dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street

[dellzeqq]

it's a question of definition. Copenhagen including the immediate suburbs has a population of about a million. The economic zone has a population of about two million. So........the historic core is dense, and there's a healthy limit on cars - hence lots of bikes. The suburbs are far less dense and, as Steve says, planned with cycle paths, but, environmentally they're every bit as disastrous as Ruislip or Orpington.

The key to a sane transport policy is dense cities and towns, good public transport and restrictions on car usage and parking. Cycling is nice to know, but follows on from the first three.

I went to Milton Keynes last week. More cycleways than you can shake a stick at. Huge car parks everywhere. Naff-all bikes, and cars, cars, cars, because development is designed around the car.

By contrast the centre of London is dense, and a lot of journeys to, from and within are reasonably short - so the potential for cycling is limited only by capacity. And here's the rub - on some routes we're nearing capacity for cycles.

 

[Wobblers]

Don't worry, I get patronized by full time professionals.

Are you calling me professional?

 

[Wobblers]

Mcwobble, changing the mindset that the car comes first was the big battle that the Dutch and Danes had back in the 60s and 70s. In Denmark the cyclist has as much right to be there as the motorised transport. But that is helped by the fact that most Danes also ride a bike. In reality, cyclists are top of the chain when it comes transport on the roads in Denmark ( no pun intended).

I found this clip on Youtube about Dutch cycle paths. It may seem a bit quaint but they had to start somewhere and it worked for them. Just as aside note, look how many wear helmets and see how many different styles of bikes there are.

View: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o

Steve

Absolutely we desperately need to get away from the idea that transport begins with and ends with the car. There's no point even considering cycling or pedestrian facilities until you do so, as they'll be designed and built by the same bunch who've been responsible for all the car promoting - excuse me, I meant highway designing so far. The problem is that simply is not happening. The junction close to my house was remodelled a couple of years ago - ostensibly to put in pedestrian lights to improve things for those on foot. The reality was stupid staggered crossings that took pedestrians far out of their way and a convenient filter lane so that motorists wishing to join the Hagley Road didn't have so long to wait - but meant three sets of lights for pedestrians to navigate. Oh... and you'd find one set of pedestrian lights turned off as it delayed the traffic too much! So all these "improvements" benefited motorists only. This has to end - but how are we going to go about it?

 

[Wobblers]

You patronize me?

Well, I do try...

 

[stowie]

Absolutely we desperately need to get away from the idea that transport begins with and ends with the car. There's no point even considering cycling or pedestrian facilities until you do so, as they'll be designed and built by the same bunch who've been responsible for all the car promoting - excuse me, I meant highway designing so far. The problem is that simply is not happening. The junction close to my house was remodelled a couple of years ago - ostensibly to put in pedestrian lights to improve things for those on foot. The reality was stupid staggered crossings that took pedestrians far out of their way and a convenient filter lane so that motorists wishing to join the Hagley Road didn't have so long to wait - but meant three sets of lights for pedestrians to navigate. Oh... and you'd find one set of pedestrian lights turned off as it delayed the traffic too much! So all these "improvements" benefited motorists only. This has to end - but how are we going to go about it?

It does seem true that transport planners seem utterly at sea when it comes to anything other than modelling roads around private cars. I had clients who designed electronic road sign equipment. It was incredibly complex and even the various hues of the LED signs were incredibly tightly controlled. It struck me that, whilst millions were being poured into these types of systems, the very same transport planners specifying them were also drawing up plans with cycles lanes narrower than a cyclist and running next to car doors, or the other various abominations that we see on a regular basis.

I get the impression that transport planners are in thrall to transport models which have been finely honed for private transport over many years and they simply don't know what to do with cycling. Pedestrians have been easy - keep them penned in away from the important people in cars, but cycling? They can no longer ignore it but they have no idea what they need to do.

My borough (the peoples' republic of Waltham Forest) has, in the past, announced itself to be working towards being "like Holland" - whatever that means. The major rework of a road and junction that has seen multiple accidents and deaths - including 2 cyclists- is then detailed and it involves getting rid of a narrow cycle lane for car parking and then putting a narrow cycle lane in the door zone. There is absolutely no leadership in terms of changing road use from local or national government. They are reacting to changes on the ground instead of promoting change.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

You make the point that London lies between Amsterdam and Copenhagen in population density (with Copenhagen being the densest). Hence what point are you trying to make in London being different when it comes to squeezing a quart into a pint pot?

Or are you making some other argument?

I make no point but leave it to others to draw their own conclusions as to what lessons from Copenhagen and Amsterdam might be or might not be applicable to a mahoosive, huge, ginormous world city like London.

Scale. It's all about scale. 70 million people use Victoria Undergound Station every year. The current Southern Railway, and the other TOCs operating over pre-nationalisation Southern Railway routes deposit more folk in central London every day than landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day.

London is epic in almost every way. Copenhagen and Amsterdam are mere provincial centres by comparison.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I make no point but leave it to others to draw their own conclusions as to what lessons from Copenhagen and Amsterdam might be or might not be applicable to a mahoosive, huge, ginormous world city like London.

