not constructive in any way. This video really could have just been about raising awareness of the CROW manual and demonstrating how to use it. I don't think the approach you're going for does much for the bike-skeptics but turn them off - which may not matter when your youtube audience is self-selecting as bike supporters, but the general public's opinion is the biggest hurdle American urbanists are trying to overcome.
I honestly think people really don't choose, it's the setting. Density. European cities have 10 mile wide of packed 5 story buildings, US don't. US literally if ran a training 10 miles with 20 stops would at each stop have 15% or so the ridership in walking distance. . . . The Europeans frugally refused to build past edge of 5mile limit, they didn't need to their pop is only up 40% since 1950, US is up 250%. . .. . . The sad truth is , no, if want Euro level of no car ease need to ban yards and force 5 story buildings BUT THAT AINT GONNA HAPPEN..... Even in France and Italy 80% of workers drive to work , Netherlands 65%, nonpoor people 80% prefer cars even in crowded Europe..... YOU ARE SPINNING A FANTASY, NICE ONE, BUT JUST LIES AND FABLES... I walk, I'm weird but any nonpoor westerner wants car, my Finn cousins all drive, and French cousins. ...
With current housing prices: all they need to do to encourage low rise development is abolish R1 zoning: which prohibits anything other than a single detached home.
@@jamesphillips2285 .. No, people DO choose to have lawns and have separate houses. A lawn adds maybe $30000 via more land needed, to a $400,000 house. But the real cost is having not 6000 people per km but 3000 so a train line can't work... Unless you forbid lawns people will choose them mostly.... Same with house vs apartment/condo, people like separate house at $400000 vs condo at $20000, it only raises mortgage paymwnt from $1200 to $2300 assuming 30yr6% mortgage, and it's deductable on taxes so really cut by half ..... There's a reason suburbs exist , PEOPLE MOSTLY CHOOSE THEM, and unless you ban lawns and mandate 5 story apartments you cant have Euro transit levels.. even Europe 70% of workers drive to work, they too like lawns and houses, 70%!!!! So let's not pretend it's dumb planning and failure to build bike paths, is us PEOPLE who are rich and want green and space, few want to smell their neighbors cooking or hear them having sex.... Europe has barely expanded city limits since 1950, their slow pop growth helps them, US has grown 400% in area and 300% in population ... It's hilarious RU-vidrs just skip causal factors and whine about evil cars and evil govt,, they are dumb dumb RU-vidrs pretending to be smart.... Hilarious... I walk, I'm weird....
@@mostlyguesses8385 If people would choose houses anyway: why is any other building outlawed in vast tracts of land in-city? In the dense, feature length "The USA Will Never Build Walkable Cities": Frank Laundry suggests that the real goal is enforcing White supremacy. Video blew me away because it covered a bunch of things that White urbanist RU-vidrs (and I) seem to have a blind-spot for.
BTW my city (Edmonton) has recently abolished R1 zoning. Every lot that was zoned R1 is now allowed to have a duplex: potentially doubling the density of the city over time. They did it quietly through rule changes: so now the zoning bylaws need to be updated to catch up. Another thing R1 zoning prohibits is commercial property within walking distance of R1 zoning. The new bylaws will allow some commercial infill.
You don't even need to remove parking! Just flip the positions of the parking and bike lanes with a small gap between them for safe passenger door openings. BAM! Parking-protected bike lanes or a very wide gap between car and bike lane. So many bike lanes with street parking are in the door zone ffs
