TfL’s cycle route priorities are not the same as cyclists’

Given Transport for London’s announcement of six mostly low priority new cycle routes (‘New cycle routes for inner & outer London’ LTT 02 Feb), I am almost inclined to say “come back Andrew Gilligan, all is forgiven” . What London needs is a coherent high quality network, not these isolated fragments that will have very little impact:

• Ilford to Barking is not strategic – and there is an existing London Cycle Network route, most of which is ok (the Barking end needs upgrading)

• Lea Bridge to Dalston is just a short extension to the overdue Lea Bridge Road cycle superhighway, which is still far from complete. It is not a new route

• Orbital routes e.g. Hackney to Isle of Dogs and  Rotherhithe to Peckham are low priority – we still lack good quality strategic radial routes in most areas

• Tottenham Hale to Camden is the only truly strategic and new route proposed by Will Norman

• Wembley to Paddington would indeed be a valuable new strategic cycle superhighway but not if it ends at Willesden Junction

Frankly, Sadiq Khan’s so-called strategic cycling analysis tool to identify cycle route priorities was the last thing we needed. It’s an academic exercise that has wasted a whole year. 

There are various other viable alternatives, which would complement the existing network much better:

• Canning Town to Barking would be a strategic extension to Cycle Superhighway 3 (East) (CS3(E))

• Stratford to Ilford would be strategic, as per the original plan for CS2 that TfL then axed in 2011 and has still not delivered

• Chelsea Embankment would be an easy and strategic extension to CS3(W), i.e. a fully segregated two-way track with safe junctions throughout

• Nine Elms Lane – Albert Embankment would be another straightforward solution (this was agreed by Andrew Gilligan as a replacement for the failed CS8, but not delivered

• CS7 also needs upgrading to ‘best practice’ – promised by Boris Johnson but not delivered, like CS8 it is still an unsafe blue-paint only joke ‘route’

• CS5 could easily be extended north via Vauxhall Bridge Road to Victoria, which is a real destination (again I thought this was agreed) and continued south to and through Oval junction. 

• CS1 (a.k.a. LCN10) could be extended north to Tottenham, but along the A10. This was 'consulted' on two years ago but again stakeholders were ignored 

• The A21 is flat and wide and could be a very good cycle superhighway through the whole of the London Borough of Lewisham and a logical extension to CS4, which is already planned along the A200

Yes, all of these are cycle superhighways, but that is what Will Norman promised to deliver.