Financial incentives do not make sense: having a car in Paris is already crazy expensive.
During the 20 years I lived there, I cycled everywhere, and I had an almost weekly accident, always at the same three intersections -- cars running into stationary bikes, half the time openly on purpose (there is a bolo for a taxi driver for attempted manslaughter under my name: his plaque was unlegible on the camera, but him accelerating twice into my bike was clear).
The local police knows those intersections, there are camera monitoring those. Those are on large axis, and have the largest concentration of tourists (about 50 people waiting at the light at any time of the day).
If you want to make Paris a biking city, no need to spend millions; all the protected lanes become useless ever 50 m when an intersection shows up and dozens of car just want to run you over no matter what.
Just ask Police to enforce laws on attempting to kill people and make clear that a car can be used as a weapon. You do not even need to budget their presence: they are already there, watching and helpless.
I've lived in Paris for 45+ years. The problem with bicycles is that they don't respect road signs or traffic lights, which irritate the hell out of everybody else. It's true that many car drivers are very aggressive towards bicycle riders, but what you fail to mention is that everyone cheers for the car and not the bike...
Personnally I ride a motorcycle; it was stolen last year and so I used bikes for about a month. Here are my observations, that I think are difficult to fix with money alone:
- pedaling makes you hot and sweaty; you arrive at the office being a mess
- when it rains you get super wet, much more than on a motorbike, because you have less protection and you don't carry special rain trousers with you at all times (whereas they're permanently stored on my motorbike)
- also, when it rains, if you cover yourself up to avoid the rain, you get even hotter and sweatier
- Paris isn't flat! (contrary to Amsterdam...) and some hills are very steep
- some distances are irrealistic for bikes: I have two clients who are 15km apart and (to me) 15km on a bike is a fairly long ride
All in all it seems bikes are mostly for tourists (who don't have to show up in an office at the end of their ride), during the summer (well, the part of the summer when it's not too hot) and for relatively short distances.
But in the absence of bikes, tourists don't take a car, they mostly use public transports (or maybe an occasional cab), so I very much doubt more bikes mean less car traffic.
There is another program in Paris that seems much more promising: Autolib, cheap electric cars that you can rent for a very short amout of time. Doubling that with electric scooters would be really great, IMHO.
>The problem with bicycles is that they don't respect road signs or traffic lights
The problem with Paris would be more that it's full of parisians.
It's very cliche, but sadly true. People are smart and educated but undisciplined, behave unresponsibly, and think about rules as mere guidelines. Being "human" and super lenient is mostly a quality, even when it comes to street rules.
Drivers are really bad, bikes don't care about road rules nor surrounding trafic, and pedestrians can strike conversations in the middle of the street if they get to stop the cars around them. There is an intersection in front of a subway station in the town I live, there is a trafic light, mirrors and road marking, and still every two months someone runs through it and gets hit by a car.
I think the best system would be close the streets that already effectively dominated by pedestrians, reserve the most busy streets for professional vehicles (buses, taxi, delivery vans etc.). This would tip the balance to use private cars for very specific reasons only, and switch to public transport for the more casual trips.
Road mortality would be down, people currently wildly circulating on the street would have full areas reserved for them, public transport would have a boost in use justifying more investment in the infrastructure and modernisation, and pro drivers would also have dedicated lanes and streets.
It feels like a clear win for basically everybody.
> "Public transport would have a boost in use justifying more investment".
There are already overcrowded like crazy, what more people do you want? As a daily user, please do make more people inside my train. It's rare but it happened several times that I had to let go 4 trains before giving up and going home, because there were already too many people in it.
You want less cars on the road? Maybe start delivering quality transportation instead of this horrible stack of old trains, that make you late everytime and feel like being in a overcrowded animal farm you see in the documentaries.
I feel you. I am on a line (RER A) where morning trains get 10~15 min late by default. One of the train slot just gets cancelled every now and then for no reason, and the main cause of problems are "exploitation accidents" (= we screwed up).
