What we know about bike infrastructure: people want it

We know that 90 percent of the people are not going to be cycling to work or around town. But that opportunity and that kind of alternative is something people have said they want.

They said it in a recent study by Transportation For America. They said it last week in Tupelo and Hernando, Mississippi. They've been saying it in Portland, Oregon, for years. They're saying it in Washington, DC.

They said it after an interview I gave in the New York Times earlier this month. And New York bicyclists have said it loudly and clearly with their pedals, increasing their numbers by 28% in the last year alone according to a study by Transportation Alternatives.

And in response to an All Things Considered interview, NPR listeners have been saying it over and over on the NPR website. You can listen to the NPR piece below:

On Facebook, I sometimes have trouble seeing my own wall posts because bicycling fans have been so busy posting their support for DOT's bicycle-pedestrian initiative in such strong numbers.

Even Lance Armstrong, America's 7-time Tour de France winner, has added his voice to the mix, urging his 2+ million Twitter followers to listen to the NPR story about bike infrastructure in America. Thanks, Lance!
 

Why devote resources to a transportation mode that fewer than 10% of the nation is using? Well, bike infrastructure is relatively inexpensive--particularly if you compare it to, say, adding a lane to an existing roadway. Now, imagine if those people who do bike around chose instead to make all of their trips in single-occupancy vehicles. Our already congested roadways would be brought to a halt.

So, even for those folks who have no interest in bicycling, this relatively low investment actually pays dividends for those who still choose to drive. Everybody wins.

And the fact is, as Washington, DC, DOT Director Gabe Klein noted on NPR, "We see a direct correlation between our investment in bike infrastructure and an uptick in usage. When you make it hassle-free and inexpensive for people to use a certain mode, they will use it."

I'll say it again--because I want my online friends in commercial trucking and the people who make their living behind the wheel, to know--we are not out to make their jobs any harder than they already are.

I know they're paying a lot of taxes to use the roads, and I appreciate that fact. But we're talking about making their jobs easier by taking vehicles off those roadways and easing congestion so the trucking community and bus and taxi drivers can deliver their goods and passengers more smoothly.

Look, in the 54 years since President Eisenhower launched the interstate system that connects America, we've committed almost all of our transportation resources to highways. Part of our commitment now should be to create alternatives to congestion.

We know that making biking and walking safer creates more livable communities. It makes Americans healthier at a time when the US military has indicated that 27% of recruits are too overweight to qualify for service. It lowers greenhouse gas emissions. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

And it's what Americans have said they want.

Comments

[Richard Wharton]

Um, why did you edit my comment? What's wrong with educating cyclists and using the roads we have already???

[John Corrigan]

It was great to hear the interview on National Public Radio on Sunday, but I think it's important to stop calling bicycling and walking "alternative" forms of transportaion. They should be recognized as a mainstream part of a comprehensive system. "Alternatives" get marginilized, and marginilized modes have trouble getting funded.

[John Eldon]

The most urgent needs for bicyclists are traffic signals which detect our presence; calming of high-speed free merges, diverges, unions, etc.; aggressive prosecution of drunk, drugged, and/or distracted motorists.

Where special facilities are to be provided, let's stop blowing it at the intersections, where too many such facilities set us up for right hooks, left crosses, and all of the other problems we are trying to avoid.

[charles griner]

I am really pleased with your courageous stand supporting more bicycle infrastructure; you know you are taking on a sacred cow in moving infrastructure towards human powered vehicles and away from the almighty POV.

I hope you can take on an even greater challenge in making the streets of the USA safe again for pedestrians. Those of us born in the 40s and 50s have watched the introduction of interstate highways, freeways, toll roads, wider roads, expansive intersections and many more limits on accessability for walkers. The country is full of "no go" areas for pedestrians; major roads are all but impossible for the very young and very old to cross. It's become the American way of life to move around ANY way except on foot. I won't even mention pedestrian deaths. Each city has it's own small organizations representing pedestrian safety; but there could be nothing like a DOT level initiative to turn this mess around after 40+ years.

