It's good to know that TfL is not deaf to the comments of cyclists in respect of the CSH#5 plans. For those of you who didn't see the original plans, they were good in parts, and a lot better than the original quit-when-the-going-gets-tough approach taken by TfL on the original CSH#7 and CSH#8.
But they were still quite a way short of Continental best practice.
The response to the consultation shows a bit of movement in the right direction.
"The redesigned proposals for the central London – Oval section of the route will also contain a greater degree of full segregation."
Well that's good news, although we'll have to wait till later in 2013 to see exactly what this means. The key point is that a cycle route is only as good as its worst part. Having bits of full segregation is no use if it's punctuated regularly with dangerous junctions or loading bays.
"Improved shared crossing and extended footway opposite Meadow Road"
This is great news. Meadow Road is where the existing LCN#3 route crosses Harleyford Road, and a right dog's breakfast of a junction it is too. Going north, you have to emerge from the crowded pelican crossing and hope that a driver lets you into the right-hand lane. You then have to make an right turn unprotected by any traffic island or right-turn reservoir, where the sight-lines for drivers coming from in front of you and behind are impaired due the bends in the road. You're at real risk of a rear-end or head-on shunt here, and it's a miracle no-one's been killed here yet.
"Semi-segregation of New Cross Gate – Oval sections – during 2014"
The construction has now been planned into phases stretching from 2013 to end 2015. We'll have "semi-segregation" on this section, although exactly what that means even TfL don't know. They say it will involve "cats’ eyes, rumble strips, traffic wands or similar, or a combination thereof". Cats eyes? Traffic wands? It all sounds a bit Harry Potter doesn't it? Maybe the traffic will magically evaporate?
It all sounds a lot better than what we're used to, but the fact remains that even after these changes we're still left with only "semi-segregation" and "a greater degree of full segregation" on what will be the one of the newest and best cycle routes in London - the benchmark against which all the other crap can be measured. If you were a glass-half-empty kind of person, you might call it "partial semi-segregation". It's not Holland. It's more like standing in Felixstowe and dipping your toe in the North Sea.
Meanwhile, Andrew Gilligan, the Mayor's cycling champion has been writing in the Standard about how TfL are actually planning to enforce the advance stop line law. The only reason ASLs are necessary is because most junctions in London have been engineered in a seriously cycle-hostile way. Bikes should never be mixed up with multiple lanes of fast-moving traffic turning in different and conflicting directions. ASLs are a half-baked excuse for a solution to this problem. Getting to the advance-stop-box is usually a hit-or-miss business: often the approach lane is blocked by traffic, and of course there's always the chance of the lights changing before you get there, leaving you trying to filter between lanes of drivers, any one of which could be on a mobile phone, looking at a sat-nav, or reading the paper.
Ticketing drivers for encroaching on the stop-box might free up a few square metres of roadspace (and raise a handy couple of quid), but the fact is most junctions are broken by design, and in the majority of cases, motorists creeping over the ASL are the least of your problems.
Last piece of news. When the "London Cycling Awards" edition of London Cyclist dropped through my letterbox this month, I eagerly thumbed through to page 31 to find out which piece of Dutch-style infrastructure had won the "Best Borough Cycling Project". I had a feeling it wouldn't be Merton, because there is hardly an embarrassment of decent cycle engineering around here. I was right. The joint winners were -wait for it - Camden and the City of London, for converting one-way streets to two way. To give you an idea of how underwhelming that is, consider this. These are the best projects in London this year (in LCC's opinion at least). Three or four years ago I visited Brussels, and I noticed that almost all the one-way streets there have cycle-exceptions. Brussels is nowhere near the top of the European league in terms of cycling modal share or quality infrastructure. So in a couple of the most enlightened boroughs in London, we are starting to get to where low-achieving Brussels has been for some time.
Let's face facts. There's been a lot of talk about "going Dutch" recently, and while the car-centric tide may have turned, we still have a long way to go. The fact that two-way cycling, ASL enforcement and partial semi-segregation (sometime in 2014) are hailed as major achievements speaks volumes. If the goal is, in Andrew Gilligan's words, to "attract more women, older people, more slow cyclists and lower the overall testosterone level", then we just hit the corner flag.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Westminster Cycling Strategy?
The City of Westminster is working on a cycling strategy. This in itself is a step forward, because until very recently Westminster regarded cycling as an inconvenience to motorists rather than a transport mode. According to Westminster Cyclists, the election of Philippa Roe to lead Westminster Council, "marks a turning point in Westminster's transport policy".
Westminster is currently a pretty grim prospect for cycling. You're confronted with traffic-choked roads and an impermeable network of streets with lots of one-ways, no-entries and banned turns, very few of which have cyclist exceptions. It's not that there is nothing at all in Westminster for cyclists, (see here for Westminster Cyclists' list of good practice) but what little there is has been designed in a piecemeal and incoherent way. For example, Long Acre between Bow Street and Drury Lane has a contraflow lane, but Long Acre between Drury Lane and St Martins Lane is one-way with no contraflow or cycle exception, despite it having low traffic levels, as you can see in the following pic, taken on a weekday lunchtime:
Similarly St Martins Lane itself is one-way and has very little traffic going south from the Long Acre junction. It is plenty wide enough for a decent contraflow lane, but this fact has escaped Westminster's highways people. Again, a weekday lunchtime picture below illustrates the lack of traffic:
When I took this picture I actually saw two cyclists 'salmoning' up the street in the 'wrong' direction. No surprise when the alternative is the deeply hostile, traffic-choked Charing Cross Road.
The above pictures illustrate that while Westminster has made some effort to reduce the permeability of the road network for motor traffic, it hasn't been matched by a corresponding effort to increase the permeability for cycling. So the result is roads that were originally designed around cars, but are largely unused. Given that land in Westminster is more expensive than almost anywhere else in the world, this is a waste. The Tories are fond of pointing the finger at others for wasting public money. In this instance, they need to look in the mirror.
Anyways, back to the Strategy. There is some promising material in it:
Fear of injury is the most commonly cited barrier to cycling, particularly amongst non cyclists, and there are early indications that the number of cyclist casualties on Westminster's roads is set to rise (although to a lesser extent than the corresponding growth in cyclist numbers). The Council will therefore aim to deliver a range of improved routes... Dangerous junctions and sections of road will be improved and the Council will work with the Mayor to deliver his vision for a Central London Cycling Grid.
This is a good start. The acknowledgement that safety is a problem is really key.
Other encouraging snippets:
Appendix 4 is positive about the idea of permeability - although it doesn't talk about filtered permeability, which is crucial. Without filtering motor traffic levels down, routes will not be subjectively safe to persuade the average person that cycling is a viable way of getting around.
In Appendix 1 (Policy and Strategy Context), the following policy is mentioned:
the City Council will seek to increase the use, integration and development of public transport,cycling and walking as viable alternatives to motor vehicles and reduce the use of private motor vehicles, particularly, but not exclusively, through and commuter traffic. It will adopt the traffic reduction targets set out in the Mayors Transport Strategy and the London Plan.
The problem with The Strand is it has very narrow lanes westbound, and a central divider, which makes it next to impossible for cycles to filter past the permanent traffic jam.
Elsewhere in the document there are sinister undertones:
The Council will therefore aim to deliver a range of improved routes for cyclists of different abilities,whilst recognising the needs of other road users and avoiding changes that place unacceptable additional pressure on the road network and kerbside. Any changes will be subject to full consultation with the local community.
This wording implies that safe cycle routes are an additional luxury and a burden that cannot be allowed to displace the vital nature of everything else that goes on today on the roads. The fact is that today there is unacceptable pressure on the road network, and that pressure is from one source - unnecessary motor journeys. Cycling is part of the solution to that problem, not an additional problem. The local community - let alone the cycling community - were never consulted on the changes that accumulated into the current mess. However it is those who have most interest in the status quo that are likely to protest most about change. Will there been any voice in this consultation for those who are damaged most by the current setup: children who cannot cycle to school or who suffer from asthma worsened by London's polluted air, those who suffer from the diseases of a sedentary lifestyle, and of course the London taxpayer who gets to pick up the tab for treating all these preventable diseases?
Anyhow, back to the Strategy, where the reactionary tone continues:
The narrow, historic nature of many of Westminster's streets, means that providing separate space for each road user on every street is simply not feasible and a balance needs to be struck.
Westminster's roads serve a vital function and it is imperative that congestion is minimised and access to the kerbside managed so as not to hinder the large volume of people travelling on buses and to ensure that deliveries are made in a timely fashion to maintain London's economy.
The fact is there isn't a balance being struck at the moment. The current arrangement is that most roadspace is separated for the use of one dominant mode - motor traffic. While cyclists and pedestrians are technically allowed to use the roads, they are actively discouraged by the danger and intimidation caused to non-motorized travellers by the ubiquitous presence of fast-moving traffic. If Westminster want to insist that there isn't space for segregated cycle facilities, then it needs to do something about the fact that motor traffic isn't sharing the road with anyone else in any equitable sense.
