Eber | The Politics of Bikes
By Richard Eber, California Political News and Views
In the spirit of one my favorite comedians Joan Rivers, I have to ask her famous question, “Can we talk?” when it pertains to use of bicycles in California. This is a difficult subject to discuss because there is not one person including myself who dislikes them. However, when bikes become involved with politics, they are fair game for discussion.
Planners with the state expect that increased use of this two wheeled form of transportation will unclog the highways, reduce greenhouse gasses, and allow developers to build more housing without having to provide parking spaces for residents.
The California Legislature has already passed bills to assist zoning regulations to make California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approval easier to promote bike usage in cities around the State.
On the surface this sounds great as so many needs could be filled by substituting them for motor vehicles. It is assumed consumers (mostly young people) will jump at the opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming by peddling to and from transit centers when completing their commutes.
While it is true that California, partially due to favorable weather (see graph) is one of the leading states in bicycle usage, there is no indication that its citizens are willing to give up their automobiles in favor of two wheeled conveyance on an everyday basis.
In a 2017 report by the League of American Bicyclists, they stated bike usage during the previous six years declined 10% in San Francisco, 27% for Oakland, 18% in Sacramento, and 7% for Santa Ana. There was also so case in Playa Del Rey where angry commuters forced local government to remove bike lanes that were slowing traffic during peak use periods.
Yet at the same time Central Planners for State of California and Regional agencies are usurping power to regulate urban planning decisions from local communities. One of their favored mechanisms’s to build more affordable housing is to give density discounts to developers to construct additional units without having to allocate enough parking spaces for them.
To get around this problem these planning agencies assume that residents will abandon their cars in favor of public transportation and bicycle usage. Such thinking scares me. The California Legislature and their bureaucratic regulatory agencies are taking a giant leap of faith in their assumptions of what might be consumer tastes in the future.
As there is little data to assume bikes are a major force of transportation or ever will, I have to wonder if regulators are trying to meet impossible mandates of lowering emissions by promoting the pretzel logic that increased bike usage will occur.
Historically in California bicycle use in California has been characterized by
- Highest use between children aged 6-15 as an important way to travel in the neighborhood and to commute to school.
- When motorized transport becomes available bike use has historically been measurably reduced.
- Bikes have proven to be popular with college students living on campus (especially freshman and sophomores) to ride around in the absence of cars and parking spaces.
- Bicycles are primarily used for recreation purposes by families and hobbyists.
- There is a small group of Generation Y young people who are committed to improving the environment who utilize two wheel conveyances for commuting and shopping. However, they are in the vast minority.
- Low income folks use bikes because they cannot afford to park and/or maintain autos. History has shown if they get wealthier, cars become the preferred means of transport.
Reviewing this list it doesn’t appear that unless there is a major change in attitude, billions of dollars being spent on constructing new bike lanes is going to change the public’s desire to peddle more. Safety and recreational use should increase but are the benefits worth the cost? Adding to this is the affect of eliminating car lanes and parking spaces.
The question is where to draw the line? In the area where I live there is a bike lane that goes through the Caldecott Tunnel that separates Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Unfortunately, it is seldom used because getting there is a nasty uphill climb that is more suited for Tour De France contestants than moderately skilled cyclists.
A similar situation exists on the new Bay Bridge where the new structure links Oakland with Treasure Island. It is an expensive Stairway to Heaven trail as it does not extend into San Francisco on the old bridge? This bikeway is for cyclists what the current Bullet Train in the Central Valley is for commuters trying to find their way to work.
They are numerous pork barrel projects that can be found throughout the State of California. Being the product of PC politics, taxpayers are left holding the bag.
This is not to mean that all bike path and improvement projects are a waste of money. If they can be constructed, especially in urban areas, there is a place for them in creating ambiance, stress reduction, and safety. But let’s use dollars and a common sense approach to determine what works and is economically feasible.
