Thursday, 18 December 2014

TfL's consultation on Stamford Street / Cornwall Rd Junction - Quietway 1



TfL have just opened a consultation about a Lambeth junction, where Cornwall Road crosses Stamford Street, on the Quietway which will run between Waterloo and Greenwich. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, TfL plan to start construction work in early 2015. The consultation runs until 9th February.

TfL's consultation page doesn't include a map to show where the route in Lambeth will run, but the SE1 website put up a piece on Tuesday stating that, "In SE1, the Quietway route will run from the South Bank via Cornwall Road and Webber Street to Great Suffolk Street and Trinity Street".

Unlike Southwark, Lambeth has not yet published, and consulted on, the proposals they have for the Quietway on their streets. Without knowing the wider plan in Lambeth there are limited comments one can make on an individual junction. So, while I urge people to comment, it may be worth waiting a while for the borough's plans to be published.




Sunday, 14 December 2014

Last chance to respond to CS5 consultation

Please take one moment tonight to complete a TfL consultation survey 
 https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/cs-5-harleyford-road  giving your views, even if a one line 'I support TfL's plans', on the proposed Cycling Superhighway 5 route (blue below). 

I'd also strongly suggest that you also ask TfL to REJECT the plan in red below, submitted in a letter by the Chair of the board of the Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall Forum, which proposes that CS5 diggles around the back of the Oval, along the Inner Ring Road (Kennington Lane), across the road and behind the Royal Vauxhall Tavern then over the bridge.

The full letter to TfL from the Chair of the KOV Forum board is below

Re: CS5 consultation on Harleyford Road
Further to our earlier correspondence, I would like to raise a number of points, many of
which were brought out at our Public Meeting you so kindly attended.

As you are aware, the Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall Forum (KOV) is a volunteer
organization supported by a small grant from Lambeth Council. It has several objectives
including Neighbourhood Planning and helping to deliver local consultation by using
local networks (whether Friends of Parks, Libraries, Residents and Tenants
Associations etc.) to increase the reach and deliver rounded feedback. We have
accumulated a database of some 500 email addresses. We also work closely with
businesses in the area, having on our governing Board, two members that represent
Vauxhall One, the Business Improvement District for our area.

This letter has been prepared with the input of a number of people and local groups we
represent and has been possible as a result of significant work by many in the area
thinking through the consequences of the proposals.

We acknowledge that TfL has done a lot to improve the scheme since the original
consultation. However, having listened to the feedback of our members and others
locally, KOV does not support the current approach to CS5 along Harleyford Road for
the following reasons:

• Increased journey times for all road users (except cyclists) and pedestrians
too.
In particular, an adverse impact on thousands of bus users heading from Oval towards
Vauxhall and beyond The section of road from the Oval to Vauxhall (Harleyford
Street/Kennington Oval/Harleyford Road has a bus lane servicing bus numbers 185, 36
and 436. At peak times, 21 buses per hour take advantage of the bus lane – say up to
2,000 passengers per hour. The current CS5 proposal will effectively make the 21
buses per hour heading for Vauxhall join a stream of relatively slow moving traffic. Not
only would the buses be significantly slowed so too would other traffic.

• Increased C02 emissions and reduced air quality resulting from the traffic
sitting idle for longer periods of time.
Stationary traffic, e.g. cars with engines idling at lights, contribute approximately 1.2g
per minute CO2. The removal of the bus lane will result in increased congestion and
delays on most journeys thus increasing carbon emissions.

• Adverse economic impact
TfL has a responsibility to deliver the most efficient and effective usage of the roads
under its jurisdiction to allow the safest and most economic travel for all. With the use of
additional fuel consumption as a result of vehicles going longer distances and sitting idle
as well as loss of time for everyone other than cyclists, this is not an efficient solution for
the London economy.

• Increased risk of accidents and congestion on other local roads
Rat-runs are likely to increase, particularly Fentiman Road, for cars trying to avoid
Harleyford Road.

• Severe problems outside the Royal Vauxhall Tavern (RVT)
In this latest design, we recognise that TfL has made efforts to mitigate the risk of
conflict between pedestrians and cyclists at the RVT junction but the design still falls
short of what is needed. For example, cyclists wishing to stay on the left hand side of
Vauxhall Bridge will continue to cut through the pedestrian tunnel on the station side.
Had CS5 continued on the other side of the road under the viaduct before crossing over,
more cyclists would have the option to avoid the pedestrian tunnel. A further limitation
of the design is the one-way routes on the CS5 around the viaduct. These do not reflect
how cyclists will behave and are at odds with proposed two way working. We would
expect the majority of cyclists currently going under the viaduct to turn right into South
Lambeth Road. Only a minority will use the pedestrian tunnel on the RVT side.
It is a feature of CS5 that cyclists will be able to reach relatively high speed along the
Harleyford Road stretch of the superhighway heading towards the RVT junction. In spite
of the mitigation measures, we would expect cyclist/pedestrian collisions to be
inevitable. At best, it will create severe conflicts. We believe that the design can be
improved significantly by taking into account some of the ideas put forward by the
community. A more modest cycle lane provision that does not encourage high speed
cycling would help.

