Cross Rail Super Highway Green Lit

[AndyBSG]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/boris-johnson-gives-goahead-for-crossrail-cycle-superhighway-through-central-london-10004550.html

Not had a chance to look at it in detail but i'm sure once I do over my lunch break i'll see lots of flaws and compromises which make it just as inadequate as half the other super highways!

The fact 84% of the 21,500 voters agreed to it is a small victory though as it shows those wanting decent cycling infrastructure are NOT a minority group.

[AndyBSG]

Had a good look at the plans and have to say that overall i'm reasonably impressed.

There's not too many details yet on how they're planning on taking care of junctions but 18 miles of dedicated and what appears to be segregated cycling lanes isn't to be sniffed at.

I'm guessing from the route which goes from Barking to Hillingdon via the Olympic Park, Embankment and Marble Arch that it will be using the existing CS2 which will raise the issue of the deadly Bow roundabout.

Hopefully they'll also learn from the mistakes in CS2 regarding drainage which makes parts of it subject to severe aquaplaning during wet weather.

I see the cycle lane is all on one side of the road with eastbound and westbound cyclists seperated by a magical white painted line rather than having a separate lane for each direction on opposite sides of the road... Not sure if I think that's the best way to do it because it will see a lot of cyclists having to cross traffic at junctions when they want to leave the super highway.

Also, going to be a lot of angry coach drivers as pretty much an entire lane of embankment is currently reserved for them to park on and there's now no provision for coach parking!

More detailed images here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741803/Boris-Johnson-unveils-900m-Crossrail-bikes-including-15-mile-route-east-west-London.html

[Mark1978]

They now need to roll that sort of thing out up here in the provinces.

[mjr]

It's still much better than what's there now, but Boris has backed down and it's now going to be 3m in places rather than the originally-proposed 4m, which a. makes me think faster cyclists are still going to be on-carriageway at peak times due to congestion, like on the strictly-single-file Seven Stations Link; and b. makes me fear Boris might back down yet further until we end up with something as narrow as the SSL.

[MikeF]

The pictures look impressive. I hope the rest is as good.

The £41m central part of the route, between Tower Hill and the A40 Westway flyover at Paddington, is scheduled to be completed by April 2016

That's good going.

It's a pity other councils cannot make similar commitments rather than just focusing on motor transport and paying lip service to anything else.

[MikeF]

They now need to roll that sort of thing out up here in the provinces.

Can't just roll it out without a strategy.

[AndyBSG]

Nice to see that less than 24 hours after this being announced there are already several organisations threatening to get it overturned in court with the Taxi Drivers Association already seeking a judicial review.

I daresay this will end up leading to a whole raft of 'compromises' that see the final product costing more money and ending up not fit for use

[snibgo]

Hmm, 18 miles at 4 metres wide, cost £913m, and the current price of gold is ... click ... click ... click. Yup, the whole thing could be paved with gold 15mm thick. But then there'd be no money for white paint etc.

[honesty]

The LDTA's probable legal action is on shaky ground from what I've read, to get a judicial review you have to show significant failings in the consultation process, and from what people are saying that's just not going to be possible to show.

the biggest issue is not the LDTA, but the TfL itself. This has to be ratified by the TfL board, of which out of the 17, you have no members of cycling organisiations a member from the LDTA and one from the Canary wharf group...

[iviehoff]

They now need to roll that sort of thing out up here in the provinces.

"They" - you think this comes from central government? It's down to your own local government do get this stuff done. These things can be terribly local. Here in Chiltern District it's much easier to get this kind of stuff done in some of the constituent towns of the local authority than others, because of the differing attitude of the local councillors at town/parish council level.

[mjr]

Hmm, 18 miles at 4 metres wide, cost £913m, and the current price of gold is ... click ... click ... click. Yup, the whole thing could be paved with gold 15mm thick. But then there'd be no money for white paint etc.

18 miles is 28800m, while RantyHighwayman estimated that it costs £250/m² for surfacing with lights and drainage, so each 4m width is a neat £1k/m and 28800m @ £1k/m = £28800k = £28.8m - I wonder where the rest of the money is going?

That's so different from foresters who can build gravel track through woods for something like £40k/mile... but it's in the crowded cities where the available space has been divided up and in practice given to motor vehicles, where we need to reallocate more space to humans and moving existing hard dividers around is always going to be far more expensive.

[Mark1978]

They now need to roll that sort of thing out up here in the provinces.

"They" - you think this comes from central government? It's down to your own local government do get this stuff done. These things can be terribly local. Here in Chiltern District it's much easier to get this kind of stuff done in some of the constituent towns of the local authority than others, because of the differing attitude of the local councillors at town/parish council level.

It is down to local government but national government extorts an extraordinary degree of control over local councils in terms of national guidance and recommendations etc.

[Richard Fairhurst]

They now need to roll that sort of thing out up here in the provinces.

"They" - you think this comes from central government? It's down to your own local government do get this stuff done. These things can be terribly local. Here in Chiltern District it's much easier to get this kind of stuff done in some of the constituent towns of the local authority than others, because of the differing attitude of the local councillors at town/parish council level.

That's certainly true, but it's also the case that central Government controls many of the purse-strings.

Leaving aside London (which has its own budgets via TfL), cycle funding under the current Government has mostly been distributed via three routes: funding to certain cities via Cycle City Ambition Grants, funding to National Parks, and "cycle-proofing" Highways Agency trunk roads where few would want to cycle anyway. So if you live in Cambridge or the Peak District you're ok, but the rest of us are left to whistle in the wind.

[mjr]

Apparently the width drops to zero outside Buckingham Palace, thanks to the Royal Parks. Explanation and objection at http://lcc.org.uk/articles/a-right-roya ... hway-plans

[Mark1978]

Apparently the width drops to zero outside Buckingham Palace, thanks to the Royal Parks. Explanation and objection at http://lcc.org.uk/articles/a-right-roya ... hway-plans

Aesthetic reasons seem to be one of their main objections. It's funny because I hear that quite often, especially with the likes of bike parking - oh we can't have that because it's untidy for some reason. Yet apparently having a hundred cars parked outside is not?