Euston - We Have a Problem

You know that thing where your partner comes home and you know s/he's had a haircut, but you can't tell the difference? Or it looks a little bit worse than it did before, but you know that a lot of expense has gone into it so you don't like to whinge too much?

Well, it's a bit like that with TfL's latest 'improvements' to Euston Circus, where Tottenham Court Road meets the Euston Road. Currently, this is about the busiest, most complex junction you could imagine. It has a lane for every day of the week in each direction.

TfL are taking out lanes at the junctions, widening pavements, and simplifying the junction for pedestrians. What they're not doing is making it any easier or safer for cyclists. In fact, if anything it's worse.

Let's take a quick look through the blurb:

"Euston Circus is dominated by road traffic..."

No shit, Sherlock.

"...and with increasing numbers of pedestrians and cyclists using the area, these designs will provide a significant improvement for existing users and for the anticipated growth in the number of users in the future."

By users, presumably you mean drivers? Cuz there ain't nothing new here for cyclists, beyond a couple of advance stop boxes that will a) be full of cars most of the time and b) be difficult to get into because two of the three have no approach lanes, and c) there's the same amount of traffic crammed into fewer lanes than before. How does that add up to an improvement?

"The Mayor’s vision for improving public spaces in London will ensure that our streets, squares, parks and green and water spaces are fit for a great world city, are enjoyed by everyone who visits them and most importantly, help improve the quality of life in the capital."

Enjoy? Quality of life? You can't use those phrases in the same sentence as "Euston Road". This is the most polluted place in the most polluted city in developed Europe!

"The key objectives of this scheme are to deliver improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, whilst minimising the impact on motorised traffic including buses."

Ah yes. I thought there was a catch. Now there's some improvements for pedestrians. The pavements are wider, so they can be lonely as well as depressed. There are fewer crossings, so they can get away from this brutal assault on the senses a bit quicker. They'll be able to get to University College Hospital more conveniently to get their lung conditions treated. But for cyclists, there isn't anything worthwile...because of the overarching priority of traffic flow.

Remember Kulveer Ranger's words, calling for "a step change in the way engineers think when planning road layouts. Historically our roads have been designed with motorists in mind. But that must change and the Mayor intends that with thousands more Londoners taking to two wheels their needs be given greater consideration than ever before."  That fell on deaf ears then.

Nothing short of proper Dutch-style paths will attract new cyclists to Euston Circus. But if that's not on the agenda then at least there should be measures to ensure cyclists who do use the junction are safe? Well, there aren't any. Bear in mind that a cyclist has to cross the Euston Road at some point if they are going north-south, and there aren't a lot of options. If you work in let's say Fitzrovia and you live in Kentish Town, that would be an ideal cyclable distance. But the prospect of Euston Circus will be enough to put  Lance Armstrong off cycling. Is it that unreasonable to expect to be able to cross a junction - a junction that is impossible to avoid without taking an unreasonable detour - by bike in safety? TfL think so, which is why they come up with crap like this, and they justify it with their usual bleating about traffic flow (cyclists aren't traffic you see, they just get in the way). Crap that is supposed to cope with "anticipated growth" in cycling, but whose only effect will be to crush London's aspirations for healthier, greener and cheaper transport between two lanes of fast-moving traffic.

Let them know your views.

Parliament Square

Gosh, it's all about Parliament Square at the moment. The protesters have been kicked out, and according to Colin Barrow, Westminster's soon-to-be-ex leader, it's great that everything's back to normal:

"For too long local people and tourists have been unable to fully enjoy the square. This is a tragedy and the sooner this historic site can be enjoyed by the public the better."

And Boris chimed in:

"I think it was high time that a world heritage site was properly protected from what was basically vandalism, and it had become an eyesore... you can't have the continual desecration of a world heritage site."

"Historic, world heritage site": this poetic language conjures up images of medieval castles, moats, tranquility, children buying wooden swords and plastic helmets lovingly made in a Chinese sweatshop. In short, exactly what the Gothic-revival architects had in mind.

And now the area has its own bike hire docking station.  Councillors overruled their own officials, who had suggested that the blue bikes would be harmful to the "character and appearance of the Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square conservation area and to the setting of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey world heritage site."

Hang on. Am I missing something? Heritage? Character? Setting? Enjoyed by the public? Is this the same place described by the Hansard Society in its report "A Place for People" as "a national disgrace"  in which  "the public appears only to be tolerated?" The report goes on, "what should be one of the world’s greatest civic spaces is a noisy, polluted, inaccessible place, seething with traffic and pedestrians and pockmarked by fortress-like security."

Goodness. You'd never have thought it. And it's nothing new.

