What if cities had no sidewalks and everyone walked on the road? Or, for urban recreation, they walked on a few scenic trails? What if the occasional street had a three-foot-wide "walking lane" painted on the asphalt, between the moving cars and the parked ones?
Well, for starters, no one would walk much. A hardy few might brave the streets, but most would stop at "walk?! in traffic?!"
Fortunately, this car-head vision is fiction for most pedestrians, but it's not far from nonfiction for bicyclists. Regular bikers are those too brave or foolish to be dissuaded by the prospect of playing chicken with two-ton behemoths. Other, less-ardent cyclists stick to bike paths; they ride for exercise, not transportation. Bike lanes, in communities where they exist, are simply painted beside the horsepower lanes.
People react reasonably: "bike?! in traffic?!" And they don't. "It's not safe" is what the overwhelming majority say when asked why they bike so little. (As it turns out, it's safer than most assume -- on which, more another day.)
So what would cities look like if we provided the infrastructure for safe cycling? What does "bike friendly" actually look like?
Good bicycling infrastructure is something few on this continent have seen. It doesn't mean a "bike route" sign and a white stripe along the arterial. It doesn't mean a meandering trail shared with joggers, strollers, and skaters.
Bike friendly means a complete, continuous, interconnected network of named bicycle roads or "tracks," each marked and lit, each governed by traffic signs and signals of its own. It means a parallel network interlaced with the other urban grids: the transit grid on road or rail; the street grid for cars, trucks, and taxis; and the sidewalk grid for pedestrians. It means separation from those grids: to be useful for everyone from eight year olds to eighty year olds, bikeways on large roads must be physically curbed, fenced, or graded away from both traffic and walkers. (On smaller, neighborhood streets, where bikes and cars do mingle, bike friendly means calming traffic with speed humps, circles, and curb bubbles.)
Picture a street more than half of which is reserved for people on foot, bikes, buses, or rail; on which traffic signals and signs, street design, and landscaping all conspire to treat bicycles as the equals of automobiles. This is what bike friendly -- what Bicycle Respect -- looks like.
Such "complete streets" are common in Denmark, the Netherlands, and other northern European countries. This photo is from Copenhagen, which has more than 200 miles of "bicycle tracks" and another 40 miles planned or under construction. (Photo courtesy of Jayson Antonoff, International Sustainable Solutions. See more photos here.) These tracks, which are typically above street grade and below sidewalk grade, can move six times more people per meter of lane width than motorized lanes of Copenhagen traffic. That's right: because cyclists can travel close together, bike tracks have higher traffic "throughput" than do car lanes. Copenhagen has even synchronized its traffic signals -- for bikers. An average-speed bike commuter going downtown will rarely see a red light.
What does bike friendly look like? It looks like a 60-year old and her granddaughter on two wheelers, getting the green light at each intersection they approach, while drivers brake to stay out of their way.
What does bike friendly look like? Watch this video to see. Though it's Big Apple-centric, it includes footage of physically separated bike lanes from around the world. (Note: The eight-minute video buffers slowly; you may want to start it loading in another browser window and return to it after you finish reading. The image below is not a live link.)
(Aside: If you're part of the YouTube generation and want to see more video of bike-friendly cities, there is plenty to choose from. The best I've found online are Copenhagen - City of Cyclists made by the city government and Amsterdam: The Bicycling Capital of Europe made by Cascadia's own Dan Kaufman of Portland.)
Compared to these two-wheeled meccas, how bike friendly are Cascadia's cities?
They're not. Even leading cycling cities such as Corvallis and Eugene lack continuous, interconnected grids of physically separated bikeways. It's true, Corvallis has painted bike lanes on almost all its arterials. Eugene has 33 miles of separate bike paths, and it lights many of them at night. But they're more of a recreational resource than a transportation network, because they don't form a grid. These towns are North American models, but they're still a long way from bike friendly. You wouldn't send your eight year old to school or soccer practice on these bike lanes.
The big Cascadian metro areas all lag these smaller cities, though they're above average, by North American standards. Among them, Portland and Vancouver have invested more aggressively in bicycle infrastructure than has greater Seattle. And both are exploring new forms of bikeways to attract new riders, such as converting neighborhood streets into calmed, "bicycle boulevards" or greenways.
