How Far Should Bike and Transit Advocates Take Their Alliance?
In Portland, a political marriage has been brokered between biking and transit advocates. The two forces, once separate, have united under the heading "active transportation."
This year the Oregon Bike Summit changed its name to the "Active Transportation Summit," and many of the workshops focused on the collaborative power of these complementary modes.
Michael Anderson of Network blog Portland Afoot, writing for Bike Portland, examines some of the potential advantages and drawbacks of such a close collaboration, from the cyclists' perspective.
On the con side, for example:
Bicycle dollars go much, much farther than public transit dollars. Check out these comparisons, based on City of Portland data. (They're not perfect, since they exclude suburban commuters and local spending, but they show how much faster bicycling has been growing, and how amazingly little this has cost us.) When your strongest political argument is thrift, you don't invite a big spender to join your team.
And on the pro side:
Transit people are money experts. It's not just that transit agencies, unions and contractors have a herd of lobbyists who are nice to have on your side. It's that those lobbyists are more experienced, better-paid and -- especially in Portland -- more successful at pulling in huge federal grants for active transportation projects.
Anderson interviewed some of the region's leading sustainable transportation experts on the subject. Opinions were mixed, but the balance was decidedly toward the pro-partnership side:
Gerik Kransky, advocacy campaign manager, Bicycle Transportation Alliance [said] we need all the help we can get against the auto lobby. "Transit has a bigger bullhorn than bicycling does, but in the general scheme of things, both are a pipsqueak. ... We're going to do better by changing the funding environment as a team."
What do you think? How much do bike and transit advocates team up in your city, and what are the pros and cons of the arrangement?
Elsewhere on the Network today: The state of California is considering a bill that would require motorists passing cyclists not only to leave a three-foot buffer, but also slow their speed to no more than 15 mph faster than the cyclist's, Cyclelicious reports. Commute Orlando, in a letter to state officials, says continued road spending will only induce sprawl and drain resources from more important social objectives, like education. And Market Urbanism takes issue with Joel Kotkin's opinion-driven, fact-bereft treatise against "megacities."
Stay in touch
Sign up for our free newsletter
More from Streetsblog USA
Friday’s Headlines Are Tired Out
Whether it's from degradation or the dust resulting from wear and tear, it's becoming increasingly clear that tire and brake emissions are harmful, perhaps even exceeding tailpipe emissions.
Study: What Road Diets Mean For Older Drivers
"After a road diet, all motorists seem to drive at a rate that feels comfortable to a mildly-impaired older adult."
Op-Ed: Why Is Fare Evasion Punished More Severely than Speeding?
A.B. 819 offers California the opportunity to decriminalize fare evasion and replace punitive measures with more equitable approaches.
Talking Headways Podcast: Local Culture and Development
We chat with Tim Sprague from Phoenix about supporting local culture through development projects and the importance of sustainable development and transportation.
City of Yes Yes Yes! Adams Calls for Elimination of Parking Mandates on ALL New Housing
Mayor Adams today announced the historic end to one of the city’s most antiquated — and despised — zoning laws requiring the construction of parking with every new development.
