Showing posts with label Cycle Superhighways. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cycle Superhighways. Show all posts
Monday, September 1, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Boris to build bike lanes in London, to " de-Lycrafy the bicycle" : TreeHugger
Transport or London is talking about Quitelanes. The acual link is here but the idea is to build something really non-pro cyclist friendly. They are spending £54 million on this.
Boris to build bike lanes in London, to " de-Lycrafy the bicycle" : TreeHugger
Boris to build bike lanes in London, to " de-Lycrafy the bicycle" : TreeHugger
Monday, July 12, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Supercyclehighway
Interesting comment from Colin Buchanan about some super cycle highway plans. I think what makes them super was all the training for cyclists they where including ( along with blue paint).
Do you think transport planners in poor countries that can't afford to build any motorways/freeways sit around saying.
" if we wanted to get more people on the roads the most cost effective thing is to provide some car driving training 'to the right kind of people' people who don't drive but might drive with a little help." or
"Its a long way to go to the kinds of motorways they have in the US but the US has been building roads for 100 years".
Sorry that sounds more sarcastic than I intended.
Colin is a realist trying to do what he can do with the tiny sums he can get hold of, which I'm please to know he's out there.
Colin makes a good point saying this is a zero sum game at the moment. If we want more facilities (road space) for cyclists it has to prised from the tight grip of the motorists who loose space.
I would argue that it doesn't have to be that way. There is a third way which means we don't have to take from motorists while building up the cyclists population to reach critical mass. By going up ( or more expensively down) then we can by pass this problem. Studies of PRT have shown that PRT systems can be cheaper than setting up a bus system. I believe with the right engineering design we can make a very cheap (relatively) elevated cycle lane. Yes it will be more expensive than just painting a bit of road blue and giving some lesssons in school but the rewards would be well worth while.
All I argue for is that the case is strong enough to justify the tiny (relatively) money to build a demo system then letting a well done system speak for its self.
Do you think transport planners in poor countries that can't afford to build any motorways/freeways sit around saying.
" if we wanted to get more people on the roads the most cost effective thing is to provide some car driving training 'to the right kind of people' people who don't drive but might drive with a little help." or
"Its a long way to go to the kinds of motorways they have in the US but the US has been building roads for 100 years".
Sorry that sounds more sarcastic than I intended.
Colin is a realist trying to do what he can do with the tiny sums he can get hold of, which I'm please to know he's out there.
Colin makes a good point saying this is a zero sum game at the moment. If we want more facilities (road space) for cyclists it has to prised from the tight grip of the motorists who loose space.
I would argue that it doesn't have to be that way. There is a third way which means we don't have to take from motorists while building up the cyclists population to reach critical mass. By going up ( or more expensively down) then we can by pass this problem. Studies of PRT have shown that PRT systems can be cheaper than setting up a bus system. I believe with the right engineering design we can make a very cheap (relatively) elevated cycle lane. Yes it will be more expensive than just painting a bit of road blue and giving some lesssons in school but the rewards would be well worth while.
All I argue for is that the case is strong enough to justify the tiny (relatively) money to build a demo system then letting a well done system speak for its self.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)