"Parliament Square has never really been an open, accessible, public space. Its size and
shape has altered over the years but the prioritisation of traffic over people has been a
constant theme..." In the 1930s, the police opposed taking down the railings around the square, suggesting that an "open square would only be useful for vagrants and, ‘in my view, the removal of
these railings would attract a most undesirable, unclean person to this spot’. In addition,
he feared children might treat the square as a playground."

Bloody hell!

"As the Square was largely used as a crossing point some police officers were concerned that when guiding traffic, it would become difficult to manage pedestrians crossing at new points if access was more open. Others expressed fears about the prospect of large numbers of people being able to
congregate outside Parliament, thereby causing a nuisance."

Ah, but that was the 1930s. Attitudes are much more enlightened today. It's not all about guiding traffic anymore...it's about traffic flow. Boris Johnson rejected the redevelopment of Parliament Square because of "the potential impact on traffic." Thank goodness we have a Mayor whose commitment to a World Heritage site is such that he continues to let visitors enjoy it in the comfort of a car. The last thing we want is our precious heritage being taken over by a large number of undesirable, unclean pedestrians, smelly cyclists and children. They'd probably bring tents and folding chairs and stuff, and then we'd be back to where we started with those protesters. This kind of thing is exactly what would happen if the World Squares project went ahead and pedestrianized the south side of the square and brought traffic restrictions on Abingdon Street, which our dear Mayor has fought against. Thank God for St Boris, for saving this England, this green and pleasant land!

[All stand for the National Anthem]

West End Commission

Contrite Conservative councillor Lee Rowley - who declared War on the Motorist in Westminster and lost - is desparately trying to surrender whilst hanging onto his job, and the Standard has very graciously given him a platform to plead his case. "Getting parking right in the heart of London is difficult...we have listened", he wheedles. In the same way that you listen when someone threatens to punch your lights out for taking their parking space, rather than the open-minded, democratic consultative type of listening. Strangely enough it's this latter type of listening that the newly spot-free leopard Rowley is now proposing. About bloody time, you might say.

"We have announced a new beginning - the West End Commission. We want groups, business owners and individuals, for and against our parking plans, to join us in an honest, open debate...[to] give a strong, fresh and independent perspective. We will invite a range of people, from the Standard's editor" (aha! No wonder they've given him a column) "to representatives of London's cabbies, to help us with that work." Cyclists as well perhaps? Strangely, cycling seems to have slipped Rowley's mind, as the word doesn't appear once in his article. Thankfully he hasn't forgotten cabbies though - which is a good job seeing as they're responsible for a very substantial contribution to central London traffic. I'm sure they'd be happy to see congestion reduced as long as they continue to have free rein on the West End's streets. Unfortunately though, it's going to be rather difficult to address congestion and improve the public realm without reducing the number of cab journeys.

On the other hand, retailers would like to see more car-free days because they boost sales. But of course if you close roads you create congestion...unless you have a strategy to reduce demand - something Westminster has never been good at. Does this mark a turning point? I very much doubt it. I don't think they want to learn lessons from European cities that manage their roads for the benefit of all, not just a small number of drivers. Westminster want to reduce congestion, but only because it is a symptom of their failure to manage the roads properly. But they're still trying to figure out a way of reducing congestion without limiting car use. Have you spotted the flaw yet? Their only hope is the closure of the Straits of Hormuz sending oil prices skyrocketing...and with supreme irony, HMS Westminster is on its way to stop that happening.

Westminster Parking and Congestion

When Westminster Council first proposed their scheme to charge for night-time parking, this blog commented that they were doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. They were hiding their fiscal acquisitiveness under a fig-leaf of concern for congestion - and bear in mind they opposed the original London congestion charge.

Westminster has now backed away from the proposal, following a storm of opposition. This shows both the best and the worst sides of democracy: on the one hand, the ability of people to influence politicians even in safe constituencies, and on the other hand, the failure to get to grips with problems whereever the solution threatens vested interests. In China, they can do this kind of thing.

Westminster now say "a commission will be set up to look at new ways of tackling congestion". There have been people suggesting that congestion isn't a problem in Westminster at night. Well, I was there at 10:30PM on Friday, and there was gridlock in Chandos Place and traffic backed up all along the Strand.

It's pretty clear that trying to tackle congestion by limiting supply is going to be politically problematic: that's why all political parties (with the notable exception of the Greens) are shy of even discussing road-pricing. That's partly because the media won't allow a sensible debate: they always reduce the issue to the lowest common denominator, the short-term effect on the individual motorist, and ignore the fact that the current situation is hardly ideal for anyone.

