« The 300 | Main | Papering the House »

The Wave

18 Jul 2008 11:02 am

Rob Goodspeed says that "n aspiring planner I met with yesterday asked me whether there’s a massive effort afoot to make every American city more bikable" and offers some thoughts. One thing to note about this is that part of the nature of biking is that having more people bike around your city is one of the things that does the most to make your city more bikable. When cyclists are relatively common, cars become conscious that cyclists may be on the street and adjust their behavior accordingly. When bikes are rare, nobody expects there to be a bike on the road, which is a very dangerous situation.

And of course the safer biking becomes, the more people will do it, which makes it safer. And, again, just socially speaking people generally prefer not to be weirdos and so if you see more people riding bikes, you're more likely to think that's a reasonable way to behave. Higher gas prices naturally lead to some increase in the number of bike trips around the margin, which in turn has some positive feedback effects. Which is why this is a great time for cities to take the opportunity to take some pro-bike steps in terms of lanes, parking, etc. -- the present circumstances of expensive gas are an opportunity to shift to a new, more bike-friendly equilibrium, that will have benefits for public health and the environment while leaving the roads less congested and more open for high-value car and truck trips.

Share This

Comments (38)

Denver has been on the case for quite awhile:

http://www.denvergov.org/Bicycle_Program/BicycleMasterPlanUpdate/tabid/378656/Default.aspx

The biking options out here are quite impressive.

Another factor to watch is the rate of teen driving. I've seen some numbers showing a decline/postponement of getting drivers' licenses among esp. 16-18-yr.-olds, which makes sense as that population is one of the most sensitive to gas prices.

So, if fewer teens and young people are driving, this might further normalize biking and public transit use as non-strange, non-poor-people things to do, and create larger constituencies for better policies along these lines.

Right on, Matthew!

When I was living in and traveling around Europe, I found that the Europeans are much more willing to use bicycles than we are. They were even popular in big cities such as London and Amsterdam.

Part of this is that gasoline has traditionally been more expensive than in America. Unlike many (though not all) of us, the Europeans aren't spoiled babies who expect a perishable resource to always be cheap.

Right on, Matthew!

When I was living in and traveling around Europe, I found that the Europeans are much more willing to use bicycles than we are. They were even popular in big cities such as London and Amsterdam.

Part of this is that gasoline has traditionally been more expensive than in America. Unlike many (though not all) of us, the Europeans aren't spoiled babies who expect a perishable resource to always be cheap.

This may work in cities, but here in rural Virginia, you take your life in your hands with narrow county roads, huge farm equipment, and draw bridges/tunnels to cross that do not allow bikes. And talk about being the freak show to others. It is so hard when most progressive conviences come to the city, we always seem to be left in the woods.

Better yet, how about making cities more walkable (happily, I live in the most walkable city in the US)? That's the factor that really cuts down driving. Sure, bikability is a good thing--but it's a trivial factor compared to either walkability or decent public transit.

As a bike rider myself (mostly recreationally), I have to say I just don't see the US becoming the next Amsterdam no matter how bike-friendly you try to make it. The climate is just not suitable for biking most of the year. Bikes don't go well with public transit. Most people will not want to be tired and in need of a shower when they come in to work. You can't really transport goods/passangers on a bike. Bike parking and theft, though solvable, are serious problems.

That's not to say you won't see some uptick in bike use in certain places, but I doubt bikes will make any significant percentage daily transportatation in terms of overall miles per passenger.

It bears mentioning, amidst all of Matt's fervor about biking, that the presence of lots of cyclists in a city can be annoying for pedestrians. In New York City, bicycles are often more dangerous than cars, as they are less visible and can blindside pedestrians walking out into the street (esp. if they're not following the traffic laws, as Megan McArdle would prefer).

Cities are for pedestrians first and foremost. And when cyclists think that, because of how small their footprint is, or whatever, that they have a moral claim on the streets, above both cars AND pedestrians, it poses a problem.

I'm all for restoring a balance between different modes of transportation. But I'd rather not have pedestrian traffic further inconvenienced by infrastructure that privileges bicycles and does not consider their interaction with pedestrian traffic.

As a bike rider myself (mostly recreationally), I have to say I just don't see the US becoming the next Amsterdam no matter how bike-friendly you try to make it. The climate is just not suitable for biking most of the year. Bikes don't go well with public transit. Most people will not want to be tired and in need of a shower when they come in to work. You can't really transport goods/passangers on a bike. Bike parking and theft, though solvable, are serious problems.

You forgot the biggest reason: Most Americans are highly allergic to any sort of exercise.

