Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Cycling infrastructure costs far less. Road damage is roughly the square of the vehicle's weight. Also, we don't charge pedestrians for sidewalks.

> "Increasing a truck’s weight [from 80,000 pounds] to 90,000 pounds results in a 42 percent increase in road wear. Pavement designed to last 20 years wears out in seven." https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/06/22/murphys-law-how-trucks...

> It would take 700 trips by bicycle to equal the damage caused by one Smart Car. It would take 17,059 trips by bike to equal the damage caused by an average car. And it would take 364,520 bike trips to equal the damage caused by just one Hummer H2. https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh...

When this all comes together, every cycling trip I take is a car left parked and that benefits everybody. That's why we don't tax cyclists for infrastructure and why it's counter-productive to raise it as an issue.



I was under the impression it was proportional to the 4th power of a vehicle’s weight: https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...

But this might be measuring something a little different.

Regardless, in my city (Seattle), an asphalt bike path near me (Alki trail) is still in perfect condition after a decade of frequent cyclist and pedestrian use, and adjacent car streets are riddled with potholes and cracks despite frequent patching.


I wonder how this compares to areas that have freeze-thaw cycles. Bikes do a lot less damage to the path, but at the same time bikes and walkers are much more noticing of path damage.

The bike path near me was resurfaced recently, it wasn't bad before but it's certainly nicer now.


It's actually the fourth power over the weight of the axle, so almost all road wear is from very heavy heavy vehicles such as trucks and the like.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: