# TfL Draft Network Operating Strategy



## dellzeqq (14 Jun 2011)

apologies for bringing yet another local matter to this board, but it's important. Indeed, it's probably, in its own way, the most important document on transport we'll see for a while.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/nos 

TfL is charged with managing London's trains, tubes and buses. It also manages the main road network. During the Livingstone years it had a considerable impact. Now, under Johnson, there's a closing down of thought processes.

The DNOS doesn't really consider anything other than smoothing or managing traffic flow. It ignores the quality of life of people living on its road network, and has nothing much to say other than giving us the most almighty non-sequitur

_The efficient management, operation and maintenance of London’s strategic road network is therefore of significant economic importance not only to the Capital, but also to the wider UK economy. At the same time, TfL needs to make sure that London’s roads can play their part as social, economic and cultural spaces, whether as locations for shopping and leisure in the city’s many town centres, or simply as places for informal social activity. This means creating streets and public spaces that are safe, attractive and accessible as well as providing the corridors along which traffic flows._​_Consequently, it is imperative that the road network functions effectively both as a set of corridors for traffic movement and as a collection of places in which people live, work and play. In order to demonstrate how these objectives will successfully be achieved, Surface Transport has prepared a suite of three documents: the Network Operating Strategy (NOS), the TLRN Implementation Plan (TIP) and the Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP)._​_The NOS sets out how London Streets, as part of TfL, will successfully manage and operate the Capital’s road networks within the context of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS), published in May 2010._​_The TIP records TfL’s aspirations for future investment projects on the TLRN that will create safe, accessible, attractive routes and places, through which traffic can flow smoothly. It also outlines their costs and benefits and how they contribute towards the MTS._​_The HAMP sets out how TfL maintains its highway assets to meet user expectations, maximises operational effectiveness and minimises asset-related risks cost effectively._​_How will we know we are being successful in our approach? When Londoners get in their cars, on the bus, cycle or walk to their destinations, they will reliably know how long their journey will take them, they will be assured that they can get there safely and they will travel through some_​So that's it. All of London's street life reduced to journey times. Never mind that through traffic kills shopping streets, or that a reduction in journey speed has plainly made some streets more prosperous. Never mind, either, the effect on residents of traffic volumes. All the brave thoughts of three years ago have been turned in to a simple exercise of getting people from A to B. ​_TfL proposes to increase the level of scrutiny of future new schemes to insist that local authorities and TfL’s own internal scheme sponsors consider all alternatives before proposing a new set of traffic signals. Proposals will be scrutinised to ensure they are creating significant wider benefits that outweigh any potential smoothing traffic flow disadvantage (eg in relation to pedestrian movement, Barclays Cycle Superhighways, Better Streets initiatives, bus priority and supporting London’s growth through facilitating access to new developments etc)._​_In future, TfL’s Traffic Directorate will refuse proposals for new signal installations in cases where it is evident that alternative methods of traffic control have not been considered, or where installation will cause unacceptable levels of disruption to traffic and will not produce significant safety, pedestrian, cycle, public transport or other benefits._​So the design of CS8 through Vauxhall is about smoothing traffic, to such a degree that the very arrangement that killed poor Vicky McCreery is proposed. Bus lanes are out if they slow other traffic (which is a given).​And, for the rest, there's a whole bunch of geeky stuff about satellites and supersmart traffic lights. The fundamentals are missing. Why are so many of our major arteries clogged, and why are they so miserable to be in? Where is the comparison between those streets that have Cycling Superhighways on them and those that don't - particularly in relation to prosperity? Why is it that some streets are clearly failing and others succeeding? None of that. Just the time taken by car journeys.​It's a miserable document, produced by people who lack any kind of vision or empathy with the city they're supposed to serve. Consultation is open until 15th July. Since this comes from the top I don't think there's much that can change before the next mayoral election, but at least you can contribute to the debate​


