Greater Greater Washington. The Washington, DC area is great. But it could be greater.

Bicycling


Just put on a coat, already: Cyclists in a strange land

Imagine visiting a city where the populace steadfastly refused to wear sweaters or coats despite a cold climate.


Photo by Venerable Kalense.
You might tell your friends incredulous stories about how much people complain about being cold while ignoring an obvious solution. You might take pictures of the enormous three-story space heaters the city placed along its waterfront to let people enjoy the outdoors, and marvel at the ugliness and environmental waste of the practice. Why would the residents of this city endure such painful conditions at such cost to their city and their planet while ignoring such a simple alternative?

This sounds absurd, but scarcely more absurd than the way bicyclists talk about American cities. At Cities, Bicycles, and the Future of Getting Around, a panel discussion last week sponsored by the Brookings Institution, Congressman Earl Blumenauer posed what he called the "universalist bicycle mantra": "How many people, right at this moment, are stuck in traffic on their way to ride a stationary bicycle in a health club?"

Why, indeed, would people endure stifling traffic just to hop on another form of transportation that goes nowhere? How is this not similar to walking around outside without a coat while complaining of the chill? What are people thinking? Children can't get to school on their own, while childhood obesity skyrockets. Yet the evident solution to bicyclists, as simple as putting on the sweater, is simply to ride to school. Yet few do.

Musician David Byrne, author of The Bicycle Diaries, illustrated the absurdity every bicyclist sees in our cities through a slide show. He showed pictures of downtown Austin, Texas and Nashville, Tennessee, where giant highway overpasses soared above desolate landscapes below. He showed a streetscape from Houston, Texas, at 11:00 am, with only a single person visible across several blocks. "There was a group of people around the corner," he said. "They were the smokers." Some scenes could have depicted one of many American cities. "I'm not sure where this is," he said, showing a picture of large parking lots separating the occasional tall building. "Maybe Indianapolis." There's no life visible, "unless you consider the car a form of life."

Nevertheless, the average resident of these cities sees little unusual in these scenes. When driving, we see the broad brush of the buildings and the other cars; we tend not to notice a lack of pedestrians, especially when they are rare. When we travel on a bicycle, however, a city devoid of life seems utterly bizarre, and the populace's blithe acceptance of this status quo even stranger.


Buckminster Fuller's Harlem River Project.
Yet numerous early- to mid-twentieth century thinkers actively promoted this vision as an ideal. Byrne showed slides from Hugh Ferriss's visions from the 1920s of giant skyscrapers amid lifeless voids, Frank Lloyd Wright's Broadacre City of huge skyscrapers amid lifeless voids, Buckminster Fuller's plan for Harlem of huge skyscrapers amid lifeless voids, and of course, the most well-known of all, Le Corbusier's Ville Radieuse of... you guessed it. Corbusier's plan was considered "enlightened," Byrne noted, "because it had little green patches in the middle."

Why can't we just put on the coats? Why can't people cycle in the numbers common in many European cities? Blumenauer and Byrne know why: bicycle infrastructure. We don't have enough of it, at least outside Blumenauer's hometown of Portland, Oregon. Its residents drive 30% less than in Houston, the Congressman said. They spend $2,500 less per year on transportation than the national average, and keep that money in the local economy instead of sending it overseas in oil payments. According to Blumenauer, Portland's bicycle share has increased 400% for less than the cost of one mile of freeway.

New York City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan revealed one of the most vexing absurdities of all: federal rules that make it extremely difficult if not impossible to build good bicycle infrastructure. For a city to build a bicycle lane requires a detailed air quality conformity analysis and a long checklist of approvals, she explained, and requires the involvement of the state DOT. "There are no national street designs that accommodate best practices" in bicycle lane design, she added.

DC's new protected, contraflow bike lane on 15th Street, NW is in no manual, added Sadik-Khan. Nor are bike boulevard markings, lanes painted with a color, or even bicycle signals. Wherever cities have built such projects, they're in spite of accepted industry standards. "My favorite 5-letter word is PILOT," she said; most of New York's greatest successes in bicycle infrastructure have been officially pilot programs, like the protected lane through Midtown Manhattan which increased bicycling by 46% in that area.

