WSJ - "Bike Lanes Cause Polution"

The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 contained an article out of San Francisco concerning an individual who argues that building bike lanes is, in fact, causing more polution. Bob Anderson has sued in state court and has effectively stopped the implementation of San Francisco's 527 page bike plan while an environmental-impact study, which is expected to take at least another year, is completed.

The argument is basically that in car-centric American cities autos will always outnumber bikes and taking away space from cars to create bike lanes causes more congestion, traffic jams, idling and thus more polution. He does not, however, address the additional polution created by the act of building the lanes in the first place. This would come from machinery used and/or the manufacturing process for paint or any other supplies used in the creation of the lanes.

Mr. Anderson, who apparently cannot be labeled as politically correct, says that San Fracisco has been "blinded by political correctness. It's an attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic on behalf of the bicycle fantasy." He apparently has a blog going where he posts his thoughts.

What about Evanston's bike plan? Are we being "blinded by political correctness" or jumping on he latest fad? Have we done an environmental-impact study? If not, why not? I am sure we at least have one of our (in)famous traffic studies that concludes there will be no impact.

I am not arguing either for or against this issue. I just find it interesting that no matter how eco-friendly you are trying to be there is always someone willing to posit the reverse. The argument seems to hinge on the concept of there being some definable amount of polution at any time and if you remove it from one area it will increase in another to keep the balance. It is like pushing air around in a baloon. You have the same amount of air, it's just located in a different place. With regards to polution, this may be true in the short term, but over time there has to be a reduction.

Whether or not you are riding in a designated bike lane, you need to be aware of the cagers (those in cars) around you. Always expect them to do the unexpected. There has been an increase in the number of people on bikes and the cagers are not used to seeing you and often will not see you. Remember, in a vehicle to vehicle altercation, the cager always wins.

With the increase in the number of bicyclists there have also been increased complaints of riders tearing through crosswalks, charging through red lights, and having near misses with pedestrians. Ride responsibly. Respect others using our streets and sidewalks. Project a positive image of bicycling.

In the end, I don't know if bicyclists are reducing polution, causing more, or just pushing it around the baloon. You will, however, probably be healthier for the exercise, which brings us to reduced health care costs; or are they also pushed around the baloon? That, however, is another discussion for another time.

Forums:

Joe, that WSJ article reminded me of the famous piece of Ronald Reagan wisdom, "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

I won't quarrel with the tenet that more congestion translates into more pollution. That analysis applies to anything that changes traffic, not just traffic controls like bike lanes, stop signs, and speed humps, but also the introduction of hundreds (or thousands) of new residents (and their cars) into a neighborhood.

But we need to look at the overall picture. The grossest logical flaw in the argument is assuming the car-centric city as an immutable baseline, or some kind of entitlement, and not taking into account the pollution caused by our devoting so many resources to auto traffic. We wouldn't be so car-dependent if we'd subsidized train and bike travel to the same degree that we've subsidized cars (through roads, parking requirements, etc). In reality this car-centrism been around for a mere century, a blip in history. Our building so many roads, and car-oriented communities, is one reason that annual per capita car use has doubled in four decades. What goes up can also come down. Future generations of urbanites, riding on a superior network of fast, convenient, mass transit, with the occasional jaunt on a bike or small electric vehicle, may look at the 20th century as an aberration.

San Francisco is also one of the densest places in the USA, with many old and narrow streets and lots of hills; its experience doesn't translate to other places. Cities that plan well don't put bike lanes everywhere. However, many streets on most cities are rarely used to capacity, and can add a bike lane without increasing auto congestion.

California plaintiff Anderson also ignores that instituting bike lanes likely, itself, changes transportation attitudes and behavior. We could save millions of tons of greenhouse gases by just a small increase in bicycling, which is more than possible. The Bicycling Institute of America reports that "In Japan 15 percent of trips to work are by bicycle; in Switzerland, 10 percent; in the Netherlands, 30 percent and in what was once West Germany, 11 percent." Any increased congestion has to be offset by the reduction in congestion, pollution, and greenhouse gases. Check out some of the many facts and sources at bikeroute.com.

Bike and car conflict is a separate issue that I'll leave for another post.