Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Boris Johnson must “get on with” building Cycle Superhighways following“tidal wave of support”

80 per cent of consultation responses back plans, though coach industry joins opponents

Mayor of London Boris Johnson is being urged to "get on with" building two Cycle Superhighways that will cross the heart of the capital. That’s the message from more than 165 organisations with operations in the city that have pledged “a tidal wave of support” to the project. Among opponents of the scheme though is a body representing coach operators, who say they will lose vital parking space.

Since consultation opened in September on the two routes, one from King’s Cross to Elephant & Castle, the other from Tower Hill to the Westway, the website CyclingWorks.London has been collating responses from businesses and other organisations, and asking people to urge their employers to back the segregated infrastructure.

It says support for the routes has snowballed in recent weeks, and the list of organisations lending their support includes household names such as Microsoft, Orange and RBS, top-ranked professional services firms including consultants Deloitte and lawyers Allen & Overy, and major public sector employers, among them the Barts NHS Trust.

Yesterday, as the consultation period closed, London’s Cycling Commissioner Andrew Gilligan confirmed on the BBC programme Sunday Politics that 14,000 responses had been received, and around 80 per cent of those were in favour of the plans.

Chris Kenyon, co-ordinator of CyclingWorks.London, said: “At the beginning of this consultation we had a trickle of businesses telling us they wanted to support the Mayor’s cycling plans. By the end of it we were overwhelmed with responses.

“From Bishops to bankers, from a sofa delivery company to some of London’s most exclusive lawyers, one CEO after another has taken the time to tell us – and the Mayor – that they want these safe cycle routes built without delay.”

Not all businesses are in favour, with property owner Canary Wharf Group leading calls for the consultation period to be extended – Transport for London did so by three weeks – and it circulated an anonymous briefing note warning that the routes would lead to traffic chaos, harm London’s economy and make roads more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.

Last week, ahead of the consultation closing, the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) told the London Evening Standard that it was worried about the impact of the Cycle Superhighways on the coach firms among its membership.

Coach operators bring 50 million visitors into London each year including for weekend performances of West End shows, when the vehicles typically park on the Embankment ahead of the return journey.

According to the newspaper, coach parking will be cut by more than 50 per cent to 227 metres once the east-west route along the Thames is open.

The organisation’s coaching executive, Andy Warrender, said:  “CPT UK is extremely concerned that TfL’s proposals for cycle superhighways on two routes through central London could see a reduction in designated parking and pick up and set down facilities for coaches.

“Parking is the number one issue for coach operators in London and TfL’s proposals could see a reduction of around half the available spaces in key areas such as the Embankment.

“CPT also has concerns about proposals for traffic signal phasing, arrangements for segregated islands at some stops, and cycle bypass facilities.

“If TfL’s proposals are implemented, congestion will be worsened and coaches will simply be unable to access some tourist facilities.

“The proposed restrictions on carriageway space may simply make it impossible for coaches to operate in London, denying the capital of the economic benefits they offer,” he added.

CyclingWorks.London’s Kenyon insisted however that opposition to the routes from the likes of Canary Wharf Group was simply a delaying tactic, and that the website demonstrated they had overwhelming support.

“Claims these plans are being rushed through are pure filibuster,” he said.  “The route was revealed in 2013, and will not be delivered until 2016 – three years from drawing board to completion. It’s worth remembering 14 cyclists were killed on London’s roads last year. Stalling for time is something London simply can’t afford to do.

“There’s been a tidal wave of support from companies in London who recognise that these bold Cycle Superhighway plans are not just a good thing for cyclists, but a good thing for the city as a place to employ the best talent and do business.

He concluded: "The Mayor now has a clear mandate to build these bike tracks, it is time for him to get on with it.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

37 comments

Avatar
belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes

Points 2 and 3 have been pretty much what I've been going on about. It's point 1 which is pointless.

Avatar
bikebot replied to belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes
belgravedave wrote:

Points 2 and 3 have been pretty much what I've been going on about. It's point 1 which is pointless.

That's too dismissive. Please explain your reasoning as to why you consider it pointless.

At the moment, you only support half the network, the quietway. So you either believe that main roads should continue to be dangerous for most cyclists, or you believe that every single road should be a quietway.

A quietway is a 20mph road with low traffic volume. Low traffic volumes cannot be imposed. Imposing 20mph speed limits on major routes, which today may have multiple lanes and a limit of 30, 40 or 50mph is not politically deliverable.

