Frances Bula header image 2

Paris a bicycle paradise? Hmm, not quite

June 19th, 2013 · 140 Comments

And here is my account of nine days in Paris, using Velib for various trips around town (though not all).

Completely anecdotal, with no statistics except my own experience.

So, I love bike-share systems. They make it so much easier to hop on a bike and get around than the usual procedure of tracking down a bike-rental store, usually far from wherever it is you are, and having to pay a full-day rate when all you want to do is maybe get from Point A to Point B.

In terms of access, Velib is great. Within two blocks of our apartment near Republique, there were three Velib stations with about 20 bikes apiece. There were always plenty there whenever I wanted to ride.

But what about riding around the actual streets? That’s another question. I never did manage to get a map that showed cycling routes or Velib stations in my time there. One Google source told me I could get such information at bike stores. The bike stores didn’t have them and told me to go to the local city hall. (Each arrondissement has its own city hall, so 20 of them.) I went and all they had were the Velib cards that you could load up for access. They said I should contact Velib itself, which seemed convoluted for a one-week stay.

That meant that I ended up riding the way most tourists and newcomers do — based on whatever signs, painted lanes and other clues I could find on the street. (As I’ve discovered in  other bike-share cities, those street signs, painted messages on the road, green arrows, and cyclist symbols  are invaluable as you’re making your way ad hoc through the city.) In spite of all that, my rides were, if I may say so, hairy. And I’m someone who is relatively adventurous on the street, so I can’t imagine what it might be like for the more timid.

When the signs were there, it was great. On some of the big streets, eg. Boulevard de Sebastopol, which cuts a big north-south swath from Gare de l’Est to Ile de la Cite, there was a wide separated lane. Of course, as with all the big streets, that was shared with buses, taxis, and scooters. It was fine if there was not too much traffic. When a friend and I used a lane like that on the street running between the Seine and the Louvre, however, it was intimidating to be mashed in between a couple of buses and five motorcycles.

 

It was a mixed bag on the smaller streets. Frequently, there were signs indicating that bikes were permitted to go the wrong way down a one-way street. Other times there weren’t.

 

In the end, I never made a trip where I didn’t end up going the wrong way down a one-way street, unsure of wheether that was actually allowed. I did any number of other outlaw things — riding on the sidewalk if necessaary, running red lights, weaving in and out of dense pedestrian crowds. It seemed to be what everyone of every mode of transportation does in Paris. Cars park on the sidewalk; pedestrians and scooters invade the bike lanes,  and everyone in general just muscles their way into the space they need.

 

Surprisingly, it does all seem to work. I discovered that Paris had zero bicycle fatalities last year (compared to 16 in London, something that the British papers were making hay of at one point). I can only assume it’s due to a few circumstances: 1. People are eager to ride bikes, no matter how hairy it is, because it’s ultimately a better solution for them than irregular or out-of-the-way transit and impossible cars. 2. Paris has made some efforts to make space for bikes, in spite of the fierce competition for space on city streets that   it is experiencing along with every other city and 3. People on the road in Paris do pay a lot of attention to what’s going on around them, which means that when a cyclist ploughs out into cars turning right against the signal (as my friend did inadvertently), everyone watchfully makes way.

 

Still, it’s far from what I’d call a cyclist heaven. I think those titles probably go to the relatively small city centres of Amsterdam and Copenhagen, because car traffic there has always been limited and the it’s easier to carve space for the bicycle out of that geographically confined central territory. In a bigger city like Paris, with more people and more traffic, it’s all far more complicated.

 

One disappointing aspect, too, was that in spite of the efforts with Velib, Paris’s efforts to close down roads occaasionally in order to accommodate bicycles seem to be in retreat. When I was there four years ago, major boulevards like Beaumarchais were closed on Sunday. This time, the streets closed on Sunday were either in heavy pedestrian areas — which meant they essentially became pedestrian streets, impossible to cycle through — or they were the lower roads along the Seine — nothing too disruptive for cars.

A few final observations:

1. Yes, it happens sometimes that you arrive at a station and there is no place to park. Following the cue of others, I just waited until someone showed up to take a bike out and then parked. It only took a few minutes.

