Paris is to become a 100 per cent ‘cycling city’ within the next four years, according to a new plan.
The French capital will increase the number of protected cycleways in the city as well as boost bicycle parking spaces, according to the 2021-2026 cycling plan published on October 21 and titled ‘Plan Velo: Act 2′.
Plan Velo is the city’s existing, $174 million cycling plan.
Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo was elected for a second term last year after successfully introducing many pro-bicycling measures. Recently Hidalgo also announced her intention to run for the presidency.
The new plan is designed to transform the French capital into a ‘100 per cent cyclable city’, Forbes report.
As well as the creation of extra facilities for cyclists the new $290 million plan also pledges to maintain them with promises of ‘cleaning and snow removal from cycle paths.’
> Centre of Paris to become a huge low traffic neighbourhood
Cycle parking in the city will be significantly increased at the same time as car parking spaces are removed.
Plan Velo: Act 2 will see the erection of 30,000 parking stands with an additional 1,000 spaces reserved for cargo bikes.
There will also 40,000 new secure cycle parking spaces near rail stations with the expectation that, thanks to grants and other incentives, the private sector will install a further 50,000 spaces.
Paris is already in the process of removing more than 70 per cent of its on-street car parking spaces.
Schools in the capital will also boost cycle training schemes to ensure that ‘all young Parisians know how to ride a bike when they leave primary school’.
In recent years the city has been considered one of the world’s most bike-friendly cities, although still well behind European cycling models Copenhagen and Amsterdam
43 thoughts on “Paris to become ‘100 per cent cycling city’ within next four years”
Paris and Hidalgo show what
Paris and Hidalgo show what can be achieved with even the busiest of cities, once there’s the political will to effect changes.
I’m starting to think that
I’m starting to think that even with the various individual efforts like Boardman’s Bee Lines, the London cycle superhypeways and Birmingham’s city centre plans we’re being made to look backward by an increasing swathe of Europe. Never mind the Dutch and Scandinavians, there’s Paris, Barcelona, Bern …
As for “a central policy” or any idea of things being imposed upon the population – the transport policy of every government in the UK for decades has at best been “one cheer for active transport – from the sidelines”. This is definitely not the case for motor transport or – to a lesser degree – rail. Definite choices were made to actively fund and promote this. In the case of mass motorisation it was certainly not “we’re merely listening to the electorate, to the average voter” initially (that idea being mentioned in other threads).
Is it too cynical to think
Is it too cynical to think that our honourable elected representatives will sign up fast for the inevitable fact-finding mission to Gay Paree, but then find it really quite difficult to apply the same policies to UK cities?
I’ll be b*ggered if I’ll go
I’ll be b*ggered if I’ll go to Gay Paree!
TheBillder wrote:
In British cities?? Impossible!!! This isn’t facking Holland….
Captain Badger wrote:
Don’t start using the “N-word” round here!
TheBillder wrote:
I wouldn’t be so naive as to say “no politico will go on a junket to Paris” but bicycles do seem to be a poisonous topic. I believe exhortation and in some cases offers to sub part of the costs hasn’t persuaded UK authorities to go so far as “the place with lots of cycling just across the water from the Parts of Holland“. I appreciate our authorities have to go through their own process but there really seems to be a “not invented here” or “couldn’t possibly work here, we’re different” barrier to thought. In the case of Edinburgh local activist groups part sponsored a report by a tram consultant from there on the proposed design for Edinburgh. That was dismissed for various reasons by the council and tram authorities (keeping parking, some technical details) but it seems mostly ignored because “not our expert!”. Many crashes (one fatal) later it was realised that “something must be done”.
Is secure cycle parking free?
Is secure cycle parking free?
The lack of somewhere safe to put your bike is one of the biggest reasons not to complete a short journey by bike but if it costs you to park I don’t think it will encourage people who aren’t already motivated to cycle.
Ride On wrote:
Agree 100%. I get round this problem with a Brompton, but not everyone can afford a folding bike.
Yet we had London’s pint
Yet we had London’s pint-sized Mayor Khan bragging in September that “Paris is jealous of London’s cycle lanes”.
Anne Higalo shows the difference that taking action makes over Khan’s empty words and gestures.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Of course, you could say much the same about Johnson – as London Mayor and as PM.
Let’s just enjoy the moment
Let’s just enjoy the moment when Nigel expressed his support for an immigrant socialist mayor who has used Covid to speed up the process of reducing air pollution and promote walking and cycling in the city.
Oh to be clear I don’t
Oh to be clear I don’t support her actions, but she did at least do something.
Don’t see why you brought the racially charged word “immigrant” into it by the way, you’re the guys always having a go at our fine home secretary Priti Patel, herself the daughter of oppressed Ugandan refugees – but then the Conservatives don’t discriminate on things like that, hence the reason we have the most diverse cabinet in the history of Parliament.