And still there seem to be efforts to cut costs and all the money might be going to building new lines instead of making the existing stuff work correctly.
I the SNCF/ratp doesn't get it's back on the wall I feel they'll never do anything to make things better.
BTW commuting by car also seems to be an everyday mayhem with crazy long road works, incidents everyday and overall aggressiveness from the (motor)bikes, delivery vans and inraged drivers.
I cycle commute in a hilly city (Bristol, UK), and I think you're just a little inexperienced at cycling for work.
I can cycle hard and sweat, or I can cycle gently and sweat very little. We don't have a shower in the office, but I don't cycle too hard to work, and change shirt when I get in. It's not a problem. On the way home, I cycle hard and have a shower.
I can stay completely dry when cycling by simply carrying waterproofs. I just make it routine to always have these. It's true that these make it a little sweatier, but a change of clothes solves this problem.
Cycling isn't going to be suitable for every journey. However, 15% is quite a small target when you think about all the little trips people need. Things like cheap electric cars can be useful for the remaining 85%.
Note that perspiration and metabolism in general varies greatly by person. Some people can ride a bike and not sweat; others will sweat, whatever they do (even if they are in a reasonably good shape).
I can do 160 km in a day on a bike (maybe more but that's the record over past year), but I can't do 2 km so that I wouldn't have to change shirt and preferably take a shower if I'm going to a business meeting.
> you're just a little inexperienced at cycling for work
It's possible. But please note that I don't exactly go to "work" in my own office where I would have the liberty of changing shirts at will; I visit clients and usually go there for a specific meeting.
Maybe I could arrive early and change in the men's room, but that would still be a big hassle. And when I visit two or more clients in the same day, how many shirts would I end up carrying? And who's ironing these? (If you must know, I iron my own shirts, and like to make them last more than a day whenever possible...)
I said in another post that I never met anyone at my clients' offices who commuted by bicycle, but actually I did; last year I met a man who lived in Nanterre and worked in the center of Paris. So he took a bike in the morning, going downhill, and went back home in the evening using the subway.
This only works because there are special trucks that take back Velibs uphill every night; he couldn't do that with his own bike. The Velib trucks didn't exist when there wasn't any Velib, so it's unclear if this guy's behavior actually saves a lot of fossil energy or just a little.
> And when I visit two or more clients in the same day, how many shirts would I end up carrying?
Carry two shirts, one for cycling in and one for working. Before getting on your bike, change into your cycling shirt, then switch at the other end. The one for cycling obviously doesn't need to be ironed.
A good approach is to get an e-bike. Use a lot electric assist most of the way to work and pedal the way back. You also get less exhausted when arriving at your destination.
e-bikes are an absolute revolution for biking anywhere that isn't perfectly flat, I wonder what's taking so long for it to take over Europe.
I did look into that when my motorbike was stolen. I would actually like to have an electric bike, I think it's great.
I was put off by what they say about batteries, that if you don't take great care of it, leave it plugged in at all times, etc., it can die -- it amounts for 70% of the price of the bike.
Better batteries would be great; maybe Tesla will help.
You have articulated the usual list of excuses for not investing in cycling, and none of the excuses survives close scrutiny. There are many cities right now with a variety of climates, topographies, land use forms and densities that have very high rates of daily cycling. What's more, the cities with high rates of cycling all got there the same way: by investing in extensive, continuous networks of high quality cycling infrastructure.
Okay, no need to get all upset... I don't really care one way or the other (I actually live just outside Paris and therefore don't pay taxes to the city of Paris; how Parisians spend their money doesn't affect me).
I was just describing my own experience with bicycles; you can agree or disagree but I assure you it's the truth.
