# Oh Boris! You do surprise me......



## tdr1nka (19 Jan 2009)

Who'd have seen this coming?


----------



## zimzum42 (19 Jan 2009)

Which network are they talking about? Cycle lanes in the streets or off road stuff?


----------



## LLB (19 Jan 2009)

Not good  . Cyclists in London need all the help they/you can get.


----------



## tdr1nka (19 Jan 2009)

Here's a tiny bit more detail.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2009)

I'm now about to defend Johnson. If your screen goes blank, then God has seen fit to punish me.....

There is, in London, a kind of cyclerati. Consultation exercises follow consultation exercises, and this costs money, because the consultation is being carried out by consultants (not that I am entirely against consultants, you understand) and it goes on and on and on. A lot (and I mean a real lot) of money is spent that, if you had to put your hand on your heart, you couldn't really say has any benefit to cycling. One hundred and forty million pounds has been spent on LCN+. I'd respectfully suggest that this has been money more or less down the drain. And, for what it's worth, there are those (or at least one or two) in the LCC who think the same way. A lot of money is being spent on Greenways. It's all totally bogus. Greenways are cheap off-road trails, and spending over a million on one small length to make it worse than it was before is an insult to cyclists and to those paying for the work. Somewhere or other I've got the 100mb document that supported the Wimbledon Greenways. It's crap from beginning to end. You could scarcely credit how crap it is.

Cycling politics in London inhabits a strange realm. On the one hand you have Sustrans, stitching up the LCC, and, basically, flogging an idea that is so past it's sell-by date you have to wonder if they don't have some other motive....On the other hand you have the LCC wedded to an idea that they must realise has been and gone. And then you have the DfT suggesting that roads bearing more than 8,000 vehicles an hour should have seperate provision. And all of them producing documents. All of which cost money. I've been at meetings that were not without merit, but, looking round the table I'd say there were perhaps 20 people who were there at public expense, and me, sneaking away from the office for a couple of hours, and, truth to tell, three people could have done the job.

On the other hand you have thousands upon thousands of cyclists disdaining every road bar the busiest, because Ken, the Infinitely Wise One, painted them red. That's the real irony. All this provision, and these poxy anarchist cyclists go and use the main roads!

The cycling organisations propose cycling as something that is good for people. Their assumption is that cycling is neccessarily a good thing, in and of itself, is, as far as the Mayor (this Mayor or any other) actually beside the point. The LCC is making a big thing about obesity. Sustrans is big on schools. The CTC is, of course, big on cycling for disabled people. Well, sorry, but nobody actually sold an idea on the premise that it was good for fat people. It's certainly done nothing for Johnson. The argument that has to be made is that cycling is good for London.

And there is a very good case to be made - but the case that can be made is so far beyond the imagination of our crude low-life traffic-light disdaining Mayor, that it might reasonably be said that we should just rest up for the next three years and wait for a return to sanity on the part of London's voters. The case that can be made is that cycling can be part of making London a more civilised city. Not by playing 'hide the bike' as the LCC and Sustrans suggest, but by making our neighbourhoods and our high streets into places that people can walk, meet, worship, spend time and get to either on foot or by bike. Neighbourhoods that would be vastly more efficient for commercial uses, and have smaller carbon footprints. That entails such a huge re-working of the priorities, such an overhaul of the fading aesthetic prejudices of town planners, such as a commitment to rooting out the motor car from it's position of master of the streets, that it's going to be a real long haul. Johnson, the parasitic dickhead (I'm only warding off the wrath of God, you understand) believes that the A23 should be made more efficient for car traffic. I believe that the A23 is my high street, and that it should be a nice place to be. There are those in the cycling organisations that, as individuals, see the bigger picture, but, truth to tell, there's no money and no jobs in making a case that doesn't involve spending money on blue signs and fancy maps. And, with one or two exceptions, cycling has become ghetto politics. People don't want to step outside of what they know.

It goes into local authorities as well. We're digging basement cycle parks for residential developments, at huge environmental and financial cost, that won't be used because those pesky cyclists store their bikes in the hallway of their flats. Bastards! But nobody gets points for bikes in hallways, and the cycling officers that are consulted on residential planning applications have, somehow, to justify their salaries. 

