Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Plans for Boris's elevated cycle paths start to take shape

Firm of architects draw up plans for pay-as-you-go cycle routes

Last month we reported how Boris Johnson had revealed very rudimentary plans for an elevated cycle path over London, and now a firm of architects has produced sketches of how the project, with the working name SkyCycle, might look.

Sam Martin, a landscape architect and director of Exterior Architecture, has apparently been in discussions with the Mayor of London and Network Rail since May about using disused railway lines above ground in a network linking mainline railway stations across the capital.

Here it is:

Mr Martin told the Daily Mail:

"TfL estimate the number of journeys made by bike will treble to around 1.5 million by 2020. Where are they meant to go? SkyCycle is the next logical step, because you can’t realistically build more cycle lanes on ground level.

"You have to start knocking down buildings and there will always be the problem of traffic. It will be less safe than it is now and you can’t persuade people to get on bikes as it is even if you keep raising taxes on cars.

"Boris loves the idea and Network Rail are really positive about it. I sincerely believe it could be the next significant piece of London infrastructure and would transform the capital.

"It has been compared to New York’s High Line, which I am familiar with, but the reality is this is a completely different concept."

Mr Martin's plans include a pay-as-you-ride Oyster service, which he proposes costing £1 per journey, with a corporate sponsor like Barclays helping to fund the construction costs.

It is thought the first route could be built on the Olympic regeneration of east London, linking Stratford with the City of London through Liverpool and Fenchurch Street stations but this has yet to be confirmed.

Add new comment

32 comments

Avatar
TechnoTim2012 | 11 years ago
0 likes

An interesting idea but I can see many challenges.

1) It may pass planning in the poorer boroughs but in the more affluent areas it will get bombed out as noone will want their gentrified streets overlooked by smelly cyclists and the cost of the land (however small) for the pillars to perch it on will be exorbitant.

2) How many access points and exit points, where to put them and how to afford the land to build them. Are they seriously suggesting a route from Stratford to Liv St with no access or exit points, how about emergency access.

3) At those elevated heights how do you avoid it icing up esp overnight. Heated track would involve extra cost.
If you include ventilation to alleviate a greenhouse effect then this will clearly affect winter cycling adversely. Using low heat gain materials may help but would increase the cost greatly. On the plus side the lack of head and cross winds would make cycling a lot easier but cycling in a tube may create unknown vortices that are unforeseen and untestable to discover

4) Charging for usage would be a nonsense you would end up with the M6 Toll road issue, drivers continuing to use the M6 because they object to the extra cost. If an extra 1.5m cyclists used it the benefits would outweigh the costs though the GLA would never directly recoup the cost s so this would not enter the accounting (Tories are very simple when it comes to accounting as the economy if finding out sadly) They could, not that I suggest this, use it as an advertising platform as well.

Avatar
Grumpyoldbiker | 11 years ago
0 likes

It is an interesting idea, but I think the basic concept is so flawed and expensive that probably only a short amount, if any will ever be built, just so that Boris can hit the headlines. Why would they have to be covered, seems to add to the cost unnecessarily?

I think an important point made by a number of posts, is that every motorist or commuter who transfers to bikes reduces the the car and public transport congestion, so the idea that no more space can be released for bikes is fundamentally flawed.

However, this type of construction would only be justified for a high volume "trunk" cycle route and I think there is a lot of existing space that could be made available for these. Admittedly this is mainly in the suburbs, but there are a surprising number of railway embankments, edges of parks, playing fields, etc that are easily wide enough to have a safely segregated cycle path on them, and these could link with roads where they cross the railways. Just look out of the window next time you travel into London by train, or have a look on Google maps.

I think the principle of using disused railway lines is a great one, but why do you need to enclose the path in a tube? Also there are not many disused lines in London, and those that do exist have often been built over. I suggested some time ago to Sustrans and several South London boroughs that the old Crystal Palace high level railway tunnels could be used for a cycle way from Crystal Palace to Dulwich but I met with complete disinterest. (As far as I know both tunnels are still there!)

Elevated cycleways are not new, but they are only sensible where new trunk cycle routes can't be built on existing space.

Broadening the discussion a bit I also think that every farm that has ever received a government subsidy should give up space for at least two cycle ways across it. This would facilitate a good rural cycle network, similar to the Netherlands, where good cycle routes exist across the countryside as well as towns.

Finally, remember that the Netherlands has some of the highest population density in the world, and they have found space for cycle ways just about everywhere.

Pages

Latest Comments