What Westminster have done wrong is their proposal looked like the persecution of ordinary people to subsidize the council tax of Westminster residents. Poorly-paid night workers who couldn't afford to live in Westminster, paying a huge stealth tax. That was the narrative, anyway. And the West End would supposedly have become a ghost-town at night, theatres and restaurants empty because people couldn't afford the parking charges. So poor workers, rich business people and middle-income customers were united.

However, none of this changes the fact that while cars may bring people and business into central London, but they also damage business and make the city a much less attractive place. There are many London cafes and restaurants with tables outside. Those tables aren't a very attractive proposition if you're breathing in diesel fumes, shouting to make yourself heard over the traffic noise, and getting bumped from time to time by pedestrians who are squeezed onto a narrow strip of pavement. The pavement has to be narrow so the cars have enough space to park while allowing free traffic flow.

Meanwhile, we have London's most under-used asset: the bike hire scheme. It costs £15M/year to run, but only brings in less than £3M. Most people don't use the scheme because they don't think cycling is safe in London. But here's something a little surprising: only 15% of those who actually use the scheme think it's safe, according to a leaked TfL internal document. It seems that people like the concept, they like the idea of a fun, healthy, fast way of getting around. They report niggles to do with poor software and unavailability of bikes and docks, but the main downside is the lack of safety and the fact that "London is not a cycling city" (only 21% of cycle hire scheme members think it is, nearly 4 years into a Cycling Revolution). That's because it's a motoring city - or it would be if the roads system wasn't so manifestly unsuitable for motoring: it's a city that aspires to be a motoring city, but will never make it.

If Westminster want to develop a credible plan for tacking congestion, they first need to acknowledge the problems that traffic brings to the area.  They need to focus on the positive things that less traffic would bring to the city; on the benefits for business, employment and quality of life. Or the increased transport choice for the vast majority who don't drive in the centre of the capital: faster buses, unhindered by congestion, and cycle hire being a realistic choice for those without nerves of steel. B But such concepts are anathema to the Tories, who don't like the idea of any restraints on motoring, from bus lanes to speed cameras. They are ideologically wedded to the motor car and they don't like the idea of cycling becoming more of a problem than it already is.

Pyramid Schemes

A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business venture that although it promises participants something of value, doesn't of itself generate any value and instead relies on new entrants to the scheme to provide the value to those already enrolled. So the goal is to recruit new members rather than to generate value, although some business activities may be performed along the way.

Some schemes rely on recruits to sell things like kitchen products or water filters to their friends, and if they recruit their friends as sales people, they get a commission on the sales of people they've recruited. This works pretty well for people at the top of the pyramid, who get a percentage of all the layers below them, but the people at the base of the pyramid make at best a small amount of money, and depending on how the scheme is structured, may even lose money. The reason pyramid schemes don't deliver the promised benefits for the vast majority of participants is because the pyramid needs to grow and each layer is much bigger than the layer above, following a geometric progression. Very quickly, the number of new recruits needed becomes larger than the number of people in the world. But a successful pyramid scheme has to hide its unsustainable nature and the costs to most of its participants behind a compelling business proposition offering prospectively great benefits.


Pyramid schemes came to mind when I heard about the Silvertown Link tunnel. Boris is trying to recruit us: Lots of jobs! Less congestion! Easier, faster journeys! Sounds great - gimme some of that! Except of course one of the benefits - easier, faster journeys - will also mean more journeys. Which will mean that the roads feeding the tunnel will need to be widened to accomodate the tunnel traffic. Which is good! It'll mean more jobs! Less congestion! Easier, faster journeys! Sounds great - gimme some of that! Except, of course, for each of these widened roads, we'll need to widen the roads that feed them, and build new ones, to accommodate all those easier, faster journeys. Good! Yet more jobs! More journeys! Less congestion! Until you run out of land. You can't build any more roads. Then all those journeys aren't easy or fast any more. And there's nowhere to park at the end of your journey. And all the motorists who've paid into this massive pyramid scheme and voted for the politicians who promised them easier, faster journeys, have lost their money and are really no better off - and a lot are worse off if they live by one of the new roads and have to suffer the noise, danger and pollution. The only people who've benefitted are the road-builders (so we got the jobs at least).

As with the kitchen product/water filter schemes, what's amazing is how gullible people are. Decades after it was clear that if you built a new road, it would just require more roads, we still have politicians promising to solve the problems of the roads by...building new roads.

