London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[gaz]

The results are out. I've had a quick read but I've seen nothing meaningful so far.

http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/pedal-power

 

[dellzeqq]

60 per cent of respondents did not feel safer using the cycle superhighways and two-thirds did not feel they were respected by other road users. Greater consistency in the measures along the route would help this situation, such as a uniform width, improvements to junctions and 20 mph speed limits on busy sections.

I’m not arguing with the results of the Committees research, but it is surprising. CS7 is a bit of a mixed bag, but it has made motorists just that little bit more wary – especially about entering from the left


In the first few months, TfL has reported a 25 per cent increase in cycle trips on the two pilot cycle superhighways (Merton to the City – CS7 and Barking to Tower Gateway – CS3). These are being used by 5,000 cyclists per day.23 TfL believes that it is reasonable to conclude, at this stage, that this increase is not due to cyclists diverting from parallel routes.

I just don’t believe this. I’d like to believe it, but I wonder what periods they’re referring to. CS7 opened in July.

The 12 cycle superhighways are expected to cost £166 million.

That’s a lorra, lorra cash.

The London Boroughs of Southwark and Merton have commented on a lack of engagement from TfL. They wanted more time provided to develop better routes. London Councils has highlighted TfL’s commitment in the City Charter to work with London Boroughs to learn lessons from the pilot routes before implementing future cycle superhighways.

Southwark have a point - the route to the west of Elephant and Castle is poor, and the junction with London Road is worse than poor

TfL is seeking to deliver 66,000 new cycle parking spaces by 2012.105 This is welcome but it may not be enough.

Blimey!

TfL told the Committee that it was sometimes “between a rock and a hard place” in terms of the highway options for the pilot routes. If it proved that it had chosen any measures incorrectly or that the traffic was not doing what was anticipated, it could revisit these routes. David Brown of TfL said “if there is something that we have got to look at again we will look at it again. I do not have any problems about that”

Bollocks. He was prevented from making sense of the Elephant and Castle by Johnson, and you don’t have to be Ms TraffiGeniusPerson to work out that the design CS7 Northbound at Stockwell is crap, and was always going to be crap, and that a two-way system would have been way, way better. As for the junction at the Oval - well that was always going to take more courage than TfL and Johnson were ever going to muster.

Now on to the bike hire.....

The costs and funding arrangements for the cycle hire scheme remain opaque. TfL has not told the Committee how much Barclays has paid to date for its branding of the scheme. The argument that all details of the relationships between TfL and Serco and Barclays are confidential is not a compelling one. The details of these deals determine how much of the costs of the scheme have to be met from farepayers at a time of huge pressure on TfL’s finances. It is in the public interest for these details to be made available to the Committee. This would be in line with the Mayor’s commitment to transparency about public expenditure.

It’s odd that the Barclays contribution is a secret. My guess is that it isn’t a great amount.

The Mayor has already announced that the scheme will be expanded eastward by 2012 but the rationale for this expansion is not clear. The proposal provides for an additional 2,000 bikes and 4,200 docking points, of which 1,500 will be in the existing area. It is not apparent how lessons are being learned from the current scheme and applied, including in relation to the location of more docking points in the existing area.

Many organisations have made suggestions for other improvements to the cycle hire scheme. A frequent suggestion is linking the scheme to Oystercard. This seems unlikely to happen. TfL has said that it would be expensive. It would also be out of step with its move to introduce contactless payment systems.

The Committee would like to see a greater consistency in the features on future cycle superhighway routes so they are safer for cyclists. The Mayor and TfL could establish a minimum level of features which should be introduced. This could include:

· all the blue cycle lanes will be 2 metres wide and mandatory;
· all the advance stop lines will be 5 metres deep;
· all parts of the routes which are one-way will be made two-way for cyclists;
· all junctions on each route will be improved;
· 20 mph speed limits will be introduced for all busy sections; and
· there will be an MPS Cycle Task Force enforcement campaign for each cycle superhighway when launched.


By contrast, the Committee has found far less enthusiasm from new cyclists for the cycle superhighways. Many are concerned about safety and a lack of respect from other road users when using the cycle superhighways.

The conclusion is that the Bike scheme is costing and is going to cost a lot more...........

 

[mark barker]

60 per cent of respondents did not feel safer using the cycle superhighways and two-thirds did not feel they were respected by other road users.

Total off topic, but that is real pet hate of mine, 60 per cent and two-thirds used in the same sentence.... Arghhh! Who wrote that report? (can't click on the link, not able to open page for some reason)

 

[sheddy]

Freewheeler had a nice write up today http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/

 

[dellzeqq]

I think in reading the London Assembly Transport Committee's report, we must bear in mind who is on the committee and who the chair/deputy chair are.

Unfortunately, as with a lot of things within the London Assembly, the work of this committee tends to fall victim sometimes to party politics (from all parties, I hasten to add).

I rate Val Shawcross very highly, and she'll know portions of CS7 very well. And, to be fair, CS7 is a bit hit and hope, not to say hit and miss, and big questions were shirked at Stockwell, Oval and the Elephant.

