Roadspace for cars in London

[Jagmanv12]

Harji said:

Jagmanv12 said:

swisstoni said:

Bike lanes should be time restricted.
They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.

Lower/Upper Thames Street is a good example.
Google Earth shows the bike lane virtually empty and only one lane eastbound available for traffic (thus causing congestion and pollution - Mayor Kahn's pet subject.

That is poor, do you expect cycle lanes to be choc full of traffic? I used to know 5 people at work in dept of 20 that used it. Some cycled in from Ealing borders, that is 15-16 miles away, daily. I myself have used that stretch and always see cyclists. One snapshot on Google earth is an awful argument. I can show you plenty of country roads in that case that are 'empty'.

Of your 5 colleagues that cycled to work, did they then cycle around London during the day? Unlikely. I agree that there is a demand for cycle lanes at certain times (8-10 and 4-6 approx). Outside these times the road space should be available to all to reduce congestion, etc.

Although some country roads may appear "empty" they are available to all road users, something that cycle lanes with kerbs, etc are not.

[wst]

That's as stupid as saying "the pavements aren't constantly being used, we should be allowed to drive on those when they're fairly quiet".

"Hyde Park isn't constantly rammed chocka with people, just drive across the grass when it's quiet."

[CampDavid]

The cycle highways in London are very heavily used but cycling in town only really works if you're massively confident, cars and (especially buses) behave like complete s half the time and and the odd near miss is part of the deal.

Improve the cycling infrastructure further and you'll reduce congestion everywhere else.

[Killboy]

oyster said:

cb1965 said:

Nope as proper cities have modernised their transport infrastructure.

Which cities are these you refer to?

I've lived in New York, Tokyo and London amongst other places. Can't really recall any of them being easier than any other.

I've since been pondering this too. I doubt I've lived in as many cities as cb, but I keep thinking London may be the easiest actually to get around on public transport. New York "comes close", but its not as well connected, and nearly nobody with means travels MTA bus.

CB, which "proper" city has modernised their transport infrastructure? Bonus if you speaking from experience rather than google.

[swisstoni]

wst said:

That's as stupid as saying "the pavements aren't constantly being used, we should be allowed to drive on those when they're fairly quiet".

"Hyde Park isn't constantly rammed chocka with people, just drive across the grass when it's quiet."

I’m not sure anyone is saying that this roadspace should be freed up for private cars.

Actually I am against all private vehicle useage in central London - but that includes bikes!
If the wealth of public transport options isn’t good enough here of all places there must be something wrong with you frankly.

[C70R]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Jesus. That's a pretty impressive conspiracy theory...

[C70R]

Killboy said:

oyster said:

cb1965 said:

Nope as proper cities have modernised their transport infrastructure.

Which cities are these you refer to?

I've lived in New York, Tokyo and London amongst other places. Can't really recall any of them being easier than any other.

I've since been pondering this too. I doubt I've lived in as many cities as cb, but I keep thinking London may be the easiest actually to get around on public transport. New York "comes close", but its not as well connected, and nearly nobody with means travels MTA bus.

CB, which "proper" city has modernised their transport infrastructure? Bonus if you speaking from experience rather than google.

He won't answer - that's not how being a troll works.