----------



## jonesy (14 Jun 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> ...So that's it. All of London's street life reduced to journey times. Never mind that through traffic kills shopping streets, or that a reduction in journey speed has plainly made some streets more prosperous. Never mind, either, the effect on residents of traffic volumes. All the brave thoughts of three years ago have been turned in to a simple exercise of getting people from A to B. ​,,,,,Why is it that some streets are clearly failing and others succeeding? None of that. Just the time taken by car journeys.​It's a miserable document, produced by people who lack any kind of vision or empathy with the city they're supposed to serve. Consultation is open until 15th July. Since this comes from the top I don't think there's much that can change before the next mayoral election, but at least you can contribute to the debate​



Not that long ago TfL used to be interested in this sort of thing:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....tp:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/paved-with-gold.pdf

How times have changed...


----------



## Richard Mann (14 Jun 2011)

All-mode journey time could be a sensible (intermediate) objective. They just need to get it into their heads that more bikes = lower average journey time, because bikes take less space. And corralling pedestrians in cages wastes hours of pedestrian journey time.

So I'd hammer home that it's got to be all-mode not just car-mode.


----------



## spen666 (15 Jun 2011)

> _In future, TfL’s Traffic Directorate will refuse proposals for new signal installations in cases where it is evident that alternative methods of traffic control have not been considered, or where installation will cause unacceptable levels of disruption to traffic and *will not produce significant safety, pedestrian, cycle, public transport or other benefits*_






What you quote from the article contradicts what you say.



So its all about journey times only and no consideration of safety to cyclists, pedestrians etc? The extracts you quote disagree with what you are saying.



You are letting your political views get in the way of the truth. Next time, be even more selective in your quotes so that you don't contradict your comments with extracts from the document


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jun 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> All-mode journey time could be a sensible (intermediate) objective. They just need to get it into their heads that more bikes = lower average journey time, because bikes take less space. And corralling pedestrians in cages wastes hours of pedestrian journey time.
> 
> So I'd hammer home that it's got to be all-mode not just car-mode.


I take your point. All-mode journey times are a bit tricky, though. Cycle journey times are already way below car journey times on bus lane'd routes within zones 1 to 3. And, unless I'm mistaken, there is not much by way of modal shift from car to bike - it's more from bus and tube to bike. 

The real sin in this document is that it doesn't consider place-making. Using TfL's new logic the accelleration of traffic down the A23 makes Streatham and Brixton better places - well, that just ain't so.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jun 2011)

jonesy said:


> Not that long ago TfL used to be interested in this sort of thing:
> http://webarchive.na...d-with-gold.pdf
> 
> How times have changed...


Jonesy - that's really interesting! I'm going to take a while to go through it. And, as you say, how times change.........


----------



## Richard Mann (15 Jun 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I take your point. All-mode journey times are a bit tricky, though. Cycle journey times are already way below car journey times on bus lane'd routes within zones 1 to 3. And, unless I'm mistaken, there is not much by way of modal shift from car to bike - it's more from bus and tube to bike.



Yes - bikes are already faster - which is why you reduce average journey times by getting more people on bikes: modal shift is more important to the result than single-mode journey time. If their models can't handle modal shift, then they need to constrain how they use the models, not drown themselves in model results.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jun 2011)

I see (I think).

Of course the irony is that if you restrict the access of private cars to the network, trip times will go down - for commercial vehicles, buses, and even cyclists. As far as I know there is no commercial case for private car journeys from (say) Croydon to The City


----------



## Dan B (15 Jun 2011)

spen666 said:


> What you quote from the article contradicts what you say.
> 
> So its all about journey times only and no consideration of safety to cyclists, pedestrians etc?


That's not what he said. He said it's all about journey times and no consideration 

 of quality of life 
 that through traffic kills shopping streets
 that a reduction in journey speed has plainly made some streets more prosperous
 of the effect on residents of traffic volumes
 and other stuff
But he did not, except in passing, suggest that it was a safety argument. Though he legitimately could have done if the schemes for Blackfriars and E&C are typical of the strategy and not just isolated ****ups.
While the document (or at least the quoted extract) makes some token nods towards "safe, attractive and accessible", this is given the lie by their primary criterion of "success", which is all about the journey and nothing about the destination. What do we want from our city, a place to live, or a corridor to travel through?


