London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[Dan B]

the A10 Tottenham Hale Gyratory [...] multi-lane race-tracks where traffic speeds to the next junction and the inevitable hold-up.

This could be fixed for almost zero outlay by permitting cycles in the southbound contraflow bus lane. Yes, it sucks a bit when you get stuck behind a bus stopped there, but it still beats going the long way around.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Are cyclists banned from that bus lane, then?

 

[Dan B]

Are cyclists banned from that bus lane, then?

https://www.cyclechat.net/

 

[Dan B]

There is cycling and bus priority through Shoreditch and you can thank the LCC for that too.

As a matter of interest, which bit of Shoreditch and what did it look like before its current shape? Are we talking about the northbound bus lane on Shoreditch High St?

And while we're talking about my local neck of the woods, anyone know if there are plans for Great Eastern St? It's my least favourite piece of road within three miles of here, and that includes Old St roundabout. Bus lanes in both directions would subdue it nicely

 

[stowie]

Stowie, that is a completely exasperating post. The LCC has been pushing town centre redesign for 20 years, for which WalthamForestCrapBlogger gives them no credit whatsoever. There is a cycle/bus lane through the centre of Stratford, and you can thank the LCC for it. There is cycling and bus priority through Shoreditch and you can thank the LCC for that too. There's even cycling priority through the centre of the Vauxhall gyratory, and you can thank the LCC for that. There's also, best yet, the redesign of Brixton town cente in which there is no separation, but the traffic is cleverly managed in order to give pedestrians safer, more congenial space - again the LCC can take a bow for that, although they didn't get all they wanted. The LCC would remove the Tottenham gyratory in its entirety and make the high street two way, probably without any separation - just like Brixton.

You have to be careful, though. Crayford, Sutton and Croydon all have pedestrianised centres with ring roads around. Sutton and Croydon allows cycling under certain conditions, but Crayford doesn't - but the main point is that constructing inner ring roads and the associated car parks can act as a trip generator. The key to successful town centre redesign is 'traffic evaporation' and, while Brixton does embody the theory 'traffic evaporation' is not TfL policy.

There are real gains to be made, not just for cyclists, by restricting traffic flow. Lambeth and Merton (and other boroughs besides) have home zones which have restricted entry for cars, reducing through traffic through residential areas.

WFCB isn't interested in the achievements of the LCC - his angle is that London should be somehow re-made in the image of Groningen. That's bonkers. He's proposing precisely the course of action that my little drawing so neatly undermines. That's bonkers. And, as you say, he carps about the LCC in a way that is entirely disreputable.

I am not critical of LCC or CTC (although CTC seems to be having significant issues over what it wants to be). I am member of the LCC. I appreciate they have a herculean task in the face of total apathy about cycling from many local governments and much of the public in general. I am sure that without LCC things would be much worse in London. LCC and CTC are not responsible for implementing bicycle infrastructure and policy, they are merely trying to influence it. I would also say that LCC is there to represent its members who, by definition, already cycle. So for existing cyclists used to the current road conditions changes towards "strict liability" for example are more important than they would be if one was considering how to get people cycling for the first time, where every survey points to perceived danger from traffic being one of the primary reasons for not cycling.

My real ire is reserved for the local government councils and TfL that appear to believe that London is in the grips of a cycling revolution fuelled by a bit of marketing. I see document after document produced by these organisations (at presumably some expense), but on the ground even the most basic provision is badly implemented, or badly maintained, or both. There is a busy junction in Walthamstow I cycle nearly every day where there are cycle lights which have been hooded for over a year because they "interfere" with the motorist phase. They have been like this for over a year, and are not planned to be re-instated until the junction is redesigned, which may be before 2012 but may well be much later depending upon regeneration plans in the area. These are operated by TfL and without them a cyclist has to cross 5 lanes of traffic with no time between motorist phases. I see daily miles of cycle lane painted on the streets by the local council, presumably to meet targets which measure quantity but don't care about quality. I could go on. The LCC and CTC can have some victories, but in the face of the idiocy that appears to be local government cycling policy, I cannot expect member organisations to be the solution.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Boris Bikes are great. I also know that cycling has increased in recent years, but I think that that factors like the recession, congestion and terrorist fears may have had this impact anyway, and outside the Boris Bikes, TfL aren't contributing in the way that their self-publicity clearly thinks.

BTW - which bus lane in Stratford did LCC get implemented? I use the one-way system several times a week, but normally on the station side. The bus lane is a good refuge from the traffic, it is 24hr but not enforced so I do see cars whipping into it to pick up passengers from the station.

When organisations like TfL purport to promote cycling but actually show that cycling has little consideration in redevelopments such as Tottenham Hale (which is going to be two way again at some stage, but TfL's primary aim seems to increase traffic flow), then they cannot expect people who have never cycled to start cycling in droves, especially outside Zone1/2.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think that you're being unfair to TfL. They luzzed £140m at LCN+. Now, whatever you think of LCN+ (and I think that it's beside the point, and that the strategy should have been bus lanes on main roads from the off....) they took the LCC at its word.

I've been at TfL meetings where senior people have been desparate to do what's right by cycling - unfortunately they've been misled by Sustrans in to spending millions on Greenways, but, again, that's a case of TfL taking cycling organisations at their word.

I think you're also being completely unfair to the LCC. They don't see themselves as representing their members, nor have they ever. They see themselves as apostles of cycling in London - representatives of all cyclists, present and future.

Here's the Stratford route. We use it on the FNRttC, and, when Susie and I ride out that way on a Sunday morning, it's a pleasant diversion around it's a pleasing little trip down what might be a nice town centre. The ring road is, of course, a disaster, but that's of the DfT's making, not TfL.

 

[stowie]

I think that you're being unfair to TfL. They luzzed £140m at LCN+. Now, whatever you think of LCN+ (and I think that it's beside the point, and that the strategy should have been bus lanes on main roads from the off....) they took the LCC at its word.

I've been at TfL meetings where senior people have been desparate to do what's right by cycling - unfortunately they've been misled by Sustrans in to spending millions on Greenways, but, again, that's a case of TfL taking cycling organisations at their word.

I think you're also being completely unfair to the LCC. They don't see themselves as representing their members, nor have they ever. They see themselves as apostles of cycling in London - representatives of all cyclists, present and future.

Here's the Stratford route. We use it on the FNRttC, and, when Susie and I ride out that way on a Sunday morning, it's a pleasant diversion around it's a pleasing little trip down what might be a nice town centre. The ring road is, of course, a disaster, but that's of the DfT's making, not TfL.

I disagree about being unfair to TfL. I have absolutely no doubt that there are people - quite probably senior people - who want to do the right thing with cycling. But the organisation itself doesn't deliver in so many cases that it points to deep issues within the organisation in regards to cycling.

I know it is only one example, but how can TfL (who control the lights) put in cycle signals and then switch them off indefinitely to leave a major cycle route to a local centre completely cut off by traffic? The local LCC, and local individuals (including me on various occasions) have raised this over the course of 18 months to no avail.

Then just look at the TfL site on what is being planned for Tottenham Hale Gyratory in 2012-2014. The two way traffic will be better than the situation now, but barely. Crossing the A10 will be made more difficult for pedestrians as a major pedestrian crossing is removed to "ease traffic flow". The alternative is to walk a considerable distance to Monument Way and cross using 5 (yes, FIVE) separate pedestrian crossings at the junction. The cycle facilities are "on road" for confident cyclists and off-road for the more nervous. The off-road cycle paths look disjointed and start and finish in odd locations leaving the cyclist in as worse situation than using the road. This was actually raised as a question on the feedback and TfL first said that the paths are not obvious when looking at the plans (probably because they aren't obvious) and then says that details such as how the paths start and finish will be resolved as the plan progresses. Which doesn't sound like cycling is being given much consideration at all - I hardly think how cyclists access and re-integrate to traffic from a cycle lane as "details". The whole plan sounds like it has been designed around motor traffic and the rest is shoe-horned where possible.

The stratford route you use - is that Northbound? Are you using the bus contra-flow? I use this route often, but use the terrible bypass - I didn't know there was an alternative, as I thought the bus lane was buses only. It would be interesting to know of a better route that the one way system. Can I add poor signs to my list of gripes about TfL?!

 

[dellzeqq]

I disagree about being unfair to TfL. I have absolutely no doubt that there are people - quite probably senior people - who want to do the right thing with cycling. But the organisation itself doesn't deliver in so many cases that it points to deep issues within the organisation in regards to cycling.

I know it is only one example....

well, once again, they stumped up £140,000,000 for LCN+. In my view a waste of cash, but they did what cyclists wanted. And, yes, Tottenham Hale. Well here's the rub. The cycle lane is Groningentastic, and illustrates precisely the inherent weakness of the entire segregation case. And, yes, allowing cycles down the bus lane would be ideal.

I know it is only one example, The stratford route you use - is that Northbound? Are you using the bus contra-flow? I use this route often, but use the terrible bypass - I didn't know there was an alternative, as I thought the bus lane was buses only. It would be interesting to know of a better route that the one way system. Can I add poor signs to my list of gripes about TfL?!

the map is oriented north at the top, so it's northeast-bound. There's a light at the southwest end that allows you across. The FNRttC goes to the 'fast' lane and on to the triangular island, but gentler souls would probably stop on the left hand side of the main road and cross two crossings. As for poor signs - no you can't. I found it easily enough and, as a general rule, signing in London is confusing because London is confusing. There's a case to be made (a la Lucien Kroll) for removing all signs, but that's a different argument.

 

[stowie]

well, once again, they stumped up £140,000,000 for LCN+. In my view a waste of cash, but they did what cyclists wanted. And, yes, Tottenham Hale. Well here's the rub. The cycle lane is Groningentastic, and illustrates precisely the inherent weakness of the entire segregation case. And, yes, allowing cycles down the bus lane would be ideal.

the map is oriented north at the top, so it's northeast-bound. There's a light at the southwest end that allows you across. The FNRttC goes to the 'fast' lane and on to the triangular island, but gentler souls would probably stop on the left hand side of the main road and cross two crossings. As for poor signs - no you can't. I found it easily enough and, as a general rule, signing in London is confusing because London is confusing. There's a case to be made (a la Lucien Kroll) for removing all signs, but that's a different argument.

The Netherlands might not put in a cycle lane and leave how to access that cycle lane up to the "details". It is absolutely key to how the cycle lane will work, who can use it and how effective it is. Without this thought out they may as well not bother.

The LCN+ network - well it was useful with the TfL maps for when I started cycling. But it doesn't really help cyclists too much on the ground in my experience, and can be very misleading as it doesn't seem to get updated for road changes (or local councils don't bother to consider LCN when they make roads one-way etc.)

I am astonished at your route around Stratford. I can say, hand on heart, that I went around Stratford on bicycle looking for a route around the one way system when I was a novice. And thought about the bus contra-flow, but it has a clear no-entry sign at the entrance with "except buses" underneath. I couldn't find any indication that cycles could access it. I will try it out next time I cycle around Stratford. Buses cannot overtake cyclists on the contra-flow so I assumed they wouldn't allow cycles in it, as per the Tottenham Hale gyratory.

And £140M seems a lot of money. It certainly seems extravagant based upon the results. But it is peanuts when it comes to London's transport budget. Just altering Tottenham Hale is going to cost £38M. North Circular works are over £100M - even the hyrdogen roll-out plan (delivering 5 hydrogen buses and the maintenance depot for them) is £15M.

I get the distinct impression that local councils get ring-fenced money for cycling based upon some fairly arbitrary criteria, and not very much analysis of results. So we have Waltham Forest painting on-road cycle lanes everywhere, even though many of them are dangerous and ill-thought out, but seem to be concentrating on measuring the number of miles implemented and not how many people use them.

Cycling seems to suffer from too many organisations with differing agendas chasing too little money. I am resolute my opinion that to get significantly more people cycling - people for whom cycling isn't even an option at the moment - then the roads need to be organised with the needs of cyclists addressed. Vehicular cycling on roads that have concede nothing to the cyclist are only an option for a small proportion of us.

 

[dellzeqq]

The Netherlands might not put in a cycle lane and leave how to access that cycle lane up to the "details". It is absolutely key to how the cycle lane will work, who can use it and how effective it is. Without this thought out they may as well not bother.

I'm not going to go over old ground, but that does need challenging. The details are sorted via consultation, of which we have a great deal in London, and possibly too much. All I can say is that in this instance you and WalthamForestCrapBlogger seem to have got what you wanted - and the problem you face is that it won't work, because it can't work, because the basic strategy is entirely wrong. Be careful what you wish for............

As for local councils - most of their infrastructure works are financed by S.106 monies that are neccessarily tied to the development. They're often rubbish, but, there you go, it makes someone feel important.

To sum up. Segregated cycle paths are an anathema because they are socially divisive, expensive, impractical and unwanted. If somebody wants to put forward a design then let them do it - but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[stowie]

I'm not going to go over old ground, but that does need challenging. The details are sorted via consultation, of which we have a great deal in London, and possibly too much. All I can say is that in this instance you and WalthamForestCrapBlogger seem to have got what you wanted - and the problem you face is that it won't work, because it can't work, because the basic strategy is entirely wrong. Be careful what you wish for............

As for local councils - most of their infrastructure works are financed by S.106 monies that are neccessarily tied to the development. They're often rubbish, but, there you go, it makes someone feel important.

To sum up. Segregated cycle paths are an anathema because they are socially divisive, expensive, impractical and unwanted. If somebody wants to put forward a design then let them do it - but I'm not holding my breath.

How about Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, New York, Paris, even Rio and Bogotá?

I think that the vehicular cycling advocates ridicule the segregated lane idea by extrapolating to the point it is absurd. Of course segregated lanes aren't going to work everywhere - in fact segregation should only be necessary on a small number of major roads where vehicle flow requirements make vehicular cycling unpalatable to the majority of the population. But without them how on earth do we expect "normal" people to take up cycling if they need to use the A11 Bow Flyover or parts of the North Circular to reach their destination without going miles out of their way?

Vehicular cycling is absolutely necessary on many roads, and surely the aim with these roads should be to design them with consideration to the cyclist as well as (and hopefully in priority over) the convenience of the motorist. And on major trunk roads quicker bicycle alternatives be sought or, if this isn't possible, segregated infrastructure used and integrated into the existing road and cycle provision.

I cannot see how we expect "normal" people to cycle without doing this? Maybe we shouldn't worry about this (I am not being facetious, maybe we just cannot get cycling popular outside a small part of the population and therefore we shouldn't bother trying) and accept cycling isn't going to be used as a transport option for most people.

 

[dellzeqq]

How about Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, New York, Paris, even Rio and Bogotá?

I think that the vehicular cycling advocates ridicule the segregated lane idea by extrapolating to the point it is absurd. Of course segregated lanes aren't going to work everywhere - in fact segregation should only be necessary on a small number of major roads where vehicle flow requirements make vehicular cycling unpalatable to the majority of the population. But without them how on earth do we expect "normal" people to take up cycling if they need to use the A11 Bow Flyover or parts of the North Circular to reach their destination without going miles out of their way?

Vehicular cycling is absolutely necessary on many roads, and surely the aim with these roads should be to design them with consideration to the cyclist as well as (and hopefully in priority over) the convenience of the motorist. And on major trunk roads quicker bicycle alternatives be sought or, if this isn't possible, segregated infrastructure used and integrated into the existing road and cycle provision.

I cannot see how we expect "normal" people to cycle without doing this? Maybe we shouldn't worry about this (I am not being facetious, maybe we just cannot get cycling popular outside a small part of the population and therefore we shouldn't bother trying) and accept cycling isn't going to be used as a transport option for most people.

I really do resent the implication that those of us who think that the roads are the place to be are somehow not interested in seeing more people use them - and by folk who talk a lot but have, in reality, nothing to offer. Show me the drawing.

And explain why the bomb-dodgers, who came to cycling in fear of their lives, ignored LCN+ and went straight down the main roads.

 

[ozzage]

I agree with the segregationists on this thread. It's absurd to expect most people to cycle along busy roads alongside buses and taxis. Yeah sure some people do it. I do it myself, although I try to avoid it.

Would I send my mum out in such conditions? No. That's the only question that needs to be answered to know whether cycling has a chance to boom in this country.

I lived for nearly 4 years in Amsterdam, where I "re-learned" to ride after not having ridden since getting my drivers licence nearly fifteen years earlier. Would I have sent my mum out on a bike there? Absolutely. Was it solely due to segregation? No of course not, but that was a bloody big part of it. It's not the quiet residential streets that are the problem, either here or in the Netherlands, it's the main roads! I could ride to the centre of the city and along the main road was a cycle path. Then I entered the old Jordaan area and rode through streets with few cars. No problem.

Only segregation will ever fix the "main road" problem for 90% of the population. Riding on main roads in central London or on the main radials is basically a nightmare for all except the most hardened cyclists. It's not even particularly unsafe, but it FEELS like it, and it's bloody UNPLEASANT!

I don't live on/near a CSH and am not particularly impressed with them, but I think they are a step in the right direction. At least once they are in place and well used then hopefully there will be pressure to improve them and ultimately even segregate them properly. Back-street routes will never be really successful if people use their bike as real transport rather than for leisure, even though it's good to have an alternative.

There is a reason why places with very high cycling rates all have large amounts of dedicated cycle facilities, and are CONTINUING TO ADD MORE. If all the vehicular cycling proponents are right, and segregation is neither necessary nor desirable, then why are those countries continuing to push that barrow? And what makes you think that you know better, given the facts on the ground?

 

[jonesy]

I agree with the segregationists on this thread. It's absurd to expect most people to cycle along busy roads ...
There is a reason why places with very high cycling rates all have large amounts of dedicated cycle facilities, and are CONTINUING TO ADD MORE. If all the vehicular cycling proponents are right, and segregation is neither necessary nor desirable, then why are those countries continuing to push that barrow? And what makes you think that you know better, given the facts on the ground?

You've not been paying attention

Oxford? Cambridge?

 

[dellzeqq]

Would I send my mum out in such conditions? No.

I'd let my mum make her own mind up.

Only segregation will ever fix the "main road" problem for 90% of the population. Riding on main roads in central London or on the main radials is basically a nightmare for all except the most hardened cyclists. It's not even particularly unsafe, but it FEELS like it, and it's bloody UNPLEASANT!

fifty cyclists use Garratt Lane for every one that uses the Wandle Way. Any idea why?

Show me the drawing