Yes, but this can be used as an argument against supporting bicycles for commuting. E.g., "We will build recreational bike paths in the forest so streets can be kept for cars. We need to keep cars and bikes separate."

So, I personally believe that building brick roads with bike lanes in dense areas is a great solution. With brick, cars naturally slow and people naturally shop more.

That might work for recreational cycling but what about commuting?

I think this idea can be transferred to cities. To me the best bike network is one that is independent of the road network. Look at the 606 or lake front path in Chicago.

Look at Boulder Colorado which has an extensive network where many of the paths hug the creek running through the city.

The easiest place to start in most cities is to just build paths along rivers and streams that go beneath or above roads.

Yeah there are cities that build along rivers and streams, but we really need a cycle network built for connecting residential areas with employers via a direct path, the way we build roads.

Yeah, we'll just demolish a few houses to build a completely independent road network, just for bicycles. I'm sure that'll work.

It works in Houten, The Netherlands [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houten

Come visit!

>The design principle of separating cycling and walking from car traffic has been pushed to the limit. Houten is unique in this. Cycling comfort and safety are extremely high (optimal), even by Dutch standards. A large network of bike paths makes it convenient to cycle to various destinations and within the town the bike is the most popular means of transport. > The city of Houten is known as, nationally and internationally, and in growing interest from home and abroad, as the worlds best practical example for bicycle friendliness. A growing number of groups with politicians, developers, designers and students visit cycling city Houten for study purposes and inspiration.

You live there!?! It sounds wonderful.

This sort of thing is a big part of why places like Houten (and Odense - basically second or third tier cities with good infra but lower cost of living than capitals) are on our short list.

It's what they do for cars, and trucks, and anything that the municipality seems useful, so what's the difference?

When was the last time houses were demolished in a city for building more roads? We should treat space for traffic infrastructure as a fixed supply and take away space from cars for building cycling infrastructure. Building paths along rivers or through parks or such is almost always completely useless for commuters. Existing roads define the efficient connections between places people want to go. If you want cycling infrastructure that people use, you either need to put it where the roads are, or demolish housing to build new efficient routes.

A project to widen the 5 and 605 freeways means that approximately 200 homes in North Downey could be demolished if a Metro project goes ahead. https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/hundreds-of-homes-c...

Yes, Bikes, small e motar divery carts and a lane fore walking.

Been commuting daily through forests in different parts of Europe and had no problem, people regularly walked to work through the same paths. What's your concern?

The concern is that it's not often that your commute just goes through a forest. Usually it goes through some urban environment instead.

Many cities here have urban environment interlaced with parks. Although usually not our inner cities, but there cars are often banned altogether.