Personally, I run to work most days (it's about 4.5 miles door-to-door, so I throw in an extra 1.5 mile loop to round off at an even 6). It adds about 10 minutes to the commute vis a vis public transportation, but (1) I usually make that up by showering at work where there isn't a two year-old running underneath, and (2) even that means I effectively get a 45 minute run done in 10 minutes.

Count me among the skeptics who wish this attention were going to infrastructure, particularly mass transit. In New York, money flows disproportionately upstate and to highways, and I doubt we are alone. For some reason, whenever Matt supports mass transit, he means it to span unprecedented and, I think, impractical distances. He seems to think either that creating livable cities at the center of viable metropolitan regions doesn't matter or that cyclists will handle those distances. I can only put it down to the limits of his environment (DC) and his age.

DC shares one drawback to cycling with New York, extremes climate compared to Europe that make cycling feasible for anyone other than 20-somethings only a few weeks each spring and fall. On the other hand, it is flatter, has a subway system that excludes certain neighborhoods, has long avenues and long distances between intersections, and has a transient population with the right demographics.

Whether it has New York's insurmountable tradition of lawlessness, with double parkers, constant jaywalkers in midblock, cyclists riding through lights in both directions, and other obstacles to the minimal civility that heavy reliance of biking require I can't say. Still, the people who cannot walk to work here are often those coming from New Jersey or the outer boroughs. Anyone capable of handling those steep East River bridges on bicycle earns my respect, especially on a day like today, but it ain't urban planning.

You forgot the biggest reason: Most Americans are highly allergic to any sort of exercise.

You can feel morally supperior all you want but public policy should reflect reality, not an idealistic utopia. If an average person had a choice between paying more money, polluting the environment, proping up questionably regimes in unstable parts of the world, and getting less exercies but also getting to/from work faster/getting more sleep, which one will he choose? Honestly.

You can feel morally supperior all you want but public policy should reflect reality, not an idealistic utopia. If an average person had a choice between paying more money, polluting the environment, proping up questionably regimes in unstable parts of the world, and getting less exercies but also getting to/from work faster/getting more sleep, which one will he choose? Honestly.

You miss the point. In many places, residents of cities and even the inner suburbs have a shorter (and cheaper, environmentally responsible, healthful, etc.) commute on a bike than by car. Yet they drive anyway. Why? Because they simply don't like any form of exercise. They don't like to do physical activity that makes them the slightest bit uncomfortable.

Battery-assisted bicycles can go a long way to dealing with the effort issue. I think if Americans get serious about bike-commuting, those are likely to take off in popularity.

I do think there is a valid concern about the fact that biking makes you sweat, and sometimes you cannot afford to be sweaty. Also, some areas are never going to be bikeable because they are mountainous or very hilly. Most people are not Lance Armstrong and cannot effectively bike up steep or long inclines.

Another issue is city size. I lived in Boulder (great biking city) and biked all over the place because it was relatively flat and small. Colorado Springs (alleged to be good for biking) is far too large to bike effectively. I can go 1-2 miles, I cannot go 10 miles in a reasonable bike commute. Bike rack equipped mass transit can mitigate this, but then sprawled, low-density cities are also bad for mass transit.

You miss the point.

No, I think MS got the point all right...you smug, arrogant, self-righteous asshole.

Blake: in places where it's crazy(ish) to cycle, cyclists tend towards the crazy end. In NYC, you have a bike culture which is driven to some extent by couriers and hipsters with fixies, and anyone using personal transport in Manhattan is somewhat crazy.

As BruceMcF said over at Ezra's, the optimal urban areas for bike-friendly investment are older, smaller cities and the kind of pre-WW2 development with quiet, interlinked residential streets.

pseudonymous in nc,

Indeed, those areas tend to be optimal for a lot of non-car transportation options. Which is not surprising, since they were developed prior to the age of automobile dominance.

You can feel morally supperior all you want but public policy should reflect reality, not an idealistic utopia.

Yeah, God forbid we enact any sort of policy that encourages healthier behavior.

No, I think MS got the point all right...you smug, arrogant, self-righteous asshole.

I suggested that Americans won't commute in a manner that requires any modicum of physical exercise. MS responded by arguing that Americans won't commute via bicycle because it is not as quick and convenient as commuting by car. That misses the point because it does not address situations where commuting by bicycle is, in fact, quicker and more convenient -- as is often the case in big cities and sometimes their inner suburbs. My view is that the vast majority of Americans will pick sitting in a car or train or bus for 40 minutes over pedaling a bicycle for 20 minutes. I'm not sure what MS would think about that.

And I fail to see how pointing out Americans' strong dislike of exercise makes me smug, arrogant or self-righteous. Or an asshole.

