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

Won't work. Has been mooted many times before, from early days of motoring through to the bonkers car-fixated 1970s.

See http://www.sevenstreets.com/city-living/ghost-streets-5-the-floating-city/

And here's Jamie Tomkins - son of Crud - with 'cycling pipes' from 2007:
http://quickrelease.tv/?p=322

The only real solution is to take space away from cars.

"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."

Really? The Dutch managed it...

I'm not sure I agree with you Carlton

I can't watch the video at work - but the article link

a) is about pedestrian ways at first floor level

b) gives no clear indication of why the scheme was scrapped - simply notes that it was

I think in a city like London where cycling on-road is such an intimidating thought, there could very well be an appetite for something like this

I would agree however it's unlikely to work anywhere outside central London and related commute areas

Cautious welcome from me.

1. Boris probably won't do it.

2. If it did happen, then the fact that cyclists would be charged for using it will mean that uptake is never 100%, how long before other road users start shouting "You should be on the f***ing skycycle!"

3. Wonder if there would be speed lanes? It would be good for fitness to belt along this at 20mph+, less so if everyone trundle at <15mph.

"you can’t realistically build more cycle lanes on ground level"

There's a contrary argument that runs "Yes. Yes you can. It requires only that you take some space away from motor transport, as has been done very successfully in other European countries."

Also, why do cyclists get the unique privilege of paying to use a public right of way?

Stupid Stupid Stupid

"TfL estimate the number of journeys made by bike will treble to around 1.5 million by 2020. Where are they meant to go?

Surely if there are 3 times as many bike journeys some of these will replace journeys that would have taken place by car bus or taxi. So by successfully getting people to transition from other methods of transport you will be able to reduce the amount of "ground level lanes" available to motorised transport and increase that available to cyclists.

Second SimonE's point.

IF it could be made to work, this could be great - but its the funding and charging scheme that will make or break it. If funding plans are based on charging £1 per journey, it won't happen - one of the reasons for commuting by bike is the cost, and using these routes at £1 a go could get pretty expensive! So the financial models would need to be altered majorly to make it free or much cheaper if they want it to be viable. Surely some funding could be found from other transport budgets - this *could* relieve pressure on buses and tubes as well as roads, so those budgets could be used to contribute...

That said, if a yearly access pass was offered (rather like the boris bikes, at £60 a year), I'd probably take it, and I know many others would too. One of the key things stopping a number of people I know from starting cycling to work/into town is traffic, and some good traffic free routes would help massively.

I don't live in London any more so what Johnson gets up to has little impact on me but I can't help feeling the country would be better off if they'd just have left him dangling on that zip wire.

Quote:

"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.

Wrong! You just need to copy what they do in the Netherlands. This shows real ignorance. SkyCycle is such a silly idea.

More to the point, I made up this story in January as a joke and now it seems to be coming true!

http://wheelspedalsperson.posterous.com/londons-new-cycling-cloud-tunnel

Quote:

Where are they meant to go? SkyCycle is the next logical step, because you can’t realistically build more cycle lanes on ground level.

I agree with everyone who says this is bollocks.

And to the chap who thinks bike lanes are slow - visit the Netherlands where journeys by bicycle are demonstrably safe and fast.

Totally agree with Bhachgen, if there's going to be a massive increase in cycling in London then there's going to be a massive decrease in motorised traffic. Anybody who commutes during rush hour will have already noticed this beginning to happen. The key to safer cycling is more cyclists on the road (critical mass and all that etc).

Nice idea, but won't work if they're charging for it

How high is that track in the first picture?

Seems a terrible idea to have this covered. That means the wind & rain can't scour the surface, so anything that happens on the skyway, stays on the skyway. Which in London, usually means booze & pish & smoke & boke.

And riding in a greenhouse in the summer doesn't appeal at all.

@nowasps - the first pic is only a metre or two up, they're riding over Legoland Windsor

Jings, it's like the intro to Futurama

Time to deal with the problem and send motor vehicles undergound so the centre of cities can be enjoyed as they should be.

This is late. About 5 months and 4 days late. Work out the date 5 months and 4 days ago...

This is a complete gimmick. Even if they used disused rail lines - how many are there and do they go where people want to go?

London managed to make space on the roads for the Zil/Olympic lanes - why can they not do it for cycling?

Quote:

[i]"TfL estimate the number of journeys made by bike will treble to around 1.5 million by 2020.

[/i]

Spinning in cycling normally has a different meaning but this is definitely a vested interest spinning the figures.

The more important figure from a planning perspective is the proportion of cycling as a part of all forms of transport. If there is a tripling of cycle journeys there is likely a proportionate drop in other modes of transport within the overall journeys made figure, and in a rational world a contribution of resources.

Then there is the impact of financial policy say a government decided that companies could not make interest free payment for commuting journeys of less than 10 miles but could provide employees with bikes and facilities that could be offset against corporation tax and there was no income tax (benefit in kind) to be levied on the employee as a consequence result massive increase in cycle commuting and the need to amend transport policy and provision. However, if a government was to reduce fuel duty the result would most likely be an increase in number and range of commutes by car.Therefore when considering cycle use as a form of daily transport context is everything.

What these advocates are promoting is the financial interest of those who would finance, develop and build a Skyway the fact that it is intended for cyclist is secondary to their organisation primary purpose.

just one problem: we loose the essential flexibility that a road gives us; that of being able to turn off at the junction of our choice in order to reach our destination by the most direct route. nahhhh. I'll use the roads.

We've got a shortish elevated cycle tunnel like this in Glagow it's stiflingly hot even in our sun Challenged climate. Like cycling through a greenhouse filled with pish, vomit and shaky jakeys.

The fundamental difference with european countries like the Netherlands and Denmark is that they have dealt with the fundamental cause of congestion which is the oversupply and under pricing of carparking. If you read Donald Shoups excellent "The High Cost of Free Parking" it quickly becomes obvious that trying to promote cycling or any alternate transport mode when local bodies force everyone to subsidise carparking is pissing in the wind. The increase in land pricing, urban sprawl, the economic and social detrimental effects of reduced personal contact and so on have a massive negative effect far beyond what most people understand. Building infrastructure isn't the answer, getting rid of incentives to build bad infrastructure is.

Like BelgraveDave if these figures are to be believed 1.5 mill extra bikes means 1.5 mill less cars so therefore less congestion on the roads, more space to cycle. Also like others have pointed out without loads of ingress/egress points the roads are a far better way to navigate London and since as a council tax payer I have already paid my "road tax" I will carry on using them regardless of whatever white van man says.