[sustran] Re: Cycling in cities

[Lake Sagaris]

Hi folks

I'm with Eric on this, and more so. I've lived half my life in Canada, 
where I was a permanent biker, and half my life (over 20 years) in Santiago 
Chile, where I permanently miss biking as one of my transport options. I do 
it on Sundays, but that's hardly the same.

Much as I love biking, I don't see it becoming a major mode of transport in 
developing cities (where drivers really are quite insane on safety issues) 
without dedicated lanes. In fact, in our cities, where only a small 
minority (20% or less) of daily trips are made by car, it seems more than 
fair for a significant part of transport infrastructure to be dedicated to 
non-motorized transport and other -- majority -- forms of transport, 
including pedestrians.

A side effect of pro-bike infrastructure is that city planners start 
designing routes and integrating decisions that make the city in general 
more bike friendly too. Today, to ride a bike just across the river to 
return videos is a nightmare, what with all the traffic, lights, sidewalks, 
difficulties going up and down staircases (there is actually a park that 
could have been designed with bikeworthy lanes, but instead put in 
stairs!), etc. Paths suitable to bike paths suddenly disappear in the midst 
of traffic pandemonium, or paths don't offer crossing points (traffic 
lights) so one can get from them into key city service areas.

Taking the road back, by giving preference (ie exclusive physical space) to 
less polluting, more socially equal transport methods such as buses, bikes 
and walking, seems like basic social justice to me. As well as sound from a 
safety, comfort and environmental quality point of view.

And quite honestly folks, I think the bikelanes (which share road space) in 
polite old Toronto are a nice idea, but not very appealing -- anyone who's 
ever used them can speak to the frustration of parked cars, opened doors, 
etc. etc. that are the daily bread of this method of "sharing" road space 
with bikes. Better to be on the road, or on a basic express bike lane -- 
and why not reward bike riders with faster "express type" lanes? We're 
saving the country on health, energy and infrastructure costs.

To me, Bogota offers an extraordinary example to developed and developing 
cities -- they took parking off the roads, then more than doubled sidewalk 
(ie pedestrian) rather than car space -- and then they used some of this 
improved (and protected from cars, even parked cars by a sizable hump and 
other physical barriers) space for the most delicious, seductive bikelanes 
I've seen anywhere. This also boosted bike use from .9% to 4% -- and this 
with the network of bikelanes still far from finished.

It seems to me that over and over again we get a perspective on this list 
that unconsciously assumes that the patterns of the world's developed 
cities are the same in developing countries (ie majority car ownership-high 
use rates). (I don't mind this, but think it needs to be pointed out yet 
again for the exclusive versus non-exclusive infrastructure debate.) This 
is not the case in developing countries -- giving us a huge advantage when 
it comes to devising more environmental and socially fair transportation 
methods for our massive and medium-sized cities. There is no simply no 
defendable reason why the most prosperous minority in the population should 
get to hog all the transport infrastructure.

Making bikes share roadspace with cars is a recipe for disaster. People in 
Latin America get into their cars and exhibit the most extraordinarily 
piggish, anti-life behavior imaginable. Santiago, at least, is a city where 
if a driver sees a pedestrian crossing the road, the driver speeds up and 
takes aim -- for the pedestrian.

Now if, for example (in terms of developing cities), we wanted to talk 
about, say, taking a target figure such as 10% of daily trips by bike, and 
then turn over 10% of the city's roads to exclusive bike and pedestrian 
use, as a basic measure of social justice, environmental preservation and 
quality of community and family life, I'd go for that. This would exclude 
only a very small number of motorized individuals from these roads, reduce 
noise and other pollutant emissions and raise safety levels by bringing 
more people onto the street.

I've put this graphically not to offend anyone (I hope) but to put these 
points across as strongly as possible.

Thanks for your patience.

