What about bike infrastructure? It's cheaper, better for the environment (in most cases), has health benefits for the riders, is the form of land-transport that makes riders the most happy (excluding walking), and is easier to implement (requires less studies/paperwork/land acquisition).
My response is that the US really needs all of the above, and US cities need the political will to do them properly. Needing less land acquisition is probably a huge advantage for bike infra in the high-cost environment of the US, especially NYC. However, America tends to build half-assed at-grade infrastructure (including bike and bus lanes). Recently, a cyclist was killed in NYC on 11th Avenue, which does have bike lanes:
I think that if we want to have the highest marginal impact in this space, maybe we need to spin up an org that focuses on advising local governments on how to build at-grade bike and bus infrastructure properly - bike lanes that are actually protected, bus lanes that are actually dedicated to buses.
Grade-separated subways have speed and capacity advantages over bike infra and bus rapid transit, which are magnified by the US's inability to build high-quality at-grade infrastructure. But they are indeed more expensive to build, which admittedly matters a lot in high-cost environments. Transit Costs Project is studying how to reduce these costs, and I still think that work is impactful and deserves more funding.
I do think they deserve more funding and attention (as evidenced by the fact I've been subscribed to half a bazillion urban planning outlets for years now), however if we're looking at which one to prioritize (EA style) I think bike infrastructure both has more advantages and is much more doable.
What about bike infrastructure? It's cheaper, better for the environment (in most cases), has health benefits for the riders, is the form of land-transport that makes riders the most happy (excluding walking), and is easier to implement (requires less studies/paperwork/land acquisition).
I got a similar response when I posted this to the EA Forum:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/F8Y7HdqPyqFShMAsB/public-transit-advocacy-as-an-effective-cause-area#yQPw6Tt7AABBTQxgG
My response is that the US really needs all of the above, and US cities need the political will to do them properly. Needing less land acquisition is probably a huge advantage for bike infra in the high-cost environment of the US, especially NYC. However, America tends to build half-assed at-grade infrastructure (including bike and bus lanes). Recently, a cyclist was killed in NYC on 11th Avenue, which does have bike lanes:
https://w42st.com/post/citi-bike-rider-killed-hells-kitchen-11th-avenue/
I think that if we want to have the highest marginal impact in this space, maybe we need to spin up an org that focuses on advising local governments on how to build at-grade bike and bus infrastructure properly - bike lanes that are actually protected, bus lanes that are actually dedicated to buses.
Grade-separated subways have speed and capacity advantages over bike infra and bus rapid transit, which are magnified by the US's inability to build high-quality at-grade infrastructure. But they are indeed more expensive to build, which admittedly matters a lot in high-cost environments. Transit Costs Project is studying how to reduce these costs, and I still think that work is impactful and deserves more funding.
I do think they deserve more funding and attention (as evidenced by the fact I've been subscribed to half a bazillion urban planning outlets for years now), however if we're looking at which one to prioritize (EA style) I think bike infrastructure both has more advantages and is much more doable.