Transportation Planning Casebook/London's Bicycle Superhighways

Summary thumb|Barclays Cycle Superhighway 3, Cable Street, London London’s Bicycle Superhighways were a cycling infrastructure programme introduced by Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor of London. The programme created direct, clearly identifiable cycle routes between outer London and central London, with an initial focus on commuter journeys. The routes were branded as “Cycle Superhighways” and used consistent markings and signage to make cycling routes more recognisable within London’s road system. Transport for London Every Journey Matters Cycleways https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/routes-and-maps/cycleways 2026-05-22 Transport for London en-GBGilligan, Andrew Paul, (born 22 Nov. 1968), London Editor, Telegraph Media Group, since 2009; Cycling Commissioner for London, Greater London Authority, since 2013 2014-12-01 https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.u264084 Who's Who 2026-05-22 Oxford University Press The programme was implemented in stages. Early routes used blue road markings and other on-road treatments, but the design approach was criticised for providing limited physical separation from motor traffic. Evidence submitted to the UK Parliament’s Transport Committee in 2013 recorded concerns about narrow sections, unclear junctions and cyclists being placed close to fast-moving vehicles.CYS0087 - Evidence on Cycling safety https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/47159/html/ 2026-05-22 committees.parliament.uk A significant policy change followed the publication of the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London in 2013. The document proposed an expanded cycling network, including a largely segregated east-west route through central London described as a “Crossrail for the bike”. The policy linked cycling with congestion, health, emissions, road safety and the design of public streets. thumb|Cycle Superhighway 6 at Blackfriars TfL later adopted the broader term “Cycleways” for high-quality cycle routes. Former Cycle Superhighways and Quietways are being incorporated into this network. The current Cycleways programme is intended to connect communities, businesses and destinations across London, with TfL aiming for the cycle network to be within reach of 40% of Londoners by 2030. The development of the programme can be described in three broad phases: early radial commuter routes, later segregated central London routes, and subsequent integration into the Cycleways network. Its implementation involved policy debates about safety, road-space allocation, traffic impacts, borough coordination and accessibility. _14053 https://doi.org/10.5270/esa-ig2n1sb 2026-05-22 _14053 Annotated List of Actors ActorTypeInterests, Concerns, and IssuesTransport for London (TfL)Transport authorityTfL’s interest was to deliver a recognizable cycling network that supported the Mayor’s transport objectives while keeping London’s road network operating. Its concerns included route design, safety outcomes, construction impacts, traffic capacity, bus operations, consultation responses and scheme costs. TfL also had to manage the transition from the original Cycle Superhighways brand into the broader Cycleways network.Mayor of LondonPolitical authorityThe Mayor’s office was interested in using cycling policy to support wider city objectives, including reduced congestion, improved public health, lower emissions, safer streets and better use of limited road space. Its concerns included political support, public acceptance and whether the programme could show that cycling was a serious part of London’s transport system rather than a minor road-marking scheme.Boris JohnsonMayor of London, 2008–2016Boris Johnson’s role was central because the Superhighways were launched and expanded during his mayoralty. His interest was to present cycling as a visible and ambitious transport policy for London. The main issue for his administration was moving from the early blue-painted routes to a more credible segregated network, including the east-west route described as 'Crossrail for the bike'.4 February 2015 Final plans for Mayor's "Crossrail for Bikes" approved https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/february/final-plans-for-mayor-s-crossrail-for-bikes-approved liveLondon borough councilsLocal government / highway authoritiesBorough councils were interested in how the routes affected local streets, residents, businesses, parking, loading, bus stops and local access. Their concerns were practical as well as political: some schemes required local consultation, changes to kerbs and junctions, and potential reductions in road space for other users. Their cooperation was important because delivery could be slowed or changed by local objections.Cyclists and cycling advocacy groupsUsers / pressure groupsCyclists and advocacy groups were interested in routes that were continuous, direct and safe enough for a wider range of users, not only confident commuters. Their concerns focused on the early reliance on painted lanes, unsafe junctions, lack of physical protection and conflicts with buses or heavy vehicles. Their criticism helped push the programme toward better segregation and stronger design standards. Timeline of Events Year / DateEventNotesJuly 2010First two pilot routes, CS3 and CS7, opened.Li Haojie Ding Hongliang Ren Gang Xu Chengcheng 2018-05-01 Effects of the London Cycle