In Sadik-Khan's experience, getting approval to spend federal money on a project has typically been the most difficult part of the project, more even than the oft-vehement opposition from neighbors. Blumenauer, too, feels that opposition is not the major obstacle to progress, noting the over 180 members of the Congressional Bicycle Caucus. What are the obstacles, asked moderator Bruce Katz, Brookings Vice President and director of the Metropolitan Policy Program? Some people are "nervous about change," Blumenauer noted, but worse is the "dysfunctionality of the system."

Led by Sadik-Khan, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) launched Cities for Cycling, an effort to create a new manual for street design that includes good bicycle infrastructure. They hope to make bicycle lanes, protected lanes, bike boulevards, bike signals and more official parts of a 21st-century version of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the bible of traffic engineers that currently enforces design around cars instead of people.

Blumenauer has another prescription: Political organizing. He called on those who support bicycle infrastructure to defend officials like DDOT head Gabe Klein as he tries to build lanes like that on 15th Street or one on Pennsylvania Avenue near the Capitol that Blumenauer has been pushing for. If just five people email a council member about a bicycle lane, Klein added from the front of the audience, that can make an impact. (And now, we know that's true; your emails on Riggs and South Dakota triggered a change.)

If a small group can make a difference, the next questioner hoped to: He pointed out that Brookings itself has no bicycle parking at its Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, and a sign on the door prohibits bicycles inside. A law in New York just took effect requiring office buildings with cargo elevators to accommodate bicycles if the companies leasing space want to let employees bring bicycles into the office; Sadik-Khan noted that safe, indoor bicycle parking is the leading obstacle for people to bike to work. For his part, Katz promised to look into the issue. Local cyclists will be keeping an eye on their progress.

Cross-posted at Next American City.

Comments

I agree with the gist of this article, but you might want to rethink your opening argument. People attend a gym and work out on cardio machines (including stationary bikes) for vastly different reasons than those who ride or jog or walk outdoors. Certainly biking and walking as transportation is different than cardio exercise, but even fitness bicycling is a different endeavor than gym cardiovascular exercise. Both have their place, and there is no cognitive dissonance for those who partake in either.

by CJ on Dec 15, 2009 3:40 pm  (link)

I have to disagree. We wouldn't need to go to a gym, period, if we weren't so utterly married to the car. That is the point. If we actually built an environment that was pedestrian and bicycle friendly we'd be far healthier as a whole.

by NikolasM on Dec 15, 2009 4:08 pm  (link)

Sorry Dave, I have to wholeheartedly disagree (which is quite rare here). I live in DC and bike year-round, both commuting and for sport. That record-cold day last Feb? On my bike on the key bridge. But I don't expect most people to bike commute in that kind of weather. Its really quite cold. Also, and I know this is less true in DC, but the roads can be very dangerous for two skinny-ish inline tires.

by longley on Dec 15, 2009 4:23 pm  (link)

There are lots of people who go to the gym, but don't need to go to the gym. They're perfectly healthy anyways, but that's not why they work out. You can be perfectly fit without bench pressing a small house, for example. But you're not going to get that kind of a workout without going to the gym.

by Alex B. on Dec 15, 2009 4:29 pm  (link)

agree w/ Nikolas. Indeed, just having access to transit increases average time walked/day by 19 min's and decreases avg. weight by 6 pounds.

Is the 'sykscaper amid lifeless void' the model for the plan at pg plaza posted earlier?

by Bianchi on Dec 15, 2009 4:31 pm  (link)

To be clear, I have no objection to people using gyms. I belong to one and ride the stationary recumbent bike. But I walk to get there. If someone needs particular equipment, that's another good reason. It's just absurd to design cities so you can't walk or bike to the gym, then have people get stuck in traffic driving so they can walk on a treadmill or ride the bike there.

by David Alpert on Dec 15, 2009 5:01 pm  (link)

Fantastic article. I must digest the details once I have more time.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is ridiculous to design our cities so that people can't get exercise. I've puzzled over the "driving to go exercise" phenomenon for a long time. And when I was growing up in Pennsylvania, I couldn't articulate what I didn't like about our area, but I know now that it was the lifeless voids and high-speed roadways that made it unpleasant. As longley points out, we can't expect people to bicycle (or walk) by choice when so many roads are hostile to non-motorists.

