London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[CopperBrompton]

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.

As cyclists, we can get around any of the above by getting off our bicycles briefly, often only for a few feet. Motorists, in contrast, have no such escape plan. All of the things I mentioned are substantial deterrents to driving and only minor deterrents to cycling.

 

[CopperBrompton]

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 really, traffic splits off into four major directions from that gyratory.

 

[stowie]

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.

Why isn't it used then? Surely we cannot assume that people prefer to be dodging in and out of parked cars on what looks like a busy road instead of a nice cycle down this path?

In the wilds of N/NE London, there is the Lea Valley tow path, and the various canal paths that spur off. It isn't particularly well maintained in many places, but in Summer it is hugely popular with commuting cyclists. In the winter it is a bit less popular being as stretches turn into a mudbath and the idea of cycling next to deep canals on dodgy terrain in unlit paths at least makes me think twice.

 

[dellzeqq]

Why isn't it used then? Surely we cannot assume that people prefer to be dodging in and out of parked cars on what looks like a busy road instead of a nice cycle down this path?

In the wilds of N/NE London, there is the Lea Valley tow path, and the various canal paths that spur off. It isn't particularly well maintained in many places, but in Summer it is hugely popular with commuting cyclists. In the winter it is a bit less popular being as stretches turn into a mudbath and the idea of cycling next to deep canals on dodgy terrain in unlit paths at least makes me think twice.

No. You can't. And we might know why it isn't used if the TfL Greenways committee had, as I suggested, asked the riders going down Garratt Lane why they took the route they did. They declined because the views of cyclists already cycling on the roads were of no interest. They were only interested in the cyclists of the future who were apparently the two people (one of them a friend of mine) who used it as their commute. (And my friend stopped using it after the money was spent, but that's a story of ineptitude on which there can be no disagreement). My own guess, and it's no more than a guess, is that people think that it's 'odd'.

I highlighted the 'dodging in and out of parked cars' because while it's a reasonable inference it's not actually the case - these days. There's very little car parking on Garratt Lane (which is a tortuous route in itself!) because it's got lengths of bus lane.

 

[stowie]

Not really, traffic splits off into four major directions from that gyratory.

I have no numbers to back this up, but from observation of travelling the route around 5pm several times a week, the A10 is always completely backed up to Stamford hill going into the gyratory whilst the roads going east - west (Ferry Lane etc.) are clear. I think most of the traffic is going North South in the morning and South - North in the evening. Normally the gyratory itself isn't tailed back and traffic is moving fast (more than the speed limit) in many sections. So I would assume that the actual bottlenecks are the A10 single lane parts outside the gyratory.

On Saturdays and especially Sundays, the gyratory is normally heaving, and often there are tailbacks onto the feeder roads such as Ferry Lane. This is due to motorists driving to the retail park where the car parking is limited and the entrances and exits tight. However much space is allocated to the motorists in the gyratory the problem won't be solved as the issue is too many people taking their car to the retail parks. With the number of buses stopping at Tottenham Hale, the tube station opposite, and some really good quality covered cycle parking, I don't think many of these motorists have an excuse for taking their car to these shops anyway.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I think most of the traffic is going North South in the morning and South - North in the evening.

You have traffic going up the B153, the A10, the A1055 and the A503.

too many people taking their car to the retail parks. With the number of buses stopping at Tottenham Hale, the tube station opposite, and some really good quality covered cycle parking, I don't think many of these motorists have an excuse for taking their car to these shops anyway.

People don't need an excuse for their chosen mode of transport.

As it happens, I used to live close to Walthamstow and that was my local retail park. Cycling generally wasn't practical for transporting the sort of shopping you do at a retail park. By public transport, there was a very unreliable bus service to the local tube. Typically, something like a 15 minute wait followed by a 10 minute bus ride, then a tube journey where the combined waiting and travelling time was a further 10 minutes. Total return journey time by public transport: about an hour. Total return journey time by car: about 12 minutes.

 

[stowie]

You have traffic going up the B153, the A10, the A1055 and the A503.


People don't need an excuse for their chosen mode of transport.