Superhighways on the usage of the London Cycle Hire https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417312569 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 111 304–315 10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.020 0965-85642012 Barclays Cycle Superhighways: Evaluation of Pilot Routes 3 and 7 https://www.mobilservice.ch/admin/data/files/news_section_file/file/3063/transport-of-london-barclays-cylce-superhighways-.pdf liveStart of London’s Cycle Superhighways programme.July 2011CS2 and CS8 opened.Expansion of the pilot network to four main routes.2010–2012Early routes used blue-painted lanes and limited segregation.2018 Evolution of cycle superhighways in London https://vb.nweurope.eu/projects/project-search/cycle-highways-innovation-for-smarter-people-transport-and-spatial-planning/news/evolution-of-cycle-superhighways-in-london/ liveEarly design approach associated with criticism of “paint only” routes.March 2013Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London was published.Policy shift toward a larger and safer cycling network.2013The Vision proposed a segregated east-west route called “Crossrail for the bike.”Cycling infrastructure framed as major transport infrastructure.2013–2014TfL developed the cycling investment programme after the Mayor’s Vision.2 March 2016 Cycling Vision Portfolio https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-160302-09-cycling-vision.pdf livePolicy vision developed into an investment and delivery programme.January 2015Final plans for the east-west “Crossrail for the Bike” were announced.Mayor announces final build plans for “Crossrail for the Bike” London City Hall https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/crossrail-for-the-bike 2026-05-22 www.london.gov.uk en-gbContinuous kerb-segregated cycling provision confirmed for the route.February 2015TfL approved major east-west and north-south Cycle Superhighway schemes.Approval of the more ambitious segregated phase.April 2016First phase of CS6 opened across Blackfriars Bridge.20 September 2018 GLA - Major new Cycle Superhighway extension opens https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2018/september/gla---major-new-cycle-superhighway-extension-opensCreation of a key north-south central London cycling route.2016Central east-west route opened through central London.Delivery of part of the “Crossrail for the bike” proposal.September 2018CS6 was extended from Elephant & Castle to King’s Cross.Extension of the protected north-south corridor.2018 onwardsTfL moved away from separate “Superhighway” and “Quietway” branding.Former Superhighway and Quietway branding began to be absorbed into Cycleways.2023Former CS3 was rebranded as Cycleway 3 / C3.Former Cycle Superhighway route incorporated into Cycleways branding.June 2024TfL launched ten new Cycleways across London.Continuation of the programme under the Cycleways model. Maps of Locations thumb|303x303px|East-West Cycle Superhighway / “Crossrail for the bike” The map shows the east west route associated with the 2013 Mayor’s Vision for Cycling and the “Crossrail for the bike” proposal. The route represented a move from mainly painted routes toward a more continuous and protected cycle corridor through central London. Policy Issues London’s Bicycle Superhighways raised policy issues relating to safety, road space, street design, local governance and the operation of a congested urban transport network. The programme affected cyclists, pedestrians, buses, taxis, freight, private cars, local businesses and residents because it changed how limited street space was allocated. Road-space reallocation was one of the main policy issues. Later segregated Superhighways required physical space rather than only road markings. In practice, this could involve changes to traffic lanes, parking, loading areas, bus movements or junction layouts. TfL’s 2015 board paper considered the schemes alongside traffic management, bus priority and the wider performance of London’s road network. Safety was also central to the programme. Early routes were criticised for relying on blue-painted lanes rather than protected cycle tracks. This created a contrast between the “Superhighway” branding and the on-street conditions experienced by some users. Evidence submitted to the UK Parliament’s Transport Committee referred to the limited provision of segregated cycling infrastructure in London compared with Dutch practice. Perceived safety formed part of the same debate. TfL’s evidence on segregated cycling infrastructure identifies safety and the feeling of safety as factors affecting whether Londoners cycle, or cycle more often. Routes that remain close to buses, trucks and fast traffic may be less attractive to less confident users, even where a marked cycle route is present.23 May 2026 Segregated Cycling Infrastructure Evidence Pack https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/segregated-cycling-infrastructure-evidence-pack.pdf The programme also raised questions about the distinction between route branding and transport infrastructure. Early Superhighways used blue surfacing and signage to create a visible cycling identity, while later proposals placed greater emphasis on physical separation, continuity and network quality. The 2013 Mayor’s Vision for Cycling described the proposed east-west route as a “Crossrail for the bike”, placing cycling infrastructure within a wider transport-planning framework. Congestion and traffic management were