The flaws of vehicular cycling (VC) theory

One of the first comments often heard from fellow cyclists when starting to bicycle commute was not to ride on the community’s bike pathway system because it is less safe than riding in street traffic. A whole litany of perceived dangers were cited, most commonly conflicts with vehicles entering/exiting driveways. Instead, riding amid street traffic was touted as the better and safer way to go. For those hardy souls with the skill level and nerves of steel, please feel free to ride all the busy collector roads and arterial streets that you would like to. As for the rest of us, forget about it!

mitpress.mit.edu/books/city-cycling-0

This week, while reading the book entitled City Cycling, the name of the theory that appears to have fostered the pent-up angst against bikeways was discovered. First espoused in 1992, vehicular cycling (VC) theory essentially adheres to the philosophy that:

“Cyclists fare best when they act as, and are treated as, operators of vehicles.” (page 114)

While it is agreed that cyclists are operators of vehicles and should rightly be treated as so when riding on streets, the contention that they “fare best” when doing so is unsupportable. Furthermore, there is no way that everyone falls into this theory’s mold. It is simply a theory of convenience for those who prefer street cycling over other forms of bicycle riding. The frustrating part is vehicular cycling (VC) theory has largely overshadowed the utilitarian “European-style” cycling modes which promote inclusive, less stressful, and more logical non-motorized transportation network designs that most of us would prefer using as opposed to competing with motorists.

Here is a paraphrased summary of the inherent flaws of VC theory articulated in pages 114-17 of City Cycling:

“It ignores the massive evidence of the European experience.

It ignores the engineering solutions developed to improve intersection safety for cyclists.

It is preoccupied with a collision type called the ‘right hook,’ which occurs when a through-going cyclist conflicts with a right-turning motorist approaching from behind.

When first postulated it had no empirical support.

Until now [2012], only one credible American study at first glance appears to support the [VC] theory…However, this study considers only crashes at intersections (including driveway junctions) and therefore gives a distorted view of overall safety.

A 2011 study by Lusk, et al. showed that when between-junction crashes are accounted for along with crashes at intersections, the sidewalk bikeway’s crash risk was not statistically different from the risk of riding in the street.

When the risk of riding the same direction as traffic flow was considered, the risk of riding along bikeways/cycle tracks is half that of riding in the streets.”

Thank heaven, not everyone is still buying into the VC theory. A number of American cities, such as Portland, New York City, Indianapolis, Cambridge, Davis, Minneapolis, and Washington, DC have seen the light from the European results. May many more do so and soon – hopefully bringing along county and state road agencies, perhaps even the ever-present foot-draggers at AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). Cycling in general and utilitarian cyclists in particular, will be very thankful when they do.

America’s most/least literate cities

Source: newyorker.com

For the most part, I will let these lists speak for themselves.

Most literate cities in America:

1. Washington, DC
2. Seattle, Washington
3. Minneapolis, Minnesota
4. Atlanta, Georgia
5. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Least literate cities (all news is not so sunny from the Sunbelt):

1. Bakersfield, California
2. Corpus Christi, Texas
3. Stockton, California
4. El Paso, Texas
5. San Antonio, Texas

Source: business.time.com/2014/02/25/the-5-least-literate-cities-in-america/

Sharing the roads is NOT enough!

A year or so ago I wrote about how cyclists are sometimes our own worst enemies. One gist of that post was until the cycling community can come together and agree on ONE course of action regarding advocacy, it will be mired in division which weakens its overall argument. I still believe this is our greatest dilemma, as we have the competing interests between hardened and more-daring riders demanding equal access to the streets versus the rest of us who just want to be and feel safe and thus prefer clearly marked or protected bike lanes (see first photo below) and/or wholly separated bike routes (see second photo below). Sure, there is safety in numbers, but we first have to develop sufficient numbers to actually achieve the safety benefits.

