Re: WorldTransport Forum [World Streets] Greening New York: Bicycle safety and infrastructure (Europea...
- Thanks for those thoughts and experiences Eric.
There are two aspects which my experiences in Europe but also here in Australia have led me to pursue and if not promote, then at least try to get others to quietly but seriously consider.
1. Convenience is as important as safety if not more important: At first this seems completely wrong but in fact if safety is pursued, in most cases, practice shows that convenience is reduced, often to the point where a barrier is created for some if not most. So it may be that in some circumstances where a proposal is made to improve the safety of cyclists or pedestrians that a trade-off for increased convenience and reduced safety may be needed.
But have a look at points #1-5 below and it becomes more clear that reducing the danger while improving (or not reducing) the convenience while highly desirable, is not essential. It is maintaining and improving convenience which is both achievable and feasible ... and essential ... albeit not by itself. Improved safety is a likely if not inevitable outcome as can be seen from the following point and other points below.
2. Reclaiming the streets (or reclaiming street space) is not about banning motor vehicles: The 30/20/10 (preferably in km/h NOT mph?) illustrates that there is no need to reclaim street space IF motor vehicles are much less of a problem or threat. More to the point, the speed advantages of motor vehicles are so reduced (ie the "convenience" of motoring is so reduced) that other modes (and what better than cycling?) are then much more likely to be preferred. And when that occurs as it does in many many places world-wide, it becomes obvious that there is no need to "ban" motorists as is implied by "car free" campaigns. Indeed why ban motorists may well be one way to consider this in detail in order to see how other strategies can, and do, work to achieve better outcomes.
Of course these and the five below are inter-related but the issue is about getting support for rather getting support against. So why ban motorists if that isn't necessary ie if the desired outcomes can be achieved by sharing the roads/streets?
It may come as a bit of a shock to some traffic planners and advocates but there is barely a street, road or freeway on the planet that isn't convenient to use for cyclists so why try to build a separate network other than to allow business as usual in the adjacent road space?
Of course it is never quite as simple as that and nothing is ever perfect. Indeed one idea that doesn't get much promotion is the idea of CYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY on roads and streets. It simply reverses the legal onus and responsibility in favour of peds and cyclists rather than motorists.
So if like the hierarchy that places pedestrians first, cyclists second, etc etc, we argue consistently that in principle, urban roads are the spaces for cyclists, as well as for motorists and pedestrians, to share, then solutions such as those in much of Europe but also many places elsewhere become rather self-obvious ... and those that oppose these ideas, more obvious in their motives also. Both good outcomes....!
Put another way, there is very little needs be done or money spent on the roads. And what is done can be implemented incrementally ... although the bigger the area, the better because consistency matters.
The effort and money is needed to change how we have allowed roads (in particular urban roads) to be used.
Indeed the emphasis on changing the roads, being so costly, is almost inevitably counter-productive. We provide reasons for NOT changing how the roads are or could be used.
This might still result in some necessary changes to the roads.
But then lets not so quickly forget the lessons we learned from Hans Monderman which if applied to cyclists may well necessitate removing some of those comfortable and reliable old "separation" techniques such as separate paths and bike lanes in favour of "sharing the road"?
At 02:57 AM 16/03/2009, you wrote:
The following commentary was made yesterday in response to a discussion on www.LivableStreets.com looking at different approaches to providing cycle paths and other forms of street architecture modifications, major and minor, to protect the cyclist. The discussants were partially looking at this in the context of New York's ongoing vigorous efforts to develop a major cycling program after many years of neglect.Eric BrittonLessons learned in Europe
Editor, World Streets
International experience at the leading edge, mainly in European cities that are doing the job, put some interesting lessons on the table.
For starters, letâs make sure that we do not allow ourselves to get too comfortable too fast. By that I mean I am not at all sure that the best approach to safe cycling is to start by shopping around for the most attractive cycle path designs to be put in your city's streets here or there. I can understand the temptation but we have here a systemic problem which requires more than occasional attractive street architecture.
Safe cycling is based on the existence of networks which provide a safe travel environment over the areas and routes most taken by cyclists. By which I mean to say that a lovely cycle facility here and there does not by itself promote safe cycling (in fact conceivably it can make cycling even more dangerous). What is needed from the beginning is without letting up to drive toward that basic network. To accomplish this, it means targeting a solution set that is pretty pervasive, far more so than most plans today even dare aim for.
What do you do when what you need to do definitely outstrips the resources, approaches and plans that are traditionally available to you? The only way to do this is to change the rules. That happens in five main parts.
