How Can We Build a Bike-Friendly City?

This article was originally published in our "Décryptage Mobilité" newsletter. To receive future articles by email as soon as they are published, Subscribe now. By Célia Foulon – Consultant

The Paris en Selle association recently published a very comprehensive report to help cities (any city, not just Paris) become more attractive to cyclists^[1]. For the past few years, Many cities are investing in the development of cycling, for environmental and health reasons, but also to relieve congestion on public transportation and roads. This is the case, for example, withAmsterdam, which—although already very bike-friendly—is set to strengthen its anti-car plan : The city is going to adapt its urban plan to make it impossible to drive through the city and reduce traffic on certain routes, making more space available for pedestrians and cyclists. Thus, if a driver wants to go from one end of the city to the other, they will have to go around it rather than drive through the city center. This redesign helps reduce traffic and thus makes walking and biking even safer than they already are. ^[2].

Carbone 4 welcomes and encourages all the initiatives taken in recent years to promote cycling in the city, especially since France lags behind its neighboring countries in the development of this mode of transportation. The Paris en Selle report is very informative for learning from our neighbors’ successes and mistakes: it outlines the basic rules that must be followed to develop a truly useful and safe cycling network, thereby fostering the growth of bicycle use.

In summary, Paris en Selle highlights two key principles, which go hand in hand: 1/ separating cyclists from other road users, especially cars; 2/ effectiveness of the bicycle network (that is, the speed at which it can be traversed, made possible by a route with no detours and virtually no obstacles) and, therefore, of cycling as a mode of transportation compared to other modes of transportation. Separating cyclists from the rest of the trafficis a parameteressential, allowing cyclists to feel safe and thus encouraging them to use bicycles for transportation. A bike path that is not separated from heavy traffic will not contribute to the growth of cycling, since the vast majority of cyclists will not feel safe on it and will stop cycling. Separation is actually necessary only on major thoroughfares with heavy motorized traffic (above a threshold of 2,000 vehicles per day, according to Paris en Selle). Along these routes, which accounts for about 20% of a city's network, it is necessary to bike lanes that are physically separated from the road (including bus lanes) by a a border at least 20 cm wide, but also separated from the sidewalk. A height difference between the sidewalk and the bike lane is essential to limit the presence of pedestrians on the bike lane. Another important point, often overlooked in Paris: bike lanes must be wide enough to prevent cyclists from passing each other too closely (which is stressful and dangerous). The association recommends a minimum width of 2.10 meters, including markings, excluding areas where cars park alongside the path. On the remaining 80% of streets—which are less-traveled roads—the goal is to limit and slow down car traffic in order to make cyclists feel safer. According to Paris en Selle, these traffic-calmed streets must have no traffic lights and must always be two-way for cyclists. To reduce car traffic, these streets should be used only by cars traveling to or from these areas, while through traffic is redirected to the main thoroughfares. To achieve this, No-entry signs and traffic management are essential. That is the essence of what Amsterdam is proposing. Traffic separation must be done effectively. To encourage cyclists to use bike lanes, they must not feel like they are wasting their time, taking detours, or having to wait at multiple traffic lights to cross a roundabout (as is all too often the case in Paris today). In a congested urban environment, different modes of transportation compete with one another, and the relative efficiency of each mode is a key factor in users’ choices. The question cities should ask themselves might then be that of a zero-sum game: Shouldn't we compromise the efficiency of the road network to improve that of the bike network, in order to make cycling more attractive? To ensure the safety of cyclists as well as the efficiency of the network, it is necessary to ensure the network continuity, particularly at intersections (for example: road markings visible to drivers, no curbs to go up or down) and to avoid forcing cyclists to switch sides of the road during a ride: this is very disruptive and dangerous, and is often misunderstood by cyclists who don’t realize that the bike lane has switched sides and therefore continue on the road, in the middle of traffic. According to Paris en Selle, the separation and efficiency of the bicycle network are essential principles of urban planning for promoting widespread bicycle use, reaching beyond the circle of current cyclists who have resigned themselves to the sometimes dangerous and often stressful conditions of traffic. The Paris en Selle report provides a wealth of concrete examples, complete with specific measures and explanatory diagrams. It is very comprehensive and very well put together, and we highly recommend it to anyone responsible for developing a city’s cycling infrastructure. So don’t hesitate to bring it up with your mayor! We hope that French cities will put this guide into practice and that cycling will finally appeal to a large majority of commuters.