Article: Why biking to work is a barrier for most Americans

[scoot]

@chris_s 112315 wrote:

The Dutch have painted us a proven road map that works and it is separated infrastructure. Not necessarily saying that you can’t make biking normal, safe and expected with out it, but no country has done it yet despite years of trying.

Has any nation genuinely attempted to eliminate traffic deaths without any separated infrastructure?

@chris_s 112315 wrote:

Nothing makes you a more considerate driver than biking in traffic yourself.

+1 on that for sure. I know that I am a much more aware and considerate driver now than I was before I got back into riding a bicycle.

Among the many steps needed to achieve Vision Zero: demonstration of basic competency at bicycling in traffic should be a prerequisite to eligibility for a motor vehicle learner’s permit. And retested every five years or so. For those with a physical disability, a written or simulated test could substitute.

[scoot]

@dasgeh 112326 wrote:

So any cyclist that does something and ends up in the path of a car, even if it’s totally their fault, is more likely to die when the cars are traveling faster.

This is one of the reasons for 3-foot laws. And the required passing distance really should be greater than that for vehicles exceeding 35mph.

@dasgeh 112326 wrote:

Which is why I don’t think we can accept having a 10-year-old bike on a road where cars are traveling 35+ mph is an acceptable “safe” solution, even if drivers magically follow the law to a T.

An important part of following laws to a T is refraining from hitting people. Legally, speed limits are maximum velocities only to be reached under ideal conditions. If any situation causes driving at the speed limit to become dangerous, the driver is obligated to slow down to a safe speed appropriate for conditions. Which can include a bicycle on the road.

I assume you believe that adults have the right to travel such roads by bicycle. Do you think that 10-year-olds should be prohibited, in the absence of a PBL? On the flip side, is it feasible to install a PBL on every road where anyone might ever want to use a bicycle for transportation?

[peterw_diy]

@dasgeh 112326 wrote:

I don’t think we can accept having a 10-year-old bike on a road where cars are traveling 35+ mph

I take issue with this. I have frequently ridden bikes twice that old!

[Drewdane]

I ride on protected routes (WOD to MCT and across the TR Bridge to Foggy Bottom) for close to the entirety of my commute, simply because it happens to be the most convenient route for me. I don’t have any problem with riding in traffic, though. In fact, I kind of enjoy it – I feel like a fish in the stream.

[dasgeh]

@scoot 112335 wrote:

This is one of the reasons for 3-foot laws. And the required passing distance really should be greater than that for vehicles exceeding 35mph.

An important part of following laws to a T is refraining from hitting people. Legally, speed limits are maximum velocities only to be reached under ideal conditions. If any situation causes driving at the speed limit to become dangerous, the driver is obligated to slow down to a safe speed appropriate for conditions. Which can include a bicycle on the road.

I assume you believe that adults have the right to travel such roads by bicycle. Do you think that 10-year-olds should be prohibited, in the absence of a PBL? On the flip side, is it feasible to install a PBL on every road where anyone might ever want to use a bicycle for transportation?

Fair enough, but if you actually achieved a world in which all drivers slowed to appropriate speeds around bicycles, drivers would be the ones lobbying for separated infrastructure where they could speed along without worrying about pedestrians and cyclists. In fact, they have that already in interstates, but they would likely lobby for even more – a network through each city that cars could use to zip around. Practically, you don’t have to ban bikes from the high speed routes, just make them unattractive to bikes, which they would be if there were a separated alternative.

So what’s faster: build separated infrastructure such that everyone can get where they want to go on either separated or safe/neighborhood streets, or change all of driver behavior, wait for enough people to realize that driver behavior really has changed enough so they feel comfortable biking, have lots of bikes slowing down high speed roads, then let the drivers lobby for routes that encourage cyclists to stay off higher speed roads? I’m pretty sure it’s the former.

And no, I wouldn’t ban something where the risks are obvious and the data actually suggests is pretty safe. Think about all the things that are safe enough to not be illegal, but unsafe enough that we, as a society, keep looking for ways to make them safer.

[scoot]

Thank you for your responses and for engaging me in this discussion (which I am re-entering belatedly). I believe that the answer to your question will depend on how the problem is scoped geographically.

