Wow! Inquirer finds opposing viewpoint on bike lanes

Well, the temperature makes it feel like Hell has frozen over, and another sign of the apocalypse is the Philadelphia Inquirer publishing an op-ed that opposes the demands of the bike cult.

This is a first in my memory. Well, at least since I stopped working there. The newspaper gives the pro-bike lane side lots of free space.

Authored by Leo Levinson, president of the Center City Residents Association, the piece suggests alternatives to bike lanes “protected” by cement barriers, and the recently-passed law that prohibits momentary stopping in bike lanes. That new law makes it difficult or impossible for residents to safely pick up or drop off passengers.

There is nothing really new in Levinson’s piece, but its points have been completely ignored by City Council, and also in most one-sided stories about bike lanes published by the Inquirer, as I have noted in the past.

Levinson correctly noted that neither of the two current ideas — concrete barriers, no-stopping — would have prevented two bicycle deaths on Spruce, which are always dragged out to justify any sort of change.

He also correctly noted the true threat to safety of bicyclists is auto speed, and neither of the proposed “improvements” addresses that problem.

For safety’s sake, he made three proposals.

1- Speed cushions and raised pedestrian crosswalks between Broad and 22nd streets. I would suggest expanding them down to Front Street. No reasonable motorist would object to that.

2- Reduce temporary stopping in bike lanes from 20 minutes to 10 minutes, and restrict it to passenger vehicles only. Delivery trucks would be shunted to nearby loading zones. 

Why? There is no danger to bicyclists confronted by a stopped vehicle, passenger or commercial. How do I know there is no danger? Because no one has ever claimed to have been injured by a stopped vehicle.

3- White plastic delineator poles rather than concrete barriers.

CCRA made the mistake of not opposing bike lanes, partly because of a city promise. The bike lanes “were the product of a 2009 compromise: Elimination of the curbside traffic lane for conversion to a bike lane in exchange for a continuation of the historic practice of permitting 20-minute stopping in the bike lane,” Levinson wrote.

“In the absence of this compromise, it is quite possible the bike lanes never would have been created on Spruce and Pine.”

This very point was raised at City Council hearings and no one from the city gave a crap about the promise made by Mayor Michael Nutter. 

So, better late than never, I congratulate the Inquirer for giving space to an opposing point of view. Maybe the next will be an article opposing Sanctuary Cities. I won’t hold my breath.