Furthermore, the consultation has highlighted some severe inconsistencies:

1. CS5 does not address the concerns of most local cyclists when
approaching the Vauxhall Gyratory. 
A majority of cyclists use the gyratory as an interchange with South Lambeth Road
rather than Harleyford Street. My fellow KOV Board Member, Michael Keane was kind
enough to run a brief survey on Friday 12th December to record travel and his results are
appended to this letter showing the need for a better link between the Gyratory and
South Lambeth Road. This evidence is further supported, in that sadly, the most recent
cyclist deaths, related to problems with South Lambeth Road where it meets the
Gyratory at Parry Street.

2. CS5 is being introduced out of sequence with other changes proposed to
the Vauxhall Gyratory
The current proposal does not take adequate account of the proposals to reverse the
mini Gyratory suggested as part of the ‘Transforming Vauxhall’ consultation. If the
proposals for the Gyratory were implemented, the CS5 suggestion to relocate a bus stop
to Durham Street becomes problematic, and the investment in a floating bus stop no
longer makes sense on Harleyford Road.

3. Inadequacies of the consultation process
As a forum, we naturally take consultation very seriously. We are concerned to note that
our area seems to be given less choice than other local consultations and insufficient
evidence to justify the benefits or otherwise of the proposal. Key differences between
the CS5 consultation and others we know of is explained here:
• TfL’s consultation for Stockwell Cross helpfully provides additional information on
the traffic impacts that the scheme might have – when the hyperlink is viewed it
shows pedestrians crossing the area, bus journey times and car journey times at
peak flow in the morning and the evening. Yet this data is not supplied by TfL to
show the likely impacts of CS5.
• During the earlier consultation on CS5, residents of Belgravia were given a
choice of routes to consider. The residents in Oval have not been given a choice
– other than which side of Harleyford Road it could travel.

4. An alternative route proposed by residents merits further consideration
and consultation
As you are aware the residents of Harleyford Road have prepared an extensive critique
of the CS5 proposals and the disadvantage it puts on local residents, particularly the
restriction on receiving deliveries or any other emergency needs. The residents have
also outlined their concerns over HGV transport at the interchange with Durham Street
as a result of reduced road widths.
Additionally, the residents of Ashmole Estate have made representations about the
spacing of bus stops and the removal of one on Harleyford Road and placing it on
Durham Street. For the elderly and infirm coming from the Estate every pace makes a
significant difference to their travel time.
There is an alternative proposal to put the Cycle Superhighway around the back of
Kennington Oval and through Vauxhall Street, which is a very quiet road where there is
already a segregated cycle lane, and onto Kennington Lane. Although not suggested by
residents, there is the potential then to allow the cycle lane to run along the edge of
Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens towards the river (behind the RVT). This proposal merits
serious further consideration if CS5 must be delivered.

Additionally, KOV as you are aware has produced a proposal for the Vauxhall Gyratory
which was presented at our meeting on 9th December. This proposes closing off South
Lambeth Road to through traffic. This road closure would make this a much safer route
for the majority of cycle journeys.

We welcome better provision for cyclists in our area and trust you will consider these
alternatives as a more cost-effective and improved offer.
Yours sincerely,
The Chair of the KOV Forum

Wednesday, 3 December 2014

A few Small Business Saturday inducements

Here's a little trawl from a Google search on Small Business Saturday (this weekend).

Lots of free parking this Saturday, and the occasional bus offer. No mention of a more frequent bus service, inducements to cycle etc. My guess is that quite a few of the free parking spaces will be fully occupied by staff of the small businesses.
---------
Free on-street parking and £2 bus journeys across Gloucestershire next Saturday

Parking in Taunton’s 19 town centre car parks will be free from 2pm for the rest of the afternoon on Saturday, December 6.
The park and ride service operating at Taunton Gateway and Silk Mills, is offering a shoppers special on Saturdays leading up to Christmas with a discounted ticket of £1.50 for up to five people travelling together.

THERE will be a free parking bonanza in Poole and the New Forest in the lead up to Christmas. Borough of Poole will be running a free park and ride service from Creekmoor to the town centre every Saturday from November 29. There will also be free parking in all town centre car parks every Sunday between 10am and 6pm from November 23 to December 21 and Thursday nights between 6pm and 9pm from November 27 until December 18

Parking in Haringey's pay and display bays and council-run car parks will be free on December 6 as the borough celebrates Small Business

Weymouth & Portland Borough Council is offering free parking for Weymouth Victorian Shownight and Small Business Saturday

SELECTED car parks run by Portsmouth City Council will be free on Small Business Saturday

Shoppers across Ashfield can take advantage of free parking across the whole district as the council supports Small Business Saturday

Shoppers and visitors to Oakham and Uppingham can enjoy free parking after 10am on Saturday, December 6, as part of Small Business Saturday.

East Lindsey District Council car parks will be free to use on December 6, in a council drive to help support local businesses.

PARKING in Bishop's Stortford will be free all day next Saturday (December 6) to celebrate Small Business Saturday.


Free festive parking will come into effect next month, as Mendip District Council’s Cabinet has agreed to support Small Business Saturday by providing free all day car parking at the following car parks on December 6.

Free festive parking will come into effect next month, as Mendip District Council’s Cabinet has agreed to support Small Business Saturday.