I'm afraid you're letting your obvious dislike for Dell blind you to the actual substance of his objection


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jun 2011)

........and, for obvious reasons, I'd not read the post! Or the next one! 

The Elephant and Castle thing is especially disappointing, not least because the backtracking was done on the quiet. 

To the line from The Magnificent Ambersons 'the faster we are carried, the less time we have to spare' I'd add 'if everywhere is on the way to somewhere else, where is there left to go?'

the madness that is this document is akin to the madness of (iirc) PPG27 which effectively bans residential development on high streets - should councils take notice of it, which, thankfully, some don't.


----------



## stowie (16 Jun 2011)

Christ, this document is f*ck*ng atrocious. We are all buggered.

It doesn't just consider nothing other than traffic flow, it implictly - through the measurement data and case studies - acknowledges the only thing it gives a sh!t about is private traffic flow. Buses are only really mentioned in any detail on the last couple of pages of the report, with the only bus case study being the fact that some new fancy lights reduced bus times on a route - as well as reducing private traffic times as well. Cyclists and pedestrians appear to only get a mention when the platitudes of "everyone being equal" are spewed out from time to time. Except for one paragraph where the document notes that significantly lower numbers of cyclists consulted were satisfied with the TRLN than drivers. That might because those cyclists have realised - as evidenced by this document - that TfL might not give the tiniest sh!t about them when it comes to decisions that conflict with motorists.

And as for pedestrians, the genius who wrote this report actually documented a case study on page 36 of TfL persuading a developer and borough to scrap new pedestrian crossings as "existing facilities" already were sufficient. Looking at google maps on one of them (Clapham Road near Albert square) it would appear that the reason for new facilities were a large apartment complex going up at the location, and the only way to cross the road using signals would be a fair walk to road junctions. And the document actually boasts about this. At least with cyclists we are ignored, it appears the document takes delight at actually making pedestrians' lives more difficult.

I think around page 58 we get to what TfL are really into. These pages burst with enthusiasm about acronym riddled technology and we are treated to multiple studies of SCOOT/UTC/VISSIM/BSDM etc. technology and models. TfL love nothing better than pretty graphics on their screens modelling hypothetical traffic flow and analysing effects of dynamically altering traffic lights by milliseconds. I get the impression that, instead of tackling hard questions on what we want our streets to actually do, and the environment we should aspire to, TfL are busy pushing toy cars around computer models of Trafalgar square. They may do this whilst making brroom brroom noises to enhance the realism. And they all get very excited by it all.

No-where do they seem to think about things like speed reduction (think blackfriars) may actually help vulnerable road users, but also smooth traffic flow. After all speed restrictions on the M25 aids traffic flow. 20mph would help us cyclists and pedestrians utilise this space whilst reducing the chances of accidents, enhance merging from side-roads and cut down traffic bunching at busy times. Presumably their little models aren't quite as exciting if they slow down everything.

And of course that is all without any consideration of the built environment, as Dell rightly says. When I see the people crossing from Stratford centre to the bus station my heart always sinks. Masses of people penned into refuges waiting for the brief period when the lights allow them to scamper to the otherside on a narrow crossing whilst traffic screams past at way above the speed limit. The hub of the "greenest" Olympics is basically a shopping centre (two now) and bus/train/tube stations which appear to have been randomnly flung into the middle of a motorway. This type of utter sh!t should make TfL ashamed, but presumably they would view it as a successful case study.

I am sure there are some people in TfL who are not advocates of this type of document, but TfL appears to be the enemy of the built environment. Those opposing are p!ssing into a hurricane. 

<and breathe...>


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jun 2011)

and relax.......

you are right, Stowie, and your paragraph about page 58 effectively skewers the entire sorry mess, but this document didn't just come out of what used to be an interesting and forward-thinking body of its own accord. The new head of TfL has been appointed by Johnson (at vast expense) to produced this kind of stuff.


