| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
Mayoral press release:
http://london.gov.uk/view_press_rele...eleaseid=22318 Excerpts... ---quote--- London's Cycle Superhighways - First two routes unveiled 5-6-2009 The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today unveiled proposed routes for the first two of London’s twelve Cycle Superhighways - the corridors for cyclists that are a key part of his policy to stimulate a cycling revolution in the capital. The two pilot routes, which will be up and running in May 2010, are from South Wimbledon to Bank via the A24 and A3, and Barking to Tower Hill via the A13 and Cable Street. The Mayor and TfL are consulting closely with the eight boroughs that the routes will run through. The aim of the Cycle Superhighways is to provide safe, direct and continuous routes into central London from the outer boroughs, making life easier for cyclists and encouraging those who travel into work by other modes of transport to commute by bike, helping to cut congestion, relieve overcrowding, and cutting emissions. Another ten routes, spanning across London and greatly improving the capital’s cycling infrastructure, are being developed ahead of 2012, with each route covering between 10 and 15km. [...] Each route will be given its own identity with consistent and easy to follow road markings and signs. Safety issues will be addressed through specific measures such as the provision of advance stop boxes and providing continuous lanes through junctions as appropriate. In addition, obstructions will be minimised and improvements made to road surfaces to ensure a smoother ride. [...] Notes to Editors The first two Cycle Superhighways are planned for delivery in May 2010 and will run along the following routes: For the South Wimbledon to Bank route: A24, A3 and Southwark Bridge Road passing through the boroughs of Merton, Wandsworth, Lambeth, Southwark and City of London. For the Barking to Tower Hill route: A13, Poplar High Street, Narrow Street and Cable Street passing through the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets and City of London. ---/quote--- There's also a link to a PDF map of the 12 indicative routes: http://london.gov.uk/news/docs/cycle...ghways-map.pdf I haven't been following this as closely as I might have - I think the hyperbole inherent in the phrase "Cycle Superhighway" rather made me somewhat dismissive of early talk of the idea as being just some Boris- esque babble - but it is for real, as a real project has grown from that somewhat unlikely sounding germ of an idea. We're not going to get actual cycle only highways, with grade separated junctions, slow medium and fast lanes (yes yes you're not supposed to call them that - lanes 1,2, and 3 then), a hard shoulder and dot-matrix displays that tell warn you of a long-gone fog patch. Instead this is, as the press release says, about providing direct routes from the suburbs into central London along existing road corridors - we're not about to get a cycle highway building scheme to match the road building schemes of the past! Cyclists won't get a segregated route, at least not all the way (and I'm not counting mandatory cycle lanes on the same carriageway as a properly segregated route), but various measures are apparently to be taken to improve these routes for cyclists. I'm now going to take a look at each of the two routes in a bit more detail... * South Wimbledon to Bank, route 7 One of the first routes (route 7 on the map) is from South Wimbledon to Bank - this is basically the 'Northern line route' as it shadows the line (more historically accurately, the line was built under the road on purpose so as to get round wayleave issues when going under private property). This relatively straight A23 and A3 route is already very well used by cycle commuters, many of whom are likely to have opted for it instead of the ultra-busy Northern line - this is helped by the fact that there isn't an obvious parallel route on quieter side streets to follow. In a sense the critical mass of cyclists using this route (at peak times at least) could be said to already make it a 'cycle highway' anyway - in that sense choosing it as one of the first routes is perhaps a bit of an 'easy win'. Nonetheless it'll be interesting to see what changes are made. Presumably at Elephant & Castle the route will be signed to direct people around the pre-existing LCN [1] 'cycle bypass' on the side streets as opposed to through the main road junction - the big plan is for both the roundabouts to go eventually (the southern one should be gone much sooner), so perhaps the cycle route would eventually go direct through the Elephant. * Barking to Tower Hill, route 3 The other of the first routes (route 3 on the map) is from Barking to Tower Hill. This goes along the A13 for a considerable distance - if I'm not much mistaken, for much if not all of the stretch of the A13 from Barking to Poplar there is already a cycle pathway adjacent to the road, albeit perhaps a shared use path with pedestrians. Significant upgrades took place on this stretch of the A13 only a few years ago [1] - remodelled carriageways and grade separated junctions were one outcome, and I believe the provision of an adjacent cycle pathway was another (not sure this existed as such beforehand). So actually there's the essence of a fairly ready-made route there - that's not to say that it's necessarily kitted out as well as it could be. From Poplar, Poplar High Street, Narrow Street and Cable Street are fairly common sense ways to take the route on into central London - indeed they are all I think already designated as part of the existing London Cycle Network. It seems that this side-street route won out over trying to make East India Dock Road and Commercial Road more cycle friendly - but there is heavy motor traffic on these roads, especially what with them serving the Blackwall Tunnel and Rotherhithe Tunnel. And I don't think you could make the Highway E1 into a "Cycle Superhighway" however hard you tried! Narrow Street was of course where Bozza and Co had there near miss with a lorry and it's flailing doors, which illustrates well the inherent issues in sharing road space between cyclists and motor vehicles, specifically great big heavy lorries that are being driven too fast. I'm interested to see what restrictions if any are put on traffic down Narrow Street, given that it's an obvious rat-run used by motorists to escape the traffic of the parallel A13. So the whole "Cycle Superhighway" project looks interesting, but the real test of it is of course what actually happens on the ground. The "Cycle Superhighways" project has led to Boris shelving the completion of the LCN+, which I think is a shame. The "Cycle Superhighways" are based on commuter cycling into central London - but there are so many other potential cycle journeys that don't involve that. The plotting of decent routes along quiet back streets, signing them properly and connecting them up appropriately undoubtedly suits other types of cyclists, or indeed just styles of cycling (and a 'straight to the point' cycle commuter might well like a somewhat more meandering but pleasant route when making a leisure trip). And of course LCN+ routes also suit other inter-urban cycle journeys. However it is perhaps true to say that LCN+ is not ideal for working out longer cycle commute routes into town. Which I think shows that a good part of this "Cycle Superhighway" scheme is actually in the branding, i.e. in making the route information easily and instantly available whether on the ground or on paper/the web. I still think the actual name's a bit dodgy though! I am encouraged to read in the press release Boris saying that he's "militant about cycling", and talking about bringing about a "cycling revolution" - we shall see how these new "Cycle Superhighways" turn out. Nonetheless, it's perhaps worth bearing in mind that this is the same Boris who has cut cycle funding elsewhere - see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-boris-johnson ----- [1] SABRE on the A13: http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=A13 [2] LCN being the London Cycle Network - more accurately it's the LCN +, which is what the initial LCN morphed into - see: http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org.uk/ |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: Mayoral press release: http://london.gov.uk/view_press_rele...eleaseid=22318 Excerpts... ---quote--- London's Cycle Superhighways - First two routes unveiled 5-6-2009 The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today unveiled proposed routes for the first two of London’s twelve Cycle Superhighways - the corridors for cyclists that are a key part of his policy to stimulate a cycling revolution in the capital. The two pilot routes, which will be up and running in May 2010, are from South Wimbledon to Bank via the A24 and A3, and Barking to Tower Hill via the A13 and Cable Street. The Mayor and TfL are consulting closely with the eight boroughs that the routes will run through. The aim of the Cycle Superhighways is to provide safe, direct and continuous routes into central London from the outer boroughs, making life easier for cyclists and encouraging those who travel into work by other modes of transport to