tdr1nka
Taking the biscuit
- Location
- SE London, Bandit Country
Oh Boris! You do surprise me......
- Thread starter tdr1nka
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
tdr1nka
Taking the biscuit
- Location
- SE London, Bandit Country
Here's a tiny bit more detail.
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)
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)
jonesy
Guru
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.
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; andc) 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
It's a bit more complicated than that...
jonesy 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.
srw said:
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.
OP
OP
tdr1nka
Taking the biscuit
- Location
- SE London, Bandit Country
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.
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.
A
another_dave_b
Guest
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;
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.
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
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.
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.
A
