Email
Some are already styling it as a battle for the future of Britain’s cities. On one side stands Boris Johnson and his ambitious plans for a pair of cross-London cycling routes. Against him line up business groups who, critics say, appear more worried about the traffic flow of limousines than safer bike lanes.
Plans for two cycling superhighways through London’s centre – a three-mile north-south route and a more ambitious 18-mile stretch running west to east – were outlined last year, with detailed plans unveiled in September.
Proponents argue the planned routes, which would keep riders almost entirely segregated from motor traffic, could spark a transport revolution in the capital and provide a template for cities nationwide. Critics respond that Johnson and his cycling “tsar”, the journalist-turned advisor Andrew Gilligan, are rushing through plans that could gridlock the capital.
The tussle is bitter and complex. The bitterness comes amid allegations about anonymous briefings and private lobbying from corporations that supporters of the scheme claim are intent on derailing or at least delaying the plans.
The Canary Wharf group, which manages the high-rise business estate to the east of the City, has been foremost among opponents, distributing an anonymous briefing paper that called the planned east-west highway “extremely damaging to London”, saying it would cut traffic lanes from four to two. Critics say the latter claim is especially misleading given this would happen for only a few hundred metres of the 18-mile route.
Chris Boardman, the former Olympic cycling champion who is now a policy adviser to British cycling, said the Canary Wharf company had engaged in heavy lobbying to derail the scheme but appeared afraid to go public.
“They know that they will be seen as old men in limos,” he told the Guardian. “They know that most Londoners, who do not drive in the centre, sympathise with making central London less car-dominated. So instead, they are trying to poison the project in secret without leaving any fingerprints.”
Canary Wharf has subsequently confirmed it was behind the anonymous briefing, though insists it supports the plans in principle. However, a spokesman said the company, along with many other businesses, remained “extremely concerned about the design and traffic impact of the current proposals”.
The paradox is that while much of the fuss has centred around the opposition, wider business opinion seems to be quietly moving behind the scheme.
The Corporation of London, which governs the City, through which the east-west route would pass, initially expressed significant scepticism. However, now Transport for London (TfL) has published detailed models of the predicted traffic effect of the lanes its stance appears to have softened.
Michael Welbank, the corporation’s head of planning, said he was hopeful the City could end up backing the bulk of the east-west route, even if it remains sceptical about Johnson’s ambition for them to open before he leaves office in 2016.
“We are not opposed to the concept – the devil is in the detail,” he said. “Because we’ve expressed reservations doesn’t mean they can’t be worked out. At the moment we see no reasons why 90% or so shouldn’t turn out to be resolveable.”
More significant still is the very public backing for the bike network offered in recent weeks by a series of major employers, among them RBS, Orange and Unilever, with more big names expected to come out next week. The latter corporation, which is Anglo-Dutch, was at pains to stress that its other headquarters, in Rotterdam, is surrounded by safe lanes and it wanted London to follow suit as quickly as possible.
Danny Williams, who runs the influential Cyclists in the City blog and has followed the debate closely, says this a hugely significant moment: “These are big employers, where a significant proportion of the people who work for them come to work on a bicycle. They’re seeing the way the future is going. They know London needs infrastructure so people can get to work safely on a bike the same way they can expect to get to work safely on the tube or the train.”
Others say critics of the scheme are at risk of being seen as living in the past. Michael Liebreich, an entrepreneur who is a member of the TfL board, who has criticised private lobbying against the scheme, said there was “a historic shift” taking place.
He said: “Cities are realising they have to compete on the quality of life they can offer to a young, mobile workforce.
“If you’re a games designer or a programmer, you could go to Berlin, you could go to Barcelona, you could go to Bogota, and you would have a fabulous lifestyle. Chicago, New York, Vancouver - it’s not just about Amsterdam and Copenhagen any more: everyone’s in the race.”
