Sunday 19 May 2013

Conservatives call bull on UW bicycling study

cycling

Last week, a local financial executive called me a “stooge.”

I was somewhat insulted, but mostly curious.

There was no question what I had done to inspire the vitriol. It was my reporting on research that projected the physical and environmental benefits to be gained if Midwesterners turned to biking or walking for 50% of their trips under five miles. (The report can be found here).

For that, I was deemed a “pawn of the left.”

The criticism mirrored that of other self-described conservatives and made me wonder again why advocating for bicycling is deemed a liberal pursuit.

In an email to the critic, I posed the question this way: “It would seem that cycling, as a cheaper alternative to driving, would be a transportation option embraced by conservatives. It's cheaper for the individual and the required public investment, compared to road-building. In most debates, though, it seems conservatives view cycling as a liberal enterprise. I realize you're probably busy, but your insights into that divide would be welcome.”

He did respond, at some length, but later asked that I not share his dissertation on the blog. He explained that it might cost him clients, who hold an opposing view.

Fortunately, conservative blogger James Wigderson posted a somewhat similar critique on the MacIver Institute web site. Another post, in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, argues bike lanes add to traffic congestion.

Wigderson has previously ridiculed investments in cycling infrastructure, and he followed a similar path in critiquing the study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

For a number of reasons, Wigderson found absurd the idea that Midwestern residents would bike or walk upwards of five miles to run errands.

“If I took a bicycle everywhere I went, I wouldn’t be able to use my cell phone,” he wrote. “The gasping for air would get me arrested for making obscene phone calls.”

His larger point was more practical than physical:

“My wife’s trips today to the grocery store, Menards hardware store and for take-out pizza all should have been on her bicycle. But of course that wouldn’t work. It’s hard to carry the latest Christmas outdoor decorations from the hardware store on the back of a Schwinn, even with a basket. Two gallons of milk, cereal for a week, bacon, eggs, bread, and light bulbs weren’t going to fit on the back of the bike, either. As for the carry out pizza, that might have worked. Just leave the two-liter of soda and the breadsticks behind.”

Wigderson ably expressed his view that the study’s preposition – that 50% of trips under five miles could be managed in non-motorized fashion – was unattainable.

But his post, and my financial friend’s response, failed to answer my larger question about conservatives and their opposition to investments in cycling.

I think it’s worthy of discussion, preferably in a thoughtful, fact-based, non-insulting manner.

74 Comments for "Conservatives call bull on UW bicycling study"

  1. Two words: "Bike Trailer". Done deal.

    Goodgulf Nov 08, 2011 12:35 PM

  2. The problem conservatives have with "studies" like this is that they are almost always later cited in justifications for tax payer funded boondoggles like bike racks on city bus', or adding a bike lane to the Hoan Bridge. There are plenty of good ideas out there, that once a true "cost/benefit analysis" is applied reveal it to be a bad idea for the tax payer. Now with the prospect of government provided healthcare, these studies will be cited even more as a "good investment" for public health and a short term cost which will result in a long term savings.
    When determining the number of "lives saved" through increased biking, the study doesn't even take into account the inherent dangers in biking for crying out loud. I'm not saying this as a stance against biking (I'm all for it), but what a disingenuous study if it doesn't concede that bike/car related accidents that result in death or serious injury would increase dramatically. For that fact alone, I can conclude that this was an agenda driven study, not a scientific one.

    stebo35 Nov 08, 2011 12:44 PM

  3. Respectfully Mr. Held, When 2 conservatives argue against biking as an everyday method of transportation it is not "conservatives" it is two self described conservatives.
    I love biking and did a lot when I lived in CO. Lanes or no lanes I just biked. I did however NOT bike for everyday travel or errands. This is practical if you live in the city and can get to a local grocery store 2-3times a day. European cities are very friendly to this except for 1. speeding erratic drivers in cars and 2. the same for scooters.
    The bottom line is bike commuting to work is s nice idea and I would bike commute on the sunny days we have here in WI. But then with all my errands and things to carry this might be 5 days a year.
    Scooters are more practical but are noisy and stink. So I guess a smart car coffin might work. Have you seen these next to an 18 wheeler? Talk about taking your life in your hands. It is like driving a coffin.
    So I am back to my trusty car for the everyday commute etc and my bike for exercise.
    It just is not practical in a state like WI with our weather, and distances.
    Happy biking.

    brumathcb Nov 08, 2011 12:53 PM

  4. I dunno know...I know lots of liberals who don't hop a bike everyday to work either. I think the problem here is that Milwaukee is not yet (remember that word!) a bike culture. My husband commutes everyday to work in a bus/bike combo. I usually drive to work, but then again, I'm responsible for picking up kids, taking them to music lessons, shopping, etc. This is NOT to say that I COULDN'T bike more. I struggle with this all the time. I'd love to bike more, but Milwaukee streets (and most suburban streets) are not safe for parents trailing two kids. We do not have dedicated, safe, raised biking lanes (ala many bike-friendly cities in Europe and parts of the U.S.); our drivers are not respectful of cyclists; and storing/parking your bike is problematic in many places. Cycling solo w/o kids is doable. But consider cycling as a parent, with young kids trailing you on their bikes. Imagine driving down the glass-strewn bike lines on the Holton St. bridge or crossing Walnut & Fond du Lac Ave. with drivers blowing through just-turned red lights, drivers ignoring stop signs, and you get why my heart just seizes up when I think of taking my kids out on our daily errands on bike. It's possible...and we do it whenever we can...but it's not practical unless your world revolves around a 1-mile diameter of your house and is equally served by bus or foot. (Assuming you can afford shelling out $2.50/pp each way for a bus ticket and there's actually a bus within walking vicinity of your house with a regular schedule! But I digress....)