As it happens, I used to live close to Walthamstow and that was my local retail park. Cycling generally wasn't practical for transporting the sort of shopping you do at a retail park. By public transport, there was a very unreliable bus service to the local tube. Typically, something like a 15 minute wait followed by a 10 minute bus ride, then a tube journey where the combined waiting and travelling time was a further 10 minutes. Total return journey time by public transport: about an hour. Total return journey time by car: about 12 minutes.

Of course everyone has a choice (aside from the large proportion of people in this area without access to a car - in my ward 42% of households don't have a car). What I am saying is that there are other options. I understand that a car may be needed for some purchases, but then when I take the car I accept that it might be a 12 minute journey, or could over an hour. And that parking is a nightmare at weekends.

I have had some trips to the retail park that from door to being parked up took 90 minutes. Now I either go during a week day if I have to pick up something I cannot carry on the cycle, or cycle there and get them to deliver any heavy objects if necessary. The extra delivery cost is worth keeping my blood pressure down!

And I know that there are roads spurring off the gyratory. My perception is that during the week the bottleneck isn't the gyratory but the A10 North and South of it - the gyratory and other adjoining roads aren't normally tailed back.

 

[stowie]

No. You can't. And we might know why it isn't used if the TfL Greenways committee had, as I suggested, asked the riders going down Garratt Lane why they took the route they did. They declined because the views of cyclists already cycling on the roads were of no interest. They were only interested in the cyclists of the future who were apparently the two people (one of them a friend of mine) who used it as their commute. (And my friend stopped using it after the money was spent, but that's a story of ineptitude on which there can be no disagreement). My own guess, and it's no more than a guess, is that people think that it's 'odd'.

I highlighted the 'dodging in and out of parked cars' because while it's a reasonable inference it's not actually the case - these days. There's very little car parking on Garratt Lane (which is a tortuous route in itself!) because it's got lengths of bus lane.

Well, not talking to existing cyclists about why they choose adjacent routes instead of the path before spending a whole load of money on it is madness. Can you really blame me for being highly cynical of TfL and local councils when I hear these?

I bow to your superior knowledge of Garratt Lane (mine is based solely on some streetview shots), but I would say that having the bus lanes may be the reason it is quite popular. Dare I say that surely bus lanes could be considered a successful form of segregation?! They certainly seem popular with all cyclists I talk to and are a great way of negotiating heavy traffic without having to interact too much with it. I would use main roads with good bus lanes any day over LCN+ back streets which are more often than not double parked rat-runs.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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.

he's not wrong. on so many levels.

I used to cycle through round and accorss clapham in the early 00's. kin awful it was, kin awful. then along came the bomb dodgers, unfortunately a few month after I stopped working in Stockwell/Brixton and hey presto cycling in clapham was normalised. instead of being a rarity cyclists were just part of business as usual. now when I go visit that neck of the woods cycling on the main roads is just "what we do around here" and I enjoy doing it.

once cycling on roads reaches a certain critical mass the segregationalist bubble bursts. sure that mass brings issues/problems of its own, but not ones segregation would solve. most cyclists are drivers, drivers are used to main roads, therefore that is where they will tend to cycle, following the lovely sings telling them where to go, etc., etc..

As for safety... I got friends who refuse to drive in London because it si so dangerous and stressful. Dunderheads the lot of them. Highly subjective, just as it is for those who apparently say "I'm not going to cycle on that main road"

 

[jonesy]

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.

Why is cycling popular in Oxford? For the reasons discussed ealier- it is advantagous over driving, because of limited parking, high levels of congestion etc, a narrow street layout that generally precludes the multi-lane high speed roads favoured by traffic engineers; and more recently there have been signficnat traffic restrictions. Also because the travel to work area is relatively compact so a high proportion of journeys made are within cycleable distance. The student effect is probably signficant, but by no means is the main reason. Cycling modal split is usually measured for travel to work, and is 15% in Oxford, over 25% in Cambridge. So that's an awful lot of non-students cycling.

 

[dellzeqq]

Well, not talking to existing cyclists about why they choose adjacent routes instead of the path before spending a whole load of money on it is madness. Can you really blame me for being highly cynical of TfL and local councils when I hear these?

well.....to be honest, I was shouted down (note the word 'shout') by the Sustrans rep.

 

[Speshact]

Great thread. My tuppence worth:

a) My teenage daughter won't cycle alone in London and none of her friends do. By contrast a friend's daughter in Holland does so as do all her friends. I'm not convinced that we'll get loads of teenage girls (or maybe even boys) cycling in the traffic and therefore are likely to have fewer adults cycling.

b) No one I have asked has agreed to send their child to cycle National Cycle Route 4 (A roads in part plus roundabouts etc.) from the Albert Embankment to Gabriels Wharf. All are willing to send them along the parallel trafffic free Thames Path (though wary about them conflicting with pedestrians).

c) Hyde Park, Hyde Park Corner (through the middle rather than round it), Green Park route, thhe route by the Mall - all are wonderfully segregated from traffic, very popular and and used by a volume of cyclists every day that are unlikely to be seen on the wiggly Wandle Trail in a year.

d) Bus Lanes are erstatz cycle lanes. Where they've widened them on CS7 has made a big improvement as you can pass a bus that is stopped while staying in the lane. Let's get more bus drivers to have cycle training and have a 20mph limit for buses in lanes shared with cyclists.

e) Cable Street on CS 3 exemplifies a problem we have that the Netherlands don't. In Holland pedestrians and joggers go straight over a side road at the same time as drivers go straight on. Anyone turning off has to give way to a ped'n/jogger/cyclist coming up to the side road. Here the traffic turning off almost always has priority - resulting in start/stop journeys on segregated routes. I think pro-segregation campaigners have to campaign for this change. I don't know what the downsides are from a DfT perspective but imagine that it might cause motorists to spend more time stationary on the main road thus limiting capacity and smooth traffic flow so unlikely to be popular with petrolheads.

f) I think the easy win is pushing for more and wider bus and cycle lanes, and getting them 24/7 rather than rush hour only (excluding school home times!) Mo - Fri or Mo - Sat.

g) The centre of London should have no taxis or private cars but loads of Hire Bikes and Hire Mobility Scooters for those who can't walk or ride a bike.

h) While there's the expectation by cycle campaign organisations and the DfT that cyclists are on the road there has to be loads and loads of cycle training especially for kids, strict liability and 20mph except where reasonable for it to be more.

various illustrated posts on the above (though sadly no skilled Dellzeqq drawings) are on my blog http://kenningtonpob.blogspot.com

 

[stowie]

well.....to be honest, I was shouted down (note the word 'shout') by the Sustrans rep.

Who presumably had an agenda. I still think TfL should be big enough to be able to work out what data will need collecting to analyse how money should be spent.

Mind you I have just looked at the Sustrans website for the Wandle Trail and the map shows why people might not bother with this part of the Wandle Trail. It starts off on the A217, veers right down a side road to the Park, winds it way down the park to the back of what looks like housing where it does a strange route (because of one way streets?) around the housing estate to land up back on the A217. I know why I wouldn't use it - I wouldn't be bothered to faff about like this when I could just stay on the road.

 

[ozzage]

As for weeping with gratitude - when I contemplate that rubbish cycle lane at Tavistock Square I weep with frustration that so much money could be put to so poor a use.

The same route that is so well used and loved by the sort of people who don't post on cycling forums that it's barely passable due to the mass of bikes!!

I still prefer to cycle on it than on the road and feel myself relaxing when I reach it, even though it desperately needs to be wider and feels like being in a canyon because of the high straight curbing. It doesn't even matter if such cycle paths are actually MORE DANGEROUS than being on the road. As long as it feels safer then more people will be inclined to use them and as well all know, overall safety will increase with the increase in numbers.

I think that facility is an excellent example of the problems in the cycle campaigning. Many cyclists find the Tavistock path fantastic and will go out of their way to use it. And yet you find "old hands" on forums calling for it to be ripped out completely.

 

[dellzeqq]

I've never heard anybody call for it to be ripped out (why waste twice the money), and I've hardly ever seen anybody using it. I just despair when I look at it - it chips away at a lovely street at the expense of pedestrians, and it cost a mint of money.

I do think that the cost of these things is important. It behoves cyclists to think of the people that pay for this stuff. £7M on CSH7 and CSH3 is a lot of money, and it's to be hoped that Londoners think it well spent, but £140M on LCN+, £1M on Cable Street, £1.3M on the Wandle Way (now re-christened the Wandle Trail ffs) is money could have been spent better elsewhere, or not spent at all.