An oft-made comment regarding increased
bicycle usage is that our communities lack sufficient facilities. The argument is that with more facilities,
including bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, and even bicycle storage areas, bicycle
use would increase. I don’t think that
improved bicycle facilities are a panacea that would increase usage
overnight. But I believe that improved bicycle
facilities are an essential element of the future of bicycling.
But a frequent
response to the request for more facilities is that devoting scarce resources
toward meeting the needs of a minuscule portion of the population with a
particular recreational interest isn’t justified. And it’s certainly not justified in these economic
times.
It’s a
response that’s based on three deeply-engrained fallacies.
The first
fallacy is that bicyclists are mostly focused on the recreational aspect. There are certainly bicyclists who do long
weekend rides for physical fitness. I
have a cousin in that category and it’s a great thing for him.
But when I
think about the need for better bicycling facilities, I don’t think of the
weekend riders. Instead, I think of a
friend who often commutes from Petaluma to Santa Rosa by bicycle. And of a friend who usually bicycles to our
monthly Petaluma Urban Chats. And of an architect
in my neighborhood who often bicycles to his downtown office.
The second
fallacy is that improved bicycle facilities would benefit only bicyclists. It’s just not true. During weekday commutes, almost every bicycle
on the road represents a car that isn’t sharing a travel lane or competing for
a parking place. Transit is often
described as freeing up road space. Increased
bicycling would certainly do the same.
The third fallacy,
and perhaps the most significant, is that bicyclists will always remain a small
minority. Today, not many folks ride bicycles
to work or for daily chores. However, they
don’t ride not because they don’t want to, but because, among other reasons,
they don’t have safe routes to do so. I
have a friend who wants to do his grocery shopping by bicycle, but the only
route available involves a street crossing that he won’t do with a trailer
behind his bike. More and better bicycle
facilities would be a key toward making bicyclists less of a minority.
So, bicycle
advocates are faced with making the “build it and they will come” argument,
which seems a near-impossible argument to win.
Except that it isn’t.
There are
numerous precedents in our region for building facilities in expectation of
greater future use. In 2006, how many
people were riding a railroad between Santa Rosa and San Rafael? None.
And yet Marin and Sonoma Counties voted for SMART. In the 1960s, how many people were commuting
by rail between Contra Costa County and San Francisco? None.
And yet the Bay Area counties approved BART. In 1930, how many people were driving across
the Golden Gate? None. And yet San Francisco and Marin Counties
approved funding for the Golden Gate Bridge.
Is it
possible to follow the lead of those approvals and to make improved bicycle
facilities a reality? Possibly. But there may be one key difference between
BART and a bicycle lane. I’m guessing
that many voters in the 1960s could visualize themselves commuting by rail. But too few voters today, and too few public
officials, can see themselves living their lives on a bicycle. And that lack of vision gets in the way of funding
for more bicycle facilities.
We’ll
continue to fund some improvements, but unless there is a fundamental change in
how we view bicycling, it will usually be through altruism, not
self-interest. And ultimately
self-interest is a more powerful motivation.
Which frames
the challenge for the bicycling community.
The thought that the person we see in the mirror in the morning may
someday use a bicycle lane to buy groceries is probably more important to
propagate than all of the visions of what a bicycle-friendly community might
look like. It’s a big challenge.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
I've had an issue with separate infrastructure for cyclists, but the numbers are starting to come in and I'm becoming a believer. See, for instance University of British Columbia - Cycling in Cities Research Program: our injury study, which I discovered from dc.streetsblog: Study: Protected Bike Lanes Reduce Injury Risk Up to 90 Percent.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I found particularly interesting about that study is that while it confirms that bike lanes aren't very safe, and that Multi-Use Paths are actually fairly dangerous for cyclists, that there are very simple and relatively inexpensive bike specific infrastructure that can do amazing things for bicycle safety.
I also think that a particular addition is necessary to your first fallacy: It's not as though I commute from Petaluma to Santa Rosa on a bicycle (although if I'm still working here when the daylight comes back I may bring in the road bike and see if I can beat the bus home), but that the bicycle portion makes the bus/transit commute possible. Without the bicycle it'd be a long uncomfortable bus ride, with the bicycle it's still a long uncomfortable bus ride, but it's quite a bit shorter than it'd be if I had to make a bus connection. So a relatively short (1 mile in Petaluma, 3.5 or so in Santa Rosa) bike ride makes me able to consider transit at all.
(BTW: Your stylesheet is making the links in my other comment difficult to suss out. There are two of them)
ReplyDeleteDan, the links show up just fine for me. And I appreciate both of them. The type of bike facilities that should be built is something I'll be discussing Monday. Thus far, I've reviewed two studies, one from Portland State and the other from the cities of Toronto and Vancouver as reported in the American Journal of Public Health. I'll be searching for other good links and will take a look at yours.
DeleteBy the way, congratulations on "becoming a believer" about separated bike facilities. I don't have a horse in that race, but like chatting with people who are willing to reassess their opinions when new data comes in.
DeleteGrins. Greatest summarization I've seen recently, from 37 Signals talking about a discussion with Jeff Bezos: "He said people who were right a lot of the time were people who often changed their minds."
DeleteBest thing I can do is learn something that challenges my preconceptions, 'cause that's useful!
I'd seen the Bezo's quote and liked it a lot. I also like the mock puzzled response to someone who remains adamantly firm in an opinion despite emerging facts "I reassess my opinion when I receive new information. What is it you do with new information?"
Delete