----------



## stowie (19 Jun 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> and relax.......
> 
> you are right, Stowie, and your paragraph about page 58 effectively skewers the entire sorry mess, but this document didn't just come out of what used to be an interesting and forward-thinking body of its own accord. The new head of TfL has been appointed by Johnson (at vast expense) to produced this kind of stuff.



I barely started on the document, but blood pressure dictated a break...

I enjoyed immensely the boast on one of the case studies towards the end that 40% of TfL deliveries to their offices was by FORS-registered companies. Forgive me for being slightly less than impressed that the organisation that _runs _the scheme has the majority of its deliveries done by firms outside it. And, looking through the FORS scheme it appears that the requirements for entry are stringent conditions such as the haulage firm making sure their drivers are licensed and fit to drive. I would think it would be jolly if every haulage firm in London could manage to make sure its drivers aren't unlicensed, pissed or high, and speeding whilst using a mobile. Surely if TfL put their minds to it, they could enforce the FORS requirements as almost mandatory?

The problem with this document is that it takes major through routes and uses old standard to measure effectiveness of the road. Without once considering that in London many large through routes are - inconveniently - also major shopping and town centres. Urban planning has seemed to deal with this conflict by ignoring the latter use completely, and this document proves TfL are still doing the same thing.

As for TfL itself,I have never really been hugely impressed. I cannot say for sure what it was like under Ken, maybe the tone was different. Boris certainly has been a disappointment when it comes to treatment of streets.


----------



## sheddy (23 Jun 2011)

~3 weeks left


----------



## Tommi (10 Jul 2011)

I was just reading the document when this caught my eye in "Managing demand and achieving modal shift":



> However, *these more strategic measures are not the focus of this document*, which concentrates on the range of more locally targeted measures that can be applied at specific locations on the road network (eg the CMAs) to provide localised traffic demand relief to improve reliability and/or network resilience. TfL’s approach to these more tactical elements of travel demand management work is focused on:


I'm confused.. strategic measures are not the focus of Network Operating *Strategy* document? In which document would they be focused on then? Network Operating Strategy Strategy? Should I beware the leopard?


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Jul 2011)

Tommi said:


> I was just reading the document when this caught my eye in "Managing demand and achieving modal shift":
> 
> 
> I'm confused.. strategic measures are not the focus of Network Operating *Strategy* document? In which document would they be focused on then? Network Operating Strategy Strategy? Should I beware the leopard?


that's a very astute observation. A 'Strategy' that concerns itself only with tactics clearly has an ironclad ideology it's not prepared to talk about.

What's the leopard thing, by the way?


----------



## Red Light (11 Jul 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> All-mode journey time could be a sensible (intermediate) objective. They just need to get it into their heads that more bikes = lower average journey time, because bikes take less space. And corralling pedestrians in cages wastes hours of pedestrian journey time.
> 
> So I'd hammer home that it's got to be all-mode not just car-mode.



Two pictures I like in that respect:






What happens if a pedestrian were to take up as much space as a person in a car.







The relative road space taken up by the same number of people using different modes of transport.

Now if they want to improve the flow on the roads it seems obvious to me which transport mode needs to go.


----------



## Tommi (11 Jul 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> What's the leopard thing, by the way?


It's a quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Jul 2011)

Tommi said:


> It's a quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy


Tommi - you have quite made my day!

Can I ask you to just click on this.............................. http://1to3saintpetersstreet.blogspot.com/


----------



## albion (11 Jul 2011)

When you fly into Malta catching a bus now means a 'London bendy bus'.Seems bizarre but I also thought getting rid of them was just expensive populism.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jul 2011)

I'd not really intended to respond, but this thread was tweeted by London Cyclist, which kind of imposed a duty. So, it's rushed, but pretty much covers the bases that I wanted to cover. Some of it is down to Stowie and Tommi, and I hope that, if they have sent in responses, they've achieved something a little more elegant than what follows.........

*Response to TfL Draft Network Operating Strategy*​This is a miserable document. TfL used to think about streets, and what they might be. No longer. Reading the Draft Network Operating Strategy is a little like meeting at an old friend, lately lobotomised. There is so much that could be said, and yet there seems so little point.

