This is the outline for a proposal for a new kind of elevated cycle way. The sky cycle way is an elevated cycle network which reduces commute time for travel for cyclists. This network turns any city into a flat Amsterdam or Cambridge. We believe this is the lowest cost for installation for any personal rapid transit system.
In words, most reminiscent of 'I'm not racist, but...' quote by Steve McNamara LTDA( Licensed Taxi Drivers Association ) says 'We’re genuinely not anti-cyclist. Half the guys in my office cycle to work. What we need in London is a scheme that works from everyone' as a way of objecting to a new cycle super highway in London.
This reminds us that space in London ( and many cities ) is a zero sum game. To expand cycle provision we must remove car provision. There is a terrific logic to this there are 2000 new people a day in London and they need to get to work too. Car's are spatially very inefficient ( both when moving and when parked) so from a capacity planning point of view it makes sense to swap space to a more compact form of transport ( the bike). This creates resistance to change which creates more problems.
Naturally the solution is to think outside the box - or in this case think off the ground. Elevated cycle schemes ( both track and wire-rail) add a new dimension to transport and can do this without compromising the space for existing road users.
A good page from an at-grade cycle lane enthusiast talk about new Urban Design guidelines which want to treat cyclists as slow moving road blocks not as a form of transport. Who could not applaud the thinking here...
'These are the kinds of recommendations that show the authors are only really thinking about ‘cyclists’ as the people who are cycling already, not anyone who might want to ride a bike – from a very young child, to someone in old age.'
One of the huge biases against elevated cycle lanes is the use of covered cycle lanes. I know it doesn't feel 'natural' ( after all I don't think it's natural just logical). Let's take a look at a prison treadmill below. This comes from a book on The Human-Powered Home: Choosing Muscles Over Motorspointed out that people used to be sent to prison to do 'hard labour'. In many urban prisons this meant many hours on the treadmill (see picture below).
So these were very bad people given the worst conditions possible and forced to spend many hours effectively climbing the staircase. Yet these guys get the roof (look at it) to protect them from the elements. Yet when we look at poor people just trying to get to work in the wet we think they deserve to have worse condition than prisoners in the 18th century.
Why does this cyclist who is doing everyone a favor deserve to get soaking wet on the way to work and yet the prisoners get shelter? Why is protecting cyclists from the worst of the weather wrong? What have they done to you except tried to to prevent global warming, stop an obesity epidemic, and limit pollution? After all it's not like covered cycleway is expensive ( compared to a new road which would have less capacity )