At leats for Hamburg the plan was to invest 3.2billion into transport infrastructure from 2023-2026 of which 126million€ goest into roads for cars. That is a bit more then half they put into pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and absolutly dwarved by the extension of metro, regional rail and other public transport costs.
That being said that is the city and the federal government is covering up a long stretch of highway in Hamburg, which is extremely expensive.
That’s based of Hamburg as far as explicit costs go, but there’s also implicit costs. I don’t know Hamburg, I’ve never been there, but I’ll make an assumption that it’s like every other big city with urban parking and ICE cars stuck in traffic every morning, bellowing fumes out for everyone to breathe.
It is my argument that for every dollar you don’t explicitly spend on car infrastructure, you’ll get it back tenfold in implicit costs being alleviated elsewhere, especially in the physical- and mental healthcare sectors.
I don’t know Hamburg, I’ve never been there, but I’ll make an assumption that it’s like every other big city with urban parking and ICE cars stuck in traffic every morning, bellowing fumes out for everyone to breathe.
In the olden days Hamburgs city planners really thought cyclists were awesome. Like awesome enough to jump over a fully grown tree on the cycling path. Also it is the largest city in the EU without a tram system…
Spending twice as much money on walking and cycling infrastructure as on car infrastructure isn’t too bad, especially when you consider that roads for cars cost 20x more per km than roads for bikes.
Hamburg for sure isn’t a paradise for cyclists, and they still build a fair share of stupid infrastructure, but it’s already gotten a lot better than 10 or 20 years ago.
At leats for Hamburg the plan was to invest 3.2billion into transport infrastructure from 2023-2026 of which 126million€ goest into roads for cars. That is a bit more then half they put into pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and absolutly dwarved by the extension of metro, regional rail and other public transport costs.
That being said that is the city and the federal government is covering up a long stretch of highway in Hamburg, which is extremely expensive.
That’s based of Hamburg as far as explicit costs go, but there’s also implicit costs. I don’t know Hamburg, I’ve never been there, but I’ll make an assumption that it’s like every other big city with urban parking and ICE cars stuck in traffic every morning, bellowing fumes out for everyone to breathe.
It is my argument that for every dollar you don’t explicitly spend on car infrastructure, you’ll get it back tenfold in implicit costs being alleviated elsewhere, especially in the physical- and mental healthcare sectors.
Thanks I’ll never visit Hamburg
In the olden days Hamburgs city planners really thought cyclists were awesome. Like awesome enough to jump over a fully grown tree on the cycling path. Also it is the largest city in the EU without a tram system…
Spending twice as much money on walking and cycling infrastructure as on car infrastructure isn’t too bad, especially when you consider that roads for cars cost 20x more per km than roads for bikes. Hamburg for sure isn’t a paradise for cyclists, and they still build a fair share of stupid infrastructure, but it’s already gotten a lot better than 10 or 20 years ago.