Bikes - privileged mode of conveyance?

I'm sure we all had a good laugh at Dorothy Rabinowitz's rant in the Wall Street Journal's video commentary about New York's CitiBike program.  There's a letter to the editor of the New York Times today in response to a recent article about the bike parking nightmare in Amsterdam, that, while more coherent than Ms. Rabinowitz, still comes down firmly on the anti-bike side of the debate.  The author, Gary Taustine, refers to bikes as a "privileged mode of conveyance":

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-...

The Times tagged it as an "invitation to a dialogue," asking for responses by tomorrow for publication next Sunday.  Might be worth a letter or two from Chainlinkers.  Here are a couple ideas:

  • Replace "bike" with "car" in Taustine's letter (that is, cars already have privileged status).
  • Note that being early on the adoption curve, most American cities should be able to adapt before being overrun by bikes like Amsterdam.
  • Point out that useful above ground and underground storage options exist. (I suspect underground storage would be out in Amsterdam, and might be problematic in cities like Chicago and New York which already have well-developed underground infrastructure.)
  • New York, Chicago, and other large American cities could adopt a center city congestion charge like London's to free up more space to park and ride bikes.  That is, make cars less of a privileged conveyance.

The Times doesn't identify Mr. Taustine's connection to New York, but if you Google for "Gary Taustine site:nytimes.com", you'll see that he has been a lifelong New Yorker, and doesn't lack for opinions.

As Divvy gets going and Mayor Emmanuel and his minions continue working to improve the cycling infrastructure in Chicago, it also makes sense to keep an eye on what's happening in New York.  The reactions of people like Ms. Rabinowitz and Mr. Taustine are likely shared by many Chicagoans.

Skip

Views: 1957

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on July 1, 2013 at 7:48am

The fact that Chicago's kids cycle in large numbers is precisely on topic.  Chainlink may not be well represented by the under-17 demographic, but I assure you it is real and quite sizable.

I was riding to school in the 80s and I was far from alone.  In fact, bike storage in schools is a serious impediment for growing ridership.  Most people I grew up with stopped biking to school once we moved up to high school, as bikes weren't welcomed.  I'd like to think times have changed, but...



Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:

Getting back to what the actual topic is about, I should think if we had anything close to the ridership of Amsterdam or Copenhagen and the bike parking concerns they're facing, we'd be able to repurpose a tiny fraction of the space devoted to car parking presently, and have enough space left over to put the space dedicated to car storage to actual use by human beings. 

Permalink Reply by globalguy on July 1, 2013 at 8:27am

+1 You Hirsute-American!

Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:

Interestingly, this sentiment almost always reveals a load of bullshit.

Reboot Oxnard said:

The horror of stereotypes isn't that they are fundamentally wrong, it's that they almost always reveal at least a kernel of truth.

Permalink Reply by Christine (5.0) on July 1, 2013 at 9:58am

Bikes are a privilege in the same way mountain hiking, or healthy homemade meals which take a long time to prepare, are a privilege.  I sit at a desk all day; biking around doesn't exactly overtax my system.

But the fellows who helped me move last night?  If I was them, the last thing I would want to do after a day of manual labor is bike home, and then stand in the kitchen washing lettuce.  Far easier to drive to McD's for a bigmac, then crash on a couch.  Time consuming, physical activities done in one's leisure time are by default a bit of a privilege.

Permalink Reply by yai danche on July 1, 2013 at 10:05am

You'd be surprised.  My relatives work in kitchens and they used to walk the 3 miles to work, which took them roughly 40 minutes.  They didn't want to spend $4 a day on the bus.  I gave one of them a bicycle which made it more manageable.  Now their kids are old enough to drive and saved enough money for a car so now they get chauffeured.  

Christine (5.0) said:

Bikes are a privilege in the same way mountain hiking, or healthy homemade meals which take a long time to prepare, are a privilege.  I sit at a desk all day; biking around doesn't exactly overtax my system.

But the fellows who helped me move last night?  If I was them, the last thing I would want to do after a day of manual labor is bike home, and then stand in the kitchen washing lettuce.  Far easier to drive to McD's for a bigmac, then crash on a couch.  Time consuming, physical activities done in one's leisure time are by default a bit of a privilege.