As BruceMcF said over at Ezra's, the optimal urban areas for bike-friendly investment are older, smaller cities and the kind of pre-WW2 development with quiet, interlinked residential streets.

I imagine that's the reason the Twin Cities ranks among highest in the nation for number of people commuting by bicycle, even though the weather here is unforgivable most of the year. Biking on leafy residential streets is way more pleasant than denser, more "urban" streets, even if they do have dedicated bike lanes.

1) I personally cycle to closeby locations rather than take the car here in Austin TX. However re: med-long distance commuting, I wonder if anyone has ever worked out the energy/GHG cost of the extra shower(s) one has to take at the end of a significant distance ride or after riding in hot weather. It wouldn't surpise me if there's a crossover point where for short-med (eg. less than 3-4mi) trips in hot weather it might actually be more energy efficient to go by small car w. A/C than having to heat the water for a 10min shower after a ride (although obviously solar heated water would be ~0 energy/GHG emissions).

2) I agree with MS that for ~4-6mths of the year in the Southern states, given a choice, it's just too hot for most people to cycle in reasonable comfort. Likewise for ~4mths it's too cold in the northern central/NE US.

3) Same re:public transit, ie. in Toronto, Boston or NYC waiting 20-30min for a bus in summer is a much more reasonable proposition than doing so in 100+F 95%+ humidity in Austin, Phoenix or Houston.

So while cycling/transit/walking options are great and I'm all in favor, one needs to be realistic about what are truly viable options (e.g. light rail in dense areas vs. bus service in low-density sub/ex-urban areas) when deciding where to invest public money. To wit, I personally think southern US low density suburbs/exurbs are just screwed, there's no economical/viable transit solution for them as energy prices continue to rise.

NYC is not a good example for anywhere else ...

"However re: med-long distance commuting, I wonder if anyone has ever worked out the energy/GHG cost of the extra shower(s) one has to take at the end of a significant distance ride or after riding in hot weather."

As the other commentor noted, there are no EXTRA showers involved. Why would you get up and shower in the AM when you're going to bike to work?

I agree with MS that for ~4-6mths of the year in the Southern states, given a choice, it's just too hot for most people to cycle in reasonable comfort.

I grew up in Dallas. At morning commuting times, it was rarely hotter than 80-85. I really wouldn't call that level of heat uncomfortable for a leisurely bike ride (a vigorous ride is different). You'll probably need to shower after any appreciable ride at that temperature, but if we're defining "reasonable comfort" as "not needing to shower after the ride" then that pretty much limits bike commuting to temperatures under 65 degrees and distances under a couple of miles.

Likewise for ~4mths it's too cold in the northern central/NE US.

There certainly will be days where it is too cold/snowy/icy to commute via bike in the winter in northern cities, but unless you define "too cold" as "you'll need to wear a jacket, hat and gloves" then this isn't right either.

As the other commentor noted, there are no EXTRA showers involved. Why would you get up and shower in the AM when you're going to bike to work?

Plus, showering at a building's facilities is usually more efficient than at home because (1) you are heating the water with a more efficient commercial furnance, and (2) if you are like me, you usually shower more quickly because a public shower isn't a particularly pleasant environment.

I think what is really needed get more bikes on the road is dedicated bike lanes/paths. It takes a certain kind of temperment to bike on busy streets. Only a small subset are going othave it. Mixing cars and bikes is not a really good idea. The angst between the two factions is a sign of this.

About northern climates. It's not just the cold, it's the road surface. You can bike on packed snow ok but ice is another thing. Plus there are the big hills of snow pushed to the side of the road by plows. These can take up half the street. Another thing is ruts. Snow gets packed down and turns into rock hard ruts.

I live in madison and there are a fair number of dedicated bikers in the winter, but I think they are crazy. Especially on busy streets. One slip, your under the truck, smoosh.

Joe: "Plus, showering at a building's facilities is usually more efficient." Wait a minute, what facilities?

Wait a minute, what facilities?

This is the big thing. Offices have to provide showers. Perhaps I've been lucky, because every building I've worked in (from a 57 story tower in Chicago to a four floor loft conversion in Denver) has them -- but I know they aren't universal. And paying for a gym membership near the office just so you can shower is ludicrous (and it assumes that there is a gym close enough by to make it work).

The good news is that I think it really is a demand-driven issue. If enough people start biking/running to work, then employers will start providing facilities as a matter of course.

Another factor we need to consider is that more exercise and physical activity would drive up food consumption. Food production (as currently practiced) emmits significant amount of greenhouse gases.

