SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Mayor of London Discussion Thread | Sadiq Khan

1M views 12K replies 361 participants last post by  Modernlife 
#1 · (Edited)
I thought it makes sense to discuss the implications of having Boris Johnson as new mayor (with his vastly different views on skyscrapers compared to Kens) on current and future skyscraper development in London. I think that more can be said about it than the predictions of doom voiced in the election thread up to now.

To start off with a more positive view here comes my attempt (I try to be optimistic and the following logic is a bit different to what I read up to now on the topic): I think the implications might be that it might actually help the current projects (ok, with the exception of the shard which is threatened by Boris taking away the TFL prelet but that prelet wasn't that big anyways and I think even for that one this would be overcompensated by the effect described in the following) in the city and that it will also help future projects in CW.

Here's why: Obviously the consensus is that we will not see new skyscraper projects in the city approved anytime soon (more or less as long as he's mayor). But if you look at current skyscraper projects in the center (LBT, Pinnacle, Leadenhall, Heron & 20 Fenchurch) they face the credit crunch and fear of a real crash in the office market. For those projects it is actually quite a boost to know that they will not face further nearby competition by new skyscrapers any time soon. Especially not for those years after 2012 when they will all be finished if things are going according to plan and when the current downturn in the markets should long be over. The earliest for new competition to even get planning permission (and we know how long it takes from then to have a finished building entering the market) is 2012 (if Boris is not reelected) so they will have quite some time where they can divide the office market between them without a threat of new competition. That is worth a lot for investors and should put the projects on safer ground which was definitely shaken because of the credit crunch.

On the other hand even the now mayor-backed EH is not against skyscraper development in CW - so new projects simply gonna be forced to move there instead of the city (which will have plenty new skyscrapers to marvel on already from the current projects at the verge of starting construction now). This might help to move on a mega project (for european standards) like wood wharf which will bring CW to a whole new level..
 
See less See more
#9,141 ·
They will be safe if they choose a safe route (i.e. using pedestrian crossings), which is very straightforward. What's so different about a route that's on the pavement instead of on the main carriageway? Johnson may be a bumbling baffoon, but I thought cyclists were supposed to be more intelligent than he.

Following your logic, that the over-riding priority should be to reduce exposure to danger, you agree banning cars is the way forward?

Pavements are for pedestrians, roads are for bikes and vehicles, it would be chaos if London's cyclists started using the pavements.
 
#9,142 ·
Go a different route...

There seems to be a sentiment that nothing is ever the cyclists fault, which is Bullshit. I am in a tiny minority of cyclists (at least around here) that takes sensible routes, doesn't take stupid risks, stops at the lights, wears hi-vis, has lights and wears a helmet.
 
#9,143 ·
Go a different route...

There seems to be a sentiment that nothing is ever the cyclists fault, which is Bullshit. I am in a tiny minority of cyclists (at least around here) that takes sensible routes, doesn't take stupid risks, stops at the lights, wears hi-vis, has lights and wears a helmet.
I can't see that anyone has said nothing's ever the cyclists' fault, what do you mean?

Is it reasonable for the mayor to offend grieving relatives by claiming the cyclists who died on London's roads were at fault, especially when he's pulled the statistic out of thin air?
 
#9,144 ·
Following your logic, that the over-riding priority should be to reduce exposure to danger, you agree banning cars is the way forward?

Pavements are for pedestrians, roads are for bikes and vehicles, it would be chaos if London's cyclists started using the pavements.
The primary danger isn't speed but speed differential. (Dismounted) cyclists on the pavement at appropriate locations would be far less chaotic than them trying to negociate a high-speed roundabout.
 
#9,145 ·
I can't see that anyone has said nothing's ever the cyclists' fault, what do you mean?

Is it reasonable for the mayor to offend grieving relatives by claiming the cyclists who died on London's roads were at fault, especially when he's pulled the statistic out of thin air?
But he didn't go out to Offend them...

Anyway, what were the other alternatives? What did Ken do in his time in office? What did he or Benita or whoever propose to do?
 
