In 2008 when I was a town councillor for the Green Party in my hometown near the city of Rotterdam, The Netherlands, we succesfully launched a "Bike Route Network" plan. Instead of focusing on single routes, we proposed to design an interconnected network of bike infracstructure for reaching various destinations within the town and connections to neighbouring towns using existing infrastructure where possible and identifying problem points like intersetions where bikers were hindered by car traffic or where exisiting bike routes did not connect. We received a lot of positive feedback and the city goverment adopted and executed the plan, resulting in a huge increase in bike use for short trips, also solving some of the parking issues we had in some areas.
If only councils in the UK thought like this, far too many bike lanes that go nowhere or just dump you on to a busy road. I've tried to get my local council to widen a road that is used by cyclists and put in a bike lane, but they simply aren't interested. Well they wont be until someone gets hurt.
Exacly! There has to be a network of routs for everyone: for someone who needs to move fast and for someone who waks a casual ride with their kids. Express lane and casual trails are two different entities; if you try to mix them, you'll get a useless route that noone will use.
I think what the Dutch and Montreal designers were getting at is that they want to avoid the major fault of car-centric design, which is prioritizing speed and throughput over any other factor, including safety, comfort, and livability. A focus on throughput benefits people passing through, rather than people who live in the area, and causes some (justified) resistance to the concept.
That is exactly what I thought. I imagined walking around the bike highway. I wouldn't want to cross that highway, and it sections off the 2 sides. Just imagine trying to cross, with non-stop cycling passing by. This highway should be looked at in the context of Shifter's 3 rides to the icecream shop. There is value in making this, when there is intrinsic value for that to be exactly right there...but when you are connecting 2-4 cities, like what they are talking about in Vancouver, then that becomes soul crushing.
This is great comment, I think this idea can apply to many aspects of society that promise innovation and a better way of life but they inadvertently replicate the systems they are trying to replace.
Throughput and speed increases the economic viability of cycling as your main mode of transportation if it means you can live somewhere where the rent is cheaper and still get to work on time. There's no reason cycling infrastructure can't have both speed and safety if we learn from the successes and mistakes of automobile infrastructure - they have been at it longer after all. There's no reason why cycling infrastructure can't have both streets which serve local traffic, and roads that serve traffic passing through. As the cost of electrification continues to drop, the increased mobility of a moderately fast pace is going to be accessible to more people, and the demand for infrastructure to serve them is going to increase. May as well start thinking about it now.
@@eugenetswongYou've just described the situation in many Dutch places. Without trying to be a j-a by stating the obvious but bikes aren't cars. They're significantly slower and it's always easy enough to wait for a gap to cross. It also helps you can easily make eye contact with someone who isn't in a metal cage and you can read their body language. It helps though when the lycra speedsters lower in numbers. A good cycling culture is one where you dress for the destination and not the ride. In rush hour you see very few speedsters in The Netherlands. Even on longer rides up to around 20 km. Many if not most school kids cycle to school. I certainly did. None of them wear any lycra (or even helmets for that matter). In fact as Not Just Bikes already pointed out the Dutch language has a different word for high speed cycling. We call it wielrennen (literally wheel running). The Flemish being a cycling for sports country call it koersen (no not coerce 😅 but rather kOOrsen with the OO as in food). Lycra speedsters could use a different verb in English too. Cycling is just cycling to go from A to B and is for all ages.
cars should be gotten rid of ..outlawed , banned outright . . ..its gone too far ...a good public transport system would take care of all inrfastucture needs ...i know it would be unpopular but sometimes the peasant masses do not know what is in their best interests !
Im currently in the Netherlands... It actually blows my mind how backwards our approach to cycling is. Cycling around here you can cycle side by side in segregated paths and its all joined up everywhere.. and cars dont try and run bikes off the road at every opportunity! Its amazing
One issue I have with express cycle ways is that often cities build them and go "there, now you can ride your bike to this express cycle track!" But forget that just like building higher order transportation like LRT, Metro or Regional Rail, you need other transit to feed into the system. Similar to this express bicycle tracks need local connections via local bicycle lanes to be their best self.
Exactly right. What good is a state-of-the-art express cycleway if simply trying to cycle to it could get you killed? It's crucial to think about the people and places that connect to it as Angela Van Der Kloof mentioned.
My city was recently talking about the importance of adding car parking next to a major bike path they put in. So you know, people can drive to the path to ride on it 🤦♂️ I'm constantly astounded at how completely city leaders can misunderstand what bike and walk ability means. How much they just view it as "recreation"
@@een_schildpad in my city a councillor suggested the bicycle track be closed in winter since "there are nice other trails nearby". Like... Lady, I use this to get to work in the winter, I'm not always on a leisurely ride.
@@PSNDonutDude Eiyiyi! So freaking frustrating. We need a paradigm shift where we think about people walking and biking first, then consider if we can accommodate cars. Right now, it's the exact opposite and the result is that the majority drive because that's what they built for.
@@een_schildpad Don't forget the distinctly North american thing of building train stations in the middle of nowhere, so you take the transit train and now you have to drive or take a bus to your destination after getting off the train.
I personally associate the phrase highway not necessarily with speed, but with: 1. Faster travel times compared to other roads 2. No stopping for intersections 3. Reduction of traffic conflict points. 4. Smooth road 5. Clear signage 6. Reliability (if roadworks are taking place a good safe redirection has been made available and is marked clearly) Highways are relatively safe compared to regular roads, because of all of the above. Speed is just a minor part of it.
I just don't get why they don't call them bike paths. Solves the expectation issue and just says what it is. We don't call sidewalks "Express pedestrian highways.".
Speed is a role for enforcement now, anyway. Regardless the infrastructure type, and because of all the new illegal e-mobility vehicles (bikes, uni, scoot, etc) with overpowered motors, there is an arms race taking place between police and offenders, where police are now purchasing the same vehicles just to keep up with these people. Cancelling cycle highways, this making riding harder for everyone, and not just speed offenders, is unjust.
@@Camelotsmoon While I'm not a native speaker, 'bike path' seems to have the opposite problem. When I think 'path', I think of the one-person wide unpaved trail in grass. Which is not what these want to be, certainly. Bikeway seems better - feels paved, feels 'for bikes (not dogwalkers, not pedestrian chat knots)', feels 'for going somewhere efficiently'. Around here, we have 'light traffic roads' because they're also meant for e-bikes, e-scooters, maybe longboards, sort of all wheeled not-cars/motorbikes/etc. It's clunky and bureaucratic... But this is way down on the list of worries.
Good to pay attention to the psychological side of naming cycle ways. It unconsciously matters in people's mind, and their acceptance is required for it to succeed.
Living in a democracy means we need to get people on board with the idea of cycling, so the ways we talk about it are important. Thanks for the comment.
@@Shifter_Cycling To invert this though, often the obstacle to investment in cycling infrastructure is from suburban car drivers, who probably like the idea of driving/riding on a highway. In that sense, does highway make sense as a way to bridge the gap in transportation values between the cycling community and driving community? In other words, aren't people who are turned off by the ideas of highways probably folks already supportive of cycling infrastructure and folks supportive or ambivalent of highways probably the ones who need to be won over?
"I always ask myself 'Would I go there with my children?'" My constant argument for mobility proponents would be to emphasize the family aspect of it. Is this safe for the vulnerable? Yes? Then it could get approved. He's totally right to have that mentality.
Not everyone is living as a family. By that i mean that while there need to be safe places for families, that should not mean that you take things *away* from single folks that might have different transportation needs. You can have both: fast, comfortable, smooth and uninterrupted trunk roads along already well used car corridors (if those are the most efficient routes), as well as the slower routes that lead through recreational areas and residential areas. That's how it is in the Netherlands. There is always an alternative road to be found if you are afraid of the blistering speed of 25-30km/h. But the highway-like infrastructure that connects the city to the other cities, can not be missed because they just carry so many people, that are mostly not cycling for fun. That said - the elderly use those cycle highways with their Rascals at 15km/h, and there are literal thousands of very slow middle/high school kids using them everyday. It's fine. As long as you don't randomly swerve or stare at your phone, faster road users will just overtake you and not get into conflicts.
Yeah I kind of disagree. I see the role of bike highways the same as car highways, a way for bike commuters to get around. Which I feel is critical to moving toward a more carbon neutral form of city transport. Just like there are roads designed for different purposes, there could be bike highways for just getting around. Trying to design one size fits all will just fail.
@@mfbfreakFellow Dutchman here: in general you are right. That being said, I notice that in the old inner cities these fast bikelanes become so congested that it becomes unsafe for slower bikes and pedestrians. Especially if they come from abroad. In Utrecht and Amsterdam cycling near the station at rush hours has become a "survival of the fittest/fastest". There's lots of footage of you search for bike rush hour Utrecht. At those times it's mostly commuters. Which also explains the world largest bike parking (see footage too) 😉
@@suersu3963You might be right about the problem with "one size fits all". The problem in most Dutch city centers is that there is not much room. Many have a street plan that dates back to medieval times. Outside these centers it is possible, but the need for it is not that big. Fast bikes can simply overtake slow bike since the bike lanes are wide enough.😊
@@suersu3963So in a strange way we are becoming victims of our own succes: we have so many commuters on bikes that bike-congestion and parking space is a lasting problem. With the nation now largely switching to e-bikes that are 20-40% faster the number of serious bike-accidents and bike-injuries are on the rise. The use of mobile phones (which is forbidden) on the bike is not helping either.
I cycle this route to work everyday, and while I'm one of the fast cyclists, I totally agree that it's about making safe intersections, smooth paths that go directly to your destination, and keeping cyclists seperated from cars (and ideally pedestrians too) It's always annoying to me that cars demand and are usually given prefectly smooth roads directly to their destination, but it's totally okay to make cyclists go over curb cuts every 50m and cross the street 3 times at one intersection (E 6th ave and Clark Dr) just to stay on the same bike path! All while pleading with the cars turning right to not run over us and trying not to run over pedestrians ourselves while going down the steep and bumpy hill :/
This drives me absolutely nuts in Germany: the side walks and bike paths ramp down before literally every spot where a car might potentially want to cross at some point. So that means every driveway of every house, or even access to fields and meadows. They're probably not used more than twice a day (to leave, and to return), but instead of slightly inconveniencing the driver with a shorter ramp (in the Netherlands it's often just the curb that forms a small ramp), they force every cyclist, wheelchair and stroller over hundreds of annoying bumps to use the path. It breaks my brain.
Such a frustrating intersection. Just keep the bike path on the north side of 6th with a direct crossing (and separate traffic signal) to the path on the east side of Clark. Maybe once the office being built at 6th and Clark is finished we will get some pedestrian and bike improvements, but this is very frustrating in the interim.
The worst is that whenever cars and bikes have to share the road, the entitled drivers think that they should get priority, and many even have the nerve to get pissy at cyclists for existing. The worst are the people who drive in bike lanes, then act all surprised when the bike in front of them just stops and flips them off.
The problem with cars turning right is why I ride on the road rather than some of our bike paths here in Boston. If your on the road cars turning right see you and let you go but if you come from a path the expect you to stop at every intersection. It’s awful.
I too am a fast cycle commuter, and I take this route frequently, however my usual commute is along 10th ave (which is not as nice or separated as this route. 6th and Clark is a problem on this route, worse, though is crossing Broadway, no parent is going to think about taking the proposed crossing there with their kid. But over all, our bike routes in Vancouver are decent, but not of a high enough quality to consider taking less confident kids along, which also makes them feel unsuitable for someone wanting to just try out cycle commuting. One of my best experiences recently was riding through the Seymour demonstration forest. This route is wide enough to be a road, however no cars are allowed on the path. There's no road crossings either. It's a route used by lycra clad cyclists looking for speed, however given that it's wide enough, there were many parents with kids riding the route, and even pedestrians on it. When you remove the cars and give the space to pedestrians and cyclists, it becomes a wonderful experience that everyone can enjoy.
A similar video I just saw urges people to stop calling for "protected" bicycle lanes, and instead ask for "separated" bicycle lanes. I find it interesting that I saw both of these videos on nomenclature so close together! Great video, as always.
@@chrisakaschulbus4903 separated is protected though, no? it's just a matter of what kind of street feature offers the protection, be it barrier, plastic sticks, curb, or distance and curb, etcc.
We have to be super careful that bike infrastructure becomes and remains a network and is not consolidated "over there" on some back street or industrial land. This is what some cities do with skateboarding. Some accept it as an activity and build multiple facilities, some see it as a problem downtown and build a skatepark out in the outskirts of town and harshly punish anyone who doesn't stay in their designated place. Great comments from Montreal. How do I get where I want to go in the straightest line possible without waiting at every traffic light. And would I ride there with kids on their own bikes? I don't need more "greenways" tucked far away from everything. I need a safe route to ride to places where I need to go to get things done and somewhere secure to lock a bike when I get there.
North American cities often associate bike paths with recreational usage and not commuting. Denver (where I live) is somewhat guilty of that, the city has made great strides in adding bike lanes, especially in the congested areas in the middle of Denver, but in the suburbs it's mostly recreational bike paths that connect city parks more than efficient commuter paths. Golden is Denver's most bike friendly suburb, but it was built with the intent to link up all the open space parks, so ironically one of the biggest users of them are MTBers using them to link up rides between different trail systems. It works for commuters simply because Golden is built right up against the foothills and is compact for a Denver suburb. The sucky part is it takes forever to get from the middle of Denver to Golden via transit so most trail users end up driving.
Greenways can still be a key addition gor recreational mixed used routes. Having those paved and lit makes them useable at night and during winter. Year round Infrastructure is important.
I live in the Netherlands. I commute to work by bike, and during this beautiful 10km route I do not have to wait for traffic once. The few times where I need to cross car traffic, cyclists have the right of way (with a clear, continuous red paved cycling path). Most of my route goes along bike paths that are not some gutter on a road, or even a "protected" lane on the side of a big road (having to pass close by parked cars), but instead are separate paths that are nowhere near big roads, and often not even near any road at all. Part of my route is a cycling highway, which was created about 4-5 years ago by connecting existing bike paths, widening it, and adjusting it to go under viaducts over the canal that it goes along for at least 6km. The fact that this route exists, transforms my commute from a bike ride where I have to wait for rush hour traffic at multiple traffic lights and ride through car fumes all the time, to a relaxing and enjoyable bike ride that I look forward to.
As a french, there is a big something you missed while explaining the REV (express cycling network) : It sound like the word "rêve" which means dream. That is the DREAM bike lane !
@@InventorZahran what the hell are you talking about ? Nobody is thinking about engine when talking about the "Réseaux Express Vélo". It's a french acronym.
Would be nice to.have "multi lane" bicycle highways/bicycle ways - so people can sort of self-sort based on speed. I definitely feel like there is a big divide between casual commuting/ cyclists doing it as a sport.
you don't really need more than 1 lane in any given direction. it would only complicate things and might even deter "casual cyclist" because it becomes to complex. you need cycle paths that are wide enough for (at least) two people to cycle next to each other. that way if you're alone the cyclist with more speed are able to pass without a fuss. and if you cycle together the "speedy cyclist" has to make it's presence known (like with a bell) in a timely matter and you're able to make room in time for him to pass. i always ring my bell well in advance so by the time i reach the cyclist i need to pass have made room, and i don't have to slow down. but for that people have to work together.