Permalink Reply by Christine (5.0) on July 1, 2013 at 10:23am

Welp, I stand corrected.  Coming from privilege, I had just assumed.  But I can definitely understand the, "I have a bit of disposable income, instead of investing it I'm going to get a car for my tired feet" mentality, if such a thing exists.

badwolf said:

I think those are all faulty assumptions. I come from working in kitchens, as well as other very physical on-your-feet-all-day jobs. One roommate used to be a mover, and the other is still a mover. We all ride our bikes to get places (to and from work included, no matter how tired we are) because, more than anything else, we're all too poor to maintain cars or fork over at least $75 to the CTA every month.

A meal that takes two hours to make and is made up of Whole Foods bullshit? Sure, that's a leisure activity of the privileged. I guess I just don't consider 20 minutes of biking to get somewhere that I need to be as a "time-consuming, physical activity done in one's leisure time." I usually just consider it commuting, just like everyone else is doing.

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on July 1, 2013 at 10:26am

Just to bring this back toward the original letter to the editor...

I did not interpret "privileged mode of conveyance" to mean that only middle- and upper-class white guys ride bikes and thus get the benefits of improve bike infrastructure, to the detriment of less affluent members of society.  Instead, I interpreted it to mean that the author believes that bikes and their infrastructure as a whole are getting preferential treatment.  His last sentence sums up his views:

Cycling should be neither deterred nor promoted, but certainly not singled out as a privileged mode of conveyance whose operators enjoy segregated lanes, free parking and exemption from the licensing, insurance and safety precautions (like helmets) required for other two-wheeled vehicles such as motorcycles.

Basically, if cars and motorcycles have to pay to park, pay road use taxes, wear helmets (or seat belts, one presumes), and sit in traffic jams, then bikes and the people on them should be similarly constrained/inconvenienced as well.  I think it would be best to simply reject Reboot Canard's original statement as not on-topic for this discussion.

In my mind, the author completely ignores the fact that cars and trucks have been a "singled out as a privileged mode of conveyance" for over a century, and look where it's gotten us.  If bicycles can make the urban environment more livable and workable, I'm all for throwing a bit of privilege in that direction.

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on July 1, 2013 at 2:16pm

That chart you link to is from 2005. I'm sure Germans in Frankfurt would be thrilled if gas were still $5.57/gallon, like it was in 2005. Today, it's actually running 1.62 Euros a liter, which is US $8.15/gallon, if my math is correct.

Michael J Blane 6.5 said:

Just to throw a little more into the mix: today the price of gasoline in Amsterdam NL is: $6.48/gallon.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/ 

Permalink Reply by Ben Gray on July 2, 2013 at 6:14am

The Trib columnist who will not be named was right about one thing. I think that once ridership is up to a level that Rahm deems acceptable, the fees will start. This is the land of nickeling and diming. Can't see how cyclists will be spared.

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on July 2, 2013 at 6:23am

Agreed.  For anyone not familiar with what this meant in dollars-and-cents (google Oil Depletion Allowance for endless resources/debate), here's a nice summary:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/01/1654501/oil-subsidies-c...



Skip Montanaro 12mi said:

Just to bring this back toward the original letter to the editor...

I did not interpret "privileged mode of conveyance" to mean that only middle- and upper-class white guys ride bikes and thus get the benefits of improve bike infrastructure, to the detriment of less affluent members of society.  Instead, I interpreted it to mean that the author believes that bikes and their infrastructure as a whole are getting preferential treatment.  His last sentence sums up his views:

Cycling should be neither deterred nor promoted, but certainly not singled out as a privileged mode of conveyance whose operators enjoy segregated lanes, free parking and exemption from the licensing, insurance and safety precautions (like helmets) required for other two-wheeled vehicles such as motorcycles.

Basically, if cars and motorcycles have to pay to park, pay road use taxes, wear helmets (or seat belts, one presumes), and sit in traffic jams, then bikes and the people on them should be similarly constrained/inconvenienced as well.  I think it would be best to simply reject Reboot Canard's original statement as not on-topic for this discussion.

In my mind, the author completely ignores the fact that cars and trucks have been a "singled out as a privileged mode of conveyance" for over a century, and look where it's gotten us.  If bicycles can make the urban environment more livable and workable, I'm all for throwing a bit of privilege in that direction.

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on July 2, 2013 at 7:44am

There's a pretty large body of data showing fairly conclusively that every bicycle on the road is a fiscal net gain for a city and every car on the road is a net loss. More bike and transit infrastructure benefits the entire city. We don't individually pay for just the infrastructure we use personally. If we did, driving would be immensely more expensive to drivers than it is. 