The current bike lobby is very strong. They have been effective advocates in gaining public transit funds to aid their cause. In doing so, cyclists have become entrenched with environmental groups forming a powerful political alliance to be reckoned with.
Of course thinking bicycle use as a wave of the future is for now in the Fantasy Island genre. A lot of assumptions need to come to fruition for this means of transit to make up the slack for tasks normally undertaken by the automobile.
Especially alarming is that urban planning decisions affecting generations to come are being concocted by using faulty data. How can we assume the general public will opt to ride around on 10 speeds to reduce congestion?
Not being figured into the equation is that older folks and people with disabilities are going to be able to survive very well in the world of non motorized biker bars. When one adds in that families will be forced to live in an environment dominated by public transportation, how easily can they survive? Will the public transition from utilizing an SUV to a solar powered shopping cart?
All of these questions point towards the need of sound decision making, not only with bicycle use, but also in the area of urban planning. The State should take a deep breath in “looking before they leap” before usurping authority from local governments in determining what and where new housing should be built.
At the same time realistic projections need to be made on what role bicycles will play in this process.
Richard Eber studied journalism at the University of Oregon. He writes about politics, culture, education restaurants, and was former city and sports editor of UCSB Daily. Richard is president of Amerasa Rapid Transit, a specialized freight forwarder.
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
I was what I called a utility rider. I didn’t don my riding togs to ride with a peloton on weekends. I was the rider the planners are envisioning. I rode to the grocery store. I hauled groceries either in a backpack or in the trailer I had purchased to haul cargo. I rode after dark. I rode everywhere in Ventura and occasionally to Oxnard, but that was a test of fortitude. Yes, there is a bicycle path alongside the 101 Santa Clara River Bridge, but getting on and off the bridge bike path was a challenge. Riding Victoria Avenue to Oxnard is downright scary. I’ve ridden to Camarillo on occasion and that takes some real route planning.
I did do touring rides. I rode across Kansas three times. I rode around Wyoming three times. I have ridden the coast from Eureka to Long Beach and from Irvine to San Diego. I have done the Seattle to Portland ride two times. I have also done Cycle Oregon once. In addition, I did do numerous 50- 100 mile rides organized by various bicycle clubs.
Notice that all those activities are phrased in the past tense. Health problems forced me to abandon bike riding about ten years ago and at 80+ I am finding it difficult to get back in sufficient physical condition to get back on a bike.
One could reasonably say that I was a hard core bicyclist. HOWEVER, that said, the planners have their collective heads jammed in a dark place. The Chinese were the biggest users of bicycles in the world. As soon as they had enough money they switched to automobiles. Reminds me of a very old joke. Camel cigarettes used to advertise how many doctors had switched to Camel cigarettes. The rejoinder joke was that 99.9% of the doctors who switched to Camels have now switched back to automobiles. It will take a drastic economic break to get folks to travel mainly by bicycle. $10 a gallon gas might do it. A back breaking toll to drive on streets might do it. Car registration fees based on mileage with a very steep curve might do it. Building a million dollar a mile bike facilities will not do it. Many times just simple striping on the road will make a dramatic change.
Loma Vista Rd formerly had a fog line drawn on the outside of the travel lanes. Students frequently parked to the edge of the fog line which was supposed to include a “bike lane.” When the city painted a real bike lane on Loma Vista, students suddenly started parking closer to the curb. It is a rare occasion now to see a car jutting into the bike lane painted on the street. I don’t know how much the paint cost to paint that bike lane on the street but it certainly wasn’t a million dollars a mile. It has made a significant difference in a bicyclist’s ability to navigate Loma Vista Road. The striping on Main Street is a significant improvement for bicyclists. Now if we could just do something about the disappearing bike lanes where a bike lane suddenly disappears at some intersections not to continue beyond the intersection. That would be very helpful.
Million dollar a mile bike lanes (yes, TO, I am pointing the finger at you) are a waste of taxpayer funds and should go the way of thousand dollar toilet seats.