So - next time you go to Tavistock Square and ride that pony contraflow cycle lane, instead of thanking your lucky stars that there's only one of the buggers, pause to think about all the consulting, all the consultees, all the budgets that went in to creating such a record-breaking dumbass idea, and all the opportunities that were missed to think about what a nice place Tavistock Square might be. Maybe a cut in budget will prompt the cycling organisations to think about stuff that can make a big difference, and will cost diddly-squit. Like red paint. Like the kind of neighbourhood that might make people happier.

(this was written in haste, and I reserve the right to come back and smarten it up)


----------



## zimzum42 (19 Jan 2009)

No need to smarten it up, it makes sense....


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2009)

but perhaps I should hold off applying....

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1242


----------



## jonesy (19 Jan 2009)

I just think this shows that there is a limit as to how far politicians can ignore: 

a) the fact that London's growth in cycling is almost entirely on the normal road network, just was was the case when cycling increased in Oxford in the 1970s and 1980s, and as is the case in pretty well everywhere where there is a lot of cycling;

 that the country is now festooned with long stretches of very underutilised off-road cycle routes, much of which was built at great expense with lots of publicity that now merely highlights their lack of use; and

c) that cycle paths on pavements cause lots of aggravation and a lot of cyclists refuse to use them.

Now I still think there is a role for nice traffic-free routes, where these can be created to provide wider community benefits; but the reality for urban cycling is that it takes place on the road, or rather as part of normal street activity, and hopefully Boris' policy change is recognition of that.


----------



## srw (20 Jan 2009)

jonesy said:


> Now I still think there is a role for nice traffic-free routes, where these can be created to provide wider community benefits; but the reality for urban cycling is that it takes place on the road, or rather as part of normal street activity, and hopefully Boris' policy change is recognition of that.



I think it's well-established, and accepted even by the CTC, that separated cycle lanes can be a valuable incentive to people to start cycling. Dellzeqq's cited Tavistock Square route is an example - it may be partly horrible but it can be correlated with (and in my view has supported) a dramatic increase in cycle traffic through that area.

A for Boris's policy change - it's not recognition of anything. It's simple Tory cheese-paring. If he'd really wanted to encourage cycling to provide wider benefit he'd have kept the West London congestion zone, kept the higher charge for Chelsea tractors, and begun plans to extend charging to the M25.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Jan 2009)

srw said:


> I think it's well-established, and accepted even by the CTC, that separated cycle lanes can be a valuable incentive to people to start cycling. Dellzeqq's cited Tavistock Square route is an example - it may be partly horrible but it can be correlated with (and in my view has supported) a dramatic increase in cycle traffic through that area.
> 
> A for Boris's policy change - it's not recognition of anything. It's simple Tory cheese-paring. If he'd really wanted to encourage cycling to provide wider benefit he'd have kept the West London congestion zone, kept the higher charge for Chelsea tractors, and begun plans to extend charging to the M25.



I've not heard anybody in the CTC advocate seperate provision - although I'm sure the majority would agree with Jonesy that ctraffic free routes (and routes that are reserved for bikes, deliveries and buses) are well worthwhile. 

I'm afraid Johnson is just cheeseparing. He's got to make up for chucking the Western Extension Zone in the bin. This might be an opportunity, though, for the LCC to get off the hard measures stuff and start thinking about public space and neighbourliness.


----------



## tdr1nka (20 Jan 2009)

All the divisions aside, I agree that the proposed plans of cycle lanes etc. is not something I would consider a loss to London cyclists, it's just there is plenty of other ways to make roads safer, educating cyclists and drivers for a start, getting less cars on the road etc. things that would cost a lot less in the long run

It's the fact that it looks to everyone else that Boris has binned the plans to get more people cycling as it's a waste of money and no contingency 
for doing anything in the future.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Jan 2009)

he had no plans to bin. The alarming thing is that nobody outside samizdat groups in TfL had any plans either. It's all happened by accident.


