13 Comments

  1. Responding to a comment in this thread:
    Some quick judgmental remark concerning elevated cycle tracks like the Xiamen Bicycle Skyway

    To me the Xiamen Bicycle Skyway seems ugly, impractical, and the wrong way to go.

    Ugly exactly because it is not part of the city but an eye soar the city is forced to look at.

    Impractical because it restricts freedom of movement. You can only have so many entries/exits to reach your specific destination/appartment/shop/house. Not to mention the fact that it is highly inflexible and hellish expensive to build.

    Not the way to go because it emphasizes and stimulates the motor traffic conveniently speeding around below these elevated tracks on the privileged ground level. Not to mention the fact that you cycle literally above a smog infested area for the convenience of this motor traffic.
    Note: The way to go for cities is public mass transportation, walking and bicycling. Cars, including electric cars, take up way too much space. See, among others:
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioSZOt37PBo&t=138s

    Elevated tracks do have their purpose, like the Hovenring in The Netherlands. But should be the exception and not the rule. As is the case with the Hovenring or the cykelslangen in Copenhagen..

    Note: Los Angelus and London have the same silly idea about bicycle skyways (also called "elevated bikeways").

  2. 0 bicycle or pedestrian deaths for the entire year! That is amazing. I doubt most or even ANY of the US cities of similar size can ever boast that.

Leave A Reply