> if it makes problem for suburbs people working in Paris
I live in suburb and cycle everyday to Paris inner center for work. I see every year more and more cyclist riding the new infrastructures, but the road are as bloated in their jam as they always have been.
> cars that absolutly must cross Paris
The point is precisely that most of the transit does not-so-absolutely-need to be by cars: many taxis and personal cars have more society downside than personal ups.
> The article is mixing a few different points in a strange way. Paris has an excellent subway system with about 350 stations, everywhere you want to go there is a subway station less than 500 meters away, sometimes you have 2-3 stations in this range. There is also the RER that connects to surrounding cities and villages. Driving is Paris does not make too much sense to me. But building lots of bicycle lanes is not making any significant difference, as a person that used to use the bicycle to commute to the office I can tell I had just 6-7 months when I was able to do that - in hot summer and in the middle of the winter it is simply too unpleasant to use the bicycle.
It is okay-ish when you live in Paris and go work in Paris. When, like most people, you have to live outside Paris and go work there or worse: go work on some other side of Paris the public transportation system is shit.
> But lots of people live in a walkable/bikeable distance from a station
In paris itself yes, but if you live in the suburbs last time I was in paris there weren't really large and convenient parking options on the outskirt of the city itself, so you couldn't trivially leave your car and hop in the underground or a bus.
> Given the very limited space available in Paris centre, I don't really see an easy way unfortunately...
Bicycles take less space than cars, both on road and when parked, don't they? A four-lane bicycle highway is as wide as one-lane car road. If anything, people switching from cars to bicycles should produce more free space for the city, not less.
> and few people in cities need to drive every day
Well now, this really depends on the city. Not everyone is living in bike-friendly cities, nor public transport works equally well everywhere. I know quite a few cities where practically everyone who can afford a car is using it as their primary means of getting to work and back home.
>The problem with bicycles is that they don't respect road signs or traffic lights
The problem with Paris would be more that it's full of parisians.
It's very cliche, but sadly true. People are smart and educated but undisciplined, behave unresponsibly, and think about rules as mere guidelines. Being "human" and super lenient is mostly a quality, even when it comes to street rules.
Drivers are really bad, bikes don't care about road rules nor surrounding trafic, and pedestrians can strike conversations in the middle of the street if they get to stop the cars around them. There is an intersection in front of a subway station in the town I live, there is a trafic light, mirrors and road marking, and still every two months someone runs through it and gets hit by a car.
I think the best system would be close the streets that already effectively dominated by pedestrians, reserve the most busy streets for professional vehicles (buses, taxi, delivery vans etc.). This would tip the balance to use private cars for very specific reasons only, and switch to public transport for the more casual trips.
Road mortality would be down, people currently wildly circulating on the street would have full areas reserved for them, public transport would have a boost in use justifying more investment in the infrastructure and modernisation, and pro drivers would also have dedicated lanes and streets.
It feels like a clear win for basically everybody.
> In Europe we had all the large cities before cars. And curtailing car usage doesn't lock out individual travel. You still have public transport, bicicles and such.
First of all, public transport is not individual travel. Neither the times nor the locations nor the cost are under your control. Bicycles are individual travel, and that is why they are so relevant in modern cities, but they are neither weather-independent, nor barrier-free, nor do they provide the same utility as a car.
Funnliy enough, they seem to evolve pretty much the same way cars did here in Europe by getting ever larger and more capable.
I would not be surprised if bicycles would be the next piece of individual travel that's becoming unfashionable. IMO the problem cities have with cars is not the pollution, it's the individuality that they cannot deal with. Everything individual tends to become problematic with a high enough population density. Today's 2sqm parking lot might be tomorrow's 0.5sqm bicycle stand or next week's 10sqm individual bathroom. If there shall ever be an acceptable degree of individual space consumption in a city, that city needs to define a limit on population density. Somehow I doubt that any city will ever do that, though.
> Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars
I find this point of view amusing because it is so contradictory to my personal experience. In my case, I started commuting by bike after years of being tired to spend an unpredictable amount of time stuck on traffic, looking through the window at cyclists merrily passing by. Since becoming one of these cyclists, I feel a bit of pity every time that I see people stuck in their useless cars.
I concede that cars can be more useful than bicycles in some circumstances. There are also people like you who legitimately seem to love using cars, and there's nothing wrong with that. But at least in my country:
- there are more bikes than cars
- there are more people who can drive bikes than cars
- every year, more bikes are sold than cars
- most car trips are less than 10km
- most of those cars only carry a single person
- most people would prefer to take the bike than the car if they could
Why do most people still use cars, then? Because there is no safe infrastructure for cycling, and that is the main problem. Improving cycling infrastructure would be a net benefit for everybody, especially for car lovers who would then find their streets liberated of other drivers who just hate being there.
