Do we invest too little in public infrastructure, or too much? Should we spend more on new infrastructure, or in maintaining what we got? Should old infrastructure be replaced, upgraded, removed, or saved for posterity? Who should pay for it? Who should use it? What infrastructure should we have more of and what less? Is it good for your town, country, world, even if it is away from you? Where can we find good infrastructure and where bad?

An arrogant cyclist's contact with an arrogant motorist, secure in his steel carapace, could be his last.

That's very true but doesn't justifies bicycle paths. There are no free lunches, soon a specific bicycle tax will be created for, allegedly, supporting the costs of such nonsense.

A few European cities are doing it the right way, low car's velocity to 20km/h inside the city. I's better for everyone, much safer for walking people, children and cyclists and has no costs. A sane convivial amongst all the different types of street users is the right way for civilized cities.
Besides, much more automobilists will use bicycles - less pollution, less oil dependence.

The Rahmfather is continuing Daley the Younger's quest for more bicycle lanes and paths. Seems the Rahmfather doesn't agree with you about bicycle paths not being part of the infrastructure.

Out here in the suburbs, bicycle paths happen on the "rails to trails" model. The CA&E became the Prairie Path several decades back, and now the Chicago and Western has become part of it when that old railroad became abandoned.

I could wish they'd used something other than crushed limestone for the paths though. Horses beat that stuff to death out on the outer legs of the path, you can hardly walk on them much less ride a bike.

Try these:

Out here in the suburbs, bicycle paths happen on the "rails to trails" model. The CA&E became the Prairie Path several decades back, and now the Chicago and Western has become part of it when that old railroad became abandoned.

I could wish they'd used something other than crushed limestone for the paths though. Horses beat that stuff to death out on the outer legs of the path, you can hardly walk on them much less ride a bike.

Converting abandoned railroads seems to me a good idea, not as specific bicycle lanes but as a much more general concept, non motorized touristic infrastructures.

Certainly it needs a decent pavement where people can walk and ride but such infrastructures constitutes an investment for local tourism.

Nature and adventure tourism is growing much more than "traditional tourism", it makes sense to requalify those old infrastructures, create rural hotels unities and so on.

A few European cities are doing it the right way, low car's velocity to 20km/h inside the city. I's better for everyone, much safer for walking people, children and cyclists and has no costs. A sane convivial amongst all the different types of street users is the right way for civilized cities.

You're saying they don't have those in all of Europe? (Now that I think about it, I don't recall seeing many 30km/h zones in Italy, I suppose.) But this is exactly part of the kind of infrastructure I'm talking about. However, despite that cycling in Antwerp isn't terribly attractive because of all the cobblestones. I don't mind, but my bike can't stand 'em.

A perhaps typically American solution is to use big slabs of concrete:

Although I should add, those stones don't look so bad. Near me, you have these nasty stones (pic doesn't show 'em as that nasty), while the sidewalks are very nice.

Anyway, that just goes to show there isn't a one size fits all solution -- even within residential areas.

Total car speed limiting to such a low as 20 won't be good for the air conditions.

Total car speed limiting to such a low as 20 won't be good for the air conditions.

On the contrary.

Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15 percent, gear changing by 12 percent, brake use by 14 percent, and gasoline use by 12 percent (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39-40).

NB 20 miles per hour = 30 km per hour.

Damn' Germans must be right!;)
But still, Frans, Bel mentioned 20km/h, not miles.

Private cars are evil anyway. A net of public transport should exist, be developed and be attractive in terms of costs for the public.
In Britain I hear, public transportation will cost you more than a taxi in Moscow. It's insanity, don't you think?

In a (woon)erf,* the speed limit is at a footpace (although that actually means something like 15-20km/h, so more like a running pace). According to Wikipedia, about 20% of all Dutch homes stand in woonerven. The difference between a 30km/h regular street and a 15km/h (woon)erf is one of focus. I think the traffic sign should explain that clearly enough:



It's a shared space where all road users have equal rights. On a regular 30km/h street pedestrians should stick to the sidewalks.

* I wonder how Canadians pronounce the loanword.

Private cars are evil anyway. A net of public transport should exist, be developed and be attractive in terms of costs for the public.
In Britain I hear, public transportation will cost you more than a taxi in Moscow. It's insanity, don't you think?

That would depend on the price of a London taxi and the price of owning a car in Britain. The price of a Moscow taxi doesn't exactly enter the equation when I consider whether my public transit subscription is worth its money or not. That aside, I've heard bad things about Moscow taxis.

You're saying they don't have those in all of Europe? (Now that I think about it, I don't recall seeing many 30km/h zones in Italy, I suppose.)

In the South, we are Fangios...

Things are changing and the mortality level at roads and streets has dropped consistently for the last years, that's a good thing, no need to have a deadly civil war at our roads.
More people used to die in the roads every single year than due to thirteen years of war in the colonies.

I don't know about Moscow taxis, but looking at our local chauffeurs, I'd prefer public transport - unless in "life&death" circumstances.

On that "Dutch street" matter, I guess a Hollywoodian action-movie car chase will kill there everybody anyway:) Remember those Terminatorial stunts on pavements and similar mouseholes at a speed of ~100mi/h, huh?

Bel, I suppose some bad-headed pedestrians are worth running over, huh?
Some stroll across the street not even thinking about turning their head or like that. Some with juniors in cradles. Should people be to have a WALKING permit too? Like a driver's license?

In the South, we are Fangios... 

But we have Jos the Boss.