Transforming the major A roads through London into something that has the traffic volume and space of the Exhibition Road is not a realistic achievable goal.

Avatar
belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes

Congokid, I cycle up Exhibition Rd all the time, it's a wonderful road. Lots of space and very slow moving traffic. I agree the cost was outrageous but we don't need the fancy paving (that was just architects being allowed to run wild).
As for parents not feeling safe about letting the children cycle on shared space roads does that mean they will drive their kids to 'The Superhighway' and then let them cycle up and down it?
*Better add IMHO just to keep bikebot happy.

Avatar
bikebot replied to belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes
belgravedave wrote:

As for parents not feeling safe about letting the children cycle on shared space roads does that mean they will drive their kids to 'The Superhighway' and then let them cycle up and down it?

No, they connect to them via quieter roads. In terms of London, the LCC position is this.

1) Provide segregation on the main high volume routes to protect cyclists from large vehicles on roads which have a significant speed difference.

2) Away from such routes, the speed limit should be 20mph as standard. Rat runs on such roads should be closed whilst allowing permeability for cyclists.

3) Supporting the other national campaigns regarding law, enforcement, liability, policing, etc.

belgravedave wrote:

*Better add IMHO just to keep bikebot happy.

If you remember those points, so that the discussion moves forwards rather than repeats, I will be happy.

Avatar
bikebot replied to belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes
belgravedave wrote:

Congokid, I cycle up Exhibition Rd all the time, it's a wonderful road. Lots of space and very slow moving traffic. I agree the cost was outrageous but we don't need the fancy paving (that was just architects being allowed to run wild).

You should read the points raised in the aseasyasridingabike blog and respond to those, he describes the criticisms of such schemes as well as anyone I've read.

Exhibition Rd is not safe(r) because it is a shared space. It isn't a shared space, that's a myth.

The relative safety is because of the relatively low volume of traffic. Shared space does not provide low traffic volume, it depends on it. Shared space is a current fad in urban planning that is raising a lot of concerns regarding it's use with even quite moderate traffic levels.

Avatar
congokid replied to belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes
belgravedave wrote:

Congokid, I cycle up Exhibition Rd all the time, it's a wonderful road.

I cycle along it occasionally as well. I can't say it feels much different now from how it felt before it was redesigned. Other user experiences as recounted on those blog links I provided also appear to vary significantly from yours.

The road is supposed to cater for pedestrians, too, but it's obvious that they don't feel they have quite the same freedom to 'share'.

belgravedave wrote:

Lots of space and very slow moving traffic.

There is space, but one of the benefits of shared roads such as this is supposed to be higher traffic speeds than before, according to Simon Jenkins' article.

He writes:

An alliance between drivers and disabled lobbyists has required a visual divide where the kerb used to be, thus implying separate corridors reserved for pedestrians and drivers. This reduces confusion and increases traffic speed, making the space more not less safe for the disabled.

I'm not sure that's actually the case, however. Providing delineated corridors for vehicles to use gives drivers carte blanche to own the lane, drive at speed and effectively bully everyone else out of the way. A sense of 'confusion' on the other hand helps keep speeds down. And the idea of 'separate corridors' effectively means the space isn't shared at all. This is supported by this report currently on road.cc which says:

Painted bike lanes make no difference to the speed and closeness with which drivers pass cyclists ... if roads don't have centre-line markings, drivers pass cyclists more slowly.

It seems that ideally a shared space shouldn't have markings or delineated areas on it at all. Otherwise, drivers develop a false sense of confidence and entitlement, up their speed and make the space very unappealing and potentially dangerous to all vulnerable road users.

Avatar
belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes

Hi bikebot, I don't want people to follow me! I'm just posting up my opinion which is that 'The Superhighway' will be a complete waste of money and could be spent on dangerous junctions etc.
I'm not a messiah.

Avatar
bikebot replied to belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes

But are you a very naughty boy?

No problem with someone posting opinions. However, something for you to consider is that you're trashing the hard work of people who have been campaigning for years, and these would be people that have done the research, gathered the evidence and canvassed the views of thousands of cyclists. All the things you don't want to do, I guess you just want people to agree with you.

People have replied to you, and you don't seem to engage with them on the arguments. In fact your attitude comes across as pretty cynical and dismissive towards others. Even here, you feel the need to call the scheme a Superhighway in quotes and call it a waste of money, rather than address the criticism of your own suggestion which is many times more expensive per km.

Has the thought occurred to you, that you might be coming across as a little bit rude?