----------



## another_dave_b (21 Jan 2009)

jonesy said:


> I just think this shows that there is a limit as to how far politicians can ignore:
> 
> a) the fact that London's growth in cycling is almost entirely on the normal road network, just was was the case when cycling increased in Oxford in the 1970s and 1980s, and as is the case in pretty well everywhere where there is a lot of cycling;
> 
> ...



When I lived in London in the early 1990s, the LCC used to publish a map of suggested - sometimes sign-posted, sometimes not - low traffic routes around London.

As I recall it was essentially a north & south circular, with 3 or 4 north/south feeder routes intersecting it to the north, and again to the south.

I thought it worked very well, and it can't have cost anything to speak of, as it was really just a map.

EDIT
Just had a look on Amazon. I think it was On Your Bike - London Cycling Guide


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Jan 2009)

http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org.uk/

the cost, thus far, has been over £140 million (my figure is a year out of date). Check out the consultation procedures (CRISPS and CRIMS) set out in the link above. 

The cost of the Wandle Way upgrade (which turned out to be the Wandle Way downgrade, slippery bridges and all) was £1.3M

The cost of GOAL 2012 is set out by Sustrans as about £100M

This includes the cost of a bridge of such surpassing stupidity that it might qualify for an Arts Council grant of £40M

The budget for LCN+ in 2008/9 has been reduced from £20M to £10M. That's a lot of maps.


----------



## another_dave_b (21 Jan 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org.uk/
> 
> the cost, thus far, has been over £140 million (my figure is a year out of date). Check out the consultation procedures (CRISPS and CRIMS) set out in the link above.
> 
> ...



I downloaded the 7MB version. 

Things have clearly changed a lot since 1990s!


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Jan 2009)

another_dave_b said:


> I downloaded the 7MB version.
> 
> Things have clearly changed a lot since 1990s!



fine. Now, take a look at the southwest quadrant - or just a little west of due south. The A24/A3, running from Tooting to Clapham, to Stockwell, to Kennington, to Elephant and Castle is not on the LCN+. There are fancy, and much slower ways of avoiding it, but it's off the map. Excuse the capital letters that follow....

MORE CYCLISTS USE THIS ROAD THAN ANY OTHER. ON SUMMER EVENINGS CYCLES OUTNUMBER PRIVATE CARS.

You take my point. This is a road that has up to (iirc) 30,000 vehicle movements a day. That's four times the DfT threshold for seperate provision. And yet those wretched cyclists stream down in by the thousand. We're talking fakengers, women with baskets on the front, young people on shitty MTBs, black people, white people, middleaged Bromptonists, the whole damn schmeer. And it's not on the poxy map. Hello.......


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Jan 2009)

I've just checked. The A10 from Stamford Hill south is not on the map. I'm telling you, Dave, you step off the pavement, you'll be sliced in half by some old bird with a Peruvian knitted crash helmet, riding a Giant MTB that's been nicked three times.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Jan 2009)

sorry, I'm warming up now...

Garratt Lane. Cyclists every-bloody-where. Parallel to that, the Wandle Way. Mega-expensive gravel. Buggerall bikes. When I suggested to the Greenways Committee that they survey the cycling levels on Garratt Lane to, at the very least, see what points of connection to the Wandle Way might be useful, the Sustrans rep reacted as if he'd been smacked in the chops. As far as he was concerned those cyclists on Garratt Lane just did not exist.

Jonesy - bring me my tranquilisers, smartish!


----------



## another_dave_b (21 Jan 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> I've just checked. The A10 from Stamford Hill south is not on the map. I'm telling you, Dave, you step off the pavement, you'll be sliced in half by some old bird with a Peruvian knitted crash helmet, riding a Giant MTB that's been nicked three times.



I'm sure your right, but your point must be, that the idea of a London Cycle Route Network has gone out of control.

When I used it, when it was just a map, it was just a way to plan long, cross town journeys. A bicycle version of an inner ring road, but using B roads. Journeys would start and end using ordinary roads.

Now it seems to be an attempt at a duplicate road network.


