Four Hard-Nosed Reasons to Invest in Bike Lanes

bike_lanes

About a year ago, I hosted a couple of brain-storming sessions to develop talking points for building a bicycle infrastructure in the Richmond region. The goal was to make a hard-nosed business case that investing in bikes would boost economic growth and bolster public health. (See “Making the Public Health Case for Bicycles” and “Bicycles and Economic Development.”)

If only my fellow brain stormers and I had had access to “Protected Bike Lanes Mean Business,” we could have made an even stronger case. This report by PeopleForBikes and the Alliance for Biking and Walking touches on all the themes that we developed, and more. Broadly speaking, the authors see four ways by which bike lanes boost economic growth (and I quote verbatim here):

Fueling redevelopment to boost real estate value. As city populations grow, motor vehicle congestion increases. New roads are rarely an option in mature cities. Protected bike lanes bring order and predictability to streets and provide transportation choices while helping to build neighborhoods where everyone enjoys spending time. By extending the geographic range of travel, bike lanes help neighborhoods redevelop without waiting years for new transit service to debut.

Helping companies score talented workers. Savvy workers, especially Millennials and members of Generation X, increasingly prefer downtown jobs and nearby homes. Because protected bike lanes make biking more comfortable and popular, they help companies locate downtown without breaking the bank on auto parking space, and allow workers to reach their desk the way they increasingly prefer: under their own power.

Making workers healthier and more productive. From DC to Chicago to Portland, the story is the same: people go out of their way to use protected bike lanes. By creating clear delineation between auto and bike traffic, protected bike lanes get more people in the saddle — burning calories, clearing minds, and strengthening hearts and lungs. As companies scramble to lower health care costs, employees who benefit from the gentle exercise of pedaling to work help boost overall hourly productivity and cut bills.

Increasing retail visibility and sales volume. In growing urban communities, protected bike lane networks encourage more people to ride bikes for everyday trips. And when people use bikes for errands, they’re the idea kind of retail customers: regulars. They stop by often and spend as much or more per month as people who arrive in cars. Plus, ten customers who arrive by bike fit in the parking space of one customer who arrives by car.

The only caveat that I would add is the same one I would add to investing in roads, highways and mass transit: All bike lane projects should be subjected to Return on Investment analysis and compete on an ROI basis with all other transportation modes.

— JAB


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

6 responses to “Four Hard-Nosed Reasons to Invest in Bike Lanes”

  1. @@

    this is the VERY SAME Jim Bacon who condemns govt-sanctioned health care, social security, Medicare, etc… making guttural noises about the free market then the Mr. Hyde part of Jim makes it’s appearance!

    How can govt: 1. fuel redevelopment, 2. help companies score workers,

    3… oh I like this one – makes workers healthier and happier?

    4. – provide bike infrastructure by transferring wealth from others instead of user fees?

    Jim, Jim… we never know from one blog to the next which of the multiple personalities will surface!

    😉

  2. I support adding bike lanes when that can be done efficiently and effectively. It is generally not an expensive effort and gives people more choices. But don’t kid yourself, it is not going to make big difference in traffic congestion. Fairfax County has produced the best traffic studies in the United States (the CTIAs – which are not required by state law, but do go above and beyond anything done before) for Tysons. They show biking to be a very small component for total travel. That doesn’t mean we should not fund bike lanes. Just don’t pretend they can do more than they will.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Approximately 2% of people in the US regularly commute to work via bicycle.

      Fine. Virginia should dedicate 2% of its transportation budget to bicycle lanes, trails, etc.

      Of course, the cost of the portion of the road being dedicated to bicycle lanes is part and parcel of the cost. So, a bicycle lane on 20% of a $1M stretch of road would cost the “bicycle budget” $200,000.

      If bicycling enthusiasts want more they should pay for more. I am not sure why certain trails can’t be tolled for bicycles just like certain roads are tolled for cars.

      If the state or the jurisdictions in Northern Virginia would actually pave, maintain and patrol the County Connector trails (which largely already exist) I’d be happy to pay an annual user’s fee or pay tolls to use the facilities.

      Of course, the “horsey set” who like to walk their horses along public trails don’t want to see the trails rehabilitated into bicycle or jogging trails. The “horsey set” is perfectly happy with broken mud trails, fallen tree limbs and stream crossings where no sane bicyclist or jogger would go.

  3. Actually, under the TEA funding process begun by George Bush, the Dad, 10 percent of ALL federal gas tax dollars returned tot eh states is supposed to be spent on “non motorized transportation” but Virginia — along with most states — has never spent this money on bike-ped. Instead, Virginia has built things, including parking lots, which give us more places to drive to with this money which was designed to ensure we never had to fight in the Middle East again over oil (three wars ago).

    Virginia has, for example, the “John Mosby Visitors Center” (and parking lot) in Warrenton, built with TEA money set aside for “non-motorized” transportation. Why? Because John Mosby showed us that horses could be long-distance transportation!

    Here in Cville, we have the $6.8 million walkway (and parking lot) from the bottom on Montecello Mountain to Mr. Jefferson’s famous home built with TEA money. Maybe one in 10,000 visitors actually walk it as transportation to the top.

    But the best example (unfortunately, VA cannot claim to be number one) is in Chattanooga TN where TEA money for non-motorized transportation has provided we Americans with “the National Tow Truck and Recovery Museum.”

  4. well.. TE – does not stand for bike or ped but transportation enhancement which does allow it to be spent on “other”..

    and… the process is largely driven by what the localities submit for TE…

    right?

    is this what we are talking about:

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_enhancements/

    right now, the Feds spent twice what the gas tax brings in and what I’ve read/heard is there is sentiment to limit spending to what the tax generates and on the chopping block is TE as well as transit.

  5. Yep, again, you’re right Larry That’s what TE stands for but those kinds of projects (which have gotten by far the most money — including being spent in VA to keep open interstate rest stops) are for the secondary concept, “to enhance the visitor’s experience;” not the first, promote “non-motorized transportation.” I went to a VDOT – TEA session in the height of the 2008 gas hikes and I was the only, of about 40 people, there who was pushing for a true transportation project. The lady I spoke with the most was seeking TEA money for a museum of military transportation and, one question, from a city transportation official (who did not have a project he was tring to fund) led to the answer that “sidewalks are not sexy enough.” It was a lesson for me of how a great concept had been twisted to exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do.
    http://www.readthehook.com/82710/essay-kafkaesque-whats-wrong-federal-enhancement-cash

Leave a Reply