Yes and the requirements often impact infrastructure decisions. For example:
Years ago there was a bike path that was proposed to be added onto the Verrazano bridge in NYC. NYFD required it be wide and strong enough for a firetruck to traverse it and the project died. The only way to get a bicycle across the bridge without a car nowadays is once a year when they shut it down for an hour for a cycling event or on an MTA bus.
I find these reasons unconvincing, fire code requirements have not stopped cycling development in others part of the world despite them very much having fires to fight.
This Streetsblog NYC article reflects my initial instinct; it’s not so much fire code requirements as it is an unwillingness to prioritize cycling and pedestrian accessibility. “Fire codes” is mostly just a convenient excuse. Quoting the most relevant part of the article here:
[…] the MTA never considered the most obvious solution to the problem: simply taking away one of the existing car lanes and converting it into a bike and pedestrian path. The 1997 report said it could be done — though no cost analysis was made — but by 2015, the MTA didn’t even mention that possibility in its report.
The MTA said its 2015 plan was based on the requirement that the lanes be sturdy enough to carry emergency vehicles, specifically fire trucks — a requirement that the MTA has said came from city fire and emergency response officials. Yet when Streetsblog asked to see “all correspondence between MTA divisions and the FDNY and NYPD about design requirements that those emergency agencies might have said they need for such a path,” the transit agency said, “After a diligent search, Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority does not have any responsive records.”
“That speaks volumes. A much-lower-cost lane on the lower level could be accessed by emergency vehicles from the outside traffic lanes,” Gertner said. “The main benefit to the MTA for having a bike lane capable of supporting trucks is for emergency access in case of vehicle crashes and to assist in general bridge maintenance. ‘Charging’ the full cost to cyclists is a false narrative that predictably elicited feedback that cyclists and pedestrians are not worthy of so much expense. The MTA should be honest and explain that most of the $320-plus million cost would benefit vehicles. Or, better yet, give us a $60-million ‘normal’ path without further delay.”
It’s also worth pointing out that bike and pedestrian paths on other MTA bridges — most notably the Triboro and Gil Hodges bridges — are too narrow for emergency vehicles yet operate just fine.
That’s not an article, its a blogpost/opinon piece.
If you don’t think car culture is enshined in out communities’ codes generally and fire code specifically… then I am sure there is nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise. We don’t have to agree.
I never said car culture isn’t massively enshrined in our codes and laws, it obviously is and I agree with you there! I’m just saying these laws are not some universal rule of our world, humans decided these laws. As evidenced by the fact that fire codes haven’t been a particularly notable barrier to developing cycling infrastructure in other parts of the world, we can and should have harmony between access for emergency vehicles, and safe cycling/pedestrian infrastructure.
Zoning and capitalism I’m with you, but I’m racking my brain trying to figure out how fire codes contribute to car-centricity.
Firetrucks need access everywhere
Sure, but most people who drive aren’t firefighters at the helm of fire engines.
Yes and the requirements often impact infrastructure decisions. For example:
Years ago there was a bike path that was proposed to be added onto the Verrazano bridge in NYC. NYFD required it be wide and strong enough for a firetruck to traverse it and the project died. The only way to get a bicycle across the bridge without a car nowadays is once a year when they shut it down for an hour for a cycling event or on an MTA bus.
I find these reasons unconvincing, fire code requirements have not stopped cycling development in others part of the world despite them very much having fires to fight.
This Streetsblog NYC article reflects my initial instinct; it’s not so much fire code requirements as it is an unwillingness to prioritize cycling and pedestrian accessibility. “Fire codes” is mostly just a convenient excuse. Quoting the most relevant part of the article here:
That’s not an article, its a blogpost/opinon piece.
If you don’t think car culture is enshined in out communities’ codes generally and fire code specifically… then I am sure there is nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise. We don’t have to agree.
Despite the name, Streetblog has a staff of six journalists.
I never said car culture isn’t massively enshrined in our codes and laws, it obviously is and I agree with you there! I’m just saying these laws are not some universal rule of our world, humans decided these laws. As evidenced by the fact that fire codes haven’t been a particularly notable barrier to developing cycling infrastructure in other parts of the world, we can and should have harmony between access for emergency vehicles, and safe cycling/pedestrian infrastructure.