Mayor of London Unveils Major Walking and Cycling Programs; City to Spend Almost US$1B on Cycling Over Next Decade
11 February 2008
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, announced a major package of five programs to create a new network of quick, simple, and safe routes for cyclists and pedestrians that represents the largest investment in walking and cycling in the city’s history. The plan also makes cycling a fully-funded part of the public transport network for the first time.
The city of London is implementing these measures with the aim of having one in ten round trips in London each day made by bike, and saving some 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 per year as Londoners increasingly walk or cycle for short trips instead of taking their cars.
The aim of this programme is nothing short of a cycling and walking transformation in London. We will spend something like £500 million (US$975 million) over the next decade on cycling—the biggest investment in cycling in London’s history, which will mean that thousands more Londoners can cycle in confidence, on routes that take them quickly and safely to where they want to go.
The cycle hire scheme in Paris has proved a huge success, and I have now instructed Transport for London to work with the London boroughs and interested parties to develop and implement a bike hire scheme in central London, accessible to all Londoners. By ensuring that Londoners have easy access to bikes in the centre of the capital, as well as making our city a safer and more enjoyable place to cycle, we will build upon London’s leading position as the only major world city to have achieved a switch from private car use to public transport, cycling and walking.
The expansion of cycling and walking will help reduce our impact on climate change and reduce traffic congestion. Around 20% of the carbon emissions savings we’ve calculated we can make from transport by 2025 will come from changing the way we travel. We know Londoners want the opportunity to walk and cycle more. One in two people say that they want to walk for short journeys where they currently use their car. Forty per cent of Londoners have access to a bike, but currently only one in eight use it regularly.
—Ken Livingstone
The five new programs are:
A Central London bike rental scheme, similar to the recently launched Paris scheme, with up to 6,000 bikes located across docking stations every 300m so Londoners and visitors have quick and easy access to a bike. This will be supported by a series of easily navigable routes so that people can enjoy London’s sights by bike.
The rental scheme will phase in, with earliest delivery date of summer 2010. Approximately £75 million will be invested over ten years.
Around a dozen radial Cycling Corridors for commuters to provide high-profile, easy to follow cycling streams into central London.
The creation of a series of Bike Zones for shoppers and the school run in Inner and Outer London, with cycle priority streets, 20mph speed limits and quick, clear and simple routes that link key local destinations and open parks and waterways for cyclists.
The expansion of the Legible London signage system to help people make short trips around the capital on foot, rather than driving, or taking the bus and tube.
Working with the London Boroughs on the establishment of 200 Streets of Gold—urban makeovers which link key local destinations like stations, schools and shops in inner and outer London with high quality walking facilities, delivering improved pavements, seating and crossings alongside regeneration measures.
Transport for London (TfL) will be consulting with the London boroughs, and walking, cycling and health stakeholders to define and develop the detailed plans for these initiatives.
The new programs are in addition to existing commitments, which will continue the investment in projects including cycle training, cycle parking, the greenway programme, and the London Cycle network Plus, as well as funding for a bigger and better London Freewheel, the summer mass bike ride for cyclists of all abilities, for at least 60,000 participants this year.
To improve rail and cycle integration TfL will deliver over 850 additional places at suburban London Underground, Overground and DLR stations over the next two years. TfL will also work with train operating companies to deliver 400 more spaces at suburban rail stations, building on 1,300 spaces already delivered at 100 stations. In Central London TfL is working with the private sector to deliver parking stations at London Bridge, Kings Cross and Stratford.
Cycling levels in London have already increased by 83% compared to 2000, and the growth that the new programs aim to achieve would see a 400% increase in cycling levels by 2025 compared to that time.
The new programs are the recommendations from the strategic review of cycling and walking undertaken by Transport for London as a result of last year’s budget agreement letter from the London Mayor to Assembly Members Darren Johnson and Jenny Jones.
The Mayor also signed Walk21’s International Charter for Walking, which commits to reducing the physical, social and institutional barriers that limit walking activity, and as a means to encourage other cities to adopt a similar vision to London’s—for London to be one of the most walkable cities in the world within 10 years.
Sounds great to me.
Posted by: marcus | 11 February 2008 at 09:32 PM
Rail stations up from 13 to 17 bike spaces, healthier commuters, cleaner air.
Now any of the kids could have told us that, but now, just maybe the adults have caught up. Maybe .
In a city not known for good weather.
The total expenditure $US 100,000,000 PA 10 years. seems a good start in light of the fact that retrofitting comes in a poor second to good design.
Look around what do your local govt's do in this regard and do they get any thanks if they do ?
Lets see more change like this.
