Bike Path to Nowhere
Source: www.streetsblog.net
Even casual observers of transportation policy have noticed DOT’s emphasis on livability and, by extension, their fascination with “active transportation’ (aka biking and walking). Livability is a worthy goal for all communities and, though it is still a somewhat ill-defined policy concept, biking and bike paths are certainly key components.
In an effort to make Washington, DC more livable, the Mayor and Federal policymakers decided to put a bike path down the center of Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to the Capitol with no connections at either end. For those who do not frequent that area, this is not a typical bike path. Instead of narrow lanes down the curb side of the roadway, this bike “path” is a full three auto lanes wide going right down the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue. Yes, approximately one-third of the capacity of an already busy street in our nation’s capital was taken to serve a handful of cyclists. The result has been increased congestion, increased emissions, long rush hour delays, and the ire of many DC visitors, cabbies, workers, and residents. This is not a very livable result for any but the cyclists and, in apparent reaction to public pressure, DC has just announced that autos will now be able to use the left lanes again. Good for them, and an important lesson for other transportation policy makers.
Now, lest you believe I am anti-bike, I want to assure you this is not the case. Two of my three grown children bicycle regularly in Old Town Alexandria, a nearby Washington suburb. One does not own a car and cycles to work every day. If for no other reason than their safety, I support adequate accommodations for cyclists. That having been said, if cyclists are to be taken as serious members of the transportation community, perhaps it is time that reasonable requirements be placed upon them to insure they can safely interact with other road users and provide the necessary funding to support their projects.
Items that DOT and other transportation policy makers might consider are:
- Training, testing, licensing, and minimum age requirements for cyclists.
- Required insurance coverage to protect cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users.
- Minimum equipment standards and safety inspections.
- Mandatory helmet laws.
- Bike path user fees.
- Bicycle and tire excise taxes to fund bike path construction and maintenance
- Enforcement of all traffic laws for cyclists.
For policy makers who support increased use of cycling, failure to consider and provide proper regulatory oversight of new policies – and appropriate funding mechanisms to pay for it all -- is irresponsible and unfair to other road users.
The real issue is not bike paths. It is how do policymakers determine the best use of limited transportation dollars to improve our transportation system while increasing mobility for all Americans? There are many worthy projects, in all modes, that are well worth considering. A bike path to nowhere is not one of them.
Entries (RSS)
Maybe I am going out on a limb here but it isn't necessarily true that adding bike lanes increases car congestion. The last time I crossed the Broadway Bridge here in Portland, I counted 20 bikes lined up at the next traffic light and roughly the same number of cars. We all know that cyclists take up less space than a car or SUV so how much extra time would your car commute take if there were less bikes on the road?
I agree with you that traffic regulations should be enforced for bikes as well as cars. If cyclists want to be treated as equals, we need to act in a respectful way towards other road users.
Testing cyclists for proficiency, safety inspections for bike and mandatory helmets for cyclists might all make cyclists better road users, but they won't protect cyclists from drunk drivers or someone who is distracted fromn driving by applying their makeup or talking on their cell phone.
Here are a couple of suggestions for bike laws, based on the behaviors I have seen on the street:
1. Bikes in the bike lanes have the right of way.
2. Bikes not in the bike lane must yield to autos. This is because as we all can readily observe the two do not mix well. Having ridden a bike to work I always made it a point to stay away from cars. When I drive a car I would like to know that there are clear rules to separate the traffic into their respective abilities; a bike does not behave like a car and vice versa.
I think this article makes the common mistake of picking one example of a project that might have been ill conceived and using that project as justification for somehow regulating a group of people who really had nothing to do with the problem. Cyclists don't want to waste taxpayer funds (we are also taxpayers) any more than business leaders do. Most cyclists understand there are limited funds available and desperately want those funds to be used efficiently.
That said.... it might be advantageous for all road users to work toward improving our transportation system. I think reasonable accomodations for cyclists can be considered a benefit to everyone. If we can increase the amount of people who use bikes as transportation those benefits we all share in would be:
1. Less congestion on our roadways.
2. Reduced fuel prices (demand is lower) and less dependence on foreign oil.
3. Improved health for a nation who pays a staggering cost for obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
Regarding suggested requirements to place on cyclists, believe it or not many requirements already exist:
1. Training/testing/minimum age: In an age where 30% of our children are considered obese, do we really want to prohibit them from something most of them would consider "fun" but also give them exercise?
2. Required Insurance coverage: Do we really think there is a serious problem with "uninsured cyclists" out their injuring motorists and pedestrians? I'm sure it has happened but it has to be so rare as to be not worth the regulatory trouble to set it up.
3. Minimum equipment standards and safety inspections: There are already standards for bikes sold and standards for required lighting if riding at night. As for safety inspections, do we require cars to go through safety inspections?
