Here’s the thing: I would not be doing it — commuting by bicycle — if it were difficult to do. Seriously.

Why is it not difficult? Primarily it is not difficult because I live 3/4 of a mile from my job. I live 3/4 of a mile from my job (in Springfield’s urban core) on purpose – precisely to make bicycling and walking to work (and everywhere else) easy.

And this is why I’m not a big promoter of BBWTWW. I’m not against it; I’m just not on the front lines encouraging anyone to get out there this one week and try bicycle commuting. For far too many people, it is difficult precisely because they live too far from work in car-centric neighborhoods.

Further, the iconography of such weeks are invariably sport cycling-centric. Does that spandex look, and do those racing bicycles, really make novices comfortable with the idea of bicycle commuting? I wonder.

As a promotional and educational exercise, I prefer the 1-mile Solution — the recent topic of my presentation at PechaKucha. A greater number of people, I think, can practice the 1-MS than can commute to work by bicycle. And for those who cannot commute, well, how about keeping a bicycle at work and practicing the 1-MS there? The iconography is of the 1-MS is different, too. Below are two of the photos I used in my PechKucha presentation — at the place where I talk about not making bicycle riding more difficult than it has to be.

Let’s grow participation the easy way. The commuting will come as people gain experience and confidence (and as the suburbs continue to struggle) — and as they reap the benefits of bicycling.

Technorati Tags: 1-mile Solution, bicycle advocacy, bicycle commuting, cycling, utility cycling

But it is clear that many bicycle advocates believe that providing such infrastructure as bicycle lanes, tracks, and separated paths does increase participation. According to recent studies, it’s not entirely clear what the cause-and-effect relationship actually is between infrastructure and participation.

I think it is especially difficult to measure participation across purposes. Bicycle commuting is a particular purpose. Recreation is a particular purpose. Exercise is a particular purpose. Basic transportation ( or utility bicycling) is a particular purpose. It seems to me that each of these purposes has particular constituencies. And some bicyclists — your author, for example — is a member of more than one.

In order to increase participation through infrastructure, transportation planners must first understand infrastructure in the context of particular purposes. That seems like a truism and an interesting technical/engineering puzzle. But, again, I’m not all that interested because I think this may be true: Participation across purposes (but especially the transportation purposes) requires proximity and population density first and traffic education before infrastructure.

I’ve told this story before: When I moved to Springfield from Kansas City I was aware that I was moving to a flat town with a grid street system. I made the conscious decision to live within 2 miles of my job (actually .75 to work and 2.25 to downtown) so that it would be easier to walk and ride a bicycle. If I had chosen instead to live in the southern suburbs, I doubt very seriously that I would be typing these words to you now. I’d be a regular automobile commuter just as I was in Kansas City. Further, when I arrived here I was a novice rider. I had plenty of experience as a kid, so I rode as a child often rides (thankfully I new which side of the street to ride on!). It took a couple of years of before I “grew up” fully and took my proper place in traffic. I had to learn it by doing it, by experiencing it. What allowed that process to occur? Proximity. Living close to my destinations made bicycling an easy choice.

If, instead, I had chosen to live in the suburbs, would bicycle lanes have lured me onto the road? That’s difficult to say. But I doubt it due to the question of proximity.

A better plan for Springfield:

1. Forget bicycle lanes.

2. Keep building greenways (primarily for recreation).

3. Improve the urban core and encourage people and businesses to locate there.

Obviously, this does nothing to encourage suburban residents to ride bicycles for transportation, and — Gadzooks! — it’s decidedly long-term thinking. Methinks $5 gas might encourage suburbanites first to move closer to their primary destinations. From there they may venture onto bicycles.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle commuting, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, bicycle trails, cycling, Transportation Planning, Urban Planning, utility cycling

Have a great Thanksgiving. See you on Black Friday. Or, rather, see you online. I won’t be shopping, although I might go downtown to hang out.

