Boris and his vision

[derrick]

I was thinking more of fuel revenue.

 

[albion]

Any false revenue from stuff we pay billions to import can't help Britain that much at all.

 

[dellzeqq]

Is your post on the one hand supportive of Boris' vision and on the other a rant against those cyclists who choose to wear Lyrcra? Are you a snob?

Boris' vision, believe it when I see it.

are you looking for an argument? Oh, sorry, I forgot.

It's a pork-barrel piece of work, but, the great thing is, not much of it will happen.

 

[Richard Mann]

There was an awful lot of "we will do xyz" in it. Quite a lot more than they have funding for, I think. The headline number is big, but it doesn't go far if you want quality and new alignments.

They haven't accepted that they have to deliberately take private car capacity out of the system, but it may provide some cover for their doing so in due course.

 

[srw]

They haven't accepted that they have to deliberately take private car capacity out of the system, but it may provide some cover for their doing so in due course.

I think that's the one thing that they have accepted - the talk of Embankment and Westway cycle lanes exactly does that.

 

[Richard Mann]

I think that's the one thing that they have accepted - the talk of Embankment and Westway cycle lanes exactly does that.

I meant private car capacity *that is being used*.

 

[dellzeqq]

looking at the bridge over the West Cross Route, I smell another Emirates Airline in the making. Here's the problem - the line of the bridge (which will cost in the high tens of millions according to Andrew 'Muppet' Gilligan) is really suited for long distance (over 5 miles) trips. But......the over 5 milers are already cycling in their hundreds of thousands, and there may not be that much upward potential. The money might be better spent on the under 5 milers. What do you think, Richard?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Being primarily anti-segregationalist, my first thought was exactly the same as 2 Petunia plants floating in space 'oh no, not again'.
On further thinking, there's much to commend it IF you take the view that it's a good step forward on a path to better things ... but not a final solution.

• Whilst I don't like segregated facilities I can appreciate that for many they will be a godsend or a way into cycle commuting for many afeared of traffic. As long as we that want to bomb along embankment on the road can still do so, then I'm happy.
• The quiet streets and routes through them is a no-brainer - Abingdon is very good at this with many a wide path between areas for cyclists and peds linking parks and shops n stuff (and some much used segregated facilities too). A lot of people young and old use bicycles along these routes regularly in Abingdon for day to day stuff. Leaving backs street 'rat-runs to cyclists seems a good idea for cyclist and residents alike.
• Linking cycling and railways is essential. Boris needs to kick the train operators.

But unless I missed it in my skim-read ...

• I'd have liked to have seen a much greater emphasis on more bus lanes/bus and cycle only routes rather than segregation (even the feted Holland has some horrible segregated schemes)
• No mention of extending congestion charge zones or increasing it?
• Cross london 20mph zone?
• Increased parking charges?
• Charging companies for their own parking spaces?
• Improved bicycle training for all?
• Cycle-priority at lights/complex junctions - to allow a safer car-free get-away?

I'm with dell on critical mass, it's a pursuasive argument, I hope that those that dust down their bikes to amble 'safely' along the embankment bike path or through parks with kids and granny in tow will eventually graduate become part of the critical mass. This might be the encouragement that many need.
On the other side, making driving in London more onerous must be the other driver to encourage people out of their cars and to use alternative transport.
Carrot and stick ....

 

[Richard Mann]

looking at the bridge over the West Cross Route, I smell another Emirates Airline in the making. Here's the problem - the line of the bridge (which will cost in the high tens of millions according to Andrew 'Muppet' Gilligan) is really suited for long distance (over 5 miles) trips. But......the over 5 milers are already cycling in their hundreds of thousands, and there may not be that much upward potential. The money might be better spent on the under 5 milers. What do you think, Richard?

I thought the Westway bit was just so they could get to the BBC. If it's 10s of millions for a bridge over the West Cross Route it's poor value-for-money. Providing for cyclists on Bayswater Road and sorting out Shepherd's Bush would be a much better idea.