#9,146 ·
The primary danger isn't speed but speed differential. (Dismounted) cyclists on the pavement at appropriate locations would be far less chaotic than them trying to negociate a high-speed roundabout.
On many routes in The City cyclists outnumber motor vehicles. Blackfriars, for instance. Moving all those people and bikes onto the pavement would cause gridlock, it's unworkable. Off-road cycle facilities like lanes have much higher accident rates than the roads. If cyclists want to stay safe, they should stay on the roads and not jump red lights, like Boris does:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-says-Boris-Johnson-used-ride-red-lights.html
 
#9,147 ·
But he didn't go out to Offend them...

That's ok then. Boris has a global itinerary of people he "didn't mean" to offend:

Kate Cairms, whose sister Eilidh was killed by a lorry in 2009, said Mr Johnson's comments were dangerous and risked pitting cyclists and drivers against each other.


'He has done a lot of harm to cyclists because he has upped the ante between cyclists and drivers when we need to be upping the level of mutual respect,' she told The Independent.


'It is tarring people with the same brush. There are cyclists who jump red lights so people say they all do. But there are also bad drivers and that doesn't lead us to say everyone is bad.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hnson-used-ride-red-lights.html#ixzz1vzb9rXEq
 
#9,148 ·
On many routes in The City cyclists outnumber motor vehicles. Blackfriars, for instance. Moving all those people and bikes onto the pavement would cause gridlock, it's unworkable. Off-road cycle facilities like lanes have much higher accident rates than the roads. If cyclists want to stay safe, they should stay on the roads and not jump red lights, like Boris does:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-says-Boris-Johnson-used-ride-red-lights.html
Elephant isn't Blackfriars, and trying to convert the former into something resembling the latter won't work.
 
#9,149 ·
Elephant isn't Blackfriars, and trying to convert the former into something resembling the latter won't work.

They're similar in that there is no provision for cyclists, despite them being a third of traffic.


Boris's priority is motor traffic.

New York spells out you can't keep 'smoothing' motor traffic unless you want to stop people cycling. Meanwhile, Transport planning chief attacks London motor traffic forecasts. So why is the Mayor still clinging to a policy of more roads and more motor vehicles?


Under the current Mayor, it seems that there simply isn't room for a London in which motor traffic isn't going to grow and grow. The rest of us will just have to move out the way so that those extra motor vehicles get 'smoother' conditions.

Last month, the Department for Transport issued a report suggesting that London will need to plan for 43% motor traffic growth by 2035.

I cannot say loudly enough how wrong I think Boris Johnson's 'smoothing the traffic flow' agenda is for Londoners. The reality of this doctrine is massive junctions to speed as many cars through as possible; it means high streets turned into race tracks and it means pedestrian crossings removed all over London. Soon it will mean road building, more neighbourhoods plagued with lorries, noise and pollution. Above all, though, it means that proper, safe and sensible cycling infrastructure will always come second to motor traffic. And that means cycling will never be considered a normal mode of transport.
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/new-york-spells-out-you-cant-keep.html

When you combine Boris's agenda with his silly remarks you wonder what's going on in his head. We appear to be in the very peculiar position of Boris believing as fact whatever the last person he spoke to said to him.

I'm not a supporter of segregation, but if New York and Chicago can make great efforts to be cycle-friendly, why can't London?

 
#9,150 ·
Anyway, what were the other alternatives? What did Ken do in his time in office?
Quite a lot. Obviously this is history that Boris and his PR have re-written, so don't take it as gospel that it actually happened, must have been filmed in some weird parallel universe that has been erased now we all know Boris was responsible for the cycle hire scheme and highways.



Boris rejected a safer Elephant & Castle junction strategy, proposed originally under Ken's tenure, in 2011, placing traffic over the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. As he did with Parliament Square, and most other gyratories that were intended to be removed.

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5407
 
#9,153 ·
I'm not a supporter of segregation, but if New York and Chicago can make great efforts to be cycle-friendly, why can't London?
New York and Chicago's efforts are precisely segregation, which London's infrastructure doesn't allow easily. Insisting on keeping conflicts between modes with inherent speed differentials is looking for trouble, especially when one mode is clearly more vulnerable than the other.