[Bob Shanteau]

Thanks for you support of bicycling in America's transportation system.

Most bicycling still occurs on conventional streets, roads and highways. But we have a major problem when a conventional road has freeway-style features, such as high speed ramps at interchanges. What is DOT doing to discourage construction of freeway style features on conventional roads?

[charles griner]

Secretary LaHood,

This morning I sent you a comment about pedestrian safety not knowing that a pedestrian was killed on M street SE at first street, right near your office. I know the intersection well as I frequently cross there. It's one of those intersections that allows main flow traffic to turn into side streets while those side streets allow pedestrians to cross. This is the priority that pedestrians suffer at the hands of POVs. Please, please take on this fight: stop right turn on red; stop turning into pedestrians with walk signals.

charlie griner

[Sam Goater]

what about a tax-free bike program like they have in the UK? http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/
the price of a new bike is a big obstacle to many in the workforce, and this would have a huge impact

Also, here in CT Route 1 is the most dangerous road for bikes, and the CT DOT are useless and won't fix it. A nice wide protected bike lane the whole length of Route 1 would be a fantastic investment and enable bike transportation in all the coastal towns in New England.

Thanks Secretary,

(please get on the CT DOT's case they really are useless)

[Sam]

Secretary LaHood: I wish you'd make a pit stop in San Diego and speak with passion on how much bicyclists have been ignored for years. San Diego has a major congestion problem on its highways yet, the officials all drag their feet when it comes to creating alternative solutions (not just cyclists but also public transit).

As a bonus, the weather is here ALWAYS perfect :)

[CHP]

I'd love to see more people choosing bikes over cars, but I think both drivers and bikers need more education in order to coexist amiably. So often people don't realize that bikes must heed the same road rules as cars.

[Ron]

People do want more bicycle infrastructure for sure. We would also welcome rail travel that connects more states. It would make middle America more accessible to all. Being able to put a bicycle on a hight speed train would reduce a lot of air travel. The future of transportation is certainly not in the skies.

[Kenny Heggem]

cycle track and bikes lanes simply work. They GET people on bikes. The fearless bicycle committee can create whatever argument they want, but it will not fly with most Americans... educate all you like, if we do not catch up with the places that have 20% of the populous cycling (ala' European cities are reaching and exceeding as well in upcoming years) we cannot expect cycling to reach mass appeal.

I cannot see a 40 yr old Mom with 2 kids in a a Box Bike taking the lane on a major highway. Sorry Forester and friends... just not realistic.

We need ot invest in proper bike infrastructure... beyond the lack luster American/second class citizen and Lycra toy form. Where wearing a helmet is total over kill.

That is how you get 80 year old men and women, families with children, and people of all walks and the like on a bicycle.

[cheap computer canada]

Using bikes is the best solution to stay healthy and fit and save the fuel energy.

[cheap laptops canada]

This right is undermined by laws against it, laws that are strengthened particularly where your policy is implemented. It is unjust to work against lawful cyclists in order to encourage the unlawful cycling that the public wants.

[Johndavis58]

Are we taxing the biker and are they required to purchase insurance as a motor vehicle does?

[HP Bryce]

All communities in America should become bike friendly; like Chaska, MN. The bike paths that were built in the early 70's are still there and in great shape. These paths have needed very little maintenance over all these years. These paths are also one of the reasons Chaska, MN has been voted in the top 10 best small town in America time and again.

[David Ainsworth]

Bicycling is fine and dandy, just remember that anything you want the government to do, is going to be paid for BY you. Most likely in the form of mandatory bicycle licensing and registration fees. Not to mention bicycle liability insurance.I may not be able to afford to ride a bike anymore.

[Nick]

This is a very good thing. Bicycling instead of driving can reduce the pollution, ease the burden of transportation, and also improve people's health.

[Robert]

I'm all for it. Look at Asian countries. A large percentage ride bicycles.