London is the "village idiot of urban innovation" says influential design expert

Using the old mail tunnels is not such a bad idea - but why not use them for what they where intended. I'am sure that with a modern computerised frieght container system with more or less robotic handling systems, they could take nearly all the urban delivery lorries off the roads.
couple that to restricted numbers of licensed driverless vehicles - that always stay in lane never RLJ or break speed limits - then the roads would be safe for the thing they were intended for; pedestrians, horses and cyclists.

MC-A is wrong. These ideas aren't being taken seriously.

Next.

"These ideas are about architects thinking out loud... what if... I wonder if we could...

It's incredibly important to give architects the opportunity just to to play with concepts and idea - to bring imagination and vision. Sometimes the most impractical idea in the sketchbook can evolve into something great."

Thus explaining why architecture is so irrelevant to most people these days. We want simple, practical, cheap and pretty ideas that work first time please, not useless expensive impractical fantasies that distract attention from what needs to be done to stop people being killed in their hundreds every year.

Maybe encouraging growth in other cities around the country, rather than abolishing regional development agencies and slashing metropolitan council budgets, might have had an impact on reducing the pressures on London's streets?

As an outsider, London seems to have become a victim of its own success, and the only plans seem to involve more of the same, so it seems reasonable to expect that any current problems on the roads will just get worse.

I've got to call out the media for reporting these bonkers schemes as 'the answer' when the 'the answer' has been successfully being implemented for decades in many other European cities. Changing priorities is what is truly revolutionary.

One of the problems in London is that some of the stuff gets funded and built- the enormous money black hole that is the "Garden Bridge" is one example, the dangleway is another.

We know how to design proper infrastructure. The Dutch ably demonstrate how to do it, and the new E-W and N-S superhighways represent understanding of the principles. Meanwhile, schemes that will never get built such as the Skyways or Underline frankly embarrass both those who propose them and those that breathlessly report on them due to their basic technical infeasibility- the Skyways forgets about overbridges and accessing the "system" when the railway is on an embankment whilst the Underline tunnels turn out to be in use or unusably short. Even a little bit of research or thought would have shown this.

The simplest thing to do is to make it so uncomfortable for motorists and so much more comfortable for cyclists and pedestrians that they are literally enticed out of their vehicles.
Increase the number of segregated cycle lanes exponentially; take the space for them away from the space for motors; reduce street parking to zero; slow driver speeds to 10mph.
Livingstone started this project when he pedestrianised Trafalgar Square and cut some of London's rat runs. We can continue to make cycling more appealing through low cost actions. Let's do it.

How about not making any more cycle paths ? why not just slow motor vehicles right down in public places to the point that most people will prefer to cycle.

Have all cars fitted with a limiter so that they can only go 15mph maximum in built up places.

What with google self drive cars and other new technology the above idea is possible and more than likely will be the fact for safety reasons.

The future is bicycles it's just that the planners don't know it properly yet. Even in the planning of cycle paths cyclist are thought of as 2nd class road users. Come to Brighton to see some of the cycle paths there and once you have peeled yourself off the floor with laughter you will realise how strange some town and road planners really are.

Anyway it's not cycle paths that are needed what is needed is showers in every workplace and bicycle parks to keep peoples bikes safe.

Just out of interest can anybody tell me how many public bicycle parks there are for storing your bike safely in London and other major cities in the UK when visiting a city by bike ?

I would like to cycle to London sometime but where do I store my bike and get a shower when I do this?

Have I gone out on a tangent ? I usually do when replying to these issues.

Well for example I am visiting the London Bike Show tomorrow. I will be traveling up from Brighton. If I was to cycle up it would take me between 3 and 5 hours by bike its 60 miles. By train it will take me between 2.5 hours and 3,5 hours to get to my destination the cost in travel by walking/train/tube is extortionate.

Much more fun to cycle & I am sure if I was fitter there might be occasions where it would be faster to cycle even over this great distance.
So time for some deeper thinking about what cyclists need.

I know in Japan they have underground bike parks for example.
If you google showers for cyclists you will see that some universities in London offer cycle parks and showers for it's students.
What about making this idea the law for businesses over a certain size. Offer grants to smaller companies that would also like to do the same thing.

You see I can't help thinking that all these cycle paths are a waste of money again if you have been to Brighton it looks like someone has just gone mental with the road painting machine for the sake of it. Our towns and cities will be much more pleasant places once we have reduced the use of the motor vehicle in them.

Sorry thinking aloud But that point about safe and secure cycle parking and showers in work places etc is a good one don't you think ? Oh bugger I guess it's easier to get the road paint machine out than really do the right things #lipservice.

There's a place for big budget cycling projects. They are called Velodromes, race tracks, leisure routes, skate parks, pump tracks and trail centres. Money for this should come from sports, tourism and leisure funding as it is necessary to separate this from spending on infrastructure as they are not the same thing.

What the urban cyclist, cycle commuters, utility cyclists and people on bikes in general need is simple consistent road layouts that clearly prioritise cyclist safety especially at junctions and a joined up network of well maintained off-road routes with signage aimed at pedestrians (walk to the right, don't block the whole road) and dog users (short lead, pick up your shit) along side every "cyclists slow down" sign.

The other cheap and easy fixes are to enforce collision avoidance systems in new vehicles and existing commercial fleets, extending the HSE's power to road safety (someone dies on a road it gets investigated with a view to preventing future occurrences), introduce strict liability for insurance/legal purposes, increase fines to both individuals who kill/injure and to make fleet operators pay a statutory £10 million in compensation for each death, in effect bringing about a zero tolerance approach to industrial accidents on the road.

This is very silly. Anywhere can have ridiculous 'concepts'. Concepts are cheap, and I don't think you can reasonably blame London for them. If anyone you could blame the media for paying attention to them.

I still don't think the skycycle is completely mad. Yes, the big vision is, the idea of building a massive network across London above the railways would be expensive and unnecessary.

However, I'm convinced that there are many opportunities to open up the relatively wide corridors we use for our railways with parallel cycle networks. I think the only reason we don't consider this more is because the land is owned by network rail, and so it's a complex matter for councils to propose and implement.

Makes more sense to put the cars underground.

I think the issue is what is trying to be achieved. There is some merit in the architects plans, but only if you are looking to find a way for cyclists to travel from outer London to inner London.....as the planner points out, this gives little access to everything in between, but excellent if you need to make your 10-15 mile commute from Epping to Central London. But something needs to be done at local levels. The answer will not be an easy one to incorporate, something akin to the reconstruction of 19th century Paris.

The problem with London is that cars have priority because our politicans are Tories who gets chauffeured around, so instead of common sense like making really busy streets no car zones, they come up with impracticial ideas that costs millions to keep bikes out of the way of cars.

The problem with London is that cars have priority because our politican are Tories who gets chauffeured around, so instead of common sense like making really busy streets no car zones, they come up with impracticial ideas that costs millions to keep bikes out of the way of cars.

The problem with London is that cars have priority because our politican are Tories who gets chauffeured around, so instead of common sense like making really busy streets no car zones, they come up with impracticial ideas that costs millions to keep bikes out of the way of cars.

Nothing wrong with new ideas. None of those proposals are close to being funded, but some day perhaps someones 'crazy idea' might turn out to be brilliant?

The REAL problem is the half arsed 'bit of paint' excuse-for-infrastructure we are often lumbered with.

...thus speaks a planner rather than an architect.

These ideas are about architects thinking out loud... what if... I wonder if we could...

It's incredibly important to give architects the opportunity just to to play with concepts and idea - to bring imagination and vision. Sometimes the most impractical idea in the sketchbook can evolve into something great.