Avatar
ironmancole | 9 years ago
0 likes

Just to throw my tuppence in on the segregation dispute my feeling would be that seperation might fuel the 'them and us' mindset that already causes such tension and ultimately discriminatory behaviour.

I've been told by a particularly pleasant chap in his van to #uck off as "you're only a cyclist" after he'd nearly put me under the wheels of a following bus when he decided a last minute lane change wasn't worth abandoning simply because a cyclist, as opposed to a human being, was between him and his newly decided change of direction.

Sadly this is commonplace on our roads and MP s continue to back this type of behaviour rather than offer any kind of assistance that might give Jeremy Clarkson and his dribbling clan of monoxide sniffing cronies any cause to raise an eyebrow.

To my mind segregation is a distraction rather than the cure, which is simply to address the massive cultural issue this country has that currently allows me to get in my golden diesel wonder chariot right now and kill anyone that has the audacity to distract me from updating twatter whilst moving at an insane speed on my selfish route from A to B.

Until road users share road space with the greatest responsibility and duty of care demanded by those doing the greatest harm widespread segregation schemes (although absolutely useful) surely give die hard motorists more ammo when they see us 'in their way' and execute the infamous but terrifying punishment pass.

Avatar
Joeinpoole replied to ironmancole | 9 years ago
0 likes
ironmancole wrote:

Just to throw my tuppence in on the segregation dispute my feeling would be that seperation might fuel the 'them and us' mindset that already causes such tension and ultimately discriminatory behaviour.

I've been told by a particularly pleasant chap in his van to #uck off as "you're only a cyclist" after he'd nearly put me under the wheels of a following bus when he decided a last minute lane change wasn't worth abandoning simply because a cyclist, as opposed to a human being, was between him and his newly decided change of direction.

Sadly this is commonplace on our roads and MP s continue to back this type of behaviour rather than offer any kind of assistance that might give Jeremy Clarkson and his dribbling clan of monoxide sniffing cronies any cause to raise an eyebrow.

To my mind segregation is a distraction rather than the cure, which is simply to address the massive cultural issue this country has that currently allows me to get in my golden diesel wonder chariot right now and kill anyone that has the audacity to distract me from updating twatter whilst moving at an insane speed on my selfish route from A to B.

Until road users share road space with the greatest responsibility and duty of care demanded by those doing the greatest harm widespread segregation schemes (although absolutely useful) surely give die hard motorists more ammo when they see us 'in their way' and execute the infamous but terrifying punishment pass.

Segregation works really well in the Netherlands and Denmark. Segregation does not lead to more confrontation. Segregation leads to more people cycling because they feel safe to do so. More people cycling leads to an increase in the 'safety in numbers'. More people cycling makes it more likely that a driver may also be a cyclist (or family members or friends are). Hopefully segregation should eventually lead to less confrontation.

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to Joeinpoole | 9 years ago
0 likes
Joeinpoole wrote:

Segregation works really well in the Netherlands and Denmark. Segregation does not lead to more confrontation. Segregation leads to more people cycling because they feel safe to do so. More people cycling leads to an increase in the 'safety in numbers'. More people cycling makes it more likely that a driver may also be a cyclist (or family members or friends are). Hopefully segregation should eventually lead to less confrontation.

Segregation works really well in these places because cycling is prioritised over motorised transport, particularally in urban areas. Cycles have priority at junctions and the bicycle truly has become the most convenient form of transport for short journeys. The distinction is political and social willingness to embrace the bicycle and I suspect that if the Dutch or Danes were to design intregrated infrastructure it would still prioritise bikes in a way that is imposible in the UK with current attitudes.

Take a look at a Dutch roundabout that has segregated cycle lanes. Motor vehicles entering or leaving the roundabout have to yield to bikes using the bike lanes. Compare this to a UK roundabout with segrgated lanes (most likely shared with peds) and you will see that the priority is reversed. The same applies to cycle lanes that cross side streets.

On the whole I believe that segregation in the UK serves motorists and does nothing to advance transport cycling. In particular all of these footways that are being converted to 'shared use' are really the pits.

Avatar
Sidi 700c | 9 years ago
0 likes

227 meters of parking is not enough. You could put 1000 meters of parking and that would not be enough either.

There comes a point where sacrifices have to be made in favor of progress. Emission reduction goals have to be met and wont be met by increasing emissions or keeping a status quo.

