London Cycle Network LCN - landscape architecture

The London Cycle Network (see LCN Website)) is promoted as 'a network of signed cycle routes where cyclists’ needs have priority'. Some of the routes are good. But mostly, the LCN is a waste of paint. Too much money is spent on consultancy fees for engineers, stupid signboards, maps and road paint. Too little is spent in improving conditions for cyclists. See Why is the London Cycling Network (the LCN) a Mistake (though the author is over-prejudiced against dedicated cycle paths).

Part of the problem is that the wrong profession has taken the lead in planning for cyclists. To create good cycleways, the relationship between landscape architects and engineers should equate to that between architects and engineers in building design. In Vitruvian terms, engineers should advise on Firmness. Landscape architects should undertake the design, relating the engineering advice to considerations of Commodity and Delight.

Another part of the problem is that far too little money is allocated to cycling. The bicycle is the Great Green Machine. London buses are bright red: they use hydrocarbon fuels and pump exhaust fumes into the faces of pedestrians and cyclists. Dedicated bus lanes are an environmentally extravagant use of road space and fresh air:

• cycling is faster than bus transport for journeys in Central London
• cycling helps people keep fit, thus reducing health care costs
• cycling uses hydrocarbon fuels only in manufacturing
• cycles emit no exhaust fumes
• cycling is silent

The pleasure, they say, is more in the travelling than the arriving. But cyclists get on their bikes for two distinct reasons:

• to get somewhere - work, school, university, the shops etc. Commuter cyclists require the shortest and fastest route.
• for the pleasure of the ride. Leisure cyclists require an enjoyable experience.

London cycle planners have failed to distinguish the design objectives:

• cycle routes in parks are too often planned as the shortest route from gate to gate. This not what leisure cyclists want.
• commuter cyclists are usually sent on long diversions through supposedly pleasant suburban streets. This is not what commuter cyclists want.

The resulting London Cycle Network is often the worst of both worlds: the routes are not sufficiently direct for commuters and not sufficiently attractive for pleasure. So they get little use. See comments on London Greenway Planning.

See essay: Green Transport Plans

HOMEPAGE - Landscape Architecture London List

The Great Green Machine, at rest in a well-designed, but unroofed, cycle park:

• over 2 years ago Tom said

  Please can you give us half-a-dozen examples of WELL-PLANNED and WELL-DESIGNED cycle paths in London.

• over 2 years ago Rachel said

  Just checking up on LCN guidelines. Our Victorian Park in a conservation area has had a path improved with their funding. Then having had no problems with cyclists or pedestrians sharing the path, we were all dismayed to find a stencil fiend had been at work. We are told this is required to get the LCN funding. You can see more than three bike stencils at once when walking and sometimes they are one both sides of the footpath. Obviously for that rare occasion when two cyclists pass and wouldn't be able to work out where to go without advice. Apart from the fact they are ugly and intrusive they give the wrong message on a path which is shared by pedestrians. Most unimpressed.
  
  
  
  

• almost 3 years ago Anonymous said

  It will take a long time to have cycle paths as good as Holland. Denmark has taken around fifty years I think. You start small, get support and cyclists using facilities and then we cyclists have a stronger case for more. Ideally, every A road in London would have a lane taken out and given over to Cyclists. I just think that it is a very complicated situation where it is easy to rip on something because it's not like in Holland.
  
  Your question also assumes that you need cycle paths/tracks. in many cases I tihnk you don't, just lower traffic speeds.

• almost 3 years ago Anonymous said

  Please could we have some details of where the good schemes are. I have been cycling in London approx 5 days a week for 30 years and have not found an example of a cycle path which is as good as the AVERAGE cycle paths in Holland and Denmark. France and Germany have fewer cycle paths but the standard of new work appears to be much higher than in London. The only praise which can be 'lavished' on London cycle paths is that they are better than those in Greece and Portugal.

• almost 3 years ago Anonymous said

  Sorry, but what a load of rubbish. This article shows a very shallow knowledge of cycle planning. Ok, it is by no means perfect, but there are some very very good schemes that have been paid for by the LCN. Kington and Richmond have made progress, as have Southwark, Islington and so on. It is usually lack of political will that allows better facilities to be built, or residents rejecting schemes.
  
  
  your picture, entitled "Do they really expect cyclists to stop here? And if so, why? ". Shows your lack of understanding. This has been done to pass a safety audit (which I agree is a load of sh*te) and is required due to the use of tactile paving. They do not expect people to stop there at all, it has been done so the scheme can be built.