Where does this lobotomy make its mark? Let us start with this sentence, on page 4.

_London’s roads comprise some of the Capital’s most important public spaces_

......which is unarguably correct. Scroll down, however, and there is a small, but significant shift

_This means creating streets and public spaces that are safe, attractive and accessible as well as providing the corridors along which traffic flows._

_Consequently, it is imperative that the road network functions effectively both as a set of corridors for traffic movement and as a collection of places in which people live, work and play._

Now here’s the problem. Those two objectives do not, as the song has it, go together like love and marriage. They may even be at odds with each other. There’s certainly no guarantee that a street that has smooth-flowing traffic is a good place to live, work, play, or, indeed, worship or run a business. 

Turn to page 5, and, we read this.......

_How will we know we are being successful in our approach? When Londoners get in their cars, on the bus, cycle or walk to their destinations, they will reliably know how long their journey will take them, they will be assured that they can get there safely and they will travel through some of the world’s best-designed and maintained streets and public spaces._

So, in two pages, we have gone from ‘important public spaces’ to a system of measurement that is about travelling time. 

This isn’t just wrong – it’s observably wrong. Let’s take a real-life example. The A24 is, by any reasonable measure, a success story. Clapham High Street is prosperous, with local businesses doing well. The footpaths are well used. Upper Tooting Road sports a boisterous mix of local businesses, and is host to all kinds of socialising. Both Clapham High Street and Upper Tooting Road are convivial places. People recognise each other, and spend time with one another in the street. On the other hand......traffic does not flow smoothly. Far from it. It can take twenty minutes to drive a car from Tooting Broadway to Tooting Bec, and, on a good day, one’s progress will be slowed by cars crossing from east to west, pedestrians crossing with, apparently, little fear of traffic and car drivers halting to conduct conversations with pedestrians. As a trunk road the A24 is a mess. As a place where people live, work, play, worship and do business it’s doing just nicely.

A comparison with the A23 Streatham High Road is enlightening. Traffic flows at a faster rate, often a much faster rate, but, even after the most timid of ‘makeovers’, Streatham High Road is still a fetid, noisy tarmac canyon, besieged from within by the motor car. Traffic divides the east side of the street from the west side. Pedestrians are few in number. Empty shops abound. 

Let us now return to consideration of TfL’s lobotomy and jump forward to page 63

_However, these more strategic measures are not the focus of this document, which concentrates on the range of more locally targeted measures that can be applied at specific locations on the road network (eg the CMAs) to provide localised traffic demand relief to improve reliability and/or network resilience. TfL’s approach to these more tactical elements of travel demand management work is focused on:_
_• __Key corridors of high demand (eg the CMAs)_
_• __Key traffic pinch points, valves and hotspots on the TLRN and SRN_

Here’s the rub. A strategic document that doesn’t concern itself with strategy. A strategic document that sets out palliative measures for a condition that it makes no attempt to understand, let alone get to grips with. 

Back, now, to chapter two which neatly betrays TfL’s miniscule panorama of considerations.

_Recent (unpublished) national research, conducted by MVA Consultancy on behalf __of the former Commission for Integrated Transport and Motorists’ Forum, suggests __that Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that matter most to motorists include:_
_• __Journey times and speeds_
_• __Journey time reliability_
_Traffic delays_
_• __Road works_
_• __Potholes_
_• __Safety_

And

*Road network operational outcomes: *_Managing congestion, smoothing traffic flow __and improving peoples’ perceptions is therefore a complex issue, made up of a __number of related factors including:_
_• __Journey time and/or traffic speeds_
_• __Journey time reliability_
_• __Volume of demand_
_• __Network capacity and availability including the amount of disruption to road capacity through planned or unplanned events or interventions on the network (eg highway or public utility road works, collisions, breakdowns and special events)_
_• __Network resilience – the ability to withstand the impacts of the planned or unplanned events outlined above (through traffic diversion to alternative routes) or other types of disruption including weather-related events (eg ice, snow or flooding)_

