Reported in the Standard, a survey for the London Assembly Transport Committee revealed that 60% of cyclists said they felt no safer on the superhighways than they did on ordinary roads.
Almost two thirds said the routes were not respected by motorists who regularly drove in them and parked in them
Just one per cent of cyclists said they started cycling specifically because of the superhighway scheme.
Hardly a ringing endorsement then, but all of this was totally predictable - and was widely predicted. Cyclists don't believe TfL's fairy story that you can just wave a blue paintbrush and magic away the danger. While there are some good people working at TfL who understand cycling, it's clear they don't have any significant influence, and the bad decisions to allow parking and even driving in the blue lanes, to not bother with junction treatments, to prioritize motor traffic at the expense of cycle safety, have show TfL to be an organization that cannot deliver cycling infrastructure. Cycling is not in TfL's DNA. It's time the Mayor set up a new organization with a direct reporting line and real clout to deliver the remaining superhighways, so that we don't waste taxpayers' on more of the same.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
New Wimbledon Railway Path
There have been some works on the railway path that runs on the north side of the main railway line from Wimbledon to Raynes Park.
It appears that this path is being widened to form a cycle path. About time too! This has been planned for twenty years. When complete, it should be the best thing Merton has done for cycling in, well, 20 years. It should give cyclists a more-or-less traffic free route from Wimbledon to Raynes Park, and onwards to the A3 along the existing Coombe Lane segregated cycle path. There'll still be a couple of irritations:
1. It'll be necessary to cross Lower Downs Road. Here, it would be perfectly possible to install a cycle-priority crossing. Given that motor traffic is single-alternate-line here, a crossing wouldn't significantly impact on traffic flow.
2. Raynes Park itself is still very compromised from a cyclist's perspective, with a mess of shared pavement and the odd 'dismount' sign, but with the Railway Path in place there'll be more incentive for the Council to fix it properly (in the unlikely event of any spare cash being found).
3. There needs to be a proper link between the Wimbledon Chase cycle path and the Railway Path. Currently the choice is to go over one of the pedestrian bridges, which means hauling your bike up a flight of steps, or Lower Downs Road, which is a busy road with no cycle facilities.
4. There need to be links up the hill to Wimbledon Common.
But it's progress, the like of which we've not seen for many years. At this rate, by 2200, we might have a decent cycle network in Merton.
It appears that this path is being widened to form a cycle path. About time too! This has been planned for twenty years. When complete, it should be the best thing Merton has done for cycling in, well, 20 years. It should give cyclists a more-or-less traffic free route from Wimbledon to Raynes Park, and onwards to the A3 along the existing Coombe Lane segregated cycle path. There'll still be a couple of irritations:
1. It'll be necessary to cross Lower Downs Road. Here, it would be perfectly possible to install a cycle-priority crossing. Given that motor traffic is single-alternate-line here, a crossing wouldn't significantly impact on traffic flow.
2. Raynes Park itself is still very compromised from a cyclist's perspective, with a mess of shared pavement and the odd 'dismount' sign, but with the Railway Path in place there'll be more incentive for the Council to fix it properly (in the unlikely event of any spare cash being found).
3. There needs to be a proper link between the Wimbledon Chase cycle path and the Railway Path. Currently the choice is to go over one of the pedestrian bridges, which means hauling your bike up a flight of steps, or Lower Downs Road, which is a busy road with no cycle facilities.
4. There need to be links up the hill to Wimbledon Common.
But it's progress, the like of which we've not seen for many years. At this rate, by 2200, we might have a decent cycle network in Merton.
Public Health
The Coalition will be publishing its long-awaited Public Health White Paper later this week.
It's expected to continue the theme of localism: in other words, palming the responsibility off onto local government.
Dr Frank Atherton, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, quoted on the BBC, said:
"It feels like we are coming home. Most public health directors are comfortable with being back in local government. This is where the power is to influence all those environment factors, such as housing, leisure and transport, lie and so the potential to really make a difference is definitely there."
The other trend expected to be in the White Paper is 'nudge': creating the right environment and encouraging people to make the right choices.
