On my way from my Airbnb to Victoria Station I found Cycle Superhighway 3, which has become very popular since it opened five or six years ago. Mostly marked in blue with lanes that were sometimes a bit narrow, it seemed to use mainly local streets (often punctuated by overly large speed humps) or parts of very wide sidewalks along arterials or collectors. It didn’t seem to take lanes away from existing arterials or collectors.
One of the less-busy segments of Cycle Superhighway 3.
After determining a route, the main cost to the city was paint and putting in bicycle-friendly traffic signals. The “superhighway” took me from east London to the London Tower; from there, another route followed the Thames River. Although this route was dedicated exclusively to bicycles, it was also interrupted by annoyingly large speed humps.
The jelly works cost of viagra canada faster than the other categories. In fact, these medical drugs are not available without prescription to enhance their sexual life without ever seeing a doctor. sildenafil in usa generic sildenafil uk During this procedure, surgeons remove the fibroids but not the uterus. A low quality anti ED medicine will only rid the user of money without actually bringing about levitra on sale a solution.
The idea of a cycle superhighway that follows routes parallel to major arterials has always sounded good to me. In the states, they are often called bicycle boulevards, but only a few cities such as Berkeley have implemented them and, from what I’ve seen, not very well. The one in London seemed to work well; at least, there were a lot of cyclists using it.
Other than the superhighway, London wasn’t what I would call a bicycle-friendly city: narrow streets often create potential conflicts between bicycles, cars, trucks, and buses. But it was friendly in the sense that motor vehicle drivers seemed to tolerate the bicycles, partly because in most traffic the bicycles could keep up. My main concern was to remember to stay left; once I found myself merged into the right-hand lane of a fast multi-lane street and was passed by several cars before I could get out, but none honked or otherwise expressed any signs of being upset by my presence.
Whoa, for a second I forgot this is the Antiplanner and thought I was on Streetsblog.
“But it was friendly in the sense that motor vehicle drivers seemed to tolerate the bicycles, partly because in most traffic the bicycles could keep up.”
If bicycles can keep up with traffic, this probably means the cars are travelling slowly, and therefore there’s significant congestion. This is a problem caused by London’s unreasonably narrow streets, causing delay and frustration for drivers. I hope Londoners will have a look at the American Dream Coalition’s research on bike lanes and consider removing them:
“Bicycle planners build new bike paths and bike lanes in city streets. Yet research shows these, along with most other traffic calming practices, often create more dangerous conditions for cyclists.”
http://americandreamcoalition.org/?page_id=4186
It’s incredible that the AP would have anything positive to say about the London bike infrastructure, because it violates every single one of the points of his “Transportation Manifesto 2013”: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=7304:
1. “The sole goal of government transportation agencies should be to efficiently enhance mobility”
From http://usa.streetsblog.org/category/cities/london/
“In addition to better bikeways, policies like congestion pricing and slow speed zones have made the city’s streets safer and more appealing for people to get around by bike.”
2. “The best incentives are provided by user fees and the best measure of an “efficient” enhancement of mobility is whether users are willing to pay for that mobility.”
City bicyclists use the bike infrastructure for free, in fact, they are subsidized by car drivers, since the congestion fees go partially to bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
3. “The goal of highway agencies should be to help people get where they want to go, not to where planners want them to go.”
The bike lanes in London have reduced the lanes available to cars, frustrating drivers by making them wait in congestion for the sake of bicyclists.
4. “The Transit Principle: The goal of transit agencies should be to provide mobility for people who can’t or prefer not to drive, not to persuade people to drive less.”
Again, planners in London have reduced the mobility of drivers by accommodating bicyclists.
In sum, the London bicyclist infrastructure is a terrible precedent that is used as an example by American planners of how we should ruin U.S. cities in the same way that London has been ruined.
“This is a problem caused by London’s unreasonably narrow streets”
Stupid European cities, developed in the Middle Ages before cars were invented. Just bulldoze those historic buildings and straighten the streets. Problem solved!
“The isuperhighway”’ took me from east London to the London Tower”
Totally pedantic, but it’s the Tower of London. Hope you went inside. It’s amazing.
I am a faithful reader of the Antiplanner and a bicycle infrastructure advocate. There are many ways to build smart, inexpensive, efficient bike infrastructure. Not for every city, not for every situation, but for many.
As far as I am concerned, there are three forms of personal transit: walking, biking and cars. They are all on the rise vs. mass transit. This isn’t a bikes vs. car debate, it’s a personal transit vs. mass transit debate. As such, the anti-bicycle attitude of free market advocates continues to perplex.
albert, when will bicycles don’t pay their fair share for the congestion that they cause? Think of the pollution while cars sit in traffic while bicycles breeze through London without a care in the world.Those bicycle lanes should be repurposed as toll lanes for cars to increase mobility and freedom for the majority who drive.
@nada. I’m not buying. It IS possible to build bicycle infrastructure that does not add to congestion. Most good designs involve lane compression (no loss of lanes) or secondary streets with little car loading (neighborhood greenways).
By your logic we should be removing all the sidewalks in Manhattan for automobiles.
I know cars are dominant. It doesn’t mean there the only valid means a getting from A to B.