Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Palace of Westminster docking station
Peers are to get a Cycle Hire docking station, reported in the Standard. That should take some pressure off the Smith Square dock which is saturated much of the time.
The Strand
The Strand is a good example of how TfL and Westminster Council have failed to manage the roads effectively.
Above is what The Strand looks like most days. It's nose-to-tail going west, but virtually deserted going east. For cyclists, the narrow lanes and central reservation make it impossible to get around the westbound congestion. Today I saw 4 cyclists, including 2 on hire bikes, pushing their mounts along the pavement:
I also occasionally see cyclists cycling along the top of the central reservation.
The canny cyclist might think of taking a detour to avoid The Strand. For example, take a left down Savoy St, along Savoy Place and up Lower Robert Street. But that's not possible, because Lower Robert Street is a one way rat-run:
Alternatively, the crafty biker might take a left at Adam St and go along John Adam St. But again, their way is barred by a no-entry (below). What's interesting is that the road was recently resurfaced and re-marked, which would have been the ideal opportunity to introduce a contraflow for cyclists.
Similar problems exist to the north of The Strand. Maiden Lane is one-way eastbound, and Bedford Street is one-way southbound. So it's impossible for cyclists to avoid the congestion without a lengthy detour.
Why is the road layout the way it is? Because it is totally car-centric. It is designed to stop motors from avoiding The Strand by 'rat-running'. But TfL/Westminster provide no means for cyclists to avoid the maze of one-way restrictions. It's the opposite of permeability.
It's very difficult to see whose interest this serves. If it wasn't so difficult and dangerous to ride legally between Aldwych and Trafalgar Square, more people might do so, and this could reduce road congestion and demand on public transport. Instead of which we have a massively congested section of road, and a number of other sections which are below capacity but cyclists are prevented from using.
Westminster Council's website claims: "The City Council supports and develops measures and initiatives that aim to encourage cycling." Really? Like what? Westminster do close to nothing to encourage cycling. There are fewer cycle facilities here than anywhere else in London - despite the fact that Westminster is the destination for many cycle commuter journeys and the 'hub' of the cycle hire scheme.
I also occasionally see cyclists cycling along the top of the central reservation.
The canny cyclist might think of taking a detour to avoid The Strand. For example, take a left down Savoy St, along Savoy Place and up Lower Robert Street. But that's not possible, because Lower Robert Street is a one way rat-run:
Similar problems exist to the north of The Strand. Maiden Lane is one-way eastbound, and Bedford Street is one-way southbound. So it's impossible for cyclists to avoid the congestion without a lengthy detour.
Why is the road layout the way it is? Because it is totally car-centric. It is designed to stop motors from avoiding The Strand by 'rat-running'. But TfL/Westminster provide no means for cyclists to avoid the maze of one-way restrictions. It's the opposite of permeability.
It's very difficult to see whose interest this serves. If it wasn't so difficult and dangerous to ride legally between Aldwych and Trafalgar Square, more people might do so, and this could reduce road congestion and demand on public transport. Instead of which we have a massively congested section of road, and a number of other sections which are below capacity but cyclists are prevented from using.
Westminster Council's website claims: "The City Council supports and develops measures and initiatives that aim to encourage cycling." Really? Like what? Westminster do close to nothing to encourage cycling. There are fewer cycle facilities here than anywhere else in London - despite the fact that Westminster is the destination for many cycle commuter journeys and the 'hub' of the cycle hire scheme.
Air Cargo
The media spotlight has been on air cargo in the last few days, due to the interception of a terrorist bomb in transit from Yemen.
As you'd expect from the 'professional' media, there has rather impoverished analysis of the surrounding issues: which is why you need to come here.
Unlike passenger baggage, air freight isn't routinely scanned. However, upwards of 70% of freight is carried as 'belly freight' on passenger aircraft, according to a report for the Commission for Integrated Transport.In other words, there's a big security hole that could put passenger flights at risk.
While air freight is not the most significant contributor to total carbon emissions, transporting goods by air is an order of magnitude more intensive than other transport modes, using the DEFRA methodology. Yet the amount of air cargo is increasing.
The airline industry are understandably reluctant to do anything about increasing scrutiny of cargo, as it will put their costs up. However, it's about time the cost of air freight bore more relation to its relative carbon emissions.
The actions of terrorists are despicable and cannot be condoned. But in recent years, the number of people killed in terrorist activities in the West has not been very significant. In contrast a lot of people will die in the future as a result of the effects of climate change. It's a curious paradox that if the activities of terrorists act as a brake on the expansion of the airline industry, that could result in a net saving of lives.
As you'd expect from the 'professional' media, there has rather impoverished analysis of the surrounding issues: which is why you need to come here.
