Skycycle for London
 

A plan to build elevated Bicycle Highway above the railroad right-of-ways in the city of London. How much of this is Advocacy and how much is Safety? Read more:

The bicycle highway: Plans unveiled for £220m 'Skycycle' that lets riders commute far above the railways of London

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2oyJ7tD4j
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ys-London.html


Each of the 10 proposed routes can accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour and will improve journey times by up to 29 minutes, it is claimed


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2oyIdUDAV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wow, should really answer the "if they build it will they come" issue.

Wonder if it will really happen... noticed that there are some gaps right in the middle... seems terribly poor planning to consider such an idea and plan in gaps.

Oh, crap, I forgot to mention, There is a project underway to connect the Railways in the center of London:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk

The thing is , when the Railways were built, they came in from different directions, but did NOT quite meet together at a Central Station. Most of the stations were of the stub end Terminal type.

Now , they are drilling with Tunnel Boring Machines, but all the work is Underground.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk

Please have a look at the "Crossrail" website.

Those "gaps" are due to the lack of railroad rights-of-way. Nineteenth century railroads were constructed up to the built up areas of the major cities. They stopped there and did not go through them. The rail station locations of London, Paris and Chicago show the outer limits of those cities in the 1840's.

The gaps are because the rail lines have terminals surrounding the city's center, so there's no easy right of way to develop. However, I think of these as I do limited access auto arterials coming into cities. These let cyclists cover the major part of the commute then drop to local routes for the first and last miles.

As such they make great sense because they expand the total road network (for everybody) by adding pavement, yet are much less expensive to build than roads strong enough for cars. While I have mixed feelings about bicycle infrastructure, something like this is all good.

The funding may be more challenging than the construction. The £220 million are only for the first four miles, equivalent to about $90 million per mile. That's about a quarter of what it would cost to build a 4 lane road.

http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259...ection-_1_.jpg

http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259...12august13.jpg

I don't think you people all fully realize the advantages the Tunnel Boring Machine has over the Automobile. I'm digging up some graphics to show you all the route. Now, If I recall correctly, the Central District of the City of London has a thing called Congestion Pricing for Cars and Trucks. So once the Cyclist reaches Central, there are only 40% as many cars as you would expect. I think it will work out nicely.

Watch this video, showing the routes created by the TBM's. I think it about eliminates the need for private autos.

As the (expletive deleted) who started that "if they build it..." thread, I would hazard to guess that a substantial bike skyway would make such discussions irrelevant. This isn't the (sub)standard shoe-horned in garbage we have been arguing about, this looks much more interesting. I hope it is built soon and succeeds beyond our wildest dreams and then resets the standards for everyone.

I might even consider moving to London, if only I could learn to ride on the wrong side of the road and speak their language.:)

Until the TMB runs into something mysterious... http://gizmodo.com/something-called-...rge-1487090414

And in the case of London...

How about a network of subterranean bicycle routes? Comfortable temperatures and dry year round. Fully illuminated at night. No danger of UV exposure or sunburn either.

We should instead put the motorists down there. No need to provide ventilation, they should use their lungs to filter out the toxins they produce.

So they are planning on building it because of the increase of cycling due to significant city congestion, then once it is built, you will claim the increase in cyclists is due to the new infrastructure.

Pretty much the standard operation of the current bike lane advocates.

At least this plan makes sense, unlike the crap bike lanes that so many are happy to get so they can feel loved.

The artist rendering shows side walls, makes sense. With a little intelligent design, head winds could be direct up and over the skycycle and tailwinds could be directed onto the skycycle for a little extra push. It would require a center wall to sperate the two sides.

Cyclists, like motorists push the need for infrastructure, when new paths or roads are built, and the use levels rise, it is because the facility now encourages more users to choose that way.

If you look at history, you can well see this in plenty of examples... the original settlers to the west crossed deserts before roads existed; later roads were made, and more came, as the road reached capacity, the road was improved and more came. It is a circular process with each improvement leading to more users and more users leading to more improvement. To deny this is to deny history.

I am pretty sure it was gold and land that made them come regardless of infrastructure. To deny this is an attempt to twist history to ones own motives, such as so many try to do with bike lanes.

And then what... the infrastructure just sprang up by itself, for no reason.

You deny that the people that travel across the desert today to get to LA would do so if there was not a convenient way?

The hardy few came without roads... those that followed did so for the opportunities, and due to the ease of travel.

You can still see this today, with the example of the Big Dig in Boston.

And Today, Commerce has shifted to the Internet, and the central, densest parts of cities are becoming Tourist Attractions, rather than places for Business. Look at Times Square in New York.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...-2_634x477.jpg
Here's the graphic!

User numbers and infrastructure are locked in a dance with each leading sometimes and following others. Which comes first is a chicken and egg debate with no clear answer.

However, I believe that demand is a better driver of infrastructure than the other way around, but once the process starts each feeds the other.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/...map-google.jpg

• View interactive map
  or check a postcode

• Charging zone map (PDF 494KB)

Here is the Congestion Pricing Zone, where motorists pay ten Pounds , and cyclists get in for free.

This is a very poor example. Times Square has been an entertainment, rather than a business center for over half a century. The only thing that changed is the nature of the entertainment.

So you claim that people drive to LA for no other reason than there is a road to LA?

The motivator is not the infrastructure.

Others do not drive to LA no matter how great the road is.