----------



## CotterPin (21 Jan 2009)

There were so many things wrong with the implementation of the LCN+ that it wasn't that difficult for Boris to nix the idea. However, the problem is, as others have highlighted that he does not seem to have another idea. 

There is the talk of "super highways" but surely this is the same thing in a different guise? And Boris has said that one of his key concerns is ensuring that traffic flows smoothly - this is generally taken to mean motor traffic, and one of the reasons given for cutting the funding for the LCN+ was that it was getting to the stage of the "difficult" parts of the network, junctions and the like. These are the bits Boris described as "unpopular" - again, this is likely to mean unpopular with motorists, and certainly would render it difficult to have his much beloved free-flowing traffic. The same problems would impact upon any super highway scheme, surely?

So the only bike scheme he really has is the cycle hire one and though I hate to say this as I am not particularly fond of Mr Johnson, it may be a good idea, as it might directly encourage more people onto pedals which is ultimately is probably be a better idea than driving to carve up road space in the forlorn hope that people might take up cycling.


----------



## another_dave_b (21 Jan 2009)

CotterPin said:


> So the only bike scheme he really has is the cycle hire one and though I hate to say this as I am not particularly fond of Mr Johnson, it may be a good idea, as it might directly encourage more people onto pedals which is ultimately is probably be a better idea than driving to carve up road space in the forlorn hope that people might take up cycling.



It's been a huge success in France.


----------



## tdr1nka (21 Jan 2009)

My whole thinking is to make routes available as to the highway code rules on priority use, peds, horses, cyclists etc. There is simply no need to carve up or segregate roads, paint lines or print new maps.

If there was any serious intent to encourage people from using their cars and to support those who are already using bikes then there are simple but potentially unpopular measures they could easily take.

In favour of Ken, whatever you might think of him, he wasn't afraid of being unpopular whereas Boris is supposedly setting an example of an authoritarian but cuddly Tory who can 'put things right'. All I see are election promises and pledges being unceremoniously withdrawn and brushed under the carpet.
Surprise, surprise.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Jan 2009)

another_dave_b said:


> It's been a huge success in France.



Ken started the work on the velib four years ago - the problem was, and still is, that there are certain boroughs that really do not want to know - and it is going to be impossible to operate without all 32 boroughs joining in.


----------



## another_dave_b (22 Jan 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> it is going to be impossible to operate without all 32 boroughs joining in.



I don't see why. I would think the most sensible thing, even if all 32 were on board, would be to start with the central boroughs, and gradually expand it.


----------



## tdr1nka (22 Jan 2009)

another_dave_b said:


> I don't see why. I would think the most sensible thing, even if all 32 were on board, would be to start with the central boroughs, and gradually expand it.



In theory it is sensible but the problem in this instance would be maintaining continuity across the city. It is well known investment and interest in cycle facilities vary wildly from borough to borough.


----------



## CotterPin (22 Jan 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Ken started the work on the velib four years ago - the problem was, and still is, that there are certain boroughs that really do not want to know - and it is going to be impossible to operate without all 32 boroughs joining in.



And I think Ken also raised the ideas of "super highways". So Bojo hasn't really come up with an original idea on cycling in London yet. I think he thinks if he keeps saying "bicycles" a lot then people will think he is actually doing something - in the same way that Sarah Palin thought she could become VP of the US by squawking "maverick" all the time. 

If all the boroughs aren't on board for the cycle hire scheme then it will be difficult to administer. What happens if someone rides out from central London to a borough not in the scheme? Where do they leave the bike? How will it be retrieved?


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Jan 2009)

CotterPin said:


> And I think Ken also raised the ideas of "super highways". So Bojo hasn't really come up with an original idea on cycling in London yet. I think he thinks if he keeps saying "bicycles" a lot then people will think he is actually doing something - in the same way that Sarah Palin thought she could become VP of the US by squawking "maverick" all the time.



not quite true (although I'd love it to be). Ken decided to go nap on cycling before the mayoral election, without a clue what might be involved. The gap was filled, in a fit of opportunism that can only be applauded, by TfL and Jenny Jones. Agree with you about the squawking maverick thing, though. Slicing two seconds off the time that people have to cross a road, in order to speed car flows is pure Sarah Palin.