Lake Sagaris
Living City
Santiago, Chile

At 04:55 PM 5/13/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Why not have both? Dedicated infrastructure in some places creates a larger
>number of bicyclists. When there is a larger number, more will also want to
>be using the existing roads.
>
>One more comment about the idea that there should be no separate lanes. This
>is just not workable if we are trying to get kids in the habit of bicycling.
>Parents won't let kids bicycle on large roads, but will let them use
>dedicated paths.
>
>Eric
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Chris Zegras" <czegras at MIT.EDU>
>To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
>Cc: <forester at johnforester.com>
>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:32 PM
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Cycling in cities
>
>
>
>Hi Ramon, Walter and Others,
>
>This sounds like something that John Forrester has been pushing for years
>("Effective Cycling" see for example:
>http://www.johnforester.com/BTI/ectraining.htm).
>
>The concept of Effective Cycling (or vehicular cycling) has been quite
>polemic in the States - those advocates that believe infrastructure is the
>only way to get people cycling safely en masse, v/s those that believe
>dedicated/segregated infrastructure only makes the problem worse...
>
>Chris
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:05:58 -0400
> >From: mobility <mobility at igc.org>
> >Subject: [sustran] Re: Cycling in cities
> >
> >i think its a good idea, Ramon.  Several friends have told me they would
>ride
> >their bikes if they could figure out how to cycle in traffic.  Any idea how
>to
> >develop a curriculum?   you don't agree with dutch cycling design that a.
> >basically ends the cycle lanes before they reach the intersection, and b)
>puts
> >the cyclists in a box at the front of the traffic to allow them to clear
>the
> >intersection first?  Seems to me to work petty well.  Also working well is
>a
> >walk-bike sign that turns green before the motor traffic light.
> >
> >Would love to have more info on the Marakina bike plans.   Dont doubt
> >there are
> >problems.
> >
> >best
> >walter
> >
> >Ramon wrote:
> >
> > > >bottom line is the answers are not simple, are fairly >location
>specific,
> > > and we're not likely to get any quick >victories in cities that dont
>have
> > > long arterials with wide >medians that can be used for bike lanes.
> > >
> > > Only if we count the number (mileage) of bike lanes (or other
> > > infrastructure) built. We just got back from our training in Marikina
>and I
> > > was surprised that city bike planners and engineers did not have a clue
> > > about the dangers that their design of bike paths (physically separated
>but
> > > along roadways except for a few by creeks and the river that are more
> > > appropriate for leisure use, not for serious transportation) created for
> > > cyclists, pedestrians and even MV drivers. The "pilot" cycle path built
> > with
> > > GEF funds dumps cyclists perpendicularly into the path of MV traffic at
>a
> > > busy intersection. The design itself is pedestrian walkway - cycle
>path -
> > > car parking -- copied from some convoluted European design is my guess.
> > > Anyway, the real problem is not the design per se but is inherent in the
> > > idea of a roadside cycle path because it is difficult to see how
> > > intersections can be made safer without building flyover ramps just to
> > > connect the paths (none of the compensating "designs" proposed by
> > > Europeans -- set backs, lanes narrowed at intersections in order to
>raise
> > > driver awareness, etc.) really seem to help. Or we can educate cyclists
>how
> > > to deal with traffic safely, that is, "drive" their bicycles correctly
>in
> > > traffic, fix road surfaces, fix gratings, improve enforcement of traffic
> > > laws (in Manila, enforce loading and unloading regulations for public
> > > transport and getting MV drivers to obey traffic regulations at
> > > intersections), get bicycles to users, improve status and public
>acceptance
> > > of cyclists and cycling, that is, spend scarce funds more effectively.
> > >
> > > As for Manhattan't streets -- well, I learned to commute in NYC and
> > consider
> > > its streets to be as "cyclist-friendly" as any other big city's, that
>is,
> > > they're great for cycling transportation as long as you know how to
>behave
> > > properly on the road, which seems like common sense. The west side
>bikeway
> > > would have been nice for recreational weekend cycling or slow, leisure
> > > cycling, but it wouldn't have been useful to me for commuting.
> > >
> > > I am wondering how many in this list or our sustran network is into
> > training
> > > how to cycle in traffic -- I think it's one area that has not been
> > given due
> > > attention.
> > >
> > > Ramón
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >End of sustran-discuss V1 #1035
> >*******************************
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>Christopher Zegras
>Research Associate
>MIT * Laboratory for Energy & the Environment * Room E40-468
>1 Amherst Street * Cambridge, MA 02139
>Tel: 617 258 6084 * Fax: 617 253 8013

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20020513/8cf529c4/attachment.htm