Untitled Document
A number of videos on YouTube and a recent article in
the Wall Street Journal have featured a subject that obviously captivates everyone,
from the hip to the staid. What’s so intriguing? People riding
bicycles in Amsterdam. And, oh yeah, they carry stuff — kids,
friends, pets, groceries — while riding their bikes. This broad
coverage of a seemingly mundane feat perhaps points to the underlying
cultural differences that have led to our amazement. Depending on where you
are in the world and whom you talk to, biking can mean elevated status or a
lower-class form of travel, a high-tech titanium joy ride or a commonsense
transportation alternative, a societal amenity or an economic hindrance.
Bicycle commuting may be rarely contemplated by most, yet it is considered
by many to hold the key to greater independence, health, sense of
community, and quality of life. It’s quite a heavy load to be carried on
two
wheels.
While in the Netherlands, I, too, became fascinated
by the agility of the Amsterdammers, many of whom were riding bikes that
looked as if they had been moldering away in basements for the past 20
years at least. The city’s residents went about their daily business,
occasionally toting such improbable cargo as cellos and typically hauling
various numbers and sizes of passengers. There were adults with other
adults on the back; parents with children, sometimes on front and back; dog
owners with their pets, ears flying, in baskets attached to the handlebars.
As they approached pedestrians they would ring their bells, a childish ching-ching that sent me
back in time to training wheels and streamer-adorned handlebars, but the
ringers of these bells were often men in suits with briefcases and women in
dresses conducting business by cell phone. As awe-inspiring as this show of dexterity was, what
was more inspirational to me, and most likely to the viewers of YouTube and
readers of The Wall Street Journal, is the fact that these people use their bicycles as a true
form of transportation, as if they were cars . . . SUVs even, judging from
the heavy loads they often carried. In the United States, we mostly think of bicycling as
a form of recreation for the spandex set or a fond childhood memory.
Cyclists are often relegated to recreational trails and cursed when found
on city streets. A quick scan of recent articles related to bicycling
reveals the sharpest of contrasts in attitudes. The Chicago Tribune, for example,
reported with much admiration on the architectural award a bicycle-parking
ramp received in Amsterdam. The Wall Street
Journal likewise touted the
“cachet” lent by biking to the prime minister of the
Netherlands and the “on-bike persona” of the Danish chief
executive of a powerful pharmaceutical company. Springfield’s State Journal-Register, on the
other hand, reported on a teenager who, while admirably attempting to
travel the city without a car, was told at one busy intersection,
“Get off the road! You’re on a bike!”
American officials have made pilgrimages to Amsterdam
in an effort to study their cycling success, but there remains the feeling
in the United States, as was also reported in the Wall Street Journal, that
“bike commuters face more challenges, including strong opposition
from some small businesses, car owners, and parking-garage owners to any
proposals to remove parking, shrink driving lanes or reduce speed
limits.”
Why is there cachet in the Netherlands and opposition
here? Why are the percentages for bicycle use, for all trips taken, at 26 percent in the
Netherlands, 20 percent in Denmark, and 10 percent in Germany, whereas in
Springfield and much of the U.S. there is, well, more than there used to
be?
And why should we care? Citizens of the United States have often found status
in what we can — or at least could — afford to waste. We have been blessed with an
abundance of land and natural resources, and bigger is always better. We
are starting to discover, however, that we are now also wasting our health,
our children’s health, and our sense of community. We sequester
ourselves within the cocoons of our cars, racing from place to place on an
ever-tightening schedule at an ever-faster pace. Some people have started
to say “Enough!” They have decided that they want quality
rather than quantity of life. Biking can be a part of a larger package of
efforts that redefine our notion of progress. The U.S. Department of Transportation claims that
facilities that aid pedestrians and bicyclists “contribute to our
national transportation goals of safety, mobility, economic growth and
trade, enhancement of communities and the natural environment, and national
security.” In support, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991, and legislation has subsequently
been passed to provide the tools necessary “to create more walkable
and bicycle-friendly communities.” In addition, it appears that, like
many of us, our federal government yearns for a time when children could
walk or ride bikes to school — as about half of all students did in
1969 — and laments the health issues associated with the sedentary
lifestyles of our children. The federal Safe Routes to School Program was
established in August 2005 “to make walking and bicycling to school a
safe and routine activity once again” by providing funding for
programs and projects. So where are all the bike paths and bike lanes, the
safe routes to school?
