TheEngineer wrote:Bike engineers shouldn't be designing for those people who already ride.
manning wrote:TheEngineer wrote:Bike engineers shouldn't be designing for those people who already ride.
TheEngineer wrote: Not suer why you would want to continue to support traffic flow through the city. We should be doing the opposite. 60% of cars in the city are actually travelling through the city. Why encourage them. There are much better uses of 3m x 2lanes of traffic
Canuck wrote:manning wrote:TheEngineer wrote:Bike engineers shouldn't be designing for those people who already ride.
But in the end, they are essentially also designing (on-road stuff at least) for those who already ride, because once bike lanes (of any type) are in place, the lane must be used 'where practical' (or whatever the wording is...)
lomlate wrote:I don't have evidence, but I recall somebody saying the counts on Albert street went up dramatically. One thing to consider though is that it's likely people who were taking other routes decided to go on albert as a result of the lane. That's not exactly proof that the total number of cyclists in the area have increased.
fixie wrote:I received the BVN In the Loop thing today. Vic Roads are expressing a desire not to reduce the carrying capacity of the roads , especially during peak hour. In my opinion, we should be measuring the carrying capacity by the number of people moved rather than the number of vehicles, or if we are to count the number of vehicles, then each individual bicycle should be counted with the other vehicles. I do not think that cars as a vehicle should be given the same weight as buses or even bicycles because per person, cars take up the most road real estate.
Users browsing this forum: AndrewR101 and 2 guests