There is not much indication that Westminster intend to re-balance the dominance of motor traffic. The implication in the above quote is that cycling is a threat to this dominance. The Strategy conflates essential motor journeys - buses and vital deliveries - with all the other non-essential motor journeys into one transport mode, as if stopping a Range Rover from parking on a side-street were equivalent to delaying thousands of bus passengers.
I know a number of people who drive into work in central London. They don't need to; they are not disabled and they have access to perfectly good public transport alternatives that are used by other Londoners. There are also a large number of people who get cabs everywhere when they could use public transport. Of course there are occasions where private motor transport is needed, but those cases are a relatively small subset of the journeys we actually see in the West End today. So why should these unnecessary journeys that make extremely inefficient use of roadspace be allowed to exclude more benign alternatives? What balance is being struck there?
The fact is that 'striking a balance' is not the same has having a free-for-all. It is about recognizing that some journeys are more important than others, and some transport modes are more benign and more resource-efficient than others. But the Strategy shows no sign of recognizing this.
Let's take a look at some typical weekday pictures of 'congestion being minimized' in Westminster:
Above: A stationary Henrietta Street.
Above: Statuesque traffic on Bedford Street.
Above: A glacial pace on William IV Street.
These pictures are typical and put the lie to the idea that congestion is minimized or that deliveries can be made in a timely fashion. The fact is, Westminster's road system is badly broken. And cycling didn't break it. Bikes are in fact conspicuous by their absence. The idea that introducing cycling facilities is going to break something that is currently working well - which seems to be the picture being painted by the Strategy - is a false one.
Cast your mind back to last year during the Olympics. We saw then that Westminster functioned perfectly well with a fraction of the motor traffic. An guess what - congestion was minimized by reducing traffic volumes, not by trying to continue to accomodate the existing unsustainable volume.
Some infrastructure designed to help cyclists, such as cycle lanes and cycle parking requires a reallocation of footway, kerbside or road space, which is not feasible in some locations due to the need to keep pedestrian and traffic flows moving.
Once again, the Strategy portrays a battle for resources between greedy cyclists on the one hand, and everyone else. Again, it conflates traffic flows and pedestrian movements. How is a threat to 'traffic flow' a threat to pedestrians? This is nonsense. In fact, the opposite is the case. The less motor traffic there is, and the slower it is, the easier it is for pedestrians to cross roads and get around. And the less unnecessary car journeys there are, the faster buses will move. With faster bus services come lower bus running costs and a better-functioning economy as people spend less time getting around.
Alongside a renewed focus and investment in cycling, there must in parallel be a renewed focus on considerate behaviour of all road users. There is a need to encourage all road users to show greater consideration for one another and share space in a safe and responsible manner, enabling safer integration and shared routes rather than a presumption for segregation. This will be achieved through training programmes, enforcement, education and campaigns targeted at both cyclists and non-cyclists,whilst recognising that many people are now becoming more multi modal in their travel characteristicsand should therefore start to demonstrate a greater appreciation of one another's needs.
In other words, in Westminster's view, we are all one big happy family, and have to get along together. Unfortunately, this vision of motor traffic and cycling rubbing along together is a fantasy. And it is a fantasy that is only sustainable if you ignore much of the rest of the document, which identifies repeatedly that fear of traffic and busy roads is the number one reason people don't cycle. While there are undoubtedly inconsiderate cyclists, they don't put people off driving or walking. Inconsiderate and dangerous driving by contrast, both kills and injures many people directly, and indirectly as the health benefits of cycling are denied to people who are scared off.
In summary, Westminster have produced a document that is about 20 years out of date in a lot of its thinking. However, this is actually a considerable step forward, which tells you a lot about Westminster's shameful historic record on cycling.
But let's not forget one thing: there have been many cycling documents, both good and bad, produced over the years, and none of them so far have been worth the considerable amount of paper they've been written on. This document doesn't actually matter. It is action that counts. Westminster needs to come good on the Central London Cycling Grid. It's just possible that the Mayor, supposedly converted to the benefits of investing in decent cycling infrastructure, cooperating with a council of the same political colour, could deliver something worthwhile.
