So, what do you think? Can there be such a thing as good bike infrastructure separated from motor traffic? Under what circumstances?
In Cambridge they built a cyclists bridge over the busy A14. The net result is two fold. First it allowed them to dedicate changes to the alternative road route to cars making it now extremely unpleasant to cycle. Second, following complaints, they announced that gritting the bridge in winter would be too expensive so that it remains icy in cold weather. Net result is a degradation, not improvement, in cycling.
-- Tony
"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate..." Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Den 2007-03-21 19:42:10 skrev Tony Raven <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Erik Sandblom wrote on 21/03/2007 17:05 +0100:
Quoted message said:
So, what do you think? Can there be such a thing as good bike infrastructure separated from motor traffic? Under what circumstances?
In Cambridge they built a cyclists bridge over the busy A14. The net result is two fold. First it allowed them to dedicate changes to the alternative road route to cars making it now extremely unpleasant to cycle. Second, following complaints, they announced that gritting the bridge in winter would be too expensive so that it remains icy in cold weather. Net result is a degradation, not improvement, in cycling.
Result is also a degradation of the town's finances, since more cycling will result in less road maintenance; while more car driving will result in higher maintenance costs.
Den 2007-03-21 19:42:10 skrev Tony Raven <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Erik Sandblom wrote on 21/03/2007 17:05 +0100:
Quoted message said:
So, what do you think? Can there be such a thing as good bike infrastructure separated from motor traffic? Under what circumstances?
In Cambridge they built a cyclists bridge over the busy A14. The net result is two fold. First it allowed them to dedicate changes to the alternative road route to cars making it now extremely unpleasant to cycle. Second, following complaints, they announced that gritting the bridge in winter would be too expensive so that it remains icy in cold weather. Net result is a degradation, not improvement, in cycling.
Result is also a degradation of the town's finances, since more cycling will result in less road maintenance; while more car driving will result in higher maintenance costs.
Will less driving impact tax revenues - fuel tax, road use tax, etc.? Is bicycle use taxed in any way there?
Den 2007-03-21 20:17:53 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Erik Sandblom said:
Den 2007-03-21 19:42:10 skrev Tony Raven <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Erik Sandblom wrote on 21/03/2007 17:05 +0100: > So, what do you think? Can there be such a thing as good bike > infrastructure separated from motor traffic? Under what circumstances?
In Cambridge they built a cyclists bridge over the busy A14. The net result is two fold. First it allowed them to dedicate changes to the alternative road route to cars making it now extremely unpleasant to cycle. Second, following complaints, they announced that gritting the bridge in winter would be too expensive so that it remains icy in cold weather. Net result is a degradation, not improvement, in cycling.
Result is also a degradation of the town's finances, since more cycling will result in less road maintenance; while more car driving will result in higher maintenance costs.
Will less driving impact tax revenues - fuel tax, road use tax, etc.? Is bicycle use taxed in any way there?
Fossil fuel is quite heavily taxed, but this tax goes to the national government, not to maintaining local roads.
I expect the money people save from driving less would be spent on other consumption. Consumption tax is the biggest source of revenue for the government, so the short-term net effect on government revenue would be neutral.
Den 2007-03-21 20:17:53 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Erik Sandblom said:
Den 2007-03-21 19:42:10 skrev Tony Raven <[email hidden]>:
> Erik Sandblom wrote on 21/03/2007 17:05 +0100: >> So, what do you think? Can there be such a thing as good bike >> infrastructure separated from motor traffic? Under what circumstances? > > In Cambridge they built a cyclists bridge over the busy A14. The > net result is two fold. First it allowed them to dedicate changes > to the alternative road route to cars making it now extremely > unpleasant to cycle. Second, following complaints, they announced > that gritting the bridge in winter would be too expensive so that it > remains icy in cold weather. Net result is a degradation, not > improvement, in cycling. Result is also a degradation of the town's finances, since more cycling will result in less road maintenance; while more car driving will result in higher maintenance costs.
Will less driving impact tax revenues - fuel tax, road use tax, etc.? Is bicycle use taxed in any way there?
Fossil fuel is quite heavily taxed, but this tax goes to the national government, not to maintaining local roads.
Is that /all/ fossil fuel, or just petrol/diesel for road use?
Quoted message said:
I expect the money people save from driving less would be spent on other consumption. Consumption tax is the biggest source of revenue for the government, so the short-term net effect on government revenue would be neutral.
Den 2007-03-21 21:02:14 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Is that /all/ fossil fuel, or just petrol/diesel for road use?
All fossil fuel. Few exceptions, such as airplane fuel and international ship transport. These are regulated by international protocolls.
Ethanol, biogas and other green fuels such as are not taxed, only 25% VAT.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I expect the money people save from driving less would be spent on other consumption. Consumption tax is the biggest source of revenue for the government, so the short-term net effect on government revenue would be neutral.
Den 2007-03-21 21:15:34 skrev Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Den 2007-03-21 21:02:14 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Is there any bicycle use tax?
No, just the 25% VAT.
Oh, you might find this interesting. The people studying the bridge say each new cyclist is rated at 2600kr/year in improved health, 186 pounds. Older people are worth more, because better health prolongs their healthy life more. Healthier people work more, thus pay more tax, and make less use of public health services.
Den 2007-03-21 21:15:34 skrev Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Den 2007-03-21 21:02:14 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Is there any bicycle use tax?
No, just the 25% VAT.
Erik Sandblom
Oh, you might find this interesting. The people studying the bridge say each new cyclist is rated at 2600kr/year in improved health, 186 pounds. Older people are worth more, because better health prolongs their healthy life more. Healthier people work more, thus pay more tax, and make less use of public health services.
So, what do you think? Can there be such a thing as good bike infrastructure separated from motor traffic? Under what circumstances?
In Cambridge they built a cyclists bridge over the busy A14. The net result is two fold. First it allowed them to dedicate changes to the alternative road route to cars making it now extremely unpleasant to cycle. Second, following complaints, they announced that gritting the bridge in winter would be too expensive so that it remains icy in cold weather. Net result is a degradation, not improvement, in cycling.
I think the failure to salt this route resulted from [censored] rather than conspiracy theory. The Bridge was built by Highways Agency (it is over Trunk Road) and it spans to LA boundaries. I've been told it WILL be salted in future, and that the priority for salting cycle routes in Cambridgeshire is under review. The existance of this bridge has I believe doubled cycling into Cambridge over that when it was necessary to use high speed r'about or narrow footpaths.
