Westminster City Council's Baker Street plans mysteriously lacking cycling provision

Learn from this that legislators promising "cycle-proofing" are not promising anything of any use to bike riders.

Learn that a "cycle-proofed" design, under their understanding of the term, does not mean "safe for riding a bike".

Learn that those who promise to improve cities for bike riders do not care if bike riders live or die.

Learn that politicians are the most ingrained, compulsive, inveterate liars you will ever communicate with.

Improved traffic flow will help with pollution

No it absolutely does not, the more traffic you can fit on to the roads the more pollution you get.

If it were up to me Greater London would be the zero emissions zone.

To reduce pollution make a network of roads that cycles can use but aren't through roads for vehicles, make cycling fast and pleasant at the expense of motor traffic.

Baker Street really is a traffic sewer... they are just changing it from a one way sewer into a two way sewer.

Heather Acton is the Westminster council cabinet member for sustainability and parking. Surely a most contradictory brief?

Just lately, we have been told that the law has been changed so that all road developments must include plans to "cycle-proof" the scheme.

Here, no such provision has been made, just ASLs.

I assume that this is the level of provision we can expect in all road developments from now on? That this is what the compulsion of law entails (i.e. the minimum possible) ?

Or is the compulsion in law so weak as to be irrelevant, because it only applies to roads that are so big and fast that nearly all road developments exclude the obligation?

Our lords and masters letting us all down again… I continue to believe that they do not care whether we live or die.

"vehicle flow should be smoother and less congested, without attracting more traffic to the area"

Did you say smoother vehicle flow and less congested? Couldn't be a better time to hop in the car and do some shopping...

The response from Westminster Council is par for the course and underlines its unwillingness to properly consider the needs of vulnerable road users.

Some months ago, in reply to a letter to ES, Westminster's Cllr Heather Acton wrote:

"Under our City for All programme, we are spending up to £40 million over the next two years on improvements to create a better and safer pedestrian and cycling environment."

But from the City for All document:

"Over the next three years we will invest £7 million, with our partners, in new public realm schemes, including walking and cycling improvements, and road safety schemes."

Just a bit of a discrepancy there, then. Goes to show that liars need good memories...

If Andrew Gilligan doesn't support it is must be REALLY bad !

Strange thing is that even for cars I can't think what benefit there is from moving to two way traffic on these roads. For cars the current one way Baker St works pretty well (given the huge traffic volumes). Guess there must be a junction that can be improved by the scheme but I can't think of it.

Now if WCC could find a neighbouring two way road, make that one way (for local traffic) and turn the rest into a well signposted bike route / bypass of Baker St, that might work. Shouldn't be hard given the grid pattern of roads in the area.

In the mean time, I'll just take the lane and it'll be businesses as usual (essentially sprinting practice).

Just to add to my depression about Westminster, it's seems the opposition to the Cycling & Walking Bridge between Nine Elms and Pimlico is being lead by the Labour councillors.

So there you have it, if you support active travel and you live in Westminster you're stuffed.

No bike lane, or crap bike lanes? Take the whole thing. Take the lane. Especially if you're a confident cyclist, and there's a not so confident cyclist in front of you hugging the kerb. You'll get tailgated and beeped at. I have, lots. Share the road goes both ways.

I'm having to self-censor my posts too much these days.