Westminster is currently a pretty grim prospect for cycling. You're confronted with traffic-choked roads and an impermeable network of streets with lots of one-ways, no-entries and banned turns, very few of which have cyclist exceptions. It's not that there is nothing at all in Westminster for cyclists, (see here for Westminster Cyclists' list of good practice) but what little there is has been designed in a piecemeal and incoherent way. For example, Long Acre between Bow Street and Drury Lane has a contraflow lane, but Long Acre between Drury Lane and St Martins Lane is one-way with no contraflow or cycle exception, despite it having low traffic levels, as you can see in the following pic, taken on a weekday lunchtime:
Similarly St Martins Lane itself is one-way and has very little traffic going south from the Long Acre junction. It is plenty wide enough for a decent contraflow lane, but this fact has escaped Westminster's highways people. Again, a weekday lunchtime picture below illustrates the lack of traffic:
When I took this picture I actually saw two cyclists 'salmoning' up the street in the 'wrong' direction. No surprise when the alternative is the deeply hostile, traffic-choked Charing Cross Road.
The above pictures illustrate that while Westminster has made some effort to reduce the permeability of the road network for motor traffic, it hasn't been matched by a corresponding effort to increase the permeability for cycling. So the result is roads that were originally designed around cars, but are largely unused. Given that land in Westminster is more expensive than almost anywhere else in the world, this is a waste. The Tories are fond of pointing the finger at others for wasting public money. In this instance, they need to look in the mirror.
Anyways, back to the Strategy. There is some promising material in it:
Fear of injury is the most commonly cited barrier to cycling, particularly amongst non cyclists, and there are early indications that the number of cyclist casualties on Westminster's roads is set to rise (although to a lesser extent than the corresponding growth in cyclist numbers). The Council will therefore aim to deliver a range of improved routes... Dangerous junctions and sections of road will be improved and the Council will work with the Mayor to deliver his vision for a Central London Cycling Grid.
This is a good start. The acknowledgement that safety is a problem is really key.
Other encouraging snippets:
Appendix 4 is positive about the idea of permeability - although it doesn't talk about filtered permeability, which is crucial. Without filtering motor traffic levels down, routes will not be subjectively safe to persuade the average person that cycling is a viable way of getting around.
In Appendix 1 (Policy and Strategy Context), the following policy is mentioned:
the City Council will seek to increase the use, integration and development of public transport,cycling and walking as viable alternatives to motor vehicles and reduce the use of private motor vehicles, particularly, but not exclusively, through and commuter traffic. It will adopt the traffic reduction targets set out in the Mayors Transport Strategy and the London Plan.
Sounds good, eh? Only problem is this policy dates from the Council's 2007 Unitary Development Plan. While you can see in the pictures above there are instances where the council has somewhat reduced the roadspace that is used by motors, there has been no strategy to turn this roadspace into something usable by cyclists, and no focus on subjective safety. Not only are cyclists caught up in the maze of one-way streets and banned turns intended to control general traffic, but cyclists are also caught up at the pinch-points created by funnelling traffic onto the major roads. Take a look at this picture of The Strand on a typical weekday:
The problem with The Strand is it has very narrow lanes westbound, and a central divider, which makes it next to impossible for cycles to filter past the permanent traffic jam.
The Council will therefore aim to deliver a range of improved routes for cyclists of different abilities,whilst recognising the needs of other road users and avoiding changes that place unacceptable additional pressure on the road network and kerbside. Any changes will be subject to full consultation with the local community.
This wording implies that safe cycle routes are an additional luxury and a burden that cannot be allowed to displace the vital nature of everything else that goes on today on the roads. The fact is that today there is unacceptable pressure on the road network, and that pressure is from one source - unnecessary motor journeys. Cycling is part of the solution to that problem, not an additional problem. The local community - let alone the cycling community - were never consulted on the changes that accumulated into the current mess. However it is those who have most interest in the status quo that are likely to protest most about change. Will there been any voice in this consultation for those who are damaged most by the current setup: children who cannot cycle to school or who suffer from asthma worsened by London's polluted air, those who suffer from the diseases of a sedentary lifestyle, and of course the London taxpayer who gets to pick up the tab for treating all these preventable diseases?
Anyhow, back to the Strategy, where the reactionary tone continues:
The narrow, historic nature of many of Westminster's streets, means that providing separate space for each road user on every street is simply not feasible and a balance needs to be struck.
Westminster's roads serve a vital function and it is imperative that congestion is minimised and access to the kerbside managed so as not to hinder the large volume of people travelling on buses and to ensure that deliveries are made in a timely fashion to maintain London's economy.
The fact is there isn't a balance being struck at the moment. The current arrangement is that most roadspace is separated for the use of one dominant mode - motor traffic. While cyclists and pedestrians are technically allowed to use the roads, they are actively discouraged by the danger and intimidation caused to non-motorized travellers by the ubiquitous presence of fast-moving traffic. If Westminster want to insist that there isn't space for segregated cycle facilities, then it needs to do something about the fact that motor traffic isn't sharing the road with anyone else in any equitable sense.
