An old idea about elevated bike lanes resurfaces, to the dismay of cycling advocates
Rendering of a proposed bike highway in London. Room60 via
4:52 pm Oct. 9, 20122
"Having reclaimed a rusted Chelsea railway, the High Line has demonstrated the magic of elevating pedestrians above city traffic," wrote Daily News guest columnist Eric Grannis. "Now, let’s elevate bicyclists, too, by building bicycle highways above certain major avenues and cross streets."
Where did Grannis, an attorney and charter school advocate whose other columns have dealt with education, come up with the idea?
"It was inspired by walking the High Line a couple of weeks ago," Grannis told me in an email. "And I am an avid bicycler myself."
As Grannis notes in his column, this isn't the idea's first go-around:
Conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. actually proposed bicycle highways nearly 50 years ago when he ran for mayor, arguing for a Manhattan “Bikeway” that would “run 20 feet above ground, on both sides of the street,” with ramps and parking areas. This “Bikeway” was limited to select Manhattan routes, but there is no technological reason that it could not be replicated all across the city.In fact, more than 50 years before Buckley suggested his idea, an elevated bikeway was not only proposed in Pasadena, Calif., but partially built. Unfortunately, it was abandoned in favor of a new form of transportation: the car.
Meanwhile, London mayor Boris Johnson has expressed support for a proposal to build an elevated network of bike lanes along the city's existing railroad infrastructure.
The idea is that cyclists would pay for the privilege of riding above, rather than amidst, city traffic.
Norman Foster's firm, Foster and Partners, recently joined the architectural team pushing the project.
Starchitect support notwithstanding, New York City transportation advocates, who've expended a good deal of effort to make city streets safer for cyclists, aren't all that impressed.
"When we can create safe space on our streets for bicyclists, drivers and pedestrians now with minimal disruption, why on earth would we pursue an expensive, unsafe boondoggle like elevated lanes?" asked Noah Budnick, deputy director of Transportation Alternatives, in an email.
Richard Barone, the Regional Plan Association's director of transportation programs, thinks there might be a very limited place for elevated bikeways so that cyclists can, say, pass over a particularly crazy intersection, or some other obstacle.
But generally speaking, he said, viaducts are a bad idea.
"We don’t promote viaducts anymote for cities or for transit," Richard Barone, the Regional Plan Association's director of transportation programs told me. "They blight neighborhoods."
Also, as anyone who's ridden over New York City's bridges can tell you, riding up slopes is hard.
"Unless you really create an extended approach, it doesn’t make for a nice bike ride either," said Barone.
I agree with a possible "limited" use of viaducts for bikeways. Put sidewalks on them too (with a very significant barrier between sidewalk & bikeway, of course), if they're in Midtown, because the tourists would love them. Unlike highway viaducts, these structures can be light and mostly non-obtrusive, so neighborhood blight wouldn't be much of a concern.
Yes, an approach ramp might be a bit of a climb, but many cities have similar ramps to access rail-trails and change-of-elevation junctions, and no one complains. If designed well, they work nicely without presenting much difficulty.
It's also worth noting that the city once had many, many more elevated train lines than it does now, particularly in Manhattan. The city was fine with them, and still is fine with the remaining ones (which were mostly constructed over 80-100 years ago). There is probably great potential in making street-friendly structures with modern architecture and materials if you don't have to build it to support tractor-trailers or heavy subway trains.
I've been saying for years that NYC needs to do this. We can hang elevated bikeways off existing grade-separated highways and railways for starters. Then we can fill in the gaps with new viaducts. The problem with the existing bike network is the sheer number of signalized intersections. Constantly starting and stopping may be possible for motor vehicles, but not for anything human-powered. It costs too much in terms of both energy and time, which is why most cyclists roll through red lights when they can. We therefore need bikeways where there is no need to stop or slow down at all. Human power only functions well under those conditions. A major secondary benefit is that junctions with motor vehicles are avoided. Junctions are where most bike-car collisions occur. It's a shame Barone and TA aren't on board for this. Bike viaducts will hardly be ugly. In many cases they can be hung off existing infrastructure. The entire complaint about the approach slopes is unfounded as well. Most cyclists can tolerate a very steep climb which only goes up 15 or 20 feet. This is quite a bit different from the climbs on the East River bridges where a cyclist might be climbing over 200 feet. And you'll only be doing the climb once during the ride. Besides that, by varying the height of the viaduct above street level, you can level out the route somewhat compared to keeping it at street level. And exactly in what way are elevated bike lanes dangerous? I assume there will be fences on either side to keep the bikes from falling off. They can even be roofed over to allow riding in inclement weather. Some designs even channel prevailing winds into a tailwind, increasing travel speed significantly.
Elevated or otherwise grade-separated bikeways are the next logical step in the evolution of human-powered transit. The only way street level bike lanes will work efficiently for transportation is if we significantly reduce the volume of motor traffic to the point that we can remove all or most traffic signals. We seem unwilling or unable to do this. The only alternative then is to put the bicycles above everything.