Another problem with cars is that they are ridiculously space-inefficient. Especially when they carry a single person, which is most of the time. A street with 20 people in 20 cars is crowded in dense traffic. The same 20 people cycling or walking are almost invisible, low density occupation of the same space.
> you can get an Uber and go a few km in maybe 15-20 minutes. In Paris it’s an hour+.
From where to where? That's not my experience at all.
> it’s a zero-sun game
It's not, given that you fit way more people on bikes that you would if they were driving cars.
Public transportation is also meant to be usable by the people you mentioned (especially families), you can debate whether they currently foot the bill, but staying stuck on cars is not the solution.
If you are the only one crossing a street with your bike, good, if you are in a lane with hundreds other people, not great.
Paris has that problem with the subway, doesn't mean that the subway is slow, it is simply crowded.
Bikes also seem faster because they break every rule in traffic, stopping at the traffic light is mostly about biker's own safety, but skipping traffic lanes it's not permitted by any traffic regulation and yet every biker does it (every two wheeler actually).
This is what the average traffic light stop looks like where there are a lot of bikes or motorbikes.
Even in the presence of bike lanes, everyone tries to be in front, of course they are faster, they are literally cheating.
I would be the fastest in every line, if i could skip it and pass in front of everyone else.
Truth is other people would not like it, but we tolerate it for bikes (and motorbikes) for reasons I still don't fully comprehend.
Paris has one real feature: it's a greatly enjoyable city to walk and a terrible city for bikes (or cars)
So if you are in Paris, walk!
Nobody can steal your feet!
- As bicycling boomed in the French capital during the Covid pandemic, so has the number of stolen bikes.
- “This is the worst place for bikes, The mafia networks are organized to steal them. With everyone currently riding bikes in Paris, it’s become a simple and easy way for thieves to make a lot of money.”
Cars aren't efficient. The zoning should be such that things are close by enough. Then with proper cycling infrastructure you can just go by bike. As a result you'll need way less road. As cycling infrastructure is cheap and road maintenance is costly, it'll reduce expenses for e.g. cities.
> European cities with decent public transit.
I'd rather have the mix of public transport, bicycles and roads. Combined with proper zoning. Loads of electric cars just increases demand for a highly inefficient transportation method.
> I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to push everyone else to ride bicycles?
Driving a car in a urban area is great for the driver but pretty terrible for everyone else:
- Congestion
- Air pollution
- Noise pollution
- Space taken up by parking
- Danger of being run over
It doesn't really matter if you walk, cycle or get public transport. These have much lower externalities.
> I personally do not feel safe on a bike in a crowded city. Even if you took cars out of the equation
This is a shame because the cars (and other motor traffic) are in fact the main danger. Retirees and children cycle everywhere in NL because it feels safe enough for them to do so.
> People seem to generally want to be able to go far, with little effort, directly where they want, independently
This is exactly why I want to live in a bikeable, walkable city! I really don’t consider babysitting a massive 2+ ton hunk of metal and plastic to be low effort or independent. On the contrary, it’s the most draining and stressful thing I do on a regular basis.
You mention “go far”, but I don’t think that’s actually the priority for people. What they really want is to get to their daily destinations – the store, the park, the office, the mall. The distance is a consequence of the car, not the other way around.
People will still want to go places that are beyond biking distance or need to do something that isn’t practical on foot/bike, and that’s fine. For most people, if they lived in a bikeable and walkable area, these would be a minority of trips. But for those minority of trips where a car makes sense, a car should be used. (Note: this doesn’t mean they need to own a car.) Cars don’t need to be eliminated from cities, just reduced and deprioritized enough to make biking and walking safe and appealing.
> Cities like Seattle and Boston have generally OK public transit. But pretty much everyone I know personally (tends towards older) in Boston still owns a car because they do weekend activities and regularly visit friends outside the city.
I (French) lived in Boston for 9 months and I was pleasantly surprised how good the city is for cycling, there was not that many dedicated infrastructures (except along the Charles river, which still help a lot) but the reasonable density of the left bank means there's lots of small streets with very few cars and you can go pretty easily from one place to another: I was commuting from center Somerville to Chinatown and except during the few months with 2 meters of snow everywhere, cycling was much more pleasant and faster than public transport, and I would never have considered driving a car there given the cost and traffic.
> Sure, you can separate cyclists from cars on new roads, but it's not financially reasonable to rebuild the whole city trying to get people to move from cars (comfort) to bicycles (lack of comfort + physical effort + slow).
Well, that depends on a lot of factors.
The size of the current roads might be one. If there's room, a bicycle lane might be feasible, but you can also have the cars as guest (which results in the same as you argue: that cars will have to adapt to the speed of the bike). This is the case with the smaller roads in very rural areas. Although I have even seen some roads become one way streets with bicycle lane. You can also combine bicycle lane on the same side which I've seen but then they're guaranteed separated from the main road.