commute by bike, helping to cut congestion, relieve overcrowding, and cutting emissions. Another ten routes, spanning across London and greatly improving the capital’s cycling infrastructure, are being developed ahead of 2012, with each route covering between 10 and 15km. [...] Each route will be given its own identity with consistent and easy to follow road markings and signs. Safety issues will be addressed through specific measures such as the provision of advance stop boxes and providing continuous lanes through junctions as appropriate. In addition, obstructions will be minimised and improvements made to road surfaces to ensure a smoother ride. [...] Notes to Editors The first two Cycle Superhighways are planned for delivery in May 2010 and will run along the following routes: For the South Wimbledon to Bank route: A24, A3 and Southwark Bridge Road passing through the boroughs of Merton, Wandsworth, Lambeth, Southwark and City of London. For the Barking to Tower Hill route: A13, Poplar High Street, Narrow Street and Cable Street passing through the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets and City of London. ---/quote--- There's also a link to a PDF map of the 12 indicative routes: http://london.gov.uk/news/docs/cycle...ghways-map.pdf I haven't been following this as closely as I might have - I think the hyperbole inherent in the phrase "Cycle Superhighway" rather made me somewhat dismissive of early talk of the idea as being just some Boris- esque babble - but it is for real, as a real project has grown from that somewhat unlikely sounding germ of an idea. We're not going to get actual cycle only highways, with grade separated junctions, slow medium and fast lanes (yes yes you're not supposed to call them that - lanes 1,2, and 3 then), a hard shoulder and dot-matrix displays that tell warn you of a long-gone fog patch. Instead this is, as the press release says, about providing direct routes from the suburbs into central London along existing road corridors - we're not about to get a cycle highway building scheme to match the road building schemes of the past! Cyclists won't get a segregated route, at least not all the way (and I'm not counting mandatory cycle lanes on the same carriageway as a properly segregated route), but various measures are apparently to be taken to improve these routes for cyclists. I'm now going to take a look at each of the two routes in a bit more detail... * South Wimbledon to Bank, route 7 One of the first routes (route 7 on the map) is from South Wimbledon to Bank - this is basically the 'Northern line route' as it shadows the line (more historically accurately, the line was built under the road on purpose so as to get round wayleave issues when going under private property). This relatively straight A23 and A3 route is already very well used by cycle commuters, many of whom are likely to have opted for it instead of the ultra-busy Northern line - this is helped by the fact that there isn't an obvious parallel route on quieter side streets to follow. In a sense the critical mass of cyclists using this route (at peak times at least) could be said to already make it a 'cycle highway' anyway - in that sense choosing it as one of the first routes is perhaps a bit of an 'easy win'. Nonetheless it'll be interesting to see what changes are made. Presumably at Elephant & Castle the route will be signed to direct people around the pre-existing LCN [1] 'cycle bypass' on the side streets as opposed to through the main road junction - the big plan is for both the roundabouts to go eventually (the southern one should be gone much sooner), so perhaps the cycle route would eventually go direct through the Elephant. * Barking to Tower Hill, route 3 The other of the first routes (route 3 on the map) is from Barking to Tower Hill. This goes along the A13 for a considerable distance - if I'm not much mistaken, for much if not all of the stretch of the A13 from Barking to Poplar there is already a cycle pathway adjacent to the road, albeit perhaps a shared use path with pedestrians. Significant upgrades took place on this stretch of the A13 only a few years ago [1] - remodelled carriageways and grade separated junctions were one outcome, and I believe the provision of an adjacent cycle pathway was another (not sure this existed as such beforehand). So actually there's the essence of a fairly ready-made route there - that's not to say that it's necessarily kitted out as well as it could be. From Poplar, Poplar High Street, Narrow Street and Cable Street are fairly common sense ways to take the route on into central London - indeed they are all I think already designated as part of the existing London Cycle Network. It seems that this side-street route won out over trying to make East India Dock Road and Commercial Road more cycle friendly - but there is heavy motor traffic on these roads, especially what with them serving the Blackwall Tunnel and Rotherhithe Tunnel. And I don't think you could make the Highway E1 into a "Cycle Superhighway" however hard you tried! Narrow Street was of course where Bozza and Co had there near miss with a lorry and it's flailing doors, which illustrates well the inherent issues in sharing road space between cyclists and motor vehicles, specifically great big heavy lorries that are being driven too fast. I'm interested to see what restrictions if any are put on traffic down Narrow Street, given that it's an obvious rat-run used by motorists to escape the traffic of the parallel A13. So the whole "Cycle Superhighway" project looks interesting, but the real test of it is of course what actually happens on the ground. The "Cycle Superhighways" project has led to Boris shelving the completion of the LCN+, which I think is a shame. The "Cycle Superhighways" are based on commuter cycling into central London - but there are so many other potential cycle journeys that don't involve that. The plotting of decent routes along quiet back streets, signing them properly and connecting them up appropriately undoubtedly suits other types of cyclists, or indeed just styles of cycling (and a 'straight to the point' cycle commuter might well like a somewhat more meandering but pleasant route when making a leisure trip). And of course LCN+ routes also suit other inter-urban cycle journeys. However it is perhaps true to say that LCN+ is not ideal for working out longer cycle commute routes into town. Which I think shows that a good part of this "Cycle Superhighway" scheme is actually in the branding, i.e. in making the route information easily and instantly available whether on the ground or on paper/the web. I still think the actual name's a bit dodgy though! I am encouraged to read in the press release Boris saying that he's "militant about cycling", and talking about bringing about a "cycling revolution" - we shall see how these new "Cycle Superhighways" turn out. Nonetheless, it's perhaps worth bearing in mind that this is the same Boris who has cut cycle funding elsewhere - see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-boris-johnson What a monstrous waste of money. These expensive routes will START very lightly trafficked as selfish cyclists insist on their "right" to use roads with other traffic, and will quickly fall off to near-zero when the few who DO use them start whining that they're full of broken glass, pedestrians, and other hazards that 'disrupt' their journeys. Funny, they don't give a **** when they disrupt everyone ELSE'S journeys... Far better to make them roads instead, and let the bikes take their chances just as they do on other carraigeways. Ironically, opening the routes up to cars will actually turn out to put MORE bike traffic on them, not less! |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Jun 5, 7:12 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T wrote: Mayoral press release: http://london.gov.uk/view_press_rele...eleaseid=22318 Excerpts... ---quote--- London's Cycle Superhighways - First two routes unveiled 5-6-2009 The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today unveiled proposed routes for the first two of London’s twelve Cycle Superhighways - the corridors for cyclists that are a key part of his policy to stimulate a cycling revolution in the capital. The two pilot routes, which will be up and running in May 2010, are from South Wimbledon to Bank via the A24 and A3, and Barking to Tower Hill via the A13 and Cable Street. The Mayor and TfL are consulting closely with the eight boroughs that the routes will run through. The aim of the Cycle Superhighways is to provide safe, direct and continuous routes into central London from the outer boroughs, making life easier for cyclists and encouraging those who travel into work by other modes of transport to commute by bike, helping to cut congestion, relieve overcrowding, and cutting emissions. Another ten routes, spanning across London and greatly improving the capital’s cycling infrastructure, are being developed ahead of 2012, with each route covering between 10 and 15km. [...] Each route will be given its own identity with consistent and easy to follow road markings and signs. Safety issues will be addressed through specific measures such as the provision of advance stop boxes and providing continuous lanes through junctions as appropriate. In