    I would strongly support any proposal that involves any of the following: installing dedicated raised bike lanes on busy streets and regular marked lanes on less-busy streets, regular maintenance of existing bike lines, building more bike/running paths that criss-cross the city and link up with existing paths, dedicated bike park "shelters," and improved driver education re: cyclists.

    CityMom Nov 08, 2011 1:21 PM

  5. Apparently conservatives have never heard of panniers... or backpacks. Running errands, including grocery shopping, on a bike isn't complicated, but it does require a bit of foresight.

    CarFree Nov 08, 2011 3:00 PM

  6. For what it is worth, earlier this year I made the decision to make as many trips trips of 5 miles or less by bike. I do all my grocery shopping using a 30 year old Schwinn 12 speed (A LeTour) that I got for free from a relative. I dropped about $40 on a rack with baskets. I spent another $20 on a super-sized messenger bag that can double as a back-pack (very useful).

    I have no trouble carrying the groceries home. I put the milk in a back-pack and I put bags in the baskets or use my messenger bag. I can strap a case of soda to the rack.

    The only other behavioral change I have made is that instead of doing one mega-shopping trip each week I do several smaller trips. As an added bonus I find that riding the bike also makes me question if something I am buying is really necessary. It has saved me money on my shopping bill as I cut out buying junk I don't need.

    And the extra trip or two to the store each week gives me a little more exercise. If I can do this it is not that hard.

    BDWIRunner Nov 08, 2011 3:44 PM

  7. Also, I want to point out that my profession is outside sales. I typically drive over 35,000 miles a year. I recognize that multiple modes of transportation are useful and necessary. When I travel ti MI I often use the Ferry as a passenger and rent a car on the MI side (cheaper than flying too, and just as fast with the airport arrival/check-in time factored in).

    I imagine that my circumstance is not that much different from many of the readers here. I live outside of MKE . In my primary community 80% of the errands I run are within 5 miles of my house. My Children's school is within 2 miles of our house and there are less used roads to get there.

    Rather than cart my kids around in the car we asked them to use their bikes more.

    I am still using the bike even now. I have a light on the front and back of my bike and I wear a reflective vest for visibility. (I do NOT wear spandex).

    From my perspective it is a choice - you ride or you don't ride. People can choose to make this change or not. I do not want to force anyone to make the change.

    However, I will encourage people to make the change as it is beneficial on both a personal and a societal level. And I will advocate for policies and programs that will also encourage people to make what I believe are these changes that provide both personal and societal benefits.

    BDWIRunner Nov 08, 2011 4:00 PM

  8. Nice, rational explanation. This is a good model for how to conduct a civil discussion - even though I disagree with the argument being advanced.

    BDWIRunner Nov 08, 2011 4:05 PM

  9. biking is dangerous?
    take a look at this Wisdot "Weekly Fatality Report"
    and tell which is most dangerous - driving, passengering, walking, or biking?
    http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/traffic/crash/fatality.htm

    Greg F Nov 08, 2011 4:18 PM

  10. did you read Wigderson's rant?

    Greg F Nov 08, 2011 4:21 PM

  11. Sorry,Kids, you're panhandling the issue. This isn't between Conversatives and Liberals, you always try to pigeonhole the issues!! It has to do w/ BREAKING THE LAW!
    Don't know where you live, but Bikees DO NOT STOP at Stop Signs,or Red LItes, they either get around it, or run right thru. Mad. PD proved it -97% ran the stop signs/red lites in the downtown. I see it all the time in Middleton.
    Costs vs. Bikees' MILLIONS spent on trails THAT THE BIKEES REFUSE TO USE!! So,it has NOTHING to do w/ Consv. vs. whoever, it's BIKEES JUST DON'T LIKE THE LAW.
    Drivers have to have a DMV Lic.; w/ a DMV issued Lic. plate; on a DOT approved vehicle...Bikees have none of the above, yet want the same road rights.
    That specific enough for ya?

    Middleman Nov 08, 2011 4:22 PM

  12. the "conservatives" in the current WI legislature (Joint Finance Committee) and governor's mansion cut ALL funding for sidewalks and bike paths/lanes. they allocated ZERO dollars for it. in a state budget of $6.5 BILLION.
    so zero dollars for sidewalks and bike lanes/paths, but $6.5 billion of our tax dollars for cars/trucks is the "conservative" plan?

    Greg F Nov 08, 2011 4:25 PM

  13. stebo35 - you raise a fair point about cost/benefit analysis. I agree that there needs to be a valid justification for all projects.

    Where we probably disagree is over what constitutes a valid consideration for the analysis.

    This particular article has been peer reviewed and used the generally accepted methodologies. It does not claim to be a prediction of what will happen, but it suggests a likely possibility.

    Some people take a minimalist approach to ROI. How much are the direct costs and how many people have a direct benefit?

    With something like this I believe that there are additional considerations. Health care costs are a valid consideration in my view.

    BDWIRunner Nov 08, 2011 4:30 PM

Post a Comment

Limit of 2000 characters,  characters remaining

Preview

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Please login to post a comment.

Page Tools

Latest Posts

Archives