Bow Roundabout - Again

The Grumpy Cyclist points out that TfL's description of its Bow Roundabout redesign doesn't quite match the video they've produced to illustrate the idea (above). They talk of an 'early start' green phase for cyclists, but the video shows that motor vehicles and cyclists set off at the same time - and in addition there is a separate cycle-control light that goes red, stopping cyclists who are not already in the advance stop box from proceeding into it when motor traffic has green. Grumpy Cyclist also suggests that this is no different to a normal advance stop box. In a sense it is different because there is a separate set of lights before the advance stop box, meaning that crossing the stop line would feel rather more like busting a red light than it usually does (although legally there's not much difference, and as I'll point out later, not much difference in the way the box fills up with motors). The fact that the first and second sets of lights turn green at the same time is not in itself important as time and distance boil down to the same thing: what matters is whether the last cyclist can get past the A12 exit before the first motor vehicle tries to make a left turn across them. Will TfL allow a sufficient combination of time and distance to make sure that happens. If they do, then in theory, there should be no left-hooks, because cycles will either be in the advance stop box safely in front of the motor traffic when the lights go green, or they'll be held at the red cycle-control light, and therefore will never be in the dangerous position of being alongside left-turning motor traffic.

In practice, there are a couple of reasons why this won't work, and one compelling argument that it is cynical and disingenuous to suggest it increases cyclist safety.

It won't work because at busy times, motors will continue past the first amber light and be held in the advance stop box at the second light which will be red by the time they reach it. This will mean there are left-turning motors in the advance stop-box alongside cycles, so when the signals turn green, we'll have exactly the situation we have at the moment, only worse because cyclists have already been forced to the left side. With motors in the advance stop box, there will be limited space for cycles, so they will tend to queue if there are enough of them. This will be intensely frustrating and will tend to encourage cyclists to avoid the controls. They could do this legally by walking across the stop line at the cycle-control light, or illegally by riding across it. Some cyclists will simply take the general traffic lane on the basis that it's quicker and safer than the alternative - you can't be left-hooked if you take the left-hand general-traffic lane.
At quieter times, imagine the following scenario: a slow cyclist arrives at the cycle-control light just before it changes, and proceeds into the advance stop box. Meanwhile, an HGV arrives at the first lights just as they change to green, still rolling at about 30MPH. The HGV catches the cyclist but doesn't see him, and makes the left turn, getting both of them into the next day's Evening Standard.

Why is it cynical? We've got to the point where TfL have been forced to take action because there is an increasing number of cyclists and too many deaths caused largely by dangerous driving. Rather than increase safety while preserving the speed and convenience of cycling (remember they're supposed to be encouraging cycling as a transport mode), they've come up with a solution that means cyclists have two sets of lights to go through, thus slowing their journeys. Motor traffic, by contrast, is only minimally affected, because although it has two sets of lights to get through, they are synchronized so there's only one stop necessary. And if cyclists react to this increased delay by jumping the cycle-control light or taking the main traffic lane, TfL can sneer and throw their hands up, saying that cyclists are just ignoring the safety scheme, and no doubt a judge would find contributory negligence in the case of a cyclist involved in a collision. In effect, this scheme is likely to end up criminalizing cyclists. It is hardly, in Boris's aide Kulveer Ranger's words, "a step change in the way engineers think when planning road layouts". It's the same old car-centric crap we've had for decades. Of course, a small delay would be a reasonable trade-off for safety if it were not for the fact that reasonable tradeoffs between cyclist safety and motor traffic journey speed almost never get made. Iinstead, along entire routes cyclists are continually forced into the same dilemma: either accept delays whose root cause is too many motor vehicles monopolizing the available roadspace, or take risks, and more often than not, it's a case of choosing which risk is the least. At most junctions, the road is designed to stack motor traffic and there's no space set aside for cyclists. You could wait at the back of the queue; in which case you'll have impatient motorists trying to pass you when the lights change. Or you could try to filter to the front of the queue so you're more visible and get away first: in that case you risk not making it to the front before the lights change. Filter on the left and you'll be in a blind spot squeezed between the kerb and vehicles. Filter on the right and you're at risk from oncoming traffic.

So, anyway, I digress. How to fix the Bow Roundabout design? To stop the advance stop box filling up with motor vehicles, there will need to be an 'advance red' phase at the first set of general-traffic signals. That will go red first, and the second signal will stay green for as long as is necessary for traffic already in the advance-stop box to drain out of it (under normal conditions). I don't think that will actually affect traffic flow compared to the scenario where all drivers correctly anticipate the lights. Or do TfL model assuming that vehicles ignore advance stop boxes?

Next, there's the problem of how to eliminate left-hooks during the green phase. That's impossible to do if you have cyclists on the left going straight on, and motors trying to turn left across them. Which is why the LCC design uses toucan crossings. You simply cannot fix this junction to be safe for cyclists without changing the way motor traffic uses it. Limiting cyclists to a short green phase is ducking the problem, and is what Kulveer Ranger describes as "designed with motorists in mind", rather than designed for a cycling revolution.

Centre Point