London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[dellzeqq]

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.

not only do I believe you, Stowie, I've cycled past the signs saying 'no cycling'. And I was, by a stretch, the fastest thing on the road - despite my advanced years.

And, yes, we agree entirely about Stratford. The CSH's (sorry) funk some big choices which is why we await the west London CSH's with some uncertainty. I don't personally think that capacity is the problem at the roundabout, because it's the northbound on-ramp that causes the problems. I'd have thought a first step would be consideration of the kind of junction we have under the A20 at Kidbrooke, or the A406 at Ilford (but upside down, if you see what I mean)

Wood Street is a mess (I've not been down it for a long time) but it's not an arterial road. It's one of those roads which is just the wrong width. Ken wanted to simply cut out parking on streets like Wood Street, but Johnson is of the opposite persuasion. Either way the design of the parking scheme is pretty silly, but I'm not sure that you can lay it at the door of TfL. It's a B-road. Is it on the TfL Road Network?

 

[dellzeqq]

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!

it may be a daft rule, but there are plenty of 'except cycles' signs in London, at turns, and entries in to minor streets.

 

[stowie]

not only do I believe you, Stowie, I've cycled past the signs saying 'no cycling'. And I was, by a stretch, the fastest thing on the road - despite my advanced years.

And, yes, we agree entirely about Stratford. The CSH's (sorry) funk some big choices which is why we await the west London CSH's with some uncertainty. I don't personally think that capacity is the problem at the roundabout, because it's the northbound on-ramp that causes the problems. I'd have thought a first step would be consideration of the kind of junction we have under the A20 at Kidbrooke, or the A406 at Ilford (but upside down, if you see what I mean)

Wood Street is a mess (I've not been down it for a long time) but it's not an arterial road. It's one of those roads which is just the wrong width. Ken wanted to simply cut out parking on streets like Wood Street, but Johnson is of the opposite persuasion. Either way the design of the parking scheme is pretty silly, but I'm not sure that you can lay it at the door of TfL. It's a B-road. Is it on the TfL Road Network?

I drive on the A12 Link Road (and Blackwall Tunnel) regularly. I have no problem believing that you were the fastest thing on the road - this link road is stationary nearly every day at rush hour. Last year I was in a terrible traffic jam on this road where the fastest thing was actually a gentleman who clearly had enjoyed a very large quantity of alcohol and had presumably taken a wrong turn on his amble home. I would never cycle on this road because, even when it is jammed, the traffic jams can clear and form very quickly, and I would be concerned about being stuck on this road if traffic was travelling at the excessive speeds it does when the road is clear (another road crying out for average speed cams). So kudos to you for cycling this road, but I think you may be only a small select group willing to do so!

And I don't think Wood Street has anything to do with TfL (although on the maps it is classed as a major road). I drove down the road only today, and the fundamental issue isn't with parking, it is with people like the idiot in front of me who was determined to try to break the 30mph speed limit wherever he could, thus meaning he had to slam on the brakes multiple times as he conflicted with oncoming traffic going around parked cars. On one occasion he actually spent a considerable amount of time trying to squeeze past a bus when it would have been far quicker for him to have waited. Either the road is remodelled to try to prevent such stupidity, or the government start banning idiots from having driving licenses. Don't think the latter will happen...

You have provoked me into thinking that I should make contact with my local LCC, even if only to get an understanding of their take on things.

Finally, I know FreeWheeler may not be your number one blogger, but today he has a piece on Leytonstone High Road, and the plans that were made when the link road being considered that major redevelopment would happen to restrict / ban private cars and regenerate the area. As Freewheeler points out absolutely none of this happened.

 

[ozzage]

I certainly wouldn't call it "fantastic" - far too narrow, far too few points to hop off into the road, far too many point of conflict between bikes, pedestrians and motorised traffic. As others have pointed out, if it didn't exist it wouldn't be necessary to invent it.

I wouldn't call it fantastic either, but with a bit of work it could be! I stil prefer it to the road, except when it's overly jam packed because of the width. I still use it then because, as you say, it's faster than being amongst the cars. That's half the point of segregation! Overtaking the cars without having to weave or filter.

I have never seen anyone waiting at that phase. The law-abiding among us take to the main carriageway to use the "car" phase. Those who don't mind a spot of RLJing keep to the bike lane and skip straight through the red light. It's daft.

