Mixed-use paths -- e.g. bike + pedestrian -- generally don't work very well. London canal paths are a good example. They used to be for pedestrians only. Then there was an initiative to create more bike paths for some millenium project or other, so some typically genius government folks decided that the canal paths would do, and took credit for "creating" all that additional mileage. The paths are treacherous when busy. You get pedestrians who think that having the notional right of way means they can ignore all others, and you get cyclists pedalling away in some sort of velodrome hallucination zone. I run, walk, and cycle on the paths at various times, but with caution, and I find it very helpful to take a very calm and unhurried attitude onto the path with me. The lakefront path in Chicago is another good example. At busy times you get all manner of bikes, walkers, runners, pushchairs, dogs (mind the lead!), and rollerbladers sine-waving side to side. These are the kinds of things that are brilliant when no one else is on them, but most of the time they are recreational (and potentially dangerous) rather than transportational.
To be useful, mixed-use paths have to be pretty wide. Victoria Park works because the mixed-use path is as wide as a 2-car road. Ideally you have a path wide enough to segregate bike from pedestrian traffic (in which case it's no longer a single mixed-use path). Switzerland has a few dedicated bike-only paths, separate from both roads and pedestrian paths, and these are a tremendous luxury. But Switzerland in general is incredibly bike-friendly. This doesn't seem likely or practical most places. And bigger dreams for cyclists seem entirely out of the question. Imagine if the Crossrail project (a new east-west rail line underneath London) included an additional tunnel for bike-use only.
We've got the same problem in parts of New York. The Brooklyn Bridge path, in particular, is horrific, what with the crush of oblivious pedestrians on foot and fixie-riding messenger types trying hard to harass them. Part of the problem is that every bridge path in NYC seems to have different rules. The Manhattan makes the most sense: pedestrians only on the south path, cyclists only on the north. The W'burg Bridge mixes traffic but encourages pedestrians to walk left-side, i.e. into oncoming cycle traffic. The 59th has cycle and foot traffic moving in the same direction. Baffling.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand the concept of bikes as vehicles, and have seen NYC drivers improve their thinking significantly in that regard, I'm quite fond of New York's hierarchy of cycle paths. Class I paths -- protected greenways -- are a godsend on the Avenues, where traffic can be thick and speedy as hell. In short, terrifying to ride, especially as drivers make whiplike turns onto crosstown streets. On Eighth and Ninth avenues, the lanes are protected by curb islands; it's essentially impossible for cars to get into them without extreme intent. The turning bays generally don't need to be long -- just one or two cars' length always seems to work -- because relatively little traffic will turn onto any given side street, and the Avenues all have enough lanes to accommodate through traffic. The exceptions are the two-way crosstown streets (Houston, 14th, 23rd, 34th, 42nd, 57th). Near those, sensibly, the city stops the curb protection a block early, rendering more space for turning cars, though also making those blocks a little dicier for cyclists.
The truly glorious Class Is, though, are on Grand Street in Manhattan and Kent Avenue here in Brooklyn, where the cycle lans is actually protected by parked cars. So you ride along between densly parked cars and the curb. (On the Avenues, there's very little on-street parking.)
The class IIs work pretty well, too -- those are marked lanes carved out of the traffic lane. Usually these are on crosstown streets, where traffic is lighter and slower. And as I said, drivers are respecting them (generally).
The Class IIIs are essentially like any other street. They're "recommended" bike routes, where a-bike's-just-another-vehicle rules apply.
I think my biggest beef as a cyclist in NYC is fixie riders, actually.
The fixie scourge is infesting London, too, but not nearly to the same extent. In London the menace is the scooters. Yeesh.
ReplyDeleteBtw, with the fixies, wtf is the deal with the really tiny, narrow handlebars? Who thinks that's a good idea? How does it help?
San Francisco joke:
ReplyDeleteQ: Why do all the fixie riders live in the Mission?
A: Because they can't get out.
ba-dum
ReplyDeleteI guess now would be a good time to plug bikesnob nyc for anyone reading along