Jan Heine, editor of the much esteemed Bicycle Quarterly has recently engaged in one of his typically analytic discussions on the relative merits of the various types of bicycle-specific infrastructure popping up around US cities. In particular, he seems a bit incensed over a newly unveiled cycle path in his home city of Seattle. In the age old argument between those who advocate for equal rights of bicycles on the street (let's call them Vehicularists) and those who advocate for bicycles to be segregated from car traffic as much as possible (George Wallace took all the fun out of the term best used for these folks), Jan seems to be tending toward the vehicular side. But if you know how Jan's mind works (which you would if you read Bicycle Quarterly or his blog, Off the Beaten Path), you would know that he's really more of a data weenie than an ideological zealot. And more importantly, he is a lover of elegant design; and anyone who loves good, sensible, utilitarian design has got, inevitably, to hate most of what passes for bicycle-specific infrastructure.
My own city, that is the nearest big city, the one around whose edges I have spent the vast majority of my life, has been engaged in the rapid expansion of cycling infrastructure over the last decade or so, and is struggling as are many of our cities to figure out exactly how bicycles fit into the overall flow of traffic. We are in the early days of what sometimes seems like a genuine transformation of our city. And as is always the case with all of nature's transformations, we are experiencing growing pains. And it's not difficult to understand why.
"...evolving designs reflect a learning process, as bikes are squeezed back into a streetscape long dominated by cars."
The division between the two camps is completely understandable. White guys in Lycra want to be allowed treated like equal citizens, afforded the same rights as people in cars. They don't want to dodge baby strollers and speed walkers and all the other obstacles strewn about the average "mixed use" trail. And they want to make left turns without having to wait through two stop lights. The Dutch apparently don't mind waiting, but that's be presumably because they don't have real jobs to get to.
On the other hand, most people, thank Kröd, don't want to dress up in skin tight synthetic clothing, put a Styrofoam ice cooler on their heads and max out their lactic thresholds just to get to work or the store. It's the usual tribal warfare between caffeinated Baristas trying to get to work quickly and moms getting their kids safely to school; between racers and riders, carbon and steel, people who live in Copenhagen and people who live in an exurb with streets named after the features bulldozed to build the development.
I love this particular ideological war because it starts with the premise that it's good to have more people riding bikes. The argument is about how best to accomplish that goal. A worthy conversation. I am personally of the opinion that neither side is absolutely correct. We're not going to dig up all our cities and remake them around the bike. And the suburbs are not going to become friendly places for human powered vehicles until the gas runs out.
Ultimately we will find a range of options, more or less appropriate for each situation. I think cities will do a lot of retrofitting of their existing infrastructure, putting in bike lanes, bike shares and bike parking. Suburbs will continue to worship cars and parking lots but over the past decade more rail trails, sidewalks and mini-villages have popped up, so maybe there is hope yet. And country roads will still be lovely places for a delightful cyclo-tour despite the occasional yahoo in one of those silly big pick-em-up trucks hollering, "get off the road!"
No comments:
Post a Comment