Archive for the 'Transport' Category

Why we need [to] clear space for cycling on London’s main roads

Published on 10 September 2011 in cycling, London and Transport. 1 Comment Tags: , , .

In July, London Cycling Campaign (LCC) members voted overwhelmingly (58.4%) for ‘Go Dutch‘ to be our single-issue demand for the 2012 Mayoral elections. Our chosen strapline is ‘clear space for cycling on main roads’ – which has attracted some negative comment from those who consider it ambiguous or dilatory in some way. There is particular criticism at the choice of the word “clear”.

Personally, I think the choice of the word ‘clear’ (first proposed by Ben Tansley, Co-ordinator of Brent LCC) is a master stroke. What some seem to have missed is precisely that “clear” is deliberately ambiguous: it is both an adjective and a verb – and the latter form is the most powerful.

Let’s stick the adjective, first. To me, “clear space for cycling” means:

  • Clear from the dangers of cycling in motor traffic: On the busiest roads I expect this to mean separate bike paths, on other roads it might be possible to divert motor vehicles elsewhere (e.g. by closing to through-traffic); most importantly it means not having to play chicken at junctions.
  • Clear from conflict with pedestrians: No-one wants any more painted pavement rubbish.
  • Clear from obstructions: Cycle paths that are properly maintained, free of debris, and certainly no parked cars.
  • Clearly visible: Well sign-posted so it’s easy to know where I’m supposed to go.
  • Clear air: Always a relative thing in London but… cycle routes shouldn’t take me through a load of smog where there’s a convenient, non motor-vehicle clogged alternative.
  • Clear from weather effects: Unlike Islington, remember that cycle paths need proper drainage; unlike Camden, remember to grit them in winter!
  • Clear from slower cyclists in my way: wide enough for me to overtake on my commute to work.

    That’s just a few off-the-top-of my head. I’m sure one could think up many more and indeed LCC will be publishing our comprehensive policy position for Go Dutch, in due course.

    But remember, “clear” is also a verb – that’s where it comes in most useful: Proper cycling facilities cannot be made from thin air. On London’s roads that means space needs to be taken away from other purposes (motor traffic lanes, on-street parking, overly-wide footpaths, etc.) in order to provide good quality, cycle paths that most people would feel safe riding on. The Mayor of London’s Cycling Superhighways have been poor primarily because that political will isn’t there to take road space away from private cars. Lobbying highway engineers to create good facilities is like banging one’s head against a brick wall when the politicians are unwilling to provide them with the road space to do so.

    The cycle paths of Copenhagen are the most visible aspect of that city’s cycling revolution. However, what they hide is the more important enabler – the removal of on-street car parking that previously used to be where many of those cycle paths are today. I can’t find a reference just now but I believe the then Mayor of Copenhagen cited ‘on-street car parking’ as both the single biggest barrier to cycling – and its removal as the single most important step they took. Without creating space they could not have built those cycle paths – which whilst good are still not up to the standards of the Netherlands.

    How much is it right to constrain car use to provide for good cycling facilities? Rightly this is a political issue. Car use is an important part of life, especially in outer London, and politicians risk voters’ wrath if they are seen to unfairly constrain people’s freedom. However there are some points that our representatives need to digest and understand:

    1. Current levels of car use are unsustainable. As London’s population inevitably grows (and remember the working population that commutes in from the shires is far greater than the residential population) we have to find better ways of making use of scarce road space. Private cars just take up far too much of it.
    2. Increasing cycling is much cheaper than building mass transit – and even then there are only so many tube lines we can dig.
    3. Londoner’s want to cycle more but don’t feel it is safe to do so. Transport for London’s 2008 survey showed that 58% of residents of outer London wanted to cycle more and that 32% of outer London households don’t own a car. Providing good cycling facilities will give all these people the freedom to cycle safely.

    Ultimately, the thrust of the campaign is about the verb, not the adjective: we are asking the next Mayor (and the wider public) to clear space for cycling on London’s main roads. We don’t want the same old junk in the gutter.

    Anyone still unclear?

Why scrapping the M4 bus lane is bad for motorists

Published on 7 October 2010 in Politics and Transport. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

I’m no stranger to the M4 and the bottleneck around the bus lane at Junction 3, getting back into London is infuriating. The news been somewhat drowned out by benefit changes but Phil Hammond’s shamelessly populist announcement that the M4 bus lane will be scrapped is going to make things worse, not better.

The rationale for the M4 bus lane is poorly understood – and not helped by New Labour spinning it as an environmental measure when it was, and remains, primarily an important traffic management technique.

The reason there is a bottleneck on the M4 is that between junctions 3 and 2 the road reaches on elevated section, just two lanes wide on each side, and with a 40mph limit. It’s not hard to see that this would cause a bottleneck at the head of the a 70mph motorway with 3 lanes and a hard shoulder on each side. Widening the final section of the M4 is impractical/expensive/politicallly “brave” as widening an elevated motorway in London involves requisitioning and demolishing so much private property.