Sunday, 30 November 2014

A quick, easy and cheap way to reduce the likelihood of bike theft


You can lock your frame and both wheels to Sheffield Stands but only the wheel to 'wheel-bender' stands. Why has the management of the Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre left these theft-inviting racks in place, given there are now a large number of conveniently located and more secure Sheffield Stands? I think the shopping centre management are almost as responsible for the theft as the person who took advantage of their slackness to steal most of the bike. When will they remove them?

I would also like to know why the police and PCSOs who patrol the area haven't demanded the shopping centre's management remove them.

Friday, 28 November 2014

Obstructing safe streets


I have been meaning to write to Lambeth Council concerning parking at the mouth of the junction of Renfrew Road and Dugard Way. Most evenings and weekends the junction is blocked by cars, restricting pedestrian, wheelchair and push chair movement and creating a sight-line hazard for people on bikes. 

There need to be double yellow lines here - especially as this is the only non A-road link between two cells of quiet roads. It should be made safe for children to cycle around.

There is, normally, less of a problem Monday to Friday 8.30am to 6.30pm when the single yellow line explicitly prohibits parking and, crucially, wardens enforce it. However this morning the drivers of the two vans pictured had ignored the yellow lines and dropped kerbs. They were still there at lunchtime. Both had blue folders in the windows, the sign of a police vehicle. The drivers are presumably in the police section house on the road - hardly an emergency meriting such anti-social and hazardous parking.



Here's a reminder of Highway Code 243 (Apart from parking on the yellow line, wardens in London can issue a Penalty Charge Notice for blocking a lowered kerb).

DO NOT stop or park:
near a school entrance
anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services
at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank
on the approach to a level crossing/tramway crossing
opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
near the brow of a hill or hump bridge
opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle
where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane
where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles

The police locally have form on ignoring parking rules for their own convenience.


Wednesday, 26 November 2014

Kate Hoey MP will attend Vauxhall Cross discussion on 9th December

Please be advised that the next public meeting of the Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall (KOV) Forum will take place on the 9th December 2014 at 7pm at the Carmelita Centre (Registration from 6:30pm).

The main item on the Agenda will be the 'Vauxhall Cross' latest developments and associated consultation (more information on http://www.kovforum.org.uk).

Kate Hoey MP will be attending this public meeting.

A full detail Agenda will be issued soon. In the meantime keep checking the KOV Forum website, Facebook and twitter for the latest updates.





Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Road Safety messengers have to change their spots

It was the easiest thing in the world for a Road Safety Officer to blag a pile of high viz landfill from a company that realised spending 3s 6d on tat is cheaper than spending proper money sorting out their drivers and vehicles, and it fulfilled their role as a cheap sop to politicians who couldn't care less for people walking and cycling.

But those days need to be put behind us. In London, at least, the active traveller  should absolutely not need to kowtow to the motorist.

Let's remind ourselves for the umpteenth time why:
1) 60% of London car journeys only have the driver in the car, squandering the capacity of valuable road space. It's a dumb way to move lots of people around, especially when half of all car journeys in London are under 3kms - a distance so easy to cycle or walk for the vast majority.

2) A third of men aged 35 to 65 are too fat to be able to see their penis. They need to build exercise into their daily routine, easiest done by travelling. (Apart from not being to see their best friend, they're more likely to develop diabetes, heart disease and cancer).

3) 6 out of 10 London households don't have a car, and getting on for half of outer London households don't either.

4) Cars pump out CO2 and exhaust emissions. It's bad for the planet and bad for us - there'll be 50,000 premature deaths due to poor air quality this year and each year we continue.

5) motor vehicles have a shudderingly high amount of kinetic energy compared to the pedestrian or cyclist, and a driver therefore has a hugely disproportionate likelihood to cause serious injury or death.

Okay, enough already. It's blindingly obvious that promoting walking and cycling is the way to go for urban trips, and we're not going to achieve that if we take every opportunity to portray cycling as an incredibly dangerous activity.

I mean, look at this recent image of training for riding on local streets, published in the Western Gazette - does it encourage parents to let their children cycle around their neighbourhood?


By all means take sensible measures to have cyclists use lights as nights. For example, like the Germans historically, you ensure lights are built into bicycles, with dynamo lighting, so they're always present, in the right place, and reliable.

Control the speeds and access of motor vehicles. Adopt the Dutch method of sustainable safety, based on the proven principal that a 21 year old male is a nutter for reasons well beyond their own control.

And focus your road safety attention on the vehicles with the greater kinetic energy.

And if you watch this you'll see why I went on this rant this evening. A really good beginning for change would be for the BBC and other media to agree a code of conduct that ensures road safety messages are not at the expense of promoting active travel.

If you want to read more I suggest you start with the Road Danger Reduction Forum







Sunday, 23 November 2014

A very short blog on cycle proofing

The Cycling Delivery Plan published last week for consultation by the Department for Transport contains 13 mentions of ‘cycle proofing’

proof
pruːf/
adjective
  1. 1.
    able to withstand something damaging; resistant.

Water proof - designed to hold off water

Cycle proof - designed to enable cyclists to get through.

Gibberish.

Calling Lambeth and beyond - your photos wanted

Cllr. Jenny Brathwaite, Lambeth's Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability, gave a powerful speech at yesterday's Cyclenation conference in our Town Hall.