addition, obstructions will be minimised and improvements made to road surfaces to ensure a smoother ride. [...] Notes to Editors The first two Cycle Superhighways are planned for delivery in May 2010 and will run along the following routes: For the South Wimbledon to Bank route: A24, A3 and Southwark Bridge Road passing through the boroughs of Merton, Wandsworth, Lambeth, Southwark and City of London. For the Barking to Tower Hill route: A13, Poplar High Street, Narrow Street and Cable Street passing through the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets and City of London. ---/quote--- There's also a link to a PDF map of the 12 indicative routes: http://london.gov.uk/news/docs/cycle...ghways-map.pdf I haven't been following this as closely as I might have - I think the hyperbole inherent in the phrase "Cycle Superhighway" rather made me somewhat dismissive of early talk of the idea as being just some Boris- esque babble - but it is for real, as a real project has grown from that somewhat unlikely sounding germ of an idea. We're not going to get actual cycle only highways, with grade separated junctions, slow medium and fast lanes (yes yes you're not supposed to call them that - lanes 1,2, and 3 then), a hard shoulder and dot-matrix displays that tell warn you of a long-gone fog patch. Instead this is, as the press release says, about providing direct routes from the suburbs into central London along existing road corridors - we're not about to get a cycle highway building scheme to match the road building schemes of the past! Cyclists won't get a segregated route, at least not all the way (and I'm not counting mandatory cycle lanes on the same carriageway as a properly segregated route), but various measures are apparently to be taken to improve these routes for cyclists. I'm now going to take a look at each of the two routes in a bit more detail... * South Wimbledon to Bank, route 7 One of the first routes (route 7 on the map) is from South Wimbledon to Bank - this is basically the 'Northern line route' as it shadows the line (more historically accurately, the line was built under the road on purpose so as to get round wayleave issues when going under private property). This relatively straight A23 and A3 route is already very well used by cycle commuters, many of whom are likely to have opted for it instead of the ultra-busy Northern line - this is helped by the fact that there isn't an obvious parallel route on quieter side streets to follow. In a sense the critical mass of cyclists using this route (at peak times at least) could be said to already make it a 'cycle highway' anyway - in that sense choosing it as one of the first routes is perhaps a bit of an 'easy win'. Nonetheless it'll be interesting to see what changes are made. Presumably at Elephant & Castle the route will be signed to direct people around the pre-existing LCN [1] 'cycle bypass' on the side streets as opposed to through the main road junction - the big plan is for both the roundabouts to go eventually (the southern one should be gone much sooner), so perhaps the cycle route would eventually go direct through the Elephant. * Barking to Tower Hill, route 3 The other of the first routes (route 3 on the map) is from Barking to Tower Hill. This goes along the A13 for a considerable distance - if I'm not much mistaken, for much if not all of the stretch of the A13 from Barking to Poplar there is already a cycle pathway adjacent to the road, albeit perhaps a shared use path with pedestrians. Significant upgrades took place on this stretch of the A13 only a few years ago [1] - remodelled carriageways and grade separated junctions were one outcome, and I believe the provision of an adjacent cycle pathway was another (not sure this existed as such beforehand). So actually there's the essence of a fairly ready-made route there - that's not to say that it's necessarily kitted out as well as it could be. From Poplar, Poplar High Street, Narrow Street and Cable Street are fairly common sense ways to take the route on into central London - indeed they are all I think already designated as part of the existing London Cycle Network. It seems that this side-street route won out over trying to make East India Dock Road and Commercial Road more cycle friendly - but there is heavy motor traffic on these roads, especially what with them serving the Blackwall Tunnel and Rotherhithe Tunnel. And I don't think you could make the Highway E1 into a "Cycle Superhighway" however hard you tried! Narrow Street was of course where Bozza and Co had there near miss with a lorry and it's flailing doors, which illustrates well the inherent issues in sharing road space between cyclists and motor vehicles, specifically great big heavy lorries that are being driven too fast. I'm interested to see what restrictions if any are put on traffic down Narrow Street, given that it's an obvious rat-run used by motorists to escape the traffic of the parallel A13. So the whole "Cycle Superhighway" project looks interesting, but the real test of it is of course what actually happens on the ground. The "Cycle Superhighways" project has led to Boris shelving the completion of the LCN+, which I think is a shame. The "Cycle Superhighways" are based on commuter cycling into central London - but there are so many other potential cycle journeys that don't involve that. The plotting of decent routes along quiet back streets, signing them properly and connecting them up appropriately undoubtedly suits other types of cyclists, or indeed just styles of cycling (and a 'straight to the point' cycle commuter might well like a somewhat more meandering but pleasant route when making a leisure trip). And of course LCN+ routes also suit other inter-urban cycle journeys. However it is perhaps true to say that LCN+ is not ideal for working out longer cycle commute routes into town. Which I think shows that a good part of this "Cycle Superhighway" scheme is actually in the branding, i.e. in making the route information easily and instantly available whether on the ground or on paper/the web. I still think the actual name's a bit dodgy though! I am encouraged to read in the press release Boris saying that he's "militant about cycling", and talking about bringing about a "cycling revolution" - we shall see how these new "Cycle Superhighways" turn out. Nonetheless, it's perhaps worth bearing in mind that this is the same Boris who has cut cycle funding elsewhere - see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ycling-boris-j... What a monstrous waste of money. These expensive routes will START very lightly trafficked as selfish cyclists insist on their "right" to use roads with other traffic, and will quickly fall off to near-zero when the few who DO use them start whining that they're full of broken glass, pedestrians, and other hazards that 'disrupt' their journeys. Funny, they don't give a **** when they disrupt everyone ELSE'S journeys... Far better to make them roads instead, and let the bikes take their chances just as they do on other carraigeways. Ironically, opening the routes up to cars will actually turn out to put MORE bike traffic on them, not less! If you could be arsed to actually read the comments above you'd see that these are not segregated routes ie cyclists will be using the roads. What's the disruption to other people's journeys you talk of? Oh, I see, forcing you to lift your foot for a moment so you get to the next jam a second later? Tim |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:33:06 -0700 (PDT), TimB
wrote: On Jun 5, 7:12 pm, wrote: On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T wrote: Mayoral press release: http://london.gov.uk/view_press_rele...eleaseid=22318 Excerpts... ---quote--- London's Cycle Superhighways - First two routes unveiled 5-6-2009 The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today unveiled proposed routes for the first two of London’s twelve Cycle Superhighways - the corridors for cyclists that are a key part of his policy to stimulate a cycling revolution in the capital. The two pilot routes, which will be up and running in May 2010, are from South Wimbledon to Bank via the A24 and A3, and Barking to Tower Hill via the A13 and Cable Street. The Mayor and TfL are consulting closely with the eight boroughs that the routes will run through. The aim of the Cycle Superhighways is to provide safe, direct and continuous routes into central London from the outer boroughs, making life easier for cyclists and encouraging those who travel into work by other modes of transport to commute by bike, helping to cut congestion, relieve overcrowding, and cutting emissions. Another ten routes, spanning across London and greatly improving the capital’s cycling infrastructure, are being developed ahead of 2012, with each route covering between 10 and 15km. [...] Each route will be given its own identity with consistent and easy to follow road markings and signs. Safety issues will be addressed through specific measures such as the provision of advance stop boxes and providing continuous lanes through junctions as appropriate. In addition, obstructions will be minimised and improvements made to road surfaces to ensure a smoother ride. [...] Notes to Editors The first two Cycle Superhighways are planned for delivery