So, here we have it. Success is a reliable journey time for the motorist. Not, mark you for the bus passenger. And, hilariously, no mention at all of the very people who can most accurately predict their journey times – pedestrians and cyclists. Indeed, if ever there was an opportunity missed, it is in not asking the question ‘what do pedestrians and cyclists know that motorists do not?’ A rush hour journey from Streatham Hill to Islington might take 30 minutes by car, or it might take 75 minutes. The same journey by public transport might take 45 minutes or it might take 55 minutes. The same journey will take a 50 year old woman with a medium level of fitness on a decent bicycle between 40 and 50 minutes. A man of 56 with a good level of fitness on a road bicycle will take between 30 and 35 minutes. The car driver while delaying the commercial and bus traffic on which London depends is, besides, taking an avoidable punt on his or her journey time. That’s the rub - TfL’s ‘strategy’ is a series of band-aids designed for the benefit of the not-so-clever end of the commuting market.

And so it goes on. Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 are a traffic nerd’s paradise of ‘facts’ and figures, all vainly attempting to provide an answer to the questions that the lobotomised TfL can’t be troubled to ask. There are graphs, tables and acronyms that should, properly, be confined to teenage boys congregating on the internet. In the 1980s Rubik’s Cube enthusiasts wore sweatbands on their wrists to assure themselves of their puzzle-solving abilities – we now know where these lost souls ended up.............

Be that as it may, let’s move on to what is the greatest of this document’s many shortcomings. There’s no sign of the biggest, best question.....what makes traffic? It’s apparent that, for all the surveying, traffic is seen as a natural function of the city. There is no analysis, let alone theory of traffic. There’s no appreciation, and absolutely no interest in how urban form, settlement, planning, land values or might generate traffic, or, conversely, reduce it. The passage quoted above from page 63 succeeds some words on managing demand and modal shift. 

Here’s the thing. Let’s stop referring to ‘corridors’ and consider the streets that TfL seek to manage as ‘high streets’ – as places where people live, work, play, worship, do business, recognise each other, spend time with each other and think of as central to their lives.

We have a planning system that has, since 1948, pushed dwellings outward. We have, collectively, set our face against the regeneration of high streets, not least by insisting that a late nineteenth and early twentieth century format be retained, and, in sticking to this format, discouraged the concentration of dwellings within walking distance of high streets. We have, thanks to the egregious PPG24, determined that high streets are, apparently, unfit for habitation. 

That same planning system has undermined high streets and shopping parades, (and the short journeys high streets generate), by allowing the proliferation of out-of-centre retail development with large car parks. The cars that stream to these car parks offer nothing to the high streets that TfL attempts to manage, other than to make them less and less manageable.

Let’s ask ourselves if the person driving a car from Croydon to London Bridge offers anything to Streatham High Road, and, if not, wonder if attempting in vain to smooth his or her progress has any purpose other than to jam the road, slowing commercial traffic and buses, make streets less congenial and reduce the prosperity of businesses along the A23. Let’s ask ourselves if the person driving to Tesco or Sainsbury, is doing anything other than turning foot journeys to high streets and shopping parades in to car journeys, and, in doing so, contributing to the decay of high streets.

Having done that, let’s return to the document....

We greet the appearance of the London Bus in chapter 7 with a sigh of relief. The document could not be more explicit.

*7.3 The role of buses and bus priority measures*

_London’s buses have undergone significant growth over the past decade as a result __of a wide range of measures aimed at: improving journey times and reliability; __upgrading vehicles, infrastructure and information systems; improving safety, s__ecurity and accessibility; and consequently improving customer satisfaction. As a __result the Capital’s buses now carry 2.2 billion passengers a year, the highest level __since 1967. This represents 20 per cent of the daily modal share of journeys in __London – double the share of the Underground. Buses are not only an important part __of the Capital’s transport system but also a very efficient means of moving people __around the road network thereby addressing areas of high travel demand, especially __in areas where alternative forms of public transport are scarce._

What could be more straightforward.? Big up the bus! But...........