2. Keeping the bike for longer than 30 minutes mounts up. A friend who couldn’t find a station near the Tuileries ended up paying an extra 7 euros for her 90 minute visit there, when she just locked it up and kept it until she was ready to move on.

3. Checking to make sure the seat isn’t loose, the brakes are working and the tires aren’t flat is always a good idea.

Otherwise, it was all a fun, though occasionally startling experience, and a great way to get home instead of walking after a couple of glasses of wine at the end of the night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • gman

    CK,from your link.

    “Over 65s cycle around 12% of the total kilometres cycled each year in the Netherlands. However, almost 2/3rds of the cyclists who died in the Netherlands last year were of people aged over 65.”

    You see Chris its easy to cherry pick numbers.And I would suggest that the majority of these elderly riders are retired and not daily commuters so when we talk about major changes to our road systems here your choice of using the elderly as a reason is pretty lame.You seem to treat every subject like you were in a grade eight debating class and just throw as much crap at the wall as you can hoping some might stick.Maybe you should have a closer look at the said crap before you post it.

  • Bill

    There were other interesting statistics in the links that Chris provided that he failed to mention.

    In North America less than 1% of trips are by bicycle and 70% are for social and recreational purposes. I guess the advantage of a ridiculously low base is that growth in percentage terms looks impressive.

    As well, the usage of bicycles remained constant or decreased as the age group increased which suggests that you adopt cycling when you are young and it is not something you are going to start when you are 70 years old.

    In the impediments to increasing the use of bicycles, the aging population was cited as a problem as older people cycle less than younger people (and as gman noted, have a greater propensity to get killed. Perhaps they should sell their bicycles the same time they sell their car). Also, immigrants were less likely to cycle than the native born and identified as a limitation to bicycle use. An aging population and a high proportion of immigrants describes Vancouver, doesn’t it.

    Cycling is a good recreational activity and I fully support providing the infrastructure to support it in that context. Pretending it is an important transportation mode is laughable.

  • Chris Keam

    I know full well what I posted. You are making the assumptions and spurious connections that suit your politically motivated cause. It’s lame and boring. Give it a rest.

  • Bill

    Chris, I guess it is hard to respond with an effective rebuttal when all we did was quote content from your sources.

  • spartikus

    There were other interesting statistics in the links that Chris provided that he failed to mention.

    In North America less than 1% of trips are by bicycle….

    I honestly don’t know how you can say that with a straight face when Mr. Keam explicitly quoted the following in #45:

    Bicycling’s share of trips falls in the U.S. from 1% in the age group 16-24

    Also…

    Also, immigrants were less likely to cycle than the native born and identified as a limitation to bicycle use.

    In the Netherlands. The exact quote is:

    Immigrants to the Netherlands try hard to integrate well with the local population and this includes their cycling habits. Immigrants living in the Netherlands cycle a lot more than they would in their own country, but on average they do so less than the native Dutch. Clearly, though, we can’t state that growth in cycling is due to immigration.

    Now…why did you leave that part out, Bill?

    No, don’t answer. I don’t care.

  • Chris Keam

    @Bill (and Gman)

    You build strawmen for the express purpose of setting them aflame. I have never held a position other than cycling facilities should be improved for all ages and all uses. So there’s that.

    Also it’s called urban ‘planning’. Not urban history. You build for the future as well as the present. Not to perpetuate the problems we already face.

  • Agustin

    @ Bill,

    Pretending it is an important transportation mode is laughable.

    That is a very odd comment. How do you reconcile it with all the people who use cycling as a transportation mode every day?

    I have to ask you and gman the same thing I asked Threadkiller: why are you afraid of cycling infrastructure?

  • MB

    The comparisons of Vancouver to Paris, NYC (Manhattan), Copenhagen and Amsterdam are oranges to apples, and tiresome. Compare Vancouver to TO & Montreal which may be more analogous & meaningful.

    Why? Populations in these cities are much higher/ denser, Access to great Rapid Transit systems to get out of cars, geography (esp in Copenhagen & Amsterdam).

    Vancouver studies & even COV stats note 4% of residents cycle, mostly for leisure, not year round commuting. And the impacts to business & other modes of transportation is real.