In some ways, the big bucks for 1-3 suburban town centres is the most interesting bit, since it would require some places to do a full network review, which would provoke some severe teeth-sucking. That might result in somewhere coming up with a sensible plan (probably a lot less "Dutch" than some people think), or it might all come to nothing.

 

[dellzeqq]

the real vanity project is the Embankment. Gilligan reckons it will take a thousand cyclists an hour 'the equivalent of four tube trains'. Well, he's been travelling on different tube trains to me, because all the trains I go on can take close to five hundred people, and, at forty trains an hour in each direction that's...........lots.

The big mistake, and it's an embarrassing one, is to suggest that cycling delivers 'bangs per buck'. Not really. LCN+ was £200 million down the pan, and, when you compare Gilligan's thousand an hour with the hundred plus a minute leaving the top of my road by bus for the price of red paint, you wonder what he's been sniffing.

Small things can achieve a lot. Cutting a suburban road in two, makes a cycle route, makes for a quieter street and costs about £5k.

The bridge, by the way, is 'high tens of millions'.

 

[srw]

• I'd have liked to have seen a much greater emphasis on more bus lanes/bus and cycle only routes rather than segregation (even the feted Holland has some horrible segregated schemes)
• No mention of extending congestion charge zones or increasing it?
• Cross london 20mph zone?
• Increased parking charges?
• Charging companies for their own parking spaces?
• Improved bicycle training for all?
• Cycle-priority at lights/complex junctions - to allow a safer car-free get-away?

Apart from the parking charges - boroughs have no need of encouragement to whack up parking fees, since it's a sellers market - all of that's in there.

 

[Richard Mann]

... all of that's in there.

My impression was that EVERYTHING was in there, including quite a lot of mutually-contradictory stuff. Great for coalition-building, not-so-good for delivering value-for-money.

VE is a symbolic project, and goes round a lot of destinations (a bit like the cycle tracks in Seville). I was amused that it's shown on the river side of the Embankment - simplifies conflicts with cars, but makes it less convenient for shorter trips. Very telling. But it oughtn't to be that expensive, so as grand projets go, it's got a good symbolism/cost ratio. And if it's the trigger that makes them sort out Parliament Square, then it'll be a good thing.

If they want to reduce central London overcrowding on the tube, the way to do it is buses & walking and radial cycle routes from the inner suburbs. There's no business case in providing explicitly for long-distance cycling.

 

[dellzeqq]

My impression was that EVERYTHING was in there, including quite a lot of mutually-contradictory stuff. Great for coalition-building, not-so-good for delivering value-for-money.

VE is a symbolic project, and goes round a lot of destinations (a bit like the cycle tracks in Seville). I was amused that it's shown on the river side of the Embankment - simplifies conflicts with cars, but makes it less convenient for shorter trips. Very telling. But it oughtn't to be that expensive, so as grand projets go, it's got a good symbolism/cost ratio. And if it's the trigger that makes them sort out Parliament Square, then it'll be a good thing.

If they want to reduce central London overcrowding on the tube, the way to do it is buses & walking and radial cycle routes from the inner suburbs. There's no business case in providing explicitly for long-distance cycling.

you say that........have you seen the 'Go Dutch' proposal for Parliament Square? It's abysmal. But, apparently, shared surfaces are so last year..........

The bike lane on the Embankment will stop buses going down there for all time. A real shame - if it happens. I suspect it won't

 

[Richard Mann]

you say that........have you seen the 'Go Dutch' proposal for Parliament Square? It's abysmal. But, apparently, shared surfaces are so last year..........

I'd certainly expect TfL to manage a much better design than LCC.

 

[dellzeqq]

I'd certainly expect TfL to manage a much better design than LCC.

you might be disappointed. Have you seen the 'island bus stops' slated for Stratford High Street?

I think in all seriousness, Richard, TfL has had a lobotomy.