There is not much indication that Westminster intend to re-balance the dominance of motor traffic. The implication in the above quote is that cycling is a threat to this dominance. The Strategy conflates essential motor journeys - buses and vital deliveries - with all the other non-essential motor journeys into one transport mode, as if stopping a Range Rover from parking on a side-street were equivalent to delaying thousands of bus passengers.
I know a number of people who drive into work in central London. They don't need to; they are not disabled and they have access to perfectly good public transport alternatives that are used by other Londoners. There are also a large number of people who get cabs everywhere when they could use public transport. Of course there are occasions where private motor transport is needed, but those cases are a relatively small subset of the journeys we actually see in the West End today. So why should these unnecessary journeys that make extremely inefficient use of roadspace be allowed to exclude more benign alternatives? What balance is being struck there?
The fact is that 'striking a balance' is not the same has having a free-for-all. It is about recognizing that some journeys are more important than others, and some transport modes are more benign and more resource-efficient than others. But the Strategy shows no sign of recognizing this.
Let's take a look at some typical weekday pictures of 'congestion being minimized' in Westminster:
Above: A stationary Henrietta Street.
These pictures are typical and put the lie to the idea that congestion is minimized or that deliveries can be made in a timely fashion. The fact is, Westminster's road system is badly broken. And cycling didn't break it. Bikes are in fact conspicuous by their absence. The idea that introducing cycling facilities is going to break something that is currently working well - which seems to be the picture being painted by the Strategy - is a false one.
Cast your mind back to last year during the Olympics. We saw then that Westminster functioned perfectly well with a fraction of the motor traffic. An guess what - congestion was minimized by reducing traffic volumes, not by trying to continue to accomodate the existing unsustainable volume.
Some infrastructure designed to help cyclists, such as cycle lanes and cycle parking requires a reallocation of footway, kerbside or road space, which is not feasible in some locations due to the need to keep pedestrian and traffic flows moving.
Once again, the Strategy portrays a battle for resources between greedy cyclists on the one hand, and everyone else. Again, it conflates traffic flows and pedestrian movements. How is a threat to 'traffic flow' a threat to pedestrians? This is nonsense. In fact, the opposite is the case. The less motor traffic there is, and the slower it is, the easier it is for pedestrians to cross roads and get around. And the less unnecessary car journeys there are, the faster buses will move. With faster bus services come lower bus running costs and a better-functioning economy as people spend less time getting around.
Alongside a renewed focus and investment in cycling, there must in parallel be a renewed focus on considerate behaviour of all road users. There is a need to encourage all road users to show greater consideration for one another and share space in a safe and responsible manner, enabling safer integration and shared routes rather than a presumption for segregation. This will be achieved through training programmes, enforcement, education and campaigns targeted at both cyclists and non-cyclists,whilst recognising that many people are now becoming more multi modal in their travel characteristicsand should therefore start to demonstrate a greater appreciation of one another's needs.
In other words, in Westminster's view, we are all one big happy family, and have to get along together. Unfortunately, this vision of motor traffic and cycling rubbing along together is a fantasy. And it is a fantasy that is only sustainable if you ignore much of the rest of the document, which identifies repeatedly that fear of traffic and busy roads is the number one reason people don't cycle. While there are undoubtedly inconsiderate cyclists, they don't put people off driving or walking. Inconsiderate and dangerous driving by contrast, both kills and injures many people directly, and indirectly as the health benefits of cycling are denied to people who are scared off.
In summary, Westminster have produced a document that is about 20 years out of date in a lot of its thinking. However, this is actually a considerable step forward, which tells you a lot about Westminster's shameful historic record on cycling.
But let's not forget one thing: there have been many cycling documents, both good and bad, produced over the years, and none of them so far have been worth the considerable amount of paper they've been written on. This document doesn't actually matter. It is action that counts. Westminster needs to come good on the Central London Cycling Grid. It's just possible that the Mayor, supposedly converted to the benefits of investing in decent cycling infrastructure, cooperating with a council of the same political colour, could deliver something worthwhile.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Wandle Trail
Riding in this morning I saw a couple of blokes with theodolites. That can mean only one thing - someone cares if the improved trail will be flat or not!
(We're always first with the global breaking news.)
On another note, I get the distinct impression more people are riding bikes this season. Someone who gets in before me started taking my usual parking spot in our work car park a month or so ago. Now a bunch more bikes have started turning up before me in the morning so I've been relegated to my fourth-choice spot. Maybe more cycling isn't such a good thing after all...
