You're wrong about the ratio. I was there yesterday. Again, show us the drawing...........
London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes
- Thread starter gaz
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Stowie - people occupied houses and climbed trees in a vain attempt to prevent the A12 link being built, and nobody would pretend that it's fun to cycle on (although at certain times of the day you'd be the fastest thing on the road).
But, equally, cyclists have taken to the A11 like ducks to water and it's due to become a CSH. Where TfL are failing is that they don't intend to take the CSH through the Bow Flyover to Stratford, and, if you feel like making the point about the junction to them you won't be the only one. (This weekend I'll be leading my CTC section over the flyover, as I do the FNRttC, but it's not universally likd.
We've done Tottenham Hale to death. There are plenty of examples of cycles being allowed on contraflow bus lanes, and this should be one of them. I'd make the entire street two-way, with bus lanes on both sides, and frequent pedestrian crossings, but we can all wish for stuff....
But, equally, cyclists have taken to the A11 like ducks to water and it's due to become a CSH. Where TfL are failing is that they don't intend to take the CSH through the Bow Flyover to Stratford, and, if you feel like making the point about the junction to them you won't be the only one. (This weekend I'll be leading my CTC section over the flyover, as I do the FNRttC, but it's not universally likd.
We've done Tottenham Hale to death. There are plenty of examples of cycles being allowed on contraflow bus lanes, and this should be one of them. I'd make the entire street two-way, with bus lanes on both sides, and frequent pedestrian crossings, but we can all wish for stuff....
As Easy As Riding A Bike
Well-Known Member
Eh? You what? Because you were there yesterday, the number of cyclists I counted - over a period of about ten minutes from quarter past six - using that segregated lane, versus the road, is wrong?
I mean, I could have stood there for about an hour to get a better sample size. But I saw what I saw. Don't say I'm wrong.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
There are certain P&Lers who habitually mistake their own perceptions/beliefs and opinions for facts.
fine. You had a good day. Now show me the drawing.
Are you claiming that you can't put segregated cycle paths through BLOOMSBURY? Which has massively wide roads all over the place. You just need to reclaim some lanes and remove a lot of parking and make a few roads one-way to give enough width to the paths. The only arguments against it are cost and traffic flows. Not trivial, obviously, but it's about political will not technical limitation. You could have a fully segregated "super-highway" from Hyde Park to the existing Tavistock/Torrington path (which could itself be much widened with a one-way limitation for cars on that street).
I'm not a transport planner and I'm not going to spend five hours doing a drawing for some random guy on the internet but in that area street width is the least of your problems. We're not talking about Covent Garden here!
show us the drawing........
and, as for spending five hours, I'd have thought that you'd have done it to convince yourself, if nothing else. To have something to refer to when promoting segregated paths. No? Oh well..........
And there are more arguments against than cost and traffic flows - many more. Reading this thread from the beginning might bring some to your attention, but, supposing that you're too busy wrestling with a 1:1250 scale map here's a few
1. The very streets that most need cyclists are our busy high streets, where there is no room, and no need for cycle paths (see diagram of Islington Green above)
2. Segregation is uncivilised - it inconveniences pedestrians and slices up public space.
3. Nobody, other than a few eccentrics, wants it
I see you're back to the one-way thing. TfL is busy correcting the mistakes of the 1970s and getting rid of one-way streets. They're uncivilised, they increase car speeds, and nobody, other than motorvehicle drivers intent on driving straight through an area, wants them.
The one thing you have to get hold of is this....it's not going to happen. We're going to have calmed areas, home zones, more bus lanes, more buses, more shared surfaces and it's all going to make London an even more wonderful city than it is now - but cycle lanes, they're not happening. And if someone proposes a cycle lane in my neck of the woods I'll be down the Town Hall objecting with the rest of them.
and, as for spending five hours, I'd have thought that you'd have done it to convince yourself, if nothing else. To have something to refer to when promoting segregated paths. No? Oh well..........
