this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
208 points (98.1% liked)

Not The Onion

17117 readers
1237 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] errer@lemmy.world 64 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Honestly unsure what they were thinking with a 5 mile bike lane where the major population centers are a few miles from each end of the bridge and with no safe bike infrastructure between the bridge and those pop centers. Sure you can ride across the bridge but…to where? This project almost feels designed to fail and make bikes look bad.

[–] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 57 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'll bet the lane is there purely to satisfy some requirement for including non-car infrastructure, regardless of whether it makes sense in this particular location. It's the same way we get fun bike lanes like these:

collapsed inline media

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 6 points 1 day ago

Sometimes it's to artificially narrow the lane to slow traffic. That's what they did here.

[–] forwhomthecattolls@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

that photo feels like the bike lanes in my city that literally merge the right lane of car traffic into the bike lane at traffic lights. it's like they are trying to kill bicycle riders on purpose

[–] BlackAura@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

Talking with cyclists it's actually the opposite. It works in the sense that if someone is turning right they will get into the right lane and essentially self block a bicycle from pulling past them on the right side (if a cyclist did that they have a high likelyhood of getting hit as they are pulling into the cars blind spot... Then traffic starts moving and the right turning car just goes and suddenly there could be a bike there).

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Some years ago now, a bunch of bike lanes got added to the streets in my city. The city did a big project of adding them and afterwards proudly declared that X number of kilometers of bike lanes had been made.

When an investigation was done into how the decision process had gone for where to add them it turned out that the only consideration had been "how cheap is it to add bike lanes in these locations?" Not "would bike lanes actually be used in these locations?" They were solely trying to maximize the kilometers-of-lane-per-dollar-spent so that they could put out that headline with as big a number as possible.

Subsequent studies showed that a lot of those lanes weren't being used by bikes in any significant number. Bike lanes had been added on streets that ran alongside sidewalks that were already designated bike paths. I'm a bike rider myself, some lanes were added in my neighborhood but they somehow managed to put them everywhere except the routes I usually took. The city wound up spending a bunch more money to remove a bunch of the bike lanes that were doing nothing but increasing congestion.

It may be that this was a similar situation, where someone wanted to proudly show off headlines of how they'd pushed for bike access and got X numbers of kilometers installed and those were the only real metrics that mattered.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

i noticed this in sf too.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your argument seems to be that nobody should ever start anything unless it's a complete, end-to-end solution at the end of Phase 1.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

When the period of evaluation is only 4 years and nothing is done to integrate the solution, then yeah, you probably shouldn’t waste time/money on it.