    As for stats – COV Business Impact Study 2011: http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110728/documents/penv3-BusinessImpactStudyReportDowntownSeparatedBicycleLanes-StantecReport.pdf

    Grade-level Businesses Survey: “The main source of useful business data for this study was this survey. An analysis of responses received from 32% of the survey area businesses revealed the following:

    In 2011, the total percentage change in annual sales from the previous year as indicated by survey respondents was:

    A: Hornby St. -11%
    B: Howe St. (comparator to Hornby St.) -1%
    C: Dunsmuir St. -2%
    D: West Georgia St. (comparator to Dunsmuir St.) 2%
    E: Other locations impacted by bike lanes 2%

    Average [loss] of all locations -5%

    
In 2011, the net impact on sales that was attributed to the bike lanes (calculated as the bike lane streets‟ annual sales change minus the annual sales change along the comparator streets) among those who responded was:

    Hornby St.: -10% (Difference between A and B above)
    Dunsmuir St.: -4% (Difference between C and D above)


    These numbers represent the high end of the range of business impacts and have been used to estimate the overall business impacts.

    Despite the use of comparator lanes to eliminate the impact of the numerous policy changes identified in the Economic Context section above, there may still be some residual impact from these factors in the data.


    The business impacts on the bike lane side of both streets were greater than the impacts on the side without the lanes.
The largest sales declines reported by respondents on Hornby St. between 2010 and 2011 were experienced along the 500, 600, 900 and 1000 blocks, while on Dunsmuir St. the 600 block noted the greatest decline.


    The financial impact of the bike lanes has been a loss of sales and a loss of profit. The total loss in sales is estimated at $2.4 million over a year.

    Assuming profit is approximately 20% of sales, the estimated annual loss in profit over a year would be about $480,000.

    This is relatively moderate based on industry standards and, in general, insufficient to create persistent vacancies. The downtown is and will remain vibrant and the moderate negative impact of the lanes will diminish over time as long as mitigation strategies take effect.”

  • MB

    Just to clarify – by “these cities” = NYC( Manhattan), Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Paris.

  • Bill

    @Augustin #57

    “That is a very odd comment. How do you reconcile it with all the people who use cycling as a transportation mode every day?”

    I don’t think a 1% market share of which 70% represents recreational trips qualifies as an important transportation mode.

    “I have to ask you and gman the same thing I asked Threadkiller: why are you afraid of cycling infrastructure?”

    I am not opposed to cycling infrastructure and have made the point many times that it makes sense in the context of recreation. This includes accommodation on the roadways but which stops short of dedicating lanes to bicycles which are underutilized. I am not opposed to urban gardens either but they will never be a significant portion of the food supply.

  • Brian

    I love what I’m seeing and I can see the headlines now:

    ‘SEWERS ARE BAD FOR BUSINESS’

    I think we’re taking the wrong tack on the bike lane/sewer correlation here. Sewer construction is a great metaphor. Having reliable, well functioning sewers are totally essential for a city in the first world. Its easy to think small and see that some businesses are experiencing temporary disruption and call it a tragedy. And truly, it does suck for those businesses, at least for a while. But lets think just a little bigger. If there was no sewage system, there would be no city of Vancouver as we know it. Sewage infrastructure investment, both past and present, creates the Vancouver we know today. Sewer construction is a temporary pain for a long-term gain.

  • Agustin

    Bill,

    I don’t think a 1% market share of which 70% represents recreational trips qualifies as an important transportation mode.

    What does that have to do with cycling?

    Perhaps part of the problem here is that you are inventing statistics to justify a pre-conceived notion.

    The latest stats from Stats Canada (2011 survey) show that for 4.3% of Vancouver’s work force, the primary mode of transportation is cycling. That’s before you add in those who sometimes cycle to work, before you add in kids who bike to school, and before you add in those who cycle to run their errands and otherwise live their lives. And that’s the average for the whole of Vancouver. In some neighbourhoods, the figure is higher.

    Just because you don’t get around by bike, doesn’t mean it’s not important to a lot of people.

  • boohoo

    You’re both right in that you’re twisting the numbers to make your own case.

    The fact is in Metro Vancouver the car dominates. I don’t think anyone is questioning that. So that’s where we are now–but the question is where do we want to go?

    If we allocate funding according to what the stats are on anything right now, well what’s the point in any sort of planning at all? That’s just reactionary catching up.

