A City that Achieves

This morning, I heard one of my friends was working at a Steak and Shake in New York City.  He has taught Spanish at Rice College in Houston and, most recently, took a break in earning his Ph.D. at U. Penn.  Now, he’s working at the Steak and Shake.  He’s brilliant, charming, funny and ambitious.  But I guess the real question is how good is he at making malts.   

Meanwhile, here in Memphis it’s hot as Hades.  The ambiance is thick--day after day—and only rarely in the last two months have we seen a break in the daytime heat.  And by break I mean a drop from triple digits to lower nineties. 

It’s amazing how unrelenting difficulty can enhance one’s appreciation for brief moments of ease. 

It’s also an exciting time here in Memphis.  This city appears to be on the verge of making sustainable infrastructure development a priority, and NGOS, non-profits, and the municipalities all appear to be falling in line—offering their political support and often financial support for the creation of bike facilities, sidewalks, and greenlines. 

The City of Memphis will announce it’s new bike and pedestrian coordinator in the coming week; The Shelby Farms Greenline will open in October; Memphis Mayor A.C. Wharton has committed to creating 60 miles of bike facilities within the next 18-24 months, and Walk Bike Memphis is working to fund bike paths through Overton Park, along Broad St., and on into the Shelby Farms Park Greenline. 

The Greater Memphis Greenline will begin work on acquiring and developing three new greenlines while maintaining a long-term focus on the acquisition of right of way for more than 400 miles of MLGW utility easements.  And The Wolf River Greenline is progressively heading west: the connector from Shady Grove to Walnut Grove is currently under construction.    

A new bicycle shop, Victory Bicycle Studio, is set to open on Young Avenue September 1^st.  The Peddler Bicycle Shop has become an exclusively Trek store while Outdoors Inc. and Midtown Bicycle Company continue to serve bicyclists between Highland and the River.  Revolutions Community Bicycle Shop is continually growing in it’s ability to work with community partners: its latest project—in addition to its ongoing effort to help Memphians construct their own affordable bicycles—is a partnership with Leadership Memphis that will afford students in the leadership class the chance to work with youth to build a bike.  Revolutions continues to inspire with its ability to build bicycles while building community. 

It’s an exciting time to be a Memphian.  And, considering the last 10 years spent working on these issues, it’s thrilling to see a very different city being built before our eyes.  Southern Avenue has become my own personal symbol for this progress: I spent hundreds of hours speeding up and down Southern Ave. on my bicycle, navigating the narrow stretches of roadway with experience and caution. 

But within the month Southern will have bicycle lanes. 

It’s unclear just how much of the street will have bike lanes—we’re hoping the entire stretch from Cooper to Goodlett will receive lanes this month—but to have a dedicated bicycle facility on this critical corridor of connectivity between Midtown and the University lifts my heart. 

Memphis is on the Move.  And it reminds me of a speech the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered on the steps of the Alabama capital in 1965.  Marchers had just trod from Selma to Montgomery to demonstrate support for the federal Voting Rights Bill that would be passed in August of that year.  King could clearly see a break in the heat—it was that ebb of days in the low 90s amidst the sweltering oppression of ongoing racial injustice.  And King knew that the freedom struggle was at its height; most importantly, he knew no-one could turn the movement around.  He said: 

We’ve come a long way since that travesty of justice was perpetrated upon the American mind. James Weldon Johnson put it eloquently. He said:

We have come over a way 

That with tears hath been watered.

We have come treading our paths

Through the blood of the slaughtered.

Out of the gloomy past,
Till now we stand at last

Where the white gleam
Of our bright star is cast.
 

Today I want to tell the city of Selma, today I want to say to the state of Alabama, today I want to say to the people of America and the nations of the world, that we are not about to turn around. We are on the move now.

Yes, we are on the move...Like an idea whose time has come, not even the marching of mighty armies can halt us.  We are moving to the land of freedom.

The stakes were higher in the Civil Rights movement than they are in the movement to make our streets safe for bicycles and pedestrians. 

But the stakes are equally as high for Memphis generally.

And maybe, even when seen in this broad way, our city is indeed on the move.   

But questions persist: will we stave off poverty for a third of our population, end the brain drain, improve education, work with our homeless brothers and sisters, end the bloodshed in the streets, and build a sustainable city—a city that has a sense of destination in 10 years, a city that enjoys a reputation for being a forward thinking place that learns from the past and forges a bright future?

I think so.  But, as with King, I’m a “prisoner of hope,” one bound to a commitment for a city that succeeds.   So maybe I’m not the best judge. 

An editorial in the Memphis Commercial Appeal last month boasted Memphis’ ability to effectively strive towards positive development, noting the inherent good resulting from this striving.  King may have agreed.  He claimed “unearned suffering is redemptive,” assuring freedom fighters enduring physical and emotional beatings that none of their efforts were in vain. 

But Memphis ought to move from a city that strives to a city that achieves.  It’s my contention that we’ll know we’re on our way—not just on the move, but on our way—when Memphis becomes a city of achievement.