One hears that bicycle
commuting cannot be forced on people and that, so far, demand is not great
(and that’s not to mention the outright opposition). Yet one also
hears that commuting by bike will never be a real consideration if the
accommodating facilities are not first put in place. If there is not
discussion and promotion of an idea that is very nearly antithetical to our
culture and the perception of progress most of us have grown up with, if we
are not introduced to new ideas and the opportunities to act on these
ideas, will the demand ever appear? Can wholesale attitude changes occur
without a nudge? What comes first, the infrastructure or the attitude? The
will of the people or the commitment of the government?
A European study conducted to determine how the top
bicycling cities in Europe became the trendsetters of cycling — and
why others did not — appears to have answered this question. The
resulting report, “Continuous and Integral: The Cycling Policies of
Groningen and Other European Cycling Cities,” provides answers that
are not exactly astounding. They found one common factor: “Prolonged,
consistent cycling policy; policy embedded in a wider policy context of
local, ‘deeply-felt’ objectives.” It wasn’t easy.
Despite what we may believe about the ingrained nature of biking in some
European countries, the implementation of policies that translated into
facilities was often a struggle. As is the case in the U.S., European city officials
found that they had to work to counteract what was, for a time, a growing
car culture. The cities that immediately countered with innovative measures
saw a reversal of this trend. These cities “accepted the cyclists as
‘normal’ traffic participants with equal rights” and
decided that “a motor car infrastructure did not come at the expense
of the cyclist.”
Although the conclusions of the study may not be
astounding, the steps taken in the examples cited surely were. The report
talked about how Denmark’s city of Odense (population 185,000), whose
inhabitants used a bicycle in 25 percent of all trips, aimed to increase
bicycle use through a four-year program started in 1999. Along with
innovative infrastructural measures came such equally innovative
promotional activities as “the continuous flow of information”
by way of the Internet, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and
lectures. The local media featured a total of 806 articles on Odense, the
designated “National Cycling City” of Denmark, and two editions
of a special bicycle magazine were created for city residents. In this way,
the report states, not only the general public but also journalists and
traffic experts “were constantly fed with new stories.”
Forty-three percent of the children in Odense now bike to school. Other examples, such as the Dutch city of Groningen,
with a population of 177,000 and a bicycle used in 37 percent of all trips,
promoted cycling by giving heavy bicycle flow precedence over car traffic,
installing separate traffic lights for cyclists, giving cyclists “the
green light twice per cycle wherever possible,” and developing
short-circuit bicycle connections that made traveling times competitive
with those of other vehicles. Copenhagen? More of the same: cycle lanes and
paths, bicycle-public transport combinations, bicycle parking, advance
green lights for cyclists, better cleaning of cycle paths, campaigns, and
information. Basically, the cities whose leaders that determined early on
that an improved quality of life could be found with increased bicycle
commuting made outstanding commitments and stuck to them and, as a result,
saw bicycle use soar. The cities with “a more manifest pro-car
policy” did not. Question answered. There are, of course, cities in this country,
particularly some of the larger, high-density cities, that have implemented
progressive bicycling policies and infrastructure, but there are always
sticky issues to confront: anxiety over forcing people to do things they do
not want to do, fear of spending money on something that people will not
use, the perception that America and Americans are too different from other
countries to realize the benefits of alternative transportation. How do
Illinois cities, how does Springfield, stack up with regard to commitment
to biking policy and infrastructure?
