The bike lane, which occupies part of the centre of Santa Cruz de Tenerife and resulted in the removal of numerous parking spaces, loading and unloading zones, bus stops, and taxi ranks, among other inconveniences for residents, workers, and visitors, continues to be met with rejection due to the disruptions it causes. It also poses risks.
It has been demonstrated in a video that has been shared on social media and instant messaging channels. The images have sparked outrage among the city’s residents, as they depict an ambulance from the Canary Emergency Service (SUC), with its emergency signals activated, forced to stop in Calle del Pilar because a bus is unloading passengers. Since an entire lane was removed from this street and the bike lane is marked with bollards, the bus cannot pull aside, and the ambulance, despite the urgency, cannot pass.
For a few seemingly endless seconds, the emergency transport must wait for passengers to disembark in the middle of the bike lane, while public transport continues, raising protests from some passersby who watch the scene in frustration.
“These are critical moments to save a life, even your own or that of a family member. These are urgent situations where time is of the essence. I hope no tragedy occurs, and for selfish, human reasons, I hope it doesn’t affect me personally. This is serious!!!” writes a user on Instagram, where the video has nearly 2,000 likes.
“What a disaster of engineers and politicians,” reads one message. “What sharp minds planned and organised this joke,” comments another. “Unnecessary; we must understand that this is a historic centre, limited. We cannot please everyone. And the priority is not exactly a bike lane. What poor management of public funds…” writes another user. Numerous messages criticise the decision to install the bike lane on these roads.
Some comments insist that it was the same before because there was only one lane on part of Calle del Pilar and the rest was a line of parking spaces. However, it is worth noting that when that was the arrangement, there was space for cars to pull aside, which is not the case now since the bollards prevent it.
Some social media messages also criticise the bus driver for not pulling aside more. However, here too, the bollards come into play, marking the bike lane and leaving only just enough space for the bus to pull close (as seen in the video) to unload, but they do not allow it to fully leave the lane, as doing so would mean running over several of the aforementioned bollards.
Adding to the danger, the video shows a motorcycle that is unwilling to wait for the bus and rides in the bike lane, which is theoretically closed by court order, encroaching on the bus’s unloading area and passing right by the passengers.
The video, which has been shared on social media and instant messaging channels, has received hundreds of messages, most expressing anger at the town hall’s decision to install a bike lane in the centre of the city that, rather than improving mobility, hampers circulation.
The lane, closed by court order
The bike lane, which has been controversial since the construction began, is currently suspended by the courts, as the entire Mobility Ordinance of the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council, led by José Manuel Bermúdez (Coalition Canaria), has also been overturned by the courts. This ordinance, advocated by councillors Evelyn Alonso (CC) and Carlos Tarife (PP), has faced two judicial setbacks.
The town hall has spent €1.3 million of public money on works that are now paused due to a judicial battle declared by a residents’ association, El Perenquén, which has, so far, scored two points in this matter.
The first setback, and the most significant, occurred last March when a ruling by the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) declared the entire Mobility and Road Safety Ordinance approved by the town hall null and void. The reason: the ordinance does not comply with the law as it lacks an analytical memorandum. The ruling expressed itself in these decisive terms: “It shall be considered for all purposes as if [the ordinance] never existed, it was never valid, nor much less effective, as it could not be born into legal life, having been merely an appearance of legality which now, by this judgement, is definitively eliminated.”
The second setback occurred in mid-June when the Administrative-Contentious Chamber of the TSJC issued an order instructing the town hall not to continue with the bike lane works, which were nearly ready for inauguration. This order was also in response to a complaint from the same residents’ association, El Perenquén, which demanded the total dismantling of the bike lane and surrounding area, considering that, after the annulment of the Mobility and Road Safety Ordinance—which aimed to regulate the low-emission zone in the capital—there is no longer any legal basis for its development.