As it is, I think I’m due to call my friend in New York.  We need to catch up about our lives, sure.  But as I seek to find my place in this forward movement for a city that still struggles to offer opportunities, I’m interested in what it’s like to work at the Steak and Shake.

Ya' May Like the Pictures, but the Debate Rages On

I can only guess that since noone commented on the last article, each word--as intended--must have been deeply moving genius that warrants little discussion and no debate.  Instead, simple awe must have washed over each of my readers.

Or nobody read it, a much more likely answer to the number 0 beside the comment line.   

Regardless, I want to contextualize the thoughts in that article using a story by Gretchen Reynolds that ran this week in The New York Times. 

This debate about whether to increase the amount of bicycle infrastructure in America, that is, whether to lobby political institutions for increased spending on bicycle facilities, is not a new debate; and it is not a debate that appears to be coming to a close.  

The Times article, in it's full glory, is entitled:

Do More Bicyclists Lead to More Injuries?

Reynolds actually answers "no" to this question when looking at the empirical evidence from European nations.  The simple conclusion?  More riders mean less accidents.  This is the widely accepted view amongst transportation experts and advocates, and it is a conclusion affirmed by loads of studies, some of which are cited by Reynolds.  

Still, why does she toss out this rhetorical question a bit later, a question essentially refuted by evidence presented earlier?  

Reynolds writes:  

“Transportation experts cannot agree, for instance, about whether to segregate bicycle and automobile traffic, using concrete barriers along bike paths or creating separate bikeways.”

This much is true, sure. Advocates do disagree about this, and I would argue that the debate has hindered the efforts at increasing safety for cyclists over the years as it has split the advocacy community into seemingly un-agreeable halves.

But then comes the moot question:

“In the short term, (the segregated bike path) approach should protect cyclists. But if if drivers are not given the opportunity to acclimate to riders, will it actually make it more dangerous for bikers in the long run? No one knows. ‘We need studies; we need data,’ Dr. Willett said.”

Of course we know--Reynolds made the point (if not explicitly) earlier in the article.  This is not an issue we need to study or debate to death. The results are in.  

As she wrote earlier, in places where people cycle often (one third to one half of the mode share), we find segregated bicycle infrastructure as a dominant planning pattern.   In those same places, the number of injuries are far fewer per kilometer cycled.  

What, then, is the debate?  Bike lanes in Denver may be contributing to more injuries, but bike lanes are not the same things as the raised and separated cycle tracks we find in Europe.  

There is a direct link between great numbers of bicyclists, separated bicycle infrastructure, and bicycle safety.  This combination, I think, is the ideal.  

Reynolds is clear towards the conclusion of the article about a city's  inability to control the unpredictable nature of cars.  We can, however, create more places for bicyclists to ride safely out of the way of car traffic. 

Cars and bikes will, of course, still interact at intersections.  But by increasing the number of bicycles on the road through protected bike infrastructure, we can increase the awareness among motorists of bicycles passing through those intersections.

Am I simply building a straw man to burn in this and the previous article?  

I wish...The people forwarding the debate about the potential "problem" with increasing protected bike infrastructure have a deceitful name: "vehicular cyclists."   They even have their own wiki page.  

I call the name deceitful because by arguing against this camp of advocates, one might assume I am arguing against vehicular cycling.  But that would be absurd: I rode my bicycle as a commuter nearly every day for 10 years in Memphis, Tennessee, where nary a piece of "European" bicycle infrastructure exists.  Heck, we got our less than 3 miles of bike lane just this past year!  Lets be clear: vehicular cycling is a necessity in Memphis and countless cities across the United States.  

What I am arguing is this: bicycle advocates should advocate for separated bicycle infrastructure.  Otherwise, what are we saying?  That car signals and streets created for automobiles work well for bicycles too?  

Maybe the true vehicular cyclists among us believe this, but it is clear that few Americans think this way.  Otherwise, why aren't more Americans braving city streets with wide outside lanes? 

Of course, as the vehicular cyclists maintain, we must train cyclists to ride well and predictably (note: in the Netherlands and Denmark children received required bicycle lessons in elementary school), but this is not going to help America get over the seemingly insurmountable "safety barrier;" the barrier of insecurity and discomfort with traffic that keeps Americans from taking the bike.  

A raised bike lane or a concrete wall, however, might do the trick.

"Value DNA"

Recently, this blogger made comments with regards to the state of bicycle advocacy in the U.S.  In the post, I created the following heading:

"America Lacks not for Best Practices (in bicycle planning); We Lack Political Will" 

Among the most important tasks before American bicycle advocates today, in my estimation, is the need to develop a strong base of political support amongst policy makers and money appropriators for increased bicycle infrastructure.  Even a cursory look at the cities where one-third or one-half of the people go by bicycle each day reveals a sophisticated network of protected bicycle infrastructure that was funded by the national government and/or the local municipality.  And conversely, a glance at cities where there are few bicycles in the street and almost no infrastructure reveals a lack of municipal leadership for creating a bike friendly city.  