recurring policy concerns. London’s roads carry buses, cars, taxis, delivery vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists within limited space. Segregated cycle lanes can affect traffic capacity, turning movements, bus stops and journey times. TfL therefore assessed the schemes in relation to both cycling objectives and the operation of the wider road network. Governance was another issue because London’s streets are managed by different authorities. TfL controls major roads, while borough councils control many local streets and have roles in planning, consultation and local traffic management. Delivery of the Superhighways therefore depended on mayoral policy, TfL design work and cooperation with boroughs, residents, businesses and other stakeholders. Equity and access were also part of the policy discussion. The original Superhighways were mostly radial routes aimed at commuting into central London. These corridors served an important travel market, but they did not provide a complete network for all trip types, including local trips, school trips, shopping trips or orbital journeys in outer London. The later Cycleways approach broadened the network concept beyond the original commuter-corridor model. Pedestrian and accessibility issues were also relevant. Protected cycle lanes can reduce conflict with motor traffic, but they must also be designed for pedestrians, bus passengers and people using mobility aids. Features such as bus stop bypasses, floating bus stops and altered crossings can raise accessibility concerns for blind or partially sighted people if not designed carefully. Policy continuity and branding changed over time. The programme began with Cycle Superhighways, later operated alongside Quietways, and was then incorporated into the wider Cycleways network. The change in terminology reflected TfL’s move toward a broader network identity for high-quality cycling routes. The principal policy debates around the Superhighways concerned the role of cycling within a dense and congested city. Issues included safety, road space allocation, traffic impacts, local opposition, accessibility, equity and long-term network planning. The programme formed part of a broader shift in London’s approach to cycling infrastructure. Detailed Narrative of the Case London’s Bicycle Superhighways were introduced to give cycling a clearer role within the city’s transport system. Before the programme, cycling in London generally operated within streets designed mainly for cars, buses, taxis and freight. The Superhighways introduced direct and recognisable routes for people cycling into and across London, particularly commuters travelling between outer London and central London. The first stage began in July 2010, when two pilot routes opened: Cycle Superhighway 3 (CS3) from Barking to Tower Gateway, and Cycle Superhighway 7 (CS7) from Merton to the City. They were launched around the same period as London’s cycle hire scheme. The routes used strong branding, including bright blue road surfacing, to identify the cycle corridor and make it more visible to other road users. The early routes were mainly commuter corridors connecting outer London with central employment areas. They were not designed primarily as local neighbourhood routes. The programme linked cycling with wider transport-capacity objectives, including reducing pressure on roads and public transport while supporting health and environmental policy goals. In 2011, two more routes, CS2 and CS8, were added, bringing the early network to four main corridors. TfL’s later material recorded that the first two routes opened in July 2010 and the second pair opened in July 2011. The same material reported increases in cycling trips after the routes opened and also acknowledged criticism from campaigners about limited physical separation between cyclists and motor traffic. Criticism of the early routes became a major feature of the programme. The Superhighways were visually clear, but many sections relied on blue paint, signs, on-road lanes or shared bus-and-cycle lanes rather than protected tracks. A European review of cycle highways described the early London approach as a relatively low-cost method for improving the readability of existing infrastructure, while noting criticism that it was essentially “paint only”. The term “Cycle Superhighway” suggested a high-quality, continuous and safe route. On some sections, however, riders remained close to fast traffic, buses and heavy vehicles. Junctions were a particular source of conflict where cyclists encountered turning traffic. The early phase therefore became associated with debate over the difference between visible route marking and physical protection. A major policy response came in 2013 with the publication of The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London. The document proposed a larger and more ambitious network, including a fast and largely segregated east-west route through central London described as a “Crossrail for the bike”. The proposed route was intended to run for at least 15 miles through the heart of London, connecting the western suburbs with Canary Wharf and Barking. The “Crossrail for the bike” phrase compared cycling infrastructure with major rail investment and presented cycling as a strategic transport corridor rather than a minor addition to the road network. This marked a shift away from the early blue-painted model toward physical separation, continuity and network quality. After