Getting people to make the right choices is the hard part however. Habits die hard. Large numbers of people, indeed large numbers of increasingly large people, continue to smoke and eat fatty foods despite previous public health campaigns. People don't want to stop eating chips or chocolate even though they know fine well the harm it's doing to them. But a lot of people do want to cycle. With cycling, the hard part of persuasion is already done: if you provide decent, safe cycle routes then people will cycle. In addition to the public health benefits, there's valuable contributions to reducing pollution and carbon emissions.
From a cycling perspective, it does make sense to have transport, the environment and public health under the same remit, as the benefits impact on all those spheres.
There are a couple of problems however. First is the lack of money. Without ring-fenced funds, will local authorities prioritize public health, and cycling in particular, above the local election 'hot buttons' of convenience of driving and parking, education and rubbish collection? Second, will they take the tough decisions that are necessary to establish a usable cycle route network? Third, an integrated cycle network has to cross borough boundaries. With boroughs like Westminster so anti-cycling, surrounding boroughs will be limited in what they can achieve.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is making some of the right noises. "We have got to arrive at a point where politicians stop just telling people how to be healthy but actually help them to do it, which is about positive steps on supporting people on things like physical activity as well as necessary interventions," he told the Today programme. However, cutting programmes such as cycling, school sports,and free swimming for children and the elderly are rather at odds with 'supporting physical activity.
We can't allow the Coalition to make noises about public health without actually delivering. Cycling is in many ways the easiest and cheapest way to get lots of people to increase their level of physical activity, because a lot of people want to do it and are only held back by fear of traffic. But it won't happen by magic and it won't happen without a change away from the failed approaches of the past. You can't grudging accommodate cyclists in narrow lanes in gravel-strewn gutters on busy roads and expect more people to cycle. You can't expect them to wobble around pedestrians on narrow shared pavements. You can't expect them to 'share the road' with multiple lanes of HGVs. You need to make cycling attractive and subjectively safe. You also can't expect local highways departments to change their lifelong habits of treating cyclists as an irritation rather than a transport mode, any more than you can expect a 20-stone smoker to suddenly become a triathlete. There are people in local government who 'get it', but the establishment for the most part is institutionally anti-cycling and car-centric, and without a serious culture makeover they won't be able to deliver. That's what the Public Health White Paper must to address if it is to succeed.
It's expected to continue the theme of localism: in other words, palming the responsibility off onto local government.
Dr Frank Atherton, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, quoted on the BBC, said:
"It feels like we are coming home. Most public health directors are comfortable with being back in local government. This is where the power is to influence all those environment factors, such as housing, leisure and transport, lie and so the potential to really make a difference is definitely there."
The other trend expected to be in the White Paper is 'nudge': creating the right environment and encouraging people to make the right choices.
Getting people to make the right choices is the hard part however. Habits die hard. Large numbers of people, indeed large numbers of increasingly large people, continue to smoke and eat fatty foods despite previous public health campaigns. People don't want to stop eating chips or chocolate even though they know fine well the harm it's doing to them. But a lot of people do want to cycle. With cycling, the hard part of persuasion is already done: if you provide decent, safe cycle routes then people will cycle. In addition to the public health benefits, there's valuable contributions to reducing pollution and carbon emissions.
From a cycling perspective, it does make sense to have transport, the environment and public health under the same remit, as the benefits impact on all those spheres.
There are a couple of problems however. First is the lack of money. Without ring-fenced funds, will local authorities prioritize public health, and cycling in particular, above the local election 'hot buttons' of convenience of driving and parking, education and rubbish collection? Second, will they take the tough decisions that are necessary to establish a usable cycle route network? Third, an integrated cycle network has to cross borough boundaries. With boroughs like Westminster so anti-cycling, surrounding boroughs will be limited in what they can achieve.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is making some of the right noises. "We have got to arrive at a point where politicians stop just telling people how to be healthy but actually help them to do it, which is about positive steps on supporting people on things like physical activity as well as necessary interventions," he told the Today programme. However, cutting programmes such as cycling, school sports,and free swimming for children and the elderly are rather at odds with 'supporting physical activity.