In the case of Arlington, we have a community that is already a wonderful place to get around by bicycle. That’s one major reason that I chose to move here. We have a network of trails along with a highly connected street grid, typical of urban design, that keeps traffic speeds low and provides numerous route options for most origin-destination pairs. The few roads that do facilitate high-speed traffic (e.g. Route 50) can be avoided entirely. So how to make Arlington even better? Studies have shown that increasing the number of riders is the best way to improve safety for all. And the evidence certainly suggests that, of all the approaches to increasing mode share, separated infrastructure will be the most effective in the short term. Thus it’s quite logical for Arlington to invest in separated infrastructure.

The suburbs are an entirely different beast, however. Not far from here there are a lot of roads that posses a rural character (single lane each direction, speed limits 35+) but carry suburban traffic loads. Some examples: Georgetown Pike, Old Dominion Drive, Clifton Rd, Hunter Mill Rd, Hooes Rd, Prosperity Ave, Cedar Lane (south of Vienna), etc. Lorton Road west of I-95, presently similar to the others, is getting a major expansion including bike lanes and sidepaths, but most of these roads don’t have room for sidewalks, let alone separated bike lanes. It would not be economical to build separate bicycle infrastructure along these and all similar roads. Compounding the problem: use of these roads is a necessity for anyone seeking to traverse these areas. In many places, there are no alternatives. If these roads are not safe to ride, that’s an awful lot of residences, businesses, etc. that are completely shut out from transportation cycling.

So I see reforming driver behavior (however difficult that may be) as the only approach that universally solves the problem, while I see separated infrastructure as a stopgap measure (that can relieve many of the symptoms without actually addressing the underlying problem). Reforming driver behavior : installing separated infrastructure :: reforming unhealthy diet/activity/lifestyle choices : heart bypass surgery. I’m sure someone could come up with a better analogy.

I want to emphasize that I absolutely did not mean to come off as dismissive of infrastructure accomplishments. Quite the opposite (and I think the existence of heart surgery is pretty great too)! I am thankful for the option of using bike lanes (protected or not) where they exist, and I greatly appreciate all the hard work that goes into making these things a reality. In my case, I might not have ventured beyond the Beltway or attempted my first bicycle commute were it not for the existence of the Holmes Run Trail, Clermont Connector, and especially bike lanes on Beulah Street (from Franconia to Telegraph). Like most riders, I prefer to reduce my exposure to motor vehicles, given that their operators cannot be trusted to act responsibly. But must we accept the latter condition unchanged going forward?

What steps would we need to take in order to envision a future America in which bicycling could be a viable transportation option for anyone, anywhere, anytime? A future that could include carbon pricing, much more expensive gasoline, congestion pricing, usage-based motoring fees, more extensive tolling, etc. Will the single-occupancy automobile’s near-total dominance of our society’s daily transportation activities survive these challenges? Will we double down on current policies that massively subsidize the trucking and automotive interests? There could be a huge opportunity for transportation cycling to resurge in the next few decades. Bicycling is theoretically very well suited to become an attractive and frugal alternative to many of these car trips. Especially in car-designed suburban communities that are too spread out for economical transit but are compact enough for distances to be easily rideable. But of course, there’s a huge barrier to overcome: transportation cycling cannot become accessible to the masses unless ordinary people can be confident that they can reach their destinations safely using a bicycle.

Call me hopelessly naive, but I remain optimistic that society can be cured of windshield perspective in the long run.

[dasgeh]

scoot, thanks for your reply. You make some well reasoned points. I do think that the things you suggest — basically internalizing the externalities of motor vehicles and making driving more expensive — are all important. I also think better driver training is important.

However, having lived in Germany, where driver training is probably as good as humans can realistically hope for, I can tell you that even with good drivers, more people bike where there is segregated infrastructure. So it’s not an either-or: we need to work towards stricter standards for drivers, but we also need to add protected bike lanes or realistic alternatives to Georgetown Pike, Old Dominion, etc. (extending the MVT along the Potomac, for example).