Vancouver, BC, is the cycling-est big city in the Northwest, and the City of Vancouver has been inserting bike routes into its urban grid at a pace of one mile every two months for almost two decades. It has emphasized waterfront bike paths and calmed, side-street bike lanes. (See, for example, this report [large pdf], especially pages 37-44.) The greater Vancouver area boasts an impressive 1,500 miles of designated bike routes, but most of them are just white lines in traffic.
The City of Portland has expanded its bikeways fast in recent decades, as shown in this animated map of bike routes over time. (Static maps [large pdf] courtesy of City of Portland, Office of Transportation. Thanks to Clark for animating.) It's also shown in the chart below. The city has added them at a pace approaching one mile a month since 1980, outstripping even Vancouver. In fact, with 277 miles installed in Portland, the Rose City now claims more bikeway miles than Copenhagen.
The City of Seattle reports 67 miles of bike paths and lanes, plus another 90 miles of signed bike routes -- a fraction of Portland's network. The greater Seattle area has about 470 miles of paths and bike lanes, which is one third the total in greater Vancouver, a smaller, more-densely settled metropolis. The emphasis in the Puget Sound region, according to the Cascade Bicycle Club (large pdf), has been on building recreational paths shared by bikers and pedestrians, not building transportation infrastructure for human-powered travel. Tacoma is especially ill-fitted for bicycling at present, as the News Tribune recently reported.
Of course, raw numbers of bikeway miles are difficult to interpret. Researchers John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (pdf) adjusted reported bikeway length for population size in various North American cities, determining that Portland has 38 bikeway miles for every 100,000 residents, while Vancouver, BC, has 18 miles and Seattle has 9 miles. But these figures conceal as much as they reveal: a low value may reflect either fewer bikeways (for example, in Seattle) or higher population density (for example, in Vancouver).
Moreover, the quality of biking infrastructure matters as much as the quantity. Slapping a "bike route" sign on a road may qualify it for a city's registry but doesn't help cyclists much. Conversely, traffic calming on residential streets may make entire neighborhoods bike friendly without adding a mile to the bikeway count. Portland claims to have more miles of bikeways (277) than Copenhagen (204). But two-thirds of Portland's are white lines on the pavement, while Copenhagen has an integrated, continuous network of physically separated bike tracks. Consequently, Copenhagen's bike "mode split" -- the share of all trips taken by bike--is ten times higher than Portland's.
Cascadia is no novice at building bike-friendly cities, but we may be no more advanced at the art than apprentices. Still, our intentions are good. Take, for example, the City of Seattle's Bicycle Master Plan -- an official policy document that's in the final stages of public comment and review. The plan will guide the cyclo-fication of the city over the next decade. If fully implemented, the plan will bump the bikeway count up to 452 miles and put bike lanes on 62 percent of arterial streets -- reaching within a quarter mile of 95 percent of city residents. The plan doesn't envision groundbreaking on northern European-style bike tracks, but it does raise the bar in Cascadia's largest city, setting it on a trajectory to catch up with its neighbors.
The question is, which Cascadian city will push on into the realm of true bike friendliness--of true Bicycle Respect? Doing so may not be politically easy, because in most cities, it will require taking street space away from cars and trucks and converting it to separated bikeways. The benefits will be immense and immediate, because bicycles are clean, healthful, democratic, fun, and affordable for all classes.
But who will lead the way?
Until some city does, until we can see "bike-friendly" right here in Cascadia, most northwesterners will continue to say, "bike?! in traffic?!"
(Thanks to Deric Gruen, who did research for this series.)
Learning how to count to 350
More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar
Comments
View as Threaded
BruceMcF Posted 6:25 am
19 May 2007
However, there is another class of potential road users that, unlike bikes, are legally required to stick to 35mph or slower roads ... owners of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles.
Now, these are rarer than hens teeth now, in most parts of the country, but if gasoline prices spike, don't be surprised to see them start popping up.
And if they do, cyclists should grab the opportunity to make common cause with them for a usable grid of 35mph "share the road" streets.
Virtually Yours, BruceMcF
Energize America 2020
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:10 am
19 May 2007
When I was thirteen my friends and I used to ride our bikes on the shoulder of Southern State Parkway (!) and dodge cars on the Sunrise Highway get out from Queens to Long Island.