She told the room full of cycling campaigners that she is not a cyclist and outlined a few of the reasons. They included
1. The images of cycling in the media are of sporty cycling or portray it as dangerous. There is no suggestion that cycling is an 'everyman, everyday' activity

.Photo from today's 'Health and Families' section of the Independent

Photo from yesterday's Western Gazette press article yesterday about training children to cycle on their local roads

2. The overwhelming message is 'You come onto the roads at your peril'.

Jenny reflected that, "like walking, cycling we learnt to do as children, but we give up on cycling" and was clear that, "We need to make cycling an everyday, mundane and safe activity. Lambeth has a major role to play in normalising cycling. Pedestrians and cyclists must be at the very heart of our borough".

She was clear also about the scale of the challenge, stating that "she had been taken aback by the number of residents who are so very attached to their cars."

A little later on Brian Deegan from TfL outlined the new London Cycling Design Standards. Like the Netherlands, segregation will be on roads with high volumes/speeds of motor traffic, but back streets will be shared by motor vehicles and bicycles.

On Saturday 29th November there will be a ‘Made in Lambeth’ event where a disparate bunch of people come together to design a website about cycling in Lambeth. There is no point in having the website stuffed full of photos like those above if Lambeth is to follow its cycling strategy to make:
Lambeth the most cycle-friendly borough in London where 1- 100 year olds feel safe enough to cycle.
Equally there's no point in stuffing a Lambeth website full of photos like the one below (from a recent Swindon Advertiser) when the reality is that the children cycling to school on their bikes are expected to mix with traffic.

So I'm on the search for photos of ordinary people in Lambeth - children, hand-cyclists, the elderly. The kinds of images I am looking for can be seen scrolling down here except that I am looking for the equivalent on motor-trafficked inner London streets.

I want photos of
-       People (especially children) making cycle trips on their own or with friends in inner London traffic with private cars and commercial vehicles such as taxis and delivery/trades vans.
-       Utility rather than leisure trips (Morning cycle to school time, shopping, commuting).
-       Different seasons and also at dusk/night and day, rain and sun.
-       The cyclists and drivers looking relaxed and the cyclist(s) generally in primary position (approx. centre of lane).
-       These cyclists in moving and queuing traffic.

 If you've got photos you can provide (ideally with permission to use as website content) please email them to team@lambeth.coop or tweet to @kenningtonpob

I've had a rummage through some of my photos and come up with these as indicative of the kind of cycling we should be representing on the website. What do you think?
















Monday, 17 November 2014

Acid test time for Vauxhall, the Elephant and Castle, Superhighways and Quietways

"Lambeth will be the most cycle-friendly borough in London where 1- 100 year olds feel safe enough to cycle", Southwark wants "Stress free cycling for everyone" ....; and in 2012 Boris answered:


There are more road changes in this area being consulted on, or imminent, than you can shake a stick at.  Just look at this map: cycle superhighways in blue, Quietways in Green, Junction redesigns in black, the Vauxhall gyratory, and I'm sure there's more.

Alongside this, Southwark should have a 20mph limit on its roads within six months, while Lambeth is also on target to become a 20mph borough.

The acid test of these measures is whether they're done well enough for parents to encourage their children to cycle around this area - to school, to see their friends, to the South Bank, to Vauxhall City Farm, to the new swimming pool at Elephant and Castle; to Tate Britain and the Imperial War Museum, over the bridges to Westminster.

Some of the designs I've seen are, I think, good enough in parts to think that it will happen. And some frankly aren't yet. We know that one weak link in a route or a grid is likely to mean people won't let their children use it.

So it's absolutely crucial to respond to consultations demanding schemes that are so good that the designers will happily let their ten (or 100) year olds ride on them; and we've got to remind politicians of their policies and make sure they hold firm by them.

Here's a list of consultations I know of. Please get involved, with positive suggestions for improvements where you can, but at least take the time to simply demand that the final design is child as well as commuter friendly.

The consultation on changes to CS7 at the Kennington Road and Oval junctions has ended;
The consultation has ended for a Cycling Superhighway running north from the E&C over Blackfriars Bridge; The plans for the Elephant and Castle northern roundabout are out for a (maybe) final consultation;
Southwark have consulted on their section of the new Quietway from Waterloo to Greenwich;
Lambeth will (presumably) be consulting on their bit of the Quietway;
Funding has been secured via S106 money to improve the County Hall bit of Belvedere Road;
The Vauxhall CS5 (maybe) final consultation from Oval across Vauxhall Bridge has opened;
A consultation is just starting on the future of Westminster Bridge Road ;
The Westminster Bridge South and Lambeth Bridge South junctions are scheduled for redoing in 2016
Looking towards 2018, there'll be the redoing of Vauxhall Cross (a consultation on the principles for the abolition of the Vauxhall Gyratory has just opened) and the Waterloo Imax Roundabout.
Some of this forms part of the Inner London Grid, but there may be more.


Thursday, 13 November 2014

My consultation response on DfT Cycling Delivery Plan

The plan is weak and lacks a national commitment and funding to match.

Specific items (apart from a national design and funding commitment) I
would like included are:
1. The longer term trend. Please can a graph be included showing the
historical trend in cycle trips, e.g. from 1996 when the UK’s first
National Cycling Strategy (NCS) was launched with the aim ‘to increase
cycle use’ (DoT, 1996a: 4). Its central target was to ‘double the
number of trips by cycle (on 1996 figures) by end 2002 and quadruple
the number of trips by cycle (on 1996 figures) by end of 2012’ (ibid).