Nigel Garage wrote:
An interesting compliment. I wonder which actions in favour of cycling you don’t support? Or was it the “used covid” phrase in the comment by markieteeeee that concerned you?
You shouldn’t worry that the Parisians are being lead unwilling and unwitting into giving up their cars. According to Wikipedia bicycle infrastructure has been on the up since the 90s. The “Boris bike” equivalent (free!) Vélib’ (now Vélib’ Métropole) has been going since 2007 with a higher daily average ridership than the maximum for Santander cycles (I think the Paris system is more extensive to be fair). The first round of the cycling plan started in 2015 (Paris plan velo – a report on that here). In 2016 the “Paris Respire” (Paris Breathes) car reduction scheme came online.
As a lover of democracy I imagine you would be comforted – even if you don’t share her politics or political orientation (left) – that the Parisians chose her once in 2014 and again (albeit with a low turnout in the second round likely due to covid) last year. As someone keen on diversity it may interest you that she actually got in trouble because she put women in more than 60% of her top management which broke a civil service rule. You may consider her an arriviste but she hasn’t been parachuted in, she’s been working her way up in Paris since 2001.
I think the Parisians will manage!
Honestly, Chris, I don’t know
Honestly, Chris, I don’t know much about her. If the people are behind her that’s all well and good as far as I’m concerned, regardless of her politics. She won’t be the next French president though, Parisian politics are radically different to the rest of France.
The point I was making about actions vs words is that you often see people standing on a platform of radical change prior to an election, and when in power doing nothing. You see that with Khan’s empty gestures, you see it with the Democrats in the US in their deference to big business.
That’s the reason people hate Trump so much. He made a list of promises before his election like his America first policy, the limitation on illegal immigration, his dealings with Kim Jong Un, his limitations on big pharma, etc. And after he was elected he went down them like a check list – they weren’t just mealy mouthed ideas, these were iron-cast promises.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Wall? – check
Paid for by mexico? – check
Rolling back on Obamacare was certainly not against the intrests of big pharma.
Do you really believe what you are writing?
Did he really stand on a platform of developing a bromace with Kim Jong Un?
You’re insulting not only
You’re insulting not only mayor, but also all not-very-tall people, right?
And also you’re insulting women, right?
Either you an old-fashioned fascist or simply a miserable troll. Whatever you choose, none is better then the other
ESL? Let me clue you in. It
ESL? Let me clue you in. It isn’t fascist or anti-woman to draw attention to the mayor’s (the mayor is a man, not a woman) short stature. “Napoleon syndrome” is the scientific name I believe.
Hence why Mr Khan was so angry about the naturally taller President Trump’s state visit.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Let me clue you in, the average male height in Pakistan, from whence both Khan’s parents originate, is 5’5.5″, so at 5’5″ he is almost exactly the average height for his race. It would be pathetic enough with any politician for you to be so desperate to attempt to belittle him with references to his height; effectively mocking him for being the average height for his race is utterly beneath contempt.
Still, it does show what a good job he’s doing if you have to resort to slurs on his physical and racial characteristics to try to make a point.
Nigel Garage wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex
“In psychology, the Napoleon complex is regarded as a derogatory social stereotype.”
Of course the politically
Of course the politically left wing Wikipedia editors are going to say that – they’re a completely discredited organisation. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist though, plenty of evidence and scientific support that is does (e.g. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797618772822).
Although in all fairness to Napoleon, he was by all accounts a couple of inches taller.
To be honest, I’ve never understood why social justice warriors never mention height, weight and physical attractiveness in their rush to victimhood – those characteristics are far more likely predictors of success than “protected characteristics” such as race, gender, sexuality.
Steve K did not say the there
Steve K did not say the there was no such thing as the Napoleon complex, he said it was regarded as a derogatory social stereotype, which is correct; and is exactly how you were using it. Also, while wikipedia is flawed and should not be relied upon as a singular source of information, there are no politically left-wing editors as you suggest – the fact that you think there is shows that either you don’t know how it works, or you are doing your usual thing of denouncing everything that isn’t full of hate to be left-wing.
markieteeee wrote:
https://unherd.com/thepost/wikipedia-co-founder-i-no-longer-trust-the-website-i-created/.
Thanks for not denying that
Thanks for not denying that you were using the term in the derogatory way that Steve K suggested.
I will decline the offer of clicking that link to a deeply political project of oligarchs, disingenuously claiming to be speaking for the silenced. My reasoning is that, although I realise that it’s funded by hedge-fund millionaires and the few who have benefitted from brexit, my click might not help them but I’m concerned that clicking through might generate advertising revenue to further fund their flailing website. They’re probably too rich for it to make a difference but I’d rather not anyway.
It’s odd that you would use a nasty political site, who don’t agree with free journalism to prove that a flawed site has left-wing editors. But it fits your pattern.