Posted by: arnold | 11 February 2008 at 10:09 PM
This red clown is out of his mind.
You don't need to spend a billion dollars on bicycles. Supplying everyone in London with a free bike would cost a minuscule amount compared to this nonsense.
Isn't it wonderful to waste other peoples money? I wonder how his buddies profit from this boondoggle extraordinaire?
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 11 February 2008 at 11:26 PM
Oh dear Stan. You clearly don't know anything about London and its atrocious infrastructure for cyclists.
The central plan of London was layed out just after 1666 when the bicycle was still 150 years from invention and cars were 250 years away from being around in any significant numbers. Our roads are not suited for cars and lorries and bicyclists have a horrendous time as a result. The city (in fact the whole country) is in desperate need of improvements to our cycling facilities. Our lottery just gave a much needed boost of £50m ($100m) to the main cycling charity, Sustrans, for investment around the UK.
The health benefits alone from these measures will pay this investment back many times over.
Posted by: Scatter | 12 February 2008 at 01:26 AM
There are 10M people in London (approx).
A bike costs £200, so supplying everyone in London with a bike would cost £2BN, which is 4x the amount in question.
The problem is not the bikes, but getting people to ride them - safely.
Thus bike lanes and parking (especially at stations) will make a difference. You see huge bike parks at stations in Germany and Japan among others.
Rail and bike is a good combination for longer range commuting into a congested city.
The weather in London is not particularly bad and the city is flat - a lot more people could easily cycle there.
It might seem a bit 1940's, but bikes and equipment are better now - we have LED lighting, Hi Viz jackets / belts, helmets and better brakes; all of which are good) - and Ipods - which are bad (on bikes).
And lighter bikes and tougher tires.
Once people see how fast cycling is, and feel a bit safer, a lot more people could take it up.
Posted by: mahonj | 12 February 2008 at 01:27 AM
Ok Stan, lets do the math real quick.
A halfway decent bike costs around $100.
London has about 10 million people.
To my knowledge, that equals $1 billion.
So how is $1 billion a miniscule amount compared to the $1 billion, that the city of London is spending?
And what does it help to give everyone a bike, if they can not ride it safely.
Posted by: Thomas | 12 February 2008 at 01:27 AM
Not sure I would walk on the streets of London which has a 100% diesel bus fleet as a result of the so called NOX subsidy.
The more NOX a bus emits, the larger the rebate of diesel duty.....you couldn't make this up but its essentially true as diesel buses get most of their diesel duty back.
Posted by: John Baldwin | 12 February 2008 at 02:53 AM
Does the cost of hiring the bike equate to more than the value of of its metal to a tinker? If not, I imagine they will be melted down on mass. Much like our disapearing aluminium road signs.
That said,If the scheme does work and the volume of traffic decreases, the benefits in improvements to the quality of life should exceed the costs in tax.
Posted by: nickf23 | 12 February 2008 at 05:04 AM
Nick:
"The bicycles will be free for the first half-hour to people who preregister and agree to pay an automatic penalty of about £100, deducted from their credit cards, if they fail to return the bikes. They will pay a fee of about £1 for each additional half-hour, with the rate rising sharply after about three hours to deter people from hogging the bikes."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3353254.ece
Hopefully there will be an alternative for those who don't have credit / debit cards.
Posted by: Scatter | 12 February 2008 at 05:42 AM
Now we're talking. We are in a climate and oil emergency and now there is at least one major world city that is doing something about it. While most politicians speak in generalities about the problem, at least there is someone on the ground who is actually coming up with concrete action to address the problems.
Those cities which are mostly or completely wedded to the automobile in the future will have hell to pay. The time for action is now.
Posted by: Tom Street | 12 February 2008 at 07:20 AM
An ambitious plan, but as a recent episode of British motoring magazine Top Gear showed, cycling is actually the fastest way to get across London these days.
Race across London, part 1 of 4
A few suggestions if I may:
1) allow cyclists to bring their vehicles onto public trains for a fee, outside of rush hour and only if there is adequate space. Riders would be expected to remain with their bicycles at all times, which usually means standing rather than sitting down. The subway in Vienna, Austria already permits this. The fee is waived for holders of an annual public transport pass.
2) allow cyclists to bring lightweight folded-up bicycles onto trains at all times, as long as the package is no larger than a large shopping bag and there is adequate space. Ideally, there should be somewhere to park and securely stow them at ground level.
3) ensure that bicycle parking at railway stations is well lit, preferably covered and features either attendants or video surveillance to curb theft. Nearby vending machines for ponchos, batteries & light bulbs, tire repair kits, air pumps, bottled water etc. might be a useful addition. At large parking lots, a bicycle repair/tune-up service might be offered.
