tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post3212118442477922171..comments2024-03-28T11:13:48.581+00:00Comments on i b i k e l o n d o n: Pie in the Skycycle; modernism and the anti-street cycle trackibikelondonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06978714126105951294noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-1361439211428155412014-06-07T06:13:11.419+01:002014-06-07T06:13:11.419+01:00Thanks for sharing this with us! Some really amazi...Thanks for sharing this with us! Some really amazing features.<br />Good contest , it’s really helpful for new bloggers. All the best guys Thank you for your post. This is excellent information.<br />To get new information visit here <br /><a href="http://tyreplusautocare.com.au/" rel="nofollow">auto mechanic Brisbane</a><br /><a href="http://tyreplusautocare.com.au/" rel="nofollow">Car Services Brisbane</a>caretyre554https://www.blogger.com/profile/03896439973482533770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-78964250005122659082014-01-10T09:50:06.723+00:002014-01-10T09:50:06.723+00:00Great post. I think you have hit the nail on the h...Great post. I think you have hit the nail on the head, above. I'm sure bike accidents occur on an 80/20 ratio. So let's tackle the problem areas first. <br />Coincidentally, I'm hoping a letter of mine about cycling and Bow Roundabout will appear in today's Evening Standard. Michael Willoughbyhttp://takooba.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-75656197291321199522014-01-09T23:22:04.330+00:002014-01-09T23:22:04.330+00:00Great post and great film (except for the implicit...Great post and great film (except for the implicit endorsement of Mondermanism). Obviously cycling is one way to make these white elephant walkways more usable, and the link you provided explains why and how that could and should happen. Some very good comments on your post too. Jim Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11396028149692613199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-3284165695058487732014-01-08T02:00:30.275+00:002014-01-08T02:00:30.275+00:00It's actually a curate's egg - there are s...It's actually a curate's egg - there are some parts of the concept that are good - clear routes to cycle through certain junctions which are grade separated would remove completely the hazards of large vehicles turning on paths which conflict with the paths taken by cyclists, and there would be time and effort saved by eliminating the controls required to stop crashes from unregulated conflicting movements.<br /><br />One key location already has an informal skyway in use - by over 60% of the cyclists going East-West between Stratford and Bow. Unfortunately TfL has put in a cycle route which is inherently dangerous, and despite only around 30% of cycle traffic using it there have been 3 deaths in 2 years, in near identical types of crash. So yes let's have a skyway here for a faster and safer route for all cyclists and pedestrians.<br /><br />So there are a few targetted locations where a current high flow of cycle traffic (or growing flow) can be taken through a junction in a way that keeps the cyclists moving and gets a high volume of cycle traffic through without conflict with other modes, pedestrians, drivers etc. Some may be skyways, others, given that the length of ramps to go under a road will be half the length required to go over, will go under, or have the road level raised (just like the Oxford Circus 'umbrella' for those who can remember the construction of the Victoria Line).<br /><br />One I'd like to see is Waterloo to Whitehall & the West End, using the existing Hungerford Bridge, but with ramped approaches from Northumberland Avenue, and the Victoria Embankment and connecting back at the same level as the railway viaduct to gate 3 at Waterloo. This would remove a huge volume of pedestrian and cycle traffic trying to cross York Road, and with a ramp down to Upper Ground, offers a way East avoiding the IMAX roundabout and Stamford Street, and avoiding Waterloo Bridge, saving substantial time on many journeys, as well as avoiding busier roads.<br /><br />So yes lets have some grade separation but sensibly targetted to deliver faster and safer cycle journeys, on the city's roads network.Dave Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11574227829528072780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-90746833628441790442014-01-07T11:14:56.716+00:002014-01-07T11:14:56.716+00:00Great post.
I don't think Foster's Blader...Great post.<br /><br />I don't think Foster's Bladerunner visions of the future (which aim to remove cyclists but do nothing to make surface streets safer or reduce pollution) border on the nightmarish and are something which we ought to reject outright if we want our cities to become more liveable.congokidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-42211058858581707112014-01-06T17:27:50.824+00:002014-01-06T17:27:50.824+00:00Another view similar to this one, exploring the op...Another view similar to this one, exploring the opportunity costs of a skyway scheme:<br /><br /><a href="http://orange20bikes.com/index.php/community/blog/1199-the-skyway-ain-t-my-way.html" rel="nofollow">The Skyway Ain't My Way</a><br /><br />From Los Angeles.rickrisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08029666421653240682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-55771114516302265822014-01-06T12:56:53.859+00:002014-01-06T12:56:53.859+00:00Mayors, local authorities, planners, architects et...Mayors, local authorities, planners, architects etc ignore the elephant in the room, ie should we confront excessive car use, because that elephant could stomp on them quite easily. The motor industry in its many manifestations is an immensely powerful and wealthy lobby - this despite the fact that there is hardly a single motor vehicle manufacturer in the world which has survived over the last century, or could survive the next one, without massive amounts of public subsidy (nationalisation followed by privatisation, industrial grants, dodgy procurement contracts for military vehicles etc) We have seen even in the great capitalist economy of the USA how Obama felt he had no option but to rescue General Motors from bankruptcy.<br />Actually, is it "despite" OR "because"?<br /><br />It is provable fact that if you reduce road space available to motors, they will adapt so that congestion reverts to its previous steady state. We saw that with the Olymics lanes, and we have seen it with temporary road or bridge closures, and indeed some permanent schemes like the pedestrianisation of the north side of Trafalgar square. I used to think of it in my own term of the "futility/frustration ratio" - at some point your frustration with the delays overpowers the futility of your trip. If the trip is important, like a plumber who has a job across town but really needs to use his van to carry all the pipes and joints and tools etc, you persevere. If it is trivial, like going to a garden centre with no clear idea of what you are going to buy, or even if you are going to by anything at all, because it is an "outing", and you end up going home empty-handed, then you will more quickly change your mind, and enjoy sitting in your garden instead. Anyway, I have now learned that there is in fact a professional term for this, the "Marchetti Wall", oft cited in works by Prof Jeff Kenworthy and his colleagues at the Curtin Institute at the University of Western Australia in Perth.<br />The motor lobby, lead by its attack dog Stephen Galister of the RAC Foundation, would no doubt riposte that those journeys you drive off the roads generate economic benefit, so reducing traffic reduces GDP. I think we all know that this argument is baloney - if a journey really is necessary, people will find an alternative way of making it, like catching the bus, for example, or cycling. I don't know how much research stands behind my faith in this, but Prof Kenworthy emerges again with a review of traffic growth and GDP growth in 50 major world cities, and shows that in a majority of cases GDP has grown more (or shrunk less) than traffic, suggesting that the two are not as related as Glaister et al might have you believe.Paul Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07929808238663838155noreply@blogger.com