(We're always first with the global breaking news.)
On another note, I get the distinct impression more people are riding bikes this season. Someone who gets in before me started taking my usual parking spot in our work car park a month or so ago. Now a bunch more bikes have started turning up before me in the morning so I've been relegated to my fourth-choice spot. Maybe more cycling isn't such a good thing after all...
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
News from the States
It's not just in Portland., Oregon, that Americans ride bikes, it seems.
Some statistics:
Chigago: cycle commuting up 200% since 2005.
New York: commuting rate doubled between 2007 and 2011.
San Francisco: bikes make up 66% of inbound traffic on Market Street, a major transit artery.
And in this well-argued piece in "The Atlantic Cities", Henry Grabar questions why cyclists get ticketed as if they were motorists.
On balance, cyclists' illegal behavior—like that of pedestrians—adds much, much more convenience to life than danger. Aggressive enforcement of traffic laws could upend the fragile system of incentives that leads thousands of people to undertake a long and sweaty commute each day...Why should people riding 20-pound bicycles obey laws designed to regulate the conduct of 4,000-pound cars, to say nothing of accepting the same penalties? In terms of the damage we can cause and sustain in an accident, cyclists have more in common with pedestrians than cars and should be treated accordingly.
Some statistics:
Chigago: cycle commuting up 200% since 2005.
New York: commuting rate doubled between 2007 and 2011.
San Francisco: bikes make up 66% of inbound traffic on Market Street, a major transit artery.
And in this well-argued piece in "The Atlantic Cities", Henry Grabar questions why cyclists get ticketed as if they were motorists.
On balance, cyclists' illegal behavior—like that of pedestrians—adds much, much more convenience to life than danger. Aggressive enforcement of traffic laws could upend the fragile system of incentives that leads thousands of people to undertake a long and sweaty commute each day...Why should people riding 20-pound bicycles obey laws designed to regulate the conduct of 4,000-pound cars, to say nothing of accepting the same penalties? In terms of the damage we can cause and sustain in an accident, cyclists have more in common with pedestrians than cars and should be treated accordingly.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Wandle Trail Upgrade
Reports are reaching us that the Wandle Trail is to be upgraded, including completion of the "Bridge to Nowhere", with a grant of nearly £500K from Transport for London.
It is as yet unclear exactly what the improvements will consist of. Regular users will be familiar with the overgrown vegetation encroaching onto paths that are already too narrow, the standing water and slippery mud that await you in wet weather and the dust that coats you and your drivetrain in drier conditions. Hopefully a durable, smooth all-weather surface that actually sheds water will be on the shopping list? We'll keep you posted.
It is as yet unclear exactly what the improvements will consist of. Regular users will be familiar with the overgrown vegetation encroaching onto paths that are already too narrow, the standing water and slippery mud that await you in wet weather and the dust that coats you and your drivetrain in drier conditions. Hopefully a durable, smooth all-weather surface that actually sheds water will be on the shopping list? We'll keep you posted.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Get Britain Cycling: Branson Pickles for Cameron?
The ‘Get Britain Cycling’ Inquiry has published its report. The All Party Parliamentary
Cycling Group (APPCG) inquiry heard from many experts, and the report has generally been well-received in the cycling blogosphere. Cyclists in the City described it as "massively impressive work".
Celebrities such as Lord Sugar and Sir Richard Branson have been endorsing it, and you can too. You don't have to have a business empire or a title, and you don't have to have to go through a 12-week job interview consisting of contrived tasks at the end of each someone gets melodramatically fired - just sign the online petition, and make sure your friends and family do. Nearly 52,000 people have done so at the time of writing. Hurry now - don't be disappointed!
If only fixing cycling were as simple as writing a report or signing a petition. People have been doing both those things for decades and all we've got to show for it is, well, lots of reports and petitions.
Could things be different this time? Cameron said at Pee Em Queues: “The report has many good points...We should be doing much more in our country to encourage cycling...I hope local authorities can follow [London Mayor Johnson's] lead and do more."
Hmm. Cameron clearly hasn't read the report very thoroughly, because it says
"the Government needs to set out an action plan for more and safer cycling with support from the Prime Minister down."
