London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

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.

It does no such thing, because the cycle lane is not "Groningentastic".

In fact it's shoot. It's an abomination, and if any Dutch traffic planner had come up with a design like this

they would have been fired on the spot.

And you have the cheek to suggest that this is what we want!

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

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

It's certainly not the infrastructure.

This cycle lane on the Wandle Way

is so brilliantly designed, I'm surprised there aren't a gazillion cyclists in it. In fact, it's so good, they've made it bi-directional in one lane! Genius!

And let's not forget that the Wandle Way is direct

continuous

and safe, being that it avoids forcing people to cycle with traffic on busy A roads.

Which kind of defeats the point about this being a segregated route, does it not? Anyway, it looks like someone has helpfully painted a white bicycle in the middle of the busy carriageway.

That'll do the trick.

 

[dellzeqq]

you don't know where the Wandle Way is, do you? Take a look at this

nothing wrong with that - oh - just one thing - nobody's using it. I've cycled the entire length of the Wandle Way all the way down to Beddington, and not seen one cyclist coming the other way. That's got to be at least eight miles - maybe ten. And that was after the £1.3million Sustrans refurb. In fact it's their showpiece path in South London. The one they want to show everybody.

Here's another bit

now it took me two clicks to find these images. I suspect that you looked at them as well......

The path in Tottenham is the way it is because there are pedestrians on a shopping street. Show me the drawing - start with Tottenham Hale, if you like. You're very good at telling us what you don't want. Show me the drawing of what you do want.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

you don't know where the Wandle Way is, do you?

Err, yes, I do. All my photos are from the route. In fact one is of the route. That should give you a clue.

nothing wrong with that - oh - just one thing - nobody's using it.

Why is nobody using it? It's because this route is tortuous in the extreme, contains sections where people do have to cycle on the A-roads (which, as I have already stated, defeats the point of presenting this as a model of segregation) and, where there is 'infrastructure', is beyond a joke. Let me agree with you - money has been wasted.

But what is the conclusion that you are drawing here about the absence of people on this route? You seem to be arguing that the lesson is that your average punter does not want to be separated from heavy traffic on A-roads.

If that is what you are arguing, it's absurd logic. It's like me pointing at a shoot bus route near where I live - one that runs three times a day and goes nowhere near anywhere, taking twice as long as travelling by car - and saying buses are clearly an inappropriate means of urban transport, as nobody wants to use them.

The path in Tottenham is the way it is because there are pedestrians on a shopping street.

"Pedestrians on the pavement" is the reason why the cycle lane gives way at every junction? Are you sure?

(And are you still maintaining that it is a "Groningentastic" piece of cycle design?)

 

[stowie]

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.

I am implying nothing of the sort! I wondered if possibly there may be conditions of cities or culture in the UK that mean cycling will always be a minority transport option despite any amount of initiatives.

The bomb-dodgers, like me when I first started, probably didn't know that LCN+ existed, or that TfL had maps. And let's face it LCN+ routes aren't exactly easy to find, and when you do find them they are hardly shining beacons of infrastructure anyway. Why cycle down a narrow side-road that goes the long way and you get close-passed by cars anyway when you can use the main roads and go the short way - often with lower traffic speeds. Also, I remember when I started that the cycle cut-throughs are almost completely unknown to me so I tended to follow the road signs to places - which are on main roads since they are all for cars. And frankly when I followed some LCN+ signs around Hackney and ended up where I started after 1/2 hr, I decided that road signs might be a better option.

Please don't take this discussion as some kind of personal attack on your thoughts about cycling - in fact it is anything but, I am very interested in your thoughts because they are so different to mine, and from someone who clearly understands the issues better than I. I believe that cycling won't become anything other than something for a small minority whilst major roads and junctions don't give consideration to cyclists. I am absolutely interested in what you think would help people who have never cycled to give it a go, and how to persuade them to do so. Why, as someone who thinks that the only way to encourage mass cycling is to have good quality infrastructure (including segregation on certain roads) am I so wrong?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Show me the drawing - start with Tottenham Hale, if you like. You're very good at telling us what you don't want. Show me the drawing of what you do want.

That section of the A10 is either 5 or 6 lanes wide, in the current scheme.

Take a lane of traffic away. There is your space. It's really that simple. There need be no impingement on the space allocated to pedestrians or buses.

This is what it is all about. Reallocation of space from motorists, to pedestrians and cyclists.

Of course this is why cycling has such a high modal share in Oxford and Cambridge (partly why - the other reason is the skewed demographic in these city centres). The space - what space there was - for driving has been taken away. Longwall Street in Oxford is effectively closed to traffic. Broad street is restricted. Queen Street and Cornmarket are pedestrianised. It's lunacy to try and drive into the centre of Oxford unless you absolutely have to.

But what disincentives are there to driving in Greater London?

 

[jonesy]

That section of the A10 is either 5 or 6 lanes wide, in the current scheme.

Take a lane of traffic away. There is your space. It's really that simple. There need be no impingement on the space allocated to pedestrians or buses.

This is what it is all about. Reallocation of space from motorists, to pedestrians and cyclists.

Of course this is why cycling has such a high modal share in Oxford and Cambridge (partly why - the other reason is the skewed demographic in these city centres). The space - what space there was - for driving has been taken away. Longwall Street in Oxford is effectively closed to traffic. Broad street is restricted. Queen Street and Cornmarket are pedestrianised. It's lunacy to try and drive into the centre of Oxford unless you absolutely have to.

But what disincentives are there to driving in Greater London?

No, that's not true. Not on the main roads- ever seen Cowley Road? It is probably one of the busiest cycling corridors in the UK, entirely on road, very few cycle lanes, shared with buses and all the other traffic. Or Botley Road? Abingdon Road? And far from being closed to traffic, Longwall Street is now the main route for cars that are no longer allowed on the western end of High Street! Cycling is certainly advantageous over driving in Oxford, but that's because of lack of parking spaces, and very slow congested traffic on most of the road network. It isn't because of large scale re-allocation of road space. You should bear in mind that the main growth in cycling occured in the 1970s and 80s, so was before the Oxford Transport Strategy, so predates even the traffic restrictions you may have seen.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

No, that's not true. Not on the main roads- ever seen Cowley Road? It is probably one of the busiest cycling corridors in the UK, entirely on road, very few cycle lanes, shared with buses and all the other traffic. Or Botley Road? Abingdon Road? And far from being closed to traffic, Longwall Street is now the main route for cars that are no longer allowed on the western end of High Street! Cycling is certainly advantageous over driving in Oxford, but that's because of lack of parking spaces, and very slow congested traffic on most of the road network. It isn't because of large scale re-allocation of road space. You should bear in mind that the main growth in cycling occured in the 1970s and 80s, so was before the Oxford Transport Strategy, so predates even the traffic restrictions you may have seen.

Forgive me, I meant Holywell Street, not Longwall.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing too much here. I did say - if you read my post - that reallocation of road space is only part of the reason. The demographics of Oxford are surely also very important. Cowley Road and Abingdon Road are the main routes for students in and out of the city centre, back to where many of them live. It would be interesting to see what the modal share is like in - say - late July. Certainly when I was cycling about in Oxford, I seemed (of course, this is just my impression) to be surrounded by other students, and not a broader cross-section of the general public. That is to say, we are dealing with a skewed sample. I'm sure if London was composed of the percentage of students in Oxford, modal share would be far higher.

Equally, I did not argue that there has been large scale re-allocation of road space. I simply mentioned that there is not much space in the city, and stated the names of streets that are closed to traffic (albeit one erroneously!). You have read too much into my words.

Of course, the net result is the same - it is difficult to drive, and cycling is therefore an attractive alternative.

 

[CopperBrompton]

But what disincentives are there to driving in Greater London?

Apart from average speeds of 11mph, an average distance between traffic lights of around 200 metres, one-way systems, bus-lanes, no-right-turn restrictions, phenomentally expensive parking and the congestion tax, I can't think of any.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Traffic lights, one-way systems and no-right turn restrictions are all measures that are, in effect, inflicted on cyclists for the wider goal of improving vehicular traffic flow. It is odd that you would mention them as something that would push drivers out of their cars onto bikes.

Point taken on the congestion charge and parking - but I did say Greater London.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

As an example of the above - try cycling around King's Cross. I used to live on Balfe Street. If I wanted to cycle on to the Euston Road - a few hundred yards away - I had to take a lengthy journey around a huge gyratory, created for the purposes of smoothing traffic flow.

Of course, remove the one-way system and right-turn restrictions, and the congestion would get much worse. But that's slightly my point.

 

[stowie]

No, that's not true. Not on the main roads- ever seen Cowley Road? It is probably one of the busiest cycling corridors in the UK, entirely on road, very few cycle lanes, shared with buses and all the other traffic. Or Botley Road? Abingdon Road? And far from being closed to traffic, Longwall Street is now the main route for cars that are no longer allowed on the western end of High Street! Cycling is certainly advantageous over driving in Oxford, but that's because of lack of parking spaces, and very slow congested traffic on most of the road network. It isn't because of large scale re-allocation of road space. You should bear in mind that the main growth in cycling occured in the 1970s and 80s, so was before the Oxford Transport Strategy, so predates even the traffic restrictions you may have seen.

So why is cycling so popular in Oxford then? Surely the population didn't get up on day and collectively decide that cycling might be a jolly idea. If it is down to demographics the lessons for other towns may be limited.

 

[dellzeqq]

Err, yes, I do. All my photos are from the route. In fact one is of the route. That should give you a clue.



Why is nobody using it? It's because this route is tortuous in the extreme, contains sections where people do have to cycle on the A-roads (which, as I have already stated, defeats the point of presenting this as a model of segregation) and, where there is 'infrastructure', is beyond a joke. Let me agree with you - money has been wasted.

But what is the conclusion that you are drawing here about the absence of people on this route? You seem to be arguing that the lesson is that your average punter does not want to be separated from heavy traffic on A-roads.

If that is what you are arguing, it's absurd logic. It's like me pointing at a shoot bus route near where I live - one that runs three times a day and goes nowhere near anywhere, taking twice as long as travelling by car - and saying buses are clearly an inappropriate means of urban transport, as nobody wants to use them.



"Pedestrians on the pavement" is the reason why the cycle lane gives way at every junction? Are you sure?

(And are you still maintaining that it is a "Groningentastic" piece of cycle design?)

that's absolutely untrue. You've never cycled the route. I have. Sure, it takes longer than the road, but not a great deal longer. It's 3M wide and the surface was agonised over - I witnessed the agonising - and it's just what Sustrans wanted. If you're travelling from Hackbridge to Wandsworth, parallel but actually nowhere near A-roads the journey time would be the same. And yet nobody uses it.

Tottenham Hale. Draw what you want. You're full of what you don't want. Show us what you do want. Get yourself a bit of 1:1250 map and draw what you want.

 

[stowie]

That section of the A10 is either 5 or 6 lanes wide, in the current scheme.

Take a lane of traffic away. There is your space. It's really that simple. There need be no impingement on the space allocated to pedestrians or buses.

This is what it is all about. Reallocation of space from motorists, to pedestrians and cyclists.

Of course this is why cycling has such a high modal share in Oxford and Cambridge (partly why - the other reason is the skewed demographic in these city centres). The space - what space there was - for driving has been taken away. Longwall Street in Oxford is effectively closed to traffic. Broad street is restricted. Queen Street and Cornmarket are pedestrianised. It's lunacy to try and drive into the centre of Oxford unless you absolutely have to.

But what disincentives are there to driving in Greater London?

The interesting thing about the whole scheme is that one of the key aims is to keep, or even increase, traffic throughput capacity. Which sounds reasonable - the A10 is a key arterial road, until you consider that very long sections of the A10 after the Seven Sisters junction is single lane each way (with a bus lane either side), and then again it is single lane each way (without bus lanes) after Monument way before it turns into Bruce Grove, which is again single lanes. So the current gyratory, and the new plans, allow a large traffic capacity for it's duration before funnelling down into a much smaller road space. Not only does it seem a bit pointless, but surely traffic flow is easier and safer if kept slow and steady as opposed to being allowed to speed for a small section before having to all merge again?

And under the two way scheme, Monument Way and Broad Lane become pretty standard two way roads which aren't forming any part of the A10 arterial road. One would think that maybe traffic volumes would become less of an issue and the 3 lanes in broad lane and Monument way may be able to be used differently.

 

[dellzeqq]

The bomb-dodgers, like me when I first started, probably didn't know that LCN+ existed, or that TfL had maps.

they just didn't care. They wanted to get to work, safely, they used the A-roads, and LCN+ effectively died overnight. As one of the board members of the LCC said to me a year or so later - 'we're wondering if TfL will want the money back'.

Here's the thing. We stand on the brink of civilising some of London's major radial routes, which are also our principal high streets. Cyclists of all kinds are wandering down the Clapham Road, heedless (actually unaware) of all the protestations of danger from a few, a very few frustrated segregationists. This is a great time - a time that I for one really didn't expect to see. I think it will get better and better.

You can stand around saying that however many percent of Londoners are not riding bikes because of the 'danger', or you can join in, and, maybe, work out why a lot of Londoners don't ride bikes. Now, you may be surprised to read this, and you may choose to disbelieve it, but actually I've got a bit of a record of inspiring people to ride bikes. And the reasons they don't ride bikes are far more various and far more complex than you think.