It just needs to be wide enough for two abreast to comfortably pass two abreast oncoming. If it’s one way, a single cyclist should be able to go around two without them going single file. The Arbutus greenway in Vancouver is an example of where they really failed on this. Great route, absolutely nightmare when it’s busy.
@@ChristiaanHW If it's too wide it also becomes hard for pedestrians to cross, since there are no signals to create gaps for them and cyclists don't have to cede right of way to them the way cars do.
@@ChristiaanHWou absolutely do. People are 🐨 s. Even if you give em that they might decide to be in the way. Fast n slow lane is a good thing. Mimizan France has that. It's just paint.
Where I live (NL) we have the F35, a bicycle highway of around 21km long, with plans to expand it into Germany (I live close to the border). It is insanely useful and very safe to travel on. There is no interference with other traffic (apart from some crossings) so it is really minimizing travel time between cities if you were to opt for a bicycle ride between them. It's also useful when I want to go watch a football game because the F35 passes it, very easy. We do have car free city centers mostly, so I wouldn't be surprised that in the future the "highway" just passes through, it already kinda does.
In Germany everything is pushed away from replacing cars. People have just gladly given up on the idea that someone would go more than 5km already. That's for cars.
@@gur262 That is also German culture. Car culture is very big in Germany and the country was built around it after the war, they obviously didn't ignore other transit like North America did, but their cities are still car centric, though not to the extent of American cities. The German approach to climate change is, "we'll still go flying down the autobahns at 200+km/h, we will just do it in EVs rather than ICE cars"
I agree “highway” might bring negative associations. I feel like more biking education is needed in general. Back in the old days ( I’m 55) we had cycling education classes called “Peddle Pushers” that taught elementary kids how to properly ride a bike, including general skills (balance, cornering, hills) and the rules of the road ( how to signal, stay to the right if slower, traffic signs, respect others like pedestrians etc.) these classes were free, fun and useful. We should bring these back!
Absolutely. You can cycle 15km/h and safely be overtaken by people who do 30km/h, as long as you don't do stupid things like stare at your phone, randomly swerve, ride 3 abreast or take an exit without indicating. A 15km/h speed difference is nothing to be afraid of - no different than a runner passing some people standing still. Conversely, those who overtake should not be doing that when there is a possibility someone might take an exit. We all know many people fail to indicate, and that can cause an accedent that could be easily prevented by the person wanting to overtake, if they'd just wait for a few seconds. Finally, bicycles should have little bar end mirrors and a proper front brake. In the Netherlands, elementary school kids in their final year get a cycle course they have to pass, because in the first year of middle/high school, they need to be able to cycle to school all by themselves, without their parents helping them.
In Denmark bike education courses are mandatory and a thing every school does in 5th or 6th grade. It makes a real difference because even here a shocking amount of people don't know how to ride a bike and it probably also means that drivers are much more aware of bikes. To me it seeks like the kind of obvious skill that schools should obviously teach alongside cooking, sewing, swimming and basic woodworking because it's just useful for everyone to know.
the ability to cycle side by side with a friend is so underrated. very few cycle paths allow for this but is defenetly a game changer for some people. I invited a friend and his girlfriend to cycle to work but very quickly they desisted of the idea, when I ask them why, I was expecting the more normal reasons; sweat, inconvenience, cargo space etc... but they just hated being one behind the other and not being able to carry a conversation.
So if you have 4m wide lanes per direction: Sure. but on the ordinary bike lanes, where you have 1.5 m per direction, people cycling side by side are a nuisance. The idea of a highway is for me being able to go from A to B without having to brake all the time.
2 metre-wide lanes in either direction for a bikepath is roomy. Most handle bars do not even reach the customary maximum width of 70 centimetres (0.7 metres). In North America, given Americans & Canadians need for more space, the lanes of a bike path should be 2.5 metres in each direction.
I love the idea of cyclists blocking the path of other cyclists. In fact I might consider buying a big, fat, slow tricycle just to go on the cycle path and get in their way.
@@markluedtke5578fortunately I have 26” tires and 4” wide so I can just go off road and go around you, then drop a handful of tacks. Cuz you wanna be an asshole.
Personally I'm fine with the idea of the "Cycling Super Highway". The word "highway" long predates bicycles and cars, so they would have been used by people walking or riding horses. I think that to create long routes through a city like London that prioritise cyclists over a good distance is a good thing and that "highway" is a good word for them because, that is, actually, what they are. I also love the idea of other words being used for creating safe cycling environments in local neighbourhoods and that kind of thing. Overall I found the video to be excellent. Actually all videos by Mr. Shifter are excellent! Thank you.
I quite liked the highways in London, and I saw a huge number of people using them. They are actually separate only in the heart of the center, the further you get from there it becomes a painted wide bike lane, then a regular bike lane... nonetheless I think they're great....
I'm more of a network and coverage first, then fill in the space in between. Also, intersections should be properly treated from the get go. That means that I don't really like Montreal's often confusing bi directional and unprotected intersections.
Yeah, I think this a bit of a 'man shakes fist at cloud' situation where the supposed downside of the highways is in fact a high-intensity use of the cycling infrastructure. The only real problem is that there's not enough of it.
@@dennisd9914 in the center of London, at each intersection, there is a space in front of the cars in front of the light, where bikes stop for a red light... there is second stoplight for bicycles, and it goes green for bikes a couple of seconds before the green light for cars, to give bikes time to get rolling before the cars start moving...
I think that different naming is definitely a good idea to change public perception. For example, one of Portland Oregon's major bike routes is called the Springwater Corridor, which sounds a lot more calm and gentle than "BICYCLE SUPER-HIGHWAY"
We have the Monon Trail in Indianapolis, as part of the Rails to Trails program. I like 'Trail', gives it more of a chill vibe. Those that need it for finding paths to and fro will eventually find them and use them, but the semantics convey more enjoyment, less business.
I had an intuitive aversion to the term "bike highway". My city (Eden Prairie, MN) is connecting a new light rail transit line in a few years and I'm advocating for "bike expressways" to be built throughout the city specifically to connect as many residents as possible to the train stations by active transportation.
Do not forget the bicycle parking spaces. When you can get to the station safely, on separate bicycle lanes, you have to leave your bicycle somewhere... Better not call them expressways but normal, safe, bicycle routes.
@@advokatie, I'm not very far along yet. Familiarizing myself with the development plan, getting current with recent council and planning commission activity, etc. Even then, it's small, individual advocacy. There's probably enough interest to form a bicycle alliance like other cities in the region but I don't have the spoons to organize such a thing.
@@EphraimGlass Gotcha. I would only hope EP is smart enough with the construction of the train that bicycle paths will come with it, and luckily much of the train's path is already running parallel with the Cedar Lake Trail. Even if it's small, I'd love to help out with persuading city (or county) leaders to build bike paths alongside SWLRT construction. I honestly can't believe it never even crossed my mind to think of such a thing.
The original idea for the cycling super highways in London was that, like a highway, it would have priority along its route. In other words cross streets would have to yield, lights would be timed for bikes, signage would cater to bikes, etc. Some of that has been watered down along the way, but I think it’s a valid distinction from normal bike lanes.
I live in the Capital Regional District on South Vancouver Island and one of the concepts that they've been using here is the "Triple-A Network": All Ages & Abilities. Something that needs to happen is that the more able individuals need to be more considerate of those around them and share the space (that it's not just for them).
Looking at Vancouver Island's bike paths, it really looks like a system where slower cyclists will probably use the system in towns, but otherwise the long distance sections are going to be the domain of recreational road cyclists riding at speed or MTBers using them to connect trail systems (as the island has like 10 times more MTB trail than paved bike path).
Agree there are a lot of spoiled and inconsiderate people. At the same time, if a cycles are to replace cars, they have to compete in efficiency. A cycleway that can only move at the speed of children and pensioners will only be useful for children and pensioners. People wanting it to replace their car for daily commut will find it too slow and too unreliable.
My favorite cycling fantasy is an enclosed elevated crosstown cycleway for year round travel and on/off ramps. If you're going to dream might as well dream big.
Yeah this is what I was thinking only more open. The overpass for bikes coming to the downtown creating shady drives for cars below..but only certain places to drive off and on for the bikers and skiers. I suppose you'd have to have steps too for say like skate boarders to walk up and down. Defined areas of the trail👍works good.
I do worry a bit about cycling one handed while holding the camera stick, he doesn't seem to be going slow either. I think it would be a good idea to have it mounted on a stick attached to the bike, so he can keep eyes ahead at all times and both hands on the handlebars for good balance and quick braking reactions when he needs to stop unexpectedly.
Part of explaining that the lanes aren't just for faster cyclists is educating people to not block the path when they are moving slowly. If they realize that they are supposed to keep right except to pass, then they realize that they can share the path. I'm not a lycra wearing sport rider nor usually on my ebike, but I do pedal faster than most casual riders. Even so, I am always aware that a faster rider may be behind me and I should leave them room to pass.
Shouldn't have to walk/ride looking over your shoulder constantly. I am a fast moving cyclist who is able to confidently intermingle with cars. Car drivers get angry while being slowed and its very annoying and highly inappropriate. I ain't about to get angry at pedestrians/slow cyclists for doing the exact same thing. Roads/Pathways are for everyone to use and enjoy, not just people who want to travel as fast as possible. Pass when its safe to pass, and do not get angry at slower people, it is not their responsibility to get you to where your going as fast as possible.
i'm not familiar with the rules/customs in Canada. but that's the way it's in The Netherlands. - on roads with more than 1 lane in the same direction: the most left lane is for the fast (within the speed limit of course) traffic and the (most) right lane is for slower traffic. like campers trucks, people who like to drive 10km/h slower than the speed limit. - on cycle paths it's the same: you stick to the right and people so if someone wants to pass they (most of the time) have the space to do so, without having ring their bell and slow down. - even on escalators and stairs we use this custom: right side is for slower people or on escalators the people that just stand. and the left side is for people that walk (faster) in the US it seems like you're allowed to use whatever lane you want, feels unsafe to me.
One thing I noticed as an American living in the Netherlands for a year is that people have an innate sense for through the socialized unspoken rules of these paths. Often, if you come up behind people traveling faster than them, they move over when they hear you. They're thinking of the space they take up and understand the courtesy necessary for it all to work effectively.
I use the REV frequently to commute 20km from downtown Montreal to Laval. It's great - traffic lights synced so that a rider going 20km/h will hit sequential lights green. Mostly safe - definitely a welcome change in other Canadian cities. great vid!
Connectivity and access to/from multiple points along the way is very important. In North Vancouver we currently have the Spirit Trail, which isn't a highway but an MUP, but it's easy to access many businesses along the trail, and I appreciate that. I agree with Angela about the language issue too, most people here associate "highways" with road highways and there are a lot of negative connotations, and other connotations that don't line up with how they view the act of riding a bicycle. So there's an inherent disconnect.
Exactly! To me a highway bypasses everything interesting. One of the reasons I love bicycling is that I can see the sites, experiencing the ride. I'm not cut off from everything.
I guess branding does make a difference. Yes, those pathways can be used by people that bike faster but it should be able to accommodate riders of all skill and speed levels to move around a neighborhood or traveling to different towns/cities
The only cycle "highway" i ever used was in Nijmegen. It was a raised cyclepath without intersections, we used it with a large group to get to the outskirts of Nijmegen to watch a movie at the cinema. I own a racing bike but when i used it in the past i mostly cycled in the countryside where there are less traffic lights and traffic. Can hardly imagine using that bicycle in a city.
The most important part of a good wide direct bike route (AKA Bike Highway) should be comfort. That could be comfort because you don't have to stop at intersections (as much), it could be comfort because it's safe, comfort because it's wide, comfort because you can easily ride next to your friend and talk to each other. Riding in a "bike highway" should be so good, that you should almost be able to turn off your brain about the biking part and be able to focus on other things.
Although I can understand wanting to turn off your brain bicycling is not the place to do it. One of the great psychological benefits of cycling is the immersive experience of having all your senses in tune with the task of riding. Negligent riding is dangerous for you and others.
@@ibassnoteYes. Turning off your brain while moving at all is stupid. White stage is 4 sleeping, not moving. Dangerous drivers r dangerous, whatever vehicle they use.
To me a proper "bicycle highway" would be defined by having full separation from other modes, like the Dutch "bicycle roads". Call them whatever, but I think they can play a key role in a well-designed bicycling network, allowing continuous and un-interrupted travel between destinations but with connections to the local street grid where needed.
I tried to take a bike route in Minneapolis and it was...too scenic 😭 I couldn't tell where I was as it was set down away from roads without easy access. Also thought I was going to get yelled at as it went through some weird parts without much signage 😬
Minneapolis seems like it wants to develop a strong cycling system but they have a long way to go. They put in a lot of bike lanes, waaay too many share lanes that are scarier than no lane at all, and a lot of bike paths that seem more geared toward those who want to meander with their kids. I don’t really get the sense that they are consulting with communities that have developed good systems. The planners put in bike infrastructure that disrupts car traffic and makes motorists angry and unsupportive of the cycling initiatives. Our planners need to do more research and more creative thinking.
I think removing stopping points for cyclists is an important part of making a route useful, no matter how long it is. Thank you for the support. I really appreciate it!
Cycling must be inclusive, and for that we must listen to and design paths for the most vulnerable road users, ie. everyone except 20~50 y/o men with no disability. The "would I ride here with my children" question is very useful because it allows least vulnerable people to project themselves in a situation where they can assert whether a path is safe for vulnerable people or not.
How far are we talking? I mean, I live in a big metropolitan area, and I could tour a half dozen cities in one day. But I'd be exhausted trying to reach the outer suburbs.
I'm happy we have REV in MTL. It's not perfect but it's a big step. What makes me really happy is that the local traffic reports include the bike lanes. That's progress!
These types of bikeways have their place. The important thing is that they aren't developed in isolation and connect to other parts of a decent cycling network. My experience with the multi-use trail network here in Toronto is that parts of it don't efficiently connect to services, business districts, etc. It's miles of parkland that make it seem like more of a recreational amenity than part of the transportation network.
The City of Vancouver end of things will be fine for connectivity. The biggest issue as cycling infrastructure will be that it might end up being more multi-use path then cycling infrastructure and you'll be dodging all sorts of pedestrians. Burnaby and onwards you could run into issues though.
There’s a “cycling main route” being developed from my home town of Amersfoort (Netherlands) to it’s bigger neighbour Utrecht, 25kms away, where approx.30% of our inhabitants work and/or have social connections to. The work between the outskirts is nearly finished, now they’re connecting local routes to it, taking out all the annoying obstacles. This way one can use a speed-pedelec that gets you up to 40km/hr, enough to do the commute in the same time as with a car!
This is an interesting discussion, I recently participated in the Ride the DVP event in Toronto where they shut down the highway and let cyclist ride on it for half a day. I was able to bike end to end in 40 minutes when it usually takes me 70 minutes on my daily bike commute. My take away was a bike highway would be awesome and if something like it existed, a significant proportion of people who live in the suburbs of Toronto would bike to jobs downtown. The event had participants of all ages, abilities, and equipment. Plenty of $10k road bikes and Walmart junkers. There weren't many conflicts because the path was plenty wide and we were clearly instructed to pass on the left. I think cycling super highways can work really well with ample separation, clear rules for users, and enforcement along the route. Whether that can be practically implemented is a whole different discussion.