Unlike passenger baggage, air freight isn't routinely scanned. However, upwards of 70% of freight is carried as 'belly freight' on passenger aircraft, according to a report for the Commission for Integrated Transport.In other words, there's a big security hole that could put passenger flights at risk.
While air freight is not the most significant contributor to total carbon emissions, transporting goods by air is an order of magnitude more intensive than other transport modes, using the DEFRA methodology. Yet the amount of air cargo is increasing.
The airline industry are understandably reluctant to do anything about increasing scrutiny of cargo, as it will put their costs up. However, it's about time the cost of air freight bore more relation to its relative carbon emissions.
The actions of terrorists are despicable and cannot be condoned. But in recent years, the number of people killed in terrorist activities in the West has not been very significant. In contrast a lot of people will die in the future as a result of the effects of climate change. It's a curious paradox that if the activities of terrorists act as a brake on the expansion of the airline industry, that could result in a net saving of lives.
NHS - Prevention and Cure
The Coalition has pledged to give the NHS a real-terms increase in funding, but the delivery against that pledge falls some way short of what's necessary to meet the public's expectation of a good health service. The increase in funding is only 0.1% above inflation each year for four years. Woopee-doo. Over that period, the NHS must pay for a massive reorganization as well as deal with an ageing population and a rising birthrate.
Unlike most sectors, the development of new technologies increases treatment costs rather than reduces them.
Compounding these pressures on the health service is the increasingly sedentary UK lifestyle, leading to increased levels of obesity and lack of excercise with its plethora of related diseases.
Preventing disease is a lot better (and cheaper) than curing it. You would hope the Government would be keen to do something about obesity, given it can't do much about the cost of medical technology, the rising birthrate or the numbers of elderly people (except by cutting winter heating allowance).
But instead, as part of the "Festival of Cuts" it is abolishing the agencies that could make the nation healthier. Cycling England is being axed, as are local authority budgets. Free swimming is one of the first things to go. Other leisure services will likely be next in line. Cycling funding has been merged with other budgets, which will enable local authorities to spend nothing at all on cycling. Local authorities are not responsible for the nation's health, so why would they spend money combating obesity when their core functions are under extreme budgetary pressure?
It's beginning to become clear how the coalition's policies are going to affect the nation's health. On the one hand, the health budget is being restricted given the increasing demands on it, and on the other hand, the budgets for sport, keeping fit and active travel are being reduced. In addition, reduced spending on road safety and the removal of speed cameras will have predictable effects on road casualties.
This is not a health policy. It's negligence.
Unlike most sectors, the development of new technologies increases treatment costs rather than reduces them.
Compounding these pressures on the health service is the increasingly sedentary UK lifestyle, leading to increased levels of obesity and lack of excercise with its plethora of related diseases.
Preventing disease is a lot better (and cheaper) than curing it. You would hope the Government would be keen to do something about obesity, given it can't do much about the cost of medical technology, the rising birthrate or the numbers of elderly people (except by cutting winter heating allowance).
But instead, as part of the "Festival of Cuts" it is abolishing the agencies that could make the nation healthier. Cycling England is being axed, as are local authority budgets. Free swimming is one of the first things to go. Other leisure services will likely be next in line. Cycling funding has been merged with other budgets, which will enable local authorities to spend nothing at all on cycling. Local authorities are not responsible for the nation's health, so why would they spend money combating obesity when their core functions are under extreme budgetary pressure?
It's beginning to become clear how the coalition's policies are going to affect the nation's health. On the one hand, the health budget is being restricted given the increasing demands on it, and on the other hand, the budgets for sport, keeping fit and active travel are being reduced. In addition, reduced spending on road safety and the removal of speed cameras will have predictable effects on road casualties.
This is not a health policy. It's negligence.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Norman Baker Says Something!
Speaking at the Fleet News Green Summit, Norman Baker, minister for stuff Philip Hammond can't be bothered with, said "I want companies to offer their employees bikes for short journeys." Wow. The takeup of this offer might be less than enthusiastic given the government's total lack of commitment to providing safe cycling infrastructure.
“I want to work with fleets to reduce travel," said Baker. "We must reduce unnecessary travel." This is surely heresy, as it implies that not all journeys are necessary. Someone should tell Transport for London about these unnecessary journeys, so they can immediately reallocate some roadspace to cycling.
“I want to work with fleets to reduce travel," said Baker. "We must reduce unnecessary travel." This is surely heresy, as it implies that not all journeys are necessary. Someone should tell Transport for London about these unnecessary journeys, so they can immediately reallocate some roadspace to cycling.