----------



## Twenty Inch (22 Jan 2009)

What dellzeq says.

I remember when the "Green Bridge" over Mile End Road was built. The cycle lane had zarking SPEED BUMPS built into it. Only in London.

And don't even get me started on Westminster council and cycling....


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Jan 2009)

Twenty Inch said:


> I remember when the "Green Bridge" over Mile End Road was built. The cycle lane had zarking SPEED BUMPS built into it. Only in London.



is that the Green Bridge that runs parallel to the canal towpath....

(the one with the dead trees)


----------



## Twenty Inch (22 Jan 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> is that the Green Bridge that runs parallel to the canal towpath....
> 
> (the one with the dead trees)



Are they dead now? I haven't been up there for a while.


----------



## another_dave_b (23 Jan 2009)

CotterPin said:


> If all the boroughs aren't on board for the cycle hire scheme then it will be difficult to administer. What happens if someone rides out from central London to a borough not in the scheme? Where do they leave the bike? How will it be retrieved?



Presumably returning the bike would be the responsibility of the hirer, so they'd return it to the nearest point to their journey's end.

I would imagine the train stations into London would be the biggest drop/hire points in any such scheme, with commuters/tourists hiring bikes.

EDIT
Come to think of it, I don't see why a bicycle hire scheme would require the involvement of the various London boroughs. I think the Paris scheme is run by an advertising company.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Jan 2009)

another_dave_b said:


> Come to think of it, I don't see why a bicycle hire scheme would require the involvement of the various London boroughs. I think the Paris scheme is run by an advertising company.



you're right - the Paris scheme is run by the company that makes bus shelters and street furniture (whose name escapes me). But...the Mairie made space available. In Paris the mayor snaps his fingers and it happens. Ken could make space available on TfL roads, but these are a small minority. The Boroughs control the great majority. So Brent, a Borough that only fifteen months ago was insisting on 1500 car spaces on a 1000 dwelling residential scheme in Colindale - right by the Edgware Road - decided it had no space for the bike points.

In fairness, there was a point last year when Ken was talking about confining the scheme to the Circle Line area and moving outward - but that was going to be financed by the 4x4 tax, now dead and buried. And, even then, Westminster wasn't up for it.


----------



## DJ (10 Feb 2009)

another_dave_b said:


> I'm sure your right, but your point must be, that the idea of a London Cycle Route Network has gone out of control.
> 
> When I used it, when it was just a map, it was just a way to plan long, cross town journeys. A bicycle version of an inner ring road, but using B roads. Journeys would start and end using ordinary roads.
> 
> Now it seems to be an attempt at a duplicate road network.




I use the current set of maps that are given away free from TFL which haver a variety of different routes printed on them from designated cycle paths to routes reccomended by other cyclists, routes through parks etc, what they have landed up with is a map of London completlewy criss crossed with a very confusing but varied net work, I think they are just trying to give as many options as possible, the maps do work and I have been able to plan little cut through's and the like which I wouldn't have otherwise known about.
Now the down side, as what I think Delzeg is getting at is that some of the supposedly reccomended routes by other cyclists are just awful, negotiating kerbs, bollards, speed humps, not to mention ped's who reccomended these routes I have no idea it might have been a kid on an MTB, and how can serious cyclists be taken seriously by others when at one point they are steaming down the road with the traffic and the next they are using pelican crossings and going over pavements? For the commuter who needs a quick safe route to and from work the main arterial routes do not need any more investment other than more paint and more education for car drivers, Delzegg is right by scrapping the plans for the western congestion zone Boris has once again, alienated cyclists, all Boris does is posture on his bicycle for the cameras, in order to win the what is a major vote.!!! I did'nt vote for the fat tory twat in the first place.


