New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High CycleBridge

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James
wrote:

On 25/11/15 10:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 5:18 PM, James wrote:
On 25/11/15 02:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 12:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
"A new pair of skyscrapers linked by a pedestrian and cycle bridge
will be built in Copenhagen Harbour with construction due to start in
2016.

The unusual new design is the work of New York-based architect Steven
Holl and will feature an angled bridge 65m above the water's surface.

The bridge needs to be high up in order to allow enough room for
cruise ships to safely pass by below. "

Article herte:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/skyscraper...164450982.html




How innovative!! Finally, cyclists will have a safe place to ride
between skyscrapers!

See, that's the trouble with North America. The Danes are willing to
invest in REAL segregation, separating bicyclists from motor vehicle by
over 150 feet of VERTICAL space. But North American traffic engineers
still expect cyclists to ride on the ground! And why? Just to save tax
money!!

You can't expect everyone 8 through 80 to ride on the ground! Only the
"strong and fearless" will ever ride on the ground!



Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.

I'm fine with that segregation where it makes sense.

Progress.

Trouble is, most
of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

Agree, same in Australia. The designers don't seem to have any
comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't, or if they do, there
are so many other requirements of the surrounding infrastructure, too
many compromises have to be made.

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!


Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?

--

Cheers,

John B.

On 11/25/2015 3:25 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?

Thank goodness we don't have that system in the U.S..

On 11/25/2015 6:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James
wrote:

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!


Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?

Any democracy needs provisions to guarantee that the rights of
minorities are not taken away by the majority.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 6:09:29 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 5:18 PM, James wrote:

deleted
With "safety inflation" so rampant, maybe vertical segregation will be
the next plea. After all, if the Dutch can do it, why can't Americans?
http://hovenring.com/

If you like, we can explore what segregation schemes actually do make
sense. There are some I favor.

--
- Frank Krygowski

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...030-story.html

Just build them high enough.

On 25/11/2015 6:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James
wrote:

On 25/11/15 10:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 5:18 PM, James wrote:
On 25/11/15 02:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 12:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
"A new pair of skyscrapers linked by a pedestrian and cycle bridge
will be built in Copenhagen Harbour with construction due to start in
2016.

The unusual new design is the work of New York-based architect Steven
Holl and will feature an angled bridge 65m above the water's surface.

The bridge needs to be high up in order to allow enough room for
cruise ships to safely pass by below. "

Article herte:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/skyscraper...164450982.html




How innovative!! Finally, cyclists will have a safe place to ride
between skyscrapers!

See, that's the trouble with North America. The Danes are willing to
invest in REAL segregation, separating bicyclists from motor vehicle by
over 150 feet of VERTICAL space. But North American traffic engineers
still expect cyclists to ride on the ground! And why? Just to save tax
money!!

You can't expect everyone 8 through 80 to ride on the ground! Only the
"strong and fearless" will ever ride on the ground!



Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.

I'm fine with that segregation where it makes sense.

Progress.

Trouble is, most
of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

Agree, same in Australia. The designers don't seem to have any
comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't, or if they do, there
are so many other requirements of the surrounding infrastructure, too
many compromises have to be made.

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!


Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?


Hmmm. Sounds like a new concept. Here in Canada the head of the party
with the majority of seats makes the decisions. The norm is about 30%
or registered voters. Parliamentary Democracy.

On 11/24/2015 2:18 PM, James wrote:

Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.

Our governments still bend to the masses cries for more lanes on the
road so they can be filled by more cars. Cars that usually only carry 1
person (about 1.1 is the average I think), and if the US is anything
like Australia, where 50% of car trips are up to 5km.

Depends on how good the cycling advocacy groups are and how bad the
city's public works and traffic engineers are.

Just in my area, I can see extremely well designed segregated schemes,
adequate schemes, and awful schemes.

The well designed schemes have enabled bicycle commuting to areas that
previously were not very accessible due to barriers that were difficult,
time-consuming, or dangerous to get around. Bicycle bridges and
underpasses to get past freeways, railroad tracks, and waterways have
been a big help.

I have seen the gradual improvements and taken advantage of many of
them. Lately, some cities have been removing traffic lanes and adding
bike lanes. And in San Francisco, they have banned private cars on the
busiest part of Market Street (though this has had terrible effects on
other streets). I like what San Francisco did along the Embarcadero
where there is a separated trail for those that want to use it and not
go very fast, and a bike lane for those that want to go faster.
Unfortunately, the fast bike lane is only on the Bay side. Going the
other direction is very unpleasant.

On 11/25/2015 1:53 PM, sms wrote:

The well designed schemes have enabled bicycle commuting to areas that
previously were not very accessible due to barriers that were difficult,
time-consuming, or dangerous to get around. Bicycle bridges and
underpasses to get past freeways, railroad tracks, and waterways have
been a big help.

I'm in favor of good accommodations for cyclists being included any time
a freeway is built. That could include bike trails parallel to the
freeway in certain places, and bike/ped access across the freeway in
other places.

Freeways form significant barriers to their crossing, and bridges or
underpasses are often miles apart, with former roads cut off into
cul-de-sacs. These situations are only minor problems for motorists,
but can be big problems for a pedestrian or bicyclist.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 2:31:48 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/25/2015 1:53 PM, sms wrote:
Snipped
Freeways form significant barriers to their crossing, and bridges or
underpasses are often miles apart, with former roads cut off into
cul-de-sacs. These situations are only minor problems for motorists,
but can be big problems for a pedestrian or bicyclist.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Which is exactly why they're building that bicycle/pedestrian bridge Ilinked to. I's TWO KILOMETERS to the closest bridge from this new bridge. That means it would be 4 kilometers ride to cross that river without the brige = 2 kilometers to the closest bridge and two kilometers back.

Cheers

On 11/25/2015 2:54 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 2:31:48 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/25/2015 1:53 PM, sms wrote:
Snipped
Freeways form significant barriers to their crossing, and bridges or
underpasses are often miles apart, with former roads cut off into
cul-de-sacs. These situations are only minor problems for motorists,
but can be big problems for a pedestrian or bicyclist.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Which is exactly why they're building that bicycle/pedestrian bridge Ilinked to. I's TWO KILOMETERS to the closest bridge from this new bridge. That means it would be 4 kilometers ride to cross that river without the brige = 2 kilometers to the closest bridge and two kilometers back.

Cheers


As reported here by Mr Koerber:

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cycl...openhagen.html

Copenhagen to cyclists: drop dead.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:13:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/25/2015 6:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James
wrote:

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!


Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?

Any democracy needs provisions to guarantee that the rights of
minorities are not taken away by the majority.

What rights are those? The right to smoke dope? Or the right that
although we can't afford it we have the right to a mortgage for a big
fancy home? Or the one that says we don't have to obey traffic laws if
we don't want to?

--

Cheers,

John B.