According to Ed Barsotti, executive director of the
League of Illinois Bicyclists, the number of bicycle commuters in Illinois
is indeed growing, and one message he is anxious to convey to local
officials and the public is that bicycling is “indeed more than just
recreation.” He claims that whereas 52 percent of bike travel is for
recreation/exercise, 43 percent is for travel to destinations (2001
National Household Travel Survey), but he also believes that a lack of
infrastructure and education are slowing this trend. “In recent
decades, the road grid pattern has been replaced with cul-de-sacs, lack of
connectivity, and development on the outer edges of town,” Barsotti
says. “This makes it tougher to bike, especially when road agencies
do not accommodate bikes along the arterial roads which provide the only
way between points A and B.” In addition, he claims that there is
“an almost complete lack of education” about bicycling, which
in turn results in lack of skills and confidence to use bikes on streets.
He suggests that it would be logical for physical-education and health
curricula to include skills training in bicycling. Further, Barsotti believes, a seeming lack of demand
may be deceiving. “People are waiting and eager for their town to
improve bicycling conditions — even when very few take the initiative
to push their towns to start.” In this statement he includes
Springfield: “It is my impression that Springfield is ripe and ready
for a comprehensive bike plan, with not only trails but on-road bikeways as
well.”
For the first time this year, in fact, Springfield
participated in an initiative that has also been used in the Netherlands
and in Denmark — the National Bike to Work Day. It may be a slim tie
to the striking measures implemented in these countries, but, along with
the bike lanes I have seen popping up around town, it indicates a raised
consciousness about bicycle commuting. Does the future hold even more
accommodations? While talking with Greg Claxton and Susan Poludniak of the
Springfield-Sangamon County Regional Planning Commission, I feel the same
old tug-of-war between citizen attitudes and infrastructure, between
providing facilities to promote citizen demand and the citizen demand
necessary to promote additional facilities. I learn that most future city roads will include bike
lanes or off-road bike paths, but they are not, Poludniak adds, trying to
make people bike or tell them they have to change. They are merely
“trying to make opportunities available for people who are really
interested.” Claxton, who bikes to work, is a wholehearted promoter
of bicycle commuting. It was at his instigation that Springfield became
part of the National Bike to Work Day. He, too, concedes that biking is
partly a matter of community choice, but with enthusiasm animating his face
he adds, “On the other hand, I think there is actually a lot of room
for people to choose. Springfield may not have the density, but I think our
size actually makes it pretty accessible — not for big trips but for
quick trips.”
In addition, I learn that Illinois cities now face a
unique challenge that has led to more caution in the consideration of the
installation of bike lanes. Poludniak explains that a 1998 Illinois Supreme
Court decision in the case Boub v. Township of
Wayne, a suit claiming that the poor condition
of a bridge surface in Wayne Township led to a biking injury, determined
that local governments are liable for bicyclists’ safety due to road
conditions if, and only if, streets are marked or signed as bike routes.
Why offer bike routes if it means greater responsibility and a greater
chance of lawsuits? “Bike liability is a tremendous issue in
Illinois and a tremendous impediment to encouraging bicycling. It has
created another layer of difficulty,” Poludniak says. And there are
other “layers of difficulty”: Midsize cities are land-rich,
making it easy to expand out and more difficult to step back and change;
our zoning separates land uses, making distances between homes and
businesses more intimidating.
Could we consider integrating biking with the
city’s bus system? Can bike racks be installed on buses here as they
have been in other cities so that suburban sprawl becomes less of an issue?
According to Linda Tisdale of the Springfield Mass Transit District, this
idea was considered last year, but the initial purchase costs and
maintenance of buses with bike racks is high, and when Bloomington offered
the bike-to-bus alternative, ridership did not increase. “There would
have to be perceived demand,” Tisdale says.