The urban environment looks different from various perspectives. A skyline that looks impressive from a distance may give way to a hostile jungle of concrete speedways and lifeless voids once you're in its midst. A road that seems quite nice to drive on may seem barren and dangerous when you're on foot.

We need officials who have first-hand experience as pedestrians and cyclists. That makes a world of difference in the way infrastructure is planned.

by Matthias on Dec 15, 2009 6:29 pm  (link)

As a military member, I've seen "both sides" of the gym discussion, and I'd have to say that Alex is closer to the truth than Nikolas and Bianchi are.

As a side note, walking will only get you so far. To REALLY drop the weight, you need to do a lot more robust aerobic activity...jogging, biking, etc etc. And the gym helps in this regard because there are other machines (rowing machine and ellipticals) that you can use for cross-training.

by Froggie on Dec 16, 2009 6:56 am  (link)

I've got to say...people in DC have a resistance to wearing coats in general. During the cold snap last week, i witnessed many shivering in hoodies waiting for the metro. DRESS PROPERLY, PEOPLE, AND YOU WON'T BE SO DAMN COLD! This applies to bicyclists and pedestrians alike.

I think it has something to do with the fact that DC is borderline a southern city, and so people don't feel that they should HAVE to dress warmly....well, take a clue from reality people, and you will be much more comfortable (and healthy) spending time outside

by Ariela on Dec 16, 2009 7:49 am  (link)

I don't think the borderline southern-ness has a lot to do with it, it's probably the fluctuations w/ the weather in a short period of time if anything. People pay attention to rain but could assume that the temperature won't be that much different. Cold weather isn't new to people in this area, although it's not super-cold for long periods of time.

After living in the upper midwest for a while, my tolerance to cold weather has increased, maybe a lot of it is psychological. In some places, people start to where shorts when it's 55 degrees out and I'm fine with a hoody at 40 or so.

by Vik on Dec 16, 2009 9:06 am  (link)

@Vik,

Having grown up in the upper Midwest, it's definitely psychological. Since living here, I've found myself getting 'soft' when it comes to cold weather when I visit the family. But compared to most out here, it's nothing.

I think the best example I have of that was going to an ultimate frisbee tournament in Florida one January. The teams from the Midwest were running around shirtless, basking in the sun, enjoying the relatively warm weather. The local Florida kids had on pants, long underwear, hoodies, etc.

There's also probably some self-selection bias at work, too.

by Alex B. on Dec 16, 2009 9:29 am  (link)

The article reminded me of a quote regarding Le Corbusier which I am not sure where it came from but is oh-so-true:

Le Corbusier was to architecture what Pol Pot was to social reform.

And, I've lived in American cities and been to the killing fields.

by EZ on Dec 16, 2009 9:48 am  (link)

@Froggie: For too many people in this country you literally can't walk anywhere, at least not to do anything useful. It is all car all the time with a built environment to show for it. We have thousands of instances of neighborhood subdivisions abutting shopping centers where it is damn near impossible and certainly extremely inconvenient to do anything but drive to them. The levels of obesity in Europe are far lower than here not because they all go to the gym, but because walking/biking is convenient and an everyday part of life.

by NikolasM on Dec 16, 2009 11:08 am  (link)

Nikolas: nowhere am I saying that we shouldn't make "walking/biking convenient and an everyday part of life". We should. I was disputing your notion that it would make the gym unnecessary, just as Alex was.

by Froggie on Dec 16, 2009 11:19 am  (link)

EZ- love your comment !!

by w on Dec 16, 2009 12:41 pm  (link)

The reference to the lack of standards for bike lanes is interesting. 15th Street has a parking lane separating the curb from the traffic to protect the contra-flow bikers, but is there a reason this arrangement shouldn't be used in other areas? For example, 4th and 6th Streets NE/SE are one-way streets with bike lanes, but the bike lanes are between the parked vehicles and traffic. Moving the parked cars away from the curb would make it safer for bicyclists, impossible for people to double park in the bike lane, and make it easier for street sweepers to clear the debris from the roadway without requiring everyone to find a different parking place one day a week. It would require investment in a barrier of some sort (curb stops parallel to traffic?) and smaller street sweepers, but the benefit of the protected bike lane seems obvious to me.

by Stanton Park on Dec 16, 2009 2:26 pm  (link)

Stanton Park

you are one of the few who seem to "get it".