20 km to work is a lot indeed, I don't want to do it, but I have a co employee who goes like 45 km to work (and then takes train back). I appreciate the effort. On electric bikes, 20 km isn't going to be a lot (if you assume 25 km/hour its slightly less than an hour), but we are not living in a world where these are dominant yet (as in the status quo).
I've grown up in a rural area, so I know I can go as quick as cars downhill. Even as kid. Its a cool feeling (I've yet to drive an e-bike), but I was glad I was on the bicycle lane I can tell you that. Also, I took risks at traffic lights and crossings. Risks I shouldn't have taken, tho that's what youth do.
Now, if you want to make a 30 km zone and want to combine cars with bicycles, I give you a pass. Because I have seen such in action. Although sometimes the cars cannot go 30 km/hour it allows the two types of vehicles to live more in harmony. I live in such a zone, though the delivery men tend to disagree. Its a miracle they don't hurt kids with their buses.
There's also these vehicles which look like cars but they can go like 45 km/hour and therefore don't require a drivers license. You can see the elder with them, they're used on the bicycle lane, though they take a lot of space. That's the issue here: space. We only have so much and we want to fairly share it while stimulating the right type of traffic. Cars are inefficient in that sense, therefore its OK if we stimulate other types of transport by making them less attractive (higher fuel costs, higher taxes, less space for them, higher parking costs). These are already happening here as it is. The fuel costs are higher due to war, and certain inefficient fuel types of cars (I don't know the details) aren't allowed in inner circle of city anymore. Parking is expensive. All of which stimulates public transport, bicycle, walking, and electric cars (which are basically only for rich people as it is). Its going very slowly though as those who drive cars are a large amount of votes who also are the ones who vote for certain politicians. These chicken-egg problems as well as lack of popularity of bicycle hamper change.
> Nothing resembling modernity is possible with horses being the primary mode of transportation. Or bicycles, for that matter.
Amsterdam has somehow managed to solve it (with bikes, not horses). I think the biggest blocker is people unwilling to give up their unhealthy lifestyles. But there must be a way out of that. Amsterdam used to be a car-centric city too.
> Let me know when bicycles can deliver food to cities
They’re already doing that in Hungary, I thought this was commonplace everywhere.
I do admit that cars have many valid use cases, but everyday personal transportation is rarely one of them. They are massively overused. Most of the problems cars solve were caused by cars to begin with, and most of the problems caused by cars are exacerbated by cars instead of being solved by them. It’s a negative spiral.
> you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side.
The biggest problems I've had have actually been in places where this isn't the case: slow-moving inner city traffic here you can just keep up with cars.
In some traffic situations this is certainly a problem, but I think it's just part of the overall problem.
> If somebody can make a choice to put their 6 year old child on a bike and cycle around a city, you've got it right.
Thinking about it, there is some truth to this. I have kids and would NEVER dream of cycling with them in Paris; we put the bikes in the trunk of the car and go to a big park if we want to ride.
If there were actual segregated bike lanes where there is zero chance of crossing a car (at any speed: I mean NO car) I might cycle with them in the city, and I admit it would be nice.
> Replacing your short-range transport needs with a bicycle, on the other hand, is a great idea.
I don’t disagree, but not every area is what I would consider bicycle friendly. Especially in the US. Nearest grocery to me is 4 miles away. Certainly do able on a bicycle, but unfortunately in this area the roads are not super friendly for bicycles. I’d rather not be run over by a semi full of tomatoes, while going to buy some tomatoes.
> I think people are usually pretty happy with living in those areas. They like being able to drive and park at things easily.
yeah people probably are pretty happy with their situation. it probably works pretty well for them. they probably respond extremely negatively to any other possibilities. they'd tell you they wouldn't want to use public transit or bikes or whatever else. they couldn't imagine how inconvenient that would be. that sounds terrible to them.
but like, people across broad parts of Europe don't think of biking as inconvenient. people with good public transit don't think of it as inconvenient. i far prefer getting on the bus to taking my car, negotiating traffic & parking. at my last job, it took a couple months of trying it, but eventually i started to far prefer a bike commute to the bus, even though it was pretty long & hilly.
so much of our preferences is comfortability with the known, familiarity. the expressed preference of society, often, it turns out, matter for very little, reflect primarily bias, not intelligence or wisdom or what makes us (individually or collectively) happiest. and all too often these things we imagine serve us, they hold back society. they feed our id, they feed our ego, and the deny a greater super-ego, a better way, that we could better enjoy.
I live in suburb and cycle everyday to Paris inner center for work. I see every year more and more cyclist riding the new infrastructures, but the road are as bloated in their jam as they always have been.
> cars that absolutly must cross Paris
The point is precisely that most of the transit does not-so-absolutely-need to be by cars: many taxis and personal cars have more society downside than personal ups.
reply