- pedaling makes you hot and sweaty; you arrive at the office being a mess
- when it rains you get super wet, much more than on a motorbike, because you have less protection and you don't carry special rain trousers with you at all times (whereas they're permanently stored on my motorbike)
- also, when it rains, if you cover yourself up to avoid the rain, you get even hotter and sweatier
I liked your point about people cheering for the cars, but those three are a bit disingenuous. I come from a country where "everyone" bikes "all the time". Perhaps we smell (I jest only slightly). But in the face of at least two countries where people cycle a lot, including for their commute, those three things somehow don't add up.
The distances: yes. The hills: yes, good point. It's not suitable for every journey. But sweat? Come on. And not just once, but three times.
It weakens the rest of your post, which is a shame because I think it's a good one.
P.S.: I'm not going to individually address the points to avoid turning this into some cycling pissing contest. Suffice to say: people cycle. It's real. Nothing inherently wrong with it. Correction: yes, inherent problems, but clearly nothing insurmountable.
EDIT: Can't reply to the guy below, just want to say you make a great point about showers! Showers at work are not just good for biking; also for running. And just for showering :P I'd love showers at my office.
Well, when it rains, there are two ways to get wet as you ride bike. You can choose: do not wear a rainjacket and let the rain make you wet. Wear a rainjacket and let the sweat make you wet.
Personally, I prefer the rainwater, and on the other hand I find it impossible to ride so slowly that I wouldn't get sweaty at all. So I wear lycra and carry change clothes in backbag; since I mostly commute to office which has good facilities for showers and dressing rooms, this works fine. It doesn't work if I have to go to a customer or some other meeting out of office, but then I take a car or taxi.
Sweat: maybe it's just me, I don't know, I didn't ask other people; maybe other people don't sweat as much, or maybe they don't mind. It's hard to tell, though, because I never meet people using bikes at my clients' offices.
And I don't see many people on bikes wearing suits; whereas in the subway there are many people with suits (i.e., "suits" aren't allergic to public transport).
A thing about Paris that I find is less true with other big cities is we're always in a hurry, and always late, because we always think we'll be able to make it. On a motorbike, this results in fines (and sometimes, accidents); on a bike, the ordinary outcome is arriving out of breath and, yes, sweaty (and late).
> I've lived in Paris for 45+ years. The problem with bicycles is that they don't respect road signs or traffic lights, which irritate the hell out of everybody else.
Of course not! I did; and that landed me in the hospital twice. It is far safer for bikes to go through an intersection after of before the wave of cars, not when the light turns green and the cars turning right are rushing into you.
The other issue is that you and most others ignore the actual rules: a bicycle is perfectly allowed to drive in the middle of the road. Try doing that once in Paris, and I'll be happy to bring you flowers after your recovery. Most streets in Paris are single-way for cars, but clearly marked as both ways for bicycle: same thing, try it once, dare to point at the signs, and you'll get honked at and ran into just to teach you how to “respect road signs”.
Has anyone ever apologised for making up rules like those? Come on; be serious: you and so many others are far too busy telling us that we are wrong to actually check the facts.
The rest of your comment proves that you do not know what you are talking about.
> Personnally I ride a motorcycle;
Now we are talking… Running red lights; parking illegally; running up one-way street… you never heard of those; have you? And my favourite: kicking bikes at the red light to stand just in front and have the biker enjoy your noxious fumes, unfiltered. You are polluting Paris dozen times more than a car does, and nothing would help both bicycles and Paris in general that you realise what a selfish prick you are.
>> [bicycles] don't respect road signs or traffic lights
> Of course not!
> you and so many others are far too busy telling us that we are wrong to actually check the facts
You admit to running red lights, but won't admit you're wrong? Okay...
> what a selfish prick you are
> You are polluting Paris dozen times more than a car does
I'll let go of the insult (after driving a two-wheel in Paris for over 30 years, I've heard everything), but I wonder how motorbikes could be polluting "dozen times more than a car"??
Motorbikes consume less fuel for a shorter amount of time -- since we don't get stuck in traffic and don't look for a parking spot for hours when we arrive at destination. Please explain.
You said you stopped observing red lights after two stays in the hospital. The reason why you stopped following the rules is irrelevant; the question is: are you following the rules?
