Ivonne, the reason dedicated traffic lanes are provided on main roads is partly, as Sean says, that it's quicker because they are more direct, but also that they tend to be wider and thus more suitable for separate lanes. The kind of route you suggest is more suitable for the non-commuters, a large proportion of people cycling than the faster/leisure cyclists - and what you see so much of in more civilised countries like the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, to take just three.Going back to your earlier post, you say that “drawing a parallel between use of cycle lanes and bus lanes is perhaps pushing it a bit too far” because buses have timetables - but, because of the other motor traffic, buses have no chance of keeping to timetables except at the start of their route, so the point is moot. The point of my parallel was argue that a dedicated lane might well be empty much of the time, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t used at all.You also argue that the need is to reduce congestion, not increase it by reducing road space. But that simply doesn’t work: if road space is increased, it just generates more traffic, so you end up with the same level of congestion but more pollution. Hence the ever-present governing myth of traffic management, believed by many professionals in the field as well as by other commentators, that you need “to keep the traffic flowing.” That just produces the same as increasing capacity.
Richard Carter ● 1285d