Discouraged somewhat by what appears to be a tenuous
future for bicycle commuting in Springfield, I have found it even more
disheartening to continue reading about biking trends in other countries as
reported, with apparent admiration, in U.S. publications. The bicyclists of
Berlin now have access to bike paths, bike lanes in the streets, bus lanes
that are also open to bicyclists, combined pedestrian/bike paths, and
marked bike lanes on the sidewalks, which the Berlin Senate Bicycle Traffic
Strategy plans to pull together “into a network with primary routes
running from the city center out to the suburbs and two traffic rings by
2016.” I read that Denmark is about to unveil a plan to increase
spending on bike lanes on 2,000 kilometers, or 1,243 miles, of roads.
According to the Chicago Tribune, there are three times as many bicycles as cars, and
“virtually every road has a bicycle lane.” I think of, on
arriving at the train station in Amsterdam, my astonishment at finding thousands of bicycles
parked out front. Perceived demand, community choice. Can mindset
possibly precede the bike path? Perhaps. I think back to the excitement of Greg Claxton as he
showed me his survey of bike racks in Springfield (there are 22 businesses
with bike racks). I remember his telling me, “I have two grocery
stores I can bike to. I can get to a video store and, thanks to the Wabash
Trail, I can get out to the bigger shopping centers. But it’s
something you sort of have to want, and you have to choose that.”
Bike accessibility to other areas of the city was a priority when he and
his wife purchased their home. This was not Greg Claxton the public
employee speaking; it was Claxton the citizen of Springfield. He and his
wife had made a choice and, increasingly, they are not alone. The 2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclists
Attitudes, a
national random-sample survey of 9,616 adults, jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and administered by the Gallup
Organization, reported that almost half of the respondents believed that
there is a need for changes, including “providing bicycle facilities,
e.g., bicycle trails, paths, lanes, racks, traffic signals, lighting, or
crosswalks.” Now, in Illinois, there is the “bike
ambassador” for outreach and training in Oak Park, a “bicycle
task force” in Northbrook, the bicycle advisory commissions of
Arlington Heights and Schaumburg. And there is the progressive small
community of Grayslake, with its Web site flaunting a community-wide trail
system that “encourages a healthy lifestyle; boosts property values
and reduces the reliance on the automobile.”
And, really, which American attitudes need to change?
Those regarding economics? Apparently not. A 2002 National Association of
Realtors study reveals that bicycle and pedestrian facilities now rank
second in importance as neighborhood amenities for homebuyers. In Illinois,
Ed Barsotti likewise notes: “Towns across the state are creating bike
plans and making both trails and on-road improvements. It’s getting
to the point where it’s a disadvantage for a town not to do so, as its
attractiveness to modern businesses and quality-of-life perception
suffers.” Even in Springfield, as I learn from Greg Claxton, the
efforts by a developer to close a bike trail were met with outrage. He told
me that another trail in Springfield is now being viewed as an amenity to
nearby homeowners. “It made me smile,” he says. A comparison of the list of reasons why people do bike presented by Ed
Barsotti and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s list of reasons
why people should bike
reveals striking commonalties suggesting that, despite America’s
much-touted love affair with the car, bicycle commuting does not call for
wholesale change in American values. The reasons people bike, as cited by
Barsotti, include health (making short trips by bike as a time-efficient
way to fit moderate exercise into a busy schedule), environmental (reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions), saving money (fighting high gas prices and car
maintenance), and, for some, patriotic (reducing dependence on foreign
oil). And what does the Department of Transportation say?
That bicyclists contribute to economic growth and trade, enhancement of
communities and the natural environment, and national security. There is a
desire for our children to be able to bike safely to school . . . a desire
for our children to be healthy. We want less obesity, less noise, less air
pollution. If, in the process of striving to fulfill these goals we manage
to do something to
thumb our noses at energy companies who are raking in record profits
— not to mention the oil-rich countries that support terrorists
— all the better.
What is more American, really, than a fondness for
independence?
Jeanne Townsend Handy is a local environmental writer
and regular contributor. She wrote about Lake Depue, “Battered but
beautiful,” in the May 18, 2006, edition.
This article appears in Aug 30 – Sep 5, 2007.