    If I go to the grocery store I don’t buy only what I want at that moment, ignoring what I want to eat in the future just because I’m not feeling that hunger yet.

    So do we want a City and Metro region with a focus on more cycling? Walking? Transit? Or do we want more single occupancy vehicles? Decisions, and far more importantly money spent on infrastructure now dictates how we’ll get around for decades. I’d rather spend that money looking forward to where we want to be rather that a never-ending state of reactionary catching up.

  • Brian

    boohoo:

    +1

  • Agustin

    @ boohoo, I agree that we need to look to the future when making decisions about infrastructure investments, but I was arguing Bill’s assertion that cycling is not important (today) and pointing out that he had made up statistics.

    Can you clarify how I was twisting the numbers?

  • Bill

    @Agustin

    From the Vancouver Sun

    “The latest batch of data from Statistics Canada shows no difference in the percentage of Canadians who rode their bike to work in 2011 and 2006.

    That number remains unchanged at 1.3 per cent. That works out to 201,785 cyclists out of more than 15 million commuters.”

    Ok, so the Vancouver number is 4.3% but that doesn’t sound like a lot of people. Perhaps you should say that Vancouver commuter cyclists are almost 400% of the national average. Better still, follow the example of climate Alarmists who quote CO2 content as parts per million since 400p.p.m. sounds alot more significant that .04%. How about cyclists per million and the Vancouver statistics would read 43,000 c.p.m.

  • Bill

    @boohoo

    “So do we want a City and Metro region with a focus on more cycling? Walking? Transit? Or do we want more single occupancy vehicles? ”

    I think the answer is that we want people to have options to move around in a cost effective manner. The inherent limitations of cycling means it is going to be limited in providing a solution to transportation challenges. Yes, there will be innovation in transit (driverless cars, maybe even electric, will revolutionize tranportation because they will be more convenient and cheaper than private cars) but more bicycle commuters is not one of them.

  • Agustin

    @ Bill,

    Hmmm… I’m seeing a pattern in your responses here. You make an assertion, with nothing to back it up. Then, when I call you on that, you back it up with made-up statistics. Then you mock me (ironically, by highlighting your ignorance in science) when I call you on that. Clearly you’ve stuck your fingers firmly in your ears and they’re not coming out.

    Good luck to you in your future endeavours.

    I’m going to go ride my bike home from work now, and maybe have a coffee with some friends. It’s a beautiful day!

  • boohoo

    “I think the answer is that we want people to have options to move around in a cost effective manner.”

    If this is actually want you want, you should be advocating for more cycling and more transit as hard as you can.

  • Bill

    @boohoo

    We already support cycling – they are called roadways.

  • Bill

    @ Agustin

    I don’t know what statistics you think I made up (pretty consistent with today’s Vancouver Sun) and the only science was a bit of simple arithmetic.

  • Chris Keam

    What’s really sad about the bike lane debate is the amount of resistance coming from people who had the freedom and opportunity to get around their neighbourhood as children, now fighting against the one urban amenity that makes it possible for youth to have the same experience in a world dominated by avid motorists. Somebody called them the ‘Me’ Generation I believe. Not much is changing it seems. Now all us younger folk have to take on the task of transporter our children to activities they used to get to on their own, while contemplating the time bomb ticking in our healthcare system, because our parents and grandparents prefer the sedentary transport option of the automobile.

    The bottom line is that if your child can’t hop on a bike by themselves and safely ride to destinations in their neighbourhood, the transportation system fails them. If a fifteen year old can’t ride down to a part-time job, the transportation system is failing them. If a parent with a kid in a bike trailer and another riding their own bike doesn’t have a safe and reasonably direct route to both school and work, the system is failing her/him as well.

    This system is mostly failing all these demographics because of made-up arguments from many people who fall into the Boomer cohort. Not all are like that of course. Many were leaders in promoting a ‘greener’ approach to living that makes a lot of sense. But too many have decided that their desire to save a minute or two on a short urban trip in a vehicle trumps everyone else’s right to access a public space. What a shame. One shudders to think of the costs they will demand we shoulder to maintain this unsustainable approach as they grow older, sicker, and more dependent on the automobiles that have contributed to their ill health and lack of fitness.

