There’s been some time now since the city painted experimental while lines on four short routes, designating bicycle lanes, to see how they work. Since then, cyclists have had opportunity to ride them and the city has asked for feedback. So let’s offer some here.
This reviewer says that bike lanes are a good idea . . . so when are we going to actually try them? The current experiment is far too small to elicit a useful response.
They’re like the free samples at grocery stores. But it’s like someone scraping powdered sugar off a donut, handing a bit of it to you and asking if you’d buy a caselot.
It’s understood that the routes chosen are not going to be representative of places that cyclists will actually go. If anyone at City Hall has the impression they are, then the advance of cycling in Red Deer is a lot further behind times than we thought.
One test route on Riverside Drive parallels a pedestrian lane that is a safer, more pleasant route than the road right beside it. Another, on Kerry Wood Drive, is actually longer by quite a distance from the bike/pedestrian trail that shortcuts most of the route.
That said, let’s take it as given that the experiment was just to see what it’s like to ride in traffic on a designated bike lane — even if you have to go out of your way to try it.
On that, the verdict is obvious; it’s the same as in countless cities all around the world. The bike lanes work.
It’s just a painted line on the pavement, but riding within it feels safer and more relaxing than riding on the same kind of road, in the same position on the road, without it.
In fact, at times when there happen to be joggers, young children and walkers with dogs on the pedestrian trails, I’d prefer the road — if it had a painted bike lane on it. And I’ll bet they’d prefer that cyclists took the bike lanes, too, despite the near-universal politeness I find on the trails.
For pedal commuters in Red Deer, the trails are OK, the streets (where it’s safe) are better — and sidewalks are the worst. And considering how unsafe many regions of our streets feel without bike lanes, one ends up riding far too much on the sidewalk.
The New York Times printed an article by an American living in Amsterdam wondering why that city ended up with a cycling culture for local transport, while our cities remain shackled to the automobile.
He was told by planners that, back in the 1960s, civic leaders took to heart the premise behind The Death and Life of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacobs. Jacobs argued that urban planning of the day (and of today) rejects the city, because it rejects human beings living in a community. Our cities separate people — homes in one place, work in another, shopping in another, entertainment in yet another — to the extent that people no longer interact to become community. We live isolated in cars, commuting between our physical functions.
It took years for Amsterdam to change from an auto-centric place to a people-centric place, says the article. But it began with pioneers who, with perseverance, proved that the city belongs to the people who live there, not the other way round.
In the 1970s, Red Deer was a place where you could go anywhere in 10 minutes or less and there was no rush hour. Now, we have congestion — even road rage.
There’s got to be a better road into the future. It can start with accepting that a significant number of people will leave their cars at home much of the time, if doing so could be safe and halfway pleasant.
When can we try that experiment?
Greg Neiman is an Advocate editor.