4) encourage the purchase of electrically assisted bicycles by providing a number of publicly accessible for-fee recharge outlets at bicycle parking lots. Payment via debit or credit card. Commuters do not want to work up a sweat on the way to work.
5) experiment with offering not just regular but also electric bicycles for rent, obviously with a higher deposit. Choose a design that prevents battery theft.
6) gradually migrate the bus fleet to LPG, CNG or hybrids to improve air quality for cyclists sharing the bus lanes as well as everyone else. This will take many years but do it anyhow.
7) where possible, segregate bicycle traffic from the road with a colored (e.g. red) surface plus a curb or at least a rumble strip, rather than a simple painted line. Even so, encourage or require the use of helmets. Permit all two-wheeled vehicles limited to 25mph (40kph) to use bicycle lanes - including mopeds that meet the applicable emissions regs. This is current practice in e.g. the Netherlands.
8) run a competition among the city's schools and universities for vehicle designs that may be used on the bicycle paths yet offer comfort and adequate safety in poor weather. Rain, cold and wind - all too common in London - all mitigate against cycling. Offer generous prizes by age group.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 12 February 2008 at 07:53 AM
I hope they keep the three important factors in mind: speed, safety, comfort. In that order. Otherwise they'll spend a billion on unused pavement.
@Thomas, mahoni:
£ 200 for a bike? £ 100 for a bike? A commuter that needs it daily will be happy to spend at least £ 400 on a reliable bicycle. That's about the price of a set of alloy rims.
Posted by: Anne | 12 February 2008 at 07:55 AM
@Rafael:
My feedback:
1) Practical, but not of much use. It's the commuter your're after, so not being allowed to take your bicycle with you during rush hour does is not help a lot.
4) Excellent idea. An electrically assisted bike makes the longer trips (> 5km) just that little bit easier and faster while keeping the advantage of excercise.
7) Is now only partly true. Normal mopeds (up to 40kph legal speed, 80 kph actual speed) are banned from the cycling lanes in urban areas.
Two things I would like to add to your list:
9) Theft prevention. There is nothing more frustrating than having to commute on a rusty, second hand corpse of a bike just so you won't be sorry when it is stolen.
10) Encourage/oblige companies to have closed bicycle parking, perhaps with changing rooms and showers for the die hards with long commutes.
Posted by: Anne | 12 February 2008 at 08:13 AM
@ Anne -
ad 1) Commuters would have the option of bringing along a folding bike (see suggestion 2).
ad 7) Obviously, a souped-up moped actually doing 80kph should not be on a bicycle path. Indeed, it shouldn't be on city roads, either. But that's a matter of enforcing the law.
ad 9) see suggestion 3. Sturdy bicycle stands with eyes that you can run a chain or cable through make a lot of sense out on public streets.
ad 10) a company I worked for in Silicon Valley offered shower facilities for all employees. They were mostly used by those exercising during their lunch break. Few cyclist commuters used them as you have to lug around a spare set of fresh clothes and keep the sweaty ones stored somewhere all day long.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 12 February 2008 at 08:34 AM
I'd say The Netherlands is the place where I've lived where bikes were used the most. I don't really recall bikes being that important in Germany or Japan (what impressed me there were the tiny stackable parking systems for cars).
I don't think it's just about the bikes. The other parts of the plan are just as important. Giving bikers priority or special bike lanes is very important. I used to be an avid cyclist (in Spain, many years ago) but I ended up giving up because it was really quite dangerous where I was. This is an excellent move for London in my opinion.
I agree about the bike on public transport idea. I really do believe that such a combination (if the transport mode were designed for this) could dramatically reduce our need for cars, even for the largest cities.
Posted by: Karl-Uwe | 12 February 2008 at 08:34 AM
@Rafael
1) I saw your point about the folding bikes. But the good ones are very expensive and then not very well suited for longer distances. You'll also end up investing in two bicycles.
7) I was referring to the current law in The Netherlands.
9) You make it sound so easy. Reality over here in The Netherlands is that locks are of limited use against bicycle thieves. We're combating the problem of bicycle theft in The Netherlands for decades now, without much success. Seems to have become a part of Dutch culture. What I hope to see is that they can prevent that in London.
Posted by: Anne | 12 February 2008 at 08:58 AM
I definitely feel that improving pedestrian and cyclist access and safety within a city is a good thing, but a few of the other "programmes" seem a little touchy-feelie to me. I smell huge cost over-runs, and little effect on petroleum usage. I hope that I'm wrong.