[scoot]

@dasgeh 113258 wrote:

internalizing the externalities of motor vehicles

I think this alone would be a total game changer. How would we adapt to a 10x increase in motoring costs? (BTW seeing those numbers surprised me; is the hidden subsidy really that high? If anything I would expect the ratio to be higher in the USA than Canada…)

add protected bike lanes or realistic alternatives to Georgetown Pike, Old Dominion, etc.

Is that doable even in this pie-in-the-sky scenario though? That’s why I highlighted those roads. I do think that the larger arterials (VA-7, VA-236, US-29, etc.) can and should be retrofitted to add sidewalks and well-designed protected bicycle facilities. And the newer roads (Fairfax County Parkway, Prince William Parkway, the expanded part of 123 from Burke to Occoquan) tend to have wide ROW, sparse intersections and well-separated MUPs. But you can’t overhaul all the Old Dominions of the world without an insanely expensive ROW grab. A few wide climbing shoulders could help, but taming drivers seems like the only economical approach to making these types of roads more bike-friendly.

[dplasters]

@scoot 113334 wrote:

I think this alone would be a total game changer. How would we adapt to a 10x increase in motoring costs? (BTW seeing those numbers surprised me; is the hidden subsidy really that high? If anything I would expect the ratio to be higher in the USA than Canada…)

From a quick look at the source, the items are somewhat cherry picked. When you have quotes like

The Cost of Commute Calculator even assigns a value to the discomfort of riding a packed bus. After all, commuting on crowded public transit feels longer than the same time spent walking on a pleasant day.

But that aren’t then immediately followed by “and we say walking and cycling ‘costs’ more when its 35, raining, and windy because that feels worse than 72 with a light breeze.” you’re looking a bit biased.

There appears to be a lot of fuzzy feely stuff that is hard to quantify and hard to draw a line on when to stop piling on. The source talks about it in the externalities section but it appears they went with “pile on the negatives for bus and car, pile on the positives for cycling and walking and lets call that a day”.

[lordofthemark]

Eh. I agree with Dasgeh (no surprise there) that even the best conceivable results from changing motorist culture wll be of limited value in making biking more comfortable for the masses (maybe self driving vehicles will do the trick, I don’t know) And while increasing the costs of driving has been part of the solution in the NL for example, even there it took lots and lots of infra to get so many folk on two wheels – and I don’t think we will get close to those costs of driving in the USA. I would be delighted if we got gas taxes (or VMT taxes) to the point of actually paying for needed road infra, and added an economic analysis based carbon tax on top of that -and congestion charges on selected congested roads – but I don’t think all those will mean 10x the cost, or even the level of tax paid by drivers in the NL. (and note congestion charges would not impact people racing along on those Fairfax back roads, at least at uncongested times)

So I think we are stuck with seg infra as the principal way to get more people comfortable riding bikes on our roads. I know the new FFX bike master plan has lots of good ideas in that regard for many places, but yeah, some Fairfax arterial roads will never get seg infra, and some of those are the only through routes available. There may be no way to overcome that.

[scoot]

@dplasters 113350 wrote:

From a quick look at the source, the items are somewhat cherry picked. When you have quotes like

The Cost of Commute Calculator even assigns a value to the discomfort of riding a packed bus. After all, commuting on crowded public transit feels longer than the same time spent walking on a pleasant day.

But that aren’t then immediately followed by “and we say walking and cycling ‘costs’ more when its 35, raining, and windy because that feels worse than 72 with a light breeze.” you’re looking a bit biased.

I disagree with the notion that this example shows any bias. The point of computing externalities is to measure the impact that an individual’s choices (in this case, what mode of transportation to use) has on other people. Each person who chooses to ride the bus imparts a negative externality on the comfort of other passengers, if the bus is crowded. The weather is not affected at all by my choice to ride a bicycle.

I haven’t looked at the source, but the calculation for bicycles should involve a combination of positive (more riders = increased safety for each rider) and negative (more riders = congestion on the trails or roads, can be hazardous to pedestrians, etc.) externalities.

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 113364 wrote:

some Fairfax arterial roads will never get seg infra, and some of those are the only through routes available. There may be no way to overcome that.