Source: bostinno.streetwise.co

Source: bicycling.com

Being more inclusive helps grow participation in bicycling and therefore raw numbers. What seasoned riders need to realize is that many women, youngsters, seniors, the disadvantaged, and those of us like me who are uncomfortable amid automobile traffic are not suited to nor capable of riding with traffic on city streets. Authors John Pucher and Ralph Buehler put it this way in the introduction to their excellent book, entitled City Cycling:

“Cycling should be made feasible, convenient, and safe for everyone; for women, as well as men, for all age groups, and for a wide range of physical abilities. The authors of this book take the view that cycling should not be limited to cyclists who are highly trained, fit, and daring enough to do battle with motor vehicles on busy roads. As demonstrated in many chapters, getting children, seniors, and women on bikes requires provision of safer and more comfortable cycling conditions than currently exist in most American, Australian, and British cities.” (page xii)

Source: mitpress.mit.edu/books/

Hallelujah to Mr. Pucher and Mr. Buehler as you have hit proverbial the nail squarely on the head. Numbers (and subsequently safety) will not appreciably increase without more participation from those who are not currently part of the non-motorized community. To advocate for road sharing (or sharrowing) is simply not enough. If the greater bicycling community wants true safety in numbers…numbers that will be noticed by motor vehicle drivers, it must advocate and promote the development of a bicycling infrastructure that accommodates all, especially those with less riding ability. Otherwise, only the hardiest, the bravest, or the most daring will venture onto city streets and roadways, rarely producing the quantity of riders that is necessary to change public perceptions or to build a dynamic and diverse cycling culture.

“Bikenomics” – a landmark planning book!

Source: takingthelane.com

Certain books become a classic in their field of study because of their comprehensive nature (i.e. The City in History). Others do from their advocacy and groundbreaking nature (i.e. Silent Spring).  In the case of Bikenomics: How Bicycling Can Save the Economy, both of these reasons apply. Author Elly Blue has written “the” definitive book on bicycle planning that clearly identifies the societal, physical, environmental, and economic benefits of bicycling, while also completely debunking the myths, fables, urban legends, half-truths, and outright lies spread by naysayers and automotive apologists.

Facts are funny things. They tend to get in the way of spurious and superfluous arguments. In Bikenomics, Ms. Blue lays down the gauntlet with factual truths about bicycling and how a vibrant cycling culture can go a long way to curing many of our nation’s ills. If one could quote the entire book in a blogpost, I would.  There are so many quotable gems contained within this publication, that I could fill gigabytes of pages with them. But alas, you should read the book, so I have only provided a few of them at the end of this post.

Believe me when I say this is a book that every planning professional must read and own. It will single-handedly serve as your go-to resource on the benefits of bicycle planning in your community. Kudos to Ms. Blue providing all of us with a fantastic source of information. Enjoy!

Here are a sampling of quotes from the book:

“People who ride bicycles also pay taxes, which means they often pay more into the road system than they cost it. By one estimate, a carfree cyclist would overpay by an average of $250 a year — a few dollars more than the amount that the average driver underpays.” (page 13)

“As it turns out, gas taxes have paid for about 70% of the construction and maintenance costs of the Interstate system to date, with that percentage going down with each passing year. Local roads fare worse when it comes user funding. If you take the nation’s road system as a whole, only 51% of its cost over the years has come from direct user fees.” (page 39)

“When you brush away the rhetoric, though, even the fanciest bikeways are a screaming bargain. For the cost of one freeway interchange, you can completely transform your city and immeasurably improve the wealth, health, and happiness of its citizens.”  (page 49)

“Large road projects are often funded in a down economy because they create jobs. But roads are actually the least job-intensive of any transportation investment. Bikeways are the most, creating more jobs per million dollars spent than roads-this is because there are so few materials involved and most of the budget goes to workers.” (page 51)

“Bikes may not be able to solve our health care crisis singlehanded…But bicycling is one of the rare areas where people can directly and concretely address our own health and the health of our community, and quickly see big results. In this light, bicycling for transportation isn’t so much a lifestyle choice as it’s a form of civic action.” (page 61)

“Minimum parking requirements act like a fertility drug for cars’ – Donald Shoup.” (page 89)

“In the US, 99% of trips by car end up in a free spot [parking spot]. The value of that land—and to a lesser extent, the costs of paving, sweeping, policing, and maintaining it—makes [parking one of the largest subsides going.” (page 90)

“In a car-oriented world, old age becomes a disability for many, long before it might in a more walkable neighborhood. The more car-reliant your daily life, the lower the threshold becomes for frailness, injury, or failing eyesight to be experienced as outright disabling.” (page 104)

“Portlanders drive 20% fewer miles every day than the average resident of a comparable metro area. The total money that we save on those miles we don’t drive is $1.1 billion dollars a year.” (page 113)

Greater Lansing’s 2014 Chinese New Year celebration

Below are a series of images from today’s Greater Lansing 2014 Chinese New Year celebration held inside a local mall. A large crowd attended the festive event which included music, a dragon parade, dancing, a fashion show, martial arts, booths with arts and crafts, and a variety of other cultural and artistic activities.

