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

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!

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

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.

--
JS

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.

Compaq linked its buildings in a forest outside of Houston with bridges.
They were really for pedestrians but I think they used bicycles inside
as well because it was a long distance around. The bridges linked
factory buildings, parking garages, and offices.

All of that ended when HP bought them. A lot of the buildings were sold
off to a college, and some were torn down.

During evening rush hour in Silicon Valley a bicycle is often a faster
commute than a car for commutes of up to ten miles. Even the HOV lanes
are now full of single-occupancy Teslas, Leafs, Volts, and Plug-In
Priuses. Mass transit is a dirty word, and the transportation agency is
hopelessly inept.

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

The currently fashionable propaganda is that nothing less than a
"protected cycletrack" is acceptable. "Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs
and rules, with "sharrows" on the pavement? Terrible idea! A bike lane
stripe? Horribly inadequate! A "buffered" bike lane, with a
no-person's-land between motor vehicles and bicyclists? Maybe
acceptable to some, but really not good enough. Only a completely
separate bike trail, or a cycletrack with car-proof barriers is good enough.

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

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 7:09:29 PM UTC-5, 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. Trouble is, most
of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

The currently fashionable propaganda is that nothing less than a
"protected cycletrack" is acceptable. "Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs
and rules, with "sharrows" on the pavement? Terrible idea! A bike lane
stripe? Horribly inadequate! A "buffered" bike lane, with a
no-person's-land between motor vehicles and bicyclists? Maybe
acceptable to some, but really not good enough. Only a completely
separate bike trail, or a cycletrack with car-proof barriers is good enough.

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

Why the **** does everything have to get highjacked by you and your damn anti agendas? The OP was about a bridge linking to towers and two islands 2 kilometers from any other bridge. it was NOT about bloody cycle paths in the united Statews!

Geeze!

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!


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


There are very few examples of good infrastructure in Australia. Most
is tokenism, or window dressing. Like putting lipstick on a pig.

--
JS

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 4:29:23 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 7:09:29 PM UTC-5, 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. Trouble is, most
of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

The currently fashionable propaganda is that nothing less than a
"protected cycletrack" is acceptable. "Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs
and rules, with "sharrows" on the pavement? Terrible idea! A bike lane
stripe? Horribly inadequate! A "buffered" bike lane, with a
no-person's-land between motor vehicles and bicyclists? Maybe
acceptable to some, but really not good enough. Only a completely
separate bike trail, or a cycletrack with car-proof barriers is good enough.

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

Why the **** does everything have to get highjacked by you and your damn anti agendas? The OP was about a bridge linking to towers and two islands 2 kilometers from any other bridge. it was NOT about bloody cycle paths in the united Statews!

Geeze!

You watch your ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY

On 11/24/2015 7:29 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 7:09:29 PM UTC-5, 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. Trouble is, most
of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

The currently fashionable propaganda is that nothing less than a
"protected cycletrack" is acceptable. "Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs
and rules, with "sharrows" on the pavement? Terrible idea! A bike lane
stripe? Horribly inadequate! A "buffered" bike lane, with a
no-person's-land between motor vehicles and bicyclists? Maybe
acceptable to some, but really not good enough. Only a completely
separate bike trail, or a cycletrack with car-proof barriers is good enough.

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

Why the **** does everything have to get highjacked by you and your damn anti agendas? The OP was about a bridge linking to towers and two islands 2 kilometers from any other bridge. it was NOT about bloody cycle paths in the united Statews!

Geeze!

Geeze indeed, Sir. What did you want me to say? "Oooh, let's build
those everywhere!"?

In fact, why did you post that at all?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 11/24/2015 7:29 PM, James wrote:
On 25/11/15 10:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:


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

Progress.

My attitude's always been the same on that.

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!


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


There are very few examples of good infrastructure in Australia. Most
is tokenism, or window dressing. Like putting lipstick on a pig.

Part of the problem is a lack of appreciation for the real-world
complexities and hazards. It's really true that in my state we have
bike advocacy organizations demanding crazy facilities, with "protected"
cycletracks being high on the list. (Door zone bike lanes have also
been demanded.)

In one case I'm well aware of, when a traffic engineer who was also an
avid and competent bike commuter designed something other than a
cycletrack, the local advocacy organization and an "alternative
newspaper" raked him over the coals mercilessly and demanded he be fired.

Why? Because he had looked at actual crash data, examined actual
traffic patterns, noted lots of driveway and side street conflicts, and
decided a "protected cycletrack" would not be protected at all; that it
would put cyclists in danger many times per block.

Many advocates don't understand that usually, the only true "separation"
is vertical separation - that is, grade separation. The interactions at
intersections and driveways are invisible to these folks. Which is a
recipe for crashes should they get what they want.

Sometimes, perhaps most times, the best strategy is to keep cyclists
visible in the lane, and come down hard on the over privileged motorists.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 25/11/15 13:46, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Part of the problem is a lack of appreciation for the real-world
complexities and hazards. It's really true that in my state we have
bike advocacy organizations demanding crazy facilities, with "protected"
cycletracks being high on the list. (Door zone bike lanes have also
been demanded.)

In one case I'm well aware of, when a traffic engineer who was also an
avid and competent bike commuter designed something other than a
cycletrack, the local advocacy organization and an "alternative
newspaper" raked him over the coals mercilessly and demanded he be fired.

Why? Because he had looked at actual crash data, examined actual
traffic patterns, noted lots of driveway and side street conflicts, and
decided a "protected cycletrack" would not be protected at all; that it
would put cyclists in danger many times per block.

Many advocates don't understand that usually, the only true "separation"
is vertical separation - that is, grade separation. The interactions at
intersections and driveways are invisible to these folks. Which is a
recipe for crashes should they get what they want.

Sometimes, perhaps most times, the best strategy is to keep cyclists
visible in the lane, and come down hard on the over privileged motorists.



It would seem the Danes have successfully removed the hazard using their
bridge.

--
JS