Evan said:


These are the questions:

What percentage of the community do investments in bicycling infrastructure serve and who should pay for those investments?

Is it only people who have so many great things going for them already? Is it largely for them but everybody else is gonna have to pay for it?
Permalink Reply by Haddon on July 2, 2013 at 7:46am

I agree and disagree:

Part of what is not being mentioned is just the notion of living in an urban center.  I have friends whose rent is more than my far south suburban cousins mortgage on a quarter acre.

To some degree the fact that we are all a few hundred yards from a public transportation stop or a couple miles push from a bike store changes the equation dramatically.  Numerous times I have had bike issues and simply gotten on the bus to get to home/work.  If our routes were along rural, less well lit paths we might not consider the bike as an option.  If you live further out and are a 15-20 miles from the supermarket and 15-20 miles in the other direction to the day care a bike isn't really an option. 

As cyclists we are privileged to live in an urban center and we all make use of the existing infrastructure (roads, paths, public trans) to get to where we need to go.

On the flip side I cannot understand why more people don't do it.  Yea, it's cold in the winter riding but waiting for a bus is worse.  I routinely pass buses and wonder why so many people are packed onto them.  Perhaps cycles ARE somewhat privileged but are SEEN as underprivileged?  I've tried talking people into getting bikes and sometimes their reaction was frankly "I don't want to be seen on a bike" so they take the bus.  There is something to this that I have seen a few times that I don't quite understand.

Anyway, there are multiple parking spaces for every car in America. (Church lots are full occasionally, business at certain times, malls at others) so if it comes down to it I think we'll find a place to put some bikes.

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on July 2, 2013 at 8:28am

I'm the OP on this thread. I judge that while it's strayed a bit, it hasn't completely lost its head. I disagree with Evan's characterization of what the important questions are.  The only question I posed (implied, but didn't explicitly state) was:

  • Is Mr. Taustine's characterization of New York's CitiBike program as a "privileged conveyance" for the cycling community?

My answer is, "no."

Let's perform a thought experiment. Presume that the entire city of New York uses nothing but cars to get around. People don't ride bikes. They don't ride the subway or buses. They don't even walk or carpool. Now, let's further propose that Mayor Bloomberg wants to run a single bus up Broadway, from one end to the other, once in the morning, once in the evening. Just one bus. What fraction of the overall population can possibly benefit from that one change? Obviously very few. Yet, it still might be a worthwhile change. A few people will decide to get out of their cars and ride the bus, perhaps because it runs right by their apartment and their office, at just the right times. If running that bus frees up a little space on the crowded streets for the cars which remain (remember, those few people who choose to ride the bus would have driven before), then the people who remain in their cars will have a little bit easier time getting to and from work.

Using Evan's argument, since the obviously largest segment of the population (in fact, the only segment in my crazy example) drives cars, the only worthwhile change is something which directly affects them. Too much congestion? Don't add a bus or provide reasons for people to ride bikes. Widen Broadway! Put in a second deck! Invent teleporters which only teleport cars!

The same is true as you move away from this extreme hypothetical example. Clearly, installing a Divvy/CitiBike system benefits the people who use it.  If you work near the Sears Tower and need to get over the the Chase Bank building, Divvy might be more convenient and less expensive than a cab, and faster than walking. There is some benefit to the people who remain in their cars when you encourage other people to get out of their cars to ride bikes, take public transit, car pool, or walk. Mr. Taustine ignores the obvious fact that drivers of cars are and have been privileged for a long while, and assumes that cyclists are privileged if anything is done to make riding a bike more convenient or safer.

Furthermore, Reboot Oxnard errs when he/she states that because most cyclists appear to him/her to be white that the privileged group is actually the upper middle class. Evan makes the same error. It may very well be true that fostering more cycling by improving the infrastructure initially benefits a largely white, middle class segment of the population. That is beside the point. The infrastructure is accessible to all, and provides an incentive to all. In the early stages of an infrastructure roll-out it makes sense to put it where it will offer the most bang for the buck. That suggests you put that infrastructure (bike lanes, Divvy/CitiBike, bike racks, etc) where cyclists actually are (or want to be) today. You then extend its reach to areas where cost/benefit analysis suggests the payoff won't be as great.  I don't know what use the city will make of the subscription fees from Divvy, but I assume that some fraction of those fees will be rolled back into extending the service.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service