  • Roger Kemble

    Well Chris @ #72 I haven’t own an auto since 1984 and, frankly, I was glad to be rid of it.

    Walk, walk walk the talk every where.

    I’m not quite so sure why people wax so enthusiastically about Paris: I was last there in 2006, can’t remember seeing one bike! Too damn dangerous, I prefer the Metro and walking. Anyway its become an over rated tourist trap!

    The UK, north, is the place for bikes. Watching thousands of men on bikes (huh, never any women), in the ’30’s, accumulating at the closed level crossing gates after the soccer game was a sight to behold.

    I lived in Mexico City for two years end of the’90’s. The combination of Metro and Persaro covered all locations in that 28M pop.

    Bikes in El Monstruo? Bicilcetta pedicabs yes. Bikes would be mowed down in that traffic in no time.

    Mexico, like Canada, is a petro-state. Pigs’ll fly before the hoi polloi take to wheels.

    For good reliable TOD go to Curitiba Br. Its the best laid out TX city in the world.

  • Roger Kemble

    PS Vancouver is the only city I know of that has taken up the bicycle as cause célèbre.

    Everywhere else either takes if for granted or ignores it altogether.

  • Chris Keam

    “Vancouver is the only city I know of that has taken up the bicycle as cause célèbre.”

    Is that so?

    Korean is one example of an entire country understanding how cycling can play a role in effective transportation. That’s why they have a national plan for building mode share.

    http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Proceedings/Cycling2011/Shin.pdf

    There’s lots of other places, from cities on up, that see the advantages of making a cycling a viable option for those who choose it. Promulgating the myth that this is a Vancouver-centric trend is erroneous and serves no useful purpose.

  • gman

    Although Korea has produced a very colorful plan to unrealistically spend a boatload of money on the fact remains that the majority of bike lanes are recreational and commuting by bike in Seoul is a very hazardous way to get around.But don’t take my word for it.
    http://roboseyo.blogspot.ca/2012/01/korea-heaven-for-cyclists-country-maybe.html

  • spartikus

    You really should read your own citations carefully, gman #OwnGoals

  • gman

    sparikus can you show me where my link is not reflected in my comment? The link is pro cycling but is honest as to the reality of commuter cycling in Seoul. It seems to me that the constant comparisons of Vancouver to other culturally or geographically different cities is an act of jealousy or desperation and really serves no purpose.

  • Chris Keam

    “the constant comparisons of Vancouver to other culturally or geographically different cities is an act of jealousy or desperation”

    Umm, no it’s just a way to set some benchmarks. I’m going to let you in on a little secret. Vancouver isn’t somewhere special. We’re just like a thousand other cities that are roughly the same. If we suffered a natural disaster, could Vancouverites act any differently than the people of Fukushima or Calgary? I doubt it. If we had more and safer bike lanes would people use them more? We already have that answer. The bottom line is that these improvements are based on sound fiscal and social principles. The reality is that you (Gman) haven’t provided a single compelling reason to oppose them. So, we are forced to wonder what reason you would have to put up such a consistent opposition to these plans? What benefit does it bring to you or the city? I mean, I’ve known why for quite a while, but it’s up to you to choose to be honest about the political implications of your comments.

  • Bill

    @Chris Keam #72

    I can only chock up your hyperbole to what must have been your extreme disappointment in the Stats Canada information on the continued low utilization of cycling by commuters.

    “the time bomb ticking in our healthcare system, because our parents and grandparents prefer the sedentary transport option of the automobile.”

    Really? This is distorted logic even for you, Chris, since there are countless ways to stay fit that does not involve a bicycle.

    “The bottom line is that if your child can’t hop on a bike by themselves and safely ride to destinations in their neighbourhood, the transportation system fails them.”

    Are you suggesting segregated bicycle lanes throughout the city?

    “One shudders to think of the costs they will demand we shoulder to maintain this unsustainable approach as they grow older, sicker, and more dependent on the automobiles that have contributed to their ill health and lack of fitness.”

    Again, the issue is fitness, not the automobile. Good physical fitness and using the car for 100% of all travel is not mutually exclusive. And take a look at some of the cyclists on the seawall and it is evident that cycling alone does not guarantee fitness.

