It might be time to pinch those handbrakes and give some rational thought to this practice.
Some points:
1-Many studies indicate that bike paths make cycling more dangerous than riding without them.. Increased risk to cyclists caused by bike paths has been demonstrated in studies done in Sacremento, Palo Alto, Toronto,Ottawa Denmark, Berlin, Sweden, and Britain.
These are not only legit studies, many were commissioned under the assumption that the results would have shown the opposite (although other studies came with the opposite conclusions).
2-Bike paths are massively expensive. Not only do they cost millions to build but many bike paths cost parking revenues.
So let's say 500 street parking spots are removed for a bike path (as seen for example in the photo of Rachel St. above). If each metered spot brings in say $100 a day, a single bike path costs a city $50,000 a day in lost revenues (even in winter when they are barely even used). Now multiply those numbers dozens of times around town.
And of course wiping out parking spots makes it difficult for shopkeepers, as clients can't leave their car anywhere, so they just drive to malls, once again, that's another loss to main street.*
3-Bike paths are ageist. Old, handicapped, young, sick people and many others can't or won't ride bicycles. And almost nobody can or will ride in winter or the rain. That's a lot of people who cannot ride a bike. This huge social demographic travels in cars. As unfashionable as they might appear, cars and taxis are more democratic than bicycles.
Bike paths on busy streets often unnecessarily prevent people from stopping their cars, which makes it difficult for health-challenged or disabled people to disembark in some spots.
Cycling is a great pleasure and many bike paths, such as the one lining the Lachine Canal offer a great riding experience, but paths on commercial arteries clearly should have been reconsidered and that goes to the future ones that are slated for Bernard and St. Lawrence.**
----
*(The city has attempted to insulate itself from the shock of store closings by pushing the commercial tax onto landlords, who in turn simply raise rents both commercial and residential, so people end up paying one way or another).
**Soon technology will make bike transit riding and bus riding obsolete anyway as inexpensive self-driven electric taxis will pick us up and drop us off without requiring any parking headaches.
I think you have belittled a very good argument with your petty rationale. I am a cyclist in the city, and prefer riding on the street because (a) drivers tend to be more predictable than cyclists; and (b) segregating cyclists suggests they have less right to the road than an automobile, which should not be true.
ReplyDeleteA preferable alternative to bike routes would be legalizing white-lining (whereby cyclists can roll through stopped cars along the paint separating the lanes), and expanding the use of the green-zone intersections, where cyclists get a small head start,
Good points. I'm a big fan of Mondermans who I've praised on this site for tearing down signage and other traffic contrivances in effort to force motorists/pedestrians and cyclists to deal with and respect each other rather than just blindly follow signage and other contraptions.
ReplyDeleteYour claim that bike lanes are really expensive isn't really meaningful unless compared to what we spend on infrastructure for other road users. In that context, they're probably pretty inexpensive. In fact, NYC's bike lane czar has argued that part of her success in massively expanding that city's bike lane network was because they were able to do it relatively cheaply.
ReplyDeleteInstead of building bike lanes for the "safety" of the riders, why don't we start first by having them wear a helmet and especially make them wear a light because they are very hard to see at night.
ReplyDeleteThen if we can get them to stop at red lights and at stop signs that would be great. Bonus points if they can stop going down one way streets the wrong way.
I've never been hit by a pedestrian or a car (knock on wood) but I've been hit twice by a cyclist (once on a sidewalk).
I wonder why I never see any motorbikes in the wintertime? Maybe because driving on 2 wheels in the winter is dangerous? I'm so happy that they will be keeping the bike lanes clear of snow again this winter so a tiny, minuscule portion of the population can use them.
What you are advocating Krisitian is called "vehicular cycling", promoted most vocally by one John Forrester. The problem with this approach is that it discourages all but a small fraction of men aged 18 to 45 from cycling. If you have a glance at North American census data, you will that bicycle commuters belong overwhelmingly to this group.
ReplyDeleteI would contend that vehicular cycling is not only ageist, but also sexist. Cities that have invested in dedicated bicycle facilities have not only increased the share of utilitarian trips made by bicycle but have also greatly diversified the demographics of cycling, inciting more women and younger people to cycle.
As for the relative safety of separated, on-street bicycle facilities, I can easily cherry pick a dozen studies that show they are safer than painted bicycle lanes or the absence any facilities on high traffic streets. One study, by McGill civil engineering prof Luis Miranda Moreno and Harvard public health prof Anne Lusk, investigated the relative safety of Montreal's cycle tracks and obtained positive results. I would also recommend you check out the work of public health prof Kay Teschke at UBC, who has investigated bicycle facilities from various angles, not the least of which is cyclists' preference.
Finally, your arguments about bicycle facilities and parking would seem to imply certain prejudices about cyclists. People who get around the city on bicycles also have wallets and spend money. In fact, because they get around on bicycles rather than cars, they might actually have more money available to spend in those wallets. Statistically, a significant share of bicycle commuters (yes, commuters, not Lachine pleasure rides) are educated, middle income people, not bums and welfare cases as some people seem to think. Anyway, cases where parking is sacrificed for bicycle facilities are rare. A lot of streets are over-designed (too wide) and bike lanes can be inserted without reducing the number of traffic lanes or on-street parking.
In reference to Rachel Street, I believe the number of parking spaces that were sacrificed was under 100 and most were not metered. In exchange, the street gained planted median with trees, of which it had none before. I work on Rachel and have not noticed any storefront vacancies. In fact, a few new places have popped up over the last year.
Finally, aside from the recently completed protected cycle through the CP railway underpass, there are no plans to build any bicycle lanes on St-Laurent. Not sure what your talking about.
Thanks for the thought-provoking comments.
ReplyDeleteI concede that there might be more people riding due to the paths but the same result could have been achieved for free by allow vulnerable people to slowly ride on sidewalks (when empty). Something I recall having done massive amounts of in my days as a rider.
I've got to admit that I think bike riding is too dangerous in a city anyway. My kids don't ride and I don't ride for that reason and we have no plans of changing that.
I hate to invent stats (again!) but it seems something like we're paying a billion dollars just to raise cyclership from something like one percent to 1.5 percent. It might be progress but at a too-high cost. It's clear that only a small percentage of jolly nutcases will ever even think of riding in the offseason, or in the rain, or in the dark, which accounts for a massive percentage of days.
And yeah there are plans to install bike paths on the Main and Bernard. They're plans made by local bicycling advocates but they haven't been approved by municipal authorities, they are plans nonetheless.
Another issue I have with curbside bicycle paths is that some of them come to an abrupt end at which point the cyclist is forced onto the sidewalk anyway, thus encountering pedestrians who obviously have priority.
ReplyDeleteSuch paths along sections of Lakeshore Road, Gouin Blvd., Notre Dame East, etc. are segmented in this way, sometimes due to district or town borders, but sometimes not.
Another totally unnecessary hazard on bicycle paths are those heavy but silent electric motor scooters which suddenly zip up from behind and then pass you without warning. I've lost track of how many times I've shouted at these idiots who continue on obliviously.
Consider the extra ticket revenue the city could obtain by nabbing these scofflaws, but our bike path cops are rarely seen.