4. Mandatory helmet laws: Just like for motorcycles, each state has the authority to set their helmet laws based on what their citizens want. But keep in mind, 45,000 people are killed in auto accidents each year and more car drivers would be saved by wearing helmets in their cars than cyclists wearing helmets would. Do you also want to legislate car drivers wearing helmets?
5. Bike path user fees: Costs to run a program like this would likely exceed revenue. Do you really want to build a path and then discourage people from using it?
6. Excise taxes on bikes/equipment: It could raise funds but again, why make it harder to get people into an activity that provides so many benefits to society. We don't try to tax pedestians for using sidewalks.
7. Enforcement of all traffic laws for cyclists: Cyclists are subject to traffic laws no different than auto drivers. And no different than auto drivers (Freeways are full of people exceeding speed limit) some cylists don't follow all traffic laws.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. If more people got out on bikes the world would be a better place.
Randy, I work for Con-way and would like to respond to your article.
I am an avid cyclist and bike commuter. Personally, I’m not against all the bike rules you have proposed, but neither am I in favor of them all. As someone who just had a major crash this last weekend, I have no problem with mandatory helmet laws. And minimum equipment safety standards are also not a terrible idea. But, what you may not be considering is that bicycling is still a very small fraction of the transportation system. It is also one that has great promise for reducing congestion, pollution, global warming and dependence on foreign sources of energy. In other words, increasing bicycle use benefits everyone, whether they bike or not. In that light, I don’t think it is wise to erect too many barriers to increased bicycling. Licensing and taxation would do that.
While bicyclists should obey most traffic laws, there is also a reasonable argument for bikes being exempted from some laws, such as making a complete stop at a stop sign. Idaho has recently passed a law exempting bicyclists for making full stops at stop signs and has actually found that accidents have beed decreased.
A good resource for anyone interested in these issues is the book, Peddling Revolution, by Jeff Mapes or the Oregonian.
My guess about the rationale for a three lane "bike" lane down the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue is that it has little to do with a real interest in biking, but rather was done by politicians trying to curry favor with the public. Or maybe those empty lanes are actually there for security reasons! Throughout a typical day quite a few swiftly moving convoys of big black police escorted SUVs carrying VIPs use Pennsylvania Avenue as a main thoroughfare to and from the Capitol building. Instead of picking on a bike lane in the middle of Washingto D.C. as an anomaly, why not profile one of the many successful bike lane projects that have been implemented in so many other U.S. cities - like Portland, OR.
Just imagine how much freight delivery times would improve if there was a significant reduction in auto traffic because of rising popularity of bike commuting. Auto drivers who won't switch to bikes due to lack of safe bike lanes in our cities are clogging trucking routes all over the country with their cars. The trucking industry needs to do everything it can to encourage non-recreational cycling use of roadways in all our urban areas.
While I agree that this effort by Washington D.C. policy makers was poorly thought out and done, I don't think DOT, or any other transportation policy maker, needs to get involved with bicyclists. We pay enough in taxes already for these types of programs to be executed properly. The issue is, we have become a society where we expect the government to do everything for us . . . that is if it suits our special interest. The cradle to grave mentality our government is becoming scares me more than Iran's and North Korea's quest for nuclear power.
What happened to people being responsible and accountable for their actions? Read the motor vehicle laws. In the states I've lived in, bicyclists must adhere to the same laws as motorists. Motorists need to be more cognizant of what is going on around them rather than texting, putting on makeup or involved in some other distraction. What happened to citing violators on either side? I used to commute 36 miles a day on a bicycle and had my fair share of close calls because a motorist wasn't paying attention. I've also seen bicyclists act as if they own the road rather than sharing as they are required. Drivers should use common courtesy, pay attention to the road and don't talk on the phone or text while driving.
While educating youth on proper operation of a bicycle, in my opinion, is a good thing, what happened to parents teaching their children safe operating procedures. Rather than depending on the government, bring it home where it belongs.
Why is it that every discussion about cycling and transportation comes down to money. If the truth be told, most dyclists own cars and pay the same fees and taxes but choose to leave their cars parked most of the time. Why should I pay twice to use the infrastructure simply because I choose a different mode of transportation? Where do the fees and taxes stop, do we impose a fee for every bike purchased even if it for your six year old to ride around the block? Come on, the cost of tracking and imposing these fees and taxes will far out weigh the benefit. The riding population throughout the country is growing. Washington D.C. has seen an increase in cycling which would explain the addition of bike lanes. With over 1,000 miles of roadways and less the 50 miles of bike lanes I wonder who really should be complaining.
Could the simplest explanation for this frivolous expenditure be that these lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue are meant to be symbolic?