Imagine if we went back to a time when most children road bicycles as their primary form of transportation (instead of as passengers in Mom or Dad’s SUV). A child could put in at least 6-10 years of bicycling before they ever got behind the wheel of a car. By internalizing the skills of defensive driving, I think it’s a reasonable conclusion that they would be much safer drivers once they got a license at age 16.

What would it take to get kids on bicycles? I can think of two hurdles:

1. Many people buy bicycles in a big box store like Walmart or Target. They cost $100 and 100% garbage. These bikes are extremely heavy, poorly assembled, and feature inferior components. Due to the increased weight, rolling resistance, and friction, riding one of these bicycles is not fun at all. I don’t blame kids for letting their Huffy grow dusty in the back of the garage. Real bicycles are purchased at a bicycle shop and cost $200-500. This may seem like a lot, but a well-built and well-maintained bicycle will easily last 25 years if not more.

2. Our suburban landscape is not at all bicycle friendly. Many kids in the US live on a cul-de-sac or feeder road that leads directly to a 2- or 4-lane highway. This is not conducive to bicycling whatsoever. Fortunately, many communities are building bicycle lanes and dedicated bicycle paths. I suspect that this trend will continue as gas prices rise again into the $4 range and bicycling is seen as a more attractive mode for kids and adults alike.

As the icing on the cake, getting more kids onto bicycles is a great way to fight childhood obesity. A casual bike ride to and from school every day would do wonders for our youth.

“Today I want to announce a sea change,” he wrote on his blog last week. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”

As a bicyclist and walker fond of urban geographies, I’m thrilled that the DOT has [finally] acknowledged the benefits–dare I say, criticality–of a multi-modal transportation scheme. To demonstrate why, consider the following chart:

Each mode of transportation has an efficiency curve. Walking is extremely efficient for short distances. Bicycling is ideal for anything within a few miles. As distances increase, automobiles make more sense, leaving trains or airplanes for long-distance travel.

Sadly, this is a common-sense approach that many (most?) communities in the U.S. ignore in favor of an all-cars-all-the-time mentality. As an example, compare the two cities below for transportation efficiency. Each image is a quarter square mile (1/2 mile on each side) which would be an easy walk for an adult. Based on transportation infrastructure choices, only one of the two cities is actually walkable. Can you guess which one?

It wasn’t so long ago that gasoline was nearing $4/gallon and we were lamenting the cost of filling our cars. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the option to ride a bicycle or walk to get a coffee with friends?

1. Allow street vendors
2. Provide pedestrian street lamps
3. Install curb extensions at crosswalks
4. Create dedicated bus lanes
5. Create dedicated bike lanes
6. Install raised, textured crosswalks
7. Adjust street lights to give lead to pedestrians
8. Install bollards at intersections
9. Nurture street trees and plantings
10. Use speeds bumps where necessary

On a state and regional level, we will need to start diverting precious tax dollars from highways to railways. Passenger train service is woefully inadequate in most regions. The trains that do run are slow, outdated, and expensive. Anyone who’s traveled in Europe knows that we’re stuck with decades-old technology. From an energy perspective, trains are the most efficient transportation alternative (far better than cars & airplanes). From a time perspective, the city-to-city service of a high speed train will beat today’s air travel for all but the longest routes. Even though an airplane travels faster while in the air, it also requires slow speed travel to the airport, then hours of sitting still as you wait to board the plane. I would gladly trade a few minutes travel time for the convenience of a train.

At the federal level, what we desperately need is leadership. Jimmy Carter proved in the 1970s that we’re able to drastically reduce our energy usage through coordinated efforts. [insert interesting statistic here]. Sadly, since then we’ve been driving on cruise control without a strategic energy plan. (Unless you count the energy strategy written in secret by Dick Cheney & friends during the early 2000s.) During WWII, Americans gathered together to show genuine national pride. Food and fuel was rationed, so people compensated with novel programs such as the “Victory Garden” grown in back yards. There’s nothing stopping us from doing this again, save a near total vaccuum of leadership in Washington.

As we enter the 2008 presidential election season, you can be sure that oil and energy will play a leading role. Don’t be fooled by the short-sighted advice of the petroleum pushers who put us in this mess.

Gas Prices Send Surge of Riders to Mass Transit – New York Times via kwout

Holy smokes we’ve got highways. But public transit? No thanks. Passenger rail between Milwaukee and Madison? No way. Regional rail linking Milwaukee, Chicago, and the Twin Cities? Nope. Modern buses or light rail? Not on your life. Eight lane super-highways? YES PLEASE! 

Milwaukee’s mayor is pleading for a sensible transportation strategy. I’m not holding my breath. 

Barrett asks state to divert funds from I-94 project to mass transit – Small Business Times via kwout

Home Prices Drop Most in Areas with Long Commute : NPR via kwout

The part that’s sad about this is that almost everyone is going to lose in the end. We’ve spent trillions of dollars building not only the suburban homes themselves, but all the infrastructure to support them. As these areas become less and less desirable (and hence, less valuable), much of this investment will simply go to zero. The negative effect to the U.S. economy will be significant.

Fortunately, there’s hope. In cities all across the U.S., there’s plenty of space to expand. After decades of suburban flight, many neighborhoods are living with low population density and ample opportunities for improvement. We’ll need to act wisely as we re-urbanize and ensure that low income families aren’t forced out to the fringes. Again, history is a wise tutor as most cities dealt with mixed income housing quite well prior to WWII.

The key to this equation will be wise investment. There will be enormous pressures on state and federal governments to prop up the suburbs with cheap loans and road building. We need the forethought to gradually close the book on the great suburban experiment and rediscover what city life can be.

[Side note : Anyone looking for an investment opportunity? Check out the Riverwest neighborhood in Milwaukee. ]

The Next Slum? via kwout

1. Our current preferred habitat (suburbs) are not designed for humans. They are designed for autos. This is foolish, ugly, and causes psychological unrest.
2. The American auto-culture is unsustainable due to oil scarcity and environmental destruction and we need to re-learn how to live in a lower energy intensity mode.

Of course there is more to it, but you should really do yourself the favor of reading one (or more) of his books. I suggest The Geography of Nowhere and The Long Emergency. If you want a quick fix, go read his blog, Clusterfuck Nation. It focuses more on #2 than #1, and is rather pessimistic (rightly so?) but it’s fun to read. Jim has a great writing style and uses delightful phrasing.

But don’t take my word for it. Check him out!

I saw Jim give a lecture once in Madison and was struck by how succinct and logical his thesis is (it helps that he’s an entertaining speaker). I followed up by reading a few of his books and I’ve been sold ever since. His main points are thus:

1. Our current preferred habitat (suburbs) are not designed for humans. They are designed for autos. This is foolish, ugly, and causes psychological unrest.
2. The American auto-culture is unsustainable due to oil scarcity and environmental destruction and we need to re-learn how to live in a lower energy intensity mode.

Of course there is more to it, but you should really do yourself the favor of reading one (or more) of his books. I suggest The Geography of Nowhere and The Long Emergency.