This should show target and projected figures and give some reasoning
on why the targets were or were not met, and how this plan has been
protected from failure.

2. Given the aspiration for cycling levels to rival those in Germany,
Denmark and the Netherlands, please can the graph above be
extrapolated to show when, at the progress and investment rate
planned, we will meet the levels currently realised in those
countries.

3. Please can a website be maintained, quickly updated, showing which
local authorities have and have not signed up to work with the
government on the Delivery Plan.

Saturday, 8 November 2014

My consultation response on North South Cycling Superhighway


General Comments
I hugely support both the NS and EW cycle superhighways as they are essential (as part of a tightly meshed grid) to achieve the ambition of making London a city where anyone can cycle. I can see merits in the bi-directional tracks being proposed, though in general I would favour segregated tracks on each side of the road.

I question whether calculations about bus journey times have taken into account the likely mode shift by adults and children towards cycling with good infrastructure. This should mean more space on buses, decreasing journey time for some due to actually being able to board a historically full bus. In addition, more people cycling means fewer people using buses which will lessen the number of buses that need adding to the network as the population grows, benefitting motor journey time. Fewer buses than there would otherwise be, along with modal shift by car users to cycling, improve general motor traffic journey time for those who need to drive.

Detailed response -  North South Cycling Superhighway Elephant and Castle to Blackfriars
There is considerable detail and I am happy to meet a designer to clarify as needed.

While I suspect some ‘hard-core’ commuters will use the straight line of London Road rather than the dog leg of St George’s Rd / Lambeth Rd, the quality segregation and its tie-in to the revised E&C roundabout plans means that for most people, including those who daren’t currently cycle, the proposed scheme has strong benefits.

I would like to see the traffic island segregation largely planted up (see Guerilla Gardener’s Richard Reynolds’ proposal), and ways to include Sustainable Urban Drainage.

Section 1a
Is there good reason to relocate the Pelican crossing nearer Elliots Row than Oswin Street? It’s not where the major footfall alignment is, partly as it matches the side of Princess Street that has the narrow pavement.

It’s not clear from the drawing whether the pedestrian crossing of the NSCS is light controlled or if the traffic lights at the end of Princess Street are remaining. Might cyclists using CS7 have to wait thrice; at lights to exit Princess Street, then at the pedestrian crossing lights, then for the next phase of the pedestrian/cycle lights to cross St George’s Road? Or coming the other way have to wait for lights at the end of Elliots Row, then again for pedestrians crossing the cycling superhighway?

If the lights at the end of Princess Street are remaining there is potential conflict with cyclists on the NSCS who appear not to be traffic light controlled.

(As a complimentary measure, it would be better to relocate the pedestrian crossing on London Road instead, to the E&C side of the CS7, nearer the tube station and bus stops, to maintain the pedestrian desire line and permit cyclists to turn left from Princess Street onto the London Road bus and cycle lane.)

I suggest consideration is given to relocating the on-road directional arrows for motorists turning out of side roads across the cycling superhighway. These would be better placed in the ‘holding’ space between the traffic island segregation. I would also like conventional entrance/exit of side road lining (double/single give way) on both sides of the ‘holding’ space.

West Square – measures could be taken to make this approach to the square two-way for traffic or filtering traffic out. For the rationale see 1b, Geraldine Street.

Section 1b
With amendments there is considerable potential to increase cycling to/from Charlotte Sharman Primary School, Notre Dame Secondary School, St Jude’s Primary School, St George’s Cathedral Primary School and the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park (including the extensive sports facilities and Imperial War Museum) through creating a cycle crossing in conjunction with the planned pedestrian crossing at Geraldine Street.

As a quick fix, moving the Pedestrian crossing south of Geraldine Street allows cycles to cross St George’s Road into Geraldine Street (which is narrow and one-way) to access Charlotte Sharman School (cycle entrance) and the park and associated sports facilities and museum. The pedestrian crossing of the NSCS by Geraldine Street should not be light controlled.

Ideally, Geraldine Street could be pedestrianized, with two-way cycling permitted (option of a Toucan crossing of St George’s Road) so children and others can walk and cycle BOTH ways between the cycling superhighway and Geraldine Street. It also improves ease of use of the Cycle Hire docking station in Geraldine Street. Pedestrianising this street is dependent on the one-way West Square section of road off St George’s Road being made two-way, or filtering motor traffic so it can’t move between West Square and St George’s Road but must use Brook Drive instead for access/egress.

Consideration should be given to making Colnbrook and Gladstone Streets two-way for cycles

At the junction of St George’s Road and Lambeth Road, going into town, I propose removing the early start box and the dropped kerb from the cycle track into it. It would be better for cyclists turning left onto Lambeth Road to do it as though going straight on from Lambeth Road (assuming a right turn from Lambeth Road to St George’s Road is also permissible for cyclists)

I would prefer NSCH section of Lambeth Road being segregated to facilitate children cycling to and from St George’s Cathedral Primary School.

I question the need to widen the footway at this junction, but would like to see a cycle track continue across Lambeth Road westbound.