Technorati Tags: bicycle equipment, cycling, utility cycling

What changed?

Remember the report by The Network (a group of young professionals attached to the Chamber of Commerce) about how to attract and retain young professionals? Here again were the top four results:

• Expand trails and bike routes for recreation and transportation.
• Enact a smoking ban in bars, restaurants and other public places.
• Improve wages by supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses.
• Address the lack of diversity through increased awareness and support for minority-owned businesses.

Wow. We got top billing. Fantastic.

I believe the city is taking these things seriously. That’s great!

But “trails and bike routes” has apparently been translated into “bicycle lanes.” That’s not necessarily surprising. That term is, as much as anything, a metaphor for “facilities” in the minds regular folks. “Facilities” can be all kinds of helpful and progressive things.

I am not a fan of bicycle lanes in general (click here). So if you ask me if I like bicycle lanes or want to see them painted in Springfield, I’ll tell you “no.” This does not mean all lanes are bad or that I am against all facilities. It means, specifically, that I worry that some lane advocates (not necessarily our bicycle advocates) will promote poor facilities and may push for a law requiring lane use once lanes are painted (thus making bicycling suck for experienced traffic bicyclists).

I think the foundation of a good bicycle system begins with a good transportation system for all road users — one that is equitable for all users. All users should be educated in how to use the road safely and how to share it with a wide range of other users who all have equal rights and responsibilities (and equal expectations of courtesy and civility). Shared use ought to be an ethic promoted and enforced by all users.

Bicycle facilities should not reduce the bicyclist’s level of service, i.e. make it more difficult to get from point A to point B safely and efficiently or to deny access to roads. Facilities should not create traffic conflicts by encouraging bicyclists to ride in places or in ways that put them in danger. And facilities should not contradict the law or sound traffic education, e.g. creating a lane that runs against traffic. Finally, if you create facilities then I believe you (the city) are obligated to maintain them, which means keeping them cleared of debris, snow, and ice.

Progressive facilities should empower people to make the choice to ride a bicycle for transportation by making it efficient and enjoyable, i.e. easy access to destinations and no manufactured conflicts with motorists. Separation is fine as long as it does not create inferiority for the bicyclist compared to other forms of transportation.

The differences between these kinds of facilities are easy to see. Compare, for example, our greenway trails (progressive) to the new bicycle lane on Benton (regressive). (Note: That was an example. I do not mean to suggest that separated greenways are the only form of progressive facility.)

Since Springfield is moving ahead with “bicycle lanes,” I am going to seek out and publish examples of progressive facilities. And I will support such facilities, even when they involve painting lines on the street.

I will also, however, squawk like crazy if we build lanes that create conflicts or put novices in danger. I am unwilling to increase participation at the cost of safety when our roads are already safe.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle culture, bicycle education, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, bicycle safety, bicycle trails, cycling, Transportation Planning, Urban and Regional Planning, urban design, Urban Planning, utility cycling

• Motorists works 2 hours each day to pay for a car.
• Bicyclists work 3.8 minutes each day to pay for their bicycles.

(Obviously the costs are different depending upon one’s circumstances. The well-to-do work fewer hours for their cars. The poor work more.)

Yep, getting rid of my car gave me a huge pay raise. And it got me out from behind the wheel sitting in traffic — one of the top things Americans have cited as making them unhappy. It’s also a heath issue — all that sitting and all that stress. Win-win-win for me!

I have said this before: Using a bicycle for basic transportation in Springfield is easy. So easy. OMG it is easy. If it weren’t easy, I might not have stuck with it (because I just assumed it would be hard and that I’d end up driving a lot).

One thing, however: It helps to live close to your major destinations. That’s not a requirement. But if you live in a far-flung suburb surrounded by nothing but large traffic sewers, well, it’s going to be less easy. You can still practice the 1-mile Solution.

Technorati Tags: 1-mile Solution, bicycle advocacy, bicycle commuting, bicycle culture, cycling, green transportation, utility cycling