Urban planning -- bicycle commuting
August 17th 2010 11:20
According to the Associated Press “Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is the new champion of cyclists' rights in the nation's second-largest city, a conversion that came after a bone-breaking fall from his own bicycle.” The Mayor of Los Angeles was riding his own bike when a parked taxi pulled out across the bike lane, causing the Mayor to fall and injure his elbow. Since then, he has become a strong advocate of bicycles and bicycle commuting, and has proposed creating a $3.2 million fund for improving bike conditions over 1,663 miles of bikeways. It’s a good idea, but not without challenges. The transportation needs of a modern metropolis call for a mixture of technologies, and making them fit can be difficult.
The benefits of increased bicycle commuting are obvious. Bicycles don’t pollute, and run on a renewable fuel source. Regular exercise has great health benefits, and reduces the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and even dementia. Street congestion is reduced so that cyclists speed up travel for cars and trucks, and reduce demand for parking spaces. On a larger scale, reduced demand for fossil fuels may reduce prices. Probably every mayor in the United States has looked at the pictures of thousands of Chinese workers commuting by bike and wondered if that could be applied here. The benefits of bicycling are so obvious that Mayors may overlook the drawbacks. To its credit, Los Angeles is working to develop a program integrating increased bicycle use with existing public transportation services, but this may be more difficult than it seems.
The most obvious consideration is the impact on public transportation. Bicycle commuters are, for the most part, fair weather friends. When there is precipitation, all but a few cyclists turn to buses and rail services, so that the spike in peak demand is greater than it would otherwise be, while the routine fare income is reduced. With better bicycle facilities, bicycle lanes and bike racks at key locations, bus and rail ridership would drop on nice days, but jump dramatically with rain, or even in midwinter when there’s less daylight, regardless of the weather conditions. If public transportation has to accommodate peak demand without the income from regular commuters, increasing bicycle use may not be cost effective.
Road maintenance costs might actually increase rather than decrease. Unlike motor vehicles, bicycles cause little or no damage to road surfaces, but the bikes require smoother surfaces than do cars and trucks, and with cars and trucks cutting across bike lanes, pothole repair may become more of a problem. Road bikes, lightweight bikes designed for speed and distance travel, are particularly susceptible to uneven streets and roadways. These bikes, with narrow tires and no springs, may be the best choice for commuting, but only if the streets are maintained, and potholes are filled promptly and carefully. On uneven streets, riders might opt for cruiser bikes (like the heavyweight single-speed bikes popular in the 1950s) or comfort bikes (modern bikes, with 2" tires and lots of springs. While cruisers and comfort bikes can handle uneven roadways, their extra weight limits both speed and distance.
The biggest challenge cities face in promoting bicycle commuting is integrating bicycles with automobiles and trucks, and for the moment, the biggest part of that may be the rise of hybrid and electric vehicles. Hybrids and electric cars fulfill some of the same social goals as bicycles – reduced dependence on fossil fuels and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, they’re also nearly silent, posing a hazard for the cyclist who depends on the sound of an oncoming car as a warning. The road bike, the best bicycle for long commutes, is at the greatest risk because the forward leaning rider is least able to look around to check traffic, and the faster rider is less able to stop abruptly.
The final problem is the attitude of drivers. The web site of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition recounts this incident: “... the evening of April 23, the driver of a Hummer maneuvered the sport utility vehicle into a group of about a dozen cyclists, injuring one and destroying several bicycles. In this incident, the motorist was clearly at fault, and should be held responsible for personal injury and property damage. There were numerous witnesses at the scene and plenty of evidence of the driver¹s misconduct. However, a responding LAPD officer apparently sympathized with the SUV¹s driver and passengers, and let them drive away without pressing charges.”
The benefits of increased bicycle commuting are obvious. Bicycles don’t pollute, and run on a renewable fuel source. Regular exercise has great health benefits, and reduces the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and even dementia. Street congestion is reduced so that cyclists speed up travel for cars and trucks, and reduce demand for parking spaces. On a larger scale, reduced demand for fossil fuels may reduce prices. Probably every mayor in the United States has looked at the pictures of thousands of Chinese workers commuting by bike and wondered if that could be applied here. The benefits of bicycling are so obvious that Mayors may overlook the drawbacks. To its credit, Los Angeles is working to develop a program integrating increased bicycle use with existing public transportation services, but this may be more difficult than it seems.
The most obvious consideration is the impact on public transportation. Bicycle commuters are, for the most part, fair weather friends. When there is precipitation, all but a few cyclists turn to buses and rail services, so that the spike in peak demand is greater than it would otherwise be, while the routine fare income is reduced. With better bicycle facilities, bicycle lanes and bike racks at key locations, bus and rail ridership would drop on nice days, but jump dramatically with rain, or even in midwinter when there’s less daylight, regardless of the weather conditions. If public transportation has to accommodate peak demand without the income from regular commuters, increasing bicycle use may not be cost effective.
Road maintenance costs might actually increase rather than decrease. Unlike motor vehicles, bicycles cause little or no damage to road surfaces, but the bikes require smoother surfaces than do cars and trucks, and with cars and trucks cutting across bike lanes, pothole repair may become more of a problem. Road bikes, lightweight bikes designed for speed and distance travel, are particularly susceptible to uneven streets and roadways. These bikes, with narrow tires and no springs, may be the best choice for commuting, but only if the streets are maintained, and potholes are filled promptly and carefully. On uneven streets, riders might opt for cruiser bikes (like the heavyweight single-speed bikes popular in the 1950s) or comfort bikes (modern bikes, with 2" tires and lots of springs. While cruisers and comfort bikes can handle uneven roadways, their extra weight limits both speed and distance.
The biggest challenge cities face in promoting bicycle commuting is integrating bicycles with automobiles and trucks, and for the moment, the biggest part of that may be the rise of hybrid and electric vehicles. Hybrids and electric cars fulfill some of the same social goals as bicycles – reduced dependence on fossil fuels and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, they’re also nearly silent, posing a hazard for the cyclist who depends on the sound of an oncoming car as a warning. The road bike, the best bicycle for long commutes, is at the greatest risk because the forward leaning rider is least able to look around to check traffic, and the faster rider is less able to stop abruptly.
The final problem is the attitude of drivers. The web site of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition recounts this incident: “... the evening of April 23, the driver of a Hummer maneuvered the sport utility vehicle into a group of about a dozen cyclists, injuring one and destroying several bicycles. In this incident, the motorist was clearly at fault, and should be held responsible for personal injury and property damage. There were numerous witnesses at the scene and plenty of evidence of the driver¹s misconduct. However, a responding LAPD officer apparently sympathized with the SUV¹s driver and passengers, and let them drive away without pressing charges.”
| 85 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