This is why the bicycle advocacy community will need political will if we intend to increase the number of bicycles in America's roadways. 



I don't think I'm underestimating the challenge when I describe the work ahead of us in this way.  We're talking about some serious social change here, and social change is tricky business.  


So perhaps I should be clear: I'm not saying there is one method or strategy that will lead to the cultivation of a strong bike culture in the U.S.  We'll need infrastructure alongside education, bike lanes and educated cyclists and drivers.  Such educated people are in fact the very folks that can help to develop political will. 



Yet at the end of the day, catalyzing political will is in my opinion the critical component required to make bicycling into a common activity in America.  In response to this claim, and in response to my recent travels, a reader sent me the following comments.     

I just returned from cycle touring in France (Normandy, Seine River Valley, Paris) and England (London and countryside near Manchester).  My observation is that the culture of Denmark, northern Germany and the Netherlands related to transportation, social good, an individual's place in the society, life balance and material goods is considerably different than that of the Anglo-Saxon culture.

The following comments are especially significant, I think: 

 Realistically we in America are not going to experience a culture shift that moves us more than infinitesimally closer to Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany.  It's not about political will, it is about who we are and who we are not. Sorry, but we just don't have the same value dna.

As the reader above states, the individual's place in society, the transportation options available to the individual, and the idea of "social good" are all ways by which to measure a society's values.  

But the *literal value* a society places on each of these things can be measured by municipal investment.  In the case of bike infrastructure in Denmark and the Netherlands, it was the municipality--bolstered by the social movements for increased bike infrastructure organized in the wake of the 1970's oil crisis--that began to put a dollar value on their town's ability to be bike friendly. 

Put simply, while you cannot change your DNA, you can change a society.  

When the municipalities of Copenhagen and Amsterdam began to invest too heavily in car infrastructure in the 1960s, advocacy groups organized demonstrations and mobilized thousands in these medieval city squares.  This is not because the Danes and the Dutch have different value DNA; it's because commuting by bike is more practical than going by a car.  

They organized because they didn't want to see their cities consumed by motor vehicles, pushing the people farther and farther away from their Gothic spires. 

They mobilized because they believed the oil crisis was a warning that an over-reliance on fossil fuels could be politically problematic.  

They did not gather in the thousands in their public squares because they had certain ideas about the individual's place in society; they organized because they wanted bike paths that took them to work more quickly.  

My reader goes on:      

...I think I see in England a changing model that is more akin to what we face in America.  The English (can't speak for the Scots, Irish or Welsh) have a love affair with individual motorized vehicles for personal transport.  As compared to Europe, their cars are bigger, more powerful, more in use and more per capita (with the exception of maybe Germany, Swiss) and their roads are more narrow, winding, and less direct.  There are virtually no separate and safe hard paved cycle paths (although there is a growing route system).  I see the cyclists and motorists in England at a pressure point today.  The cycling community voices the same statements and beliefs of the right to the road, the benefits to individuals and society and the need for action as we do in the US.  The motorists voice the same statements and beliefs of right to the road, safety, taxes paid, and cyclist's behavior that we do in the US.  And although there are more bicyclists using roads in England than in the US, they are moving the culture needle very much.  In London there are a lot of cyclists (certainly not like northern Europe) but they are brave, brave souls in commuting spandex (fenderless road bikes or fold up Bromptons where the rider commutes in bike jersey and riding pants then changes at the place of work rather than commuting in work clothes) who mix with the car, London taxi, bus with trepidation.  There are some bike lanes but mostly it's pedaling between the curb and the vehicle.  And the folks are not just the hardcore bikers, but nurses, administrators, etc.  They are just much more brave than I would be.

In so many ways, I think here we can see the symptoms of a strategy that has not and will not work in America.  

I agree that a "transitioning" bicycle culture might provide a helpful model for the United States (see Australia), but the idea that one needs to be brave to ride a bicycle in a U.S. city--or any city--is a problem.  

Bicyclists are not crazy, and they are not super heroes (complete with their own skin-tight suits!).  They are simply bicyclists.  And it doesn't do anyone any good to remain obsessed with fear. 

I can say this from having ridden both in medieval cities--where buses, motor scooters, taxis, pedestrians and bicycles are competing for very limited space--and in the big American cities, where space is abundant though bicycles are not.  

I didn't necessarily feel "safer" riding in one or the other.  In fact, I was hit by a car for the first time in Amsterdam two weeks ago! (It was a minor crash and it certainly wasn't my fault--but thanks for your concern.)  

In sum, neither bravery nor social values will make America into a strong bicycle culture.  It will instead be advocates who make the good arguments and make better connections.  It will be communities organized around a message of how cycling can bring our communities closer together, people who articulate to political leaders how cycling is good for both the individual and the society.  

Developing political will is hard work, much harder I think than settling with the idea that Western Europeans have different "value DNA" than Americans; but it's good work.  

Perhaps most importantly, I believe this is the work before us in America.