For the record, I often ride bicycles in Paris, rain or shine, and until now, never had to be hospitalized for it. Maybe your cycling abilities are sub-par?
Also for the record, as I said, I ride a motorbike, which is very different from a moped, rendering your link irrelevant; all motorbikes have a four-stroke engine, and modern ones also have a catalytic converter (including mine).
Modern scooters in Paris, while not motorbikes, also have four-stroke engines and catalytic converters; "mopeds" are mostly found in Italian movies from the sixties.
All in all, it appears you don't quite know what you're talking about.
You need a secure location to drop your bike, or you're under the risk of losing it[1]. I knew it was risky, but I never knew how easy, cheap and fast it is to steal a bike[2].
* Speed:
I used to ride above average speed on dedicated and isolated channel lanes (Ourcq), but you can't always keep that pace. Kids, families, slower users... It's risky for everyone. In town lanes are thinner and more crowded, thus I guess slower.
About sweat, how many Offices have showers ? Or maybe some water and a towel would do.
[1] or a piece of it. I had my wheel guards stolen in front of Police station.
[2] cable locks under 2cm diameter are pure fluff, guys can rip or cut them in 10 seconds. Even heavy chains won't resist some tools. Surprisingly people assume that someone cutting metal in the street must be the owner, and if they suspect he's not, why bother being harmed.
If sweating from the exertion is a problem, you could use something like an electric unicycle. They go up to 25km/h for 20km, can take hills, and are good for the "last mile" problem of getting to/from the train or metro. Judging from the YouTube videos they already seem to be in use around Paris:
Ha! I just got one last month! I got the AirWheel Q3 that has two wheels instead of one and that is supposed to have a larger battery.
I love it, but wouldn't ride it everyday to work.
Pros:
- super fun to ride, a lot like skiing but without any effort on your part; you actually miss it when you get off
- reasonably fast but not too fast
- (for now) excellent "cool factor"; kids actually stop you to ask you where they can get one
Cons:
- the autonomy is not reassuring; if I used it to go to work I would be frightened that it runs out in the middle of the way back and I would have to carry it back via public transport; it's heavy (15kg)
- very difficult to ride on curved streets when you're not at the top of the curve (in the middle) -- for me it's more than just difficult, it's impossible as of now
- difficult to ride up or down hills
- unpredictable behavior when you fall off; I would be very afraid it would hit someone or go to the middle of a busy road
So for now I just go to skate parks with my kids with it; again, it's super fun as a toy; but for regular transport I'm not yet convinced. Maybe I need more experience.
> when it rains you get super wet, much more than on a motorbike, because you have less protection and you don't carry special rain trousers with you at all times
As a cyclist, I always carry waterproof clothes at all time (I still haven't found a way to protect my shoes though...).
You can buy waterproof "oversocks"/"overshoes" to keep shoes dry. I had a pair to wear over cycling-specific shoes, but I'm guessing you can use them (or buy similar) for "normal" shoes.
> - pedaling makes you hot and sweaty; you arrive at the office being a mess
This may be the case for some people but if you cycle gently enough and are moderately fit, there's no reason you should be particularly sweaty after arriving.
I cycle to work in a cycling/change of top. After I arrive, I wait around 10 minutes to cool down (not always needed, but it's a habit) while checking emails, making a coffee etc. and then I change into my work top and all is good.
If you are really hot and unable to shower at work, perhaps consider baby wipes or similar for a quick freshen up.
Money can help here, as it's usually easier to cycle casually if you're on segregated cycle tracks not "holding up" the traffic and feeling like you need to cycle fast to fit in.
> - when it rains you get super wet, much more than on a motorbike, because you have less protection and you don't carry special rain trousers with you at all times (whereas they're permanently stored on my motorbike)
A set of mudguards is a necessity for pleasant commuting (in the UK, at least), as is carrying a packable waterproof jacket.
