An pedicab driver bikes down the Embarcadero in San Francisco. (Photo courtesy Google Images)


On Feb. 17, Bill Bauer wrote in his column My Write, “Claims that bicycle-friendly streets will mean more riders and less cars are unfounded. When you have an agenda, why let reality get in the way?”

All over the country, cities are installing green lanes, cycle tracks, and other forms of bike infrastructure. The result? Bike traffic has gone up, and car traffic has gone down. You can find a great big list of examples here:

Here’s one about Long Beach:

It shows that, after the city installed a protected bike lane, there was:

• A 33 percent increase in the number of bike riders;

• A 15 percent increase in pedestrian traffic;

• A 50 percent decrease in the number of bike related accidents;

• A 10 percent decrease in the volume of traffic on the two streets;

• A 10 percent decrease in traffic speed (from just over 30 mph to under 30 mph)

• And a 50 percent decrease in the number of vehicle related accidents … from just under 100/year to just under 50/year.

Based on his previous articles, I have figured that Mr. Bauer doesn’t trust traffic studies (unless, of course, they’re done by the would-be developers of the Fairmont-Miramar), but, when you have an agenda, why let reality get in the way?

In January, I asked both this paper and Mr. Bauer a simple question: What kind of city do you want, one for cars or for people? With this column decrying the Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Greenway, with its potential to make Santa Monica a healthier, safer city, I think Mr. Bauer has answered the question.


Adam Rakunas

Santa Monica


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *