Infrastructure

Car and Bike Should be More Friends than Enemies

In the past few years, sustainable mobility has been revealed as an effective political tool to attract the vote of the more environmental conscious citizens in western world and more recently in Latin America. These are generally well known good news for the planet and urban life. The problem lies on the fact that this political eagerness sometimes turns into bad public policies which go against the same purpose they aim for.

Radicalism and non-agreed political direct decisions on urban mobility planning, especially bike boosting programs, must be taken seriously or they can be potentially dangerous. The basis of good urban planning and social comfort is coexistence and not confrontation.

Bike boosting programs, whose target is to promote biking as a real commuting alternative, were initially carried out by social organizations which pushed the political willingness afterwards. The conceptual basis of these initiatives was on the right track, looking for equity in the public space use and reclaiming the citizen right of equal opportunities for each citizen independently of his means of transport. Especially if that transport mode is more efficient at peak hours, how it happens with bike use over car domination.

Misunderstandings and repeated mistakes in bike boosting mobility policy

As the Spanish saying goes, “Humans are the only animal that trip over the same stone twice.” The problem does not consist in the goal, but the current methods. The defense of this bike boosting mobility policy is misunderstood creating the assumption that there is a war to be won against the car.

To think about mobility justice as giving the right to bikers and other users to share the space formerly dedicated to cars on main vehicular avenues is a large planning conceptual mistake that has terrible and sometimes irreversible consequences in bike use promotion.

First of all, the war “bike against car” loses its point considering that they are simply machines whose only purpose is to let us commute every day. Every citizen is as rightful as the next one to move as he considers most convenient, always following the logical convention of social civic behavior. In conclusion, a biker has the same mobility rights as a driver and this concept is important to bear in mind.

Secondly to classify driver and biker needs as the same pattern of needs technically is also a mistake. Moreover, if we consider the matter from the point of view of coexistence and street hierarchy for the different mobility alternatives, car and bicycle are completely compatible, in fact, they are complementary.

Thirdly, every mobility network, independent of the transport mode, has his primary, secondary and local streets. From the 50’s, cities have been planned having the car as its priority so this idea has been also established in the people’s idiosyncrasy, including the pro-bike social platforms.

The mindset that vehicular primary avenues are the core of the urban life has to change. Car use must be discouraged as well as land use and streetscape improved, but these avenues should not become more complex in terms of their mobility and road safety.

Implementing bike lanes or other bike infrastructure in vehicular avenues?

Vehicular avenues are vehicular priority streets, main car mobility connectors within the city. Their main planning objective should be to attract, concentrate and canalize car flows as fast as possible from their origins to the most important mobility attractors such as the city center.

For this reason, these avenues are generously wide with car dedicated lanes, each one of them 3 to 3.5 meter wide, having traffic light prioritization and lots of connections with lower hierarchy streets that are not always controlled by traffic lights.

On the other hand, cycle tracks or bike lanes are exactly the same for the bicycle network. This dedicated infrastructure is the “vehicular avenue” for bikers: High quality standard infrastructure which provides comfort, connectivity and continuity so as to attract, concentrate and canalize bike flows. Furthermore, the less noisy or polluted and the more beautiful the street is the more attractive it becomes for cycled mobility.

What do you think about the bike and car war in urban planning? Share your thoughts in the comment section.


Please note that this article expresses the opinions of the author and does not reflect the views of Move Forward.

3 Comments

  • Adrian Schroten
    14. September 2015 at 12:12

    Thanks, very well written article!
    For everyone who’s interessted in this topic I can also recommend watching Enrique Peñalosa’s TED Talk about city planning in Latin America (http://www.ted.com/talks/enrique_penalosa_why_buses_represent_democracy_in_action)

  • Pallavi Reddy
    14. September 2015 at 12:33

    Hi Adrian, thank you for sharing the link to Enrique Peñalosa’s TED Talk – he really provides valuable insights on Latin America’s city planning. What kind of bike infrastructure do you envision?

  • Lluis A. Vidal
    14. September 2015 at 13:39

    Thanks Adrian. In these next weeks there will be released a new article complementing this first one. It’s a comparative analysis between good and bad practices! On the other hand, maybe the comparison between Santiago and the other capitals of LATAM is difficult to make but peñalosa’s leadership is priceless in our context.

    Regards

Related

All Americans deserve the opportunity to participate in the American dream. But in order for that to happen, we must first bridge the mobility gap. Many upper-and-middle-class Americans buy gas, pay for insurance, and maintain a car without the weight of substantial financial burdens on their shoulders. Most purchase homes... View Article

As shared mobility options continue to emerge and evolve, there is a lack of clarity regarding what services exist and how these services impact our urban environments. UC Berkeley’s TSRC (Transportation Sustainability Research Center) recently developed a holistic guide that compares and contrasts these services.

A new wave of shared electric-bike services will be launched in England next year as a result of “kick-start” funding provided by the UK government. Electric-assisted bikes encourage people to try out or return to cycling. Planned schemes include services in a hilly area, in a small historic city for transporting heavier loads using electric-assist cargo bikes, and for visitors in a tourist area.

IT-based public bikesharing has grown rapidly in North America over the past eight years. What are the trends in business models employed by bikesharing operators? What are the user impacts across cities of differing system and population sizes?