Opposing Bike Lanes Is a Lost Cause. Deal With It.
It’s that time of year, I suppose, when naysayers and climate nihilists unite to declare San Diego’s bike lanes to be the work of the devil.
It’s amazing how much of the local media falls for their fact and/or context-free tales of woe year after year. This is just lazy journalism.
Among the local media running stories framing bike lanes in a negative fashion in June were: San Diego Union Tribune, CBS8, KUSI, NBCSan Diego, KPBS, and the OBRag. It’s an easy thing to do when all you focus on is a few blocks of asphalt.
To be fair, NBC and KPBS have attempted to inject some balance in the stories rather than taking statements made by car advocates at face value.
NBC even ran a story about changing attitudes on the part of some small business owners:
Some of the businesses that disliked giving up parking spots for bike lanes are now catering directly to cyclists.
“You have to adapt and change and move forward,” said Hale, whose brewery is already a cyclists-themed business.
However, other breweries offer cyclists discounts. Some restaurants offer special packaging for cyclists. Others have requested bike racks be installed of their businesses.
“Just like how people cater to people with dogs, they’re starting to cater more and more to cyclists,” said Blackfelner.
KUSI-TV News and the OBRag, generally thought of as polar opposites politically, are the absolute worst of the bunch. If KUSI’s predictive stories had turned out to be true, North Park retail would be all boarded up by now. And the OBRag blames evil developers backing Circulate San Diego as the impetus for changes in traffic patterns accommodating vehicles other than cars.
If there’s valid criticism of cities implementing bike lane routes, it’s that areas that are gentrifying are prioritized, rather than areas underserved by non-automotive transportation. Bike infrastructure is just one of many amenities prioritized for wealthier neighborhoods; La Jolla gets nicer parks than Logan Heights, etc, etc.
This year a new wrinkle has been added to the cavalcade of negative news stories, namely that bike lanes are actually more dangerous for cyclists. The traditional canards about government not informing the public in advance, OMG where will we park!, and the looming destruction of small businesses are still in circulation.
Excuses are for losers, and all of the above justifications are either untrue (bike planning has been going on since 2013) or lack context. The issue about parking is really whether or not people will walk a block or two farther. Small businesses come and go with amazing regularity, and those that don’t make it often have owners willing to blame anybody but themselves.
Local politicians do the public no favors when they use rider safety as the primary justification when streets are repurposed for multiple modes of transportation. Getting cars to slow down (calming effect) and building neighborhood identity are serious quality of life issues. They need to say it out loud: our streets need to serve everyone.
The way people drive in car-centric streets these days is just insane. I’m not sure if it’s a side effect of the pandemic or whatever. I just know that more than ever stop lights and other signage are now apparently considered optional by too many people.
And, yes, we have one car. I am disabled so bike riding isn’t an option. I can (and do) walk to businesses in University Heights and North Park when my health permits.
Then there are the larger questions, namely the dominance and dangers of the automobile as the primary means of transportation in an era where the clock is ticking down on the future devastating effects of climate change.
Yes, one bike lane on 30th Street won’t make much of a difference. But an area wide network of a couple thousand miles of bike - friendly routes is a necessary prerequisite for increasing ridership.
Bike ridership is just part of a larger solution, one that SANDAG is currently politically unable to address. None-the-less, repurposing traffic patterns is one achievable goal. And I’m not willing to throw up my hands and give up.
Planning for a more bicycle friendly region addresses complex and interrelated issues, including, traffic congestion, air quality, climate change, public health, and livability. Creation of a substantial regional bicycle network can affect all of these issues, along with improving existing and future quality of life in the region.
Nationally cities have and are adopting programs to improve biking infrastructure. The Urban Institute studied 13 cities nationwide, finding that those cities increasingly focused on cycling investments on infrastructure are reaping benefits including improving the economies of surrounding neighborhoods, safety, and expanding ridership.
Despite the benefits of protected bike infrastructure, opposition is common, often because such improvements require cities to remove parking. But those views are typically in the minority. Ultimately, removing parking spots and replacing them with biking infrastructure benefits community health, promotes safety, and provides economic benefits to businesses.
To ensure cycling projects benefit everyone, cities should work to promote equity of access in planning projects by prioritizing investments in communities with more residents of color and families with low incomes.
Washington D.C, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Los Angeles more than doubled their city bike lanes from 2000 to 2017, while New York and Seattle more than tripled theirs.
Bike lanes are not just a thing for Mayor Todd Gloria and some commie-leaning developers. Localities worldwide are re-purposing transportation corridors to include cyclists, pedestrians, and transit. Like it or not, these measures are considered good governance by city planners.
As a country, the US is lagging way behind Europe, where the movement to make cities less car-centric has been going on for 50 years. There are lessons to be learned there along with instances where government policies in this area would be unworkable in many domestic cities.
You have to admire Paris, which used to be a twenty four hour a day traffic jam. In 2024 most personal vehicles will be banned from the city’s center, the culmination of a decade-long effort that’s reduced pollution and improved the quality of life.
From euronews:
In northern Spain, the city of Pontevedra banned cars from its 300,000 square metre medieval centre in the early 2000s, and its people have reaped the economic, social and health benefits ever since. CO2 emissions are down by 70 per cent, and central Pontevedra has attracted some 12,000 new inhabitants.
Things that first appeared unpopular have quickly won people over too. When Stockholm first introduced congestion charging in 2006 it faced fierce opposition, with around seven out of ten people against it. Five years later, the figures have switched to show majority support for the scheme.
Strasbourg in France was the first city to use an ‘intelligent traffic management system’, reducing the number of stop-and-go waves along its roads. This cut dawdling vehicle emissions of harmful nitrogen oxide and particulates by 8 per cent and 9 per cent respectively.
The introduction of ebikes in the US will, I predict, spur ridership, as many of the people-powered cycle’s limitations like hills and packages are eliminated for a relatively low cost.
A few links:
USA Streetsblog: A 13-year study of a dozen cities found that protected bike lanes led to a drastic decline in fatalities for all users of the road.
SDBikeCoalition: Refuting the claim that planning for bike infrastructure on 30th Street was somehow kept secret from the public.
ScholarAdvisor: Bicycle Use Helps Reduce Air Pollution
Mobility Lab: Bottom line: Protected bike lanes boost business
Car and Driver: The Ride into Our Electric Future Will Be Led by Bikes
Union Tribune: Are Bike Lanes Bad for Business?
SANDAG: San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan
City of San Diego: Bicycle Master Plan
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com
Lead image via SANDAG