1. Speed reductions: ("Don ât leave home without them.")
The first pillar of new mobility policy is to slow down the traffic on EVERY street in the city. I do not say this lightly and I understand the extent to which this runs against long-standing practices and what people regard as their fair interest. But there is no longer any mystery about this at the leading edge. I do not imagine that there is a competent (note the word) traffic planner today who will argue for top speeds in excess of 30 mph in the city. 30 mph is terrific, and though too fast for safe cycling is something which we can reasonably target for the Main Avenue's and thoroughfares. For the rest a policy of 10/20/30 is feasible, fair and do-able. Once you get over the shock.
2. Reclaim street space:
The second prong of the strategy is that the creation of a safe network requires taking over at least portions of a quite large number of streets in the city. This is accomplished in two ways, the first being the alteration of the street architecture, taking over lanes for fully protected cycling. The most popular, parking lane out/bike lane in, often works very nicely when the cycle lanes work against the flow of traffic. The second prong of street reclaiming is the hard edge of speed reductions. In these cases top speeds on the side streets drop to something like 10 to 15 mph, with 10 leading better than 15. Again for most cross-town traffic in Manhattan this should not be a problem.
3. "Occuper le terrain": (French for safety in numbers. )
You are seeing that in New York already, though I have to guess you are not yet at the tipping point on that. But the more people you get out on the street on their bicycles every day, the more that everybody involved moves up a couple of notches day after day in the learning process. The cyclists learn how to behave better to protect themselves in traffic, drivers get accustomed to looking out for those small wavering frail figures, the police learn how to play their part in this learning process, and the system they have today learns and adapts.
4. "Street code":
The Highway Code, a collection of laws, advice and best practice for all road users, which mainly functions as a written basis for learning to drive as well as stipulating the letter of the law (licensing, required safety equipment, default rules, etc.) In Europe this happens at a national level, with room in some places for stricter local ordinances. In the US mainly a state prerogative.
I understand that you are looking into this for New York. Many European cities are advancing on the idea of establishing a far tougher "street codes" specifically adapted to the special and more demanding conditions of driving in city traffic. This is becoming especially important as we start to see a much greater mix of vehicles, speeds and people on the street. The idea is works is that culpability for any accident on street, sidewalk or public space, is automatically assigned to the heavier faster vehicle. This means that the driver who hits a cyclist has to prove his innocence, as opposed to today where the cyclist must prove the driver's guilt (not always very easy to do). This is not quite as good as John Adams' magnificent 1995 formulation whereby every steering wheel of every car , truck and bus would be equipped with a large sharp nail aimed directly at the driverâs heart-- but it can at least help getting things moving in the right direction.
5. It's a Learning System:
Once you start to break the ice to the point where provision of cycling facilities even starts to be an issue, it is probably best to think of the city and the street network as a learning system. And learning of course takes place over time, and if you are lucky leads to a continuous stream of adjustments as you go along. There may be a bit of comfort in that, if you are patient enough, because what it definitely means is that any cycling improvements you can conceivably come up with today has to be thought of not as a solution but as the start of the path. This is very definitely process oriented planning.* * *
So we really do know what to do, and we do know that it requires a combination of foresight, originality, guile and pragmatic planning from the beginning. Fortunately there is plenty of international experience which backs this up.
Paris is an example of one that I live with and cycle in every day over a decades-long period of steady adaptation and change. It is definitely not Copenhagen or Amsterdam. It is work in progress. Only a few years ago Paris was a city that was planning almost exclusively for cars and yet over the past decade has gradually began to build up a network for safe cycling. Perhaps not so much safe as safer, and the role of the planners here is to use the full cookbook of approaches in a dynamic organic manner so that each day things get a little bit better. Because all this has become part of the culture, the mainstream culture, it is no longer a big deal and so do the good works are able to go on every day.
Of course if cycling is your game it would be great to be able to import whole hog those terrific physical infrastructures that are found in Dutch and Danish cities. But this takes decades and I do not see it happening overnight in most US cities, New York among them. What is interesting about the Paris example, and we are certainly not the only one, is the manner in which safe cycling infrastructure is being built up step by step and day by day. We are not yet at the point at which we can feel comfortable with Gil Penalosa's "8 to 80 rule", remember, where cycling is safe for your eight-year-old daughter and your eighty-year-old grandfather. But give us a time and we will get there - and I hope you will too.
Posted By ericbritton to World Streets at 3/13/2009 05:52:00 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2003 - Release Date: 03/15/09 14:07:00