Toronto is not a typical city ... it is the only city in North america to include cities as far as 130 km away ( Niagara region ) ,with nothing in commun , in order to get the title of the largest city in Canada and the worst quality of life and car centric US culture .
REV is also a play with words. It references both "revolution" (both the social and physical aspects of cycling) and also "vélo", colloquial term for bike in French. (Bicyclette is literally bicycle in French; vélo comes vélocipede, the predecessor to the bicycle and thus an archaic term). Montreal is expanding their REV to cover several axes. Next visit you should check out the Route Verte outside of the city, such as Mount Saint Hilaire or the Laurentians. Another great video. Keep up the good work!
Cities need to do more to encourage people to ride bicycles. Safe protected bike lanes and trails are needed so adults and children can ride safely. Speak up for bicycles in your community. Bicycles make life and cities better. Ask your local transportation planner and elected officials to support more protected bike lanes and trails. Children should be riding a bicycle to school and not be driven in a minivan.
As someone who uses inline skates and bikes on biking infrastructure, I wanted to highlight one other aspect of this issue. Obviously, this infrastructure is aimed at biking as its primary use but it should not be. Other methods of self-propelled transportation are being overlooked, rendering them in some extreme cases, useless as means of connecting point A and point B. For example, as a skater occasional gravel segment on a biking trail is a deal-breaker, and thus I have to spend a lot of time researching ahead of time. In the US the term "multi-use" trail is used, and that gives some level of expectation, and I was surprised that in Europe, including the Netherlands, this is simply overlooked. It seems all they think of is bikes and only bikes. So in the Netherlands, if you are on inline skates, and using their amazing biking infrastructure to get from point A to point B, you will be unpleasantly surprised by, for example, a "biking friendly" small bridges (designed to prevent wildlife from crossing) that are a sequence of metal bars that will bring you down on the skates if you are not super careful, then low-speed residential roads built with bricks, the list goes on... I think in the spirit of this video, heavy thought should be given to the actual use cases for the additional modes of self-transportation...
Nice multi-use pathway through the Glens Falls area (NY), but not maintained during the winter months. Have to go out and jockey around snow piles and cars then. Beautiful commute along the Feeder Canal.
I love bike highways, but when i use the bike highway it only matters if it ends somewhere with good infrastructure. Here in flanders they really are very useful for going between towns like a regular highway. I like them.
We have a lakefront trail in Chicago that reminds me of a “cycling super highway”! Super useful as it goes along the length of the city and you can stop at any point along it
Why should it have to be one or the other? Sometimes you gotta get to the other side of the city and you want to go fast (in lycra or on an e-bike), and sometimes you just want to pop down to the store and get there safely and easily. I hate this dumb, fake rift between supposed "lycra-wearing" cyclists and families riding dutch bikes to school or whatever. These can be the same people, just doing different things on different days of the week. Guess what: today on my lunch break, I'll be riding to the grocery store to pick up some things for the week. I'll be going slowly, and it will be a total of about 2 miles of riding. And after work, I'll be joining a group ride that will be riding fast, in lycra, for fun. And guess what else: neither of these activities will be done with the benefit of adequate cycling infrastructure! How about we stop hyperfocusing on this fake rift, and instead focus on the social and political change required to build real, quality cycling infrastructure for ALL types of cycling.
The biggest problem is respect, or lack thereof. Everyday on my commute I see e-bike owners weaving between "slow" bicycle traffice at 45kph, overtaking in corners where they can't possibly have visibility on oncoming traffic, etc. Likewise people have been seriously hurt on my local bicycle highway because fast "road" cyclists collided head-on with slower traffic. This divide isn't entirely imaginary.
@@tyrgoossens You're describing problems with infrastructure (not enough space for slow and fast cyclists to safely coexist, blind corners, etc) and attributing it to a lack of respect. Stop buying into this dumb fake rift please. Stop starting with the assumption that the current, garbage state of infrastructure is an unchangeable fact of life. It's not. The solution to these problems isn't for everyone to get around a fire and sing kumbaya. The solution requires building political power, and transferring infrastructure investment away from car infrastructure and towards active transport. Consider car infrastructure as an example. We have separate infrastructure for high speed traffic and slow moving traffic. In fact in a city and the outlying areas, there are several tiers of speed limits. They don't just set the speed limit to 100 MPH everywhere and say "guys we have to use respect to make this work". That would be absurd. I think it's an unfortunate lack of imagination that leads people to solely think within the confines of the existing, limited cycling infrastructure. Stop limiting yourself.
In Belgium we have lots of highways for bikes. However, they are for all cyclists of all ages and all levels of skill and speed. (E-steps are allowed as well)
The main problem mentioned in this is what i feel when i ride on the Stanley Park seawall. It's full of tourists who ride slow and swerve around a lot, while I'm the fast one (even though i don't wear Lycra and ride a cheap dinky machine). If only there was an alternate protected route on the road that wasn't ripped out recently...
@@Bigbossperson What garbage is that? It has nothing to do with having fun. Do people drive cars on highways to have fun? No, they do it because they need to get from A to B. It's the same for cyclists.
I don’t need fast lanes, but I would definitely appreciate smoother concrete. The lanes and streets in my are very bumpy in parts and I don’t see the city repairing the roads anytime soon. Sad also, not too many people ride bikes in neighborhood. I wish that would change.
I have learned so much from your channel. I now ride a 'dad bike' set-up as an omafiets thanks to you. As the recession/GCR continues to rob peoples bank accounts, biking as a commuter will become more of interest. There will even be E-bike/pedal powered bike crashes.
Interesting topic. I think we (or rather, organizations that care about cycling) should overall invest more into design and classification of cycling paths for different uses/intended groups. I think the "thing" in London should be called something like "main/major" (maybe arterial) bike path. Indicating that it is (just) a continuous route with lots of (but not only) high-quality bike infrastructure, suitable for long distance transportation. Definitely, not a highway, though. Highway really implies that you can open the taps, without the need to brake every few dozen meters. I always imagined something like this between large cities or connecting towns/suburbs to cities, of distances 20km or more. You know, like a car highway. This would be an alternative for commuting by bike->train->bike combo for the fitter (typically lycra-wearing) cyclists or nowadays e-bikers that also don't want to be killed by cars on some B-road. Another use is for (weekend) trips outside of the city. Or even, (ecological) goods transportation (e.g., taking produce from a town/village to a city market). One can dream... It is, however, a different concept than a path going through a city, collecting from other, smaller paths every few hundred meters. So yeah, I agree that calling the paths from the video "highways" is incorrect and they should be renamed. (And also, countries should build actual cycling highways)
E-bikes definitely make the idea of 'short' intercity trips practical with so many 100km batteries around and high speeds available. Would be lovely to fly through the countryside that way
Yeah, that’s exactly what the bike highway „Fahrradautobahn“ concept in Germany is meant for. Connecting cities to each other fast and direct, like the highways do for cars. Calling inner city bike routes highways is a terrible idea, since inner city highways are scars that should be removed and therefore there’s an understandable negative connotation. But for long distance travel highways don’t carry the same negative connotation.
@@eechauch5522 That is great to hear that such concept is being developed somewhere. And yes, I agree that inner city and highways are a bad combination. Just a technical note, shouldn't it be called just "Fahrradbahn" or was that just a nickname?
Ive never worn lycra in my life, and I have a bit of a negative opinion of poseurs on expensive street bikes. But I get the feeling here that you want to paint anyone who might want to go fast in a bike lane as problematic, and particularly men. If cycleways are to work over long distances and take a lot of traffic, they need to make provision for people who actually have somewhere that they need to be, at a certain time.
Yes, I do want to ride on a bike highway! I think this video is actually proving the exact opposite point that it is claiming. These 'highways' have proven to be useful in massive increases in cycling usage in key cities where they have been implemented. The more people we can get on bikes faster the better infrastructure that will be required to support them. Basically, when it comes to bang for your buck, superhighways look like the best way to invest! Once people are used to commuting then they will want leisure routes too. My interpretation of this video is that you want to focus on leisure routes first which I argue is the wrong way about it.
Labeling who is an aggressive rider is a matter of perspective. To an elderly lady on a single-speed bike Tom Babin of Shifter is probably an aggressive rider. Perhaps the fundamental problem is that some of these cycleways are not wide enough for cyclists riding at different speeds to safely pass.
And the problem with cycleways that ARE wide enough is people cycling or walking 3 or 4 side-by-side with their eyes on their phones and their ears blocked by headphones.
I was just in London and I was amazed by how many people were biking. I mean, there were absolutely way too many cars, but I've also never seen that many people biking in a city so it was pretty cool. And getting around by bike is faster than a car since the traffic moves so slowly there.
Think trails work better, especially if it has better access. They cut across areas and are user friendly for all types of users, including walkers, scooters, horses, etc.
Trail may have recreational connotations. My city has an extensive multi-use trail network through parks. But if you want to actually go somewhere: they are rarely the most direct routes.
@@jamesphillips2285 In Washington State they have converted defunct rail into trails that are pretty direct between towns, and multiuse. They are sufficiently away from roads and that adds to their pleasantness.
In the UK and city of Milton Keynes we have" red ways" designated red paved riding routes for bicycles and walking and goes under bridges and sides of roads but away from traffic and safe for families.
Forcing 15mph cyclists and 3mph pedestrians onto the same paths is fraught with peril for everyone using such paths. The real way to make city thoroughfares safe is to base their use on speed, not on type of conveyance, because differential speed is a primary driver of unsafe conditions. What we actually need is a path or at least a lane for 3-5mph, 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, etc. For example, the 15-20mph lane would be populated by cyclists of mid-range fitness and/or skill, people on skates, and such, but nobody on foot except top-flight runners. The 3-5 lane would have no bikes at all because it's difficult, and frankly pointless, to ride a bike that slowly. A 25-30mph lane would have both cars and the fittest cyclists, but nobody who's going so slowly as to significantly hinder anyone else. Anyone with a working brain cell can see that this is the right way to do it. Not cheap, but doing things the right way rarely is.
Momentum not just speed needs to be taken into account. That means the mass and speed combined. A 15mph 200lb cyclist is far more appropriately placed next to the 5mph 150lb pedestrian than either of them being placed next to a car that is 10+mph and 2000lbs.
A 25-30mph lane would also have ebikes. A "slower traffic keep right" system makes sense, but as with cars you are always going to have someone going slower than they should in the faster lanes.
@@megaboz42 You might get a few e-bikes in that lane, but not many. It's a common misconception that people on e-bikes go much faster than those on normal bikes. Legal e-bikes typically travel about the same speed as normal bikes. Slower traffic keep right signs do nothing. Some little groups of pedestrians will spread across the entire path regardless. When did you least see two or more people walking together single file?
@@HeySeusReborn I disagree. Momentum alone does not tell us who can stop in a shorter distance; braking force and road friction are also in play. A 150-lb walker going 3-5 mph can stop on a dime in almost all conditions. A cyclist going 15 mph can't. Bike stopping distances -- taking into account reaction distance and braking distance -- are much closer to car stopping distances than they are to pedestrian stopping distances. So the "momentum" argument would tell us bikes are a better mix with cars than with walkers.
I live in Miami and find it horrendous that we have almost zero cycling infrastructure. A few unconnected and oddly placed bike lanes. That's it. We should be a cycling paradise with our weather!
That's the same problem in Australia. There are a few exceptions like Melbourne but mostly cycling infrastructure is barely existent or non existent at all.
Awesome video. It is a very effective technique to carefully choose how we refer to something as it eventually takes on a meaning to people about what "it" is no matter what "it" does or offers to us or our community.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to ride a bike fast. There needs to be a space for this too, and there's no good reason why we can't have facilities for all types of riders. Please consider that many of the faster riders (even those wearing lycra) in many cities are basically forced onto the designated bicycle routes/paths. It's time we stopped treating people who enjoy bicycles differently from ourselves as some kind of other. If you want to ride slow, cool. If you want to ride fast, cool. Wear street clothes, wear lycra, wear a chicken suit, whatever. Our fellow bike riders are not the problem...
When I used to commute on the Burke-Gillman Trail in Seattle I definitely felt like the lycra cyclists saw me as a problem, with my slow-ass commuter bike. I felt like I was intruding on their world.
@@MrBirdnoseI mean. If you are in the way, you,or how damn (too ) narrow the path is , are a problem. I ride a bergamont sweep. Got an oddly shaped loop bar. Lost some weight. Getting faster. Lots of people are a problem even for me at 25-30kmh if they decide to spread out all over the path.
A challenge for bike routes / expressways is the great variation in speed of its users. With decades of cycle racing experience, even when getting groceries on my commuter bike, I'm still 30-80% faster than the average user. But the point is to allow even beginner cyclists to utilize these cycling expressways and encourage all cyclists to be respectful. The downside is the unintended message to automobile drivers that bikes ONLY belong on bike paths and that's a detriment to the fast, racing cyclists when out on rural roadways. Thanks for posting these videos, always enlightening.
Completely agree. I'm involved in a similar advocacy group here in Brisbane (Space4cycling Brisbane), and our focus is on all ages and abilities cycling for all kinds of trips. But because Brisbane hasn't traditionally had that kind of infrastructure, the cyclists we do have are the "Lycra louts" (Brit words, not mine). The problem we've had with some of our advocacy is those fast cyclists complaining that "I can't use that if I have to slow down around kids". Then when the city proposes projects, those same guys (they are mostly men) put in negative feedback, like they won't use it and will stick to the road. Then the anti cyclist NIMBYs say things like "even the cyclists don't want it", and it dies. And even if it gets built we hear complaints from faster riders that it's too narrow to overtake. So, like, don't? So how we talk about these ideas is really important. We want to encourage kids, women, less fit and able people to be able to make trips in their city by bike. So saying things like "high speed cycle way" is problematic. Anyway, long winded way to say YES, language is super important to focus on the universal access and use, not "it's good for cyclists", especially in a place where cycling has traditionally been a sporting endeavour for the fit and fearless.
Absolutely. I’m in Melbourne and see those sorts in practice all the time. They say they can’t use the shared path cause it’s slow, that it’s dangerous cause a kid could walk into them, so instead they ride on a road with roadworks happening (due to long term construction) and wait with the cars at the traffic lights, going slower in the end and putting themselves at more risk. I would understand if the shared path was significantly longer than the road but it’s not (and it’s a much more picturesque ride too). I feel like these sorts don’t support the infrastructure we get with and so it is often fragmented, with sections of unprotected road riding in between. Not saying they’re the only reason but I think they should lend their support more. As a commuter on bike I feel so much safer on shared paths
This negative attitude towards people who are just trying to get around on bikes is problematic. There's a place for actual bike highways that aren't slow narrow and local.
@@Secretlyanothername How often are children in the way on your commute? Slow down if you're not sure, it's a lot safer. I agree we should easily be able to ride a bike as a means of transit, but the reality is some places just aren't safe right now, not until there's more infrastructure in place - until such time I will continue to ride on bike paths as often as possible.
Its true that unfortunately we in the cycling community have to be so careful with our language as people will try to find any term to latch onto and attack us for it. Great job highlighting a way to help reduce that stigma!
So, this vid: Has a title declaring that bicycle highway should "stop" Says "Some people say this idea is outdated already" in the first half minute But, with content of: Saying the word "highway" has negative connotations, and isn't being used as much nowadays so it's a moot point Saying that they should be "for everyone", without giving any suggestions as to how "everyone" could be prioritized tf?