The other day, as I went through a tricky intersection on my bike, a car in a hurry ignored me and sped through the intersection in front of me, nearly sending me to Heaven. Or at least the dirt. As the car passed, the driver looked my way, made a mocking face, and laughed.

"Safer for bikers" will always be a flexible idea.

MS,

At the moment I can't recall where, but I saw someone try to do exactly that sort of calculation (figure out the total supply chain energy and emissions impacts for bikes versus cars per passenger-mile). Bikes still came out far, far ahead. You basically can't beat the basic physics of having a lot less non-passenger mass to move around.

That said, I wonder what would happen if you looked at electric bikes versus purely conventional bikes. The batteries, motor, and extra transmission components on an electric bike will add a little more mass, but it is conceivable to me that with a clean-enough source of electricity available, the electric bike could actually come out ahead in this sort of comparison.

What's the death rate per mile biked versus mile driven? I was told that the death rate per mile on a motorcycle is 35 times higher. Is it similar for bicycles?

One helpful thing would be to crack down on bike thieves.


"...there’s a massive effort afoot to make every American city more bikable..."

Just the right word!

Re: comment about not needing extra shower - of course in the morning you don't need an _extra_ shower, but after the return trip you do. re: DTM' s comment about energy analysis, my admitted narrow point was that while bikes are obviously vastly more efficient on lifecycle costs, on a _short-med._ trip in a hot climate the marginal energy cost including the shower (and to another commenter's point of the energy used to produce food calories for the trip), of the bike might be slightly higher. One could easily show that even for a >4mi trip the car uses way more energy since you heated the few gallons of engine coolant to 200-300F, let alone exhaust heat etc.

My general point is that it sounds great to get everybody on a bike or public transit and spend a lot of dough to build out the bike lane / public transit infrastructure. But in many climates that is just not a realistic option for most people who can afford to drive, e.g. I would bet that even at $6-7/gal gas a large minority of people might be game for a hypothetical 5-10mi. morning bike/transit commute at 70-85F, but the 95-105F late afternoon commute is still just not worth it. What I'm suggesting is that we need to focus limited public funds on the most broadly viable, largest EROEI and ROI options, on a climate appropriate basis.

To me that means for the southern US build out transit/bikelanes in urban cores or newly created planned high density development, and don't waste the money elsewhere, since it's just not viable practically or economically to do so. The inference one could draw is that southern US sprawl cities will hit their breaking point earlier than northern cities as car commuting costs get quite high, since there aren't good alternative solutions.

Per DTM comment about full or assist electric bikes, I agree they would come out ahead since they'd eliminate the shower req't.

re:other comments about winter biking, agree you _can_ do it, but most people just aren't up for a before 7am morning bike ride at less than 30-40oF. Again, given $6-7 gas, would most people pay $10-20/day (cost of a typical commute at that gas price) to avoid that? Yes. Winter public transit on the other hand is quite reasonable/practical.

What's the death rate per mile biked versus mile driven?

The standard index is deaths per 100million vehicle-km, and for bikes it's 5.74 in the US vs 0.9 driving. So, about six times higher, and way up the scale by comparison with other countries, but motorbike riders are always much further up .

There's a genuine catch-22 here: the safest countries to cycle don't have helmet laws (or widespread helmet use) and for better or worse, that encourages the idea that cycling is safe. You can't ask American cyclists to put their personal safety at risk to change that perception, but it's hard to get the alternative -- infrastructure that improves safety -- without a constituency of non-bike-culture cyclists to use it.

Mr. Sailer -

The death rate on motorcycles is artificially skewed by those few who choose to jump over buses on their way to work.

A comparison of deaths per kilometer can be misleading. If the point of the comparison is to decide whether one takes an unacceptable safety risk by switching from a car to a bike, then the only trips that count are those where the two modes of transportation compete. The statistics for cars include lots of long-distance highway travel where accidents per km are low. In a broader sense, when you decide to bike more it affects your choice of destinations. You don't just make the same trips by bike you would have made by car -- you often think in terms of travel time rather than travel distance. In other words, everyone has some idea of how much time he's willing to spend getting to dinner/a movie/a concert/the grocery store. If you prefer biking, you tend to reduce how far you'll go, visiting some distant destinations less often, instead of just increasing how much time you're willing to spend in transit. So it is almost as relevant to think in terms of deaths per million hours as per million km, and bikes do better by that standard.

When bikes are rare, nobody expects there to be a bike on the road, which is a very dangerous situation.

Except it's not. I like Paul Turner's idea of looking at accidents/hr in addition to accidents/mile and accidents/rider, but by any measure *bicycling is not very dangerous* You are being as disengenuously hackish as those who say that 'terrorism is the existential threat of our time.'


Comments closed August 01, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.