The days of islands in the sea built with oil as has been done in Dubai are coming to an end. So we better prepare the infrastructure for cyclists now while we still have use of oil. The shtf within 100 years

Avatar
belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes

Anyone know of any accidents involving cyclists since Exhibition Rd became shared space?

Avatar
Al__S | 9 years ago
0 likes

The coach operator objection is hilarious- they go for the "big numbers" by claiming "almost" 50 million visitors to London by coach.

However, that number clearly includes:
Normal service coaches (National Express etc) using Victoria etc
Football, Rugby and other sports fans going to stadiums (this may even be the bulk of the numbers)
Gigs, conventions and other events at the Dome, Excel, Alexandra Palace, Olympia etc.
Tourist Attractions not near Embankment

if they were even slightly honest, they'd have produced numbers for the coaches that actually use these stands.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to Al__S | 9 years ago
0 likes
Al__S wrote:

The coach operator objection is hilarious- they go for the "big numbers" by claiming "almost" 50 million visitors to London by coach.

However, that number clearly includes:
N[...]
if they were even slightly honest, they'd have produced numbers for the coaches that actually use these stands.

According to the Office of National Statistics as reported by the BBC there were 16.8 million visitors to London in 2013. Not sure where the coach operators have found the other 33 million.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27323755

B

Avatar
AleT | 9 years ago
0 likes

There's no way I'd let my kids cycle on exhibition road. I'd have no problems with them cycling on the new embankment route though.
I am sure I am not alone in this, and surely that is the real test of the scheme.

Avatar
redhanded replied to AleT | 9 years ago
0 likes

Most of Exhibition Road is so-called "shared space" but in reality it is still totally dominated by motor traffic. The only difference from before is prettier paving.

Part of Exhibition Road near to South Kensington tube is actually quite nice, but here it has been virtually pedestrianised with motor traffic discouraged.

The whole "shared space" thing is a bit of a con trick to try convince people that a 7 year old on a bike can happily share the road with an HGV but that isn't going to happen.

The only way that shared space can deliver some benefits is if motor traffic speed and volumes is reduced substantially so it no longer dominates, but that hasn't been done for most of Exhibition Road.

Avatar
redhanded | 9 years ago
0 likes

It's about time they got rid of the coaches on the Embankment.

Funny that there doesn't seem to have been complaints from Westminster Council, Licensed Taxis et al about the coaches taking up road space.

A lot of the coaches are right hand drive and have doors on the right so it is very dodgy to get people in and out with traffic whizzing past.

Do they actually pay for the privilege to park there?

Avatar
belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes

Not sure why your trying to make this discussion so personal. But anyway getting back to your original comment. Research and the conclusions reached from them have to be independent and impartial otherwise they are worthless. So let's campaign for an area of London to be stripped of road furniture and try out the same system as Exhibition Rd (which must be the real future for roads in Central London) and see what happens to the accident rate.

Avatar
bikebot replied to belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes
belgravedave wrote:

Not sure why your trying to make this discussion so personal.

You're taking it personally.

If you actually want support for your position, here's a basic lesson of campaigning. No one will rush to your support and your arguments will be pulled apart and challenged. If you're not prepared for that, then you'd best quit now. Remember, at the moment you're amongst friends, the gentle knocks you'll get here are nothing.

belgravedave wrote:

But anyway getting back to your original comment. Research and the conclusions reached from them have to be independent and impartial otherwise they are worthless.

No, it's anything that stands up to examination. As with a court argument, positions are formed by the quality of the evidence and the number of people that are convinced by it.

belgravedave wrote:

So let's campaign for an area of London to be stripped of road furniture and try out the same system as Exhibition Rd (which must be the real future for roads in Central London) and see what happens to the accident rate.

Don't take it personally, but if you actually expect anyone to support you, you are being hopelessly naive. You haven't even bothered to research the accident rate yourself.

I gave you this advice once before; build your own case.

That's not being rude, it's advice, it's what campaigners have to do. And your reward for the hard work will be criticism, it's a hard ride (pun intended).

Avatar
congokid replied to belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes
belgravedave wrote:

try out the same system as Exhibition Rd (which must be the real future for roads in Central London) and see what happens to the accident rate.

Exhibition Road was also hailed by Simon Jenkins in the ES as the future of London's roads back in January 2012, when the work was almost completed.

Unfortunately, just two weeks later, the first serious collision involving a man, who suffered head injuries, and a lorry was reported.