That was crazy stuff -- but I guess we were fearless....
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:11 pm
19 May 2007
Now, these are rarer than hens teeth now, in most parts of the country, but if gasoline prices spike, don't be surprised to see them start popping up.
Why would anyone want to drive a wimpy electric car when they could drive legit electric car.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png
http://greyflcn.blogspot.com/2007/04/affordable-electric- ...
http://greyfalcon.net/tesla
http://greyfalcon.net/truck
http://greyfalcon.net/zap
Permalink
BruceMcF Posted 12:31 am
20 May 2007
Typically because the wimpy NEV's are more affordable ... indeed, there are a few retirement oriented cities in the US where golf cart paths have been put in place to allow getting from one place to another, and they are even wimpier than NEV's.
When gas prices get into the $5-$10 range, we will see far more people wanting to drive wimpy cars of all sorts as opposed to gas guzzling SUV's.
And remember that the cost of a used highway speed EV past a certain vintage will be higher than the cost of a used gasoline power car of the same vintage, even when they become available, because of the battery replacement cost.
However, the main enabling factor for NEV's is development of energy efficient longer distance travel, such as electric trains. See High Speed Rail: The Recruiters for more.
Virtually Yours, BruceMcF
Energize America 2020
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:48 am
20 May 2007
because of the battery replacement cost.
Current battery technology allows them to operate for over 40 years.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/07/autobloggreen-qan ...
The car would fall apart before the battery would need to be replaced.
And by the time you would need to replace less advanced battery packs (say 10 years), the replacement cost of those batteries would be relatively tiny. Since economies of scale would have dramatically reduced the price.
And considering the near lack maintainence needed for an electric car, all you would need to do is pop in another Duracell, and be on your way.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:51 am
20 May 2007
Meanwhile, the sociology of biking here on the island Manhattan ("Smoke on your pipe and put that in!") deserves serious study. Mostly we observe that the people who ride bikes amidst fast-moving traffic are young men who do not quite get it that everyone else believes their lives are not worth much: messengers, and delivery people, the latter especially being immigrants from China and Latin America.
But in fact, there is no reason why the numerous residents of uptown neighborhoods who commute to work daily in midtown offices could not be encouraged more sincerely and enthusiastically to do the commute on bicycle.
And of course there is every reason to make the lives of messengers and delivery people easier. They thrive, economically, in fact, because vehicle traffic is so impossibly tangled.
On another matter: Copenhagen and Amsterdam may be swell places, but they are hardly the only cities in Europe in which bike-riding is commonplace. As I wrote on another thread, there are numerous places in southern Europe where bike-riding is a frequent and normal method of transportation.
Copenhagen and Amsterdam may indeed have the most admirable bike-friendly traffic laws thus far. And it makes sense for all you guys in the small to medium-sized cities of "Cascadia" to pay attention and learn. But we in NYC need to study how the bike-rental program in Paris works out.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
BruceMcF Posted 6:41 am
20 May 2007
12 to 15 years is about the vintage of car that my son has been buying.
And we cannot rely on massive economies of scale to apply equally to all technologies ... there will certainly be learning curve economies, both in the production itself and in the supply chain, but battery production is not the kind of activity that has the massive economies of scale of, say, steelmaking or petroleum refining.
A NEV is, like any neighborhood vehicle (the Federal Highway Safety Administration makes no reference to source of drive power in the neighborhood vehicle definition) cheaper all around ... cheaper in the body, cheaper in the drive train, and cheaper to run. That's true whether the neighborhood vehicle is electric, gas or diesel. The battery cost is just a cost element that tends to stand out with EV's.
Virtually Yours, BruceMcF
Energize America 2020
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:26 pm
20 May 2007
Sure it is.
Lead Acid and Alkaline Batteries are huge.
Big thing with batteries is that they are capital intensive. However once you have your facility, practically the whole production process is automated.
Batteries historically scale really well with economies of scale.