Happy “Year of the Horse” to all. Enjoy!

Photo by Kathy

Down the drain – our use and abuse of water

Source: grist.org

A map entitled “World of Rivers” included as an insert within the April 2010 issue of National Geographic magazine provides an analysis of how much water is actually consumed (hidden water usage) to produce common everyday goods. It is an eye-opening set of data. One thing the data definitely highlights is the water conservation benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet. It also highlights the considerable amount of water it takes for producing oil when compared to other forms of energy, including other fossil fuels.

Whenever possible, new or updated numbers are provided from the National Geographic website. Here is the data:

Meat and dairy products

• 1,799 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef (updated on website)
• 1,382 gallons of water to produce one pound of sausage
• 880 gallons of water to produce one gallon of milk
• 756 gallons of water to produce one pound of pork
• 731 gallons of water to produce one pound of sheep (from the website)
• 589 gallons of water to make processed cheese
• 468 gallons of water to produce one pound of chicken (updated on website)
• 400 gallons of water to produce one pound of eggs
• 371 gallons of water to produce one pound of fresh cheese
• 138 gallons of water to produce one pound of yogurt
• 127 gallons of water to produce one pound of goat (from the website)

Fruit, grains, and vegetables (rain and irrigation water both are factored in)

• 449 gallons of water for one pound of rice (from the website)
• 379 gallons of water for one pound of figs
• 198 gallons of water for one pound of barley (from the website)
• 193 gallons of water for one pound of plums
• 185 gallons of water for one pound of cherries
• 154 gallons of water for one pound of avocados
• 132 gallons of water for one pound of wheat (from the website)
• 109 gallons of water for one pound of corn
• 103 gallons of water for one pound of bananas
• 84 gallons of water for one pound of apples
• 79 gallons of water for one pound of grapes
• 55 gallons of water for a pound of oranges
• 43 gallons of water for a pound of beans
• 33 gallons of water for a pound of strawberries
• 31 gallons of water for a pound of potatoes
• 25 gallons of water for a pound of eggplant

Common goods

• 2,800 gallons of water to produce one cotton bed sheet
• 1,008 gallons of water to produce one gallon of wine
• 766 gallons of water to produce one cotton t-shirt
• 634 gallons of water to produce one hamburger
• 53 gallons of water to produce one glass of milk
• 37 gallons of water to produce one cup of coffee
• 32 gallons of water to produce on glass of wine
• 20 gallons of water to produce on glass of beer
• 9 gallons of water to produce one cup of tea

Energy (all from the updated website)

• Oil consumes 1.01 gallons of water for each kilowatt-hour
• Coal consumes 0.15 gallons of water for each kilowatt-hour
• Natural gas consumes 0.10 gallons of water for each kilowatt-hour
• Nuclear energy (uranium) consumes 0.09 gallons of water each kilowatt-hour
• Wind energy consumer 0.00 gallons of water for each kilowatt-hour

Source: National Geographic, April 2010 (unless otherwise noted)

Winter scenes on the Boulder Creek Path

View of beautiful Boulder Creek from one of the trail bridges.

Below are series of photos from my morning hike with my middle son this past Monday, January 6th, along portions of the 5.5 mile long Boulder Creek Path near the campus of the University of Colorado. It was absolutely gorgeous on this bone-chilling, but bright and sunny morning. Though the photos don’t show them, we saw at least six bike riders pedaling their fat tires, plus a number of walkers, even though classes don’t resume until next week.

Source: pulse.8z.com

The freshly fallen snow was cleared for easy use of the path/trail, which is an important east-west active transportation route through the city. Also impressive was the fact that a number of areas of the path had to be repaired and/or rebuilt following the September flooding. Kudos on the quick repair work to all!

One of my favorite aspects of the path was listening to the rushing waters of Boulder Creek flow beside you as you walk. Combined with the new fallen snow and views of the Rockies, the whole scene was quite breathtaking. Just another reason, Colorado is one of my favorite states.

Congrats to all the citizens of Boulder for having such a stellar recreational and commuting amenity as part of the city’s greenway system. I cannot wait to return to Boulder very soon to visit my son in grad school and to hike/bike additional segments of the path during other seasons of the year.