_The performance of buses is closely linked with, and reliant upon, the operational __performance of the road network on which they run._ 

Not so good. We’ve already seen how performance is to be measured, and, by the sound of it, there’s no recognition that the convenience of the bus passenger might be an entirely different thing to the convenience of the motorist. 

_This tends to coincide with the main strategic roads and corridors. Buses are a key consideration in the operation of the network and their people-carrying ability has led to the development and implementation of ‘bus priority’ measures. These measures help to reduce bus journey times, improve reliability and increase the efficiency of the bus network, especially when considered as part of a ‘whole route’ approach. Bus priority measures are systematically identified, appraised and delivered at key locations including town centres and their approaches, at new development sites, and links where bus passengers represent a significant proportion of all road users_.

Well, sort of. The basic idea is good. Ken Livingstone decided that waiting for mass transit nirvana in the form of trams and trains would be a lengthy business, and the wholesale revamping of the bus network during his time at City Hall, with more buses travelling more reliably, and indicators on bus stops removing the delicious uncertainty of bus travel succeeded to such a degree that our bus system is far superior to that of Paris, Rome, Madrid, Manchester or even New York.

_Typical bus priority measures include bus-only roads, bus lanes and selective __vehicle detection at traffic signals. These are some of the essential tools needed to ensure the limited people-carrying capacity of the road network is being used most effectively._

_On London’s SRN (including the TLRN) a significant amount of bus-priority __infrastructure is already in place and delivering daily benefits. _

Who could argue with this? If anything it undersells the success of bus lanes, which, perhaps unintentionally, hosted London’s bicycle boom following the failure of the startlingly expensive LCN+

_The challenge going forward will be to maintain, and in targeted locations improve, bus reliability whilst recognising the need to balance other considerations and objectives on the network such as safety, walking, cycling, freight servicing and smoothing general traffic flow._

One gets the impression that this paragraph leaves a lot unsaid. One imagines that it was fought over, or, at least, one hopes that it was fought over. Before picking it apart, let’s turn again, to a real-life example....

The driver of a commercial vehicle travelling along the A3 from Oval to the Elephant and Castle, and on to the City probably doesn’t have a great deal of choice, and must sit in the right hand lane, listening to the radio, perhaps humming a tune or pondering the day ahead, but, in contrast, an individual can travel by tube, bus, bike, on foot, or in a car. It’s much the same on the A404, the A10, the A11, the A200, the A202 and a host of radial routes. Now it might be that those choosing to travel by car have come a long way, but, then again, the alternatives to car travel extend a long way out.......

The paragraph quoted above lists considerations. Safety, one imagines, is a general thing, although quite how bus priority measures affect safety isn’t explained. The following four considerations are _categories_, and walking, cycling and freight speak for themselves. ‘General traffic flow’ is a different thing, and the words betray, yet again, the aporia that is fundamental to this document. ‘General’ covers a multitude of sins, and, just possibly, some virtues, but, judging by the metrics set out in previous chapters; it is likely that the traffic offers less benefit than nuisance to the streets on which it travels, and, perversely, to itself. 

*Show us the profit, TfL. We can show you the loss, in dirty, noisy streets and boarded up shops. We can show you the price in decaying flats over shops. We can show you the foolishness of traffic at a standstill for no discernible benefit. *

*All the smoothing, all the management, all the clever acronyms in the world will not recover our streets, will not make London more congenial, more healthy or more prosperous. Give yourselves a break from the tedium of SCOOT and consider how those cars came to be there in the first place. Ask the obvious question – if it takes 30 minutes to cycle and anything from 25 to 50 minutes to drive, what is the cause of ‘unpredictability’? Come out of the shell you’ve constructed of tables and graphs and give yourself a bit of space to think about the kind of lives people live by the side of the roads you so conspicuously fail to manage. In short.........dump this miserable, purblind, ignorant document and start again.*


----------



## sheddy (19 Sep 2012)

stumbled across this today https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/road-safety-plan


----------



## sheddy (30 Oct 2012)

sheddy said:


> stumbled across this today https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/road-safety-plan


Ends 31st Oct


----------

