Cycling is back on the London political agenda, as Mayor Ken Livingstone – a man who refuses to get on a bike himself – unveiled a package of ambitious upgrades to the capital's bicycling infrastructure, including a commitment to a city-wide rental scheme similar to the Velib project launched last year in Paris.
Although the London project will be smaller – about 6,000 bikes, compared to 20,000 in Paris – it will deliver a big jump in the number of two-wheeled journeys in the capital. Better still, the scheme will be matched by another big investment in London's cycle network, building a dozen new "cycling corridors" for speedy access to the heart of town. For me, this development is the most exciting. One of my main frustrations is having to choose between slow cycle routes or dangerous main roads. A cycling corridor could wipe 10 minutes off my commute and make it much more enjoyable.
My only fear is that such a project may be impossible to deliver in an old city like London, where the streets are narrow and planning bureaucracy unwieldy.
To work properly, the corridors would need to be at least twice as wide as current cycle lanes and unhindered by traffic signals every few hundred metres. Given that most roads are too narrow to fit car, bus and adequate cycle lanes, it will be very hard to find the 12 new routes.
One solution would be to remove cars altogether from some central arteries, turning bus lanes into cycling corridors and car lanes into bus lanes – but that may cause chaos elsewhere in the city. So planners will need to think laterally – rather like the Toronto architect Chris Hardwicke, who has designed a network of overground cycling "tunnels" for the city. It may sound, and look, crazy (check out the image above), but if Livingstone really wants to transform London, ambitious projects such as this would deliver results.
The Mayor says he wants five per cent of all journeys in London to be made by bike by 2025, but with a truly radical overhaul of the infrastructure, these numbers could be much greater.
Still, good to see Ken upping the budget for cycling-related projects in London – even if he is doing it, in part, to score political points off his main rival, Boris Johnson, in the run-up to May's election. I'm disappointed that cycling hasn't played a bigger part in the campaign. As a keen cyclist, Boris was expected to make more of it. So far, he's only come up with a few loose promises to make cycling "easier and safer". For now, my vote stays with Ken.
(Photo: Marc Ngui)
I think it's a great idea. Although it would require a bit of investment it would bring London many benefits in long run
Tejvan
Posted by: Tejvan Pettinger | Friday, 15 February 2008 at 07:26 AM
Ahh! So this is what old Ken has been up to! For months he's been delaying the report of a scientific study carried out by the TFL in various parts of London, where it was evaluated whether or not letting motorcycles travel in Bus lanes would clash with the interests and safety of Cyclists. Much to the dismay of the Cycling community it was found that no, motorbikes are not all big, bad and noisy, letting them travel in the bus lanes alongside cyclists actually decreased the probability of collision between the two types of 'vehicles' by 42%! Not only that, it also significantly reduces the amount of fatalities in those accidents.
So, Mister Ken Livinstone isn't actually helping cyclists (or motorcyclists for that reason) by making their commute safer and 42% less likely to collide with a motorbike. All he's doing is playing the good old political game of flogging you vapour ware and as I can see you are glad to latch onto it. Shame. You should dig a little deeper: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2008/February-1-3/11-17/feb1208kenlivingstonecostinglives/?&R=EPI-98535
Good luck out there!
Posted by: Mich | Friday, 15 February 2008 at 07:35 AM
The new super highways sound great in theory, but I share your concern about how practical they will be to implement in London. Definitely smacks of electioneering, but no bad thing if it means more investment in cycling infrastructure. However, I think the money would be better spent on improving the existing cycle lane network - getting rid of street architecture, improving the maddening stop/start cycles lanes and increasing investment in their upkeep.
On the motorcycles in bus lanes issue, as a member of the cycling community I wouldn't be dismayed to share the space, particularly as already do so, if it meant motorbikes didn't use the advance cycle junctions.
Posted by: Peter Gilheany | Friday, 15 February 2008 at 11:21 AM