Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Sunday, August 14, 2011

The Case for Bike Lanes

New research makes a strong case for building bike and pedestrian infrastructure: more jobs.


The U.S. is currently experiencing high unemployment, an unsustainable level of use of carbon-based energy, and a national obesity epidemic. All three of these problems can be partly addressed through increased walking and cycling. Providing pedestrian and cycling infrastructure such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails for the purposes of commuting, recreation, and fitness is arguably more important than ever before. These types of infrastructure have been shown to create many benefits for their users, as well as for the rest of the community. There are economic benefits, such as increased revenues and jobs for local businesses, as well as things like reduced congestion, better air quality, safer travel routes, and improved health outcomes.


David Suzuki says we can't give cars the right of way. Read more here.


But the benefits of cycling and walking infrastructure don’t just stem from their use – there are also benefits related to creating this infrastructure. This past June, the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, released a study analyzing the employment effects of designing and building bicycling and pedestrian transportation projects. PERI partnered with America Bikes, a national coalition of leaders from the bicycling community, to collect data from cities around the U.S. Over the course of many months, we contacted transportation officials in small and large cities nationwide, and assembled cost data on a variety of transportation projects, including road-building (both with and without bike lanes and sidewalks), multi-use paths, and pedestrian improvements. We received very detailed data from 11 cities on a total of 58 different projects. We then analyzed each of those projects to evaluate the number of jobs created, and to assess the differences in job creation between different types of projects.

We found that, of all the project types, bicycling infrastructure creates the most jobs for a given level of spending: For each $1 million spent on a cycling project, 11.4 jobs were created within the state where the project was located. These were jobs in design and engineering, materials manufacturing, and construction. Pedestrian-only projects created an average of about 10 jobs per $1 million spent, and multi-use trails created nearly as many, at 9.6 jobs per $1 million spent. Infrastructure that combined road construction with pedestrian and bicycle facilities created slightly fewer jobs for the same amount of spending, and road-only projects created the least, with a total of 7.8 jobs per $1 million. While the numbers varied a bit from city to city, we found that, in 10 out of the 11 cities we studied, this pattern held true: Including cycling and/or walking components increased the number of jobs created in any infrastructure project, for the same level of spending.


Is Canada investing in the military at the expense of infrastructure? Read one expert’s opinion here.


Why was this the case? In general, projects such as bike lanes and multi-use paths require more design and engineering, and the type of construction is more labour-intensive compared to that of road construction, which relies on heavily mechanized processes. This means that, when it comes to building cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, the proportion of total spending going toward labour is higher.

These findings suggest that, when confronted with a decision of whether to include pedestrian and/or cycling facilities in transportation infrastructure projects, planning officials should do so – not only because of the environmental, safety, and health benefits, but also because these projects can create local jobs.

Origin
Source: the Mark 

No comments:

Post a Comment