Yes, the Government - your government, Mr Cameron. And 'Prime Minister' means you. As this blog has pointed out several times in the past, the fact that responsibility for cycling is split between too many different organizations with no strong central vision or leadership is in many ways the most serious obstacle in the way of progress on cycling. Just pushing the responsibility onto local authorities - the same local authorities, presumably, that are implementing massive cuts and have no spare cash for cycle infrastructure - is going to achieve nothing. Local authorities don't have the political will. Local politics is dominated by parochial concerns such as parking and dog poo. There are few votes in cycling at a local level, and lots of political risks associated with allocating roadspace away from precious parking spaces and unrestricted car use.
Cameron's problem, perhaps, is that his party is split between the more enlightened elements, who 'get' cycling, such as Boris Johnson and Sarah Wollaston, and the reactionary wing who never really bought into Cameron's green agenda (such as it is) and cling to the outmoded 70's ideas of roads being exclusively for cars and bicycles a reluctantly-tolerated obstacle to the motorist rather than a transport option. Eric Pickles, for instance, never misses a chance to promote more parking and the 'war on the motorist' agenda.
There are, however, widely-reported plans that the Government is about to launch an 'Office for Active Travel', with a substantial £1bn budget. The announcement could coincide with the next spending round at the end of June. Of course, such a body would need to have significant powers to make things happen in different deparments (including Pickles' Communities and Local Government) and at different levels, from the DfT to TfL to local councils.
So, will Branson or Pickles win the day? Will Cameron get his OAT?
Celebrities such as Lord Sugar and Sir Richard Branson have been endorsing it, and you can too. You don't have to have a business empire or a title, and you don't have to have to go through a 12-week job interview consisting of contrived tasks at the end of each someone gets melodramatically fired - just sign the online petition, and make sure your friends and family do. Nearly 52,000 people have done so at the time of writing. Hurry now - don't be disappointed!
If only fixing cycling were as simple as writing a report or signing a petition. People have been doing both those things for decades and all we've got to show for it is, well, lots of reports and petitions.
Could things be different this time? Cameron said at Pee Em Queues: “The report has many good points...We should be doing much more in our country to encourage cycling...I hope local authorities can follow [London Mayor Johnson's] lead and do more."
Hmm. Cameron clearly hasn't read the report very thoroughly, because it says
"the Government needs to set out an action plan for more and safer cycling with support from the Prime Minister down."
Yes, the Government - your government, Mr Cameron. And 'Prime Minister' means you. As this blog has pointed out several times in the past, the fact that responsibility for cycling is split between too many different organizations with no strong central vision or leadership is in many ways the most serious obstacle in the way of progress on cycling. Just pushing the responsibility onto local authorities - the same local authorities, presumably, that are implementing massive cuts and have no spare cash for cycle infrastructure - is going to achieve nothing. Local authorities don't have the political will. Local politics is dominated by parochial concerns such as parking and dog poo. There are few votes in cycling at a local level, and lots of political risks associated with allocating roadspace away from precious parking spaces and unrestricted car use.
Cameron's problem, perhaps, is that his party is split between the more enlightened elements, who 'get' cycling, such as Boris Johnson and Sarah Wollaston, and the reactionary wing who never really bought into Cameron's green agenda (such as it is) and cling to the outmoded 70's ideas of roads being exclusively for cars and bicycles a reluctantly-tolerated obstacle to the motorist rather than a transport option. Eric Pickles, for instance, never misses a chance to promote more parking and the 'war on the motorist' agenda.
There are, however, widely-reported plans that the Government is about to launch an 'Office for Active Travel', with a substantial £1bn budget. The announcement could coincide with the next spending round at the end of June. Of course, such a body would need to have significant powers to make things happen in different deparments (including Pickles' Communities and Local Government) and at different levels, from the DfT to TfL to local councils.
So, will Branson or Pickles win the day? Will Cameron get his OAT?
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Messing Around in Morden
What have TfL done for cycling lately?
First some good news. The plans for the CSH#2 extension from Bow to Stratford looks quite Dutch, with a large amount of segregation, provided by removing one general traffic lane - unthinkable even a year ago. It's a shame that the route isn't fully segregated, because without a uniform level of quality, women, children, older people, in fact anyone without sideburns and an Olympic medal will still be avoiding cycling. And of course meeting the existing CSH#2 will be a rude awakening.
Meanwhile in Merton there's been a bit of work done by TfL on the A24 coming into Morden from North Cheam direction. Previously, this stretch of road was a typical of TfL's treatment of cyclists as an afterthought, with narrow advisory lanes.
Above you can see the new lane heading toward Morden. It's mandatory and wider than the old lane, and you can see the general traffic lane markings have been moved right a bit.
