London cycling Crossrail

I tend to assume stupidity over malice, but it has the same effect.
In the east, there is a segregated bike lane on the A13 from Canning Town to Dagenham that I've taken once or twice but it's just unpleasant. The only people that really use it are Hard Core Long Distance Commuters, and not many of them. Ocassional weekend leisure pootlers, but where's the leisure/pleasure in the route? It's much nicer to be on normal roads, and be able to get from a range of start/end points easily without all this crazy wait for the next footbridge business just to cross the road or get off the flyover. It makes cycling less attractive, and because it's billed as being "safe/good for cyclists" people who are unfamiliar with cycling will naturally just think this cycling lark is crap. And then, years later, planners can point at it and say "We provided this brilliant 10 mile segregated cycle path but no-one uses it. So clearly that whole endeavour to make things better for cyclists is a complete waste of time."

I guess the easy bit, as far as transport planners are concerned, is that because there are fewer junctions it's easier, and no-one walks there anyway, so may as well use one of the pavements. People don't just want to be able to get from A to B 'safely', they want to feel part of the city while they do it and not just grit their teeth and get on with the monotony of cycling alongside a bloody great big triple carriageway. Ultimately for me it's one big argument against segregation.

I only know the sections from London Bridge to Tower Hill well, and they are all a massive improvement in my view. Filtering through traffic (with a lot of HGVs) going west on Short Street/Tower Hill/Lower Thames every morning is pretty stressful, and definitely the kind of thing that makes people afraid of cycling in London.
CS3 will be a great commuting route, pity CS2 will still suck.

Which piece are you referring to? The westway? That piece looks a bit peculiar but it's a relatively small part of the whole scheme. The junctions at Blackfriars, Tower Hill and even Parliament Square all look like an improvement.

Rode over blackfriar's for the first time in ages during rush hour. Horrible. Wouldn't be difficult to improve it. But, anything is possible.

Yes or rather the principle of putting segregated lanes alongside big main roads that are themselves segregated from the normal bits of the city. I agree lots of it - especially where it's improvements to routes that people have demonstrated they already want to and do cycle on - looks good. Sorry I just got a bit carried away there...
Generally I do think it's positive to raise the visibility of cycling provision, although a risk which is hard to avoid is making the roads less available because "you're supposed to be over there".

also my first setence was in response to @Velocio

seems almost purposefully designed to fail.

I agree that that a major plus for cycling is a connection to the environment you're in, but these plans need to be considered alongside the ``Quietways'' that are coming next. Maybe there the plans will be a bit shit. These new routes are designed for fast commuting, hence connecting to to CS3.

What I have noticed with the existing E+C bypass, clapham common east side into the common and a handful of other places is that where a dedicated cycle path starts/ends/crosses a road and so needs dedicated lights you are in for a long wait.

As a result some really good cycle paths(E+C bypass for example) are ignored by the majority as they just don't want a 10min longer commute(just in the same way motorists take strange routes and "rat runs" for a cyclist it works in reverse and they end up on the faster main road).

I hope the signage and E+C bypass improve, building/connecting paths to make it a cycling hub so everyone cycles into E+C then turns off in different directions is a lovely idea but as it is the bypass is near invisible from 2/3 of the routes entering E+C and even those who see it have no idea where it goes/comes out so won't turn off(and the time issues).

But yeah going to have a read more in depth soon.

Is that actually going to happen or is it one of those artists impressions like those "Skyways"?

"The Motorcycle Action Group has already announced its opposition to cycle tracks and - bizarrely - justifies that by saying they will give cyclists higher rates of prostate cancer (there are too many levels on which that is simply plain weird)."

I don't know. It looks like a novelty, not a decent cycle track, but also it's not included in this consultation, this consultation ends at the top of Westbourne Terrace, the bits further West have no detail map.

I think the tendency to follow arterial roads might be to do with the practicalities of physically segregating the lane. If you put a segregated lane down a street with a lot of side roads you either have to block them off, or the segregation effectively disappears every 10 meters just when you need it the most.

IANA town planner etc...

Yet in other places, such as Royal College Street in Camden, they've managed to provide segregation without needing to use the larger road two streets to the West.

There is ample room on the route I mentioned for segregation, it's already achieved by sheer density of cyclists in the rush hour... so really it would merely be formalising the existing use whilst encouraging further use.

Oh well.

I just looked at your proposed route and completely agree, especially alongside the park, it's a total no-brainer. I wonder if planners just see side road interaction and "cyclist killed by left-turning lorry" headlines flash before their eyes. By that measure (rather than a measure of usability) a long section of totally segregated motorway hugging is the holy grail.

For what it's worth, my daily experience of segregated paths is this sort of shite which looks half decent from the road but is actually poorly surfaced, covered in glass and dog shit, and gives way to every side road. As a way of keeping people alive (and out of the way of traffic) it does its job though, which I suspect was the priority all along. Hopefully newer developments won't be taking this "bare minimum" approach.

