I am hereby expressing my strong support for scenario 3. I do this on one hand as a citizen who cycles over the bridge as my daily commute and who occasionally visits the Fisketorvet center by bike. On the other hand, I am a mobility researcher at IT University of Copenhagen with 11 years of experience in the field. I have studied professionally the Copenhagen bicycle network for six years, and recently cyclist mobility on the Dybbølsbro/Ingerslevsgade intersection.
There are many reasons why the city should implement the car-free scenario 3, which brings most benefits to walking and cycling, and not another scenario. Some of these reasons include:
1) Public health. Compared to most other cities on the planet, Copenhagen has an excellent, uniquely cohesive bicycle infrastructure network. Despite this, when it comes to transport, Copenhagen is a car-centric city, as it allocates most mobility space to cars, and a much larger share of its budget to road than to bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure. By prioritizing vehicular traffic, Copenhagen has a much lower livability than it could have, for example when it comes to dementia-causing noise pollution, or particulate matter pollution and the disproportionate hazard that fast-moving, heavy vehicles pose to the lives of its citizens. Apart from all the unnecessary human suffering caused, all this also comes with a massive unnecessary economic burden to the Danish public health system. New developments should not be car-centric.
2) Sustainability. WSP DANMARK A/S estimate an increase of cyclists by 23% until 2035 over the Dybbølsbro bridge. New plans should accommodate this increase. This is especially important on the Dybbølsbro/Ingerslevsgade intersection, which is currently a bottleneck, but also on the bridge. Apart from following an orthodox predict-and-provide paradigm using traffic models that attempt to forecast traffic 12(!) years into the future from existing traffic and potentially give a false sense of control, as is also done in the Rambøll study, the city should follow the state-of-the-art decide-and-provide paradigm to actively induce more active mobility by providing more space, if it aims to show leadership and become more sustainable. See also: ITF. Travel transitions: How transport planners and policy makers can respond to shifting mobility trends, Tech. rep. (OECD Publishing, 2021)
3) Transport justice. Large demographics, such as children, are discriminated and suffer disproportionately from car-centric planning. This is particularly problematic in light of the recently receding rates of youth cycling in Denmark.
4) Role model effects, and secondary economic benefits for the city. Internationally, Copenhagen is often cited as a role model city in cycling for other cities. Recent increases in car ownership and stagnating mode shares, as well as Copenhagen's somewhat lagging political leadership in sustainable mobility (when compared to cities like Paris or Amsterdam), start to question this role. To stay a good role model for the world, and to even become better, scenario 3 makes most sense to follow. Apart from this, the positive public relations impact could be invaluable for Copenhagen, with secondary economic effects for tourism. I remember the extensive international news about Copenhagen's "widest bike lane" when the bidirectional 5m wide bike lane was implemented. Imagine the coverage if the bridge were now to be made car-free and the active mobility area extended to the whole width of the bridge, with ample greening etc.
5) Economic benefits for local business. Potential economic concerns by IKEA, Fisketorvet management or its local business owners about the loss of a car connection could be understandable. However, the counterfactual has to be considered, i.e. how many more bicycle and walking trips to Fisktorvet will be generated if it becomes easier and more attractive to access Fisketorvet by foot or bicycle. My personal impression is that in recent years, bicycle parking at Fisketorvet has become overcrowded which is dissuading me more and more to go there. Especially cargo-bike parking is often not possible to find, while the car parking spaces next to the bike parking area are empty. I have no data on parking occupation rates at Fisketorvet, but it might be a good idea to analyze the situation quantitatively, and to potentially invest into more bicycle parking there at the cost of the generous car infrastructure. Apart from my anecdotal local observations, there is also increasing systematic research worldwide showing that improving walking and cycling access, at the cost of car access, often has a net positive economic effect to local businesses.
For all these reasons, the proposed car-free scenario 3 with its most benefits to walking and cycling would be an important step toward human-centric planning, which the other scenarios provide to a much lesser extent. Finally, the provided plans lack some details, but several human-centric aspects should not be forgotten. For example, ample pedestrian infrastructure like benches, greening, and shade-providing structures, similarly as considered for the grønne strøg, would ensure the bridge to become even more inviting to enter and to cross. It will also be important to improve adjacent car-centric infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians and to reduce vehicular traffic there, like on the Dybbølsbro/Ingerslevsgade intersection, beyond what is shown on page 105 of the Rambøll report.