Eastbound on Lambeth Road the early start lights should not be installed. Instead of two left turn lanes, one should be straight ahead only and one should be left only. Cyclists should have green with the straight ahead lights but be able to turn left also at that time. A cycle lane installed on the continuation of St George’s Road northbound may permit left turns by cyclists at any time not prohibited by pedestrian crossing phases.

Section 2a
Dodson Street needs to be two way for cyclists, otherwise adults and children cycling have to use Bikeability level 3 (+)  Westminster Bridge Road to access it.

Westminster Bridge Road should be redesigned to be two way for cyclists. I challenge the tour bus parking being provided on arterial roads. They should either pay for private land parking or park on appropriate minor streets allowing segregated cycle tracks to be installed on the arterial roads.


Section 2b
There should be ‘in-one’ pedestrian crossings on all junctions of St George’s Circus, matched up with cycle crossings. Essentially the cycle track continuing around the perimeter of it. Currently I can’t envisage children being permitted to cycle westbound from Borough Road to Lambeth Road or vice versa with the design currently proposed.

Section 3a
I support the measures shown here, especially ones that improve the Quietway nature of Webber Street.

Section 3b
Ufford Street needs to retain cyclist entrance/exit, especially as Boundary Way is one-way.
I would like to see a better transition to the NSCS at Pocock Street.

Section 3c
Cyclists need to be permitted to turn left into The Cut.
The directional arrow for the right turn into Union Street from Blackfriars Road NSCH northbound should be a little further back so cyclists wait in ‘straight ahead’ rather than ‘left turn’ lane.
Does ped’n scramble crossing remain at The Cut / Blackfriars Rd / Union St?

Section 3d
No comment

Section 3e
The waiting areas for cyclists turning from NSCH eastbound into Southwark Street should be in the ‘going straight on’ lane, not in the left-turning lane for motor traffic as this may invite conflict at the entrance to Southwark Street.
The proposed method of turning right from Southwark Street into the NSCH isn’t clear.


Tuesday, 4 November 2014

Cycling, Made in Lambeth

I've nicked the text below directly from the Made in Lambeth website, where you can sign up to say you're coming on the day. Please come along if you can.

What's going on? We're teaming up with the Lambeth Sustainable Transport team to build a website that pulls together all the great initiatives and various information on all things cycling in the borough.
When and where? 9.30am (breakfast, 10am start) to 5pm, Saturday 29 November, Impact Hub BrixtonLambeth Town Hall, SW2 1RW. There'll be food and drink provided throughout to keep everyone energetic - we promise it won't just be gels and flapjack.
Who are we looking to get involved? The full project briefing is below, and you will see that there is an obvious need for skilled web developers to help us build a functioning website, and graphic designers to create a visual identity for cycling in Lambeth. However we also hope to have everyday cyclists who can be on hand to tell us what they want and expect from this website. If you're not sure how to get involved or have any questions, you can contact us directly or join the conversation below.
How do I get involved? The event is free to attend but as space is limited we ask you to register via eventbrite below. That gives us an idea of how many people to expect, and of course how much food and drink to prepare!
 BRIEFING: An online cycling solution for Lambeth
 The Background
Cycling has exploded as a pastime, sporting activity, and practical transport option across London over the last few years. Lambeth is no exception; the 2011 census showed 5.7% of commuter trips in the borough were by bike  – the third highest in the city. And why stop there? We all know the variety of benefits brought about by cycling.
That’s why by 2020 Lambeth is aiming for 20% of all commuter journeys to be by bike, enjoyed by people of all ages, backgrounds and physical ability. There are already lots of initiatives in Lambeth to promote cycling, as well as groups and individuals who campaign, fix, design, etc. However this work is often done in isolation, and sometimes in duplication. For cyclists themselves, navigating their way through everything to ensure an easy and friendly cycling experience can be a challenge. Our answer is to create a central online location to host this information. From the pop-up repair shops to the cycle training sessions and group cycles, the bike rental schemes to the street parking facilities, all this information will be available in one place. In addition there will be the ability to post cycling-related messages, map potholes, rat-runs and provide intelligence on how cycling in the borough can be improved.
The Challenge
 We need Made In Lambeth’s help to create a unique visual identity for cycling in Lambeth, and an online social space with functionality for this to be really useful for all groups and/or cyclists in the borough. Specifically, we want you to:
1. Design a Lambeth Cycling brand: We want a brand that can be used by all groups to form a common and easily recognisable identity for cycling in Lambeth, one that appeals to cyclists old and new.
2. Build an online space that acts as a one-stop shop for cycling in Lambeth:  We need an easily accessible website, with consideration for the various users who will visit it, what they will get out of it, and what information it should contain.
3. Develop new useful ways to share cycling information online -  A website opens up new opportunities - a bike buddy database? A map for potholes/dangerous junctions/missing signage/rat-runs?
 Your impact
 By bringing together all the good cycle-related parts of the borough together, and giving cyclists a platform to co-ordinate their own activities, we can accelerate the role that the bike is playing in creating a less congested, cleaner, healthier and more sociable borough.

Sunday, 2 November 2014

What action is needed re the Cycling Delivery Plan

The Government have a draft Cycling Delivery Plan out for informal consultation. There's plenty about it that can be improved and others (e.g. Jason Torrance of Sustrans) have commented on that.