It also reminds me of a time when there were a number of pedestrian deaths in San Francisco. People were screaming about how SF had to become more pedestrian-friendly. However, anyone who has driven in the city knows that the problem with SF is automobile-unfreindliness. No parking, crazy one-way streets, streets that are disconnected, etc., put drivers on edge and they are more likely to take dangerous risks.
I would suggest that if the streets in London are pedestrian-unfriendly, they are probably not too safe for autos either.
Posted by: tthoms | 12 February 2008 at 09:12 AM
I think you can already do 1) and 2) on most trains into London. Tubes are another matter.
But it shouldn't be necessary if you have cheap and convenient hire bikes at the workplace end of the journey - you can take your own bike to your home station.
Electric bikes are already very well supported under the excellent Cycle Scheme (http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/) but not enough people know about it. Spread the word!
Posted by: Scatter | 12 February 2008 at 09:12 AM
Thanks for mentioning electric bikes(EB). My EB gives me real range & freedom again with my increasing arthritis & back problems. Feel like a kid again. Could GPS chips placed on bikes cut down on theft if police would respond quickly?
Posted by: litesong | 12 February 2008 at 09:28 AM
$400 pounds for rims? (what is that $800 US?) I don't think anyone needs to buy carbon fiber rims...
A good entry level mountain bike ~$300 US and a good entry level roadbike ~$450 US. These would suffice for just about everyone and the more casual riders would probably prefer the mountain bike due to suspension providing a softer ride. As a 200+ lb guy I find road bikes to be very uncomfortable (I'd lose weight but it is difficult to get much lower than ~10% body fat and maintain good health).
Posted by: Patrick | 12 February 2008 at 09:35 AM
And another thing - it is not either / or with a bike, a bike is so small and inexpensive ( or as expensive as you want ) that you can have both.
You can use a car for extra-urban journeys,a bike for urban ones, and public transport if the weather is foul.
You don't have to be a gore-tex clad polar explorer if the weather is bad - just take a bus - or a car - even!
As long as you have the space, you can have a bike and use it when it makes the most sense for any given journey.
And more bike lanes and bike parks make bikes make sense more of the time.
It is a shame to see the Chinese abandon their bikes for cars, but I guess it is a kind of developmental adolescence when a nation rushes to cars because they can afford them. Once they have got that out of their system, they can think rationally about urban transport.
I am not sure that any capitalist society has avoided the car stage. (Maybe Denmark / Holland).
Posted by: mahonj | 12 February 2008 at 09:55 AM
Thanks for the heads up Scatter. Looks like its been reasonably thought through.
Posted by: Nickf23 | 12 February 2008 at 11:10 AM
Now here's some action! This is what I like to read about. I've toured around London and often gaped in amazement at cyclists weaving through traffic thinking wow, these guys are hardcore! Or they have a death wish, some upgrades are definitly in order and these should make a big improvement. Now we just need more cities to follow suit and people to actually start using these facilities!
Posted by: Jesse 67 | 12 February 2008 at 12:14 PM
The bicycle was the first artifact to give ordinary people personalized fast transport. It quadrupled walking speed and did not require the maintenance and feed and sheltering requirements of a horse. We forget what a revolution in transportation the bicycle brought on.
Public transport is linear. For someone taking public transport, isotropy is required at the two ends of a ride. The advantage of a rented bike is that one's own doesn't need to be lugged along and protected. The rented bike doesn't need to be fancy, only rugged, since it won't be used for long trips.
Another option to provide isotropy is to use a roller-blade concept. Land Roller is a type of in-line skate that uses two large, canted wheels on each shoe. The rear wheel is large enough, I think, to be able to take a 25 watt hubmotor. With a light batterypack buckled around the waist, such a combination could provide 9 mph travel speed, triple walking speed, but slow enough to be usable on sidewalks.
A major problem with the Segway two-wheel personal transporter, beside its high cost, was that it had no "place." It was too slow for the street, but too big and fast for sidewalks. A powered roller-blade system would not be in this situation. It has the same footprint as a pedestrian, and the skates are removable and don't need a "parking" space.
Posted by: fred schumacher | 12 February 2008 at 02:18 PM
The way I read this.
About o.6% of the 10 year plan would be spent on the 6'000 bicycles or 60 pounds- $100US per person.
You could expect pretty flash bikes for that sort of money in that quantity.
The remaining,$974,000 give or take 1/2 million is being spent on pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
In Sydney these retrofits which include weather protection, road widening and connectivity albeit on a much smaller scale, are very expensive to implement.
But they do enable people including children to commute safely while enjoying health and social benefits.
The same claims cant be made for the billions of dollars being spent every few Kilometers of freeway.
Posted by: arnold | 12 February 2008 at 02:41 PM