Things are changing and the mortality level at roads and streets has dropped consistently for the last years, that's a good thing, no need to have a deadly civil war at our roads.

Speaking of which, it would be interesting to see this table broken up into Flanders and Wallonia. You see, Wallonia has more traffic casualties in absolute numbers, despite being less populated.

(That being said, I do feel slightly safer on the road in the Netherlands than in Belgium.)

On that "Dutch street" matter, I guess a Hollywoodian action-movie car chase will kill there everybody anyway:) Remember those Terminatorial stunts on pavements and similar mouseholes at a speed of ~100mi/h, huh?

Dick Maas directs nice chases. The link point to Sint, a movie with an interesting roof/street chase. If you don't know the name, Dick Maas also directed Amsterdamned, the movie with what's probably the best canal chase I've seen, even if it was a bit jarring to see it cutting from canals in Amsterdam to canals in Utrecht. As a foreigner, that won't bother you.

YouTube provides:

see it cutting from canals in Amsterdam to canals in Utrecht. As a foreigner, that won't bother you.

It doesn't work for me.
I had a most entertaining night in Ultrecth were I managed to be expulsed from two nightclubs, so I know perfectly to distinguish cosmopolitan Amsterdam from the peasants of Ultrecht.

That was an historical trip by the way, I started discussing with a couple of Dutch idiotic policemen the moment I arrived at Schipoll.
You don't need no more infrastructures, what you need is to get rid of such people.

You don't need no more infrastructures, what you need is to get rid of such people.

They have 'em everywhere. But I thought EU citizens weren't given any trouble?

You don't need no more infrastructures, what you need is to get rid of such people.

They have 'em everywhere. But I thought EU citizens weren't given any trouble?

You don't seem to know me after all this time...
I had a discussion with those idiots because a) their faces irritated me and b) their metal machine detector kept on beeping and the idiots want me to pass again as if I had nothing better to do.

Besides I wanted to test their preparation for having real people showing them their place.
So I demanded immediately a pair of beautiful Dutch girls to offer me tulips to welcome my arrival to Holland instead of being importuned by a pair of idiots.

It was very interesting, I have to return one of these days.

Seems the Rahmfather doesn't agree with you about bicycle paths not being part of the infrastructure.

Of course they are.

That's because the Go Pro camera wide angle, it seems that the trail it's much more narrow than it really is.
Piece of cake.
Just can't do it with my bike because of the panniers... 

Riding Beijing's subway end to end: 88km of queues and crushes on a 20p ticket

In the next six and a half years, extensions to the Beijing subway will cover more ground than the entire London Underground network has in a century and a half.


Interactive graphic: the explosive growth of Beijing's metro system. Source: Wikipedia
Work on the Chinese capital's first line started in the 1960s and the vast majority of it opened in the last decade. Yet, at 465km long, it has already outgrown the Tube network by more than 50km. By 2020, an extra 400bn yuan (£40bn) of investment will see it more than double to 1,000km, according to Chinese media. The addition of 17 new lines will make it one of the world's longest networks.

Each day 9.75 million passengers ride the lines across Beijing: nearly three times as many as take the London Tube and twice as many as use the New York system. The subway's phenomenal expansion reflects that of the city it serves. Over the last decade or so, Beijing has grown by roughly half a million inhabitants each year - the equivalent of adding the entire populations of Sheffield or Tucson annually. The city is already home to 21 million; by 2020, a report warned last year, it is likely to have added another four million, on a conservative estimate.

Maybe China could use America as an extension seeing the money owed? 

There is opening 8 more metro lines, and an interesting overture for a railroad to Nepal (the mountainous country between China and India), we might take the train to Mount Everest soon, starting that airport, making an agreement on a railroad between Hungary and Greece, or Serbia for now.

It occurs to me that both jax and rjhowie might appreciate the Dutch television program Rail Away (links usable with youtube-dl here).

Thanks for the link there Frenzie although it is not in English. Always been a railway fan since a wee laddie and still the same asIi am deep into rail simulator work. Have built the 6 surviving lines in Ulster and now well over the Border into Eire doing that so when done my offering will be the largest train sim thing for that island.

here in Gt Britain passenger rail continually breaks records and now the latest i came across is that there are now more travelling than in the previous hey-day in the time before WW2. On my two Dutch visits i travelled on their railway and will do the same when i return in 2015. Even travelled on what is left in the ex-colonies over the Atlantic on both my trips years ago. Give me a train than a bus or plane any day! 

The way cities are set up can determine whether we feel compelled to use a car or bus to get to work, instead of our legs or a bike. Opting for the latter, the public health argument goes, is hugely beneficial on a variety of fronts. There's good evidence that cities designed to be walkable and bike-friendly carry both health and environmental benefits. Researchers in Barcelona, for example, recently measured the risks and benefits of the city's bike-sharing scheme, Bicing. They found that it got more people cycling, and reduced carbon dioxide emissions in the city.

As a recent Lancet report summed up: "Active travel (walking and cycling) can reduce the risk of ischaemic heart disease, obesity, diabetes, some types of cancer, and all-cause mortality, while also averting costs to health systems and reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Fifty percent of the world's population now lives in cities and that's only going to increase -- something the World Bank's Timothy Bouley, a health and climate specialist, sees as a huge global health opportunity. "If you build cities the right way -- with bike lanes, clean energy, the right kinds of bus and rapid transport systems, buildings with stairs instead of elevators -- you can really encourage healthy habits in people."