I suspect there's a better action that local campaigners can take than comment on the draft plan, and that's to ensure their local authority submits an Expression of Interest to work in partnership with government. The Cycling Delivery Plan asks interested local authorities to sign up this autumn - so quick action is needed.

The government is playing its localism card, saying that access to resources will only arrive in an area if the local authority also signs up to doubling the number of trip stages cycled by 2025 (hardly a challenging target for even the most dilatory of councils - not least because it's ten years hence).

They say
Partner authorities can expect government to provide access to a range of tools and incentives that will support them towards achieving their cycling and walking ambitions. These include priority access to new funding streams, support via the Department for Transport's Active Travel Consortium, access to support in implementing cycling and walking plans, including to an extended Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) knowledge sharing network, and a recognised mechanism for reporting operational barriers to delivering cycling and walking initiatives back to government. 
Basically the government appear only to be interested in increasing cycling if the local authorities in England also want to. It'll be easier and cheaper for the 326 local authorities to submit an Expression of Interest if there's a basic model to copy, so I've drafted one, and inserted it in red into Annex B, below:

Annex B - Partnership Projects
Expressions of Interest
B.1 The Department for Transport is calling for expressions of interest from local authorities who would be interested in setting a long term ambition for walking and cycling in their area, and who, as part of that ambition would like to work in partnership with government to secure its delivery.

B.2 Expressions of interest in working with government on partnership projects to increase levels of walking and cycling should include the following information:
 An indication of the local authority's level of ambition for cycling and
walking over a defined period;
We want to double the number of cycling stages made in our local authority by 2025 and to have another 7% of children aged 5 to 10 who usually walk to school. (This is in line with the government's admirable ambition)
 Their expectation of government's role in the partnership, and how
they would like to work with government;
We'd like the government to adopt a document based on the CROW one used in the Netherlands, or potentially the London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) if they're any good when they are finally published.
We'd like the government to fund the work needed in our local authority to implement the changes.
We will commit to deliver the changes when the funding is handed over.
 Plans for engaging with key stakeholders and securing an influential
cycling and walking champion;
We'll promote changes to encourage walking and cycling with the government, schools, businesses, NHS, residents and people who travel through our local authority. We'll appoint a cabinet member as our champion.
 A demonstration of the local authority's commitment to door-to-door journeys, and to creating safe cycling and walking provision through cycle proofing new transport infrastructure;
It is possible to make a journey from any front door in our local authority to any other front door. The government will understand it seems harder to achieve this with back doors that often lead into fenced gardens. However one can get to the front door from the back door and hence to other front doors and in turn back doors. We trust that is sufficient. When we build new transport infrastructure we will make sure at the design stage that it includes a walking and cycling option
 An outline programme plan, including, where relevant, a planned and funded cycling and walking investment programme.
We will roll out measures in accordance with the CROW / LCDS making clear to our residents this is at the behest of national government, starting with new builds, refurbishments and the most densely populated areas.
B.3 Expressions of interest can be submitted on an ad hoc basis, and local authorities will be contacted by a member of the Cycling Policy Team to discuss their proposal.
Here it is. We and, doubtless, the other 325 local authorities look forward to being contacted by a member of the Cycling Policy Team. Out of interest, how many staff does this team have?
B.4 Submissions should be made to Walking.Cycling@dft.gsi.gov.uk.

I hope that Sustrans, CTC, British Cycling, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and Living Streets will be asking their members to apply pressure to their local authority to complete the form.

I imagine the government will maintain a quickly and regularly updated website showing which local authorities have yet to submit their expression of interest.

How to double cycling in ten years?

Easy, just make sure that the annual volatility in the National Travel Survey fluctuates to 2% in 2025.

From the Government's draft Cycling Delivery Plan
The Government's vision is that walking and cycling become the natural choices for shorter journeys - or as part of a longer journey- regardless of age, gender, fitness level or income. We need a long term commitment to embed change. In order to measure progress towards achieving this vision, we have set out our ambition for cycling until 2025:
- To double cycling, where cycling activity is measured as the estimated total number of bicycle stages made each year, from 0.8 billion stages in 2013 to 1.6 billion stages 
Cycling activity for the purpose of this document is measured as bicycle stages as in the National Travel Survey. 

From the National Travel Survey England 2013 Statistical Release, July 2014
In 2013, 1% of all stages were made by bicycle. Between 1995/97 and 2013 the average number of bicycle stages per person per year has fallen from 20 stages in 1995/97 to 15 stages in 2013; a fall of 25%. 
However, due to the relatively small number of cyclists in the NTS sample there is annual volatility in the cycling data and bicycle stages as a proportion of all stages generally fluctuates between 1% and 2%. 

Job done.

More seriously, the draft Cycling Delivery Plan fails to cite previous targets and the reasons this plan is expected to succeed where others failed. An informed historical view is the academic paper (PDF) Cycling Policy in the UK by Laura Golbuff and Rachel Aldred, UEL Sustainable Mobilities Research Group.

Compare the 25% fall in cycling stages between 1995/7 and 2013 with the ambition quoted in the paper:
In 1996, the UK’s first National Cycling Strategy (NCS) was launched with the aim ‘to increase cycle use’ (DoT, 1996a: 4). Its central target was to ‘double the number of trips by cycle (on 1996 figures) by end 2002 and quadruple the number of trips by cycle (on 1996 figures) by end of 2012’ (ibid).





