True, but perspective matters!
From the public funding bodies and the taxpayers perspective,
cycling infrastructure is better value for money. You get more
problems solved for bucks invested.
But from the traditional planners and construction industry's
point of view it's the opposite!!!
The more problems get solved with less money, the less they earn
and the less follow-up problems appear - to be then again "solved"
with other expensive big scale projects.
T+
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
The reason that cycling gets left out of schemes
like this is that it doesn't cost enough to bolster the egos of
those doing the planning. Engineers and politicians like to be
able to spend significant amounts of money so that they can
justify their jobs, and cycling just isn't expensive enough. If
the schemes don't have a cost with a row of noughts after it, it
can't be important. See also Parkinson's Laws.
The fact that it is many times better value for money than any
of the other schemes means that it should be first on the list,
but this is the UK, where egos matter more than reality.
--
WED, THU & FRI at the University.
--
Tadej Brezina, Univ.Ass. Dipl.-Ing.
Research Center of Transport Planning and Traffic Engineering
Institute of Transportation
Vienna University of Technology
Gußhausstraße 30/230-1 | A-1040 Wien
--
[log in to unmask]
Tel: +43-(0)1-58801-23127
Fax: +43-(0)1-58801-23199
http://www.ivv.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.facebook.com/IVV.TUW
DVR: 0005886
--
(PC TUW-IVV)