Originally Posted by
kmv2
It still perpetuates the fact that things are too far apart. Wasting effort for no reason, when you could just build things properly to begin with.
Separated streets don't work because street level business suffers.
Look at a city that has elevated walking platforms or pedestrian tubes. They're probably crumbling and not used very much.
People use those when they are forced to, its usually quicker to just use the street sidewalk. All the destinations are down at street level anyways.
The ped ways that you're describing are very local. I'm talking about a bike system that would be many miles long. It would be analogous to a subway rather than your shopping district ped ways. Stops (access points) would be a half mile apart. This would encourage infill and dense development around the stops, just like a subway does.
Here is a link to an amazing
aerial photograph of Arlington County, VA. It clearly shows how a subway leads to the development of dense mixed-use nodes clustered around the subway stops. This is one way to achieve the type of dense city you say you want. I think if you had 50% of urban trips on elevated bike tubes, they could lead to desirable development patterns much like well used subways do.
Another topic you mention in your first paragraph is the inefficiency of low density development. I totally agree. But I think bikes are most practical in medium density areas, where many destinations are a bike-friendly 3 to 5 miles away. This is too far to walk, but too close to drive or take a subway. Many areas in north america are developed to medium densities with single family homes built on narrow lots with continuous strip shopping on major thoroughfares. Almost my entire suburban city, including adjacent suburbs, is this kind of medium density. I find it is a pleasure to use a bicycle as primary transportation in this area.