I contend that there are ways to make these roads bicycle-friendly if you are ambitious enough. Technically feasible at least. Politically? Well there is definitely some work to do…

1) Internalize transportation externalities.
2) Make demonstration of on-road bicycling competency a requirement for a driver’s license. Include retest of skills as a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver with each driver’s license renewal.
3) Ban distracted driving.
4) Short license suspensions for all minor driving violations. Longer suspensions for major violations.
5) Traffic calming mechanisms (narrow lanes, remove double-yellow lines, add speed humps, etc.) to encourage thru traffic to choose major arterials instead (e.g. off Old Dominion and onto Route 7).

[Terpfan]

@lordofthemark 113364 wrote:

So I think we are stuck with seg infra as the principal way to get more people comfortable riding bikes on our roads. I know the new FFX bike master plan has lots of good ideas in that regard for many places, but yeah, some Fairfax arterial roads will never get seg infra, and some of those are the only through routes available. There may be no way to overcome that.

Before we wish for the FFX cycling infrastructure everywhere, we probably need the planners to spend some time in Arlington. Otherwise we end up with bizarre things like the bike lane from the intersection of Telegraph and South Kings Highway that proceeds for a little less than three blocks and inexplicably requires the cyclist using it to cross over a busy turn lane (this is as they were painting the lines, but they want you to move from the right side to the left and almost everyone turns right there onto S Van Dorn St: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.766419,-77.123109,3a,75y,266.91h,84.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sqCd4TdaY5ALJbIteozu2oQ!2e0).

In some places, I think wider roads without extra lanes is sufficient. Not that I wouldn’t take a bike lane, I would, but I’ve never had an issue climbing the Belle View Blvd hill. The two-lane road is a solid 30+’ wide so vehicles routinely give me more than 3′, usually 4-5′.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I do worry some that people use the need for segregated infrastructure as an excuse to oppose cycling on other roads. A friend of mine was complaining about a cyclist on RC Parkway this morning. He said, it’s not that he opposes cycling because he supports more bike lanes, just that he doesn’t want them on big roads like RCP. I politely pointed out the path is beat to crap back there, the speed limit is low, and what’s he racing too? I know it’s backed up at the bottom of the hill anyway. (That, and maybe I goaded him a little for not cycling himself as he’s quite the environmentalist).

[lordofthemark]

@scoot 113397 wrote:

I contend that there are ways to make these roads bicycle-friendly if you are ambitious enough. Technically feasible at least. Politically? Well there is definitely some work to do…

1) Internalize transportation externalities.

My view (and I think you misread the linked piece to indicate 10x the current cost, I did not see that number there) is that internalizing transport externalities will still leave massive numbers of people driving in Fairfax County.

2) Make demonstration of on-road bicycling competency a requirement for a driver’s license. Include retest of skills as a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver with each driver’s license renewal.

LOL!

3) Ban distracted driving.

Seriously, how do you do that. Even if you ban cell phone use, you can’t ban people talking etc (note I do not use those other sources of distraction as a reason not to ban cell phone use, but simply to point out we will still have distracted driving)

4) Short license suspensions for all minor driving violations. Longer suspensions for major violations.

LOL! Not going to happen.

5) Traffic calming mechanisms (narrow lanes, remove double-yellow lines, add speed humps, etc.) to encourage thru traffic to choose major arterials instead (e.g. off Old Dominion and onto Route 7).

That will work in selected places. Though if you can narrow the lanes, you can usually put in bike lanes, and that is often the cheapest way to do the narrowing. Removing double yellows on arterials is not likely. Adding speed humps is a difficult process in FFX, but will happen in a few places.

[lordofthemark]

@Terpfan 113424 wrote:

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I do worry some that people use the need for segregated infrastructure as an excuse to oppose cycling on other roads. A friend of mine was complaining about a cyclist on RC Parkway this morning. He said, it’s not that he opposes cycling because he supports more bike lanes, just that he doesn’t want them on big roads like RCP. I politely pointed out the path is beat to crap back there, the speed limit is low, and what’s he racing too? I know it’s backed up at the bottom of the hill anyway. (That, and maybe I goaded him a little for not cycling himself as he’s quite the environmentalist).

There are of course some people like that. Almost always non cyclists. So the more of them who ride, the more who will realize the problems with that position. Fortunately that position is not particularly influential, at least not in Va.

[Author]

Posts