So the Highways Agency came up with a simple, yet ingenious measure. In order to manage the flow of traffic better they brought the narrowing of the road forward to junction 3, when much traffic is leaving the M4 anyway, and dropping the speed to 50mph (since raised to 60mph). That left them with a “spare” lane and rather than painting it with white lines (or planting trees or whatever) they decided to paint it red so that the few busses and taxis on the M4 could take advantage – and why not? Of course, the bus lane is under-utilised, if it wasn’t it wouldn’t solve the bottleneck!

Although the bus lane reduces the space available on the road it smoothes traffic flow: the well-respected Transport Research Laboratory’s research showed that despite increased traffic, peak-time journey times were actually reduced for all vehicles; off-peak times did go up slightly for cars, but all journeys were more reliable.

For more detail, including a graphical explanation on the M4 bus lane, see Chris Marshall’s explanation.

Phil Hammond’s announcement may well earn him some brownie points for seeming to oppose an “anti-motorist” measure. Yet the real anti-motorism here is this surrender of logic and evidence-based policy to shamless populism.

I’m splitting my vote for change in Barnet (Council)

Published on 6 May 2010 in Barnet and Transport. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

In Barnet it is indeed time for change. The Labour group have not been an effective opposition on the Council and Barnet is, largely, a Conservative suburban borough but the Conservative administration here really do need a kick up the backside. Quite apart from fiascos such as losing £18 mn of tax payers’ money in Icelandic banks, the last few years can be characterised simply in this way: a bunch of councillors elected by the more affluent ares protecting their precious ‘suburban character’ whilst dumping unwanted new developments in the poorer parts. There’s also a general attitude problem as you can see from one or two blogs as well as a debacle over sheltered housing where vulnerable pensioners had to take their own Council to court (and won!)

I live in the Cricklewood part of Golders Green ward. We’ve seen the loss of Hendon Football Club because of the Council’s bloody-mindedness in selling metropolitan open land to developers (who have now left the site derelict as they’ve run out of cash). We’ve seen an unpopular £4.5 bn regeneration scheme for Brent Cross Cricklewood dumped on us despite local opposition.

As a cycling campaigner the current administration are also problematic for me. They do not see cycling a serious form transport in London, have actively removed cycle stands from town centres, have no regard for cyclists in road junction design (even where as it Staples Corner, it conflicts with the Conservative Mayor of London’s plans for cycle ‘superhighways’). Certain councillors have a policy of deleting emails from cyclists without reading them. Certainly I’ve found that if I complain about a pot hole as a motorist I get a speedy response, if I complain about a pot hole as a cyclist I get ignored. The outgoing Leader of the Council, Mike Freer, even told me on my radio show that he thought commuting by bicycle in London was basically “too dangerous” and that there was “nothing that could be done” to make it safer.

Golders Green ward is safely Tory-held as a result of the 2/3 of voters who live on the other side of the A41. Consequently Cricklewood gets neglected. Of our 3 incumbent Tory councillors I’ve only ever seen one locally – he seemed to genuinely campaign for local people but recently went AWOL in Australia (whilst continuing to draw expenses!). The other two are father and son, the sonfather having been a councillor for a very long time but I’ve never seen him here (he’s also the Cabinet Member for Planning…). So I’ll be voting for change in this ward. As it’s a safe seat I’ll be hedging my bets to maximise the chance of at least one Tory being ousted. My three votes will be going to Dorothy Badrick (Residents’ Association and long standing local campaigner), David Robinson (Labour, hard-working agent for our outgoing MP who I’m sure will be an excellent candidate) and Weng Leong Ang (Lib Dem, another active local campaigner!).

Elsewhere in the Borough I encourage others to vote for genuinely good hard-working councillors where they exist, and tactically for change otherwise, especially in the key marginal wards.

Back the Cross River Tram

Published on 2 August 2008 in Action Alert, London and Transport. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Mayor Boris has decided to review all the various transport projects in London. Whilst this happens it’s important to show levels of public support for important initiatives. So please take a few moments to sign the petition in support of the Cross River Tram. Especially if you are one of the many people who has to find a vacant arm pit to squeeze your head into on the Northern Line every morning, or breath in all the bus fumes in Bloomsbury!

Even better why not write to the Mayor and your local London Assembly representative? Get your responses in good time for the 9th of September when the London Assembly’s Transport Committee will be looking at CRT.

Here’s a summary of some the benefits of the CRT:

  • Carrying over 90 million passengers per year.
  • Giving passengers travelling to work on the Victoria, Northern & Piccadilly lines a more comfortable journey as it will help relieve passenger congestion.
  • Reducing crowding at Euston, Camden Town and Elephant & Castle.
  • Providing access to over 200,000 residents with better access to employment, health and leisure opportunities.
  • Reduce car usage by over 2 million trips per year as people switch to this environmentally friendly option.
  • An estimated reduction in CO2 emissions of over 19,000 tonnes.
  • Enhance access by providing around 30 new fully accessible stops throughout central London.

There is a real risk that some local objections to details of the route in Camden may be used by those Conservative AMs opposed to trams to derail the whole scheme. So please lend CRT your support.