I don't personally worry about my trousers so much, I wear jeans with a slight waterproof treating, and if it's particularly wet before I leave, I will wear cycling specific clothing or take a change of clothes.
> - also, when it rains, if you cover yourself up to avoid the rain, you get even hotter and sweatier
Can't really argue with this but there is a saying that there's no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing. Just because something is waterproof, it doesn't mean it will be pleasant to wear on a bike. Typically, the more you spend, the better balance the clothing will provide between waterproofness and breathability.
I don't know how much it rains in Paris, you could only ride on dry days? It's remarkable how little it rains in London.
> - Paris isn't flat! (contrary to Amsterdam...) and some hills are very steep
Hills can usually be conquered fairly easily with the correct set of gears but I can see how it would be off-putting.
> - some distances are irrealistic for bikes: I have two clients who are 15km apart and (to me) 15km on a bike is a fairly long ride
You wouldn't run a marathon straight out if you were starting to run, so if you're starting to ride your bike, begin with short distances and slowly build up the distance if you want to.
> Hills can usually be conquered fairly easily with the correct set of gears
Clearly, no.
The center of London is very flat compared to Paris, and even going up via Regent Str to Regent's Park or further to King's Cross, it's not very hard. The first thing I do when I go to London is rent a Barclay's bike, and I enjoy it a lot (except that people use the wrong side of the road! what's up with that??!?)
Paris is different. Gears help of course, but you need to be in extremely good shape to get to the top of Montmartre on a bicycle; it's hard enough on foot.
They are working on it, previously difficult intersections like the Nation roundabout are now easy to use by bike. Multiple "pain points" like those have been identified and have work done to it or are planned.
On the other hand, I still crap my pants when going through Bastille...
You are essentially right, though, have an efficient network requires good nodes and good paths, right now the paths are pretty good but some nodes are painful and to get around them, you need to leave the network.
The golden rule is to segregate. Give cars, bicycles, and feet their own space. DO NOT mix. If somebody can make a choice to put their 6 year old child on a bike and cycle around a city, you've got it right.
100% agreed. I used to be a driver, now I am only a pedestrian and a frequent cyclist.
My city of birth and upbringing (Warsaw, Poland) has a huge problem of people not respecting each others' space. Unfortunately a lot of bike lines are just painted on sidewalks. This (and the fact there's not enough bike lanes) encourages cyclist to just drive around pedestrians, who sometimes also tend to drift onto dedicated bike lanes.
It's terribly annoying to travel on foot during summer/autumn. You can easily get hit or at least shouted/honked at by a 'deranged' biker.
Pedestrian/car and Cyclist/car relations are even more complicated.
Now living in Berlin I have to say this city has mostly solved the issue. Majority of bike lanes are a (separated) part of the car lane and cyclist are encouraged to just mix with cars on low-speed streets (<30 zones).
Annoyingly enough some (not many though, mostly deliveries etc.) cyclists completely disregard the signage and still ride on the sidewalks.
Still, the roads seem to be really safe, hence most cyclists don't even wear helmets. I noticed drivers in here also pay more attention to what's happening around them. You rarely read about serious accidents involving bikes. Last one I remember it was a case of road rage where car driver beat a cyclist with a bat.
IMHO, bikes should get segregated lanes (and indeed perhaps on slower sections can share with cars, as you suggest), but cyclists should be fined Really Heavily if caught on sidewalks. Where i live now, cyclists have to do the traffic gladiator thing and muscle cars out of the way, and are usually honked at, even when on the "bike lane" (which is just a strip painted onto the car lane, woo hoo). This results in a lot of animosity between cars and bikes (and frankly, grave danger for cyclists -- we aren't 1000kg metal blocks travelling at 60+ km/h), and frequently sees cyclists picking on the next weaker party, which is pedestrians. It's a very frustrating situation, if only the smaller dead-centre-of-town areas were declared pedestrian / delivery / bike only, and the rest of the place were equipped with segregated bike lanes, it would be much safer, and pollution would be curbed, in one fell swoop. Just thinking back at the number of near-accidents (and real ones, mind you) i've had because cars just act as if bicycles are invisible, frustrates me no end. I feel the Dutch law's approach is great: treat car drivers as if they are wielding 1000kg death-machines. This is very close to the truth, and therefore the onus should be on the strongest/least endangered party to pay attention to what they're doing.
