Honestly, which insane person was driving through the center of Brussels if they didn’t need to be there
Antwerp should be next.
And how are they going to enforce that?
If they intend to make me have to drive around Brussels longer then necessary, they succeeded. [Point 1](https://www.brussel.be/sites/default/files/bxl/Good_Move_Vijfhoek_Kaart-met_tekst.pdf) makes it mandatory to turn right onto the ring instead of just letting me cross the ring to leave Brussels. Can anyone tell me how this is an improvement ?
I’ve drawn it on a map, going to mail them asking what the improvement is: [here](https://ibb.co/WfqRysJ)
Red arrow is how it used to be, green is the ‘improvement’.
Logical
Paris is slowly but surely jumping on the cycling train too. I can only see this trend accelerate for both Paris, brussels and many of the smaller cities around western EU.
All that is required is improving alternatives & pushing traffic that does not need to be right there out. Through traffic is a good start.
Goed plan! Werkt al sinds 1977 in Groningen, Nederland:
I don’t understand though, they can block apps like the steps to enter certain areas or to make the speed go down but they cannot force google/waze to stop suggesting certain areas as ‘alternative’ routes?
Like why they don’t just say google/waze that it’s not acceptable and the city doesn’t want this kind of stupid traffic behavior and get it over with? Why are steps and other mobility options so much easier to curb than private cars and their gps’s?
> Ook deze week zullen we nog markeringswerken uitvoeren, zodat tegen het einde van de week het nieuwe circulatieplan voor alle gebruikers duidelijk moet zijn.”
So, implement the plan from today, make it clear how it works next week… ok, thanks.
As long as there are still good alternative ways to reach your destination in Brussels it’s not so bad.
As a city cyclist and commuter I am convinced by alternative modes of transports. But they are not for everybody. If you own one, then an electrical one is out of reach for many people. Then if it’s get stolen the police will only laugh at your face.
Brussels is hilly. Electric should be the standard but not everybody can afford one. The alternatives mode of transport one can rent are very expensive. And you cannot find them everywhere in the city. Since they are expensive, they would have little succes in some places.
Other than that, e-bikes and e-scooter in particular are not the panacea for many people. 3 or 4 wheels (and covered) alternatives are dearly needed. I am all for it, but all of that is expensive both for the city or companies offering it. And for the citizen of Brussels who can’t afford them. But who cares, they take public transport anyway. Sometimes they don’t pay. But they always pay for it in taxes for subsidies and sometimes in fines.
The city center will probably do fine. Eventually they will drive all the poor people out of the city center and achieve their totally gentrified status. And maybe not since Brussels (not the region) has a lot of social housing.
I just wanted to highlight some of the context that might make people cynical about the PR for such actions.
>minder verkeersslachtoffers
Vraag me werkelijk af hoeveel verkeersslachtoffers vallen in die vijfhoek van 4,5m2.
Well, the circulation plan is a way of acknowledging that there’s no way to persuade routeplanner services to avoid an area, unless you actually make the ‘shorter/faster’ route.. not shorter/faster. Both Bruges and Ghent have done similar ‘loop plans’ to avoid people going straight through centers.
Larger ‘zone 30’ or ‘fietszones’ might also help making the shortest path not be the fastest – which is in part the appeal of ‘going for a default max speed of 30 km/h in the built-up-area’
My gsp once send me through Brussel to get to the coast/sea. Apparently it was set to eco mode. Never again! But I can see accidently people going through Brussel. Wonder how they will handle that.
13 comments
Honestly, which insane person was driving through the center of Brussels if they didn’t need to be there
Antwerp should be next.
And how are they going to enforce that?
If they intend to make me have to drive around Brussels longer then necessary, they succeeded. [Point 1](https://www.brussel.be/sites/default/files/bxl/Good_Move_Vijfhoek_Kaart-met_tekst.pdf) makes it mandatory to turn right onto the ring instead of just letting me cross the ring to leave Brussels. Can anyone tell me how this is an improvement ?
I’ve drawn it on a map, going to mail them asking what the improvement is: [here](https://ibb.co/WfqRysJ)
Red arrow is how it used to be, green is the ‘improvement’.
Logical
Paris is slowly but surely jumping on the cycling train too. I can only see this trend accelerate for both Paris, brussels and many of the smaller cities around western EU.
All that is required is improving alternatives & pushing traffic that does not need to be right there out. Through traffic is a good start.
Goed plan! Werkt al sinds 1977 in Groningen, Nederland:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkeerscirculatieplan_Groningen
I don’t understand though, they can block apps like the steps to enter certain areas or to make the speed go down but they cannot force google/waze to stop suggesting certain areas as ‘alternative’ routes?
Like why they don’t just say google/waze that it’s not acceptable and the city doesn’t want this kind of stupid traffic behavior and get it over with? Why are steps and other mobility options so much easier to curb than private cars and their gps’s?
> Ook deze week zullen we nog markeringswerken uitvoeren, zodat tegen het einde van de week het nieuwe circulatieplan voor alle gebruikers duidelijk moet zijn.”
So, implement the plan from today, make it clear how it works next week… ok, thanks.
As long as there are still good alternative ways to reach your destination in Brussels it’s not so bad.
As a city cyclist and commuter I am convinced by alternative modes of transports. But they are not for everybody. If you own one, then an electrical one is out of reach for many people. Then if it’s get stolen the police will only laugh at your face.
Brussels is hilly. Electric should be the standard but not everybody can afford one. The alternatives mode of transport one can rent are very expensive. And you cannot find them everywhere in the city. Since they are expensive, they would have little succes in some places.
Other than that, e-bikes and e-scooter in particular are not the panacea for many people. 3 or 4 wheels (and covered) alternatives are dearly needed. I am all for it, but all of that is expensive both for the city or companies offering it. And for the citizen of Brussels who can’t afford them. But who cares, they take public transport anyway. Sometimes they don’t pay. But they always pay for it in taxes for subsidies and sometimes in fines.
The city center will probably do fine. Eventually they will drive all the poor people out of the city center and achieve their totally gentrified status. And maybe not since Brussels (not the region) has a lot of social housing.
I just wanted to highlight some of the context that might make people cynical about the PR for such actions.
>minder verkeersslachtoffers
Vraag me werkelijk af hoeveel verkeersslachtoffers vallen in die vijfhoek van 4,5m2.
Well, the circulation plan is a way of acknowledging that there’s no way to persuade routeplanner services to avoid an area, unless you actually make the ‘shorter/faster’ route.. not shorter/faster. Both Bruges and Ghent have done similar ‘loop plans’ to avoid people going straight through centers.
Larger ‘zone 30’ or ‘fietszones’ might also help making the shortest path not be the fastest – which is in part the appeal of ‘going for a default max speed of 30 km/h in the built-up-area’
My gsp once send me through Brussel to get to the coast/sea. Apparently it was set to eco mode. Never again! But I can see accidently people going through Brussel. Wonder how they will handle that.