I just read Jennifer Anderson’s article in the Portland Tribune today about the ongoing survey work of noted PSU bike researcher Jennifer Dill.
What I found surprising about the article wasn’t the survey results, but the comments by Mel Zucker, director of the non-profit Oregon Transportation Institute.
Anderson quoted him to present the anti-bike viewpoint (which every bike article must include for some reason) and here’s what he said,
“Bike trips are, mainly, recreational…If the city wants to add bike lanes, the funds should come from (Portland) Parks & Recreation, not the state or federal transportation funds derived from auto and truck users.”
Wow. If that’s the voice of people that aren’t supportive of increased funding and encouragement of bikes in Portland we should be jumping for joy.
Mainly recreational? Tell that to the 12,000+ people who cross our four main downtown bridges to get to work every day.
Zucker is also the same guy who questioned funding priorities in the construction of the Eastbank Esplanade in another Portland Tribune article back in 2001. He said the Esplanade,
“is recreational in purpose with no transportation benefit…Think about funding priorities the next time you are stuck in congestion or when the air quality is not to your liking. Is a stroll on the esplanade a few times in your lifetime more important than a less time-consuming commute?”
On the other hand, Zucker may be on to something.
After all, every time I ride my bike I feel like it’s recreational because I’m having fun, I’m getting exercise, and I’ve got a front-row seat to the splendid sights of the city.