Road Safety News
 

TfL unveils plans for new segregated cycle superhighway

Wednesday 16th July 2014

TfL has unveiled plans for central London's first segregated cycle superhighway which will tackle one of the capital's most intimidating gyratories.

Thousands of cyclists will no longer have to use the Vauxhall gyratory under plans for a continuous two-way and separated east-west track, which will be built from Kennington Oval to Pimlico, through the gyratory and across Vauxhall Bridge. There will also be around one square kilometre of new footway for pedestrians.

The new segregated track will be part of Cycle Superhighway 5 from Belgrave Square to New Cross. It will also link to back-street ‘quietway’ cycle routes at both ends, allowing cyclists from a wide area of south London to reach large parts of Westminster, the West End and central London entirely on traffic-free or low-traffic routes.

TfL's traffic network impact analysis shows that the completed scheme would mean some delays for motorists and bus users on and around the route. TfL says it will be putting in “extensive measures including enforcement, traffic management, and debottlenecking” along other parts of the route and the surrounding area, to minimise delays.

Public consultation has opened on the plans and work to deliver the scheme could begin in winter 2014. 

 

 

Comments

Comment on this story
Report a reader comment

What's your view - comment on this story:

I confirm that I have read and accept the moderation policy and house rules relating to comments posted on this website.
Your comment:
Your name and location:
Your email:

For once I agree. But it still annoys me that a minority group such as that to which I belong ie. motorcyclists have had to put up with the powers that be making decisions on road layouts to be marginalised on matters of road safety. Some of these give great concern to motorcyclist who quite rightly feel that they have been sidelined as they are considered insignificant in number as to be taken take into account.

Now cycling lobbyists want to change the whole pattern of our infrastructure either to integrate or separate or both and take it back to a time, many decades ago, when car traffic was only a tenth of what it is now.

Transport, that's bikes and motorcycles shared the same road structures 60 years ago and were 40% of the volume of all traffic. So now that its all change for the sake of another minority group (cyclists) cannot we also include motorcyclists in there as they are also considered a minority and more carbon friendly than cars. They take up less space, give better mpg, are more manoeuvrable and as such quicker to get from one place to another. Thus they save time and money.

In Amsterdam cyclists and motorcyclists enjoy a greater common freedom so let's take a leaf out of their book and join forces for the good of us all. By the way I prefer tea its much more refreshing to the mind.
bob craven Lancs

Agree (6) | Disagree (0)
+6

Bob
The costs pale into insignificance compared to the capital expenditure on roads and infrastructure which excludes cyclists. Eg motorways, crossrail, HS2.
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (1) | Disagree (3)
-2

Rod:
What I mean by a small % is similar to saying that over all the mileage of all vehicles per annum motorcyclists consist of less than 1% of all traffic mileage.

However on some roads on a Sunday in fine weather motorcycles will be the majority of vehicles on that particular road or in that particular area.

So as a minority I know what its about. You can't just isolate one specific time of day to change those % to argue a case. The motorcyclist has been trying to do for a generation or two. It doesn't work.

I don't see you arguing about the costs that I have outlined so I presume that you would consider them a valid point.
bob craven Lancs

Agree (3) | Disagree (0)
+3

Bob

You say "one small minute % of users.". Why not read the report? Nearly a quarter of all rush hour users are cyclists. You should wake up and smell the coffee. More and more our cities are switching to active travel including cycling and pedestrians.
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (2) | Disagree (4)
-2

What do you mean Rod by a few thousand pounds. A pedestrian crossing costs at least £30,000 so when we take into account the demolition of everything in the street, including lighting, pavements, road surface, possibly road foundations, re route services, signage etc. then let's be looking at hundreds of thousands and possibly millions. As you said this country will have to spend billions on just making the road surfaces safe for all, never mind extra spending on one small minute % of users.
bob craven Lancs

Agree (6) | Disagree (2)
+4

I'm not begrudging any money spent on cycle safety Rod, but I am begrudging the fact that motorcycling never had the same opportunity.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon

Agree (9) | Disagree (2)
+7

I think some of my answer is in another post in that the DFT are only now saying that in order to facilitate the promotion of cycling we need a £10.00 a head levy by 2020. As published that's £700.000.000. And I have seen many a person riding a bike that in no way pays car tax as they don't own cars. Then there are persons to young to hold a licence and pay tax, not including children.

Finally in Denmark they didn't go with motorised transport after the 2nd world war, decades ago, as we did. So their infrastructure does not compare in any way shape or form to ours and it will take a lot of money that we don't have in order to go back in time. Back to the end of war years. We might as well take up the tarmac and go back to cobbled streets, horses and carts and people living, working and cycling to work in their local communities.
bob craven Lancs

Agree (4) | Disagree (3)
+1

Duncan
When the country is spending billions on new road infrastructure and motorways which are primarily aimed at motorised vehicles and in the case of motorways exclusively for motor vehicles, it seems somewhat mean to begrudge cycling a few thousand pounds for a segregated facility on one of the busiest and most dangerous junctions for cyclists in London.
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (3) | Disagree (7)
-4

Nice speech Philip, but it still leaves my question unanswered.

As a motorcyclist I am 20 times more likely to be killed in a road accident than a car driver. As a cyclist you are only 10 times more likely to be killed, so why do motorcyclists not get special roadways, yet cyclists do? Is it only the presence of a motor that makes the difference not the fatality rate? Are motorcyclists somehow less worthy because of the mechanical system they use to drive the rear wheel? What about an electric push-bike? Should they be banished from the special roadways because they are 'powered'? If electric push-bikes are acceptable what about if I turned up on an electric motorbike?

There are a great many questions that need to be answered.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon

Agree (7) | Disagree (1)
+6

It still amazes me that people cannot distinguish between powered and non-powered transport. For too long, roads have been designed solely for 'motor' vehicles (including motorbikes, and yes, Duncan, I ride one). Just as we segregate pedestrians where necessary to protect them from the drivers of motor vehicles, so we should provide segregation for people on bicycles where they are placed in danger by drivers of motor vehicles.

Bob: http://ipayroadtax.com More people on bicycles own cars than those who don't cycle. The list of reasons why you are so wrong is too long for comment here, but Google is you friend.

Research by the Danish government show for every Krone invested in cycle infrastructure they save 7 (yes, seven) krone on health care. That's a 700% ROI from just one sector. In the US, shops see large increases in sales when cycle paths are installed, fewer KSIs, faster traffic flow...

Need I go on? Putting it simply: Nothing is solved by adding more cars.
Philip, Berkshire

Agree (6) | Disagree (6)
0

In all the years that motorcyclists were dying like flies on London's roads, nobody ever suggested that the roads should be modified to keep them 'safe'. Are the lives of push-bike riders more valuable than the lives of people that ride motorbikes, or is it that motorbikes are nasty things and push-bikes are nice things?
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon

Agree (16) | Disagree (4)
+12

It still amazes me where this money is coming from......is it road tax?

At a time of austerity where people, particularly those working in the public sector, are being made unemployed. Nurses and teachers and fire officers are getting a bad deal. The NHS is in distress, not to mention the miserly 11% increase in salary that is being forced on MPs. How can we or anyone justify the money being spent on these changes at this time?

Is it going to be that a tax will be levied on bikes or perhaps a parking charge? Let's face it they will take up much more room in an even more overcrowded capital. They should contribute something to the economy for all the work being done on their behalf.
Bob Craven Lancs

Agree (11) | Disagree (9)
+2