A city with few cyclists
The association that lodged the complaints also joined up to three protests against the bike lane shortly after the works began. The organisers emphasised in all demonstrations that they are not against sustainable mobility, but rather how it has been executed by the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council, without consulting the public, causing numerous problems for central residents and traders without offering realistic alternatives, as a large part of the population cannot move around by bicycle or scooter. In fact, the banners displayed in the protests prominently featured the phrase “Not like this”.
Silvia Barrera, the president of the association that has now successfully challenged the town hall twice, believes that the priority is being given, more to electric scooters than bicycles, especially for their use by tourists visiting the city for ease of movement. In statements to this newspaper, Barrera warned of the consequences for “the elderly, many of whom are residents in these areas, pregnant women, people with mobility issues, or simple pedestrians who do not use bikes or scooters; in fact, they fear them, given the incidents that have occurred, such as accidents or the speed some achieve.”
The organisations that convened the protests also frequently reminded that the council is responsible for the loss of more than 5,000 parking spaces in recent years in Santa Cruz and that a cycling network is not among the primary demands of the city’s residents, which is full of slopes, crossed by a ravine, and with narrow streets.
And while the Supreme Court resolves the appeal announced by the town hall, the lane remains inoperative, occupying a vital area for the transit of vehicles and people, whether they are ambulances, fire trucks, private cars, or commercial vehicles, hindering circulation in a centre that is already narrow and overcrowded.
There is a lot to unpack here. And honestly, not much of it is new, at least globally.
Just to be clear, let me start by saying I am both a cyclist and motorist.
First, the rationale of hindering emergency services is a fallacious argument. The bike lane presents no different hindrance than a line of parked cars. The only difference is that now there is suddenly a wide open space that emergency services and others are tempted to use because all of the parked cars have been removed. A visible, seemingly unused lane does a great deal to fan flames of frustration.
Second, a huge area where the planners failed is to have created alternate parking for all of the parking that is lost to the bike lanes. All of Tenerife is challenged by a scarcity of parking. It doesn’t matter if you are in Santa Cruz, Los Cris, or Puerto de al Cruz. Pretty much all of the towns and historic fishing villages along the coast have some scarcity of parking for cars and trucks. That said, it is pretty well accepted that creating additional space for motor vehicles, no matter whether it is additional parking or additional lanes (such as the proposed third lane on TF-1 between Adeje and Chafiras) does not solve problems in the long term, as the number of vehicles increase to absorb the additional space.
Third, bike lanes should not be on major thoroughfares or roads with bus lines. With that said, bike lanes should be _near_ bus lines so that cyclists who want or need to commute by both bicycle and bus (for the sake of distance or substantial hills) can use both for their commutes.
Fourth, bike lanes are undisciplined. By that I mean people take advantage of the open space: some cyclists will ride the wrong way and do other improper things. Some ride with foolish behaviour. Some pedestrians will walk in the bike lane. Some people on two wheeled vehicles, whether it is electric scooters or people on motorcycles, or even some people in cars without conscience will try to use the bike lane, again because it is open. People do that because the consequences of being hit by a bicycle are much lower than suffering the impact from a 1.5 or 2 tonne vehicle. The bike lane is somewhat analogous to the passing lane on motorways; the passing lane should only be used for passing, but far too many people like it to drive continuously for the sake of a clear lane ahead. Ultimately, when improper usage happens it is because the culture of doing it the proper way has not been established.
Fifth, there are likely more cyclists than meet the eye. Bike lanes need time to become utilised. Potential users need to learn it is there and how it will benefit them by offering a different, more practical, and safer mode of transportation that will improve or approximate their motor vehicle commute time. Also (again going back to the planners), the roads with bike lanes need to span meaningful locations. If a route doesn’t start , run along, or end near meaningful locations, cyclists won’t use it. Along those lines, there needs to be a recognition that bicycle transportation is legitimate, not just a recreational toy.
Last, thank you for reading all of this!