I don't think it's a partisan report. There's criticism over the Barclays deal, but that's entirely warranted. The big point they make is that the potential for the Bike Hire scheme is vast - but that you have to work out how much it's going to cost.

 

[dellzeqq]

Freewheeler had a nice write up today http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/

it's not is it. The man is a ****ing meanspirited moron.

(Who has stolen my words and used them out of context without having the decency to ask. ****.)

 

[jonesy]

Hmm. Quite a rant. And not a very helpful one either. While there may be legitimate concerns about both hire bikes and CSH, there are very positive aspects to them as well. It is still early days yet for the Boris bikes, so to be slagging them off on the basis of limited modal shift from car is silly. It also misses the point about the role of cycling in TfL's transport strategy, which is to help take the pressure off public transport by taking up shorter trips to as to free up capacity for longer trips, the latter being more likely to shift from car. Despite a lot of negative coverage before the scheme launched, with lots of people seeming to want it to fail, it has since generated a lot of positive coverage of cycling, in particular with pictures of normal looking people riding bikes in normal office clothing. The cost is minuscule compared with building new public transport infrastructure.

While there are a lot more legitimate worries about the CSH, to my mind they represent a great step in establishing the principle that cycle routes need to be fast and direct and therefore to follow the main road corridors. Sending cyclists on illegible fractal routes round the back-streets, onto pavements and on gravelly tow-paths hasn't worked, so at least the CSH are defining the corridors and will hopefully focus future efforts onto improving those routes.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think one small disappointment is that the report doesn't really say anything much about the effect on the street. I appreciate that the people who planned CS7 didn't really have much of an ambition beyond the blue paint, but in the Days of Ken TfL were eloquent about the positive effect of cycling on the streets.

So much priority is given to buses and bikes from Clapham North down to Merton that you could say that the main road to Dorking is really no more - no sensible person would drive a car from one end of the other during commuting hours. Vehicle speeds have dropped, and bicycle and bus speeds have increased. I think that pedestrian use and confidence has increased as well, although I've no data to support that. If that were the case then, just as bus lanes gave the most extraordinary lift to cycling, the greatest and most beneficial effect of CSHs might be to aid the recovery of high streets, (which makes the chickening out at Stockwell and Elephant even more sad)

I agree entirely with Jonesy on the establishing of direct routes, although CS7 is really just affirming the choice of the bomb-dodger generation of cyclists. CS12 and CS2 (due to open next year, and up and running for the Olympics) are much the same, but CS2 funks the Bow Flyover, and stops short of Stratford, which rather calls the point of the thing in to question.

The big test will be the CS9. CS10, and CS11 from Hounslow, Park Royal, and Hendon, due open in 2015. These major arteries are not used by anything like as many cyclists as the CS7 roads, and you can only respect TfL's endeavour.

Personally I'd love to see one run in from Harrow along the A404, which is a miserable road in so many ways. I reckon that, just as Clapham High Street has benefited from CS7, bits of Harlesden and Wembley would be lifted by the blue paint treatment.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

It is still early days yet for the Boris bikes, so to be slagging them off on the basis of limited modal shift from car is silly.

Silly? Why? I think it is quite important that we see a large shift away from the motor vehicle as a means of urban transport. It's all very well shuffling people from public transport to bikes, but - at least as far as buses are concerned - the volume of motor traffic has a significant impact on journey times. We need to see the use of the car seem unattractive, compared to other modes of urban conveyance - be it walking and cycling, or public transport.

As it happens, the Boris Bike scheme has failed to get anywhere close to its modest target of shifting people from cars to bikes. Less than 1% of Boris Bike users have switched from cars for their journeys, compared to a target of 5%. Granted, the scheme also aims to take pressure off public transport - but this is, in isolation, a pretty miserable statistic.

While there are a lot more legitimate worries about the CSH, to my mind they represent a great step in establishing the principle that cycle routes need to be fast and direct and therefore to follow the main road corridors. Sending cyclists on illegible fractal routes round the back-streets, onto pavements and on gravelly tow-paths hasn't worked, so at least the CSH are defining the corridors and will hopefully focus future efforts onto improving those routes.

This is the key point. Improving the routes. If people feel safer, we will see people who have never used a bike before (and this is what it is all about) switching from cars.

The nature of the routes so far, and the general hostility of TfL to measures which might impede the flow of motor vehicles, does not fill me with confidence.

Still, we'll see.

 

[jonesy]

Silly? Why? I think it is quite important that we see a large shift away from the motor vehicle as a means of urban transport. It's all very well shuffling people from public transport to bikes, but - at least as far as buses are concerned - the volume of motor traffic has a significant impact on journey times. We need to see the use of the car seem unattractive, compared to other modes of urban conveyance - be it walking and cycling, or public transport.

