Since the middle of the 20th Century, the United States has become a largely suburban nation with massive road networks dependent on auto transport.
This infrastructure creates a series of problems:
1) Ongoing needs for enormous investments in road construction and maintenance
2) Tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths, plus many more injuries
3) Billions of dollars in lost productivity from time that workers spend sitting in traffic
4) Health problems from automotive exhaust and from the stress of driving
5) Social/family problems caused by the stress and time requirements of long commutes
6) National security and trade imbalance issues related to the import of huge amounts of oil to satisfy the gasoline needs of our automobiles.
Attempts to solve these problems have thus far proved largely ineffective. Repairing and expanding the current road system will have massive costs both in the short-term (construction) and in the long-run (maintenance). Creating a high-speed rail network is both technically challenging and extraordinarily expensive - a national vanity project.
It is encouraging to note the development of electric and hybrid cars. These hold some promise of reducing gasoline usage (although people may simply drive more if gas mileage improves), but they cannot solve the other issues around transportation infrastructure and congestion.
I believe that *part* of the solution should include government promotion of bicycling efforts. This Bicycle Promotion Program (BPP) could include several components:
1) Studies of existing bike path networks and bike share programs, particularly in Europe and Asia, but also in US cities like Portland, Oregon and Davis, California. These studies could identify best practices and distribute standards that would save various US cities from the problems of a trial-and-error approach.
2) Funds to build bike paths and bikeways in US cities and towns. The cost of building bike paths is a tiny fraction of the cost of building rail systems or highways. The cost of maintaining these systems is also tiny compared to the cost of maintaining and running road and rail networks.
3) Tax credits to encourage the purchase of bicycles, particularly electric-assist bicycles which can extend the range and terrain over which a person can feasibly commute or exercise.
4) Grants for bicycle-related research - i.e. materials that would make bicycles lighter or lengthen the battery life of electric-assist bicycles.
Comments (10)
Let's find alternatives to oil, rather than changing our way of life.
Besides it's not like bicycles are going to cure long commutes. What you're suggesting requires a complete restructure of the infrastructure as well as cities and towns. And without commutability we lose negotiating power with Corporate America. I don't want to be a slave to the local corporation, because the commute is too far to go elsewhere.
Thanks for the comment, bellevuedan.
For those people who still want to drive to the suburbs and exurbs, I don't have any objection. (I think road maintenance should be funded primarily by gas tax and tolls so that non-drivers don't have to pay as much though.)
But if you increase bike infrastructure, I'm confident you'll get more people off the roads and make it easier for drivers to get around.
NYC has a poster on the phone booths these days showing 50 cars on the road, 50 bikes and 1 bus (which holds 50 people). The only road that looks congested is the one with 50 cars.
The point is that you can have a *massive* impact in terms of building bike lanes and bikeways for minimal investment and maintenance. Even if you build electric cars, people will still have to build power plants to 'fuel' them, still have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to buy and maintain them.
With a bicycle (perhaps with an electric assist) for $1000 and a tax credit to make even that more affordable, you'd help a lot of people get out of debt and have more disposable income to spend on lifestyle enhancements.
Again, I'm not saying we should outlaw cars or highways -- just that a relatively tiny investment in encouraging bicycling could have outsize benefits.
- Aaron Dalton, http://1GreenProduct.com
You can have your bicycle, I will keep my Truck
Dear William,
To each his own! Of course you should be able to keep your truck. Perhaps you use it to haul lumber or maybe you just like the feeling of driving it.
But perhaps you recognize that driving a truck has certain repercussions. I'm not talking about something as nebulous as global warming, but rather just the fact that we have to import oil from Middle Eastern dictatorships (enriching those countries) in order to process into gasoline to fuel your truck. And that the truck emits pollutants that irritate lungs and cause smog. And that trucks (and cars) kill tens of thousands of people each year in accidents. Etc.
I'm not even asking for balance. I'm just saying that instead of having the government support cars with 99.9% of transport funding, let's have cars supported with 95% of funding and bikes get 5%. Because bikes need so much less in the way of infrastructure investments, you'd see an amazing difference in traffic, pollution, etc. Which means you'll be able to enjoy the road in your truck that much more.
It's a win-win situation. :-)
- Aaron Dalton, http://1GreenProduct.com
Aaron, Have no problem with make bike lines across the USofA, heck, would open new jobs. Think thats a great idea, as long as I can drive my truck up and down the road and across the USofA. Problem is Government (as we are heading) would jump on you idea, and demand all ride bicy instead of cars lol.
The Denver Metro area has a lot of bike paths running next to irrigation ditches and thru downtown. It also helps get people to excercise and promotes the community. One major health care expense in the US is obesity, so building public ways that encourage people to get out and walk or bike would help in other ways as well.
i'M HIS PROSTITUTE UR U F--U C --K ED IN THE HEAD. I'll show this whole world who is the pimp when I get out of school! fact
THIS IS NUTS!!! DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS! People aren't going to give up their cars to peddle bikes to get to work or go the doctor or go grocery shopping. How's that going to work. I really don't need and answer... this sounds like an Obama plan while he flies to NY for his date night and costs us lot's of money! He should bike!!!!
I just bought a new (used) bike today and am looking forward to biking in my new place, which has a bike coalition. I can walk/bike to work, and hope for more people to do the same.
@emarlow -
The latest data I've seen indicates that oil industry folks are saying we have 40 years of oil left globally. I think undrilled U.S. deposits are included in that figure, but if they're not, that's not going to extend the timeline very much.
40 years isn't a long time to start planning alternative infrastructures. Per dho's comment, people don't have to give up their cars when it comes to grocery shopping, but there's no reason that more people couldn't pedal bikes to go out to dinner, movies, to work, etc. if the transportation infrastructure existed.
I'm not advocating that people give up cars. But 2-car families might be able to downsize to 1-car and 2-bike families. And people who do have 2 cars wouldn't have to drive those cars all the time if good alternatives existed.
To the bike-haters, what is so threatening about creating options and alternatives?
Again, bikes need fewer resources than cars in terms of road/path construction and maintenance. Let cars keep 95% of the Federal transportation funding, but give bicycle infrastructure and tax credits 5% of the funding. It's just common sense.
- Aaron Dalton, http://1GreenProduct.com