As banal as it is, the term Bicycle Oriented Development (BOD) needs using more often. Use it until planning authorities believe BODs are a thing. The term’s beauty, you see, is it is just nerdy enough, for nerds to believe it’s legit. Then, voila: legislative frameworks paving the way for bicycling ghettos, for people like us, who like cycling. (Leave it to wikipedia to expose the term’s dubious championing, by some nobody blogger, Dr. Behooving.)
It’s clear to me that BODs aren’t for everyone. While oil remains as cheap as it is, perhaps only 5 or 10% of all people, would want to live in places with no room for cars, and little option but to get on their bikes. But it’s not fair that people who do choose to live without cars, buses, or trains, and who instead get around on their bikes, should not have their taxes spent on their infrastructure: their bike paths and greenways. I always pay tax. I always cycle. Yet authorities treat bike paths as things to build with spare change.
Similarly, when sites are developed because they are near to bike paths, why shouldn’t developer infrastructure contributions be spent on the infrastructure spurring that growth? Put DICs back into BODs! That’s what I’m saying (I get so passionate sometimes, I hardly know what I’m saying at all).
And I confess, I’m speaking of Bicycle Oriented Developments as though they have already gone from their nascent phase, and have become a big deal. But didn’t someone once say, that you should make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. (I get so passionate sometimes, that I forget who I’m quoting).
I hope you will see this evening’s blog post, and it’s flippant tone, as a bit of stress relief, as I press on with serious research during the day. Yes, I am writing a paper on BODs, and am reading papers so turgid I’m tearing my hair out.