    It is really only the appropriation of existing roadways for segregated bicycle lanes that causes the push back against cycling. If we are looking for solutions for transportation then it makes no sense to take away capacity from one mode for another that is not going to alleviate the congestion. It only leads one to conclude that it is just part of the green ideology (bicycles good, CO2 emitting cars bad) to make automobiles less convenient and more expensive.

  • Chris Keam

    “Are you suggesting segregated bicycle lanes throughout the city?”

    Can you read? I clearly stated my point. Let me copy and paste it so that you might figure it out on the second pass.

    “The bottom line is that if your child can’t hop on a bike by themselves and safely ride to destinations in their neighbourhood, the transportation system fails them.”

  • Chris Keam

    “Good physical fitness and using the car for 100% of all travel is not mutually exclusive.”

    Again you have completely missed the point. This is no surprise, but let me spell it out for you. How are we going to supply aging boomers with transportation when they are too old to drive? I suspect it will be with infusions of other people’s money to supply some band-aid solution to the problem, when all they had to do was try to be part of a larger solution when they had the opportunity.

  • Bill Lee

    The Earth Policy Institute (whoo ha?) is extensively quoted in this article in Bike Europe (to which a CBC Topical Producer Chris Keam has contributed) http://www.bike-eu.com/Sales-Trends/Market-trends/2013/6/Bike-Sharing-Programs-Hit-Streets-in-Over-500-Cities-1283383W/?cmpid=NLC|bike_eu|2013-06-25|Bike-Sharing_Programs_Hit_Streets_in_Over_500_Cities

    But while Bike Europe, a Reed Publication for the bike selling industry scans for news about bicycle usage (see right side bar for national reports), the also mention setbacks:
    “Problems in London

    Cycling schemes are not always successful proven by the situation of the Barclays Cycle Hire scheme in London. According to a BBC report, 20% fewer bikes were taken out between March and May compared to last year. “We are continuing to look at operational costs and at ways of increasing performance making sure that we give both best value possible to users of Barclays cycle hire but also to the taxpayer in terms of funding it”, said Garrett Emmerson from Transport for London, who is running the daily operation.” in a story on the start-up troubles with the New York City public bike program.

  • Chris Keam

    The difference between you and I Bill is that anyone can see where I work and who my clients are, so they can take my comments in context. It’s called transparency. You should try it.

  • Everyman

    David Suzuki is apparently unimpressed with the actions of many fellow cyclists:
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/27/david-suzuki-joins-chorus-of-activists-railing-against-scofflaw-cyclists-seen-to-be-ruining-it-for-everyone-else/

  • brilliant

    The irony of holding up South Korea as a cycling paragon is apparently lost on Chris Keam. Its hard to think of another country that has grown its economy so much by car production in the past two decades.

  • Chris Keam

    Nobody is holding up South Korea as a cycling paragon. Merely pointing out the original premise (Vancouver’s cycling exceptionalism) doesn’t translate to a global scenario and other countries are making plans to increase mode share to similar levels. Honestly, can we have a conversation less populated by strawmen just for once? If you have a good reason why cycling infrastructure shouldn’t be a part of a urban transportation planning let’s hear it. Otherwise, claiming Canadians and seniors are too weak and stupid to embrace a simple solution only speaks to your own perceptions of your countrymen. Personally, I’m happier assuming Canadians are pretty good at making reasonable decisions when offered safe places to engage in the transportation mode of their choice.

  • boohoo

    Having lived in South Korea for two years, I can say their transit system is where it’s at. I never thought of driving or even taking a taxi anywhere because the transit system is so excellent.

    And Seoul of course was one of a growing number of cities to tear out a downtown elevated freeway (over 8 km’s, not just a remnant bit like we are) and guess what? Less traffic.

    Link to wiki, but feel free to find others on this project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon

  • Bill

    @ Chris Keam

    Rereading your recent comments one can reasonably conclude that you believe we should invest in infrastructure for cycling so that as today’s children get older they will be able to transport granny in their bicycle trailers utilizing the same segregated bicycle lanes they used as children to safely navigate through their neighbourhood. Not only will they be healthier and relieve future burdens to the health care system but this initiative will create Green jobs to replace those destroyed by Progressive policies. And as everyone knows, age is not an impediment to cycling so by starting early they can stay working well into their eighties (will 90 be the new 80?) reducing the cost of future pensions.

