[vonmoltke]

> I don't believe signalling is not needed for bike-only infrastructure. I don't know of any cities that have signals where bikes are separated from cars.

Are intersections just a free-for-all then? I find congested pedestrian intersections bad enough to navigate. I would hate to see a congested, uncontrolled bicycle intersection.

> Bike infrastructure is cheaper in other ways. You need a much smaller surface for the same amount of traffic, and paved surfaces degrade at a much slower rate with lighter traffic.

I'll grant that people density is higher and wear is lighter. I don't agree with the "much", though, since bicycles not riding in a coordinated group still need a fair amount of space and, as I said, the road surface needs to be maintained to higher standards.

> You also don't need the sliproads, the same levels of crash barrier, and so on. It's just not a serious comparison.

If I am interpreting "sliproad" correctly, that's only a feature of limited-access roads. Ditto crash barriers. I don't see how that's relevant to cities.

[JAlexoid]

What do you mean "higher standards"? The standards for regular roads are way more than enough for cyclists. Bike paths are not supposed to be racetracks.