All urban improvement projects cause discomfort to those nearby, whether they are neighbors or people passing through the work area. It is evident, machinery and blockades cannot but disrupt part of the housing and transit routines. The offer, however, is clear: in exchange for those weeks or months of discomfort, the works will imply an improvement in previous conditions. That, at least, is the promise.
For several weeks, they have been working on creating a bike path in Tlalpan that goes from the city center to the Azteca Stadium. Thirty-odd kilometers of a lane confined only to bicycles. Thirty-odd kilometers of one less lane for motorized transport. Thirty-odd kilometers of traffic that has grown exponentially along that avenue that connects the center of the capital with the exit to the south of it.
There are conflicting positions. It is clear that the residents of the affected areas and those of us who pass through there complain about the increase in traffic. There are routes of a couple of kilometers that involve up to three quarters of an hour. Above all, when the construction of the cycle path is combined with the convergence of lanes of two avenues plus the exit of a university. The peseros and buses that used to stop in a double row now do so in the third lane and there is only a fourth lane. Additionally, some insist that accidents with cyclists will increase due to all the right turns. More so, considering that Tlalpan is one of the few avenues in the city where you can drive at 80 km/h (well, at least theoretically).
The counterpart talks about the benefits for transit. My urban planner friend explains to me that, when the cycle path was created in Insurgentes, everyone complained, but that, today, it did imply a reduction in traffic. Not only because of the bike lane, of course, but because transportation within that avenue was regulated. If this is done in Tlalpan, if the peseros are removed, if the frequency and number of Light Rail cars increases, if cars are prevented from parking in double and triple rows, then the bike path will work.
The problem, of course, is all the conditionals. Among other things, because of the experience we have living in this city and the daily routine of dealing with public transportation. Also (and, perhaps, above all), because there are too many of us and that excess traffic is reduced by a full lane. Since the neighbors were not consulted, since a clear project was not shown or what was expected of the cycle path, there will be nothing left to do but wait for the work to be inaugurated to know its true impact.
Of course, my friend the urban planner was very clear with me, who is a resident of one of the affected areas: “if they tolerate informal parking next to the bike lane, I would think about moving house.” Today, like rarely, my peace of mind due to traffic is based on too many conditions.