In Copenhagen they construct temporary segregated cycle lanes overnight

turnerjohn wrote:

Other than athletics (looks like a dogs dinner!) What about pedestrians ?...narrow foot way with admit idly hardly any peds, and what about buses ? What happens at junctions ?

Copenhagen pretty much banned traffic from their city centre so they have the space....lots of it....we (well namely London) simply dont have the space for it all.....ppl seem to forget that !

That's rubbish, a lot of the cities roads are 2 lanes both directions, there's the odd bit here and there that's small roads, I'm referring roughly to the congestion charging zone here and close surrounding areas.

kie7077 wrote:

turnerjohn wrote:

Other than athletics (looks like a dogs dinner!) What about pedestrians ?...narrow foot way with admit idly hardly any peds, and what about buses ? What happens at junctions ?

Copenhagen pretty much banned traffic from their city centre so they have the space....lots of it....we (well namely London) simply dont have the space for it all.....ppl seem to forget that !

That's rubbish, a lot of the cities roads are 2 lanes both directions, there's the odd bit here and there that's small roads, I'm referring roughly to the congestion charging zone here and close surrounding areas.

Traffic in central Copenhagen travels a lot faster than in central London a cab ride can be quite thrilling.

They have the advantage of long straight avenues to the centre and the lights are sequenced so that you get to ride the green wave through them (the same for cyclists too).

Side streets onto these avenues are light controlled and make you wait taking out any rat running advantage.

Hence nice pleasant side streets for pedestrians.

turnerjohn wrote:

Other than athletics (looks like a dogs dinner!) What about pedestrians ?...narrow foot way with admit idly hardly any peds, and what about buses ? What happens at junctions ? 

You complain about buses and ped access...

but then state..... 

[quote=Copenhagen pretty much banned traffic from their city centre so they have the space....lots of it....we (well namely London) simply dont have the space for it all.....ppl seem to forget that !

[/quote]    !!

Bit confused? Or out for a spot of trolling?

In order to gain space from any city / town centre to install cycling infra - you would be wise to banish non-essential traffic (why should cyclists ahve to breathe the filth from persistent and anti-social, excess motor journeys!).

Getting rid of side-street through traffic and keeping motor traffic on main routes only is one step whther taken in conjunction with traffic reduction beforehand or not.

There are no reasons why London cannot proceed with such measures (other than the likelihood of more barking from the fevered imagination of the Daily Mail plague dogs and their followers). 

brooksby wrote:

It's worrying that their temporary infrastructure is so much better than the vast majority of our permanent infrastructure...

better for the cyclists maybe - but ours are priced at £2 million a metre, which makes ours much better for the economy, moving large amounts of money to contractors and allowing council members to justify their budgets, grease a few palms, and take backhanders - plus, as ours are not fit for purpose, the same huge amounts of money can be moved around again in a few years.

beezus fufoon wrote:

brooksby wrote:

It's worrying that their temporary infrastructure is so much better than the vast majority of our permanent infrastructure...

better for the cyclists maybe - but ours are priced at £2 million a metre, which makes ours much better for the economy, moving large amounts of money to contractors and allowing council members to justify their budgets, grease a few palms, and take backhanders - plus, as ours are not fit for purpose, the same huge amounts of money can be moved around again in a few years.

Youre right: I was thinking about the wrong mode of transport (bicycles vs gravy train)

beezus fufoon wrote:

brooksby wrote:

It's worrying that their temporary infrastructure is so much better than the vast majority of our permanent infrastructure...

but ours are priced at £2 million a metre...

As far as I understand it, the '£2million per metre' is the cost of the fully segregated CS routes, which,  though excellent examples of how things ought to be, only exist on a handful of routes in London so far.

The years of data and figures compiling and modelling and  consulting,- often ending up in more waiting and more obfuscation - has been the procedure so far.

Anyone with the remotest understanding of the benefits and huge wins from a mass, inclusive cycling culture, would get a trialled network in  fast: it would be cheap, with adjustments made as and when - before making permanent (unless the public don't actually want to get around in a way that saves money, is quick and efficient, healthy and makes you feel better, great fun and environment enhancing).    

In London, the mayor and TfL have gone down the route of yet another 'fact-finding' mission all to show that 'their way is better than the last administration's' - and...also to let themselves off the hook when it comes to complting with the outcomes of certain consultations (that require the undertaking of a complex task, such as locking a handful of park gates a twice a day) can be put off indefinitely, since no-one wants to upset mrs 'Bikes cause pollution' and pals that are devoted to retaining their convenient route (rat-run) to the west end - do they!)

Consultations should not be required for essential public health measures. The evidence is stacking up on too many levels.

You don't listen to objectors who are perverse, devious and loud (look at the repellent mob of local 'residents' action' groups, LTDA and a hotellier who have cost  Camden several weeks of time and money - to the tune of several thousands of pounds - to defend a leading example of cycling provision at Tavistock Place, Bloomsbury).

A trialled cycling network in every UK city and town needs to be created urgently - London should have been leading the way on this. 

emishi55 wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

brooksby wrote:

It's worrying that their temporary infrastructure is so much better than the vast majority of our permanent infrastructure...

but ours are priced at £2 million a metre...

 

As far as I understand it, the '£2million per metre' is the cost of the fully segregated CS routes, which,  though excellent examples of how things ought to be, only exist on a handful of routes in London so far.

 

The years of data and figures compiling and modelling and  consulting,- often ending up in more waiting and more obfuscation - has been the procedure so far.

that figure was from proposals for Exeter I think, IIRC

You're right about the added costs of procedural rumination, but I believe it is also the style - the lanes in the above pictures, and those generally found in the Netherlands and Denmark, have not required huge upheaval - I suspect some of the contributing factors here are that, unlike in the UK, they are not afraid to take existing road space from motorised vehicles, and so the lanes are not simply tacked on like an afterthought.

It seems to me that the cycle lanes in the UK are built as if they have to take the same axle weight as the road - they are also designed with unnecessary and unhelpfully high kerbs on both sides, which coupled with their narrowness, makes for an experience like a cattle run - which is equally a reflection of the UK's overly procedural and officious process compared with the more casual method and appearance of these European cycle lanes.