Ten cool urban tree canopy maps

Below are a cool and coloful assortment of urban tree canopy maps from around the United States to enjoy on these cold, snowy, and gray days. Each of the maps is unique unto itself, but all clearly depict the green infrastructure of the tree canopy within the urban landscape and provide useful environmental information. Given the importance of trees for cleansing the air; producing oxygen; lowering temperatures in the urban heat island; and providing food, shelter, and cover for wildlife, these maps are a crucial part of any urban planning effort.

While I like the depiction of the tree canopy over a satellite/aerial image, the most useful ones, from a future planning perspective, would seem to be those maps that break down the percentage of tree cover/canopy by neighborhood or census tract. Enjoy!

Charlottesville, Virginia – Source : americanforests.org

Fayetteville, Arkansas – Source: accessfayetteville.org

Minneapolis, Minnesota – Source: blogsmprnews.org

Detroit, Michigan – Source: datadrivendetroit.org

Cincinnati, Ohio – Source: midwestutc,org

Annapolis, Maryland – Source: dnr.state.md.us

Grand Rapids, Michigan – Soutce: mlive.com

Tacoma, Washington – Source: cityoftacoma.org

Edmond, Oklahoma – Source: edmondok.com

New Haven, Connecticut – Source: environment.yal.edu

International cities of refuge

Source: internationalpaper.com

You may never have heard of ICORN (International Cities of Refuge Network), but it has a very noble purpose:

“ICORN Cities offer persecuted writers a safe haven where they can live and work without fear of being censored or silenced.”

Source: eurozine.com

The network operates as follows:

“The International Cities of Refuge Network is an association of cities around the world dedicated to the value of Freedom of Expression. Writers have consistently been targets of politically motivated threats and persecution, and the network believes it is necessary for the international community to formulate and implement an appropriate response.”

“Each ICORN city focuses on one writer at a time, each writer representing the countless others in hiding, in prison or silenced forever. By providing a Guest Writer with a safe place to stay and economic security for a standard term of two years, ICORN cities make an important, practical contribution to the promotion of Freedom of Expression.”

To qualify for ICORN refugee status:

“A. The applicant must be a writer. The term ‘writer’ is to include novelists, non-fiction writers, playwrights, poets, editors, translators, publishers, journalists and cartoonists.

B. The applicant must be either:”

1. “At risk as a direct consequence of his/her writing—whether the writer is in danger of being killed, abducted, physically attacked or “disappearing”. In a case where a writer is threatened with any of the above, an appraisal as to likelihood of such a threat being carried out will be made on an individual case/country basis by the Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN.”
2. “Sentenced to (or at risk of being sentenced to) a prison term by the authorities in his/her country as a direct consequence of his/her writing. (This excludes cases in which writers have been charged or are at risk of being charged with inciting hatred or violence through their writing unless it can be ascertained that the charges against them have been fabricated.)”
3. “Unable to express themselves freely through his/her writing for fear of persecution due to the probable actions of the government or other non-government entities of the country in which he/she habitually resides. In such cases the writer may be able to return to his/her own country after a period of working freely abroad.”

“ICORN’s decisions regarding which writers will be taken into the network will be based on information from the Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN. The Writers in Prison Committee will make an evaluation regarding the authenticity of the declared danger to the individual writer and/or provide an informed assessment of the likelihood that any threatened persecution will be carried out.”

At the end of this post is a list of those cities which are either hosting a writer now, or have committed to receiving a writer within the next year. Sadly, only one American city, Miami, in our self-declared land of the free, is a current participant in ICORN. In addition, there are no ICORN cities located in Africa, Asia, Oceania, or South America. Those are abysmal statistics for it nearly being 2014.

Below of those countries that contain more than one ICORN city:

• Norway = 12
• Sweden = 9
• Denmark = 4
• Italy = 3
• Spain = 3
• Mexico = 2
• The Netherlands = 2

Congratulations to each participating city and especially to those nations with multiple participants. More cities and nations should seriously consider becoming a part of this important network. Here is the complete list of cities:

