most people move faster by auto than any other mode, it generally takes twice as long to get anywhere by transit than by driving

This is not true. The correct formulation of the principle is that in the US average commutes by transit are twice as long as commutes by auto. This isn’t due to cars’ being inherently faster – commutes by foot are even shorter than commutes by car. The history of transportation infrastructure in the last 150 years is that every improvement in speed translates to people moving further out into the suburbs, keeping average commute time constant. Instead, what’s going on is that people budget a certain amount of time for travel, which rises with the convenience of their mode of transportation (and which tends to average out to 60-90 minutes per day).

Walking is the most physically exerting, so few people in developed countries do it for longer than 10-15 minutes each way. Cars, which require one to drive and sit in traffic, allow longer commutes. Transit, especially commuter rail, is more leisurely, so it allows the longest commutes (commuter rail is both the fastest mode of transportation used by everyday commuters and the one with the longest average travel time).

By the way, do you have any idea of the incredible filth of the pre-auto American city, where horse/ mule/oxen was the primarily means of intra-city travel?

Yes. As Jane Jacobs noted, the problem with the car isn’t that it exists; it’s that instead of one car replacing six horses, cities got six cars replacing each horse. And that’s in the US, which is unusually auto-oriented. Don’t compare Atlanta and Houston today to New York and London in 1900; compare them to Hong Kong and Singapore today.

“Pedestrians and cyclists pay more than their fair share of roadway costs. Although most highway expenses are funded through motor vehicle user fees, local roads and traffic services are funded primarily through general taxes that residents pay regardless of their travel habits. Motor vehicle use also imposes a variety of external costs, including parking subsidies, congestion, uncompensated crash damages, and environmental impacts. Pedestrians and cyclists impose much less external costs, due to lower costs per mile, and because they tend to travel fewer miles per year. In general, people who drive less than average overpay their true share of transportation costs, while those who drive more than average underpay. As a result, pedestrians and bicyclists tend to subsidize motorists.”

I also do not appreciate your racial reference — which appears to contain logic that I am having a very difficult time attempting to follow.

In the days before the car became king, roads were either toll roads, often private-sector, or they were built and maintained by governments out of “general funds” — there were no road use fees. Starting with Oregon in the 1920′s, and later the Federal government and every other state, cents-per-gallon road use charges became the norm and, since the Interstate Highway Act of the 1950′s, dedicated fuel charges for roads have been the norm, both nationally and in every state. Beginning in 1982, the Federal government started charging road users one cent per gallon for transit, which is now up to $.0286 dedicated transit tax, plus additional costs for “flexible” highway programs that are commonly ustilized for non-road purposes. Depending on which estmate from which person you care to listen to, between somewhere in the low 20% to over half of Federal per-gallon fuel charges go to modes other than roads (if my life depended on it, I’d be towards the lower end of that range — but the high end estimate came for the then-Secretary of Transportation).

Motorized users are the majority — vast majority — of the users of the road, and, therefore, should pay the vast majority of the cost of the road system; I have absolutely no problem with that. However, it would be nice if what the motorists are paying for road use was being utilized for roads and directly related activities for motorists.

I also have no problem with the rights of other users, be it cyclists, pedestrians, horseback riders, and others to use the road system, as long as it is safe to do so (let’s keep the pedestrians off the Interstates, thank you — although, under some conditions, cyclists CAN legally use Interstates) and they follow the rules.

But for someone to say that there is no cost for cyclists to use the road system, or that they should not have to pay any cost for road use, that is where I have a bit of a problem.

Certainly, motorists and bicyclists benefit from a well-designed bike lane. Some bike lanes I can think of were created not by widening the road or restriping the shoulder, but by reducing the number of auto lanes. To those who think that autos are the primary users of the road, and bikes should only permitted to ride on the streets to the extent they don’t interfere with vehicle traffic, such bike lanes are an affront. And in some communities, auto-hostile planners are transparent in their intent when they convert general-purpose lanes to reserved lanes for HOV, transit, or bicycles.

In most cases, though, they are probably the result of good engineering practice. And except on certain freeways, which are reserved for high-speed vehicles, the point remains: Bikes have a right to be on the road, and the right to consume a lane if safety requries it. To the extent that bike lanes reduce the need for bicycles to travel in auto lanes, they are generally good for motorists.

It was only after motor vehicle operators became a political ultra-majority that bike lanes came into fashion. Bike lanes are motorist infrastructure, designed by motorists, for motorists, to keep the bikes ‘out of the roads’.

The situation is analogous to racial segregation in America in the first half of the 20th century. You’re arguing that blacks should have to pay for the back half of the bus, because the white folks don’t want to share seats with them up front. The black folks, by and large, didn’t care who they sat with, they just wanted a seat. I’m arguing that if the white folks don’t want to sit with the back folks, they are honor-bound to pay for both halves of the bus to make that happen.

While I grant that completely eliminating bicycles obviates the stated purpose of bike lanes, completely eliminating motor vehicles ALSO obviates the stated purpose of bike lanes. The situation is entirely symmetric. Thus bike lanes should not be ‘charged’ to bicyclists on this basis.

“Bike lanes” are help for motorists, not cyclists. Cyclists have a legal right to the road with or without bike lanes. Adding the bike lane only allows the motorists more passing options, it does nothing to increase mobility or safety for cyclists. Bike lanes are motorist infrastructure, pure and simple.