    Of course, such a bold plan will require lots of study but you should have no problem getting a grant from the COV to do a feasibility study and maybe even a test (and we know what a “test” means in Vancouver, don’t we) transporting old people around existing segregated bicycle lanes. This is an idea that just can’t miss.

  • jenables

    Put your money where your mouth is, boo!

  • boohoo

    @90

    Ummm, not sure how that applies or what you’re getting at?

  • brilliant

    @boohoo 88-so what transit improvements did Seoul make before removing their freeway? A few I’d bet. And there you expose the lie of the bike lobby. Bikes won’t make any meaningful dent in car use but transit will. Stop throwing away money on a made either infinitesimal share.

    And you gotta lover the bike lobby’s latest memento: So safe even women will feel comfortable doing it. A condescending tone that only a horde of middle aged men in lycra could take!

  • Chris Keam

    @Bill:

    No need for a study. As usual, the Danes beat us to it.

    http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/04/ageless-cycling.html

  • Threadkiller

    Mr. Keam:
    I think it’s just great that those progressive Danes have evolved a system for getting Grandma and Grandpa out of the rest home and about the city in two-wheeled comfort And looking at the pictures, it’s nice to see examples of the typically sunny Danish weather, in a country that, like Canada, is well-known for enjoying a comfortable, dry, balmy climate year-round, so G&G will always be able to get out and shop for Christmas presents for the grandkids in perfect comfort. How very Utopian, to be sure.

    However, I am curious to know what studies your Danish friends– or anyone else– have done on the practicability of bicycle commuting for not-quite-as-old folks who are still working– just for example, people in their 50s and 60s who have, for example, fibromyalgia, osteoporosis, arthritis, or knee cartilage problems, who through no fault of their own, find daily cycling– indeed, *any* cycling– impractical (to say the least) or even impossible, but are still well enough to hold down a job (often due to economic necessity) and live a relatively normal life. Do you propose to schlep them to work every day (on commutes that may be 30 miles or more each way), or on their shopping excursions, or on their numerous other daily errands? That will certainly require an awful lot of smiling (and strong-bodied) volunteers, like the ones in the pictures. What do you hear from Denmark? And what’s your plan?

  • jenables

    Well, it seems you are all for transit..when other people are taking it..;)

  • Boohoo

    @95

    Who are you talking to? Clarify your earlier statement to me?

  • Chris Keam

    @Threadkiller:

    “Do you propose to schlep them to work every day (on commutes that may be 30 miles or more each way), or on their shopping excursions, or on their numerous other daily errands?”

    No. There are existing transportation options for those folks.

    I’m interested in grown-up conversations about what’s needed to make cycling safer for those who choose that method of transportation, and facilitating the education and training of new and returning cyclists so they ride in a safe, predictable manner. Truly the work of the Devil yes?

  • Agustin

    @ Threadkiller: Who is saying that everyone must ride a bicycle for all their transportation needs?

    You also seem quite defensive for someone who would benefit from improved cycling infrastructure. In post 40 you complained about people riding bicycles on sidewalks. Wouldn’t you rather have those people in bike lanes?

    But it’s easy to sit back and criticize, isn’t it? So lay it on us: what’s your vision of a successful transportation system in Vancouver? And how do we get there?

  • jenables

    Boo, you seem to be a great advocate for transit, yet you drive. That’s my point.

  • boohoo

    @99

    I carpool to work, mostly because it’s 35 mins in the carpool and 1.5 hrs if I’m lucky on transit. I transit/cycle around town most the time.

    I would love to be able to take transit to work, there are rumours my employer is moving to a skytrain station–I’d love it if they did.

    My wife drives to work as her job involves driving, not much she can do about it. We did have a second car, it died, I didn’t replace it instead I got a new bike and car2go when necessary. It’s great.

    However, to your point, just because someone uses a certain mode of transportation, or energy source, or anything out of necessity and not choice, does not make their opinion or desire to reduce or stop using that thing any less valid, it’s just reality.

    I drive when I have to but I’d love to not have to. I use oil and oil products when I have to, but I’d love to not have to. etc etc etc.

    What’s wrong with me wanting things to change, even if I’m part, however small or large, of the problem? It’s because I’m part of the problem that I want things to change.