With the cost of transportation for commuters and governments on the rise, the time to start rethinking why so little money is being spent on bicycle commuting has arrived. Gov1 editor and publisher, Barry Greenfield, outlines hHere in Massachusetts next month, the state DOT is holding meetings for local officials as a means of determining needs and to identify goals for the next 10 years. I plan to attend with the focus of my presentation on a concept that every major city in the U.S. should be considering.
At Gov1, we’ve written about the value of bike paths consistently (how they increase home values, and reduce health and transportation costs), with our most recent article on a bike superhighway in Copenhagen, where 50 percent of the commuting population rides to work.
Interestingly, as a means of commuting, biking is almost completely overlooked by transportation planners here in the U.S. I find this curious, as maintenance of bike paths require a pittance of support from government, compared to what is necessary to accommodate vehicle, train and bus commuters.
Even more curious is why government would avoid supporting a healthy form of commuting, instead spending billions of dollars subsidizing transportation systems that promote pollution, weight gain and significant financial cost to citizens. While I understand not everyone who drives or takes a bus or train to work would immediately ride a bike to work, there are examples which prove why serious consideration should be given to infrastructure supporting bike commuters.
One of these is in Washington DC. The Capital Crescent Trail is an 11-mile rail trail from downtown to the Northwest suburbs. Almost 100,000 people use the trail every day. It has become so popular that DC now claims it has a cycling “problem”, and is studying how to accommodate so many cycling commuters.
So, how can cities like Boston and other major population centers add bike “superhighways” when land is a limited resource. My solution is to use existing commuter rail tracks.
It is really a four-step process:
- Pave around the actual rails and create a road with a width necessary for a right hand biking lane and a left hand passing lane.
- Schedule outbound trains (which carry very few people) in the morning to leave a 2-hour window (7-9am) for bike commuters to bike in from as far away as 30 miles (at 15 miles per hour that is a two hour ride)
- Schedule inbound trains in the afternoon/evening (which carry few people) to leave a 2-hour window (5-7pm) for bike commuters to bike home.
- Install gates at entrances to the bike path closing it when cameras along the route show all bike commuters are off and a train is scheduled to use the path.
It doesn’t take more than an inquisitive eye to see that AM outbound trains and PM inbound trains are highly underutilized. On the MBTA Commuter Rail trains off hour routes, you’ll often see a five-car train carrying less than 100 people.
DOT folks – think outside the box. Or, rather, think inside the rails. Your reward will be healthier commuters, a less polluted environment and an efficiently spent budget.
And a note to local economic development directors whose towns reside on rail lines – you should be pushing for this too, as educated, fit, cycling commuters will be drawn to your town for easy access to the new bike superhighway.
This 2011 report from Rutgers and Virginia Tech http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/pubs/analysis-bike-final_0.pdf outlines two important trends – the number of bike commuters has grown in 20 years by 64% and the percentage of cyclists by race is rising faster among minorities.
Also, the following organizations present key research in supporting the case for more investment in bicycle commuting routes:
To me, it seems so logical: if you have labor force looking to cut costs on transportation and an existing infrastructure that can be retrofitted to accommodate an additional mode of commuting, DOTs need to focus on bike highways.