Very much so. I've only explored small areas - generally the 'old' (tourist-friendly) areas of Seville, but all the cycling lanes felt safe, welcoming, thoughtfully designed, and well laid out.
But also, Seville has one of those easily under-estimated features that engenders a great cycling experience, and consequently good chance of success with such a plan - it's relatively flat. Amsterdam enjoys a similar benefit, though I can't speak for Copenhagen on this aspect (those were the two extant 'cycling capitals' mentioned in the article).
> If somebody can make a choice to put their 6 year old child on a bike and cycle around a city, you've got it right.
Thinking about it, there is some truth to this. I have kids and would NEVER dream of cycling with them in Paris; we put the bikes in the trunk of the car and go to a big park if we want to ride.
If there were actual segregated bike lanes where there is zero chance of crossing a car (at any speed: I mean NO car) I might cycle with them in the city, and I admit it would be nice.
In a similar fashion, I see little wrong with cyclists driving on sidewalks. Problems only start when they drive faster than pedestrians in a busy street. In other words: if they do not acknowledge that they are guests on the sidewalk.
That is fairly typical behaviour in the Netherlands. People will cycle through almost empty pedestrian-only zones at 10-15 km/hour, slow down to walking speed when coming close to pedestrians, and start walking, bike in hand, if things get really busy. Legal? Not everywhere, but this rarely gets you a fine.
>> The golden rule is to segregate. Give cars, bicycles, and feet their own space. DO NOT mix.
This seems too emphatic, given the counter-example of Japanese cities, which have few dedicated bicycle lanes, yet remarkably high rates of cycle usage.
The Japanese shifted liability onto larger vehicles. Just as most places will always treat a rear-shunt as being the fault of the car behind, hitting a cyclist is always the fault of the larger/motorised vehicle.
Well, it's no magic bullet. Here (Finland) the insurance of motor vehicles always covers damages to bicyclists, even when the bicyclist is at fault (breaking a traffic rule) but that hasn't removed all car/bike collisions.
Having segregated (and physically separated) paths for bikes works well though. They remove the fear that when you're riding straight, a lorry comes from behind and kills you outright. Here the paths are usually shared with pedestrians, and while pedestrians are annoying, they are few (compared to Japan...) and it works reasonably. Intersections are a bit of a problem, but the mistakes by car drivers are quite predictable (and being also a driver myself, I know why they happen), so I can watch out.
Speaking as an occasional pedestrian in Japan, it would be nice not to have to deal with cyclists hurtling down the sidewalk at great speeds as happens today.
Japan is a very different country— one is not able to own a car without a certificate demonstrating they have an off-street place to park it (resulting in lower car ownership), and, more importantly, very narrow streets that largely preclude the kind of high speed motoring that's dangerous to cyclists.
> Paris has a pollution problem. Instead of the smoke from Gauloise cigarettes and the aroma of freshly baked bread, the air is packed with smog, an issue that got so bad one day last month, the city forcibly halved traffic by allowing only cars with odd-number plates to drive.
Of course this could have nothing do to with Germany phasing out its nuclear power plants and having to reopen coal power plants instead.
They massively increased the share of solar and wind in their energy production, but still need more traditional methods of power generation to cover when those 2 are not providing energy, hence more coal [1].
And coal is incredibly polluting. See [2] for example for CO2 emissions :
> In July 2014, a group of NGOs published a study on the EU’s 30 worst CO2-emitting thermal power plants. German power stations featured six times among the 10 dirtiest.
CO2 is not the problem for city pollution of course, it's the rest of the small particulate matter that is.
