Originally Posted by cooker
I've thought about this concept for years - after all, motor vehicles have their own protected freeways like the Gardiner and the DVP. I've also wondered if there should be a separate bike lane in the subway tunnel. One time I went along Bloor looking to see if the area above the subway tunnel would work as a course for an elevated bikeway, but there are too many interruptions.
The problem with trying to install this system in the city is that people would see the elevated tubes as an eyesore, even though they are blind to the effects of intense car traffic on their quality of life. As well there is a risk, just like with separate bike paths, that people would use bikeways as an excuse to kick bikes off the street.
I think it's more feasible to work towards a Danish model as in the City of Cyclists thread.
I tend to think the City of Cyclists model is more realistic and feasible, but the idea of the covered tubes is compelling. I think you are right that people would see the tubes as unnecessary and obtrusive, but what if they could be installed not over an avenue like Bloor St., but perhaps secondary routes like College St., Dundas St., Front St, Bay St., Jarvis St., etc., with single routes out to the east, west and north? If there weren't many bike tubes and they were over streets that are not as either vital or trendy like Bloor, Yonge or Queen, people would be more willing to accept them. I think that could be feasible and if we have a city government that can sell it, that can be energized with the same passion that Copenhagen has, it could work---not without modification and revision, not without protest or complaint or challenge---but it could be done. Pointing out the easier flow of motor traffic (with fewer cars as more people take up cycling and no cyclists to contend with as well), less crowded subways, etc., citizens just might be convinced it's the way to go.