You are basically saying you don't like what chicago's done but you want London to do the same without doing the same even though doing it is not always practical. Brilliant logic.
 
#9,154 ·
You are basically saying you don't like what chicago's done but you want London to do the same without doing the same even though doing it is not always practical. Brilliant logic.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. That there is no room in London for segregation is a fallacy, but again segregation isn't the answer because it bestows ownership so cyclists on unsegregated routes are seen as fair game by drivers with the thuggish mentality Boris has just endorsed.

There is nothing unique about how other cities have adapted roads, the resource that inevitably causes conflict when it is limited, it is making adaptations so that the most vulnerable are the most protected, it is emphatically not encouraging faster traffic.
 
#9,155 ·
In fact, Chicago are adopting the Swedish "Project Zero" concept:

The plan in Chicago?

"Eliminate ALL pedestrian, bicycle, and overall traffic crash fatalities within 10 years".


Put bluntly, the plan in Chicago is to build a city where everyone can travel safely within the public right of way. The plan in London is to build a city where the public right of way is enhanced for the benefit of motor traffic, which means that the public is increasingly losing access to the public right of way unless they're in a car.

I would far rather live in a city that is puts as its number one priority a reduction in road deaths to zero than a city that simply shrugs it shoulders and prioritises smooth traffic flow above all other priorities.
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/chicago-joins-london-and-promises-to.html

They've achieved significant increases in road safety in Sweden.
 
#9,156 ·
Anything that includes the words 'eliminating ALL' is a statistical impossibility, so I'd take these statements with a massive pinch of salt if I were you.

Segregation isn't the answer because it bestows ownership so cyclists on unsegregated routes are seen as fair game
Says it all really, egotism above common sense.

it is emphatically not encouraging faster traffic.
Just as I suspected - it's funny how cyclists are always the first to tell others 'it's not all about speed', yet are the last to slow down or indeed stop for traffic lights.
 
#9,157 ·
Anything that includes the words 'eliminating ALL' is a statistical impossibility, so I'd take these statements with a massive pinch of salt if I were you.
I wish you'd bothered to read the link. The Swedes CONCEDE it's probably impossible. Nonetheless they've achieved brilliant results.

Says it all really, egotism above common sense.
I don't understand, what's egotism got to do with it? Drivers often shout at cyclists to "get on the cycle path" even when there isn't one. I believe segregation would exacerbate conflict because drivers would want cyclists to get off "their" roads.

Just as I suspected - it's funny how cyclists are always the first to tell others 'it's not all about speed', yet are the last to slow down or indeed stop for traffic lights.
What cyclists say that? I've never heard it, and I stop for traffic lights, making generalisations and blaming all cyclists for the sins of some is rather silly, it's as if I ascribed all the sins of drivers to you and said you don't have a right to support motoring because you lot killed Diana.

The Vision Zero goal is indeed a vision. It is unlikely that all fatalities and serious casualties can be avoided. The main change instigated by Vision Zero is the new way of dividing responsibilities for road safety.

Vision Zero strategic principles.

The traffic system has to adapt to take better account of the needs, mistakes and vulnerabilities of road users.
The level of violence that the human body can tolerate without being killed or seriously injured forms the basic parameter in the design of the road transport system.
Vehicle speed is the most important regulating factor for safe road traffic. It should be determined by the technical standard of both roads and vehicle so as not to exceed the level of violence that the human body can tolerate.

http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/national_level/sweden_.htm
 
#9,158 ·
I wish you'd bothered to read the link. The Swedes CONCEDE it's probably impossible. Nonetheless they've achieved brilliant results.
And UK's road safety record is pretty solid too. Perhaps just under Sweden according to EU statistics, but controlling for much higher AADT on UK's roads I think the UK's is doing pretty well.

I don't understand, what's egotism got to do with it? Drivers often shout at cyclists to "get on the cycle path" even when there isn't one. I believe segregation would exacerbate conflict because drivers would want cyclists to get off "their" roads.
Successful cycling cities all employ quite a bit of segregation - look at the Netherlands for example. Of course as segregation isn't always practical there needs to be a culture change amongst drivers. Where possible though, no lorries is still preferable to nice lorries. In fact from my observations most drivers are pretty accommodating to cyclists and are fairly tolerant to idiotic cyclists. The same cannot always be said about cyclists towards other road users.

