Spurred by another superficial review of Paris’ push for bicycle lanes¹, I decided to write out why I think so many of these takes are overly superficial, and thus fail to provide useful lessons when applied to other cities.

First, by way of background, I feel like I have rather unique vantage point of being trained in Transportation Planning (in Civil Engineering), paired with having lived and studied in all three of France, Canada, and the United States. On one hand, my schooling was in Utah, one of the few places in the US where they are still building urban freeways²; on the other, I spent three years in France (including 8 months in metro Paris) relying almost exclusively on public transit. In a word, I’ve lived and commuted in both.

I recently returned from a trip to France I thought I could write some observations on the contrast between French¹ and Canadian² urban forms.

So it’s been a little over four months since I arrived here in France. I’m working, but only what I’d typically consider about 1/3 of “full time” and so I’ve had lots of time to unwind and just enjoy myself. Bring newly wed, I’ve also affectionately referee to this time as a “honeymoon” too. That said, there’s a few things that stand out in my mind.

As a regular reader of the Gateway, I have read a fair share of ideas that are a little thought and controversy producing pieces, but thought I would add a little to the mix myself. I was reading the Editorial entitled “Armoured bears don’t threaten faith” by Ryan Heise in the November 26 edition. Although he raises some valid points, I think he has been rather simplistic and one-sided.