National Infrastructure Plan
The Coalition has published a plan that "sets out the Government’s vision for major infrastructure investment in the UK".
Among other items, it addresses "transforming energy and transport systems to deliver a low carbon economy".
However, it doesn't us the C-word once. Cycling! There - I said it! The nearest the document comes to using the dreaded C-word is
"...introduce a new Local Sustainable Transport Fund, to encourage local schemes
which will change behaviour and encourage more sustainable travel, especially for
short journeys"
This is toe-curlingly coy and euphamistic. What it should say, in plain English is:
"...introduce a new Local Sustainable Transport Fund, to encourage local schemes
which will change motoring behaviour and encourage more cycling, walking and public transport, especially for short journeys"
Trouble is, localism doesn't work in this context. Local councillors know that people don't want the council forcing them to change their motoring behaviour. That's a sure-fire vote loser. Councils will be trying to divert as much money as possible from their current spend on "sustainable transport" into the core areas that get them votes, being road maintenance, parking, rubbish collection and education. The void will be filled by the "Local Sustainable Transport Fund." As a result, it seems likely that overall spend on "sustainable transport" will go down. The Coalition will be able to wave their hands and say "it's not our fault - it's a local decision".
Instead of trying to reduce car use, the Government continue to be fixated on the unattainable and very expensive solution of "decarbonisation of the car fleet" by "providing support for electric and other ultra-low emission vehicles". This is where the numbers don't add up. You cannot decarbonise through a substantial shift to electric cars without having supporting renewable generating capacity. It makes far more sense to eliminate car miles, or replace car miles with cycle miles or public transport miles. But you cannot do that while pretending that every journey is necessary. The Coalition need to face up to the fact that current levels of motoring are only possible because the energy price is linked to a plentiful supply of cheap oil.. We need to decarbonise transport, but the most economical way to do this is to reduce total transport miles. We know that many car journeys are easily cyclable, and increasing cycle use would be a lot cheaper than subsidising electric car purchase to the tune of £5000 a pop and building sufficient additional renewable generating capacity to power the cars.
Among other items, it addresses "transforming energy and transport systems to deliver a low carbon economy".
However, it doesn't us the C-word once. Cycling! There - I said it! The nearest the document comes to using the dreaded C-word is
"...introduce a new Local Sustainable Transport Fund, to encourage local schemes
which will change behaviour and encourage more sustainable travel, especially for
short journeys"
This is toe-curlingly coy and euphamistic. What it should say, in plain English is:
"...introduce a new Local Sustainable Transport Fund, to encourage local schemes
which will change motoring behaviour and encourage more cycling, walking and public transport, especially for short journeys"
Trouble is, localism doesn't work in this context. Local councillors know that people don't want the council forcing them to change their motoring behaviour. That's a sure-fire vote loser. Councils will be trying to divert as much money as possible from their current spend on "sustainable transport" into the core areas that get them votes, being road maintenance, parking, rubbish collection and education. The void will be filled by the "Local Sustainable Transport Fund." As a result, it seems likely that overall spend on "sustainable transport" will go down. The Coalition will be able to wave their hands and say "it's not our fault - it's a local decision".
Instead of trying to reduce car use, the Government continue to be fixated on the unattainable and very expensive solution of "decarbonisation of the car fleet" by "providing support for electric and other ultra-low emission vehicles". This is where the numbers don't add up. You cannot decarbonise through a substantial shift to electric cars without having supporting renewable generating capacity. It makes far more sense to eliminate car miles, or replace car miles with cycle miles or public transport miles. But you cannot do that while pretending that every journey is necessary. The Coalition need to face up to the fact that current levels of motoring are only possible because the energy price is linked to a plentiful supply of cheap oil.. We need to decarbonise transport, but the most economical way to do this is to reduce total transport miles. We know that many car journeys are easily cyclable, and increasing cycle use would be a lot cheaper than subsidising electric car purchase to the tune of £5000 a pop and building sufficient additional renewable generating capacity to power the cars.
Parking in Cycle Superhighways: the Official View
Val Shawcross recently asked the following question of the Mayor of London:
Cycle Superhighways
Question No: 3295 / 2010
Valerie Shawcross
A Stockwell resident recently wrote to the South London Press to complain that ‘hundreds and thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money’ has been spent on a Cycle Superhighway that ‘cyclists cannot use because it is full of parked cars and coaches. The cyclist has to ride in the centre of the road to avoid the parked cars, which surely defeats the purpose of the bike superhighway’. What advice do you have for cyclists and drivers on this matter?
Answer from the Mayor
Whilst promoting cycling, TfL has a legal duty as a Highway Authority to provide for the movement of people and goods. This means striking a carefully planned balance between the needs of all road users.