Cycling traffic tube just totally tows the line with governments ideas of cycling. Those ideas often mean don't threaten the car and don't even think of going for more than 5 km. Meanwhile the human power record egg shaped bike thing goes 100kmh with 240watts or something. I can do that. Traveling with something in between electric motorcycle bicycle and spaceship could be perfect for commutes. The long ones. The 30 miles ones. At 40_60mph.
YES! They DO! I want more EVERYWHERE! Dutch design is the gold standard. Roundabouts also go a long way to improving things as do smart-signalling systems that detect bikes and change signals to improve flow. More tunnels bridges and similar systems help a lot.
the nomenclature of "bicycle highways" alwats irked me! I thought that the terms bicycle and highway are far too separated. One does not travel on a bicycle as you would a highway. A highway is from a to b with no reason to stop, cycling is all about being able to stop when you wish, go to shops, go to cafés, talk with friends. etc
Exactly. Highways are things with no exits you place out in the outskirts of town and car culture is all about stopping as little as possible. Drinking bad coffee, eating stale food and drinking mass produced beer if it means getting all the shopping done at a single, big box location with a huge parking lot. A bike lane should be on the main shopping street of the neighborhood so it's easy to ride a block, visit a bakery for fresh bread, stop for a nice coffee, pick up beer from a local brewery, grab some local produce. Stop 5 times in 45 minutes on the way home, treat yourself to a better life and support local businesses and farmers at the same time.
Thanks for this video. I used to be a vehicular cyclist when I was healthier. I stopped using designated bike routes for my commute partly because motor vehicle drivers were more observant and respectful than bike riders. Today I use mostly alleys for my commutes. Superhighways, as opposed to interstate or national highways, are promoted as rapid personal (privatized) connection between suburbs and downtowns. They emphasize reliability, speed and convenience yet end up providing none of these benefits. How many people want a bike path to follow that model? And now it's time to drag the Central Valley Greenway. CVG isn't really green: it goes through mostly industrial and commercial areas. The route's centrality has turned it into a commuter speedway. Translink seems to have spent our money for this route like municipalities have done for every bike route except for downtown Vancouver: paths on hydro right-of-ways and parkland; sharrows, gutters, traffic signal buttons on stroads; and park amenities between arterials. CVG's Still Creek section in Burnaby is a pitchpatch of all these items placed on stroads used heavily by large trucks and ratrunning motorists. The one separate piece of bikefrastructure on the CVG is an oversized pretzel over the CPR and Winston Street at Sperling Skytrain. That crossing could have been avoided altogether if Translink actually stayed north of the railway and the Still Creek mess -from Vancouver to Cariboo Road. The money for that bridge could've gone into building a bike path under the spaghetti junction at Lougheed and Kensington and then along the back lots of the businesses north of Burnaby Lake. We do need more networks of routinely-maintained, separated bike paths with purpose-built intersections that either bypass motor vehicles or take precedence over them. Capitalism forces us to live by the car. I was wealthy, fit, and lucky enough to successfully plan regular rides to work, childcare, shopping appointments and even some holidays. I still owned a car because some stuff just could not be done without it. EVs and cargo bikes might allow more of us to live without cars; bike path networks will definitely encourage that life. Each of us riding on our own instead of driving on our own... this won't build the organizations we need to fight the gig economy that keeps us commuting in the first place, let alone solve the climate crisis once and for all. Bike path networks will, if built out and sustained, popularize political space for alternatives we desperately need to survive. Ride on!
Bicycle highway is slightly different than cars highway - at first its is much more quieter, at second it is smaller, it can run through neighborhoods, forest or recreational areas without disturbing any life and still can be build without traffic lights with underpasses. This year I was cycling through Oulu's Number 8 route and it was really nice experience, it simply bringing suburbs cyclists closer to the town without navigating through streets.
it's mostly about how people (that don't have experience) with them perceive them. if you say to some residents you're planning on building a "cycle highway" through their neighbourhood a lot of people think about the negatives of a car highway and all the horrors associated with them, traffic jams, aggression, loud etc. if you call it something like a "family bike path" connecting several neighbourhoods with the local shops, sport clubs and school. so children could safely reach the area's of the town (even without their parents). people will be much more positive about it. it's all about marketing and public perception.
My personal experience with the REV is with a BIXI, rented bikes, to commute to work from spring to fall. On those bikes, I'm lucky if I can get through two intersections before hitting a traffic light, or a bike light, that forces me to stop. So I find it ironic that it was supposed to be designed as to not hit "too many traffic lights", and always thought : "I don't understand what is supposed to be Express about the REV..." Mind you, I still like the idea of the REV, and would probably enjoy it more if I was using my personal bike, and not a rented one. Great video !
Why not make space for fast cyclists? Of course it's great to make safe places to ride for everyone, but I don't see why these programs never make space or even acknowledge that for many people going 20mph+ is normal and easy. By not making space for them "pro-cyclist" urban planners are creating this "anti-lycra" animosity, even from inside the cycling community itself. The answer is always "well if you want to ride fast just ride in traffic" and this is from people who are supposed to be pro-bike. Is it so crazy that people who want to work out or just ride fast could be given space to do that that isn't around cars?
Especially when in a lot of cases the fast lycra clad people are fast because they've been cycling for years, despite the lack of safe bicycle infrastructure for them.
I'm not going to cycle for an hour in work clothes. I suspect that these "pro bikes"/anti-cycling people want me to ride the bus because I don't fit their ideal. There's also sexism against men who dare to wear clothing appropriate for exercise, instead of hiding their bodies under layers.
I participated in a workshop for citizens that were invited for the conception of the REV (réseau express vélo) and one of the question they ask was about the name. we kept the same one. It's interesting to see what the thinking behind especially with different cultures or languages. Eg: Highway in french is Autoroute. There's the world «auto» that means «car» so not so good for us.
Je veux une velo route du soleil! But without the traffic jams... And climate change will make it shorter every year. And I fully agree with cultural and language differences.
2:30 is a bad example of a bicycle lane. All it takes is the passenger of one of those parked cars to check his mirror, see that nothing is there, and open his door to have a bicycle slam into it. Then the bicyclist goes into a rage against the poor innocent car passenger. There needs to be a wider separation between the parked cars and the bicycle lane!
@@Shifter_Cycling That's good to know. But it's still dangerous to bicyclists and car passengers. I hope they put a curb in to make a larger separation.
@@wclark3196 do cars also slow down when there's something right next to the road, and the signs tell the car 70mp/h is fine? the infrastructure has to be build in a way that prevents (unnecessary) conflict between different mode of travel. so there should be a better separation between (parked) cars, cyclist and pedestrians. if the bike line isn't safe for cyclist they either stop cycling or use the sidewalk. and that's not why you build cycle paths.
Here in Australia, specifically Brisbane where I live. All the new bikeways, are being called just that. Bikeways, as well as sometimes referred to as Vellaway's.
There has to be a place for cyclists who are riding for fitness though. The idea articulated in this video effectively takes away the opportunity to cycle in the city from "faster and confident cyclists". We cannot ride on the road cause we are too slow for cars, and can't ride in the bike lanes cause we are too fast?
Safety. Connectivity. Legibility. All more important than speed. For shared paths, does anyone have good ideas appart from the incessant bell ringing required when approaching sauntering pedestrians?
I think that Bicycle highways would work best in less dense areas such as the countryside or even through a national park. But having conventional one to two-lane bike paths in a dense area full of duplexes, apartments, skyscrapers, etc... that are not designed to be speedy is ideal for fewer bike crashes and injuries. Thus there will be less frustration. Bike lanes should accommodate everyone, not to a few.
I think that cycling highways seem like bloated infrastructure. If there is such a high demand, then we should just convert an entire lane into a cycling highway.
You probably wonder what the Lycra crowd does here in the Netherlands. They simply don't cycle in cities that much. They take the cycle highway out the city, terrorise a few small villages, and then return to their lair through the cycle highway. They want to be where they can be fast and since they aren't commuters, it doesn't matter as much where that is. I've seen them almost exclusively on mixed roads or even cycle 'vehicularly' on lower-speed but not mixed-traffic roads. They often travel in packs so they take up the same space as an SUV with a trailer, even on the small Dutch roads so drivers treat the pack as a car. But don't worry, they're a menace to everyone. An important part of commuter bike acceptance is that they're a very different thing. The driver needs to know that the commuter cyclist is them, not the weirdo in a draughty gimp suit.
Ah yes, seperate yourself, you ain't like those cyclists, Jews,gays, negros, you are the good kind. You suck. Nothing wrong with going fast on a bicycle.
Thank you for making this. I live in Northwest Arkansas. They’re super proud of the Razorback Greenway but it’s really more of a park than a way to get around.
It's sort of a traffic engineering problem, the same as is faced with cars. A wide, relaxing road built to move a lot of people efficiently with minimal hills, curves, obstacles, etc. is also going to promote high travel speeds. Traffic calming measures could (and probably should) also be used to prevent overly-aggressive recreational cyclists using these bike roads as race tracks, which scares off more casual users. In the Netherlands I feel like this is less of an issue because the concept of the bicycle as a useful tool for daily travel and chores sort of predates the modern notion of cycling for pure exercise, but this isn't the case in North America or the UK, so the Dutch model can't just be slapped onto UK or North American cities without running into the problem of exercise cyclists clashing with casual cyclists.
Wide routes are part of what makes them feel safe and welcoming to all users, and width does allow faster cyclists to pass slower-moving people, but I agree they may encourage people to ride quickly. It's a tricky balance, and part of it is encouraging an inclusive cycling culture.
There's little danger of "fast" riders riding fast on bike paths... when I was racing, I avoided bike paths, it's highly annoying having to slow and brake and pass constantly, not fun at all, so we stayed on the roads....
@@PRH123 There is also the problem that unlike cars, that become safer the slower they go, bikes become unstable when they are too slow, making those obstacles often used to slow down bikes "for their safety " actually dangerous, especially for less fit cyclists.
@@_bats_ I didn’t hear about that, but sure it’s possible that relative speed issues can arise…. but not from “racing” or being used as a “race track”…. believe me, fast competitive riders don’t want to be on bike paths, it’s annoying…
Dumb question - should these Express ways have speed limits / traffic calming measures for bikes? I mean, if we are going to discuss that for car path design, the same should be true for these as well, no?
The difference is that bikes are infinitely less destructive than cars, so the argument in favour of speed limits is weaker, in my opinion. I think the better answer is to build them wide enough that it's easy and safe for faster riders to pass slower riders.
Tel aviv has these boulevards which are these very wide green streets with lots of benches and either no cars or very few cars, and these usually have a super wide bike path in the middle which I think is considered a bike highway. It's so great, these places are just straight up nice to hang out in, and every morning there's straight up congestion on some of the bike paths because just so many people cycle.
In London, the "superhighways" are being rebranded. The earliest ones were quite poor in terms of engineering, basically amounting to blue paint. However, the newer ones such as the east-west route along Victoria Embankment (in the video) are much better. There's also existing infrastructure that was incorporated in places, so that accounts for the mixed "look and feel" of them. However there are some 'Quietways' (also being rebranded) that are usually using quiet side roads, parks, and existing traffic interventions.
We have "quietways" up here in Edinburgh as well. These tend to be side roads with blue bicycle sings on the lampposts and white bikes painted on the tarmac. The problem with these routes is that they tend to be quite popular with rat-running drivers during the rush hours and they can be incredibly unpleasant to cycle on during these hours when you feel that you're constantly being stalked by Bradbury's mechanical hound. This is made even worse by the modern preference for large SUV style vehicles. There's a feeling that blue signs and white paint often amounts to little more than council box-ticking.
Fantastic analysis! I just came back to my city (Chicago) from a trip to Montreal earlier this summer and was amazing by the REV. I emailed by city's department of transportation earlier this week with some specific suggestions, using the REV as an example.
What I want is pretty simple: the ability to use what's already there, as the law allows me to do, and for the drivers--who are only one subset of legal road users--to start recognizing that and giving everybody the space they're entitled to.
A very good subject, we also have this problem in Paris, they want to put them everywhere because it's cheaper, takes up less space but adds a lot of conflict between users.
In 2008 when I was a town councillor for the Green Party in my hometown near the city of Rotterdam, The Netherlands, we succesfully launched a "Bike Route Network" plan. Instead of focusing on single routes, we proposed to design an interconnected network of bike infracstructure for reaching various destinations within the town and connections to neighbouring towns using existing infrastructure where possible and identifying problem points like intersetions where bikers were hindered by car traffic or where exisiting bike routes did not connect. We received a lot of positive feedback and the city goverment adopted and executed the plan, resulting in a huge increase in bike use for short trips, also solving some of the parking issues we had in some areas.
Goed gedaan. Dank U.
If only councils in the UK thought like this, far too many bike lanes that go nowhere or just dump you on to a busy road. I've tried to get my local council to widen a road that is used by cyclists and put in a bike lane, but they simply aren't interested. Well they wont be until someone gets hurt.
@@zoid88 Sad but true what you say.
Exacly! There has to be a network of routs for everyone: for someone who needs to move fast and for someone who waks a casual ride with their kids. Express lane and casual trails are two different entities; if you try to mix them, you'll get a useless route that noone will use.
A *functional* government that does what it says it's going to do to make things better?? We'll never know what that's like in America 😂
I think what the Dutch and Montreal designers were getting at is that they want to avoid the major fault of car-centric design, which is prioritizing speed and throughput over any other factor, including safety, comfort, and livability.
A focus on throughput benefits people passing through, rather than people who live in the area, and causes some (justified) resistance to the concept.
Yes, absolutely. Great comment.
That is exactly what I thought. I imagined walking around the bike highway. I wouldn't want to cross that highway, and it sections off the 2 sides. Just imagine trying to cross, with non-stop cycling passing by.
This highway should be looked at in the context of Shifter's 3 rides to the icecream shop. There is value in making this, when there is intrinsic value for that to be exactly right there...but when you are connecting 2-4 cities, like what they are talking about in Vancouver, then that becomes soul crushing.
This is great comment, I think this idea can apply to many aspects of society that promise innovation and a better way of life but they inadvertently replicate the systems they are trying to replace.
Throughput and speed increases the economic viability of cycling as your main mode of transportation if it means you can live somewhere where the rent is cheaper and still get to work on time. There's no reason cycling infrastructure can't have both speed and safety if we learn from the successes and mistakes of automobile infrastructure - they have been at it longer after all. There's no reason why cycling infrastructure can't have both streets which serve local traffic, and roads that serve traffic passing through. As the cost of electrification continues to drop, the increased mobility of a moderately fast pace is going to be accessible to more people, and the demand for infrastructure to serve them is going to increase. May as well start thinking about it now.
@@eugenetswongYou've just described the situation in many Dutch places. Without trying to be a j-a by stating the obvious but bikes aren't cars. They're significantly slower and it's always easy enough to wait for a gap to cross. It also helps you can easily make eye contact with someone who isn't in a metal cage and you can read their body language.
It helps though when the lycra speedsters lower in numbers. A good cycling culture is one where you dress for the destination and not the ride. In rush hour you see very few speedsters in The Netherlands. Even on longer rides up to around 20 km. Many if not most school kids cycle to school. I certainly did. None of them wear any lycra (or even helmets for that matter).