As it happens, the Boris Bike scheme has failed to get anywhere close to its modest target of shifting people from cars to bikes. Less than 1% of Boris Bike users have switched from cars for their journeys, compared to a target of 5%. Granted, the scheme also aims to take pressure off public transport - but this is, in isolation, a pretty miserable statistic.

...

I agree, but you missed the point. By helping free up capacity on public transport further modal shift from cars is encouraged. And it is early days! It hasn't even been in operation for a full year yet, and still on a restricted set of users. You'd never expect to have any meaningful evaluation of the modal impacts of a transport scheme so soon after its introduction, even if it were fully implemented.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I agree, but you missed the point. By helping free up capacity on public transport further modal shift from cars is encouraged. And it is early days! It hasn't even been in operation for a full year yet, and still on a restricted set of users. You'd never expect to have any meaningful evaluation of the modal impacts of a transport scheme so soon after its introduction, even if it were fully implemented.

Fair enough.

Do you know when the next assessment is going to take place? I am sceptical that there will be a significant change, but like I said - we'll see.

 

[dellzeqq]

Silly? Why? I think it is quite important that we see a large shift away from the motor vehicle as a means of urban transport. It's all very well shuffling people from public transport to bikes, but - at least as far as buses are concerned - the volume of motor traffic has a significant impact on journey times. We need to see the use of the car seem unattractive, compared to other modes of urban conveyance - be it walking and cycling, or public transport.

As it happens, the Boris Bike scheme has failed to get anywhere close to its modest target of shifting people from cars to bikes. Less than 1% of Boris Bike users have switched from cars for their journeys, compared to a target of 5%. Granted, the scheme also aims to take pressure off public transport - but this is, in isolation, a pretty miserable statistic.

This is the key point. Improving the routes. If people feel safer, we will see people who have never used a bike before (and this is what it is all about) switching from cars.

The nature of the routes so far, and the general hostility of TfL to measures which might impede the flow of motor vehicles, does not fill me with confidence.

Still, we'll see.

I imagine that not you're familiar with the zone in which the hire bikes operate. The private car is very much a minority thing - there are already streets, and some fairly major roads in which bikes outnumber cars. The bulk of motorised traffic is commercial. In isolation it's not so much a miserable statistic as an irrelevant one. And the report makes clear that people who have never cycled in London before are using the hire bikes.

To go back to WalthamForestCrapBlogger - he would rather have seen the same amount of money spent on cycle lanes. This is so silly it beggars belief. You will not get cycle lanes in to the tight street pattern of zone 1, not for any money and certainly not for anything like the money that was spent on the hire bike scheme. The Cable Street route was less than a mile long and cost over a million quid - and that's on an out-of-the way street two miles from the City. Even if it were possible, or even desirable to put a bike lane down (say) the Strand and Fleet Street (and it's neither) it would cost getting on for fifteen million and afford pedestrians and cyclists, commercial vehicle users, taxis and buses the most almighty disruption for months on end. And all to make the lives of pedestrians that much more complicated.

What shines out of the report is that the committee believes that if the costs can be contained the potential for the scheme is vast. Bear in mind that TfL have not sited big racks at railway stations and the payment system has yet to be ironed out.

I've got to defend TfL on the routes, at least on CS7. They had to do the first two in a rush. Elephant and Castle was, in effect, denied them. Oval is pretty intractable. I think they took the cheap easy and stupid option at Stockwell, but if David Brown is prepared to reconsider junctions perhaps that one will be improved. TfL's record over the past ten years demonstrates that they are perfectly willing to disadvantage the car - the majority of major routes going from Zones 3 and 2 to Zone 1 demonstrates this. TfL is a highly political organisation that bans internal discussion of certain subjects, and David Brown is not a man blessed with imagination, but you cannot deny that there are many intelligent people working in TfL with a real desire to make London a walking and cycling city.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I haven't got much time to respond to your comment - back to work soon - but I am interested by this comment -

Even if it were possible, or even desirable to put a bike lane down (say) the Strand and Fleet Street (and it's neither) it would cost getting on for fifteen million and afford pedestrians and cyclists, commercial vehicle users, taxis and buses the most almighty disruption for months on end. And all to make the lives of pedestrians that much more complicated.

Are you saying it is not possible to put a bike lane down on Fleet Street?

 

[CopperBrompton]

The cost is minuscule compared with building new public transport infrastructure.

Indeed: somebody on the Boris Bikes forum calculated that the cost of Crossrail would pay for 1 million Boris Bikes.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Indeed: somebody on the Boris Bikes forum calculated that the cost of Crossrail would pay for 1 million Boris Bikes.

It would also pay for a lot of segregated bike lanes.

The relevant comparison for the cost of segregation is not with the Boris Bikes, but with the amount of money spent on other transport infrastructure projects.

The cost of removing the M4 bus lane is £400,000, for instance.

Pointlessly adding another lane to the M25 is costing £3.4 billion.

Money is pissed away all the time on road projects, and yet when miniscule amounts (by comparison) are spent on cycling infrastructure, we are expected to weep with gratitude.