Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on April 30, 2013
The Hidden Argument Against Bike Share (and Bike Anything)
Now that bike share stations are being placed around town, people are freaking through various complaints and vandalizing the stations. So a fews days ago I went to a bike share town hall meeting, hosted by our local council member. Here are some of the arguments against bike share that I heard:
“We didn’t know a station was being proposed here.”
“The stations take up space for needed parking.”
“All the bike stations are making more traffic congestion.”
“Now it’s more difficult for businesses to get deliveries.”
“Bike share is a commercial venture, not appropriate for public city streets.”
The neighbors were most upset about a bike station at Clinton Avenue between Myrtle Avenue and Park Avenue. So I went there to investigate. The block is 900 feet long, so on the both sides there’s a total of 1800 feet of possible public curbside space. After you take away the space that’s off limits because of driveways and fire hydrants, you’re left with 1500 feet. So under the proposed scenario, the bike share station at this site gets about 115 feet (7%) of the space of the block and cars get the rest, 1385 feet (93%). Here’s the impressive visual I made for the meeting to back me up (with colored pencils):
So people are complaining that 7 percent of the curb public street is too much to give to another form of transportation. (Keep in mind that throughout the district the amount of space for bike share is much less because there isn’t a bike share station on every block. We can think of this block as the worst case, most local scenario.)
Now imagine if my drawing were a public pizza that you were sharing with others and it was decided that your group would get the green wedge. On one hand perhaps you wouldn’t complain because you never got a seat at the table before. But then you find out that some people are mad because they think your group shouldn’t even get that much, that 7% is too generous.
Here’s the hidden argument against bike share and anything bike related that’s just not being expressed: “We are not concerned about equity. It doesn’t matter if it’s fair, we don’t want to share the public streets with another viable form of transportation regardless of how much space they want or need. It doesn’t matter if the end result may be better for the city, we don’t want to share.” Instead of stating this hidden truth, we get other superficial complaints to distract the public and the self from understanding that the root cause of this conflict is the failure to accept that equity is the issue, made especially hard to accept because habits are engrained, an accustomed way of life that’s based on automobiles is tied to most of our culture’s identity. So instead of dealing with the real issue, we get other complaints and fights because giving way to bicycles means that our lives will become more difficult. Convenience over equity.
One argument that shows how far this lack of reason goes is this one: bike share will make traffic worse. Here’s similar reasoning: It’s like filling up a glass (with one ice cube inside) with water until it overflows and then claiming that the problem with a glass of water spilling over is the ice cube and not all the liquid that was poured into the glass! Sure, remove the ice cube and you get a bit more room for water, but the ice cube isn’t the source of the problem. The problem is too much water. The ice cube is just evidence that the customer is interested in more than drinking warm water.
Life is complicated and cities have innumerable interests moving them in every direction. We can choose to focus on the noise that’s created by it all and then, as a result, get caught up in various tangents that will keep us quite busy but if we can slow down we’ll understand that the cause of this struggle is equity. But few people talk about it.
9 Comments on "The Hidden Argument Against Bike Share (and Bike Anything)"
rollin on Tue, 30th Apr 2013 2:59 pm
They complained when cars were introduced onto roadways, but it did little good in the long run.
The humorous part is that while Asia is eliminating it’s bicycle traffic, the US is looking to increase theirs.
BillT on Tue, 30th Apr 2013 3:34 pm
Bicycles are coming back. For the price of a tank of gas, you can have a nice bike and practically free transportation, plus better health.
Beery on Tue, 30th Apr 2013 9:00 pm
Another unspoken thing is that, due to traffic congestion and infrastructure falling apart, government is desperate to make driving less attractive so that they get a few more years out of the roads and bridges that we don’t have funds to maintain.
The problem is, catering to the needs of cars hasn’t worked – the more space we give to the car, the more cars appear on the road and the more space they take. We’ve spent the last 60 years building more and wider roads and building more and bigger parking lots with the idea that at some point there will be enough, but that’s not how it works.
Now government is attempting to reduce space for cars by making it more difficult to drive and to find parking. This time, it should work: as more and more motorists find it more and more difficult to drive, they will find better ways to commute. There will still be gridlock, but at least we’ll be able to maintain a cut-back level of traffic infrastructure.
IanC on Tue, 30th Apr 2013 9:38 pm
Often left out of the equation regarding the costs of roads and parking lots is the high, and increasing costs of maintaining them. Every road you lay down will gradually wear away and the materials and labor costs for repairing the roads goes up inexorably. Barring some huge windfall for infrastructure spending, our asphalt roads will gradually degrade making it very difficult to continue car/truck culture that we currently enjoy.
Anyway, we’ll all be bikers soon.
GregT on Tue, 30th Apr 2013 10:25 pm
Although it would be nice if they could, bicycles will never replace automobiles in much of Canada and the US. Too much urban sprawl.
One more reason to get out of the cities while the getting is good.
BillT on Wed, 1st May 2013 1:52 am
GregT, cars WILL disappear and be replaced by bikes and then foot traffic. The burbs will be abandoned or they will become independent ‘towns’. There is no other option. Ditto for Canada. A lot of the countryside will return to the wild over the next few decades.
Most houses will not last 50 years without maintenance. Maybe not even 20. I know, I used to design and build them. Sawdust board, plastic and low grade lumber with oil based roofing. Planned obsolescence.
alokin on Wed, 1st May 2013 3:20 am
There are several problems with biking: first one mad driver is enough and you see the grass growing from underneath, second our roads are built for cars. Instead of winding up the hills like in the olden days they cut right across the slope. Third young people going to college instead of learning bike mechanics. First we would have to decrease the speed of cars, number two: nothing can be done because of the lack of money, number 3 creates income.
Gates outcast on Wed, 1st May 2013 3:35 am
As Kunstler always says we be dragged into the peak oil future, kicking and screaming like little kids.
GregT on Wed, 1st May 2013 4:37 am
BillT,
Agreed.
I guess I didn’t really make myself clear. Bicycles will never replace “the role” of automobiles in much of Canada and the US. It is not feasible for people to cycle over 100km twice daily to get to work and back.
I have seen houses that were pretty much destroyed after 3 years without maintenance. Hidden gutters, California stucco, and no roof overhangs, are not great ideas in a rainforest.