In fact as Not Just Bikes already pointed out the Dutch language has a different word for high speed cycling. We call it wielrennen (literally wheel running). The Flemish being a cycling for sports country call it koersen (no not coerce 😅 but rather kOOrsen with the OO as in food). Lycra speedsters could use a different verb in English too. Cycling is just cycling to go from A to B and is for all ages.
Walking, running, bicycles, escooters, green open spaces, electric buses and trams are all parts of a good transportation system
You forgot about regular roads, with cars and trucks and airports. Without them the country comes to a grinding halt.
Electric buses are a scam and even less sustainable than electric cars
@@lilricky2515 I guarantee you, no one has ever, ever, for a moment, forgotten about roads.
cars should be gotten rid of ..outlawed , banned outright . . ..its gone too far ...a good public transport system would take care of all inrfastucture needs ...i know it would be unpopular but sometimes the peasant masses do not know what is in their best interests !
Ebuses aren't as good as trans because of capacity efficiency and tires are bad for environment
But I agree with everything else.
Im currently in the Netherlands... It actually blows my mind how backwards our approach to cycling is. Cycling around here you can cycle side by side in segregated paths and its all joined up everywhere.. and cars dont try and run bikes off the road at every opportunity! Its amazing
Are you sure you’re using the word “backwards” properly?
Not so good for pedestrians :)
That's because every dutch car owner, also owns a bike. So every car on the roads know how it is to be a cyclist on the road.
@@raucousraptor im talking about the UK.. look up pictures of our cycling infrastructure, its hilarious
@@jaimerosado3896 yes, we build for cara and tag cycling stuff onto paths and roads afterwards.
One issue I have with express cycle ways is that often cities build them and go "there, now you can ride your bike to this express cycle track!" But forget that just like building higher order transportation like LRT, Metro or Regional Rail, you need other transit to feed into the system.
Similar to this express bicycle tracks need local connections via local bicycle lanes to be their best self.
Exactly right. What good is a state-of-the-art express cycleway if simply trying to cycle to it could get you killed? It's crucial to think about the people and places that connect to it as Angela Van Der Kloof mentioned.
My city was recently talking about the importance of adding car parking next to a major bike path they put in. So you know, people can drive to the path to ride on it 🤦♂️ I'm constantly astounded at how completely city leaders can misunderstand what bike and walk ability means. How much they just view it as "recreation"
@@een_schildpad in my city a councillor suggested the bicycle track be closed in winter since "there are nice other trails nearby". Like... Lady, I use this to get to work in the winter, I'm not always on a leisurely ride.
@@PSNDonutDude Eiyiyi! So freaking frustrating. We need a paradigm shift where we think about people walking and biking first, then consider if we can accommodate cars. Right now, it's the exact opposite and the result is that the majority drive because that's what they built for.
@@een_schildpad Don't forget the distinctly North american thing of building train stations in the middle of nowhere, so you take the transit train and now you have to drive or take a bus to your destination after getting off the train.
I personally associate the phrase highway not necessarily with speed, but with:
1. Faster travel times compared to other roads
2. No stopping for intersections
3. Reduction of traffic conflict points.
4. Smooth road
5. Clear signage
6. Reliability (if roadworks are taking place a good safe redirection has been made available and is marked clearly)
Highways are relatively safe compared to regular roads, because of all of the above. Speed is just a minor part of it.
It's because all of these factors that allows high-speed travel to be safe.
I just don't get why they don't call them bike paths. Solves the expectation issue and just says what it is. We don't call sidewalks "Express pedestrian highways.".
Speed is a role for enforcement now, anyway. Regardless the infrastructure type, and because of all the new illegal e-mobility vehicles (bikes, uni, scoot, etc) with overpowered motors, there is an arms race taking place between police and offenders, where police are now purchasing the same vehicles just to keep up with these people. Cancelling cycle highways, this making riding harder for everyone, and not just speed offenders, is unjust.
@@Camelotsmoon While I'm not a native speaker, 'bike path' seems to have the opposite problem. When I think 'path', I think of the one-person wide unpaved trail in grass. Which is not what these want to be, certainly. Bikeway seems better - feels paved, feels 'for bikes (not dogwalkers, not pedestrian chat knots)', feels 'for going somewhere efficiently'.
Around here, we have 'light traffic roads' because they're also meant for e-bikes, e-scooters, maybe longboards, sort of all wheeled not-cars/motorbikes/etc. It's clunky and bureaucratic... But this is way down on the list of worries.
No stopping is key. That is what gets people onto their bikes and enjoy cycling.
Good to pay attention to the psychological side of naming cycle ways. It unconsciously matters in people's mind, and their acceptance is required for it to succeed.
Living in a democracy means we need to get people on board with the idea of cycling, so the ways we talk about it are important. Thanks for the comment.
@@Shifter_Cycling To invert this though, often the obstacle to investment in cycling infrastructure is from suburban car drivers, who probably like the idea of driving/riding on a highway. In that sense, does highway make sense as a way to bridge the gap in transportation values between the cycling community and driving community?
In other words, aren't people who are turned off by the ideas of highways probably folks already supportive of cycling infrastructure and folks supportive or ambivalent of highways probably the ones who need to be won over?
@@Shifter_Cycling y'all have a democracy up there? must be nice! I'm living in the Corporate Oligharchy of America
I get the feeling feeling that if you renamed the word car to death trap it wouldn't have much impact at all. People would still buy and drive cars.
"I always ask myself 'Would I go there with my children?'" My constant argument for mobility proponents would be to emphasize the family aspect of it. Is this safe for the vulnerable? Yes? Then it could get approved. He's totally right to have that mentality.
Not everyone is living as a family. By that i mean that while there need to be safe places for families, that should not mean that you take things *away* from single folks that might have different transportation needs.
You can have both: fast, comfortable, smooth and uninterrupted trunk roads along already well used car corridors (if those are the most efficient routes), as well as the slower routes that lead through recreational areas and residential areas. That's how it is in the Netherlands. There is always an alternative road to be found if you are afraid of the blistering speed of 25-30km/h. But the highway-like infrastructure that connects the city to the other cities, can not be missed because they just carry so many people, that are mostly not cycling for fun.
That said - the elderly use those cycle highways with their Rascals at 15km/h, and there are literal thousands of very slow middle/high school kids using them everyday. It's fine. As long as you don't randomly swerve or stare at your phone, faster road users will just overtake you and not get into conflicts.
Yeah I kind of disagree. I see the role of bike highways the same as car highways, a way for bike commuters to get around. Which I feel is critical to moving toward a more carbon neutral form of city transport. Just like there are roads designed for different purposes, there could be bike highways for just getting around. Trying to design one size fits all will just fail.
@@mfbfreakFellow Dutchman here: in general you are right. That being said, I notice that in the old inner cities these fast bikelanes become so congested that it becomes unsafe for slower bikes and pedestrians. Especially if they come from abroad.
In Utrecht and Amsterdam cycling near the station at rush hours has become a "survival of the fittest/fastest". There's lots of footage of you search for bike rush hour Utrecht. At those times it's mostly commuters. Which also explains the world largest bike parking (see footage too)
😉
@@suersu3963You might be right about the problem with "one size fits all". The problem in most Dutch city centers is that there is not much room. Many have a street plan that dates back to medieval times. Outside these centers it is possible, but the need for it is not that big. Fast bikes can simply overtake slow bike since the bike lanes are wide enough.😊
@@suersu3963So in a strange way we are becoming victims of our own succes: we have so many commuters on bikes that bike-congestion and parking space is a lasting problem.
With the nation now largely switching to e-bikes that are 20-40% faster the number of serious bike-accidents and bike-injuries are on the rise.
The use of mobile phones (which is forbidden) on the bike is not helping either.
I cycle this route to work everyday, and while I'm one of the fast cyclists, I totally agree that it's about making safe intersections, smooth paths that go directly to your destination, and keeping cyclists seperated from cars (and ideally pedestrians too)
It's always annoying to me that cars demand and are usually given prefectly smooth roads directly to their destination, but it's totally okay to make cyclists go over curb cuts every 50m and cross the street 3 times at one intersection (E 6th ave and Clark Dr) just to stay on the same bike path! All while pleading with the cars turning right to not run over us and trying not to run over pedestrians ourselves while going down the steep and bumpy hill :/
This drives me absolutely nuts in Germany: the side walks and bike paths ramp down before literally every spot where a car might potentially want to cross at some point. So that means every driveway of every house, or even access to fields and meadows. They're probably not used more than twice a day (to leave, and to return), but instead of slightly inconveniencing the driver with a shorter ramp (in the Netherlands it's often just the curb that forms a small ramp), they force every cyclist, wheelchair and stroller over hundreds of annoying bumps to use the path. It breaks my brain.
Such a frustrating intersection. Just keep the bike path on the north side of 6th with a direct crossing (and separate traffic signal) to the path on the east side of Clark. Maybe once the office being built at 6th and Clark is finished we will get some pedestrian and bike improvements, but this is very frustrating in the interim.
The worst is that whenever cars and bikes have to share the road, the entitled drivers think that they should get priority, and many even have the nerve to get pissy at cyclists for existing. The worst are the people who drive in bike lanes, then act all surprised when the bike in front of them just stops and flips them off.
The problem with cars turning right is why I ride on the road rather than some of our bike paths here in Boston. If your on the road cars turning right see you and let you go but if you come from a path the expect you to stop at every intersection. It’s awful.
I too am a fast cycle commuter, and I take this route frequently, however my usual commute is along 10th ave (which is not as nice or separated as this route.
6th and Clark is a problem on this route, worse, though is crossing Broadway, no parent is going to think about taking the proposed crossing there with their kid.
But over all, our bike routes in Vancouver are decent, but not of a high enough quality to consider taking less confident kids along, which also makes them feel unsuitable for someone wanting to just try out cycle commuting.
One of my best experiences recently was riding through the Seymour demonstration forest. This route is wide enough to be a road, however no cars are allowed on the path. There's no road crossings either. It's a route used by lycra clad cyclists looking for speed, however given that it's wide enough, there were many parents with kids riding the route, and even pedestrians on it.
When you remove the cars and give the space to pedestrians and cyclists, it becomes a wonderful experience that everyone can enjoy.
A similar video I just saw urges people to stop calling for "protected" bicycle lanes, and instead ask for "separated" bicycle lanes. I find it interesting that I saw both of these videos on nomenclature so close together! Great video, as always.
I don't need to be protected. But i want a separated path to cycle on.
Imo it's pretty obvious why one sounds better to people.
@@chrisakaschulbus4903 separated is protected though, no? it's just a matter of what kind of street feature offers the protection, be it barrier, plastic sticks, curb, or distance and curb, etcc.
@@misodko1668 "separated is protected though, no?" Never said otherwise.
What's the difference?
@@_blank-_I guess distance/separation is a better form of protection than the current one.
We have to be super careful that bike infrastructure becomes and remains a network and is not consolidated "over there" on some back street or industrial land. This is what some cities do with skateboarding. Some accept it as an activity and build multiple facilities, some see it as a problem downtown and build a skatepark out in the outskirts of town and harshly punish anyone who doesn't stay in their designated place.
Great comments from Montreal. How do I get where I want to go in the straightest line possible without waiting at every traffic light. And would I ride there with kids on their own bikes? I don't need more "greenways" tucked far away from everything. I need a safe route to ride to places where I need to go to get things done and somewhere secure to lock a bike when I get there.
North American cities often associate bike paths with recreational usage and not commuting. Denver (where I live) is somewhat guilty of that, the city has made great strides in adding bike lanes, especially in the congested areas in the middle of Denver, but in the suburbs it's mostly recreational bike paths that connect city parks more than efficient commuter paths. Golden is Denver's most bike friendly suburb, but it was built with the intent to link up all the open space parks, so ironically one of the biggest users of them are MTBers using them to link up rides between different trail systems. It works for commuters simply because Golden is built right up against the foothills and is compact for a Denver suburb. The sucky part is it takes forever to get from the middle of Denver to Golden via transit so most trail users end up driving.
skateboarding is not a crime!
unless youre in north america
Why should you not wait at every traffic light, it's what ALL the other road users have to do.
Greenways can still be a key addition gor recreational mixed used routes.
Having those paved and lit makes them useable at night and during winter. Year round Infrastructure is important.
I live in the Netherlands. I commute to work by bike, and during this beautiful 10km route I do not have to wait for traffic once. The few times where I need to cross car traffic, cyclists have the right of way (with a clear, continuous red paved cycling path). Most of my route goes along bike paths that are not some gutter on a road, or even a "protected" lane on the side of a big road (having to pass close by parked cars), but instead are separate paths that are nowhere near big roads, and often not even near any road at all. Part of my route is a cycling highway, which was created about 4-5 years ago by connecting existing bike paths, widening it, and adjusting it to go under viaducts over the canal that it goes along for at least 6km.
The fact that this route exists, transforms my commute from a bike ride where I have to wait for rush hour traffic at multiple traffic lights and ride through car fumes all the time, to a relaxing and enjoyable bike ride that I look forward to.
Change the rules to allow Onewheels and I would 100% go study in the Netherlands just to enjoy this infrastructure myself 😊
I wish I'd been born in northern Europe. It's really hard to escape America, much like North Korea.
@@Lurch685you prefer to ride a unicycle? How come?
As a french, there is a big something you missed while explaining the REV (express cycling network) : It sound like the word "rêve" which means dream. That is the DREAM bike lane !
My sadly unilingual brain missed that. Thank you for the insight!
Very funny, Merci.
That, and also the idea of revving an engine, which suggests speed and excitement.
What do french people know about bike lanes? As far as I know, they haven't invented them yet.
@@InventorZahran what the hell are you talking about ? Nobody is thinking about engine when talking about the "Réseaux Express Vélo". It's a french acronym.
Would be nice to.have "multi lane" bicycle highways/bicycle ways - so people can sort of self-sort based on speed. I definitely feel like there is a big divide between casual commuting/ cyclists doing it as a sport.
Multi-lane routes is a very interesting idea.
you don't really need more than 1 lane in any given direction. it would only complicate things and might even deter "casual cyclist" because it becomes to complex.
you need cycle paths that are wide enough for (at least) two people to cycle next to each other.
that way if you're alone the cyclist with more speed are able to pass without a fuss.
and if you cycle together the "speedy cyclist" has to make it's presence known (like with a bell) in a timely matter and you're able to make room in time for him to pass.
i always ring my bell well in advance so by the time i reach the cyclist i need to pass have made room, and i don't have to slow down.
but for that people have to work together.
It just needs to be wide enough for two abreast to comfortably pass two abreast oncoming. If it’s one way, a single cyclist should be able to go around two without them going single file.
The Arbutus greenway in Vancouver is an example of where they really failed on this. Great route, absolutely nightmare when it’s busy.
@@ChristiaanHW If it's too wide it also becomes hard for pedestrians to cross, since there are no signals to create gaps for them and cyclists don't have to cede right of way to them the way cars do.
@@ChristiaanHWou absolutely do. People are 🐨 s. Even if you give em that they might decide to be in the way. Fast n slow lane is a good thing. Mimizan France has that. It's just paint.
Where I live (NL) we have the F35, a bicycle highway of around 21km long, with plans to expand it into Germany (I live close to the border). It is insanely useful and very safe to travel on. There is no interference with other traffic (apart from some crossings) so it is really minimizing travel time between cities if you were to opt for a bicycle ride between them. It's also useful when I want to go watch a football game because the F35 passes it, very easy. We do have car free city centers mostly, so I wouldn't be surprised that in the future the "highway" just passes through, it already kinda does.
hoi tukker!
