3 ms·

If everyone cycles you need a cycle lane at least the size of a car lane, and then you still need space for the bus, and of course you still need to accomodate

If everyone cycles you need a cycle lane at least the size of a car lane, and then you still need space for the bus, and of course you still need to accomodate vans, taxis, and emergency vehicles... There is no silver bullet. Adding decent cycle lanes means wider roads, and there's nothing wrong with that. > Building roads just increases congestion through induced demand. How do you propose to build new housing estates, new schools, etc. and to link them to the rest of the country?

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> If everyone cycles you need a cycle lane at least the size of a car lane No you don't - bikes and scooters take up far less room than the same person being sat alone in their car. The increased throughput of people would drastically improve the efficiency of the road. Also, if the people choose active travel instead of driving, then you also remove a large number of cars from the road and also reduce congestion for the people who have to drive. New housing estates will need joining up to the existing road network, but they also need to have good public transport links to avoid the roads being just filled with people stuck in cars in traffic. Also, they should have good walking/cycling options too which is often completely neglected by developers. Obviously new developments will need some road building, but it's a mistake to think that adding roads will reduce congestion. Ultimately, personal cars don't scale beyond a certain population density. If you aim to add more roads, the shops and facilities end up becoming more separated which then leads to more people choosing to drive to get there. The extra people driving then leads to more congestion which leads to more roads which leads to facilities becoming spaced further apart and requiring even more space for parking facilities. It's an exercise in futility.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  You clearly don't have experience with heavy cycle traffic. Bikes do take much less space than cars, but when there are many of them you do need enough space to accomodate them and the width of a car lane is not luxury and is needed, and still does improve efficiency of the road. It's that way in China and in bike-heavy places like Copenhagen. It's not possible to solve problems by refusing to acknowledge reality. We need pragmatism.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    I've cycled around Copenhagen and the vast majority of cycle lanes are smaller than a car sized lane. We should be copying the infrastructure designs of European cities that have been successful at getting people onto bikes etc. (Although not the "kissing bridge" as that's a stupid design for bikes). I thought you were pushing the idea of building as many roads as possible - that's clearly not pragmatic. The other very noticeable aspect to travel around Copenhagen is that they have excellent public transport. It's incredible to see the number of bikes they manage to squeeze onto their trains during busy times.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

> If everyone cycles you need a cycle lane at least the size of a car lane No you don't - bikes and scooters take up far less room than the same person being sat alone in their car. The increased throughput of people would drastically improve the efficiency of the road. Also, if the people choose active travel instead of driving, then you also remove a large number of cars from the road and also reduce congestion for the people who have to drive. New housing estates will need joining up to the existing road network, but they also need to have good public transport links to avoid the roads being just filled with people stuck in cars in traffic. Also, they should have good walking/cycling options too which is often completely neglected by developers. Obviously new developments will need some road building, but it's a mistake to think that adding roads will reduce congestion. Ultimately, personal cars don't scale beyond a certain population density. If you aim to add more roads, the shops and facilities end up becoming more separated which then leads to more people choosing to drive to get there. The extra people driving then leads to more congestion which leads to more roads which leads to facilities becoming spaced further apart and requiring even more space for parking facilities. It's an exercise in futility.

mytailorisrich 3y ago
You clearly don't have experience with heavy cycle traffic. Bikes do take much less space than cars, but when there are many of them you do need enough space to accomodate them and the width of a car lane is not luxury and is needed, and still does improve efficiency of the road. It's that way in China and in bike-heavy places like Copenhagen. It's not possible to solve problems by refusing to acknowledge reality. We need pragmatism.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  I've cycled around Copenhagen and the vast majority of cycle lanes are smaller than a car sized lane. We should be copying the infrastructure designs of European cities that have been successful at getting people onto bikes etc. (Although not the "kissing bridge" as that's a stupid design for bikes). I thought you were pushing the idea of building as many roads as possible - that's clearly not pragmatic. The other very noticeable aspect to travel around Copenhagen is that they have excellent public transport. It's incredible to see the number of bikes they manage to squeeze onto their trains during busy times.