For a city seeking to increase its environmental sustainability, cycling offers a relatively simple, affordable and elegant transportation option. In the United States, however, cycling is not generally used as a primary mode of transit, but rather as an occasional recreational activity. In fact, the US residents cycle for only 1% of their trips, while many industrialized, capitalist countries around the world sport cycling rates upward of 10 and even 20 percent (Pucher and Beuhler, 2008). The US has offered an unprecedented priority to cars, allowing 84% of trips in the country to be driven (http://www.ibike.org/library/statistics-data.htm). Continuing to cater to drivers is a sure way to lose control of our national carbon footprint, especially in cities like New York who face massive population increases in the next ten years. While cycling may not be appealing to residents of rural or suburban areas whose daily travel covers what may be considered too much distance for a comfortable bike ride, many US cities are compact enough that almost any trip within city limits could be covered on bicycle.
In Germany and the Netherlands, local governments have successfully taken a variety of steps to encourage cycling as a primary mode of transportation. A few examples:
- Speed restrictions on cars, particularly in residential areas
- Parking restrictions on cars such as “resident-only parking”
- Taxation of car owners
- Increased bicycle parking, particular near public transportation hubs
- Land-use policies enforcing the inclusion of cycling and walking facilities in new developments
- Affordable bicycle rental programs
- Bicycle trip planning services
- Encouraging students to cycle to school
Though New York City has taken moderately ambitious steps toward a more bicycle friendly city, cycling occupies a pitiful 0.5% share of trips taken (Pucher and Beuhler, 2008). In cities whose rates of cycling top the international charts, such as Copenhagen and Groningen, the city’s steps toward sustainable transportation have involved not only improvements in bicycle-friendliness, but also a more realistic approach to taking the steps necessary to stop private cars from dominating the city’s transit landscape. However, this is not through use of patronizing politics or a lack of affordability. In fact, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, whose levels of cycling are the highest in the developed world, are some of the most affluent nations in world, as well as amongst the highest in car ownership. Germany is a particularly interesting case, because, as Pucher and Beuhler point out, “Although it has a much higher level of car ownership than the UK [whose cycling situation parallels that of the US], the bike share of trips in Germany is almost ten times higher in Germany than in the UK.” These nations who lead the world in cycling policy have allowed for the widespread car ownership of other developed nations without allowing it to become a major burden on the environment by implementing extensive tolling, taxes on car ownership, and making urban residential areas less appealing to drivers and more so to cyclists.
Many contest the notion that cycling can rise to any role beyond a recreational, perhaps even childish, activity. However, this is being proven false continuously each day by those nations whose policies have brought cycling to the forefront of their urban transit systems. The residents of the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany cycle, on average, over one kilometer per day. And this data, averaged across the entire country masks the stark contrast between rural and urban areas. In the major cities of these cycling meccas sport even more impressive figures.
It is nothing short of shameful for the US, a nation who is now supposed to be leading the sustainability movement, to be so markedly at the low end of this spectrum. Perhaps this could be accredited to the nation’s dependence on its automobile industry, and that our economy depends on the widespread use of automobiles. However I have already been shown with the comparison of Germany and the UK that increased bike-friendliness by no means leads to decreased car ownership. In fact, it has been shown in other studies that bike-friendliness brings myriad economic benefits to an urban community, including affordability of transit, increased local property values, decreased strain of the public transit system, and decreased congestion. This is not to mention the healthcare costs which would be diverted by the well-known health benefits of cycling, which directly combat two of our nation’s greatest killers: obesity and heart disease.
New York City has taken a number of initiatives to encourage cycling as a primary mode of transportation (New York City’s congestion pricing; Bloomberg’s Bicycle Access to Buildings Law), however, the effort has not been directed by the example of the world’s great bicycling cities. These new policies have not had the holistic power of the policies introduced in Groningen, Muenster, Amsterdam, or Copenhagen, whose share of bike trips reach a startling 38% (Pucher and Beuhler, 2008).
It is important to note that the reason for the success of the cities at the top of this chart is the sweeping effect of the various initiatives taken. Many of the most successful methods of encouraging cycling are highly indirect, and instead focus on discouraging the use of cars. By following in the footsteps of these cities, New York can popularize cycling as a primary mode of transport and make our transportation system more sustainable in the coming decades.