In Germany everything is pushed away from replacing cars. People have just gladly given up on the idea that someone would go more than 5km already. That's for cars.
@@gur262 maybe in Bayern, but 20 million Germans who live near the Dutch border have decent biking infrastructure and they use it
@@Blackadder75 Haha hey!
@@gur262 That is also German culture. Car culture is very big in Germany and the country was built around it after the war, they obviously didn't ignore other transit like North America did, but their cities are still car centric, though not to the extent of American cities. The German approach to climate change is, "we'll still go flying down the autobahns at 200+km/h, we will just do it in EVs rather than ICE cars"
I agree “highway” might bring negative associations. I feel like more biking education is needed in general. Back in the old days ( I’m 55) we had cycling education classes called “Peddle Pushers” that taught elementary kids how to properly ride a bike, including general skills (balance, cornering, hills) and the rules of the road ( how to signal, stay to the right if slower, traffic signs, respect others like pedestrians etc.) these classes were free, fun and useful. We should bring these back!
Absolutely. You can cycle 15km/h and safely be overtaken by people who do 30km/h, as long as you don't do stupid things like stare at your phone, randomly swerve, ride 3 abreast or take an exit without indicating. A 15km/h speed difference is nothing to be afraid of - no different than a runner passing some people standing still.
Conversely, those who overtake should not be doing that when there is a possibility someone might take an exit. We all know many people fail to indicate, and that can cause an accedent that could be easily prevented by the person wanting to overtake, if they'd just wait for a few seconds.
Finally, bicycles should have little bar end mirrors and a proper front brake.
In the Netherlands, elementary school kids in their final year get a cycle course they have to pass, because in the first year of middle/high school, they need to be able to cycle to school all by themselves, without their parents helping them.
I think it is a good term. The thing with a highway is that there are no stops. That is key when cycling.
@Bryan.2024😂
In my city, we call it “bikeways” which are the ones that are separate from roads. Then we have protected bike lanes on some streets.
In Denmark bike education courses are mandatory and a thing every school does in 5th or 6th grade. It makes a real difference because even here a shocking amount of people don't know how to ride a bike and it probably also means that drivers are much more aware of bikes. To me it seeks like the kind of obvious skill that schools should obviously teach alongside cooking, sewing, swimming and basic woodworking because it's just useful for everyone to know.
the ability to cycle side by side with a friend is so underrated. very few cycle paths allow for this but is defenetly a game changer for some people. I invited a friend and his girlfriend to cycle to work but very quickly they desisted of the idea, when I ask them why, I was expecting the more normal reasons; sweat, inconvenience, cargo space etc... but they just hated being one behind the other and not being able to carry a conversation.
So if you have 4m wide lanes per direction: Sure. but on the ordinary bike lanes, where you have 1.5 m per direction, people cycling side by side are a nuisance. The idea of a highway is for me being able to go from A to B without having to brake all the time.
@@MaxMustermann-nd4uy Flippin' hell mate, how wide are your bars?!
2 metre-wide lanes in either direction for a bikepath is roomy. Most handle bars do not even reach the customary maximum width of 70 centimetres (0.7 metres).
In North America, given Americans & Canadians need for more space, the lanes of a bike path should be 2.5 metres in each direction.
I love the idea of cyclists blocking the path of other cyclists. In fact I might consider buying a big, fat, slow tricycle just to go on the cycle path and get in their way.
@@markluedtke5578fortunately I have 26” tires and 4” wide so I can just go off road and go around you, then drop a handful of tacks. Cuz you wanna be an asshole.
Personally I'm fine with the idea of the "Cycling Super Highway". The word "highway" long predates bicycles and cars, so they would have been used by people walking or riding horses. I think that to create long routes through a city like London that prioritise cyclists over a good distance is a good thing and that "highway" is a good word for them because, that is, actually, what they are. I also love the idea of other words being used for creating safe cycling environments in local neighbourhoods and that kind of thing.
Overall I found the video to be excellent. Actually all videos by Mr. Shifter are excellent! Thank you.
These are valid points. Thank you for sharing. It's always great to have your insight!
I quite liked the highways in London, and I saw a huge number of people using them. They are actually separate only in the heart of the center, the further you get from there it becomes a painted wide bike lane, then a regular bike lane... nonetheless I think they're great....
I'm more of a network and coverage first, then fill in the space in between. Also, intersections should be properly treated from the get go. That means that I don't really like Montreal's often confusing bi directional and unprotected intersections.
Yeah, I think this a bit of a 'man shakes fist at cloud' situation where the supposed downside of the highways is in fact a high-intensity use of the cycling infrastructure. The only real problem is that there's not enough of it.
@@dennisd9914 in the center of London, at each intersection, there is a space in front of the cars in front of the light, where bikes stop for a red light... there is second stoplight for bicycles, and it goes green for bikes a couple of seconds before the green light for cars, to give bikes time to get rolling before the cars start moving...
I think that different naming is definitely a good idea to change public perception. For example, one of Portland Oregon's major bike routes is called the Springwater Corridor, which sounds a lot more calm and gentle than "BICYCLE SUPER-HIGHWAY"
We have the Monon Trail in Indianapolis, as part of the Rails to Trails program. I like 'Trail', gives it more of a chill vibe. Those that need it for finding paths to and fro will eventually find them and use them, but the semantics convey more enjoyment, less business.
I had an intuitive aversion to the term "bike highway". My city (Eden Prairie, MN) is connecting a new light rail transit line in a few years and I'm advocating for "bike expressways" to be built throughout the city specifically to connect as many residents as possible to the train stations by active transportation.
Do not forget the bicycle parking spaces. When you can get to the station safely, on separate bicycle lanes, you have to leave your bicycle somewhere...
Better not call them expressways but normal, safe, bicycle routes.
I would use the term Main Cycle Way, maybe add Priority in the name: Main Priority Cycle Way?
Hi! I'm in Saint Paul, and wasn't aware of advocacy going on in Eden Prairie for bikes. Is there any information I can get on this? Thanks!
@@advokatie, I'm not very far along yet. Familiarizing myself with the development plan, getting current with recent council and planning commission activity, etc. Even then, it's small, individual advocacy. There's probably enough interest to form a bicycle alliance like other cities in the region but I don't have the spoons to organize such a thing.
@@EphraimGlass Gotcha. I would only hope EP is smart enough with the construction of the train that bicycle paths will come with it, and luckily much of the train's path is already running parallel with the Cedar Lake Trail. Even if it's small, I'd love to help out with persuading city (or county) leaders to build bike paths alongside SWLRT construction. I honestly can't believe it never even crossed my mind to think of such a thing.
The original idea for the cycling super highways in London was that, like a highway, it would have priority along its route. In other words cross streets would have to yield, lights would be timed for bikes, signage would cater to bikes, etc. Some of that has been watered down along the way, but I think it’s a valid distinction from normal bike lanes.
I live in the Capital Regional District on South Vancouver Island and one of the concepts that they've been using here is the "Triple-A Network": All Ages & Abilities. Something that needs to happen is that the more able individuals need to be more considerate of those around them and share the space (that it's not just for them).
Looking at Vancouver Island's bike paths, it really looks like a system where slower cyclists will probably use the system in towns, but otherwise the long distance sections are going to be the domain of recreational road cyclists riding at speed or MTBers using them to connect trail systems (as the island has like 10 times more MTB trail than paved bike path).
Agree there are a lot of spoiled and inconsiderate people. At the same time, if a cycles are to replace cars, they have to compete in efficiency. A cycleway that can only move at the speed of children and pensioners will only be useful for children and pensioners. People wanting it to replace their car for daily commut will find it too slow and too unreliable.
My favorite cycling fantasy is an enclosed elevated crosstown cycleway for year round travel and on/off ramps. If you're going to dream might as well dream big.
Yeah this is what I was thinking only more open. The overpass for bikes coming to the downtown creating shady drives for cars below..but only certain places to drive off and on for the bikers and skiers. I suppose you'd have to have steps too for say like skate boarders to walk up and down. Defined areas of the trail👍works good.
Your pacing and camerawork in this video is incredible! Great sound levels, wonderful colours. Keep it up! :D
I do worry a bit about cycling one handed while holding the camera stick, he doesn't seem to be going slow either. I think it would be a good idea to have it mounted on a stick attached to the bike, so he can keep eyes ahead at all times and both hands on the handlebars for good balance and quick braking reactions when he needs to stop unexpectedly.
@@danyoutube7491relax Dan
Part of explaining that the lanes aren't just for faster cyclists is educating people to not block the path when they are moving slowly. If they realize that they are supposed to keep right except to pass, then they realize that they can share the path. I'm not a lycra wearing sport rider nor usually on my ebike, but I do pedal faster than most casual riders. Even so, I am always aware that a faster rider may be behind me and I should leave them room to pass.
Shouldn't have to walk/ride looking over your shoulder constantly. I am a fast moving cyclist who is able to confidently intermingle with cars. Car drivers get angry while being slowed and its very annoying and highly inappropriate. I ain't about to get angry at pedestrians/slow cyclists for doing the exact same thing. Roads/Pathways are for everyone to use and enjoy, not just people who want to travel as fast as possible. Pass when its safe to pass, and do not get angry at slower people, it is not their responsibility to get you to where your going as fast as possible.
i'm not familiar with the rules/customs in Canada.
but that's the way it's in The Netherlands.
- on roads with more than 1 lane in the same direction: the most left lane is for the fast (within the speed limit of course) traffic and the (most) right lane is for slower traffic. like campers trucks, people who like to drive 10km/h slower than the speed limit.
- on cycle paths it's the same: you stick to the right and people so if someone wants to pass they (most of the time) have the space to do so, without having ring their bell and slow down.
- even on escalators and stairs we use this custom: right side is for slower people or on escalators the people that just stand. and the left side is for people that walk (faster)
in the US it seems like you're allowed to use whatever lane you want, feels unsafe to me.
as a fast walker, I wish more pedestrians would follow this rule as well.
@@mikko.g If you stay to the right, you don't have to look over your shoulder.
One thing I noticed as an American living in the Netherlands for a year is that people have an innate sense for through the socialized unspoken rules of these paths. Often, if you come up behind people traveling faster than them, they move over when they hear you. They're thinking of the space they take up and understand the courtesy necessary for it all to work effectively.
I use the REV frequently to commute 20km from downtown Montreal to Laval. It's great - traffic lights synced so that a rider going 20km/h will hit sequential lights green. Mostly safe - definitely a welcome change in other Canadian cities. great vid!
"Bike Superhighway " isn't triggering to me. It evokes feelings of fun and efficient.
Connectivity and access to/from multiple points along the way is very important. In North Vancouver we currently have the Spirit Trail, which isn't a highway but an MUP, but it's easy to access many businesses along the trail, and I appreciate that. I agree with Angela about the language issue too, most people here associate "highways" with road highways and there are a lot of negative connotations, and other connotations that don't line up with how they view the act of riding a bicycle. So there's an inherent disconnect.
Exactly! To me a highway bypasses everything interesting. One of the reasons I love bicycling is that I can see the sites, experiencing the ride. I'm not cut off from everything.
I guess branding does make a difference. Yes, those pathways can be used by people that bike faster but it should be able to accommodate riders of all skill and speed levels to move around a neighborhood or traveling to different towns/cities
The only cycle "highway" i ever used was in Nijmegen. It was a raised cyclepath without intersections, we used it with a large group to get to the outskirts of Nijmegen to watch a movie at the cinema. I own a racing bike but when i used it in the past i mostly cycled in the countryside where there are less traffic lights and traffic. Can hardly imagine using that bicycle in a city.
The most important part of a good wide direct bike route (AKA Bike Highway) should be comfort. That could be comfort because you don't have to stop at intersections (as much), it could be comfort because it's safe, comfort because it's wide, comfort because you can easily ride next to your friend and talk to each other.
Riding in a "bike highway" should be so good, that you should almost be able to turn off your brain about the biking part and be able to focus on other things.
Although I can understand wanting to turn off your brain bicycling is not the place to do it. One of the great psychological benefits of cycling is the immersive experience of having all your senses in tune with the task of riding. Negligent riding is dangerous for you and others.
@@ibassnoteYes. Turning off your brain while moving at all is stupid. White stage is 4 sleeping, not moving. Dangerous drivers r dangerous, whatever vehicle they use.
To me a proper "bicycle highway" would be defined by having full separation from other modes, like the Dutch "bicycle roads". Call them whatever, but I think they can play a key role in a well-designed bicycling network, allowing continuous and un-interrupted travel between destinations but with connections to the local street grid where needed.
I tried to take a bike route in Minneapolis and it was...too scenic 😭 I couldn't tell where I was as it was set down away from roads without easy access. Also thought I was going to get yelled at as it went through some weird parts without much signage 😬
Minneapolis seems like it wants to develop a strong cycling system but they have a long way to go. They put in a lot of bike lanes, waaay too many share lanes that are scarier than no lane at all, and a lot of bike paths that seem more geared toward those who want to meander with their kids. I don’t really get the sense that they are consulting with communities that have developed good systems. The planners put in bike infrastructure that disrupts car traffic and makes motorists angry and unsupportive of the cycling initiatives. Our planners need to do more research and more creative thinking.
@@debbiekeyes6644 💯
Protected cycle lane without stop lights or signs would be my dream. Thanks!
I think removing stopping points for cyclists is an important part of making a route useful, no matter how long it is. Thank you for the support. I really appreciate it!
Wish they make plans to have bicycle highways or Just Bicycle ways in India too :) I think this is a great idea :)
Cycling must be inclusive, and for that we must listen to and design paths for the most vulnerable road users, ie. everyone except 20~50 y/o men with no disability. The "would I ride here with my children" question is very useful because it allows least vulnerable people to project themselves in a situation where they can assert whether a path is safe for vulnerable people or not.
It would be nice to have cycling highways between major Cities. And by that I mean at least 2 lanes (Fast/slow) in each direction.
How far are we talking?
I mean, I live in a big metropolitan area, and I could tour a half dozen cities in one day. But I'd be exhausted trying to reach the outer suburbs.
Yep, need one Edmonton to Vancouver ... my 13 hour car trips are not enough fun :)
@@erikschaal4124 you need to improve your cardio. I'm not impressed unless you can bike forever and never get tired.
I'm happy we have REV in MTL. It's not perfect but it's a big step. What makes me really happy is that the local traffic reports include the bike lanes. That's progress!
These types of bikeways have their place. The important thing is that they aren't developed in isolation and connect to other parts of a decent cycling network. My experience with the multi-use trail network here in Toronto is that parts of it don't efficiently connect to services, business districts, etc. It's miles of parkland that make it seem like more of a recreational amenity than part of the transportation network.
The City of Vancouver end of things will be fine for connectivity. The biggest issue as cycling infrastructure will be that it might end up being more multi-use path then cycling infrastructure and you'll be dodging all sorts of pedestrians. Burnaby and onwards you could run into issues though.
There’s a “cycling main route” being developed from my home town of Amersfoort (Netherlands) to it’s bigger neighbour Utrecht, 25kms away, where approx.30% of our inhabitants work and/or have social connections to. The work between the outskirts is nearly finished, now they’re connecting local routes to it, taking out all the annoying obstacles. This way one can use a speed-pedelec that gets you up to 40km/hr, enough to do the commute in the same time as with a car!