I wait there... usually

To be honest, I don't use it very often. But I have used it during peak times several times as well as off-peak, including not long ago when it was completely dug up and a nightmare, and saw how busy it was every single time.

 

[dellzeqq]

I'm still waiting for the drawing........

 

[ozzage]

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.

I don't need to draw a picture to know that New Cavendish Street could have cycle paths. Ditto for many other major roads in the area. Equivalent streets in the Netherlands would have cycle paths. End of. You would need to remove lanes/parking, obviously (as I said). (BTW I didn't say anything about Upper Street)

Where we need cycle paths are where cyclists need to get somewhere in a direct manner. I don't care about "where we need more cyclists". We need more cyclists where-ever they want to cycle, and that's where we should put in provisions to help them. It doesn't matter about the first 1/2 mile of your trip through 20mph zones and traffic calmed streets (which is how it is where I live - it differs for others obviously). Of course that stuff is also necessary and you'll get no argument from me - ditto re homezones etc. The the problem is getting between the first bit and the last bit. ie the several miles in the middle. In somewhere like the Netherlands, you ride to the cycle path if you don't live right near one, and then you start the long leg of your journey. The fact that it's missing is our biggest problem.

One-way systems. I'm not talking about major roads. The more gyratories ripped out the better. But where a direct cycling route can be found along medium-sized roads then converting to one-way can liberate space for cycle facilities.

Lastly... segregation is uncivilised? And yet leading cycling countries continue to install and improve segregated facilities where-ever possible. If it's all true that you're some cycling big-wig, then I'm sure you've done fact-finding missions etc abroad. Did you honestly come back thinking "terrible all this segregation everywhere. Don't know how they cope!" I find it hard to believe to be honest. Do you really find a city like Amsterdam uncivilised (and yes the very centre doesn't have many cycle paths, because they've removed the cars, but there are PLENTY of separate cycle paths all over the city along with plenty of one-way streets)

Edit: you must live on this forum!

 

[dellzeqq]

I don't need to draw a picture to know that New Cavendish Street could have cycle paths. Ditto for many other major roads in the area. Equivalent streets in the Netherlands would have cycle paths. End of. You would need to remove lanes/parking, obviously (as I said). (BTW I didn't say anything about Upper Street)

show us the drawing. You're full of what you don't want - show us what you do want. By the way NCW is probably going to go two-way with shared surfaces, which will be wonderful. And putting segregated paths in a Georgian street would be a disgrace

Where we need cycle paths are where cyclists need to get somewhere in a direct manner. I don't care about "where we need more cyclists". We need more cyclists where-ever they want to cycle, and that's where we should put in provisions to help them. !

why? Why do we need more cyclists? I have an idea, but I seriously doubt if you do.

Lastly... segregation is uncivilised? !

it is indeed. Civilisation is about people getting on together in towns and creating a culture that is open to all

 

[ozzage]

show us the drawing. You're full of what you don't want - show us what you do want. By the way NCW is probably going to go two-way with shared surfaces, which will be wonderful. And putting segregated paths in a Georgian street would be a disgrace

why? Why do we need more cyclists? I have an idea, but I seriously doubt if you do.

haha Georgian streets. Do you honestly find a bike path uglier than a wide street with cars parked all down it and ugly painted lines down the side!?? And you're a cycling campaigner. You're fine for CARS to have their own lanes, but not for BIKES. You think that BIKE LANES are ugly and spoil a Georgian Street but CAR LANES full of large humps of metal are not???? My god.

Presumably you want more cyclists due to "safety in numbers". I do too. But that's a nice (and valuable) effect of getting people to cycle, it's not the way to do it. Cycling is already safe. And yet people don't do it because it doesn't SEEM safe. You have to negotiate buses and cars and taxis. You have to be on your guard. You have to make decisions about whether you can fit or not. Can I make it to the front before the lights change? Is that bus stopping there? Is it pulling out? etc etc etc... These things are the problem. They make cycling unpleasant for most people.

Riding primary doesn't help any of this. Cycle training just scares normal people off and makes it seem like some extreme sport. Sure, having more cyclists helps, but most people still aren't going to cycle amongst buses, taxis, white vans and all the rest. NEVER. NEVER EVER. This idea has failed, and now cities all over the world are investing in proper cycling facilities, at the same time as those which already have such facilities continue to improve them.

Are you're apparently obsessed with trying to prove that cycling facilities won't fit on roads which are clearly wide enough. And stating in absolute terms that countries such as DK and NL are wrong in their approach, which IS, even if you don't like it, to continue to implement and improve segregated facilities on major roads.

 

[dellzeqq]

haha Georgian streets. Do you honestly find a bike path uglier than a wide street with cars parked all down it and ugly painted lines down the side!?? And you're a cycling campaigner. You're fine for CARS to have their own lanes, but not for BIKES. You think that BIKE LANES are ugly and spoil a Georgian Street but CAR LANES full of large humps of metal are not???? My god.

Presumably you want more cyclists due to "safety in numbers". I do too. But that's a nice (and valuable) effect of getting people to cycle, it's not the way to do it. Cycling is already safe. And yet people don't do it because it doesn't SEEM safe. You have to negotiate buses and cars and taxis. You have to be on your guard. You have to make decisions about whether you can fit or not. Can I make it to the front before the lights change? Is that bus stopping there? Is it pulling out? etc etc etc... These things are the problem. They make cycling unpleasant for most people.

Riding primary doesn't help any of this. Cycle training just scares normal people off and makes it seem like some extreme sport. Sure, having more cyclists helps, but most people still aren't going to cycle amongst buses, taxis, white vans and all the rest. NEVER. NEVER EVER. This idea has failed, and now cities all over the world are investing in proper cycling facilities, at the same time as those which already have such facilities continue to improve them.

Are you're apparently obsessed with trying to prove that cycling facilities won't fit on roads which are clearly wide enough. And stating in absolute terms that countries such as DK and NL are wrong in their approach, which IS, even if you don't like it, to continue to implement and improve segregated facilities on major roads.

you presume a lot of things. No I don't think that a bike path is uglier, than a wide street with parked cars - it's simply that slicing up public space is inherently uncivilised. Which is why the shared surface experiment is such a wonderful thing..

And you presume I want more cyclists due to 'safety in numbers'. While there is safety in numbers, again, you presume in error - but what's really telling is that you don't, or won't say why you think there being more cyclists is a good thing. I suspect you haven't thought it through....

And I make no judgement of the Netherlands. I don't care about the Netherlands. I simply state the obvious - cycle lanes in cities such as London would cost a fortune, are not practicable and thoroughly undesirable.

 

[dellzeqq]

...oh, and, lest we forget, are not going to happen

 

[ozzage]

I didn't realise you were asking why I wanted more cyclists. I want more cyclists because I believe it makes a civilised city. Because it's clean. Because it makes people fitter, and happier. Because it leaves our streets slower, and friendlier, and more personal. You didn't mention why you do though... do tell!

I'm not opposed to shared space. Shared space on long roads used for actual transport purposes are impractical, though. Shared space on a shopping street or at a "destination", great! Really. I go out of my way and ride to Exhibition Road sometimes just to check the progress because I'm all in favour of such schemes. However, you can't have shared space everywhere where people actually need to chew up some distance with some speed.

If you are opposed to segregation simply due to believing that it's impossible, then I can accept that, although I don't agree. Times have changed and ARE changing all over the world and will change in the UK too eventually. If you're opposed because you believe that cycling on the road is the best way and people just need to be convinced, then I couldn't disagree more. Not that it matters anyway

 

[jonesy]

... but most people still aren't going to cycle amongst buses, taxis, white vans and all the rest. NEVER. NEVER EVER. ...

Like they don't in Oxford and Cambridge you mean? Never, never never? I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out that Oxford and Cambridge have very little segregated provision, and even less that is useful...



That said, I visited Copenhagen a couple of times this year, and must confess that my usual sceptism towards segregation was challenged. They really have made segregation work there. However, dellzeqq's "show us the drawing" is still the question that has to be answered, otherwise we end up with expensive farcilities that we are better off without. London's streets aren't directly comparable to Copenhagen, it is a much bigger city with a vastly greater level of inward commuting from a much wider catchment area. The one aspect of Copenhagen's segregated lanes that I didn't think worked well was the bus stops- stuck between the busy cycle lane and the main carriageway, bus users are at risk of being run over by cyclists and I can't imagine anyone with limited mobility likes the arrangement at all. Copenhagen doesn't have anything like the level of bus use of London, and there are far fewer buses. And local deliveries must be very difficult to manage. You simply can't dismiss the practical difficulties by saying "they do it in Europe so it must work". Let's look at other elements of the Hierarchy first, segregation isn't the only tool in the box. And the Hierarchy is based on Dutch guidance, so clearly they don't think segregation is the first or best option either.

 

[ozzage]

If we can get 30% modal share we'll need FAR fewer buses too By the same token, we have a mega-tube-system unlike either Copenhagen OR Amsterdam which takes the majority of the load and doesn't take up any cycling space. I don't think it should be underestimated what an incredibly huge difference it would make to London's transport system if we had "Amsterdam" levels of cycling. We would need, quite simply, far less road space for motorised vehicles (although actually that would have to be a cause, not an effect). Point taken anyway - London is massive and has a massive population and we're a LONG way off having a modal share while will dent public transport usage in any meaningful way.

One problem is that everything here is seen as a new problem. Take banning lorries (I know you didn't mention this). Everybody points out the issues with it without realising that these issues have been solved in other cities before and those lessons can be learned. Obviously it's more difficult to do it that way, but in some places it's viewed as being worth the annoyance for the benefits that it brings. It's the same with bike paths. NL has spent years finding ways to restructure things so that bike paths will fit and cars are made to suffer, and the people love it. We just sit here and say "nope, roads too narrow" and it's complete bollocks. This stuff has all been done before. Of course things aren't identical here but go in with the right people with the right experience and the right brief and budget, and it's possible to create an environment with a similar effect.

Ultimately this needs wholesale change of attitude to free up enough space but we can start with one route at a time. In some places like Gronigen they ripped out entire major road systems to turn the city centre into virtually a car free environment. Not doable in London in any sort of short or medium term, but shows what is possible with the right political will. Surely ripping out some parking and a few traffic lanes isn't completely unthinkable.

re Oxford and Cambridge, I've never cycled nor spent time in either. When I look at the Cambridge Cycling Campaign website they seem to be promoting the installation of segregated cycle paths, so I guess they see value in them and believe that they help. I have no personal experience to fall back on but certainly the CCC website looks "pro-facilities". I know that Oxford is renowned for it's narrow on-street cycle lanes which don't count as segregation for me, to be honest, but aren't VC. To be honest it's hard for me to comment on those two cities.

 

[dellzeqq]

we're never going to need fewer buses. Cities like Bologna, with lots of cyclists (and no cycle lanes to speak of, just a medieval street grid) have buses stored for rainy days.

And that, my segregationist friend is the bottom line. The saving grace of urban transport is not the bike. It's the bus. Cycling does have the potential to make London a more civilised place, but it's scarcely been realised so far, least of all in Tavistock Square, because London's cyclists are, well, Londoners. Cyclists do slow traffic, as we see on CS7, but they do it by virtue of having a bus lane to congregate in. All in all, though, while cycling is a cheap hit for transport planners, it's not the big item, which is intraurban rail (which costs a fortune) and buses (which cost far less, except when the egregrious Johnson gets his dopey hands on them).

Buses that are regular, predictable, comfortable, clean and full of people (as was my bus home last night at one o'clock in the morning), buses that are democratic, vessels of civic pride have transformed London since Ken (God bless him and all his works) worked out that they worked for us. The GLA spent £140M on LCN+ and nobody used it, and then, whoosh, all of a sudden bus lanes on main roads were full of bikes, ridden, very often, by people who were taking to the bike out of fear after 7/7. TfL will continue, despite opposition from the Mayor, to protect neighbourhoods from the car, and bikes will gain a competitive advantage in the suburbs in the way they've gained it in zones 1 and 2, but the future of commuting cycling in London is in bus lanes, and as an adjunct to a wonderful bus service.

Which is just as well, because one of the inconvenient truths that we are going to get our heads around is that in a few years time CS7 will be at capacity - it is close to it now in parts during the evening rush hour. The LCC (or, at least, the hippy wing of the LCC) and Sustrans haven't got hold of the idea yet that traffic volumes in London are so great that you cannot take bikes on paths and make a difference - you need to have broad lanes on direct routes to do that. Hence, for all its faults, CS7, and, maybe, in five or ten years time, CS7(2) going down the A23, with remodelled junctions and gated side streets to limit hand turns for motor vehicles and, in doing so, create home zones.

You pedal round and round Tavistock Square all you want. The rest of us have fatter fish to fry.

 

[CopperBrompton]

buses that are democratic

That would be an interesting experiment. "All those in favour of that annoying bloke eating a big Mac being thrown off the bus, say Aye."

the future of commuting cycling in London is in bus lanes

Which would of course be vastly improved if they didn't have these annoying buses in them ...