Absolutely- these are the ideal bike lanes- protected from car traffic and being "doored".

Unfortunately the city seems to be reluctant to install these kinds of bike ways - in my opinion it is because they are too timid and fear upsetting certain Northern Virginian congressmen who have the DC budget veto in their pockets.

This is very sad.

Pennsylvania Avenue should have a auto- protected bike ways it's entire length on both sides of the street.

by w on Dec 16, 2009 2:38 pm  (link)

Froggie, I encourage anyone to get excericse in any way they can and/or want to including driving to a gym. That does not mean I don't see the craziness of built environments and transportation policies that force people into cars because that's the only option and prevents them from walking even when they want to. Also, not everyone can join a gym, including those people who can't walk anywhere b/c of the built environment design. We know empirically that people with access to public transportation walk on avg. 19 min's more/day then those without. We know empirically that creating and/or improving access to places to walk or bike in a community increases by ~35% the proportion of people in the immediate community who engage in regular activity for >=20 min's 5 or more times a week. That's enough to lower risk for type II diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke and a host of other chronic health problems caused by chronic sedentariness, as is the 19 min's a day walking to/from transit. Risk is lowered dramatically for someone going from sedentary to as little as 10 min's a day of walking. There is neglible risk reduction between regular brisk walking and regular running. This is the beauty of walking. Almost everyone can do it, its free and it's effective. There is a linear relationship between hours spent driving and risk for type ii diabetes. Our national health problems caused by chronic sedentariness are a consequence of designing activity out of daily living; activities such as walking to the bus, walking to the store, walking/biking to school/work. These activities were once a part of daily life for most people and now are not because of car dependent sprawl designs, land use and transportation policies. This is the problem on a population level. This is what I was agreeing with Nikolas about. The minority who go to the gym will not make a dent in this problem. We need to create built environments and transporation policies that facilitate or at least allow active daily living (walking/biking to destinations).

by Bianchi on Dec 16, 2009 2:52 pm  (link)

Some of you are really conflating issues. Especially those responding to Froggie. Maybe this article is contributing to the blurry arguments. Yes, we need land uses geared towards pedestrians and not cars. No, gyms are not made obsolete by more walking. Some people will still prefer the variety gyms offer just like most of us don't want to eat the same food every meal...

by Jason on Dec 16, 2009 3:07 pm  (link)

Bianchi you are right on target.

by w on Dec 16, 2009 4:03 pm  (link)

Jason, "Yes, we need land uses geared towards pedestrians and not cars. No, gyms are not made obsolete by more walking." isn't that what I said? I tried. your conciseness is admirable. I'll add that walking as part of daily living is not made obsolete by gyms. It is a very small fraction of the population that goes to gyms whereas the entire population is affected by designs and policies.

thanks w.

by Bianchi on Dec 16, 2009 4:33 pm  (link)

I dont own a car, I walk and bike....but I still love stationary bikes, especially the horizontal ones....where your feet are sort of in front of you instead of under.

I get to close my eyes, listen to music, relax and pedal away. No need to have my hands on the handlebars or worry about turning.

by J on Dec 16, 2009 5:48 pm  (link)

The drumbeat for "cycle tracks" is extremely misguided, since all objective evidence shows that such separated designs are less safe and slower than integrating bicyclists in (relatively slow speed) urban vehicle traffic.

Yes, put on that "sweater" and go drive your bicycle in traffic. Provided you integrate with vehicle traffic and follow the basic principles of traffic operation, no harm will befall you. Moreover, you are much more likely to be injured or killed on bikeway. If you feel uncomfortable bicycling in traffic, take a traffic cycling class, preferably one that includes on-road instruction.

by Allen Muchnick on Dec 20, 2009 4:01 pm  (link)

Post a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (required, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)

or see below to post

To post your comment, please enter the two words in the box below to prevent spam:

Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it again next time

How can our region be greater?

DC Maryland Virginia Arlington Alexandria Montgomery Prince George's Fairfax Charles Prince William Loudoun Howard Anne Arundel Frederick Tysons Corner Baltimore Falls Church Fairfax City
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States license.