Re: More on those cycle super highways in London

[Paul Weaver]

On 16 Apr, 13:06, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23478654-details/Drive...

Re: Pic at http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04/safercycling_415x275.jpg

You wouldn't get me riding in that position, especially with that bus
behind.

> Under the plans, which will be published in detail later this year, a
> number of existing cycle routes will undergo improvements, including
> widening and having new lighting.

Ahh, so the truth is out. Instead of a purpose built network that's
designed for cyclists, it's a few more dotted lines to point out where
gutters are.

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Paul Weaver wrote:
> On 16 Apr, 13:06, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Under the plans, which will be published in detail later this year, a
>>number of existing cycle routes will undergo improvements, including
>>widening and having new lighting.
>
> Ahh, so the truth is out. Instead of a purpose built network that's
> designed for cyclists, it's a few more dotted lines to point out where
> gutters are.

Not really. They're confusing two different things. However, this is
understandable, as London seems to be getting 5 separate cycle
networks (and counting) superimposed on the actual complete network of
roads and paths.
The 5 are:
- London Cycle Network (the original, no longer funded)
- London Cycle Network plus (loadsamoney, meant for commuters, fewer
routes)
- Greenways (access to Olympic venues, off-road at all costs)
- Ken's cycling superhighways (LCN++, even fewer routes)
- The promised local cycle networks/areas for local centres (no-one
knows anything about these)

The best approach seems to be to take the funding you can get and try
to use it on the worst barriers.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:09:58 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Weaver wrote:
>> On 16 Apr, 13:06, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Under the plans, which will be published in detail later this year, a
>>>number of existing cycle routes will undergo improvements, including
>>>widening and having new lighting.
>>
>> Ahh, so the truth is out. Instead of a purpose built network that's
>> designed for cyclists, it's a few more dotted lines to point out where
>> gutters are.
>
>Not really. They're confusing two different things. However, this is
>understandable, as London seems to be getting 5 separate cycle
>networks (and counting) superimposed on the actual complete network of
>roads and paths.

Yes - it can be particularly confusing. I devoted an entire day
yesterday to teaching trainees how to use TfL's Local Cycling Guides.

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/mapwork/P4097213
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/mapwork/P4097214
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/mapwork/P4097216
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/mapwork/P4097217
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/mapwork/P4168593

And those guides don't specifically show LCN+ routes!

>The 5 are:
>- London Cycle Network (the original, no longer funded)

This is not quite true. It is up to the London Boroughs to maintain
these. They receive no direct grant from TfL to do so.

>- London Cycle Network plus (loadsamoney, meant for commuters, fewer
>routes)
>- Greenways (access to Olympic venues, off-road at all costs)

Not all Greenways lead to an Olympic venue. There was a great outcry
amoung local cyclists when the Waterlink Way (NCN 28) was taken off
the LCN+ network and thus starved of funding. We were greatly
relieved to learn that it had been reclassified as a Greenway and thus
gains funding from a different source. However, that does lead to
Greenwich which is hosting the eqestrian events and so leads to an
Olympic Venue.

My experience of the Waterlink Way is not that it's off road at all
costs, but that on-road sections are gradually being upgraded to
off-road.

>- Ken's cycling superhighways (LCN++, even fewer routes)
>- The promised local cycle networks/areas for local centres (no-one
>knows anything about these)
>
>The best approach seems to be to take the funding you can get and try
>to use it on the worst barriers.
>
>Colin McKenzie

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Paul Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 16 Apr, 13:06, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23478654-details/Drive...
>
> Re: Pic at
> http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04/safercycling_415x275.jpg
>
> You wouldn't get me riding in that position, especially with that
> bus
> behind.
>
>> Under the plans, which will be published in detail later this
>> year, a
>> number of existing cycle routes will undergo improvements,
>> including
>> widening and having new lighting.
>
> Ahh, so the truth is out. Instead of a purpose built network that's
> designed for cyclists, it's a few more dotted lines to point out
> where
> gutters are.

What TfL has also said is that they will be revising the London Cycle
Network Design Standards this year. What fraction of those blue and
green lines thereby get turned into substandard routes remains to be
seen

I think London Cycle Network route 5 (the Edgware Road) was upgraded
some time in the iron age to take chariots rather than pack mules,
and upgraded again by the Romans. It was turnpiked, presumably some
time in the 18th century, and the toll gates probably removed at
about the time bikes first became popular. Around the turn of the
millennium it was improved again into a bus priority route. This
introduced a traffic light camera that raked in so much money that
even Barnet's Councillor Brian Coleman approved of it, although he
did change his mind rather hastily when the news leaked out. Where
the route crosses the North Circular has proved a fruitful source of
employment for traffic engineers, the third set of which were writing
the CRISP. This intersection is, in fact, to be modified, as part of
the Brent Cross/Cricklewood redevelopment, but not to any of the
designs believed (by traffic engineers) to be beneficial for
cyclists. This probably counts as an example of Barnet's "holistic
approach" towards bike routes

Jeremy Parker