Point of order: Wikipedia is
Point of order: Wikipedia is no more immune to hate than anywhere else – whether it’s petty, or less so.
(Which just goes to show that the suggestion that it’s just full of leftist groupthink is arrant nonsense.)
Of course, anything open is
Of course, anything open is open to abuse from all angles. All media should be questioned – check where Nigel thinks is a reliable source and you’ll see my point.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Wait – what? Grant Shapps is left wing? And Stuart Anderson (who he? MP for Wolverhampton SW, Con.)?
Maybe you’re a pessimist and suspect this is just necessary damage control because the chattering classes (like us all here…) run Wikipedia and all the media? Although this Harvard study – from 2003 mind – found it’s mostly governments and private families worldwide. But courage! It’s “the free encyclopedia” so just gather your “base” and get them all to edit the truth back in!
Alternative it could just be that everyone does it nowadays.
Nigel Garage wrote:
In this instance, Mr Khan’s height is a racial characteristic, so by choosing to belittle it you are proving yourself not only spiteful and desperate but – I’m sure to nobody’s surprise – a racist.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Oh, OK, you may have intended a throwaway reference and I’m not as dogged as some people are here – but you did actually say:
Hence my question about what actions – in the context which was her taking actions to encourage cycling and walking and reducing vehicle use and pollution – you objected to?
If of course it was just something that you said but didn’t mean nothin’ by (which even the mightest do sometimes!), then all good and good day!
I think her actions will
I think her actions will damage Paris’s economy to a greater degree than any good they will produce, ergo I don’t support them.
How?
How?
Don’t worry I’m not into debating the minutiate of “a) exactly what do you think the costs are of doing this b) what (if any) could be the possible benefits of this change c) what are the current and potential costs of continuing with the current trajectory and d) what are the projected benefits of that”.
Just wondering if you had something more than “well it’s change, innit, er… cars, business, no one will be able to park near the shops, all the bankers will leave, how will you get a fridge on a bike, will nobody think about the disabled, old people and children…” which is often heard in this context. I’m hoping you have something more thoughtful. Genuine question – I’d be interested to hear a considered viewpoint in favour of “(too many) bikes are bad for the economy” from someone who apparently enjoys cycling themselves.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Ah, insulting someone because of their height now to go along with your defence of your right to insult and bully overweight people, you really are just all class, aren’t you?
Amusingly, here in Canary
Amusingly, here in Canary Wharf we’re blocked in by Insulate Britain protesters this morning. I can only assume that they are protesting against our EPC B rating.
Means I won’t get to cruise (smuggly) around the new ULEZ in our hybrid… I’ll take the Brompton.
Surely if it’s a 100% cycling
Surely if it’s a 100% cycling city, there is no need to improve the cycle paths?!
The headline is misleading,
The headline is misleading, the more correct term is used in the body text of making Paris a “100% cyclable city”, i.e. anywhere you want to go will be easy and safe to reach by bicycle, rather than “100% cycling city” which implies the removal of all motor traffic.
Indeed, Un nouveau plan vélo
Indeed, [b]Un nouveau plan vélo pour une ville 100 % cyclable[/b] is what it is, so something has been lost in translation.
https://www.paris.fr/pages/un-nouveau-plan-velo-pour-une-ville-100-cyclable-19554
“Paris is already in the
“Paris is already in the process of removing more than 70 per cent of its on-street car parking spaces.”
This IMO will prove to be the key move, more even than cycle lanes.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
I agree – in my neighbourhood before we became a CPZ several people gave up their cars because the time spent searching for and then walking back from parking spaces removed virtually all of the convenience of using cars for short trips, e.g. shopping. It will of course upset those who regard motor vehicles as “humanity’s greatest invention” but part of promoting active travel has to be introducing measures that positively discourage motor-vehicle use. Of course once all these parking spaces are removed there will be much more room for bike parking, the lack of which appears to be one of the major obstacles to people taking up cycling in the city.
Bike parking, trees, pavement
Bike parking, trees, pavement cafes or kids games where appropriate… there are so many better uses than car parking. I think people will also find walking easier as there will be fewer obstacles (visual and physical) to crossing the road.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
yes, once people realise they won’t be able to park once they reach the destination, they will no longer chose to use the car. Traffic levels will pluumet and use of public transport (more efficient) cycling (safer) and walking (more pleasant) will all increase.
wycombewheeler wrote:
one of the main reasons I don’t always use my bike is realising there is nowhere to park it (assuming I am not intending to walk back). So the same should be equally effective for cars. And as [b]Bmblbzzz[/b] suggests, removing the cars means you also don’t have to spend money on cycle lanes – genius.
I know there is a shortage of
I know there is a shortage of turkeys, but I don’t think fattening the troll for Christmas is the solution.
hirsute wrote:
I don’t know – strutting, self-important, and garrulous; tasteless; never seems to be finished; leaves everyone with a bit of indigestion – seems like a perfect replacement to me.