in May 2010 and will run along the following routes: For the South Wimbledon to Bank route: A24, A3 and Southwark Bridge Road passing through the boroughs of Merton, Wandsworth, Lambeth, Southwark and City of London. For the Barking to Tower Hill route: A13, Poplar High Street, Narrow Street and Cable Street passing through the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets and City of London. ---/quote--- There's also a link to a PDF map of the 12 indicative routes: http://london.gov.uk/news/docs/cycle...ghways-map.pdf I haven't been following this as closely as I might have - I think the hyperbole inherent in the phrase "Cycle Superhighway" rather made me somewhat dismissive of early talk of the idea as being just some Boris- esque babble - but it is for real, as a real project has grown from that somewhat unlikely sounding germ of an idea. We're not going to get actual cycle only highways, with grade separated junctions, slow medium and fast lanes (yes yes you're not supposed to call them that - lanes 1,2, and 3 then), a hard shoulder and dot-matrix displays that tell warn you of a long-gone fog patch. Instead this is, as the press release says, about providing direct routes from the suburbs into central London along existing road corridors - we're not about to get a cycle highway building scheme to match the road building schemes of the past! Cyclists won't get a segregated route, at least not all the way (and I'm not counting mandatory cycle lanes on the same carriageway as a properly segregated route), but various measures are apparently to be taken to improve these routes for cyclists. I'm now going to take a look at each of the two routes in a bit more detail... * South Wimbledon to Bank, route 7 One of the first routes (route 7 on the map) is from South Wimbledon to Bank - this is basically the 'Northern line route' as it shadows the line (more historically accurately, the line was built under the road on purpose so as to get round wayleave issues when going under private property). This relatively straight A23 and A3 route is already very well used by cycle commuters, many of whom are likely to have opted for it instead of the ultra-busy Northern line - this is helped by the fact that there isn't an obvious parallel route on quieter side streets to follow. In a sense the critical mass of cyclists using this route (at peak times at least) could be said to already make it a 'cycle highway' anyway - in that sense choosing it as one of the first routes is perhaps a bit of an 'easy win'. Nonetheless it'll be interesting to see what changes are made. Presumably at Elephant & Castle the route will be signed to direct people around the pre-existing LCN [1] 'cycle bypass' on the side streets as opposed to through the main road junction - the big plan is for both the roundabouts to go eventually (the southern one should be gone much sooner), so perhaps the cycle route would eventually go direct through the Elephant. * Barking to Tower Hill, route 3 The other of the first routes (route 3 on the map) is from Barking to Tower Hill. This goes along the A13 for a considerable distance - if I'm not much mistaken, for much if not all of the stretch of the A13 from Barking to Poplar there is already a cycle pathway adjacent to the road, albeit perhaps a shared use path with pedestrians. Significant upgrades took place on this stretch of the A13 only a few years ago [1] - remodelled carriageways and grade separated junctions were one outcome, and I believe the provision of an adjacent cycle pathway was another (not sure this existed as such beforehand). So actually there's the essence of a fairly ready-made route there - that's not to say that it's necessarily kitted out as well as it could be. From Poplar, Poplar High Street, Narrow Street and Cable Street are fairly common sense ways to take the route on into central London - indeed they are all I think already designated as part of the existing London Cycle Network. It seems that this side-street route won out over trying to make East India Dock Road and Commercial Road more cycle friendly - but there is heavy motor traffic on these roads, especially what with them serving the Blackwall Tunnel and Rotherhithe Tunnel. And I don't think you could make the Highway E1 into a "Cycle Superhighway" however hard you tried! Narrow Street was of course where Bozza and Co had there near miss with a lorry and it's flailing doors, which illustrates well the inherent issues in sharing road space between cyclists and motor vehicles, specifically great big heavy lorries that are being driven too fast. I'm interested to see what restrictions if any are put on traffic down Narrow Street, given that it's an obvious rat-run used by motorists to escape the traffic of the parallel A13. So the whole "Cycle Superhighway" project looks interesting, but the real test of it is of course what actually happens on the ground. The "Cycle Superhighways" project has led to Boris shelving the completion of the LCN+, which I think is a shame. The "Cycle Superhighways" are based on commuter cycling into central London - but there are so many other potential cycle journeys that don't involve that. The plotting of decent routes along quiet back streets, signing them properly and connecting them up appropriately undoubtedly suits other types of cyclists, or indeed just styles of cycling (and a 'straight to the point' cycle commuter might well like a somewhat more meandering but pleasant route when making a leisure trip). And of course LCN+ routes also suit other inter-urban cycle journeys. However it is perhaps true to say that LCN+ is not ideal for working out longer cycle commute routes into town. Which I think shows that a good part of this "Cycle Superhighway" scheme is actually in the branding, i.e. in making the route information easily and instantly available whether on the ground or on paper/the web. I still think the actual name's a bit dodgy though! I am encouraged to read in the press release Boris saying that he's "militant about cycling", and talking about bringing about a "cycling revolution" - we shall see how these new "Cycle Superhighways" turn out. Nonetheless, it's perhaps worth bearing in mind that this is the same Boris who has cut cycle funding elsewhere - see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ycling-boris-j... What a monstrous waste of money. These expensive routes will START very lightly trafficked as selfish cyclists insist on their "right" to use roads with other traffic, and will quickly fall off to near-zero when the few who DO use them start whining that they're full of broken glass, pedestrians, and other hazards that 'disrupt' their journeys. Funny, they don't give a **** when they disrupt everyone ELSE'S journeys... Far better to make them roads instead, and let the bikes take their chances just as they do on other carraigeways. Ironically, opening the routes up to cars will actually turn out to put MORE bike traffic on them, not less! If you could be arsed to actually read the comments above you'd see that these are not segregated routes ie cyclists will be using the roads. What's the disruption to other people's journeys you talk of? If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling. Which means that the selfish sanctimonious ****s on bikes will inevitably ignore them, ostensibly because they get road detritus in them which is not swept by car tyres, but more honestly because they do love playing 'holier than thou so you'll have to ****ing wait behind me' with cars. Oh, I see, forcing you to lift your foot for a moment so you get to the next jam a second later? Tim New day, same old ********. Tell me, when the psycholists inevitably trot out this tired phrase, is it US they're trying to convince that there's a jam up the road anyway, or THEMSELVES? |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
|
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
wrote in message ... New day, same old ********. Tell me, when the psycholists inevitably trot out this tired phrase, is it US they're trying to convince that there's a jam up the road anyway, or THEMSELVES? You are the knob known as Nuxxy, Thaksin etc. AICM5GBP *Plonk* |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:44:16 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote: wrote: If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling. No they aren't, you bloody fool. Some of them are existing bus lanes, some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade segregated paths built [...] So, "No they aren't (segregated paths)", followed by "some are segregated paths". No, you're right, I don't see any contradiction there at all. LOL! Boris might as well turf them over and plant geraniums - the 'hard case' cyclists always, always, ALWAYS ignore areas dedicated for their use. Ironically, they complain about cars, but then say they only use the primary part of the road because cars have swept them clear of debris! |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:52:46 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote: wrote in message .. . New day, same old ********. Tell me, when the psycholists inevitably trot out this tired phrase, is it US they're trying to convince that there's a jam up the road anyway, or THEMSELVES? You are the knob known as Nuxxy, Thaksin etc. AICM5GBP *Plonk* I've never posted as Nuxxy, so (as ever) you're wrong. And if only you could refrain from crowing about your killfile, you wouldn't give anyone a clue that they'd need to change their name in order to reply to your error :) |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Jun 5, 5:41*pm, Mizter T wrote:
Mayoral press release:http://london.gov.uk/view_press_rele...eleaseid=22318 Excerpts... ---quote--- London's Cycle Superhighways - First two routes unveiled 5-6-2009 The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today unveiled proposed routes for the first two of London’s twelve Cycle Superhighways - the corridors for cyclists that are a key part of his policy to stimulate a cycling revolution in the capital. Good stuff. As Boris unveils more and more pro-cycling measures like this, the "closet" car-haters, led by Spindrift, are going to find it harder and harder to pretend that their dislike of Boris (and their love affair with Livingstone) is down to anything but a simple, spiteful, demented hatred of motorists (which they're so ashamed of that they don't even admit to it). I'm really glad a mayor's come in who is pro-cycling *and* pro- motoring relative to Livingstone, as he has exposed the pathetic lying car-haters for what they really are more effectively than any other politician so far. In a few years, when Boris has implemented countless measures which make things better for cyclists and yet Spindrift is *still* finding any excuse he possibly can to complain about him, even the most gullible and naive of people will see that Spindrift's agenda is everything to do with a hardline dislike of motorists, and *nothing* to do with "cycling advocacy", "cyclist safety" or any of the other causes which he so desperately tries to hide behind. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
wrote in message ... I've never posted as Nuxxy, so (as ever) you're wrong. And if only you could refrain from crowing about your killfile, you wouldn't give anyone a clue that they'd need to change their name in order to reply to your error :) If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly nym-shift. sigh *Plonk* |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On 5 June, 21:44, Tom Barry wrote:
wrote: If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling. No they aren't, you bloody fool. *Some of them are existing bus lanes, some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade segregated paths built when the road was widened to near motorway standard a few years ago. *In a few places where the road's too narrow there won't be a path at all. Spending money and taking roadspace away from cars are rather un-Boris things to do. *Taking someone else's work and branding it as his for a trivial sum of money, however, is par for the course, and that's what this exercise appears to be. Tom (who's mapping them at the moment for his own edification and amusement) Cable Street is a very interesting example, which partly consists of a raised two-way cycle lane, which prevents cars being parked there, in a narrow one-way street for drivers. Some of the dedicated traffic lights for cyclists can take a long time to change but then it is a pleasure to cross while all the other heavy traffic has to wait. For a short time there the cyclist no longer feels like a second class road user constantly under threat of instant death. -- World Carfree Network http://www.worldcarfree.net/ Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 23:27:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote: On 5 June, 21:44, Tom Barry wrote: wrote: If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling. No they aren't, you bloody fool. *Some of them are existing bus lanes, some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade segregated paths built when the road was widened to near motorway standard a few years ago. *In a few places where the road's too narrow there won't be a path at all. Spending money and taking roadspace away from cars are rather un-Boris things to do. *Taking someone else's work and branding it as his for a trivial sum of money, however, is par for the course, and that's what this exercise appears to be. Tom (who's mapping them at the moment for his own edification and amusement) Cable Street is a very interesting example, which partly consists of a raised two-way cycle lane, which prevents cars being parked there, in a narrow one-way street for drivers. Some of the dedicated traffic lights for cyclists can take a long time to change but then it is a pleasure to cross while all the other heavy traffic has to wait. For a short time there the cyclist no longer feels like a second class road user constantly under threat of instant death. I had a click along Cable Street using Google Maps Street View. I was not particularly impressed. You can click along he http://tinyurl.com/o5e2ye from: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF.... 33,,0,-0.68 |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:42:33 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:44:16 +0100, Tom Barry wrote: wrote: If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling. No they aren't, you bloody fool. Some of them are existing bus lanes, some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade segregated paths built [...] So, "No they aren't (segregated paths)", followed by "some are segregated paths". No, you're right, I don't see any contradiction there at all. LOL! Boris might as well turf them over and plant geraniums - the 'hard case' cyclists always, always, ALWAYS ignore areas dedicated for their use. Ironically, they complain about cars, but then say they only use the primary part of the road because cars have swept them clear of debris! Whoever 'for_chappers' is hasn't been reading the posts carefully for the past few weeks/ months. There is no "always, ALWAYS". And 'irony' doesn't come in to it either as there has been a lot of info about how much crap there is in segregated and even just separately marked cycle lanes. I wouldn't drive in that stuff - why should anyone have to cycle in it? Please keep up, thanks. And separated by a white line is not 'segregated', it's only got a white line, not a kerb or pavement or patch of grass that physically separates cycists from drivers. Well okay lets not get into a discourse on the definition of a word - whatever you call it, a part of the road that is only to be used by cyclists to the exclusion of other traffic ALWAYS falls into disuse quickly because the riders prefer the part of the road that is 'swept' by car tyres. So the point remains true - to REMOVE bikes from a road, make provisions FOR bikes on that road! |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 03:57:45 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote: wrote in message .. . I've never posted as Nuxxy, so (as ever) you're wrong. And if only you could refrain from crowing about your killfile, you wouldn't give anyone a clue that they'd need to change their name in order to reply to your error :) If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly nym-shift. sigh *Plonk* You really don't get it, do you? If you want to toss terms like "knob" at me, I'll ensure you see a reply. Just k/f me if you feel the need but don't bother proudly beating your chest about it and I won't know. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
[cross-posting to uk.rec.cycling *removed*]
On Jun 5, 5:41*pm, Mizter T wrote: Mayoral press release: http://london.gov.uk/view_press_rele...eleaseid=22318 Excerpts... ---quote--- London's Cycle Superhighways - First two routes unveiled 5-6-2009 The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today unveiled proposed routes for the first two of London’s twelve Cycle Superhighways - the corridors for cyclists that are a key part of his policy to stimulate a cycling revolution in the capital. [snip] OK, I've taken uk,rec.cycling out of the loop now - I hadn't quite realised what a magnet for trolls said newsgroup is. Nevermind, perhaps we at utl can manage a more civilised discussion! So if any other utl-ers want to respond to my original post, might I suggest they also remove uk,rec.cycling too. This is the BBC News story on the "Cycling Superhighway" initiative: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8084996.stm ---quote--- Cycle superhighways 'a gimmick' Cyclists have dismissed Mayor of London Boris Johnson's announcement of two new cycle superhighways through the city as a "marketing gimmick". From May 2010, two corridors of cycle lanes will lead from south Wimbledon to Bank and Barking to Tower Hill. But Transport for London (TfL) admitted much of the route would not be covered by the lanes through lack of space. The pilot routes are the first of 12 superhighways earmarked to be developed before the Olympics in 2012. TfL is consulting with the eight boroughs they will pass through to finalise the exact layout. Mr Johnson, who rides to work from Islington to City Hall, said: "I'm not kidding when I say that I'm militant about cycling, and these superhighways are central to the cycling revolution I'm determined to bring about. "No longer will pedal power have to dance and dodge around petrol power - on these routes the bicycle will dominate and that will be clear to all others using them." Where possible, cycle lanes will be separated from motor traffic and painted blue. 'Not groundbreaking' But Transport for London told the BBC space constraints made it impossible to build cycle lanes the length of the routes. They said it was too early to confirm what percentage of the superhighways would comprise cycle lanes. Andreas Kambanis, who writes the London Cyclist blog, said: "It sounds cool but it's not exactly groundbreaking. "It is a bit more of a marketing gimmick than a real help for cyclists. "But anything that raises awareness of cycling - and gets drivers to take a bit more notice of bikes - is a good thing." ---/quote--- I think the comments from Mr Kambanis are are a reasonable reflection on it all (apart perhaps from the "it sounds cool" bit!). Not quite so sure about Boris' comment that "on these routes the bicycle will dominate"... hmm... |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