What you're writing doesn't make much sense. You say CO2 is not the problem but yet link to stuff about it. Coal plants in Germany are really clean though and CO2 is the only real problem of it. NO2 and PM gets filtered out.
Usage of coal stayed roughly the same in the last 10 years [1]. If you directly compare it with the amount 10 years ago it's a slight decrease.
The real issue for pollution lies in different sectors. For instance around half of the PM pollution in Germany is caused by people using wood for heating. Cars are one of the biggest polluters in cities.
That seems very far fetched to me. Why would the pollution created by german coal power plants accumulate in and around Paris?
In my experience the big pollution episodes in Paris are when there's no wind to wash the smog away. It's definitely localized over the city (not that the air is not polluted elsewhere, it's just generally much worse in Paris).
It travels all over Europe depending on the wind. There is just extra pollution around Paris (mostly because of traffic) so the two of them combined can make it exceed noticeable thresholds.
Sorry for being harsh, but suggesting that German coal power plants are responsible for Paris smog is just bollocks, Paris being around 300km from the French-German border. There are ample reasons to criticise the "Energiewende", but Paris smog is definitely not one of them.
Toronto, Ontario is 400km from Ohio, and gets smog from Ohio's coal plants all the time. The studies suggest about half of Toronto's air pollution is due to U.S. power plants.
I have no idea what the reality is of smog in Europe, but your off-hand dismissal of this based on the perceived distance between the source and recipient of the pollution is entirely wrong.
Most of the big avenues in Paris already have separated bike lanes on either the sidewalk or the bus lane but the road (for regular cars) still takes 80% of the space. The goal here is to leave more space to pedestrians (like on the river front) and reduce the "car space" in the city.
The cost of public biking in Paris (3$/month) is very very very small when you consider the cost of having a car (at least 200$/month) or taking the subway (around 70$ / month).
One problem though, Paris has some hills and people tend to avoid these areas. Using your legs is great yes, healthy etc... but hey, we'd like electric bikes :)
Genuine question: how did you come up with $3/month? Is that a rough estimate of expenses (maintenance etc) over a year divided by 12, or is there some Paris bike permit required?
It's good to be ambitious, but the Paris goal of increasing share of trips from 5 % to 15 % in five years sounds somewhat unrealistic. I'd be surprised if you can double the numbers in five years.
In Helsinki, the share of trips made by bike is 11 % and the goal is to reach 17 % by 2025, in ten years time. I think even that is ambitious but not entirely unfeasible.
(However, it must be said that there seem to be vary many different ways to calculate the share of trips done on bike vs. other ways, and if you change the way you make statistics, you can of course indicate huge progress...)
Sounds like a utopian dream compared to here in Sydney where the roads minister is ripping up our miniscule cycle network and replacing it with "part time" cycle ways and loading bays.
The weather is too poor here to make this a realistic solution. We try to velib as much as we can, but you can only reliably bike maybe 4 months out of the year if you're lucky. The remaining days are either too wet or too cold or both. No amount of bike lanes or police enforcement can change the generally miserable weather of Paris.
I asked how much of cell phone that can be recycled, no one has answered the question yet. Thats a bit scary, don't look under that stone and ask that question kind of feeling.
How much of electronics is recycled, how much can be recycled?
During the 20 years I lived there, I cycled everywhere, and I had an almost weekly accident, always at the same three intersections -- cars running into stationary bikes, half the time openly on purpose (there is a bolo for a taxi driver for attempted manslaughter under my name: his plaque was unlegible on the camera, but him accelerating twice into my bike was clear).
The local police knows those intersections, there are camera monitoring those. Those are on large axis, and have the largest concentration of tourists (about 50 people waiting at the light at any time of the day).
If you want to make Paris a biking city, no need to spend millions; all the protected lanes become useless ever 50 m when an intersection shows up and dozens of car just want to run you over no matter what.
Just ask Police to enforce laws on attempting to kill people and make clear that a car can be used as a weapon. You do not even need to budget their presence: they are already there, watching and helpless.