What cyclists say that? I've never heard it, and I stop for traffic lights, making generalisations and blaming all cyclists for the sins of some is rather silly, it's as if I ascribed all the sins of drivers to you and said you don't have a right to support motoring because you lot killed Diana.
Unfortunately cyclists like you who follow rules are in a minority, and too many cyclists cycle provocatively aggrevating other road users. If everyone did cycle like you, and perhaps used more common sense by using segregation or pedestrian facilities where available, then accidents would go right down and drivers would be less weary of cyclists.
 
#9,159 ·
And UK's road safety record is pretty solid too. Perhaps just under Sweden according to EU statistics, but controlling for much higher AADT on UK's roads I think the UK's is doing pretty well.

The biggest con the motoring lobby ever pulled was to intimidate vulnerable road users off the roads, then cite a relatively low collision rate as "proof" that the roads are safer. We have deflated levels of walking and cycling compared to, say, Germany, with similar levels of car ownership.

Unfortunately cyclists like you who follow rules are in a minority
Source? That sounds like the same ignorant prejudice Boris came out with. We know that most drivers admit speeding and speeding drivers kill a thousand people a year, what's your corresponding rates of criminality among cyclists, who killed nobody last year.


If everyone did cycle like you, and perhaps used more common sense by using segregation or pedestrian facilities where available, then accidents would go right down and drivers would be less weary of cyclists.
This is absolute claptrap, you're spouting the same ignorant garbage as Boris, why not read the links upthread that went over this:

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
You want to increase road safety then it's driver behaviour you concentrate on, NOT cyclists.

You're guilty of the same irrational thinking as Boris, impeded by the same clouded thought process and muddled prejudice. Framing your argument in terms of broad-brush stereotyping so as to demonize an out-group you feel inexplicably threatened by.
 
#9,160 ·
The biggest con the motoring lobby ever pulled was to intimidate vulnerable road users off the roads, then cite a relatively low collision rate as "proof" that the roads are safer. We have deflated levels of walking and cycling compared to, say, Germany, with similar levels of car ownership.
In Germany people do not cross the road when the red man is showing whereas Brits are far more likely to 'chance it'.

Source? That sounds like the same ignorant prejudice Boris came out with. We know that most drivers admit speeding and speeding drivers kill a thousand people a year, what's your corresponding rates of criminality among cyclists, who killed nobody last year.
I can count on one hand the number of cyclists I've seen who actually stopped at a red light. Most of them go straight through meandering through horizontal traffic very dangerously. Some of them seem prepared to risk their lives just to protest against motor vehicles just for the sake of it. Then you have the cyclists who insist on going beyond the pedestrian crossing when waiting at the light then wonder why traffic is pipping at them from behind because they can't see the light as they've gone past it!

This is absolute claptrap, you're spouting the same ignorant garbage as Boris, why not read the links upthread that went over this:

You want to increase road safety then it's driver behaviour you concentrate on, NOT cyclists.

You're guilty of the same irrational thinking as Boris, impeded by the same clouded thought process and muddled prejudice. Framing your argument in terms of broad-brush stereotyping so as to demonize an out-group you feel inexplicably threatened by.
And you've done your fair share of demonising motorists in general. The fact is a majority of motorists are quite tolerant of cyclists, yet a majority of cyclists think rules don't apply to them. Of course driver behaviour needs to be looked at and speeding and inconsiderate driving needs to be tackled, but cyclists' behaviour needs to change much more. They need to know they have to look after themselves not to be killed.

What's more, most traffic on London's streets is buses and other essential road users, so the demand is quite static. Buses often cater for lower income and less mobile groups who do travel medium-long distances and they outweigh cyclists in numbers, and I argue bus passengers should have priority in allocating road space.

That study is nation wide, and outside London cyclists tend to be far more careful. Taking London separately and the picture can be quite different.
 
Top