We can't allow the Coalition to make noises about public health without actually delivering. Cycling is in many ways the easiest and cheapest way to get lots of people to increase their level of physical activity, because a lot of people want to do it and are only held back by fear of traffic. But it won't happen by magic and it won't happen without a change away from the failed approaches of the past. You can't grudging accommodate cyclists in narrow lanes in gravel-strewn gutters on busy roads and expect more people to cycle. You can't expect them to wobble around pedestrians on narrow shared pavements. You can't expect them to 'share the road' with multiple lanes of HGVs. You need to make cycling attractive and subjectively safe. You also can't expect local highways departments to change their lifelong habits of treating cyclists as an irritation rather than a transport mode, any more than you can expect a 20-stone smoker to suddenly become a triathlete. There are people in local government who 'get it', but the establishment for the most part is institutionally anti-cycling and car-centric, and without a serious culture makeover they won't be able to deliver. That's what the Public Health White Paper must to address if it is to succeed.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Government Car Service - Parking Fines
You'll remember back in the early, optimistic days of the Coalition, Cameron insisted that Government ministers should ditch their chauffeurred limos and use the tube instead, in order to rebuild trust in politicians following the expenses scandal. Six months on, the Indie reports that the Government Car Service has run up record parking fines, which DOUBLED compared to the same period in the previous year.
A Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) spokesman said "security risks" were the reason for some of the tickets.
Maybe someone can explain how "security risks" have doubled in the space of a year. So much for rebuilding trust in politicians. (Funny how the GCDA didn't get abolished in the Bonfire of the Quangos).
A Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) spokesman said "security risks" were the reason for some of the tickets.
Maybe someone can explain how "security risks" have doubled in the space of a year. So much for rebuilding trust in politicians. (Funny how the GCDA didn't get abolished in the Bonfire of the Quangos).
Air Quality
The Government has published a Command Paper containing their response to the Environmental Audit Committee's (EAC) 'Air Quality' report. You can read it here.
Let's have a quick taste of the choicest morsels:
Transport policy must change dramatically if the UK is to meet future targets and reduce exposure to air pollution.
Yes, that seems pretty obvious really, but what this report doesn't say is that the change to transport policy must reduce car and motor vehicle use dramatically. Otherwise people will die. Unfortunately the Government are more concerned with preserving people's freedom to drive how and where they like than the health problems of a few wheezing whingers, or the climate problems of our great-grandchildren.
The Government must explain the role played by brake, tyre and road wear in generating particulate matter and research the impact of road surface particulate matter on air quality.
It's well-known that brake, tyre and road wear contributes a very significant amount of particulate matter. However the Government's policy of encouraging speeding by removing speed cameras ensures this problem will get worse: the faster you drive, the faster your brakes and tyres wear.
We are looking at all options for how to further reduce air pollution from transport. For example, on the 28 July, the Secretary of State for Transport confirmed that motorists will receive up to £5,000 towards the purchase of an ultra-low emission car from January 2011. The grant will reduce the up-front cost of eligible vehicles by 25 per cent, capped at £5,000, and will be open to both private and business buyers.
This will help reduce NOx and diesel particulate emissions over the long term (although it won't reduce tyre/road wear), but it's extremely expensive and unlikely to have much effect in the short term.
Much can be done at a local level to change patterns of behaviour and encourage more sustainable travel, and the Department for Transport recently announced important changes to local transport funding which will allow local authorities to set their own priorities, and challenge them to find ways to facilitate sustainable transport modes.
Yes, except there's plenty of evidence that some local authorities don't understand sustainable transport, don't care about it and regard it as a political liability. There seems to be very little to stop local authorities spending 'sustainable' money on bypasses or simply maintaining existing programs, given the savage budget cuts they have to make.
.
We expect local authorities to bring forward packages of measures that could address a number of key challenges, including tackling local air quality problems.
Exactly my point. You 'expect', but you're not making them do anything.
At local level a number of locations have been exploring the effectiveness of ‘Smarter Choices’ measures on behaviour change. Darlington, Peterborough and Worcester recently trialled targeted promotion of sustainable ways to travel to reduce reliance on the car. Overall in the towns involved, car trips decreased by up to 9% with significant increases in walking, cycling and bus use.
And this is exactly the kind of thing that will happen less, as you're lumping all funding together in one 'sustainable' fund which councils can pretty much spend how they like. To reduce pollution and carbon emissions you need to reduce motor journeys. It really is that simple. Yet the Government have axed Cycling England, which instigated the Darlington Cycling Demonstration Town project. Air pollution is part of a wider public health problem, to which cycling is potentially a solution, or it would be if the Government promoted it.