----------



## another_dave_b (10 Feb 2009)

djtheglove said:


> I use the current set of maps that are given away free from TFL which haver a variety of different routes printed on them from designated cycle paths to routes reccomended by other cyclists, routes through parks etc, what they have landed up with is a map of London completlewy criss crossed with a very confusing but varied net work, I think they are just trying to give as many options as possible, the maps do work and I have been able to plan little cut through's and the like which I wouldn't have otherwise known about.
> Now the down side, as what I think Delzeg is getting at is that some of the supposedly reccomended routes by other cyclists are just awful, negotiating kerbs, bollards, speed humps, not to mention ped's who reccomended these routes I have no idea it might have been a kid on an MTB, and how can serious cyclists be taken seriously by others when at one point they are steaming down the road with the traffic and the next they are using pelican crossings and going over pavements? For the commuter who needs a quick safe route to and from work the main arterial routes do not need any more investment other than more paint and more education for car drivers, Delzegg is right by scrapping the plans for the western congestion zone Boris has once again, alienated cyclists, all Boris does is posture on his bicycle for the cameras, in order to win the what is a major vote.!!! I did'nt vote for the fat tory twat in the first place.



If you make a cross-town journey in a car, you tend to follow the A roads. Cross town road signs direct your journey, maps highlight A roads, and they're wider and faster. 

I'd always thought of the original cycle route network, as the same sort of thing for bikes, just using low traffic B roads.

I think the main reason you see so many cyclists on the A roads, is probably because they don't know a route, so they're just following the road signs. 

I think the key point in Mr Johnson's 'super highways' thing, is the proposed signage: "My proposals for cycle highways will provide safe and *continuous* routes for cyclists"

That said, I don't live in London these days, so I'm way out of date on the London cycling experience.


----------



## CotterPin (10 Feb 2009)

djtheglove said:


> who reccomended these routes I have no idea it might have been a kid on an MTB,



I have always been of the opinion that the London Cycle Network was dreamed up by a bunch of cyclists (possibly couriers) who were trying to figure out ways of getting around London that would avoid the busier and more congested roads. Somewhere along the way it morphed into a policy that became the only show in town. It reminds us of that we need to beware of what we wish because it may come true! 



another_dave_b said:


> I think the key point in Mr Johnson's 'super highways' thing, is the proposed signage: "My proposals for cycle highways will provide safe and *continuous* routes for cyclists"



Unfortunately I am not a 100% convinced (or even 0.001% convinced) that they will be continuous when Johnson discovers that they will interfere with the free flow of motor traffic


----------



## tdr1nka (11 Feb 2009)

The real problem is that the major routes in London are quite often the quickest and safest overall.
To take side streets can also send you down roads with cars parked down both sides, nil visibility at junctions and leaving you at the mercy of WVM and 4x4 school runners who also use these roads as rat runs.

There was talk of the Highway Code near insisting that cyclists stick to cycle routes and paths as much as possible to keep us out of traffic harm.
Thankfully it was dropped for the folly it was.
Had this actually come into force I would have 'technically' been able to cycle no further than 300 yards from my own front door. Utter bilge.

Those in power know that they should recognise cycling, the problem is that they seem only capable to recognising cycling from the point of view of the motoring lobby.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Feb 2009)

One of these days the story of the CTC's dark deeds on the Highway Code will be told. Put simply they were in a position to blackmail the government into changing tack. Which they did. To their eternal credit.


----------



## skrx (12 Feb 2009)

I use the major roads in London if:
* I don't know a better route (i.e. I've got lost, and forgot a map, and have resorted to remembering where "famous" roads go or following signs)
* It's night (saves using a squiggly route)
* The route has a bus lane (a.k.a. decent width cycle lane?)

The things that most annoy me as a recent convert to cycling (6 weeks) are:
* One way streets -- they mess up carefully memorised routes, and complicate going home again. They're intended to cut congestion, bikes don't cause congestion. I ignore them whenever it's safe to do so.
* Parked cars. That road space is too valuable to be used by one person.
* Squiggly routes. In Copenhagen (apparently), the most direct route is almost always best by bike, cars get the roundabout route.
I wrote to my London Assembly member (the one for Wandsworth and Merton, he's on the transport committee), I haven't yet had a reply (but it's not been very long).


----------