This is an interesting discussion, I recently participated in the Ride the DVP event in Toronto where they shut down the highway and let cyclist ride on it for half a day. I was able to bike end to end in 40 minutes when it usually takes me 70 minutes on my daily bike commute. My take away was a bike highway would be awesome and if something like it existed, a significant proportion of people who live in the suburbs of Toronto would bike to jobs downtown. The event had participants of all ages, abilities, and equipment. Plenty of $10k road bikes and Walmart junkers. There weren't many conflicts because the path was plenty wide and we were clearly instructed to pass on the left. I think cycling super highways can work really well with ample separation, clear rules for users, and enforcement along the route. Whether that can be practically implemented is a whole different discussion.
Please not more rules... i'm pretty happy i can ride a bike without a license. It's a wild west.
Toronto is not a typical city ... it is the only city in North america to include cities as far as 130 km away ( Niagara region ) ,with nothing in commun , in order to get the title of the largest city in Canada and the worst quality of life and car centric US culture .
REV is also a play with words. It references both "revolution" (both the social and physical aspects of cycling) and also "vélo", colloquial term for bike in French. (Bicyclette is literally bicycle in French; vélo comes vélocipede, the predecessor to the bicycle and thus an archaic term). Montreal is expanding their REV to cover several axes.
Next visit you should check out the Route Verte outside of the city, such as Mount Saint Hilaire or the Laurentians.
Another great video. Keep up the good work!
I thought it was because it sounds close enough to the French term for "dream".
Cities need to do more to encourage people to ride bicycles. Safe protected bike lanes and trails are needed so adults and children can ride safely. Speak up for bicycles in your community. Bicycles make life and cities better. Ask your local transportation planner and elected officials to support more protected bike lanes and trails. Children should be riding a bicycle to school and not be driven in a minivan.
Yes, this is how change happens. Thank you for your advocacy.
As someone who uses inline skates and bikes on biking infrastructure, I wanted to highlight one other aspect of this issue. Obviously, this infrastructure is aimed at biking as its primary use but it should not be. Other methods of self-propelled transportation are being overlooked, rendering them in some extreme cases, useless as means of connecting point A and point B. For example, as a skater occasional gravel segment on a biking trail is a deal-breaker, and thus I have to spend a lot of time researching ahead of time. In the US the term "multi-use" trail is used, and that gives some level of expectation, and I was surprised that in Europe, including the Netherlands, this is simply overlooked. It seems all they think of is bikes and only bikes. So in the Netherlands, if you are on inline skates, and using their amazing biking infrastructure to get from point A to point B, you will be unpleasantly surprised by, for example, a "biking friendly" small bridges (designed to prevent wildlife from crossing) that are a sequence of metal bars that will bring you down on the skates if you are not super careful, then low-speed residential roads built with bricks, the list goes on... I think in the spirit of this video, heavy thought should be given to the actual use cases for the additional modes of self-transportation...
Get some gravel skates then.
Nice multi-use pathway through the Glens Falls area (NY), but not maintained during the winter months. Have to go out and jockey around snow piles and cars then. Beautiful commute along the Feeder Canal.
The plows need to clear this route for you in the winter!
@@Shifter_Cycling might have to start small, by asking them to plow the paved section that goes directly through town
I love bike highways, but when i use the bike highway it only matters if it ends somewhere with good infrastructure. Here in flanders they really are very useful for going between towns like a regular highway. I like them.
Excellent video. Thanks!
We have a lakefront trail in Chicago that reminds me of a “cycling super highway”! Super useful as it goes along the length of the city and you can stop at any point along it
Why should it have to be one or the other? Sometimes you gotta get to the other side of the city and you want to go fast (in lycra or on an e-bike), and sometimes you just want to pop down to the store and get there safely and easily. I hate this dumb, fake rift between supposed "lycra-wearing" cyclists and families riding dutch bikes to school or whatever. These can be the same people, just doing different things on different days of the week. Guess what: today on my lunch break, I'll be riding to the grocery store to pick up some things for the week. I'll be going slowly, and it will be a total of about 2 miles of riding. And after work, I'll be joining a group ride that will be riding fast, in lycra, for fun. And guess what else: neither of these activities will be done with the benefit of adequate cycling infrastructure! How about we stop hyperfocusing on this fake rift, and instead focus on the social and political change required to build real, quality cycling infrastructure for ALL types of cycling.
The biggest problem is respect, or lack thereof. Everyday on my commute I see e-bike owners weaving between "slow" bicycle traffice at 45kph, overtaking in corners where they can't possibly have visibility on oncoming traffic, etc. Likewise people have been seriously hurt on my local bicycle highway because fast "road" cyclists collided head-on with slower traffic. This divide isn't entirely imaginary.
@@tyrgoossens You're describing problems with infrastructure (not enough space for slow and fast cyclists to safely coexist, blind corners, etc) and attributing it to a lack of respect. Stop buying into this dumb fake rift please. Stop starting with the assumption that the current, garbage state of infrastructure is an unchangeable fact of life. It's not. The solution to these problems isn't for everyone to get around a fire and sing kumbaya. The solution requires building political power, and transferring infrastructure investment away from car infrastructure and towards active transport.
Consider car infrastructure as an example. We have separate infrastructure for high speed traffic and slow moving traffic. In fact in a city and the outlying areas, there are several tiers of speed limits. They don't just set the speed limit to 100 MPH everywhere and say "guys we have to use respect to make this work". That would be absurd. I think it's an unfortunate lack of imagination that leads people to solely think within the confines of the existing, limited cycling infrastructure. Stop limiting yourself.
In Belgium we have lots of highways for bikes. However, they are for all cyclists of all ages and all levels of skill and speed. (E-steps are allowed as well)
The main problem mentioned in this is what i feel when i ride on the Stanley Park seawall. It's full of tourists who ride slow and swerve around a lot, while I'm the fast one (even though i don't wear Lycra and ride a cheap dinky machine). If only there was an alternate protected route on the road that wasn't ripped out recently...
The people have spoken ... no more fun for you
If only.
@@Bigbossperson What garbage is that? It has nothing to do with having fun. Do people drive cars on highways to have fun? No, they do it because they need to get from A to B. It's the same for cyclists.
@@grantofat6438 Simmer, I don't like it either
I don’t need fast lanes, but I would definitely appreciate smoother concrete. The lanes and streets in my are very bumpy in parts and I don’t see the city repairing the roads anytime soon. Sad also, not too many people ride bikes in neighborhood. I wish that would change.
Yes, I do want more "bike highways"
I have learned so much from your channel. I now ride a 'dad bike' set-up as an omafiets thanks to you. As the recession/GCR continues to rob peoples bank accounts, biking as a commuter will become more of interest. There will even be E-bike/pedal powered bike crashes.
Interesting topic. I think we (or rather, organizations that care about cycling) should overall invest more into design and classification of cycling paths for different uses/intended groups.
I think the "thing" in London should be called something like "main/major" (maybe arterial) bike path. Indicating that it is (just) a continuous route with lots of (but not only) high-quality bike infrastructure, suitable for long distance transportation. Definitely, not a highway, though.
Highway really implies that you can open the taps, without the need to brake every few dozen meters. I always imagined something like this between large cities or connecting towns/suburbs to cities, of distances 20km or more. You know, like a car highway. This would be an alternative for commuting by bike->train->bike combo for the fitter (typically lycra-wearing) cyclists or nowadays e-bikers that also don't want to be killed by cars on some B-road. Another use is for (weekend) trips outside of the city. Or even, (ecological) goods transportation (e.g., taking produce from a town/village to a city market). One can dream...
It is, however, a different concept than a path going through a city, collecting from other, smaller paths every few hundred meters. So yeah, I agree that calling the paths from the video "highways" is incorrect and they should be renamed.
(And also, countries should build actual cycling highways)
E-bikes definitely make the idea of 'short' intercity trips practical with so many 100km batteries around and high speeds available. Would be lovely to fly through the countryside that way
@@planefan082 A high speed super extra bicycle runway...
Yeah, that’s exactly what the bike highway „Fahrradautobahn“ concept in Germany is meant for. Connecting cities to each other fast and direct, like the highways do for cars.
Calling inner city bike routes highways is a terrible idea, since inner city highways are scars that should be removed and therefore there’s an understandable negative connotation. But for long distance travel highways don’t carry the same negative connotation.
@@eechauch5522 That is great to hear that such concept is being developed somewhere.
And yes, I agree that inner city and highways are a bad combination.
Just a technical note, shouldn't it be called just "Fahrradbahn" or was that just a nickname?
Got to be the first sponsorship I've actually clicked the link
Ive never worn lycra in my life, and I have a bit of a negative opinion of poseurs on expensive street bikes. But I get the feeling here that you want to paint anyone who might want to go fast in a bike lane as problematic, and particularly men. If cycleways are to work over long distances and take a lot of traffic, they need to make provision for people who actually have somewhere that they need to be, at a certain time.
Yes, I do want to ride on a bike highway! I think this video is actually proving the exact opposite point that it is claiming. These 'highways' have proven to be useful in massive increases in cycling usage in key cities where they have been implemented. The more people we can get on bikes faster the better infrastructure that will be required to support them.
Basically, when it comes to bang for your buck, superhighways look like the best way to invest! Once people are used to commuting then they will want leisure routes too. My interpretation of this video is that you want to focus on leisure routes first which I argue is the wrong way about it.
Labeling who is an aggressive rider is a matter of perspective. To an elderly lady on a single-speed bike Tom Babin of Shifter is probably an aggressive rider. Perhaps the fundamental problem is that some of these cycleways are not wide enough for cyclists riding at different speeds to safely pass.
And the problem with cycleways that ARE wide enough is people cycling or walking 3 or 4 side-by-side with their eyes on their phones and their ears blocked by headphones.
@@henkki1000 Best comment ever.
I was just in London and I was amazed by how many people were biking. I mean, there were absolutely way too many cars, but I've also never seen that many people biking in a city so it was pretty cool. And getting around by bike is faster than a car since the traffic moves so slowly there.
IDK when this video was made, but recently cyclists have out numbered cars in London.
The best name is "cycle path", which includes unicycles and tricycles, which I ride.
Pathway has a nice tone 😊
Think trails work better, especially if it has better access. They cut across areas and are user friendly for all types of users, including walkers, scooters, horses, etc.
Trail may have recreational connotations. My city has an extensive multi-use trail network through parks.
But if you want to actually go somewhere: they are rarely the most direct routes.
@@jamesphillips2285
In Washington State they have converted defunct rail into trails that are pretty direct between towns, and multiuse. They are sufficiently away from roads and that adds to their pleasantness.
In the UK and city of Milton Keynes we have" red ways" designated red paved riding routes for bicycles and walking and goes under bridges and sides of roads but away from traffic and safe for families.
Forcing 15mph cyclists and 3mph pedestrians onto the same paths is fraught with peril for everyone using such paths. The real way to make city thoroughfares safe is to base their use on speed, not on type of conveyance, because differential speed is a primary driver of unsafe conditions. What we actually need is a path or at least a lane for 3-5mph, 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, etc. For example, the 15-20mph lane would be populated by cyclists of mid-range fitness and/or skill, people on skates, and such, but nobody on foot except top-flight runners. The 3-5 lane would have no bikes at all because it's difficult, and frankly pointless, to ride a bike that slowly. A 25-30mph lane would have both cars and the fittest cyclists, but nobody who's going so slowly as to significantly hinder anyone else. Anyone with a working brain cell can see that this is the right way to do it. Not cheap, but doing things the right way rarely is.
Momentum not just speed needs to be taken into account. That means the mass and speed combined. A 15mph 200lb cyclist is far more appropriately placed next to the 5mph 150lb pedestrian than either of them being placed next to a car that is 10+mph and 2000lbs.
A 25-30mph lane would also have ebikes.
A "slower traffic keep right" system makes sense, but as with cars you are always going to have someone going slower than they should in the faster lanes.
@@megaboz42 You might get a few e-bikes in that lane, but not many. It's a common misconception that people on e-bikes go much faster than those on normal bikes. Legal e-bikes typically travel about the same speed as normal bikes.
Slower traffic keep right signs do nothing. Some little groups of pedestrians will spread across the entire path regardless. When did you least see two or more people walking together single file?
@@HeySeusReborn I disagree. Momentum alone does not tell us who can stop in a shorter distance; braking force and road friction are also in play. A 150-lb walker going 3-5 mph can stop on a dime in almost all conditions. A cyclist going 15 mph can't. Bike stopping distances -- taking into account reaction distance and braking distance -- are much closer to car stopping distances than they are to pedestrian stopping distances. So the "momentum" argument would tell us bikes are a better mix with cars than with walkers.
I live in Miami and find it horrendous that we have almost zero cycling infrastructure. A few unconnected and oddly placed bike lanes. That's it. We should be a cycling paradise with our weather!
That's the same problem in Australia. There are a few exceptions like Melbourne but mostly cycling infrastructure is barely existent or non existent at all.
Bicycle Super SafeWay 👍
Why Super?😅
Awesome video. It is a very effective technique to carefully choose how we refer to something as it eventually takes on a meaning to people about what "it" is no matter what "it" does or offers to us or our community.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to ride a bike fast. There needs to be a space for this too, and there's no good reason why we can't have facilities for all types of riders. Please consider that many of the faster riders (even those wearing lycra) in many cities are basically forced onto the designated bicycle routes/paths.
It's time we stopped treating people who enjoy bicycles differently from ourselves as some kind of other. If you want to ride slow, cool. If you want to ride fast, cool. Wear street clothes, wear lycra, wear a chicken suit, whatever. Our fellow bike riders are not the problem...
When I used to commute on the Burke-Gillman Trail in Seattle I definitely felt like the lycra cyclists saw me as a problem, with my slow-ass commuter bike. I felt like I was intruding on their world.
@@MrBirdnoseI mean. If you are in the way, you,or how damn (too ) narrow the path is , are a problem. I ride a bergamont sweep. Got an oddly shaped loop bar. Lost some weight. Getting faster. Lots of people are a problem even for me at 25-30kmh if they decide to spread out all over the path.
@@gur262 Aye, and there's the rub. My need to get to work interfered with their recreation. ;)
A challenge for bike routes / expressways is the great variation in speed of its users. With decades of cycle racing experience, even when getting groceries on my commuter bike, I'm still 30-80% faster than the average user. But the point is to allow even beginner cyclists to utilize these cycling expressways and encourage all cyclists to be respectful. The downside is the unintended message to automobile drivers that bikes ONLY belong on bike paths and that's a detriment to the fast, racing cyclists when out on rural roadways.
Thanks for posting these videos, always enlightening.
Completely agree. I'm involved in a similar advocacy group here in Brisbane (Space4cycling Brisbane), and our focus is on all ages and abilities cycling for all kinds of trips.
But because Brisbane hasn't traditionally had that kind of infrastructure, the cyclists we do have are the "Lycra louts" (Brit words, not mine). The problem we've had with some of our advocacy is those fast cyclists complaining that "I can't use that if I have to slow down around kids".
Then when the city proposes projects, those same guys (they are mostly men) put in negative feedback, like they won't use it and will stick to the road.
Then the anti cyclist NIMBYs say things like "even the cyclists don't want it", and it dies.
And even if it gets built we hear complaints from faster riders that it's too narrow to overtake. So, like, don't?