The NHS Carbon Reduction Strategy (for England) recognises that improved air quality is a benefit both for patients and the wider population and that active travel, such as more walking and cycling, leads to reduced health risks and improving air quality.
Exactly my point. It's not rocket science, so why aren't you doing it?
Let's have a quick taste of the choicest morsels:
Transport policy must change dramatically if the UK is to meet future targets and reduce exposure to air pollution.
Yes, that seems pretty obvious really, but what this report doesn't say is that the change to transport policy must reduce car and motor vehicle use dramatically. Otherwise people will die. Unfortunately the Government are more concerned with preserving people's freedom to drive how and where they like than the health problems of a few wheezing whingers, or the climate problems of our great-grandchildren.
The Government must explain the role played by brake, tyre and road wear in generating particulate matter and research the impact of road surface particulate matter on air quality.
It's well-known that brake, tyre and road wear contributes a very significant amount of particulate matter. However the Government's policy of encouraging speeding by removing speed cameras ensures this problem will get worse: the faster you drive, the faster your brakes and tyres wear.
We are looking at all options for how to further reduce air pollution from transport. For example, on the 28 July, the Secretary of State for Transport confirmed that motorists will receive up to £5,000 towards the purchase of an ultra-low emission car from January 2011. The grant will reduce the up-front cost of eligible vehicles by 25 per cent, capped at £5,000, and will be open to both private and business buyers.
This will help reduce NOx and diesel particulate emissions over the long term (although it won't reduce tyre/road wear), but it's extremely expensive and unlikely to have much effect in the short term.
Much can be done at a local level to change patterns of behaviour and encourage more sustainable travel, and the Department for Transport recently announced important changes to local transport funding which will allow local authorities to set their own priorities, and challenge them to find ways to facilitate sustainable transport modes.
Yes, except there's plenty of evidence that some local authorities don't understand sustainable transport, don't care about it and regard it as a political liability. There seems to be very little to stop local authorities spending 'sustainable' money on bypasses or simply maintaining existing programs, given the savage budget cuts they have to make.
.
We expect local authorities to bring forward packages of measures that could address a number of key challenges, including tackling local air quality problems.
Exactly my point. You 'expect', but you're not making them do anything.
At local level a number of locations have been exploring the effectiveness of ‘Smarter Choices’ measures on behaviour change. Darlington, Peterborough and Worcester recently trialled targeted promotion of sustainable ways to travel to reduce reliance on the car. Overall in the towns involved, car trips decreased by up to 9% with significant increases in walking, cycling and bus use.
And this is exactly the kind of thing that will happen less, as you're lumping all funding together in one 'sustainable' fund which councils can pretty much spend how they like. To reduce pollution and carbon emissions you need to reduce motor journeys. It really is that simple. Yet the Government have axed Cycling England, which instigated the Darlington Cycling Demonstration Town project. Air pollution is part of a wider public health problem, to which cycling is potentially a solution, or it would be if the Government promoted it.
The NHS Carbon Reduction Strategy (for England) recognises that improved air quality is a benefit both for patients and the wider population and that active travel, such as more walking and cycling, leads to reduced health risks and improving air quality.
Exactly my point. It's not rocket science, so why aren't you doing it?
Clapham Common - Saturation Policing
Over the past month or two, there've been a few visits of law enforcement officials to Clapham Common. It seems there have been a few complaints about cycling on the Common.
First of all, cycling on Clapham Common is legal, provided of course that you observe the usual rules of the road, give way if necessary where indicated and so on.
This morning, I thought I'd wandered into a student fees protest. There must have been a dozen officers on the Common. It was a rather comical sight, with all the commuters cycling ridiculously slowly. One of the officers stopped me - I had committed no offence by the way - and advised me of the fact that I needed to give way at the 'give way' line a few yards ahead. Fortunately, I have a reasonable acquaintance with the Highway Code, so I was already aware of this fact. The officer gave me a leaflet.
Further on, an officer was advising a dog walker whose dog had wandered on to the cycle path that 'if your dog was hit by a cyclist, it wouldn't be the cyclist's fault'. He didn't advise him that this could cause a serious accident (not in my hearing anyway).
At the other end or the path, an officer was helping a female cyclist fix a puncture. Nice touch.