Barclays Cycle Superhighway 7 (Merton to the City) is marketed for cycle commuters, and is predominantly on TLRN red routes. This means that the cycle route is largely free of parked vehicles at the times that the vast majority of cycle commuters use it (0700-1000hrs and 1600-1900hrs). At other times, TfL allows short term parking and loading which is essential for local businesses and residents.
Let's look at this with a critical eye. "TfL allows short term parking and loading" for the most part is a lie. Most of the bays are restricted to loading for up to 20 mins between 10am and 4PM, but there are generally no restrictions on the length of stay after 7PM. "Essential for local businesses" ? Take a look at this bay, in Tooting:
This is outside a pub. It's just after a light-controlled junction (Longley Road) - exactly where cars will be trying to overtake cyclists; exactly where a parked van will cause most danger. There is a side road on the left where loading could take place equally easily.
I suggest that most loading will take place in business hours i.e. before 7PM. Why is parking "essential" between 10am and 4pm but not at other times? While genuine loading might be classed as essential, I would be willing to bet most parking in the CSH could not be classified as such. "Essential for residents" ? Genuine local residents are not going to park their cars in the CSH due to the need to move it by 7am. Is it essential for visitors to park on the CSH itself? That would be stretching the definition of "essential". Of course, if London had better cycle infrastructure, more people would cycle and there would be less demand for parking.
I wonder what TfL's definition of "essential" is? I wonder if they own a dictionary? Is the safety of cyclists essential? Clearly not to TfL, given my example above. I suggest that cyclists are especially in need of the safety of cycle lanes after dark. It may be true that the majority of commuter cyclists use the CSH during the stated hours, but there is still significant cycle traffic after 7PM and the safety needs of cylists if anything increase after 7PM.
"Striking a carefully planned balance between the needs of all road users" is pure sophistry. The parking and loading restrictions for the most part haven't changed since CSH7 was put in. Given that the goal of the CSH was to "provide cyclists with safer, faster and more direct journeys" and to generate more cycle journeys, you would expect the balance, previously weighted heavily towards motor traffic, to have changed in favour of the safety of cyclists. It has not.
Cycle Superhighways
Question No: 3295 / 2010
Valerie Shawcross
A Stockwell resident recently wrote to the South London Press to complain that ‘hundreds and thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money’ has been spent on a Cycle Superhighway that ‘cyclists cannot use because it is full of parked cars and coaches. The cyclist has to ride in the centre of the road to avoid the parked cars, which surely defeats the purpose of the bike superhighway’. What advice do you have for cyclists and drivers on this matter?
Answer from the Mayor
Whilst promoting cycling, TfL has a legal duty as a Highway Authority to provide for the movement of people and goods. This means striking a carefully planned balance between the needs of all road users.
Barclays Cycle Superhighway 7 (Merton to the City) is marketed for cycle commuters, and is predominantly on TLRN red routes. This means that the cycle route is largely free of parked vehicles at the times that the vast majority of cycle commuters use it (0700-1000hrs and 1600-1900hrs). At other times, TfL allows short term parking and loading which is essential for local businesses and residents.
Let's look at this with a critical eye. "TfL allows short term parking and loading" for the most part is a lie. Most of the bays are restricted to loading for up to 20 mins between 10am and 4PM, but there are generally no restrictions on the length of stay after 7PM. "Essential for local businesses" ? Take a look at this bay, in Tooting:
I suggest that most loading will take place in business hours i.e. before 7PM. Why is parking "essential" between 10am and 4pm but not at other times? While genuine loading might be classed as essential, I would be willing to bet most parking in the CSH could not be classified as such. "Essential for residents" ? Genuine local residents are not going to park their cars in the CSH due to the need to move it by 7am. Is it essential for visitors to park on the CSH itself? That would be stretching the definition of "essential". Of course, if London had better cycle infrastructure, more people would cycle and there would be less demand for parking.
I wonder what TfL's definition of "essential" is? I wonder if they own a dictionary? Is the safety of cyclists essential? Clearly not to TfL, given my example above. I suggest that cyclists are especially in need of the safety of cycle lanes after dark. It may be true that the majority of commuter cyclists use the CSH during the stated hours, but there is still significant cycle traffic after 7PM and the safety needs of cylists if anything increase after 7PM.
"Striking a carefully planned balance between the needs of all road users" is pure sophistry. The parking and loading restrictions for the most part haven't changed since CSH7 was put in. Given that the goal of the CSH was to "provide cyclists with safer, faster and more direct journeys" and to generate more cycle journeys, you would expect the balance, previously weighted heavily towards motor traffic, to have changed in favour of the safety of cyclists. It has not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)