Unless you keep a close eye on announcements from the US Department of Transportation, you may have missed, as I did, this announcement from US Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood:
Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.
We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
To set this approach in motion, we have formulated key recommendations for state DOTs and communities:
Treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.
- Ensure convenient access for people of all ages and abilities.
- Go beyond minimum design standards.
- Collect data on walking and biking trips.
- Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling.
- Protect sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are protected (for example, snow removal)
- Improve nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects.
Now, this is a start, but it's an important start. These initial steps forward will help us move forward even further.
Given the history of the automobile in shaping US transportation policy, this is an exciting announcement, and it’s hardly surprising that it’s being heralded by bicycling activists. That being said there are obviously sweeping questions about equal treatment for cyclists actually means.
Here in BC the provincial Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has a Cycling Policy, which at least pays lip service to integrating cycling infrastructure into new highways: “Provisions for cyclists are made on all new and upgraded provincial highways.” But that’s not the same as treating “walking and bicycling as equals”.
Before congratulating either the Secretary of Transportation or BC’s Ministry of Transportation on acknowledging that bikes have an important role in transportation, it’s worth keeping in mind what a truly bike-friendly city looks like. 38% of commuting trips in Copenhagen are made by bicycle, and the city has a goal of 50% by 2015. Let’s compare that with the 3.7% of trip to work made in Vancouver.
This video clip is an excerpt from the documentary, Contested Streets, and includes an interview with Jan Gehl, the planner who pioneered many of Copenhagen’s bicycle friendly policies. In addition to demonstrating how integrated bicycling is into the city’s infrastructure, Gehl also talks about the political resistance to these bicycle friendly policies that occurred initially.
Copenhagen’s success in promoting bicycles is not the result of ensuring that there are “provisions for cyclists” as an add-on to highways. Nor was it the result, even, of “equal” treatment of walking and cars. Rather, Copenhagen’s success was the prioritization of human-centred spaces over car-centred spaces. This is not equality for non-cars – it is a conscious decision not to plan around the car.
Specifically, if we are to aim for 10%, 20% and more people commuting on bikes, and more on foot, we need to ensure that transportation policy is the result of land use planning that encourages liveable communities. As Copenhagen has demonstrated, such land use plans will automatically prioritize walking and biking, and may, in some cases, require that driving long distances become a bit more difficult. Because, as a recent study has discovered, building highways generally destroys the liveability of cities.
Copenhagen’s approach does not need to be unique to Europe; here’s Jan Gehl on how the approach might be applied in New York.
This type of human-centred planning is precisely what West Coast Environmental Law and others have advocated through our Green Communities Program. It’s also the focus of the Smart Growth approach to land use planning. (Despite recent comments suggesting that the "Growth" in that phrase suggests continuous economic growth, I continue to assert that the principles of Smart Growth are most valuable not in relation to new developments, but in relation to the transformation of existing urban structure in ways that address peak oil and climate change)
So how about it, Secretary of State, Ray LaHood, and BC Minister of Transportation, Shirley Bond? When can we expect a transportation strategy that is based on liveable communities, and where walking and bicycles are given priority over car-driven transportation planning?