Scale. It's all about scale. 70 million people use Victoria Undergound Station every year. The current Southern Railway, and the other TOCs operating over pre-nationalisation Southern Railway routes deposit more folk in central London every day than landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day.

London is epic in almost every way. Copenhagen and Amsterdam are mere provincial centres by comparison.

I know that London's on an epic scale but what solution does London Underground suggest when their trains can't cope?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24888358

 

[Richard Mann]

The key to a sane transport policy is dense cities and towns, good public transport and restrictions on car usage and parking. Cycling is nice to know, but follows on from the first three.

Basel is one of my favourites: dense, excellent public transport. Car modal split is an incredibly low 18%. Bikes definitely secondary.

 

[buggi]

[QUOTE 2733450, member: 259"]It looks like a trap to me - how deep is that pit? View attachment 31539 [/quote]
that's exactly what i thought LOL i had to enlarge the picture before my brain figured it out. How about i step off the bus into the path of one of you... And we split the compo?

 

[StuartG]

Scale. It's all about scale. 70 million people use Victoria Undergound Station every year. The current Southern Railway, and the other TOCs operating over pre-nationalisation Southern Railway routes deposit more folk in central London every day than landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. London is epic in almost every way. Copenhagen and Amsterdam are mere provincial centres by comparison.

My memories of Copenhagen Railway Station was it being guarded tighter than the Normandy Beaches by battalion after battalion of parked bikes. A misplaced addition would cause a Mexican wave of collapsing steeds that would have made Wembley proud. When it comes to scale packing in the density of bikes makes Copenhagen really mega by global standards - and if 90% of those bikes were replaced by cars or buses I think it would be tighter than Trafalgar Square on New Years Eve.

Remember London is a city of many villages. The villages are smaller than Copenhagen or Amsterdam and vary considerably. The comparisons are there if you want to look for them.

 

[srw]

Basel is one of my favourites: dense, excellent public transport. Car modal split is an incredibly low 18%. Bikes definitely secondary.

And yet there are more bikes in Basel city centre than in London. Despite an extensive network of trams. And all of them - trams, buses, bikes, cars - share the space very nicely.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My memories of Copenhagen Railway Station was it being guarded tighter than the Normandy Beaches by battalion after battalion of parked bikes. A misplaced addition would cause a Mexican wave of collapsing steeds that would have made Wembley proud. When it comes to scale packing in the density of bikes makes Copenhagen really mega by global standards - and if 90% of those bikes were replaced by cars or buses I think it would be tighter than Trafalgar Square on New Years Eve.

Remember London is a city of many villages. The villages are smaller than Copenhagen or Amsterdam and vary considerably. The comparisons are there if you want to look for them.

 

[ozzage]

You certainly are curious. I, on the other hand, have a question. How are you going to get CS7 stylee bike numbers down that lane?

And, sorry, but you don't have the smarts or the breadth of understanding, or even the interest in the wider world to decide by what measures this thing is a success or a failure. It is inherently a bad thing - that it will fail by the simplest metric than you can devise is merely the maraschino cherry on the icing of the cake that is a greater wisdom you're never going to be accross.

You've always been patronising and stubborn on this forum but this is great You have already decided that "this" is a bad thing, and seem willing to freely admit that any evidence that indicates otherwise will not be sufficient. Excellent science-based approach I must say. Anyhoo lots of fancy words but in the end you've said absolutely nothing.

Yes I do indeed (to answer a later post) think that I'm right that Dutch-style infrastructure is the answer. But I'm sure you guys also expect that YOU'RE right that it's not, so I can't imagine that that's a problem in itself. That's why I'm curious as to what would have to happen for people to think that Dutch-style segregation on main roads (not necessarily CS2X, which isn't amazingly well done) actually works and improves the experience for most people?

 

[Domestique]

Something has to change if you really want people out of cars and into the saddle, and I guess its going to be a mixture of everything rather than one thing. Just expecting people to look out for each other has failed miserably in the UK.
One good thing about the recent deaths its now getting the cycle debate into the main new programmes as opposed to local ones. Its going to take a brave PM to take the step and take on the car. I doubt its going to happen in my life.

 

[dellzeqq]

You've always been patronising and stubborn on this forum but this is great You have already decided that "this" is a bad thing, and seem willing to freely admit that any evidence that indicates otherwise will not be sufficient. Excellent science-based approach I must say. Anyhoo lots of fancy words but in the end you've said absolutely nothing.

Yes I do indeed (to answer a later post) think that I'm right that Dutch-style infrastructure is the answer. But I'm sure you guys also expect that YOU'RE right that it's not, so I can't imagine that that's a problem in itself. That's why I'm curious as to what would have to happen for people to think that Dutch-style segregation on main roads (not necessarily CS2X, which isn't amazingly well done) actually works and improves the experience for most people?

1. The lane would be a bad thing even if it drew the numbers that use CS7. See pedestrians, bus stops, public space and so on.........
2. It won't, because it's too small
Next!