Cyclists have been struggling for a long time to convince leaders in American cities and towns to invest in bicycling infrastructure. They have also been fighting for respect, rights and an acknowledgment of bicycling as a legitimate form of transportation. Some progress has been made in all of these areas, although much work still remains to be done.
Until bicycling facilities are considered an essential part of road planning, bicycles will always be an afterthought. Cyclists must take this into consideration when advocating for more bicycling infrastructure. And, they must work towards obtaining representation on road planning projects.
Having a voice can go a long way. And, that voice cannot be distant, but must be close to where the decision-making is taking place. Even so, there comes a point where advocacy in isolation is not enough.
Cyclists cannot continue to be solely a special interest group. This doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t advocate for things specific to cycling, but rather that they should advocate in the context of the world they want to live in — a world where roads are not clogged with idling cars, and bicycles and pedestrians can travel in safety.
In most discussions about transportation, roads are the core of the debate. We talk about sharing the road. We talk about bike lanes. We talk about traffic laws. And, we talk about livable streets.
To date, the roads have been our battle ground. And they will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Yet, something is missing from this conversation, namely, transportation which occurs outside the bounds of the roads.
It’s ironic that cyclists, who tout the merits of cycling as a way to reduce congestion, typically fail to mention other ways of contributing to the reduction of cars on the road. From their love of and devotion to their preferred form of transportation, they are blinded to the obvious: cycling has a companion in its quest to reduce the number of cars on the road, one which quietly runs in the background, chugging away unnoticed due to its unglamourous role. But, no one seems to notice. That companion is none other than public transportation.
Public transportation is infrequently spoken of in livable streets debates. This silence works against cyclists in insidious ways. The idea of sharing transportation is antithetical to the American dream because attaining this dream rests upon the idea of making it for oneself. It is an ideal of independence, self-sufficiency and individuality. Nowhere in the portrayal of the self-made man do we find the notion of sharing what one has attained.
This mindset is the basis for our car-centric society. Having the means to travel solo, in style, is a sign of success. And, it promotes the idea that a life of ease, in the form of door-to-door transportation, connotes status. Changing this idea will be difficult because people tend to be lazy and because people want to be seen as members of a higher class of society.
How, then, does a concept like public transportation, where a ride is shared by many, and controlled by an outside force, fit into American society? This question is more complex than it first seems.
Public transportation usage is seen as something done by the masses, not the elite. It is also associated with the poor, who cannot afford cars. In addition, public transportation is regarded as slower than motor vehicle transportation, and it only takes riders to an approximate destination. At the end of the trip, some other method — such as walking or driving — is required to reach a specific destination. Needing multiple forms of transportation to travel from point A to point B is a deterrent for many travelers, but this needn’t be so.
To address this problem, densely populated states should invest more in public transportation. They should not allow current systems to deteriorate or go unused. Whenever possible, systems should be expanded to cover more territory. Money should be allocated for providing transportation throughout urban areas and the surrounding suburbs. But, this is rarely done.
Part of the problem is inefficiency, and part is lack of interest. The former must be addressed at the management level. But the latter falls within the purview of cyclists and pedestrians.
Although it appears obvious that cyclists would benefit from expanded public transportation, bicycle advocates rarely make this point. They don’t encourage cyclists to use or support public transportation because their emphasis is on getting more people to ride bicycles. Fair enough. But, one has to question whether there will ever be enough people riding bicycles to significantly reduce the number of cars on the roads.
Cars outnumber bicycles by a wide margin. Even if 20% of drivers switched to cycling, it would barely make a dent in traffic. And, many Americans will never exert themselves to travel, so it would be unrealistic to expect even a third of drivers to abandon their vehicles for cycling. However, there may exist some possibility of persuading them to compromise by convincing them of the benefits of using public transportation for at least some of their trips.
If even half of all drivers used public transportation for 10% of their trips, there would be a noticeable decrease in traffic. Add that to the 20% who might make bicycling a major part of their transportation strategy and you have an even more noticeable reduction in the number of cars on the road at any given time.
By combining trips on public transportation with bicycle travel, our roads would become more bearable for everyone, including drivers. To achieve this, there must be a concerted effort by cyclists, pedestrians and public transportation proponents to work together to create travel options.
People should be encouraged to use multiple forms of transportation instead of just one type, which usually ends up being a car. A little advanced planning would allow drivers to save money on gas, parking and wear and tear on their vehicles, by allocating a percentage of their trips to bicycle riding or public transportation.
Unfortunately, encouragement may not be enough. Public transportation needs an image makeover. This can only be accomplished by demonstrating that public transportation can run efficiently and can take riders to places where travelers commonly go. Of course, there are still class problems to address, but this could be overcome by getting more professional and affluent people to adopt this form of transportation. Such people would probably not agree to this change for convenience sake alone, but they might agree to it for environmental reasons. So any push in this direction should include a goal of reducing pollution.
By working in tandem, cyclists, pedestrians and riders of public transportation can form a union to advocate for a shift away from individual motorized transportation to a cleaner, healthier method of travel, which will serve to reduce traffic congestion as an added benefit.