Talking out of their arse:

As for prostate cancer, just under 1 percent of the men overall reported being diagnosed with it. Those who biked the most, more than 8.5 hours a week, were much more likely to have prostate cancer than the other men, although the study doesn't prove there's an actual connection between the two. What should men do? "Don't stop cycling because of this study," said Oliver, the surgeon in Scotland. The study is small, "not statistically significant" and based on anonymous responses from the Internet. The number of cases of prostate cancer -- 36 out of 5,282-- is small, and the apparent links to cycling time could be only due to chance.

http://consumer.healthday.com/cancer-information-5/mis-cancer-news-102/small-study-suggests-link-between-biking-prostate-cancer-risk-689692.html

When I had mine checked I asked the doctor if it was true the procedure was sexually arousing, she said "You're not bad-looking but I'm a professional". Tchuh.

My new job means I should probably caveat this with all kinds of disclaimers, but it's worth saying that - in response to your second para, first sentence - on this one they're actually taking out a lane of (motor) traffic (two lanes in places) to create the segregated cycle track.

Does anyone know the rational for putting both direction of bike lanes on one side and not one lane on each side of the carriageway? I heard it was something to do with minimizing the reduction in capacity at junctions, but I don't understand how that works - anyone? @Oliver Schick?

Does anyone know the rational for putting both direction of bike lanes on one side and not one lane on each side of the carriageway? I heard it was something to do with minimizing the reduction in capacity at junctions, but I don't understand how that works - anyone? @Oliver Schick?

You won't need 2 dividers so the road/pavement/other can be 1/2 foot wider. Also if you have a toucan crossing every few 100 yards and it's normal for the sequence to allow crossing peds and bikes then it's not slowing traffic? Not a planner or anthing but I guess it could work that way. The alternative which I guess has advanced stop boxes would slow traffic as it stops behind bikes.

I like it. I used to take the west way sometimes to get into town quickly from white city. Would easily save me ten minutes from WC to Kings X. If it's for a defined, repeating commute, I think it's win.

But, having said all that, I doubt it would suit more than five percent of east west cycle journeys.

And it has a hill at each end to gain access.

I think they would have much preferred Holland Park Avenue, but that road is owned by the borough, and they won't have been able to push it through. These routes are a TfL enterprise, so much easier to achieve when on TfL roads..

War on the Superhigways.

Ever since the plans for the East-West and North-South Cycle Superhighways were announced there has been concerted opposition from a group of the rich and powerful in London.

Due to cyclists' lobbying the Mayor made a very strong political commitment to provide high quality 'continental' style cycling infrastructure in London. Given the astoundingly poor quality of what he did in the first four years we have been waiting for a long time to see something better.

The East-West cycle superhighway is the best we are likely to see in this Mayoral term yet this route is now under highly charged attack from some sections of big business. A succession of very negative stories has appeared in the Evening Standard and other journalists have copied these without checking the facts.

Yesterday Transport for London published their traffic impact analysis of the east-west and north-south routes. The Evening Standard picked the very worst case scenario and headlined it in a way that mis-represented what the TfL reports actually say. LCC commented that the superhighways are essential to keep London moving.

Danny Williams has blogged giving an excelent analysis of the arguments being put up by a big property company. He has posted a copy the 'briefing note' they have been using to stir up anger and opposition - it is worth reading to see how they are arguing for a 4 lane highway along Thames st and Victoria Embankment to ensure London can handle international road freight efficiently.

There is an explicit threat that these people will use the judicial review process to block the Mayor from delivering on his electoral promises. It is beginning to look like war.

Some of the biggest businesses and employers are fighting back, supporting the new superhighways in a campaign organised by cyclingworks.london . This has become a major political battle. It is essential that as many people as possible support the TfL plans. You can use the LCC web link to do that and get your employer to support the plans using cycleworks.london

Having seen some of the ridiculous press on this project I've personally come down on the side of supporting the proposals. Sure, there are a lot of flaws, but I really feel that if this project gets shut down by lobbyists there will be no significant progress with cycle infrastructure in London for another generation.

My view is that segregated arterial routes are crucial to getting more people cycling. Ultimately more people cycling leads to a virtuous circle of more political weight behind cycling issues, due to a straightforward increase in voters who cycle and therefore vote in pro-cycling politicians. This will hopefully lead to a higher take-up of less glamorous initiatives like blanket 20 mph zones.

It also occurred to me (following on from Velocio's points up thread) that some of the weird routing is possibly due to the fact that the route has been planned to avoid disruption to bus routes, as this appears to be a real killer for remodeling projects. At the end of the day I'd rather have an imperfect system that actually gets built, rather than a perfect one that gets blocked at the first hurdle.

Anyway, I'm off to write a letter to City Hall.

Good post, thanks. The Danny Williams analysis is really good.

More on the 'conspiracy' by a minority against this in the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/10/lobbyist-canary-wharf-london-segregated-cycle-lane-crossrail-bikes

Corporation of London and the Canary Wharf group. Misguided self interest. How do they see cities of the future? What is their vision?
Cowards won't even debate this in public

How do they see cities of the future? What is their vision?

The only questions that are needed as far as I can work out.