So how we talk about these ideas is really important. We want to encourage kids, women, less fit and able people to be able to make trips in their city by bike. So saying things like "high speed cycle way" is problematic.
Anyway, long winded way to say YES, language is super important to focus on the universal access and use, not "it's good for cyclists", especially in a place where cycling has traditionally been a sporting endeavour for the fit and fearless.
Absolutely. I’m in Melbourne and see those sorts in practice all the time. They say they can’t use the shared path cause it’s slow, that it’s dangerous cause a kid could walk into them, so instead they ride on a road with roadworks happening (due to long term construction) and wait with the cars at the traffic lights, going slower in the end and putting themselves at more risk.
I would understand if the shared path was significantly longer than the road but it’s not (and it’s a much more picturesque ride too).
I feel like these sorts don’t support the infrastructure we get with and so it is often fragmented, with sections of unprotected road riding in between. Not saying they’re the only reason but I think they should lend their support more. As a commuter on bike I feel so much safer on shared paths
Maybe agree first on a minimum width for bike lanes . . . such as 4 metres ?
@@HannahFortalezzacan you understand not wanting to crash into children?
This negative attitude towards people who are just trying to get around on bikes is problematic. There's a place for actual bike highways that aren't slow narrow and local.
@@Secretlyanothername How often are children in the way on your commute? Slow down if you're not sure, it's a lot safer.
I agree we should easily be able to ride a bike as a means of transit, but the reality is some places just aren't safe right now, not until there's more infrastructure in place - until such time I will continue to ride on bike paths as often as possible.
Its true that unfortunately we in the cycling community have to be so careful with our language as people will try to find any term to latch onto and attack us for it. Great job highlighting a way to help reduce that stigma!
So, this vid:
Has a title declaring that bicycle highway should "stop"
Says "Some people say this idea is outdated already" in the first half minute
But, with content of:
Saying the word "highway" has negative connotations, and isn't being used as much nowadays so it's a moot point
Saying that they should be "for everyone", without giving any suggestions as to how "everyone" could be prioritized
tf?
Cycling traffic tube just totally tows the line with governments ideas of cycling. Those ideas often mean don't threaten the car and don't even think of going for more than 5 km. Meanwhile the human power record egg shaped bike thing goes 100kmh with 240watts or something. I can do that. Traveling with something in between electric motorcycle bicycle and spaceship could be perfect for commutes. The long ones. The 30 miles ones. At 40_60mph.
YES! They DO! I want more EVERYWHERE! Dutch design is the gold standard. Roundabouts also go a long way to improving things as do smart-signalling systems that detect bikes and change signals to improve flow. More tunnels bridges and similar systems help a lot.
the nomenclature of "bicycle highways" alwats irked me! I thought that the terms bicycle and highway are far too separated. One does not travel on a bicycle as you would a highway. A highway is from a to b with no reason to stop, cycling is all about being able to stop when you wish, go to shops, go to cafés, talk with friends. etc
Exactly. Highways are things with no exits you place out in the outskirts of town and car culture is all about stopping as little as possible. Drinking bad coffee, eating stale food and drinking mass produced beer if it means getting all the shopping done at a single, big box location with a huge parking lot.
A bike lane should be on the main shopping street of the neighborhood so it's easy to ride a block, visit a bakery for fresh bread, stop for a nice coffee, pick up beer from a local brewery, grab some local produce. Stop 5 times in 45 minutes on the way home, treat yourself to a better life and support local businesses and farmers at the same time.
Thanks for this video. I used to be a vehicular cyclist when I was healthier.
I stopped using designated bike routes for my commute partly because motor vehicle drivers were more observant and respectful than bike riders.
Today I use mostly alleys for my commutes.
Superhighways, as opposed to interstate or national highways, are promoted as rapid personal (privatized) connection between suburbs and downtowns. They emphasize reliability, speed and convenience yet end up providing none of these benefits. How many people want a bike path to follow that model?
And now it's time to drag the Central Valley Greenway.
CVG isn't really green: it goes through mostly industrial and commercial areas. The route's centrality has turned it into a commuter speedway.
Translink seems to have spent our money for this route like municipalities have done for every bike route except for downtown Vancouver:
paths on hydro right-of-ways and parkland;
sharrows, gutters, traffic signal buttons on stroads;
and park amenities between arterials.
CVG's Still Creek section in Burnaby is a pitchpatch of all these items placed on stroads used heavily by large trucks and ratrunning motorists. The one separate piece of bikefrastructure on the CVG is an oversized pretzel over the CPR and Winston Street at Sperling Skytrain. That crossing could have been avoided altogether if Translink actually stayed north of the railway and the Still Creek mess -from Vancouver to Cariboo Road. The money for that bridge could've gone into building a bike path under the spaghetti junction at Lougheed and Kensington and then along the back lots of the businesses north of Burnaby Lake.
We do need more networks of routinely-maintained, separated bike paths with purpose-built intersections that either bypass motor vehicles or take precedence over them. Capitalism forces us to live by the car. I was wealthy, fit, and lucky enough to successfully plan regular rides to work, childcare, shopping appointments and even some holidays. I still owned a car because some stuff just could not be done without it. EVs and cargo bikes might allow more of us to live without cars; bike path networks will definitely encourage that life.
Each of us riding on our own instead of driving on our own... this won't build the organizations we need to fight the gig economy that keeps us commuting in the first place, let alone solve the climate crisis once and for all. Bike path networks will, if built out and sustained, popularize political space for alternatives we desperately need to survive. Ride on!
Bicycle highway is slightly different than cars highway - at first its is much more quieter, at second it is smaller, it can run through neighborhoods, forest or recreational areas without disturbing any life and still can be build without traffic lights with underpasses. This year I was cycling through Oulu's Number 8 route and it was really nice experience, it simply bringing suburbs cyclists closer to the town without navigating through streets.
I love these routes. The warning here is just to be careful about how they are labelled and talked about.
it's mostly about how people (that don't have experience) with them perceive them.
if you say to some residents you're planning on building a "cycle highway" through their neighbourhood a lot of people think about the negatives of a car highway and all the horrors associated with them, traffic jams, aggression, loud etc.
if you call it something like a "family bike path" connecting several neighbourhoods with the local shops, sport clubs and school. so children could safely reach the area's of the town (even without their parents). people will be much more positive about it.
it's all about marketing and public perception.
@@Shifter_Cycling Yeah, labels can be really misleading. Maybe usual Cycle Path No. 8 will be enough?
My personal experience with the REV is with a BIXI, rented bikes, to commute to work from spring to fall. On those bikes, I'm lucky if I can get through two intersections before hitting a traffic light, or a bike light, that forces me to stop. So I find it ironic that it was supposed to be designed as to not hit "too many traffic lights", and always thought : "I don't understand what is supposed to be Express about the REV..."
Mind you, I still like the idea of the REV, and would probably enjoy it more if I was using my personal bike, and not a rented one.
Great video !
Why not make space for fast cyclists? Of course it's great to make safe places to ride for everyone, but I don't see why these programs never make space or even acknowledge that for many people going 20mph+ is normal and easy. By not making space for them "pro-cyclist" urban planners are creating this "anti-lycra" animosity, even from inside the cycling community itself. The answer is always "well if you want to ride fast just ride in traffic" and this is from people who are supposed to be pro-bike. Is it so crazy that people who want to work out or just ride fast could be given space to do that that isn't around cars?
Especially when in a lot of cases the fast lycra clad people are fast because they've been cycling for years, despite the lack of safe bicycle infrastructure for them.
@@moratnz3284 Perfect!
Very well put.
I'm not going to cycle for an hour in work clothes. I suspect that these "pro bikes"/anti-cycling people want me to ride the bus because I don't fit their ideal.
There's also sexism against men who dare to wear clothing appropriate for exercise, instead of hiding their bodies under layers.
I participated in a workshop for citizens that were invited for the conception of the REV (réseau express vélo) and one of the question they ask was about the name. we kept the same one. It's interesting to see what the thinking behind especially with different cultures or languages. Eg: Highway in french is Autoroute. There's the world «auto» that means «car» so not so good for us.
Je veux une velo route du soleil!
But without the traffic jams... And climate change will make it shorter every year.
And I fully agree with cultural and language differences.
2:30 is a bad example of a bicycle lane.
All it takes is the passenger of one of those parked cars to check his mirror, see that nothing is there, and open his door to have a bicycle slam into it.
Then the bicyclist goes into a rage against the poor innocent car passenger.
There needs to be a wider separation between the parked cars and the bicycle lane!
This is one of the narrower sections of that route. There are sections that are much wider and safer.
@@Shifter_Cycling That's good to know. But it's still dangerous to bicyclists and car passengers. I hope they put a curb in to make a larger separation.
Or maybe bicyclers could look where the Hell they're going and adjust speed in tight areas.
@@wclark3196 Yes! Thank you!!!
@@wclark3196 do cars also slow down when there's something right next to the road, and the signs tell the car 70mp/h is fine?
the infrastructure has to be build in a way that prevents (unnecessary) conflict between different mode of travel.
so there should be a better separation between (parked) cars, cyclist and pedestrians.
if the bike line isn't safe for cyclist they either stop cycling or use the sidewalk. and that's not why you build cycle paths.
Here in Australia, specifically Brisbane where I live. All the new bikeways, are being called just that. Bikeways, as well as sometimes referred to as Vellaway's.
There has to be a place for cyclists who are riding for fitness though. The idea articulated in this video effectively takes away the opportunity to cycle in the city from "faster and confident cyclists". We cannot ride on the road cause we are too slow for cars, and can't ride in the bike lanes cause we are too fast?
No cycling for you. Not approved by the author of this video.
Safety. Connectivity. Legibility. All more important than speed. For shared paths, does anyone have good ideas appart from the incessant bell ringing required when approaching sauntering pedestrians?
I think that Bicycle highways would work best in less dense areas such as the countryside or even through a national park. But having conventional one to two-lane bike paths in a dense area full of duplexes, apartments, skyscrapers, etc... that are not designed to be speedy is ideal for fewer bike crashes and injuries. Thus there will be less frustration. Bike lanes should accommodate everyone, not to a few.
The problem is best expressed with: If you collect traffic (whatever kind of car, bike, walk.) you build a problem in the system in advance.
I think that cycling highways seem like bloated infrastructure. If there is such a high demand, then we should just convert an entire lane into a cycling highway.
Anything that encourages people to ride their bikes more, will help Society in the long run. I'm all for it
You probably wonder what the Lycra crowd does here in the Netherlands.
They simply don't cycle in cities that much. They take the cycle highway out the city, terrorise a few small villages, and then return to their lair through the cycle highway. They want to be where they can be fast and since they aren't commuters, it doesn't matter as much where that is. I've seen them almost exclusively on mixed roads or even cycle 'vehicularly' on lower-speed but not mixed-traffic roads. They often travel in packs so they take up the same space as an SUV with a trailer, even on the small Dutch roads so drivers treat the pack as a car. But don't worry, they're a menace to everyone. An important part of commuter bike acceptance is that they're a very different thing. The driver needs to know that the commuter cyclist is them, not the weirdo in a draughty gimp suit.
Hey now, be nice. You sound like an avid car driver.
Ah yes, seperate yourself, you ain't like those cyclists, Jews,gays, negros, you are the good kind. You suck. Nothing wrong with going fast on a bicycle.
You sound like a really nice non-judgemental person. Not.
Thank you for making this. I live in Northwest Arkansas. They’re super proud of the Razorback Greenway but it’s really more of a park than a way to get around.
It's sort of a traffic engineering problem, the same as is faced with cars. A wide, relaxing road built to move a lot of people efficiently with minimal hills, curves, obstacles, etc. is also going to promote high travel speeds. Traffic calming measures could (and probably should) also be used to prevent overly-aggressive recreational cyclists using these bike roads as race tracks, which scares off more casual users. In the Netherlands I feel like this is less of an issue because the concept of the bicycle as a useful tool for daily travel and chores sort of predates the modern notion of cycling for pure exercise, but this isn't the case in North America or the UK, so the Dutch model can't just be slapped onto UK or North American cities without running into the problem of exercise cyclists clashing with casual cyclists.
Wide routes are part of what makes them feel safe and welcoming to all users, and width does allow faster cyclists to pass slower-moving people, but I agree they may encourage people to ride quickly. It's a tricky balance, and part of it is encouraging an inclusive cycling culture.
There's little danger of "fast" riders riding fast on bike paths... when I was racing, I avoided bike paths, it's highly annoying having to slow and brake and pass constantly, not fun at all, so we stayed on the roads....
@@PRH123 I mean, there clearly is conflict in London where there's been media coverage and they've had to address it.
@@PRH123 There is also the problem that unlike cars, that become safer the slower they go, bikes become unstable when they are too slow, making those obstacles often used to slow down bikes "for their safety " actually dangerous, especially for less fit cyclists.
@@_bats_ I didn’t hear about that, but sure it’s possible that relative speed issues can arise…. but not from “racing” or being used as a “race track”…. believe me, fast competitive riders don’t want to be on bike paths, it’s annoying…
Your vidéos are just awesom. A real Yoga seance. So relaxing.
Great Analysis. Maybe a way to make the « bicycle highways » for everyone is to have 2 lanes - slow and fast - separated with a buffer.
Dumb question - should these Express ways have speed limits / traffic calming measures for bikes? I mean, if we are going to discuss that for car path design, the same should be true for these as well, no?
The difference is that bikes are infinitely less destructive than cars, so the argument in favour of speed limits is weaker, in my opinion. I think the better answer is to build them wide enough that it's easy and safe for faster riders to pass slower riders.
Not to mention not everyone on a bike has a speedometer or computer to know their numbers like a car does
Tel aviv has these boulevards which are these very wide green streets with lots of benches and either no cars or very few cars, and these usually have a super wide bike path in the middle which I think is considered a bike highway. It's so great, these places are just straight up nice to hang out in, and every morning there's straight up congestion on some of the bike paths because just so many people cycle.
🤮
In London, the "superhighways" are being rebranded. The earliest ones were quite poor in terms of engineering, basically amounting to blue paint. However, the newer ones such as the east-west route along Victoria Embankment (in the video) are much better. There's also existing infrastructure that was incorporated in places, so that accounts for the mixed "look and feel" of them.
However there are some 'Quietways' (also being rebranded) that are usually using quiet side roads, parks, and existing traffic interventions.
We have "quietways" up here in Edinburgh as well. These tend to be side roads with blue bicycle sings on the lampposts and white bikes painted on the tarmac. The problem with these routes is that they tend to be quite popular with rat-running drivers during the rush hours and they can be incredibly unpleasant to cycle on during these hours when you feel that you're constantly being stalked by Bradbury's mechanical hound. This is made even worse by the modern preference for large SUV style vehicles. There's a feeling that blue signs and white paint often amounts to little more than council box-ticking.
Fantastic analysis! I just came back to my city (Chicago) from a trip to Montreal earlier this summer and was amazing by the REV. I emailed by city's department of transportation earlier this week with some specific suggestions, using the REV as an example.
What I want is pretty simple: the ability to use what's already there, as the law allows me to do, and for the drivers--who are only one subset of legal road users--to start recognizing that and giving everybody the space they're entitled to.
A very good subject, we also have this problem in Paris, they want to put them everywhere because it's cheaper, takes up less space but adds a lot of conflict between users.
Its like the roads and highways for cars: you have to have both in an ideal world: A fast connection of centres and a more scenic route.