Above you see the opposite side of the road heading out of Morden. The lane is mandatory but it runs on the outside of parking bays, which is a mistake. If you ride anywhere but the right-hand side of the lane, you'll be vulnerable to dooring. The lane should be inside the parking bays.
Above: Classic comedy cycle lane. This gives access to the track across Morden Park, the entrance to which is just on the left of the picture. It's usable if you're coming off the northbound cycle lane on the right of the picture, but if you're just trying to get from Morden Park to the swimming pool or Morden College, which are just a few yards behind the camera, you'll have to get off and walk. That's sheer stupidity. For some reason, TfL have decided that the 10 yards of pavement beyond the 'shared use' sign are suitable for cycling, but the 10 yards before it are not.
On the other side of the road, heading south outside Morden Primary School, things get worse. Two general traffic lanes and parking bays are a really intimidating prospect. It's not clear what the point of these parking bays is, but when they're occupied only one traffic lane is usable, so this arrangement is pointless. Again, the parking bays should be outside the cycle lane. This isn't rocket science.
Above: the southbound carriageway between Green Lane and Sutton Common Road. This stretch of road hasn't been re-engineered. This has to be the most pointless cycle lane in London, if not in Britain. When the parking bays are occupied you would have to be suicidal to use it. The lane is interrupted by parking bays every few yards. Whoever designed this needs their head examined.
Above you can see one of the side roads. The parking bays could be relocated here. Or alternatively, a cycle lane could be run inside of the existing parking bays...there are plenty of options here. And bear in mind having two general traffic lanes is unnecessary for traffic flow, because the lanes merge into one at Lower Morden Lane (see below).
You'll also notice there's a pedestrian refuge providing a dangerous pinch-point. Here's a picture illustrating how narrow it is:
So, if you're lucky enough to live in Newham, and don't need to ride more than about 3 miles, you can look forward to a pleasant experience on the CSH#2 extension in the next year or so. In most of the rest of London, what you see in the pictures above is pretty representative of the kind of crap you'll have to put up with for many years to come. The depressing thing is that TfL have actually improved part of this route, which might give you a clue how bad it was before. TfL say this is just an interim scheme. Interim schemes are a waste of money, because you end up with two sets of design, implementation and project costs, plus the interim scheme doesn't deliver much benefit. Really TfL need to stop messing around with paint and only do Dutch things from now on, because that is the only approach that gives value for money. Schemes like this one won't attract new cyclists, so the cost per cycle journey is actually very high compared with a segregated design, simply because the segregated design will attract a lot more more cyclists even though the engineering costs are higher.
First some good news. The plans for the CSH#2 extension from Bow to Stratford looks quite Dutch, with a large amount of segregation, provided by removing one general traffic lane - unthinkable even a year ago. It's a shame that the route isn't fully segregated, because without a uniform level of quality, women, children, older people, in fact anyone without sideburns and an Olympic medal will still be avoiding cycling. And of course meeting the existing CSH#2 will be a rude awakening.
Meanwhile in Merton there's been a bit of work done by TfL on the A24 coming into Morden from North Cheam direction. Previously, this stretch of road was a typical of TfL's treatment of cyclists as an afterthought, with narrow advisory lanes.
Above you can see the new lane heading toward Morden. It's mandatory and wider than the old lane, and you can see the general traffic lane markings have been moved right a bit.
Above: Classic comedy cycle lane. This gives access to the track across Morden Park, the entrance to which is just on the left of the picture. It's usable if you're coming off the northbound cycle lane on the right of the picture, but if you're just trying to get from Morden Park to the swimming pool or Morden College, which are just a few yards behind the camera, you'll have to get off and walk. That's sheer stupidity. For some reason, TfL have decided that the 10 yards of pavement beyond the 'shared use' sign are suitable for cycling, but the 10 yards before it are not.
So, if you're lucky enough to live in Newham, and don't need to ride more than about 3 miles, you can look forward to a pleasant experience on the CSH#2 extension in the next year or so. In most of the rest of London, what you see in the pictures above is pretty representative of the kind of crap you'll have to put up with for many years to come. The depressing thing is that TfL have actually improved part of this route, which might give you a clue how bad it was before. TfL say this is just an interim scheme. Interim schemes are a waste of money, because you end up with two sets of design, implementation and project costs, plus the interim scheme doesn't deliver much benefit. Really TfL need to stop messing around with paint and only do Dutch things from now on, because that is the only approach that gives value for money. Schemes like this one won't attract new cyclists, so the cost per cycle journey is actually very high compared with a segregated design, simply because the segregated design will attract a lot more more cyclists even though the engineering costs are higher.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)