The Right Wing and bike lanes

Here in a few short paragraphs we see the Right’s view of the future:  nothing will ever change.  We’ll always have cars and trucks, and they will always need to have priority.  Biking is for a tiny segment of elitists. Biking is but a mere “value” (as opposed to a real response to oil shock).

Drivers are the real, true Americans, dammit. Bikers are just one more set of enemies for these people, along with environmentalists, social service providers, and equality fanatics.


A Subsidy for the Few

Sam Staley is the director of urban and land use policy at Reason Foundation and the co-author of “Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive 21st Century.”

I may be dreaming but maybe, just maybe, the current controversies over bike lanes in New York City might drive some rational discourse over the proper uses and limits of bicycling as an alternative transportation mode in US big cities. This would be a rare occurrence in the US because passions tend to dominate the debate, with ideologically driven pro-bikers shouting over indignant and inconvenienced drivers, commercial haulers and small neighborhood businesses that lose entire segments of their market because of bike lane restrictions.

The hard, cold December reality of bike lanes in U.S. cities is that they will inevitably be a small part, even tiny part in most cases, of America’s solution to congestion and mobility. Bike networks represent concentrated, subsidized benefits for a small portion of the commuting public.

Oddly enough, New York City officials don’t have a ready numbers on bike commuting mode share. Instead, they rely on overall counts (see the press release from the New York Department of Transportation here), a misleading statistic since the investment in bike lanes is based in large part on the belief that an expanded network will shift significant shares of commuters out of their cars (and perhaps even buses) to relieve congestion, reduce air pollution, and lower carbon dioxide emissions. That doesn’t appear to be happening in New York.

In this respect, New York City is more typical of what we can expect in the rest of the nation. Despite adding 400 miles of dedicated bike lanes, the response from most New York commuters has been tepid at best. A small fraction of commuters or travelers who already use public transit or drive switch to biking, and many of the existing bike commuters still prefer the non-striped routes and avenues. Regular bike commuters are a hardy bunch, and those committed few have often already overcome the psychological and practical hurdles necessary to integrate their preferred transportation mode into their lifestyle.

All this is not to say that dedicated bike lanes are a complete waste of time and resources. Rather, it suggests that programs need to be strategically focused and recognize bike travel for the seasonally limited, commuting niche it is rather than a broad-based travel alternative advocates want it to be. These programs also need to be rigorously evaluated to make sure their intended benefits materialize with measurable benchmarks to monitor progress.

Getting bike acceptance levels up to those of models like Amsterdam and Copenhagen takes more than striping lanes. It takes a focused anti-car policy that dramatically increases the costs of using automobiles. At this point, New York City’s experiment appears to demonstrate more the objective limits of a pro-bike strategy than a ringing endorsement of a major shift in urban transportation policy.



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “The Right Wing and bike lanes

  1. Aaron German

    I haven’t done enough research to know if the following is correct or not, but maybe Mr. Staley makes a good point when he writes:

    “Getting bike acceptance levels up to those of models like Amsterdam and Copenhagen takes more than striping lanes. It takes a focused anti-car policy that dramatically increases the costs of using automobiles.”

    • I think when Staley writes about an “anti-car policy” that “dramatically increases” the costs of cars, that he’s saying that should never happen here. He’s a right winger who beleives in American “values,” which biking doesn’t fit in his world.

      Now, I think you may be saying that increasing the costs of driving to reflect the true external costs is one way to increase biking, and that is indeed a good idea. We greatly subsidize, as well as dramatically ignore, the real costs associated with cars, thus giving driving the appearance that using automibles is inexpensive.

      Bikes are perhaps the best form of transporation that humankind has ever invented. It would be better for our present and future if we redesigned our cities to reflect that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s