[SDCBC] Have you folks seen this report on cycling

[John Forester]

Here is the review of the Thunderhead report that I posted on 
chainguard a few days ago:


The Thunderhead Alliance has just released a study of the amounts of 
bicycling and walking compared to many other statistics.

It may be downloaded from: http://www.thunderheadalliance.org/benchmarking.htm

The paper is based on the following assumption: "Strong policies to 
provide provisions for and promote cycling and walking can help 
transform communities into healthier and more livable places." This 
is not all, because the scope is widened beyond cycling and walking 
to include more aspects: "The bicycle and pedestrian advocacy 
movement and its partners for transit and disabled-rights have 
adopted the term 'complete streets' because it accurately frames the 
discussion to show that a street is not complete unless all modes of 
transport are provided for. A complete street provides safe access 
for pedestrians, cyclists, children, the elderly, disabled people, 
transit users, and motorists."

"'Provisions' for cycling and walking are defined here as anything 
that provides for cyclists and pedestrians." I doubt that they mean 
"and", but rather "or", or  "and/or"; just typical indeterminate 
thinking, lumping the two as if they belonged together, when 
sometimes they do (as on sidewalks) and other times they do not (as 
on roadways). "This includes [listing only the facilities] ... 
bicycle parking, bike/transit integration, bicycle and pedestrian 
infrastructure (such as sidewalks, paths, and bike lanes)". And, as 
usual, roadways are not counted as bicycling facilities, as if one 
should not cycle on roadways. Much of the paper is taken up with 
correlations between these facilities and the amounts of bicycling or 
walking measured in several ways. (There are also correlations 
between money and other variables.)

No correlation was found between proportion of commuting cyclists and 
temperatures. High residential density is correlated with high share 
of commuting cyclists. The paper suggests that this is because 
distances are shorter, but it neglects the other typical fact that 
motoring is much less convenient in places with high residential 
density, which also typically have high commercial density. The 
authors cautiously suggest that high density of bicycle facilities 
(miles of bikeway per square mile of city) is correlated with higher 
commuting cyclist mode share. Oh, yes, cities with higher rates of 
cycling and walking have lower rates of car ownership. Sort of 
obvious, isn't it? And cities with much cycling have lower cyclist 
fatality rates and higher amounts of advocacy personnel and funding. 
And, would you believe it, bicycle shops are in greater density in 
cities that have more cycling!

That is, of course, the problem with all of these correlations; there 
is no evidence that the entity that one wants to increase has been 
caused by the other. To put it crudely, the hypothesis that a high 
density of bicycle shops causes a large amount of cycling is absurd. 
Yet, bicycle advocates choose to believe that a high density of 
bikeways causes a large amount of cycling, even though there is no 
reason to believe that bikeways make cycling safer, more convenient, 
or better for children and other beginners. The causal relationship 
might well be the reverse, that a population with many cyclists and 
much cycling is more likely to be able to persuade its government to 
produce more bikeways. At least, that hypothetical causal connection 
is supported by the known political facts.

The most persuasive relationship is that between high residential 
density and commuting cycling, for which the causal factors of 
shorter distances to travel and greater inconvenience of motoring are 
sufficient explanation. This means, of course, that if increasing the 
cycling volume were of highest priority, suburbia and the 
decentralized city would have to be demolished and cities would have 
to return to the style ante 1950. But the bicycle advocates have no 
plan, and have not the power, for accomplishing this; they merely 
dream their vision without realizing their impotence.

Now consider the Complete Street phenomenon. "Safe access [to be 
provided] for pedestrians, cyclists, children, the elderly, disabled 
people, transit users, and motorists." Children, to be safe in the 
street? Elderly people, who presumably have lost some abilities they 
had as mature adults? Maybe they have lost the ability to find their 
way home? In what way are elderly people different from disabled 
people? Transit users? Do we have to have special facilities to keep 
buses out of collisions, or keep them from falling off bridges? And 
what differentiates the bus riders, once they dismount from the bus, 
from plain ordinary pedestrians; has riding on the bus destroyed 
their ability to obey the pedestrian rules? Or are these words a 
requirement for buses on every street? The whole thing is hokus-pocus 
built out of dreams.

There are two classes of road user, drivers of wheeled vehicles and 
pedestrians, and two classes of facility, the roadway and the 
sidewalk, with crosswalks where one crosses the other. There should 
never be pedestrian traffic on the roadway, except when crossing it. 
Its presence signifies the absence of sidewalks, which should be 
present in most urban locations. One would think that wheeled 
vehicles should not be on the sidewalk, but this is not quite so. 
Wheeled vehicles that are operated according to pedestrian rules are 
acceptable, examples being wheelchairs (motorized or 
occupant-powered), baby carriages, children's bicycles, pushcarts or 
wheelbarrows for carrying loads. Just so long as they are operated 
according to pedestrian rules, they are acceptable, and there is good 
reason to have slopes instead of stairs or step-ups (as in curbs) to 
facilitate such operation. It is obvious that all sidewalk users have 
to be able to obey the pedestrian rules; people with disabilities or 
immaturity that prevent such operation are not safe for themselves or 
for others.

Much the same applies to the roadway. Roadway users have to have the 
ability to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of 
vehicles. Nobody has been able to design a useful road system that is 
safely used by both users who obey the rules of the road and users 
who do not obey the rules of the road. While bike-lane stripes are 
touted as producing such a roadway, that superstition has been 
conclusively disproved.

In short, the idea of Complete Streets contributes nothing but confusion.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com