• ilinamorato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Five miles. Dang, I hadn’t processed that. Even at highway speeds, that bridge would take more than five minutes to cross; if you’re a strong cyclist, you could do it in, what, 30 minutes?

    Still, you’re right. The next closest way for a bike to get around would be something like 20+ miles out of your way in one direction or the other, it looks like. So it would turn any hour-long errands you might be able to run by bicycle into day trips of 4-8 hours.

    I dunno. Tough choice.

    • knexcar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I personally still firmly believe in keeping the bike lane. Cars have 2 other lanes they can take, but bikes don’t have many other options. I don’t believe they can go via San Francisco or highway 37 so it’s an even bigger detour than I thought. The hourly bus theoretically works if you have a “normal” bike but cargo bikes, fat bikes, recumbents, trikes, and heavier e-bikes are screwed.

      The only compromise I could see is closing it off to bikes during rush hour only, but providing a shuttle bus or van, ideally one that’s always waiting at the side of the bridge (not some number you have to call), has room for cargo bikes/trailers, and only covers the actual bridge to minimize headways and traffic delays. And even then it would just result in induced demand as people start commuting yet longer distances.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Yeah, the more I think about it, the less I think they should get rid of the lane. If anyone at all relies on it, it’s worth the lane.