I don't know what the rate of incidents has been since then, but it's clear that the road is not particularly well done, as one blogger reported even before the road was completed, and has not made all of the road any more attractive for vulnerable road users. For most of its length, Exhibition Road remains dominated by motor traffic. I don't think it would encourage anyone nervous about cycling in traffic to use it, or let their kids use it.

That's the acid test. Not KSI statistics.

Avatar
bikebot replied to congokid | 9 years ago
0 likes

Blimey, I'd forgotten quite how expensive Exhibition road was. £29m for 820 metres. The full East-West route is almost 30km and the budget for both routes is about £50m.

And as it's not actually shared space, something that's impossible without a massive reduction in traffic volume, all that buys is a nice looking road surface.

For those outside London, come see yourself how shared this space is - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.50172,-0.1745571,3a,90y,176.96h,92.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZptsLUTHkHcvwasVrpLJOw!2e0

Avatar
bikebot | 9 years ago
0 likes

Who said anything about Government research. Any research from any source, including self sponsored research is still research. If it hasn't been cited and reviewed before, others may want to examine the data used to support the claim and the methods used.

Of course if you don't want to do make an evidence based argument, no one is stopping you from posting opinions, which may receive feedback. As you can see, even on road.cc which has a readership reflecting a fairly narrow range of cyclists, (strongly biased towards the experienced and confident), your views have few supporters, possibly no one.

Avatar
belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes

Ok then let's all limit are comments to fully scrutinised government funded research results that has been repeated at least twice. And also not allow any input or comment from any persons or organisations that may recieve any financial gain from the scheme in question.
Would that be thourgh enough?

Avatar
belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes

Hi Mystery Machine, nope you don't 'get me'. I think the super highway will make cycling on other roads in London more dangerous. Drivers will become less observant if we segregate. Spend the money on police, junctions, regulation of lorries and most importantly more legal protection for cyclists.
Speak to any driver and they all admit the more cyclist around them the more observant they become.
So when your wife/kids are out cycling to 'the super highway' they will probably be put in more danger by these plans because of less observant motorists.
So no I'm not happy with the way the roads are now, but I would like the money spent to actually reduce deaths in London and not instead be wasted on this scheme.
Hope that clears up my position for you.

Avatar
bikebot replied to belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

I think the super highway will make cycling on other roads in London more dangerous.

And you have research to support that?

Some report that shows that drivers behave more dangerously in towns that contain a significant level of segregated paths on main routes, once they are off those routes.

I think we would just like to be assured that your position is evidence based, rather than just an opinion.

Avatar
congokid replied to belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes
belgravedave wrote:

Spend the money on police, junctions, regulation of lorries and most importantly more legal protection for cyclists.

We already have most of that but there is little will to implement it properly or enforce it. That's what the UK has been trying to do for the past 40 years to little effect.

With police budgets and manpower being cut almost every year I don't see them deciding to focus on making life any safer for cyclists. In fact every recent initiative has just focused on penalising cyclists.

The number of dangerous London junctions described by TfL as being targets for change has dropped alarmingly, and work on other roundabouts that supposedly follows Dutch practice has soaked up budget for cycling with little or no benefit to cycling. Current practice in the UK for cycling infrastructure at junctions is to ignore them completely and I don't expect that to change soon.

Even the proposed regulation concerning lorries (which are only a part of the problem) is being fought against by vested interests and will take years to happen. How effective it will be if it ever comes to pass remains to be seen.

But the main thing is that none of what you mention has been proven to encourage people who are nervous about cycling in traffic to get on their bikes and do it, or permit their kids to do it.

Avatar
Mystery Machine | 9 years ago
0 likes

Look, belgravedave - we get it. You don't like segregated infrastructure. You're happy to ride the roads just the way they are.

Well, I can handle them too (not that it's always pleasant). But my wife can't. Nor do I feel comfortable at the thought of my children having to do so. And I won't always be able to sprint off from traffic lights at 20 mph. I quite like the idea of being able to ride in the city once I get a bit older and more crumbly.

Why don't you try thinking about other people, rather than just yourself?

Avatar
pjclinch | 9 years ago
0 likes

It's not a poll, it's an open consultation so it's those people/organisations/businesses that felt motivated to comment one way or another and send in a response.

14K responses to the plans were sent in, ~80% of those were backing the plans.

Avatar
belgravedave | 9 years ago
0 likes

80%, really? That seems an incredibly high figure. Who were they polling the CTC! Would love you guys at road.cc to dig a little deeper and see how they attained such a percentage.

Pages

Latest Comments