Same way you can now fit a businesscard calculator in your wallet that is more sophistocated than the computers that used to take up whole buildings.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 7:42 pm
20 May 2007
Relatively few Europeans live 15 to 50 miles from their place of employment. A 40 minute commute to work is common (if not the norm) in much of the US. In Europe, the most desirable neighborhoods tend to be the closest to city centers. Its the opposite here. Suburban commuter services -- park and ride bus and trains -- add significantly to commute time. Few people are willing to add 20 minutes each way to work. Furthermore, many employers require schedule flexibility (staying late, coming in early, etc) that commuter services cannot easily accomodate.
Moving back to the city is no solution for many. Places of employment have increasingly moved away from the cities. Corn fields have sprouted lots of "industrial parks" next to major highways outside cities in the Midwest in the last few decades. The best paying jobs (white and blue collar) have moved, and now everybody must commute -- not just those in the suburbs.
Improving urban transportation is nice, and changing public attitudes toward private vehicles is wonderful, but our culture and supporting infrastructure, housing patterns, and manufacturing centers are thoroughly based on the culture of cars.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:14 am
21 May 2007
I don't want to talk people onto bikes with a false sense of security. If they are afraid to ride in traffic, they probably shouldn't ride in traffic. That is why we need more trails.
We also need the city to step up and put bikers on a pedestal with laws skewed to protect the ones at risk (bikers) like some countries have.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
willa Posted 2:37 am
22 May 2007
We should still have more bike paths, clearly, but in the meantime, if you ride a bike, don't act like a complete asshat, 'k?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:50 am
22 May 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Zeth Posted 3:00 am
22 May 2007
Portland has more bike lanes than Seattle, hands down. This does not, however, make drivers any more careful. My first month in Portland I was mowed over WHILST IN THE BIKE LANE. There is only so much you can do to avoid being hit. Drivers have to take some responsibility.
Seattle's Burke Gilman trail is a marvel because it goes where people need it to go. The number of commuters that move along the Burke highlight the difference between a recreational bike-trail and a commuter bike-trail. It really ought to be extended as soon as possible.
Portland has an incredible number of bicycle racks, which in my opinion may be what makes it truly bike-friendly. I can always find somewhere to park my ride. Waiters are also famously tolerant of folk showing up with helmets strapped to their bags and bike-gloves on, so props.
As far as I'm concerned, bikes have no right and no right of way on busy sidewalks. I drive my boyfriend crazy by insisting that he get his ass back on the road, but by having a right to the road, bikers forfeit their right to the sidewalk. Sorry, dudes.
In the end, it only works if there is a mutual contract. When I was in England, I was floored by how many riders didn't wear helmets. On the other hand, I didn't know anyone who has ever been hit. I've been hit three times in eight years in the States. Bikers have to wear a helmet, ride responsibly, and stay off of the sidewalk. Drivers have to get down off of their expensive, smoggy high-horsepower thrones(I'll admit to a chip on my shoulder) and check their blind spots.
Oh yeah - and I'm really tired of hearing, "Get off the road, bitch!" I've heard it before. It's no longer shocking.
Permalink
mrstephengross Posted 4:34 am
22 May 2007
Certainly anyone who has biked on roads knows there is a significant difference between a "share the road" sign and a separated bike path. It's really exciting to see pictures of European cities that have fully separated (by grade, too!) their bike paths.
How do they handle negotiating intersections? And is there real enforcement of traffic laws for bikes?
Thanks,
--Steve
Stephen Gross
Minneapolis, MN
http://grossreport.blogspot.com
Permalink
Montanaebiker Posted 4:49 am
22 May 2007
And it's the same thing with mutual respect on the road or trails...everyone should have to see what it's like being a horseback rider and having a bike whiz by you and upset your horse, or being on a bike and having a car pass you on a tight corner (when there's a big straight stretch coming up...). You really learn to slow down a bit and give other users some space!
Here in MT, on trails (I'm talking about dirt, in the woods type trails) bikers yeild to everyone - walkers and horseback riders. And I make sure to practice this every time when I'm biking because that mutual respect is what keeps our trails friendly for all users.
It's much much different when you're a biker on the road, of course. But the lessons of respect still apply - if you're on a bike and going slow - pull out so a car can pass. And if you're in a car and approaching a biker, have a teeny bit of patience and wait until it's very clear that you can pass easily without endangering the biker's life!
Permalink
Savemobile Posted 8:51 am
22 May 2007
- Savemobile.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:56 pm
25 May 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink