London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[dellzeqq]

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.

mine goes out all the time. Without lights. Despite my remonstrations. She's not alone - when her mates comes round the house is covered in ***** bikes

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).

In fairness to Sustrans NCN4 is fine. But, then again, I don't 'send' any child out. If she wants advice, she can have it. If she wants company she can have it. But, by the time she was fourteen she was making her own decisions - as I was at her age in an era in which traffic was far less well regulated.

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.

agreed. Park Lane is a monstrous road, particularly northbound - and Hyde Park is a joy.

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.
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.

bus lanes are better than cycle lanes - they have a greater capacity. One of the real frustrations of dealing with the TfL Olympics committee was that they could not get their heads around the idea of capacity. Having a three metre wide path going across a park to a destination that will see 250,000 visitors a day (!) isn't much of a contribution. CS7 through the Oval, Clapham North and Clapham Common southbound is a full bus lane, capable of taking far more bikes than a 3 metre path, and at certain times of the day it is approaching capacity for bikes! That, my friends, is a problem that we'd never thought we'd have! TfL is completely up for 24 hour bus lanes - the A200? down to Greenwich is 24 hours (which is just fantastic for the FNRttC) and Nine Elms is, I think, 24 hours despite there being no real 'bus need'. Indeed, whisper this.....the entire Nine Elms bus lane inbound is actually there because TfL thought it would be good for cyclists. The buses are a pretext.

All bus drivers on TfL routes get training, by the way. Going to other towns (I'm thinking of Manchester and Ipswich in particular) is a bit of a shock.

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.

Cable Street is a dead end. Let's move on. Let's look to the experiment in Kensington, in which kerbs and signals are ripped out. http://www.cyclingwe...ing-safety.html

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

I really don't have a problem with people driving cars, but there's many a way to make neighbourhoods more pleasant, and they're a good deal cheaper than cycle lanes. 'Home Zones' which squeeze out through traffic reduce traffic noise, speed and the concomitant risk. That's not spending money on cycling, it's spending money on people - far more worthwhile.

Nice blog, by the way. Now if only Susie would let me have a Cargo bike....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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!!

yet the same "mass" of people are generally conspicuous by the absence when I've ridden around there but fair play to you I tend to be riding off peak.

Those that I've seen use it, well let's say their road craft leaves a lot to be desired, they also seem to love rlj'ing, kerb hopping, pavement riding and riding on the wrong side of the two way cycle lane and playing chicken with people like me coming the other way. They lose btw.

I'll give free reign to my fascist tendencies and say I'm not entirely sure that these particular people are those who should determine policy for cycling infrastructure.....

 

[CopperBrompton]

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.

Eh? It's jam-packed with cyclists every day I've seen it!

 

[ozzage]

Go there during peak time and it's over-capacity. It's such a start... widen it, extend it west (yeah it'll have some corners) and connect it to Hyde Park please... and then south and east to the city...

 

[Dan B]

Go there during peak time and it's over-capacity.

That doesn't tally with my experience, but the only time I've been there at peak hours it was about 2 degrees C. But nevertheless, I'm not surprised. It's about a foot wide in each direction and all the cyclists are perforce proceeding at the pace of the slowest boris biker in front of them

 

[dellzeqq]

Go there during peak time and it's over-capacity. It's such a start... widen it, extend it west (yeah it'll have some corners) and connect it to Hyde Park please... and then south and east to the city...

show us the drawing..........

 

[gaz]

If you went in the summer before it was opened it was busy. It's not that much busier now.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

show us the drawing..........

How about a concrete example?

Here's an arterial road in Waltham Forest that is having two metres of road and pavement space reallocated.

For parking.

Cost - £450,000.

 

[sheddy]

and when in Copenhagen - http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-plans-super-highways--for-bikes-2151395.html

"The jammed bike paths will be widened up to four metres (yards) on either side of the road, which will itself will be reserved for buses only"

 

[srw]

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.

[We're arguing the toss about the Tavistock Square bike lane. Yet again.]

I use it going West-East because it's there, and because I was using that route for my commute long before it was there. Going East-West I tend to use it, simply because Tavistock Street is now so narrow (because of the kerb in the middle) and tends to have such a long queue of traffic that it's easier to cut across to join the bike lane than it is to stay in the road.

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. The congestion charge has more-or-less taken away it's raison d'etre.

It's always very busy between 8am and 9am and pretty busy between 5pm and 7pm - those of you who haven't seen it used might like to take an early or late ride for once, and join those of us who actually do some work!

The Tavistock Square bike lane is linked to another one on the right hand side of (one-way) Maple Street, a bit further west. It was pretty inoffensive, providing a neat way for cyclists to overtake other traffic and get to the TCR without thinking too hard. And then some muppet spotted that there was a conflict at the Fitzroy Street junction between bikes in the bike lane and cars turning right from Maple Street. And decided that the answer was a special bike lane phase on the traffic lights. 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.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

The Tavistock Square bike lane is linked to another one on the right hand side of (one-way) Maple Street, a bit further west. It was pretty inoffensive, providing a neat way for cyclists to overtake other traffic and get to the TCR without thinking too hard. And then some muppet spotted that there was a conflict at the Fitzroy Street junction between bikes in the bike lane and cars turning right from Maple Street. And decided that the answer was a special bike lane phase on the traffic lights. 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.

Yep, that's stupid. The issue seems to stem from the fact that the bike lane has been placed - counterintuitively - on the right side of the road along Maple Street, putting cyclists in a position where (right-turning) motorists will probably not expect them.

There doesn't appear to be any real reason why it's on that side, rather than on the left. Not sure what the thinking is there.

I've actually just been walking along Howland Street, where the segregated lane runs (sensibly) on the left. It seemed pretty busy - probably because the "traffic lane" was clogged with traffic. At a rough count, I'd say about 20:1 ratio using the segregated lane, versus the traffic lane - negotiating the traffic was easier.

 

[srw]

There doesn't appear to be any real reason why it's on that side, rather than on the left. Not sure what the thinking is there.

Think "integrated segregated cycle system" and you're there. The Maple Street route is part of a route which emanates from Clipstone Street. And the road configuration means that a right-hand-side route is essential.

I've actually just been walking along Howland Street, where the segregated lane runs (sensibly) on the left. It seemed pretty busy - probably because the "traffic lane" was clogged with traffic. At a rough count, I'd say about 20:1 ratio using the segregated lane, versus the traffic lane - negotiating the traffic was easier.

Because that's a one-way street there's plenty of room to zip around the cycle lane onto the main carriageway. And it makes sense to do so, because unusually the cycle-only phase on the traffic lights has priority over the rest of the traffic, so it's easy to get a head start on everyone else. The other night I scalped a roadie on a Boris Bike just there.

 

[stowie]

This debate is really thought provoking for me. It is good to have one's preconceptions challenged at times.

I do not consider myself a segregationist. Vehicular cycling is extensively used even in places such as Holland or Denmark. I believe in the Netherlands that cycle paths have been around a long time (initially put in because of the appalling upkeep of the roads). We simply don't have this legacy of infrastructure. Putting it in quickly is a massive leap from where we are now.

On the other hand I don't think that vehicular cycling is suitable for all roads, or the answer for everything. The UK had a lamentable record of putting in urban "motorways" which carried on until even the 1990's. Look at the A11 out of Bow, or the A12 link road through Leytonstone. The A11 is used by cyclists including me, because we have to. It is mostly deeply unpleasant. The A12 link road is even worse, the road is out of bounds for cycles and cuts into two urban areas where the crossing over the A12 (with some exceptions like the Green Man Roundabout) are designed solely with the car in mind. Vehicular cycling in these conditions is sometimes not just taxing, it is impossible and illegal, and these road networks act as barriers to cycling. To aid permeability on these pretty hostile roads is essential.

I think that much of our road network can be tamed and reclaimed by vehicular cyclists. But significant portions simply can't. And town planning has geared towards the car for so many decades that I cannot see how we can alter transport use without remodelling at least some of the roads. I don't mean segregation - I am talking about making the road system smoother for cycles, putting in infrastructure to aid permeability and convenient and safe passage of cyclists through junctions.

The problem with schemes like the Tottenham Hale revamp is that they put in whatever cycle "provision" that can fit around the central road scheme, which is itself completely designed for motor transport. No thought is given to the vehicular cyclist (even ASLs are only to be fitted in where they "can") - because presumably they think anyone cycling on the road is "confident" and the less confident will use the cycle "paths" provided. But even a cursory look at the paths makes one realise how utterly shoot they are. I often go around this one way system from Ferry Lane using the cycle path counter to the system to get to Chestnut Road which is closed to all traffic except cycles and leads to the A10 above the gyratory. If I wish to do this using the cycle paths on the plan, I will need to use eight separate crossings and cross seven side roads where presumably I will need to give way. This is just ludicrous. If this is the best that planners can come up with then I understand the view that we are better without any cycle provision.

I am just someone who cycles. I don't care if this is on cycle paths, roads or anything else, as long as the route is convenient, direct, safe and, if at all possible, pleasant. I am delighted that certain roads in London which were a nightmare for cyclists previously are being taken back by vehicular cyclists as our volumes increase. I just think that it would be quite jolly if this process could be helped by transport planners - whether that is helping vehicular cyclists by taming the roads, or by providing top quality infrastructure where this would allow cyclists to take advantage of the superb permeability of their transport.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Think "integrated segregated cycle system" and you're there. The Maple Street route is part of a route which emanates from Clipstone Street. And the road configuration means that a right-hand-side route is essential.

Not sure how this works.

There is no cycle lane on Clipstone Street. And thus there is no reason why cyclists entering Maple Street from Clipstone Street should not stay to the left.

Can you explain what you mean?

 

[dellzeqq]

How about a concrete example?

Here's an arterial road in Waltham Forest that is having two metres of road and pavement space reallocated.

For parking.

Cost - £450,000.

1. Arterial Road? That? Be sensible.
2. Parking doesn't have to be continuous
3. So you'd spend £450,000 of other people's money for a bit of cycle path on one side of a suburban street? Apart from the fact that it's a waste - scale it up. We're talking hundreds of millions, billions even.
4. Show us the drawing