And there are more arguments against than cost and traffic flows - many more. Reading this thread from the beginning might bring some to your attention, but, supposing that you're too busy wrestling with a 1:1250 scale map here's a few
1. The very streets that most need cyclists are our busy high streets, where there is no room, and no need for cycle paths (see diagram of Islington Green above)
2. Segregation is uncivilised - it inconveniences pedestrians and slices up public space.
3. Nobody, other than a few eccentrics, wants it
I see you're back to the one-way thing. TfL is busy correcting the mistakes of the 1970s and getting rid of one-way streets. They're uncivilised, they increase car speeds, and nobody, other than motorvehicle drivers intent on driving straight through an area, wants them.
The one thing you have to get hold of is this....it's not going to happen. We're going to have calmed areas, home zones, more bus lanes, more buses, more shared surfaces and it's all going to make London an even more wonderful city than it is now - but cycle lanes, they're not happening. And if someone proposes a cycle lane in my neck of the woods I'll be down the Town Hall objecting with the rest of them.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
somebody tell politely tell ozzage who the 'random guy on the internet' is and what he has done for cycling on a local, regional, and national level please.
know thine enemy, ozzage, know thine enemy.
stowie
Legendary Member
Survey after survey indicates that many cyclists (and people who don't cycle currently) have proximity to fast traffic as a key issue that limits / stops them cycling. OK, so they may only think they want segregation from traffic (when in fact what they want is much slower traffic that gives them priority or at least consideration on the roads). The report that kicked off this thread said itself had this as an issue. The TfL report into outer London cycling has fear of traffic as a key issue as well.
I understand that a fear of traffic is different to wanting segregation. But it is easy how the two can be linked. Coupled with the fact that when you look at countries with high modal share, they nearly always have segregation on major roads, and it is easy to see how one can join the dots.
Who knows - maybe if TfL magically put in an entire cycling network along the lines of Amsterdam then non-cyclists would still find reasons to use their car instead. From the conversations on this thread, it seems to me that there are a couple of key things in all cities and towns with high modal share
1) By design or for historical reasons, driving is much more difficult and long-winded than other transport modes
2) That most, if not all, have benefited from road planning that accommodates cycling. I am not talking about segregation per-se, but the raft of road designs (two way cycling, permeability, reducing vehicle speed and density by cutting off rat-runs, strict liability etc.) that can help make cycling convenient and feel safer.
Maybe people (like me) think they want at least some segregation on certain roads because they think it is the only way to create pleasant cycling on these routes. If something else other than segregation on these routes has the this effect then, frankly I don't care what it is. And I think that there is a difference between major inner roads and central London where cycling is becoming of such density that the "critical mass" may be reached, and outer London where, even in places such as Newham and Waltham Forest (high density, lowish car ownership) it is difficult to see evidence in the statistics of this happening.
here we agree entirely. The virtue of homezones (sadly the brainchild of my least favourite NMP ever, but you can't win them all...) is that they cut through traffic, cut speeds, cut crime, cut accidents, and instill a greater sense of place. As well as making life more congenial for cyclists. And, lest we forget, not costing much.
And strict liability would be a wonderful thing.
I think we have to get ourselves in perspective. Cycling in and of itself isn't interesting to people who aren't cycling. It's what cycling contributes that is interesting. We can't pretend that it's ever going to do the job of the bus, but what it can do is to make streets friendlier, cheerier, safer, quieter places. It can help to regenerate local shopping (I'd add a whopping tax on car spaces to your list, Stowie). It can give youngsters cheap mobility.
All of this is good, but suggesting that we inconvenience the rest of humanity at an exorbitant cost is misguided.
stowie
Legendary Member
Wood Street in E17 is a cycling horror story. An abomination. A plague upon cycling happiness.
Aside from that....
It is probably only going to get worse with the changes.
The issue is that the Street is too narrow and curvy to allow cars to overtake cyclists easily, but wide enough so that motorists think they should. And it has obstructive car parking (illegal and legal) most of the time, with sudden pinch points for pavement build outs and pedestrian refuges. And there are two schools on the road, and it is a small shopping area. And finally, the council, in their infinite
Wood Street could be designed with a segregated cycle lane - but frankly I don't really see the point as the road itself should, and could, be made friendly to on-road cycling. In some countries the street would be closed to private motor traffic and the whole thing made into a lovely pedestrian / cycling area with maybe a low-speed bus route. But that isn't going to happen here. To make it more cycling friendly the road needs to be 20mph with the sight-lines and road design making sure it is kept below this. Traffic is normally stuffed at the junction anyway (or slowed down by filtering into single car gaps in-between the parking), so it wouldn't slow down journey time at all. I think that some other countries can designate roads where it is illegal to overtake a cyclist (how this is enforced is beyond me) but a road like this where the benefits of an overtake are minuscule / none would certainly benefit from this if it would be adhered to.