I have no problem with the law being upheld. In fact, I support it, but it has to be done without fear or favour, in an even-handed and proportionate way. I don't see police in the 20MPH zones where speeding is endemic (ostensibly because they don't have the resources to enforce the speed limit). I don't see police advising motorists that they need to give way at a 'give way' line (try walking across a road junction in Merton and see if you don't get run down). I don't see police advising motorists in the Trafalgar Square Advanced Stop Line of its true purpose. I don't see police stopping motorists busting the red light at the toucan crossing in Plough Lane, or speeding along the Morden Road, or overtaking where there's traffic calming. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. So why do I see the highest concentration of police in a place where there's little lawbreaking of any consequence? I'm not aware of any serious incidents on the Common.
It is rather hard for cyclists not to detect any suggestion of bias in law enforcement if complaints from a small number of dog walkers and local busybodies attract more police than a Masonic Convention, whereas the daily intimidation, lawbreaking, serious injury and occasionally death that is meted out to cyclists attracts less response than a Greek Government bond issue.
First of all, cycling on Clapham Common is legal, provided of course that you observe the usual rules of the road, give way if necessary where indicated and so on.
This morning, I thought I'd wandered into a student fees protest. There must have been a dozen officers on the Common. It was a rather comical sight, with all the commuters cycling ridiculously slowly. One of the officers stopped me - I had committed no offence by the way - and advised me of the fact that I needed to give way at the 'give way' line a few yards ahead. Fortunately, I have a reasonable acquaintance with the Highway Code, so I was already aware of this fact. The officer gave me a leaflet.
Further on, an officer was advising a dog walker whose dog had wandered on to the cycle path that 'if your dog was hit by a cyclist, it wouldn't be the cyclist's fault'. He didn't advise him that this could cause a serious accident (not in my hearing anyway).
At the other end or the path, an officer was helping a female cyclist fix a puncture. Nice touch.
I have no problem with the law being upheld. In fact, I support it, but it has to be done without fear or favour, in an even-handed and proportionate way. I don't see police in the 20MPH zones where speeding is endemic (ostensibly because they don't have the resources to enforce the speed limit). I don't see police advising motorists that they need to give way at a 'give way' line (try walking across a road junction in Merton and see if you don't get run down). I don't see police advising motorists in the Trafalgar Square Advanced Stop Line of its true purpose. I don't see police stopping motorists busting the red light at the toucan crossing in Plough Lane, or speeding along the Morden Road, or overtaking where there's traffic calming. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. So why do I see the highest concentration of police in a place where there's little lawbreaking of any consequence? I'm not aware of any serious incidents on the Common.
It is rather hard for cyclists not to detect any suggestion of bias in law enforcement if complaints from a small number of dog walkers and local busybodies attract more police than a Masonic Convention, whereas the daily intimidation, lawbreaking, serious injury and occasionally death that is meted out to cyclists attracts less response than a Greek Government bond issue.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Narrow Street - Well-Behaved Cyclists
Surely some mistake. The residents of Narrow Street have kicked up a right old kerfuffle about the Comedy Cycle Superhighway going down their street with all the -er- noise, danger and disruption that will cause.
So the Mayor duly dispatched a crack police hit-squad to monitor the situation and here's what they found:
"As part of our investigation, traffic officers from the Metropolitan Police’s Cycle Task Force
were deployed to the area on 28th October, 1st and 2nd November during the morning rush hour.
Officers determined that cyclists along the route were adhering to road regulations, with no
evidence of speeding or cyclist/pedestrian conflict."
Funny how when it's cyclists clearly NOT breaking the law or causing intimidation, the police are down there before you can say "Territorial Support Group". Yet in the 20MPH zones in Merton where speeding is endemic, you're more likely to see a Siberian Tiger than a speed gun.
So the Mayor duly dispatched a crack police hit-squad to monitor the situation and here's what they found:
"As part of our investigation, traffic officers from the Metropolitan Police’s Cycle Task Force
were deployed to the area on 28th October, 1st and 2nd November during the morning rush hour.
Officers determined that cyclists along the route were adhering to road regulations, with no
evidence of speeding or cyclist/pedestrian conflict."
Funny how when it's cyclists clearly NOT breaking the law or causing intimidation, the police are down there before you can say "Territorial Support Group". Yet in the 20MPH zones in Merton where speeding is endemic, you're more likely to see a Siberian Tiger than a speed gun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)