I do not understand why a 2000 year old organically grown city should somehow work for cars but should be impossible to traverse by bike. That does not make any sense. Certainly it would be easier to fit bikes in there than cars. That is, unless you see the space yielded to cars as a void that has been absorbed and cannot be regain.

I didn't say it was impossible.

However, it's really your last point I was thinking of. It's a haphazard city of narrow streets given over to cars. That makes it a hard problem to solve.

As I said, anything is possible with enough will.

London doesn't work for cars. I endearingly call central london and m25 the biggest open space parking lots in the world

The biggest problem in London is the fragmentation. 32 boroughs + the City + TFL. It's planning chaos.

My borough of Waltham Forest, at least the parts inside the north circular, has segregated cycle lanes pretty much everywhere. Nextdoor in Haringey, not so much.

> The biggest problem in London is the fragmentation. 32 boroughs + the City + TFL. It's planning chaos.

It's chaos for just about everything else too, especially when it come to IT. Every council outsources the exact same functions to different companies and almost none of them do it well. It's a collosal waste of resources.

Is it even tenable to attempt this for the entirety of Greater London? Should the focus be on just improving Central London I wonder?

> evolved organically over 2000 years from its origin as Roman Londinium

Just as that other Roman town Lutetia. Paris and London are very similar in a lot of respects.

Paris' road system was redesigned. It seems far less haphazard than London to me, at least the bits I've seen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa...

Yes (and London is deadlier for cyclists), but that’s not because of the Roman origins of either city.