• Amsterdam, The Netherlands
• Århus, Denmark
• Barcelona, Spain
• Bergen, Norway
• Brussels, Belgium
• Bø, Norway
• Chiusi and the Region of Toscana, Italy
• Copenhagen, Denmark
• Drøbak, Norway
• Fanø, Denmark
• Frankfurt, Germany
• Girona, Spain
• Gothenburg, Sweden
• Hannover, Germany
• Haugesund, Norway
• Jönköping, Sweden
• Krakow, Poland
• Kristiansand, Norway
• Lillehammer, Norway
• Ljubljana, Slovenia
• Malmö, Sweden
• Mexico City, Mexico (2)
• Miami, USA
• Molde, Norway
• Norwich, United Kingdom
• Odense, Denmark
• Oslo, Norway
• Palma de Mallorca, Spain
• Paris, France
• Potenza, Italy
• Reykjavik , Iceland
• Sigtuna , Sweden
• Skien, Norway
• Skelleftea, Sweden
• Skåne, Sweden
• Stavanger, Norway
• Stockholm , Sweden
• Tilburg, The Netherlands
• Tromsø, Norway
• Trondheim, Norway
• Tuscany, Italy
• Uppsala, Sweden
• Växjö, Sweden

Riding the rails to/from college

Below is a list of college cities and towns and their fiscal year 2013 AMTRAK ridership data. Very large central cities with a 2010 Census population exceeding 500,000 (like New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Los Angeles, Fort Worth, Austin, Indianapolis, Dallas, Denver, Albuquerque, Seattle, etc.) with major universities were not included in the this since their student populations represent a significantly smaller proportion of the community’s total population and intercity transportation ridership.

• New Haven, CT (Yale) = 745,530
• Irvine, CA (Univ. of California/Irvine) = 425,041
• Davis, CA (Univ. of California/Davis) = 424,114
• Fullerton, CA (California State/Fullerton) = 313,949
• Bloomington-Normal, IL (Illinois State) = 263,235
• Champaign-Urbana, IL (Univ. of Illinois) = 190,851
• Raleigh, NC (North Carolina State) = 159,584
• Ann Arbor, MI (Univ. of Michigan) = 158,717
• Syracuse, NY (Syracuse) = 154,903
• Berkeley, CA (Univ. of California) = 153,080
• Kingston, RI (Univ. of Rhode Island) = 152,403
• Carbondale, IL (Southern Illinois) = 135,891
• Charlottesville, VA (Univ. of Virginia) = 131,127
• Kalamazoo, MI (Western Michigan) = 129,858
• Eugene, OR (Univ. of Oregon) = 118,006
• Durham, NC (Duke) = 83,232
• Reno, NV (Univ. of Nevada) = 78,827
• Macomb, IL (Western Illinois) = 77,082
• Toledo, OH (Toledo) = 68,463
• East Lansing, MI (Michigan State) = 66,398
• Williamsburg, VA (William & Mary) = 62,026
• Durham, NH (Univ. of New Hampshire) = 60,978
• Princeton, NJ (Princeton) = 45,685
• Mattoon, IL (Eastern Illinois) = 44,598
• Salt Lake City, UT (Univ. of Utah) = 43,903
• Minot, ND (Minot State) = 41,615
• Flagstaff, AZ (Northern Arizona) = 40,390
• Austin, TX (Univ. of Texas) = 38,929
• Columbia, SC (Univ. of South Carolina) = 36,349
• South Bend, IN (Note Dame) = 25,613
• Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN (Purdue) = 24,925
• Winona, MN (Winona State) = 23,507
• Fargo, ND (North Dakota State) = 22,497
• Grand Forks, ND (Univ. of North Dakota) = 19,422
• Norman, OK (Univ. of Oklahoma) = 13,902
• St. Cloud, MN (St. Cloud State) = 13,537
• Amherst, MA (Univ. of Massachusetts) = 13,357
• Lincoln, NE (Univ. of Nebraska) = 13,160
• Hattiesburg, MS (Southern Mississippi) = 13,056
• Newark, DE (Univ. of Delaware) – 12,971
• Chico, CA (Chico State) = 12,870
• Tuscaloosa, AL (Univ. of Alabama) = 11,598
• Huntington, WV (Marshall) = 11,186
• Topeka, KS (Washburn) = 10,571
• New Brunswick, NJ (Rutgers) = 9,052
• Santa Clara, CA (Santa Clara) = 8,635
• San Marcos, TX (Texas State) = 7,995
• Lawrence, KS (Kansas Univ.) = 7,204
• Lafayette, LA (Louisiana-Lafayette) = 6,590
• Provo, UT (Brigham Young) = 6,262
• Clemson, SC (Clemson) = 5,597

SOURCE: AMTRAK