Wood Street shopping area is slowly dying. The council, in a desperate attempt to resuscitate it are thinking that adding some (presumably 1/2 hour free) parking spaces then people will suddenly decide to drive there instead of continuing onto the large supermarkets up past the A406, or the retail parks in Tottenham Hale, Edmonton et al. with their free parking. What is needed is for the local shopping area to become more pleasant to shop in to attract local people who can walk (or cycle) there. Shop owners and the council believe that making it easier for motorists to park will change things, when the shops' catchment area doesn't require this.
stowie
Legendary Member
I know there was that little incident in the economy involving the banks but are you saying that cycling uptake isn't the most important issue facing the UK today?
And I did think that if we argued long enough on this thread we would eventually find something to agree on.
And here is another thing - the home zone idea is great. And, as you say, the real beauty of this scheme is that it helps cyclists whilst principally helping make the residents' lives nicer. My little one-way street it is a bit of a cut through. Traffic speeds are low in summer and much higher in winter, because in the good weather the kids play out on the pavement and road and motorists see this and take it really slowly. In winter they have no such psychological push. Putting in home zones around here would be fantastic and hopefully act as that push (alternatively I guess we could force our kids to play outside despite the weather).
I do think us cyclists can get the issues out of proportion, but it is interesting to me that my area has some really surprisingly low car ownership stats. In my ward 44% of households haven't got a car - and that doesn't include families like mine where my wife cannot drive and I use other transport methods in the local area. And my ward is actually a little higher than many. That means that a very large proportion of the residents in Walthamstow and Leyton don't benefit from the hundreds of thousands of pounds (probably millions) spent on extra parking, one way streets and all the other things that are implemented to keep private cars moving. So my question is often not why the council are or aren't spending money on cycling provision but why they spend so much money on car provision?
jonesy
Guru
What are you describing is basically the 'hiercharchy of provision' which has been the basis of good practice in cycle infrastructure guidance since the National Cycling Strategy.
See:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/engineering-planning/design-principles/
The hiercharacy doesn't say segregation is what you should automatically do, nor does it say it is wrong, it puts it into its appropriate context alongside other measures that should also be considered, and should generally be chosen before segregation. For all the reasons dellzeqq has given.
stowie
Legendary Member
Not only would it be deeply unpleasant to cycle on the A12 link road (never tried, but I can use my imagination), it is actually illegal. Check out street view at the Green Man junction Leytonstone if you don't believe me. Or the Leyton junction next to the Olympics.
The A11 isn't too bad until before Bow flyover, and then it becomes diabolical (in my humble opinion). And it is much worse at the moment since the bus lane into Stratford is closed for road-works so one has the task of either fighting through traffic in the busy times or trying to prevent close passes by maintaining as primary position as one dares when the traffic is light. And, call me cynical, but the reason the CSH will stop at Bow is that the bow flyover is a problem that will require significant cash and / or reduction in road capacity for cars if anything is going to help cyclists on this stretch. Still, there is a consultation for extension, which sounds promising that TfL at are least looking at it.
stowie
Legendary Member
Yes! No fundamental objection to segregated cycle lanes, but a policy that enhances on-road cycle facilities in priority where possible. It just doesn't seem to be adopted by local councils when they re-model roads.
As an aside, check out the link to the "necessary evils" section in the link you provided. It is a pdf which cautions against some bits of poor infrastructure. It made me chuckle that one photograph was of a cycle "plug" that they don't recommend, but said that councils often use this type of provision to comply with DfT regulations that don't allow an "except cycles" notice under a no-entry sign. Yet the next photograph highlighting good practice (in Holland) has exactly this sign arrangement to allow contra-flow cycling. Are the DfT advising councils to ignore their own regulations? How about the DfT amending this daft rule in the first place!