[*cross-posting to uk.rec.cycling actually removed this time!*]
On Jun 5, 5:41 pm, Mizter T wrote: Mayoral press release: http://london.gov.uk/view_press_rele...eleaseid=22318 Excerpts... ---quote--- London's Cycle Superhighways - First two routes unveiled 5-6-2009 The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today unveiled proposed routes for the first two of London’s twelve Cycle Superhighways - the corridors for cyclists that are a key part of his policy to stimulate a cycling revolution in the capital. [snip] OK, I've taken uk,rec.cycling out of the loop now - I hadn't quite realised what a magnet for trolls said newsgroup is. Nevermind, perhaps we at utl can manage a more civilised discussion! So if any other utl-ers want to respond to my original post, might I suggest they also remove uk,rec.cycling too. This is the BBC News story on the "Cycling Superhighway" initiative: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8084996.stm ---quote--- Cycle superhighways 'a gimmick' Cyclists have dismissed Mayor of London Boris Johnson's announcement of two new cycle superhighways through the city as a "marketing gimmick". From May 2010, two corridors of cycle lanes will lead from south Wimbledon to Bank and Barking to Tower Hill. But Transport for London (TfL) admitted much of the route would not be covered by the lanes through lack of space. The pilot routes are the first of 12 superhighways earmarked to be developed before the Olympics in 2012. TfL is consulting with the eight boroughs they will pass through to finalise the exact layout. Mr Johnson, who rides to work from Islington to City Hall, said: "I'm not kidding when I say that I'm militant about cycling, and these superhighways are central to the cycling revolution I'm determined to bring about. "No longer will pedal power have to dance and dodge around petrol power - on these routes the bicycle will dominate and that will be clear to all others using them." Where possible, cycle lanes will be separated from motor traffic and painted blue. 'Not groundbreaking' But Transport for London told the BBC space constraints made it impossible to build cycle lanes the length of the routes. They said it was too early to confirm what percentage of the superhighways would comprise cycle lanes. Andreas Kambanis, who writes the London Cyclist blog, said: "It sounds cool but it's not exactly groundbreaking. "It is a bit more of a marketing gimmick than a real help for cyclists. "But anything that raises awareness of cycling - and gets drivers to take a bit more notice of bikes - is a good thing." ---/quote--- I think the comments from Mr Kambanis are are a reasonable reflection on it all (apart perhaps from the "it sounds cool" bit!). Not quite so sure about Boris' com |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Jun 6, 12:15*pm, Mizter T wrote: [cross-posting to uk.rec.cycling *removed*] [snip] OK, I've taken uk,rec.cycling out of the loop now - I hadn't quite realised what a magnet for trolls said newsgroup is. Nevermind, perhaps we at utl can manage a more civilised discussion! So if any other utl-ers want to respond to my original post, might I suggest they also remove uk,rec.cycling too. [snip] Except of course in my haste I failed to actually remove the cross- post. FWIW, I have reposted the above message in utl only. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
Mizter T wrote:
I think the comments from Mr Kambanis are are a reasonable reflection on it all (apart perhaps from the "it sounds cool" bit!). Not quite so sure about Boris' com Having mapped the routes out on Google Maps and done a bit of research on existing cycle routes, there really isn't much to the first two schemes other than taking good existing routes (e.g. LCN Route 15, which the start of Boris's Route 3 is based on), painting them blue and possibly putting some signs up. The later routes, for instance in West London, have not had the same investment and would require a lot more work to bring them up to equivalent standards, which is presumably why they're scheduled later, but an eye needs keeping on how much effort is actually put into this. In fact, it's quite clear that inner city and east end boroughs plus Docklands have had a great deal more done for the cyclist in recent years than us benighted west Londoners. There's actually quite a strong correlation between Labour boroughs (Lambeth, Newham, Tower Hamlets, B&D) and the cycle lanes Boris is relying on for the first phase of his scheme, despite the spin that these routes are 'for the outer boroughs'. The TfL map shows most of them penetrating only a short distance into the outer boroughs in the main and several outer boroughs are completely excluded (Harrow, Croydon, Bexley for instance). One amusing one is 'Route 9', which follows the N9 bus route, mostly. Quite who's supposed to cycle to Heathrow beats me - surely only workers would be able to do this, and is there sufficient secure cycle parking in such a high-security area? Jon Snow of Channel 4 News wrote in his blog the other day that his bike is often removed by the police when he parks it in Whitehall, on security grounds, and I can't imagine cycling up to Terminal One and chaining your bike to the security bollards would be looked upon with equanimity. A final thing - TfL's cycle mapping (http://cyclemaps.tfl.gov.uk/) is rubbish compared to people like Sustrans (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/map?searc...archkey=London) and Camden Cyclists (http://maps.camdencyclists.org.uk/). They appear to be relying on public contributions rather than informing us of recommended routes, which is again very typically Boris (cheap + individualistic + avoids the nanny state + fundamentally not very good). Tom |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On 6 June, 09:22, Tom Crispin
wrote: On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 23:27:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote: On 5 June, 21:44, Tom Barry wrote: wrote: If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling. No they aren't, you bloody fool. *Some of them are existing bus lanes, some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade segregated paths built when the road was widened to near motorway standard a few years ago. *In a few places where the road's too narrow there won't be a path at all. Spending money and taking roadspace away from cars are rather un-Boris things to do. *Taking someone else's work and branding it as his for a trivial sum of money, however, is par for the course, and that's what this exercise appears to be. Tom (who's mapping them at the moment for his own edification and amusement) Cable Street is a very interesting example, which partly consists of a raised two-way cycle lane, which prevents cars being parked there, in a narrow one-way street for drivers. Some of the dedicated traffic lights for cyclists can take a long time to change but then it is a pleasure to cross while all the other heavy traffic has to wait. For a short time there the cyclist no longer feels like a second class road user constantly under threat of instant death. I had a click along Cable Street using Google Maps Street View. *I was not particularly impressed. You can click along hehttp://tinyurl.com/o5e2yefrom:http:/...4,-0.042057&sp... Wrong end of Cable Street. Try exploring the street view further from the Royal Mint Street end. You will notice no cars parked anywhere on the cycle lane. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF.... 33,,0,-0.68 -- World Carfree Network http://www.worldcarfree.net/ Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift wrote:
Look at the stretch of road between Merton Park tram stop and Wimbledon Chase train station. There isn’t the physical space on the road in these places to do anything other than paint a line down the road, in full knowledge that it will make the ‘vehicle lane’ too narrow for a vehicle to drive down, therefore making encroachment on the cycle lane inevitable. If it's a slope, mark a cycle lane uphill only. If it's flat, set and enforce a 20mph limit. Other sections of the route involve cycling along dual carriageways. If the whole purpose of this scheme is to make cycling more attractive, then I don’t quite see how this adds up. Lane width could be redistributed, e.g. with a 4.5m nearside lane and 3.0m outer lane, instead of 2 x 3.75. This sort of juggling is harder on single carriageways. Many of the existing cycle network routes follow residential streets and, in the outer boroughs, bridleways / footpaths. In many ways I’m surprised to see the proposed routes following major roads and keeping well clear of the quieter and safer options, One of the better aspects (or maybe the only good aspect) of the Superhighway proposal is that it uses direct routes. If you're commuting, you want a direct, uninterrupted route. With few exceptions, back-street routes are too indirect and slow. There are of course some direct off-road routes (e.g. the towpath) but their capacity for high-speed cycling is low. However, I would be amazed if the necessary measures are taken to make the superhighways good. In particular, the roads they use meet at major junctions and gyratories. As we know from LCN+, there is precious little political will to make these cycle-friendly - and it certainly couldn't be done between now and May 2010. So I guess we'll get slow, tortuous bypasses, which will outweigh directness elsewhere. 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. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 04:15:51 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: [cross-posting to uk.rec.cycling *removed*] OK, I've taken uk,rec.cycling out of the loop now - I hadn't quite realised what a magnet for trolls said newsgroup is. Nevermind, perhaps we at utl can manage a more civilised discussion! So if any other utl-ers want to respond to my original post, might I suggest they also remove uk,rec.cycling too. A similar post was made in uk.rec.cycling about Boris' super highways about an hour before your post. Oddly it lacked the troll element. Perhaps the problems lie in the crossposting. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift Many of the existing cycle network routes follow residential streets and, in the outer boroughs, bridleways / footpaths. In many ways I'm surprised to see the proposed routes following major roads and keeping well clear of the quieter and safer options, One of the better aspects (or maybe the only good aspect) of the Superhighway proposal is that it uses direct routes. If you're commuting, you want a direct, uninterrupted route. With few exceptions, back-street routes are too indirect and slow. There are of course some direct off-road routes (e.g. the towpath) but their capacity for high-speed cycling is low. Cycling and high streets don't mix IMO, because of the behaviour of parking cars and people climbing in and out of them. Many back-street direct routes have been scuppered for road traffic in various ways in recent decades and have become decent cycle routes in the process: these could be joined together to create proper fast safe relatively car-free routes across London if there was the will to build numerous cycle tunnels or bridges over railways, demolishing several houses in the process. A plan called "cycle superhighways" only makes sense if the ride speed and safety are so high that cyclists will go out of their way to use the highway rather than a more direct route, in the way that car drivers will prefer a circuitous motorway to a direct B-road. I'm not convinced this plan does that - if anything, it makes it less likely that the bridges to join up the back street routes will ever be built. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift wrote: Look at the stretch of road between Merton Park tram stop and Wimbledon Chase train station. There isn’t the physical space on the road in these places to do anything other than paint a line down the road, in full knowledge that it will make the ‘vehicle lane’ too narrow for a vehicle to drive down, therefore making encroachment on the cycle lane inevitable. If it's a slope, mark a cycle lane uphill only. If it's flat, set and enforce a 20mph limit. Other sections of the route involve cycling along dual carriageways. If the whole purpose of this scheme is to make cycling more attractive, then I don’t quite see how this adds up. Lane width could be redistributed, e.g. with a 4.5m nearside lane and 3.0m outer lane, instead of 2 x 3.75. This sort of juggling is harder on single carriageways. Many of the existing cycle network routes follow residential streets and, in the outer boroughs, bridleways / footpaths. In many ways I’m surprised to see the proposed routes following major roads and keeping well clear of the quieter and safer options, One of the better aspects (or maybe the only good aspect) of the Superhighway proposal is that it uses direct routes. If you're commuting, you want a direct, uninterrupted route. With few exceptions, back-street routes are too indirect and slow. There are of course some direct off-road routes (e.g. the towpath) but their capacity for high-speed cycling is low. However, I would be amazed if the necessary measures are taken to make the superhighways good. In particular, the roads they use meet at major junctions and gyratories. As we know from LCN+, there is precious little political will to make these cycle-friendly - and it certainly couldn't be done between now and May 2010. So I guess we'll get slow, tortuous bypasses, which will outweigh directness elsewhere. Colin McKenzie A very nice summary ; Colin McKenzie to be put in charge of implementing the Superhighways NOW. Paul -- CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:42:33 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:
snip Please keep up, thanks. And separated by a white line is not 'segregated', it's only got a white line, not a kerb or pavement or patch of grass that physically separates cycists from drivers. Perhaps you should inform the DfT of their error: When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Please keep up, thanks. -- DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795 |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:06:38 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
wrote: -- 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. Not true: -- DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795 |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift wrote: Look at the stretch of road between Merton Park tram stop and Wimbledon Chase train station. There isn’t the physical space on the road in these places to do anything other than paint a line down the road, in full knowledge that it will make the ‘vehicle lane’ too narrow for a vehicle to drive down, therefore making encroachment on the cycle lane inevitable. If it's a slope, mark a cycle lane uphill only. If it's flat, set and enforce a 20mph limit. snip Colin McKenzie 20mph on that road, that would be improvement on the usual speed. -- Tony Dragon |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 03:57:45 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote: wrote in message .. . I've never posted as Nuxxy, so (as ever) you're wrong. And if only you could refrain from crowing about your killfile, you wouldn't give anyone a clue that they'd need to change their name in order to reply to your error :) If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly nym-shift. sigh *Plonk* I don't see you complain when Chapman does it. That's one of the things I like about urc : the double standards. -- Someone calling himself Lou Knee made a post in urc referring to another poster as "a piece of ****". The post was made from an IP address which had been used in urc over the last 6 years uniquely by Guy Chapman. All available evidence points to Lou Knee being a nym shift of Guy Chapman. A respected poster to URC, JNugent, has categorically asked Guy Chapman if he has ever posted using the name Lou Knee. Guy Chapman has refused to answer this question. Conclusion: Guy Chapman and Lou Knee are one and the same despicable person. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On 7 June, 14:10, Tony Dragon wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift wrote: Look at the stretch of road between Merton Park tram stop and Wimbledon Chase train station. There isn’t the physical space on the road in these places to do anything other than paint a line down the road, in full knowledge that it will make the ‘vehicle lane’ too narrow for a vehicle to drive down, therefore making encroachment on the cycle lane inevitable. If it's a slope, mark a cycle lane uphill only. If it's flat, set and enforce a 20mph limit. snip Colin McKenzie 20mph on that road, that would be improvement on the usual speed. Except late at night or early morning when roads are clear and speeding is commonplace and highly dangerous. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Jun 7, 1:29 pm, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:42:33 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote: snip Please keep up, thanks. And separated by a white line is not 'segregated', it's only got a white line, not a kerb or pavement or patch of grass that physically separates cycists from drivers. Perhaps you should inform the DfT of their error: When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Please keep up, thanks. -- DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795 The conversation was about the white lane segregating cyclists from cars, not cyclists from pedestrians. Please keep up! But of course you have your own agenda, as ever. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On 8 June, 07:52, Doug wrote:
On 7 June, 14:10, Tony Dragon wrote: Colin McKenzie wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift wrote: Look at the stretch of road between Merton Park tram stop and Wimbledon Chase train station. There isn’t the physical space on the road in these places to do anything other than paint a line down the road, in full knowledge that it will make the ‘vehicle lane’ too narrow for a vehicle to drive down, therefore making encroachment on the cycle lane inevitable. If it's a slope, mark a cycle lane uphill only. If it's flat, set and enforce a 20mph limit. snip Colin McKenzie 20mph on that road, that would be improvement on the usual speed. Except late at night or early morning when roads are clear and speeding is commonplace and highly dangerous. -- UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Tell me Doug, do you know that road, what knowlwdge of it do you have? Francis |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:42:33 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote: snip Please keep up, thanks. And separated by a white line is not 'segregated', it's only got a white line, not a kerb or pavement or patch of grass that physically separates cycists from drivers. Perhaps you should inform the DfT of their error: When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Please keep up, thanks. Are you really, really, really incapable of reading lines in front of you - or is it the need to twitch that prevents reading or just the mote in God's eye? Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
|
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, E.L. O'Hesra wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote: On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift Many of the existing cycle network routes follow residential streets and, in the outer boroughs, bridleways / footpaths. In many ways I'm surprised to see the proposed routes following major roads and keeping well clear of the quieter and safer options, One of the better aspects (or maybe the only good aspect) of the Superhighway proposal is that it uses direct routes. If you're commuting, you want a direct, uninterrupted route. With few exceptions, back-street routes are too indirect and slow. There are of course some direct off-road routes (e.g. the towpath) but their capacity for high-speed cycling is low. Cycling and high streets don't mix IMO, because of the behaviour of parking cars and people climbing in and out of them. So what you mean is that cycling and parking don't mix, then? tom -- Eight-bit is forever |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
In message . li, at
22:10:34 on Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson remarked: Cycling and high streets don't mix IMO, because of the behaviour of parking cars and people climbing in and out of them. So what you mean is that cycling and parking don't mix, then? And which are these "High Streets" that allow parking on? -- Roland Perry |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 04:59:52 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote: wrote: On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 03:57:45 +0100, "mileburner" wrote: wrote in message ... I've never posted as Nuxxy, so (as ever) you're wrong. And if only you could refrain from crowing about your killfile, you wouldn't give anyone a clue that they'd need to change their name in order to reply to your error :) If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly nym-shift. sigh *Plonk* You really don't get it, do you? If you want to toss terms like "knob" at me, I'll ensure you see a reply. The statement "If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly nym-shift" is generic and applies to anyone. But if the cap fits, please feel free to wear it. Just k/f me if you feel the need but don't bother proudly beating your chest about it and I won't know. sigh *Plonk* I think that ks was hoping to prove that you are an obnoxious ****. I think you have proved his point for him. -- Someone calling himself Lou Knee made a post in urc referring to another poster as "a piece of ****". The post was made from an IP address which had been used in urc over the last 6 years uniquely by Guy Chapman. All available evidence points to Lou Knee being a nym shift of Guy Chapman. A respected poster to URC, JNugent, has categorically asked Guy Chapman if he has ever posted using the name Lou Knee. Guy Chapman has refused to answer this question. Conclusion: Guy Chapman and Lou Knee are one and the same despicable person. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
In message
, at 23:58:12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Doug remarked: Similarly, cyclists would not be required to wear special clothing or protective gear like helmets unless drivers were too. I don't think they are required to wear any of that. But lights and reflectors are a good idea, and considering how many cyclists fail to keep those in working order, reflective clothing is a useful failsafe. [Cars, of course, are also required to have lights and reflectors; and drivers are required to use seatbelts, if not crash helmets]. -- Roland Perry |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
Doug wrote:
If cyclists were treated as normal road users, instead of as second class road users, there would be no need for segregation. They would be expected to travel in the middle of a lane, instead of in the gutter, which unavoidably would delay faster traffic until it could safely overtake. Similarly, cyclists would not be required to wear special clothing or protective gear like helmets unless drivers were too. If cyclists stopped believing they are victims then thier body language would also be reflected in the way they cycle. Why should cyclists think they are second-class? Why should cyclists also be led to believe they are second-class by other cyclists? There is no special requirement to wear fluoro/releflective or helmets but if all cyclists hear is 'It's not safe, the big bogey man/driver/ truck from hell is waiting for you to come out of your fron door' then, if they manage to pluck up the courage to venture out on a bike, Chicken Licken has persuaded them that they must go out wrapped in bright yellow. Perpetuating the myth is very handy as it allow people to go 'See, told you so'. If it wasn't a myth, how come so many people posing on the ng are not dead and risen from the grave? How come we are still alive after all these years? How have we managed to happily cycle around without the constant contest/conflict we are told we are undergoing? meh -- Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
On 15 June, 12:18, Keitht KeithT wrote:
Doug wrote: If cyclists were treated as normal road users, instead of as second class road users, there would be no need for segregation. They would be expected to travel in the middle of a lane, instead of in the gutter, which unavoidably would delay faster traffic until it could safely overtake. Similarly, cyclists would not be required to wear special clothing or protective gear like helmets unless drivers were too. If cyclists stopped believing they are victims then thier body language would also be reflected in the way they cycle. Why should cyclists think they are second-class? Why should cyclists also be led to believe they are second-class by other cyclists? There is no special requirement to wear fluoro/releflective or helmets but if all cyclists hear is 'It's not safe, the big bogey man/driver/ truck from hell is waiting for you to come out of your fron door' then, if they manage to pluck up the courage to venture out on a bike, Chicken Licken has persuaded them that they must go out wrapped in bright yellow. Perpetuating the myth is very handy as it allow people to go *'See, told you so'. If it wasn't a myth, how come so many people posing on the ng are not dead and risen from the grave? How come we are still alive after all these years? How have we managed to happily cycle around without the constant contest/conflict we are told we are undergoing? It ceases to be a myth when you are hit by a car and deemed to be culpable for your own injury because you were not wearing a helmet or reflective vest, etc, etc. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |
First two "Cycle Superhighway" routes announced
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying: Perpetuating the myth is very handy as it allow people to go Â*'See, told you so'. If it wasn't a myth, how come so many people posing on the ng are not dead and risen from the grave? How come we are still alive after all these years? How have we managed to happily cycle around without the constant contest/conflict we are told we are undergoing? It ceases to be a myth when you are hit by a car and deemed to be culpable for your own injury because you were not wearing a helmet or reflective vest, etc, etc. sigh No. You hit a car because you believe that your "right of way" gives you some exemption from having to compensate for ****ups other people make. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:23 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk