The Guardian gets it wrong



T

Tom Crispin

Guest
The proposals are for £500m to be spent on super cycle routes into the
city centre, not £400m as reported.

From Jenny Jones
Green Party representative on the Greater London Authority.

====================

Many of you may have seen the big article in Saturday's guardian on
the half billion pounds which will be spent on cycling in the next ten
years (the Guardian's £400m is actually an understatement). This is an
amazing announcement and it comes directly from the work that myself
and my colleague Darren Johnson have done over the last few years. The
formal launch is on Monday morning, where more of the details of the
cycling proposals will be outlined, along side the equally substantial
projects for promoting walking in London.

One of the little noticed items in last years budget agreement with
the London Mayor was his promise of a review of how TfL would meet its
targets for walking/cycling for 2025. The Mayor's announcement comes
directly from that review which I initiated. I have kept a watching
brief on the work of the TfL policy team during the last year and I
welcome the ambition of their recommendations. I also want to formally
thank those of you who had an input in to this review at the early
stages, such as members of LCC, CTC and Sustrans.

We have come a long way since TfL was planning to cut the tiny £8m
cycling budget in 2001 and LCC members, along with myself, had to
pressure the Mayor to step in and keep it all going. The key
acheivement of this new announcement is that cycling and walking are
now being recognised as part of the transport infrastructure of
London, with big ideas attracting big budgets. Along with the shift
towards default speed limits in boroughs and a reassessment of all
large one way systems, cycling and walking should now have a central
role in creating a sustainable transport system to go with a
sustainable city.

I have issued the following quote in support of tomorrow's launch:

"These plans for promoting cycling and walking are more ambitious than
anything which has been tried before in this country, but they are
exactly what we need to persuade large numbers of Londoners out of
their cars. Both the bike hire scheme, and the setting up of the
Legible London guides, are big new initiatives which build on the
existing projects and complement other proposals, such as 20mph
default limits and getting rid of big one-way systems. A year ago, I
asked Transport for London to come up with a plan that would transform
the experience of cycling, walking and everyday living in London. That
is what they have delivered"

====================
 
x-no-archive: Both the bike hire scheme, and the setting up of the
> Legible London guides, are big new initiatives which build on the
> existing projects and complement other proposals, such as 20mph
> default limits and getting rid of big one-way systems.


I like the bit about getting rid of the one-way systems. Perhaps it
would be better to spend the money facillitating this rather than
building unwanted cycle paths.
 
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:49:11 +0000, Jim Harvest
<[email protected]> wrote:

>x-no-archive: Both the bike hire scheme, and the setting up of the
>> Legible London guides, are big new initiatives which build on the
>> existing projects and complement other proposals, such as 20mph
>> default limits and getting rid of big one-way systems.

>
>I like the bit about getting rid of the one-way systems. Perhaps it
>would be better to spend the money facillitating this rather than
>building unwanted cycle paths.


Unwanted by whom? The LCC and CTC, two orgainisations which represent
a great many leisure and commuter cyclists support the proposals.
These cycle routes are to be of Amsterdam standards, built by TfL as
continuous major commuter routes, not local authority routes which are
of variable standards.
 
x-no-archive:Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>
> Unwanted by whom?


By me and others who are concerned about maintaining our right of way on
the roads and are concerned that the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I accept however that pro cyclist organisations do support more cycling
paths, but I would argue that they are misguided.

This argument has probably been done to death on here though.

The LCC and CTC, two orgainisations which represent
> a great many leisure and commuter cyclists support the proposals.
> These cycle routes are to be of Amsterdam standards, built by TfL as
> continuous major commuter routes, not local authority routes which are
> of variable standards.
 
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:51:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
<[email protected]> wrote:

>x-no-archive:Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Unwanted by whom?

>
>By me and others who are concerned about maintaining our right of way on
>the roads and are concerned that the money could be spent better elsewhere.


What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
roads.

Do you think that construction of the new super cycle ways will
increase or decrease cycling in London.
 
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:24:18 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
>cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
>roads.


I simply point to the "cycle friendly" City of Edinburgh Council.
They took over the A90, improved the parallel cycle "facility" to
its current poor condition and banned cycling on the A90 itself, all
in the space of something like five years.

The cycle "facility" is Sustrans route number 1. It was very poor
and the council improved it so it is only poor. They, the officials
and Labour Party, implemented the ban despite the well thought out
objections of most cycling groups and cyclists.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The cycle "facility" is Sustrans route number 1. It was very poor
> and the council improved it so it is only poor.


I think calling it poor is being unnecessarily generous, imo it's an
abomination. I've taken to using the Dalmeny estate roads instead, somewhat
longer and more undulating, but far prettier and considerably wider.

pOB
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:51:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
> <[email protected]> wrote:


> >By me and others who are concerned about maintaining our right of

> way on >the roads and are concerned that the money could be spent
> better elsewhere.
>
> What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
> cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
> roads.


Well, it's not a legal restriction, but when I choose to use the road
rather than a dangerous cycle path such as the Tavistock two-way in
central London, it seems to annoy motorists who sometimes take the time
to advise me on what they think my right of way should be.

I can understand the rationale for cycle paths out of town and alongside
fast-moving traffic routes but in central London there really should be
no need to separate cycles from the rest of the traffic.
 
"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:49:11 +0000, Jim Harvest
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>x-no-archive: Both the bike hire scheme, and the setting up of the
>>> Legible London guides, are big new initiatives which build on the
>>> existing projects and complement other proposals, such as 20mph
>>> default limits and getting rid of big one-way systems.

>>
>>I like the bit about getting rid of the one-way systems. Perhaps it
>>would be better to spend the money facillitating this rather than
>>building unwanted cycle paths.

>
> Unwanted by whom? The LCC and CTC, two orgainisations which represent
> a great many leisure and commuter cyclists support the proposals.
> These cycle routes are to be of Amsterdam standards, built by TfL as
> continuous major commuter routes, not local authority routes which are
> of variable standards.



I must reply as an outsider living in the sticks -- Northern ones at that


"Unwanted by whom? The LCC and CTC, two organisations which represent
a great many leisure and commuter cyclists support the proposals.
These cycle routes are to be of Amsterdam standards, built by TfL as
continuous major commuter routes, not local authority routes which are
of variable standards."

You are being amazingly altruistic. Quite amazingly so considering your
employment

Show us plans, --- properly prepared -- of the routes

Show us in great detail the intersections where the "cycle motorway" will have
total priority over the lesser priority "roads"

Show us where it will be pedestrian free -- motorways are -- and offences are
treated as seriously as they should be!

Show us the maintenance budget to ensure that the "cycle motorways" are kept
up to standard of cycling safety -- glass, debris and pedestrian free.

I have quite a lot of respect for your work with children
but.....................


I cannot say any other than that you are talking pie in the sky when you die!

Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
 
x-no-archive:Tom Crispin wrote:
>
> What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
> cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
> roads.
>


The Netherlands.


> Do you think that construction of the new super cycle ways will
> increase or decrease cycling in London.


I don't know. It depends on a number of factors so it could go either
way. It will probably reduce road cycling and I would also be uneasy
about accident rates.
 
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:58 +0000 someone who may be Jim Harvest
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
>> cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
>> roads.

>
>The Netherlands.


And Germany. Is there not a third country on the mainland where
cyclists must use "facilities" if they exist.

The concept of separate but equal development has rather nasty
undertones. However, we will have to see what it is they are
proposing.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
x-no-archive:Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>
> Now, I don't suppose it is greenway-like routes that the Mayor is
> suggesting. More likely roadside cycle lanes, the width of bus lanes,
> with their own priorities at junctions.


Do you honestly believe that they will put cycle lanes the width of bus
lanes in London, and with priorities? Sorry, but I just can't see it
happening.

In any case, if there are enough bikes on the road to justify such a use
of road space, then there will surely be no need to segregate the
cyclists as they will have reached the critical mass required to control
road speeds.


> Though I hope the new routes won't be like this:
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclelane


Brilliant. Farcillity of the year perhaps?
 
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:46:39 +0000, Jim Harvest
<[email protected]> wrote:

>x-no-archive:Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Now, I don't suppose it is greenway-like routes that the Mayor is
>> suggesting. More likely roadside cycle lanes, the width of bus lanes,
>> with their own priorities at junctions.

>
>Do you honestly believe that they will put cycle lanes the width of bus
>lanes in London, and with priorities? Sorry, but I just can't see it
>happening.


We will have to wait until tomorrow, but it is my understanding that
wide lanes are the proposal, and that the width will be that of bus
lanes, certainly in places.

>In any case, if there are enough bikes on the road to justify such a use
>of road space, then there will surely be no need to segregate the
>cyclists as they will have reached the critical mass required to control
>road speeds.


This is a good read if you want to know how things may be...
www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/lcds_chapter2.pdf

>> Though I hope the new routes won't be like this:
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclelane

>
>Brilliant. Farcillity of the year perhaps?
 
"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I wouldn't want pedestrians banned from them as they are from
> motorways, any more than I'd want cyclists banned from most roads.
>


In order for these cycleways to be utilised they would have to be faster,
safer and more convenient than using the road (like motorways are with
respect to parallel single carriageway roads). Allowing pedestrians on them
would destroy all three objectives at once.
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> Using Back roads I cycled to Woolwich, though I could easily have used
> the traffic free Thames Path. From the Woolwich Ferry I cycled east
> along Factory Road to Silvertown. From there I went north through
> Becton Park and hooked up with The Greenway [TQ420823]. From memory,
> there were two toucan crossings on the Greenway,


There more crossings than that, though the stretches between them are quite
long.

> which changed to
> green almost immediately after I pressed the button. At one point the
> Greenway was cordened off by police and I had to make a large
> diversion. Two bikes were down, and I heard that someone called Joe
> had stabbed another lad.
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/P2104694
> The Greeway is close to pencil straight, and is whisked me the four
> miles from North Becton [TQ420823], past the Stratford Olympic site to
> Old Ford [TQ373838] in no time, despite the diversion and chat with
> local Bobbies.


Why mention the Greenway? To give the impression that's what cycling all
over London could be like? That would be misleading.

The vast majority of new paths would have to be far less straight and flat,
and far more broken up with crossings - unless they were built over or under
ground.

The Greenway - unique in London - is overground and built on top of a
massive sewer. How much would it cost to build just *one* more of these -
even if it was possible at all? I would guess more than £500m.

I agree it's a pleasant path to cycle - depite the occasional stink! And
look out for the old Abbey Mills Pumping station - an extraordinary example
of Victorian architecture, considering it's what it was built for.

~PB
 
I typed:
> The Greenway - unique in London - is overground

(sort of)
> and built on top of a
> massive sewer. How much would it cost to build just *one* more of
> these - even if it was possible at all? I would guess more than
> £500m.
> I agree it's a pleasant path to cycle - depite the occasional stink! And
> look out for the old Abbey Mills Pumping station - an
> extraordinary example of Victorian architecture, considering it's
> what it was built for.


I mean considering *what* it was built for - a housing for machines to pump
foul water - to put it politely.

~PB
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> At one point the
> Greenway was cordened off by police and I had to make a large
> diversion. Two bikes were down, and I heard that someone called Joe
> had stabbed another lad.
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/P2104694


Not a good advert for secluded paths is it? I feel less worried about my
personal safety when cycling on well populated roads.

Often there are few people on the Greenway, and you can be seen by few
people. Ideal for muggers.

~PB
 
x-no-archive:Tom Crispin wrote:

>
> This is a good read if you want to know how things may be...
> www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/lcds_chapter2.pdf


Thank you for the link.

The complexity of the proposals are quite damning (cf figure 2.3 on page
19 for anyone who does not wish to read it all).

Different lane colours, having so many different types of signs and
lanes etc are unneccesary and likely to lead to chaos and confusion.
This is in addition to our unresolved concerns about segregating
cyclists. It is also likely to be too restrictive on motor vehicles. All
this can be bypassed by lower speed limits and a suitable congestion
charge to restrict traffic flows to the level necessary to keep traffic
moving slowly and safely, and will save a lot of money.

I know they are well intentioned, but paradoxically these standards
actually do more harm to cyclists than if they didn't exist in the first
place.
 
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:29:55 -0000, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I wouldn't want pedestrians banned from them as they are from
>> motorways, any more than I'd want cyclists banned from most roads.
>>

>
>In order for these cycleways to be utilised they would have to be faster,
>safer and more convenient than using the road (like motorways are with
>respect to parallel single carriageway roads). Allowing pedestrians on them
>would destroy all three objectives at once.


I was asked about a motorway style ban on pedestrians. That I
wouldn't want to see. But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
me. After all, pedestrians don't usually choose to walk in bus lanes,
even though they are free to do so.
 

Similar threads