Simply The Best: Why Bicycle Planning Makes More Sense Than Ever

The simplest solution is often correct. The famous phrase which many use to sum up the principle of Occam’s Razor  is not often evidenced in city planning today. Why does getting into or out of town seem to be such a complex or expensive process? Why does making a journey involving different transport modes require an IQ like Einstein? Why do we so often sit in traffic jams caused by one-man metal islands?

The inverse relationship between increasingly sophisticated vehicles and transport networks and worsening congestion, pollution, public health and economic stability seems proof of Occam’s Razor at work.

When examining liveable cities and the transport arteries that sustain them, it’s important to remember that most people simply want to get where they’re going quickly, easily, safely, comfortably and cheaply. Enjoyably would be a bonus, too.

From this perspective, building new cities around cars makes little sense; retrofitting cities around cars, even less. Of course, adding wide roads and parking spaces and “Drive Thrus” may enable more citizens to drive wherever they like. But the inevitable effects are sobering. Commute times from increasingly sprawling suburbs into increasingly congested city centres become ridiculously long. There goes the cheap argument, especially when petrol, hidden road subsidies in our taxes and the cost of motoring itself is taken into consideration. Safety is a non-starter when you consider the number of people that die every year in car crashes. Easy and enjoyable – perhaps, until that’s put next to the mounting obesity, public health and air pollution crises in many cities.  

Planning cities around cars is simply not planning liveable cities. When planners actually begin thinking about what citizens want - what communities want - planning for active transport becomes a necessity.

The bicycle has been around for roughly as long as the motor car. Some estimates have cars outnumbered by bikes by two to one worldwide. Bikes are affordable to buy and affordable to run. They take up little space and generate no air pollution. They don’t require acres of parking spaces or colossal road infrastructure. Cycling every day is proven to be beneficial for health, and in many cities, cycling offers a much faster way to get from point to point than cars or public transport. And for all our modern technology, they are mostly still very simple machines.

This is no great Eureka moment. Look at the notable success stories of recent years:

Seville, Spain, gained an 80km cycle path network virtually overnight. In fewer than six years, the proportion of journeys by bicycle jumped from 0.2% to 6.6% and the number of people cycling daily rocketed from 2,500 to 70,000. Nearly twice as many people ride bicycles as use the metro railway — which cost almost 20 times more than the new cycling infrastructure.

The Velib public bike share system in Paris boasts some amazing figures. There have been 105m rentals since 2007 with 24,000 bikes in the system. Daily usage rarely drops below 40,000 and, on hot summer days, the figure is nearer 120,000. The Velib programme employs 400 full time staff and turns over around €60m annually. The system is fully integrated with the public transport networks, so that a Velib subscriber needs only one card for bus, train and bikes. Each bike will travel some 10,000km per year.

Then there’s Copenhagen, where 34% of all commuting journeys are made by bike, and Portland, USA, which retains about $800m per year in the local economy simply because so many people use bikes instead of cars.

Planning for cycling makes more sense than ever in today’s world. It tackles a whole range of problems in modern cities, from health to the environment to the economy. When integrated as an equal mode of transport, on par with motor vehicles and public transport, cycling has the power to liberate cities and turn them into what we all want – liveable, sustainable places designed for people.

Sometimes, the most effective and sustainable technology really is the simplest.