the 2013 vision, TfL developed a wider cycling investment programme. The Superhighways operated alongside other cycling initiatives, including Quietways and Mini-Hollands in selected boroughs. TfL’s cycling portfolio documents identified the Mayor’s Vision as a key background document and linked the programme to delivery and monitoring objectives. The next major stage came in 2015, when TfL considered and approved major new Cycle Superhighway schemes, including the east-west and north-south routes through central London. The February 2015 TfL board paper stated that four Superhighway routes had already been completed and acknowledged criticism that they lacked physical separation from traffic. The later schemes therefore expanded the network while responding to earlier design criticisms. The 2015 proposals required reallocation of road space in central London. Segregated cycle tracks need physical width, and in dense urban streets that width can affect general traffic lanes, parking, loading areas or other road functions. The proposals attracted support from cycling and active-travel advocates as well as opposition from some road users and businesses. The east-west route became the most prominent example of the newer aproach. It translated the 2013 vision into a route through central London, connecting areas such as Tower Gateway, Westminster, Hyde Park and locations further west. The route was planned as a direct, legible and connected cycling corridor across the central city. The north-south route, including Cycle Superhighway 6 (CS6), also became a major example of the later Superhighway model. The first phase across Blackfriars opened in 2016, and the extension from Elephant & Castle to King’s Cross opened in 2018. TfL described the extension as including segregated cycle track, new pedestrian crossings and junction improvements. The Superhighways remained controversial because they altered established patterns of road use. Supporters presented protected cycling routes as measures for improving safety, public health, emissions and alternatives to car travel and crowded public transport. Critics and opponents raised concerns about traffic delays, effects on buses and taxis, delivery access, local business disruption, construction impacts and changes to street layouts. The governance of the programme involved several levels of authority. TfL had a central role, but it did not control every street in London. Borough councils control many local roads and operate within their own political and consultation processes. Delivery therefore required coordination between the Mayor, TfL, borough councils, residents, businesses and other stakeholders. Equity was another issue. The original Superhighways were strongly focused on commuting into central London. While this served a significant travel market, it did not create a complete cycling network for local trips, school trips, shopping trips or orbital journeys across outer London. This limitation contributed to the later shift toward the broader Cycleways network. The identity of the programme changed over time. TfL now uses the broader term Cycleways for high-quality cycling routes and states that former Cycle Superhighways and Quietways are being rebranded under that name. The original Superhighways were therefore incorporated into a wider network concept rather than remaining as a separate brand. The development of the London Bicycle Superhighways can be divided into three stages: the early use of branding and blue surfacing, the later introduction of more protected and continuous central London routes, and the incorporation of these routes into the wider Cycleways programme. The programme was shaped by debates over safety, street-space allocation and the relationship between cycling and other transport modes. The programme formed part of a broader change in London’s transport planning, in which cycling was increasingly treated as part of the city’s transport network rather than as a marginal or optional mode. The Superhighways were contested and varied in design quality, but they contributed to the development of more connected and protected cycling infrastructure in London. Discussion Questions Did London’s early Cycle Superhighways fail because of poor design, or were they a necessary first step toward better cycling infrastructure? Should cycle routes in busy cities be physically separated from traffic wherever possible, or are painted lanes acceptable in some locations? Was the phrase “Crossrail for the bike” useful because it made cycling sound like major transport infrastructure, or was it politically exaggerated? How should cities balance road space between cyclists, buses, taxis, freight, private cars and pedestrians? Further Reading The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London — Greater London Authority, 2013 Useful for the policy vision, “Crossrail for the bike”, and the shift toward segregated routes. Proposed Cycle Superhighway Schemes — TfL Board Paper, 2015 Useful for TfL’s formal approval process, route planning, road-space issues and delivery details. Barclays Cycle Superhighways: Evaluation of Pilot Routes 3 and 7 — TfL, 2012 Useful for early-route evaluation, user perception, implementation costs and impacts on other modes. Effects of the London Cycle Superhighways on the usage of the London Cycle Hire — Li, Graham and Liu, 2018 Useful for academic evaluation of how Cycle Superhighways affected cycle-hire usage. Notes and references