Tuesday, 2 September 2014

Where the hell are the robust defenders of the EU?

*This blog post is not about cycling!*

This post has been a while in gestation, prompted initially by the low key campaigning  for the recent elections for Members of the European Parliament, and the uniformly dreadful quality of the electioneering pamphlets put through the door.

I'm damn certain that being within the EU  must bring benefits as well as downsides and I am astounded at the way that the press uniformly bangs on about 'Brussels bullies' without correspondingly strong and emotive articles and quotes praising its achievements and challenging the attacks made on it.

Just look at the current media storm about limiting the power of vacuum cleaners.

The genesis of this appears to be Which? advising that many of its current best buys are above the new EU 1600 watt limit from September, so people wishing to purchase these should do so while they can.

Cue rants from the press starting on the 21st August:

Daily Express headline: After light bulbs and TVs... now EU officials BAN our vacuum cleaners. THEY have forced us to change our light bulbs and banned our power-hungry plasma TVs.
(followed by a full on Comment rant the following day)

Daily Mail: ..thanks to a ruling by bureaucrats in Brussels, domestic goddesses among us may soon be robbed of the most vital tool in our arsenal..... Worse is to come. From 2017, the maximum wattage will be lowered still further, to just 900watts, sounding the death knell for some of the most popular vacuum cleaners.

Daily Mirror: Brussels busybodies are set to pull the plug on vacuum cleaners with motors bigger than 1,600 watts.

Independent Comment: News last week that an EU ban on cleaners with motors above 1,600W comes into force within days had even the most diffident householder dashing protectively towards the bear-slayer in the understairs cupboard. No more, the comforting tug of roller brush on carpet once the high-powered appliance has become extinct: in its place, a sluggish, futile skimming and a posse of fat, happy mothlings, dancing all the way to your only cashmere jumper. Basic hygiene must give way...

On the political front, UKIP unsurprisingly jumped in
"This is being done in the name of tackling climate change but the reality is it will do nothing to help and just make life harder for house-proud Brits," said Ms Bours, UKIP Euro-MP. "The reality is this EU legislation just sucks and is another reminder of why we need to leave the European Union."

as did Vauxhall's eurosceptic Labour/Independent MP Kate Hoey who tweeted,
Just got my high powered vacuum cleaner.How dare EU tell us what to buy. Just another reason to have a referendum @Lab4aRef #Europe

Having banged on about Brussels bullies, most of the media only quote an EU spokesperson in support, e.g. The Scotsman,: “Vacuum cleaners will use less energy for the same performance. This will help consumers to save money and make Europe as a whole use less energy.”

Why are no politicians quoted vocally supporting the EU's measures regarding vacuum cleaners at this time?
I've yet to see a newspaper quote a main UK party politician backing the EU's policy here, or see a paper's commentator cheering on Brussels, and I want to see well-argued support for the ruling from politicians and political commentators who are in favour of us remaining in the EU.

After all, there are lots of positive things about this measure.

Firstly, this isn't a surprise change - it's part of a Europe wide  range of measures to tackle human caused climate change that were drafted, debated and voted on by our elected MEPs in 2005. It's brilliant that a range of countries can agree on sensible measures across a range of countries and  then put them into action.

 The decision to limit the power demand of vacuum cleaners derives from Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products. Domestic appliances, alongside a number of other areas, were deemed priorities.

Vacuum cleaners are one of the domestic appliances benefiting from a systematic approach to improving the ecodesign of domestic appliances without lowering the functionality of a product, its safety, or having a negative impact on its affordability or consumers’ health. It's brilliant that our Brussels boffins have thought through the principles and rationale of ecodesign so well.

This PDF is worth a read
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/ecodesign/files/brochure_ecodesign_en.pdf
Here's an extract:
All products have an impact on the environment during their life-cycle spanning all phases from cradle to grave, including the use of raw materials and natural resources, manufacturing, packaging, transport, disposal and recycling. More than 80% of the environmental impact of a product is determined at the design stage. 
Ecodesign involves taking into account all the environmental aspects of a product, right from the earliest stage of design. In particular, this avoids uncoordinated product planning (for example, eliminating a toxic substance should not lead to higher energy consumption, which on balance could have a negative impact on the environment). 
The Ecodesign Directive provides a coherent and integrated framework which allows setting mandatory ecodesign requirements for some products. For instance, the Ecodesign Regulation on standby requires that many domestic electrical and electronic products such as washing machines, TV or personal computers do not consume more than 0.5W in off mode as of 2013. 
However, ecodesign requirements must not lower the functionality of a product, its safety, or have a negative impact on its affordability or consumers’ health.
Taking that last point, The Daily Telegraph, in 2010, reported,
Paul Pearce, technical director of the national carpet cleaning association, said: "The performance of a vacuum cleaner has more to do with airflow than with the power rating, so it should be possible to reduce the power without affecting the cleaning performance."
Is there any benefit from reducing the power consumption? The PDF linked above states,
By 2020, the first Ecodesign Regulations on 13 product groups (see Table 1) are projected to allow energy savings equivalent to more than 12% of the electricity consumption of the EU in 2009 (compared to a ‘business as usual’ scenario). 
The benefits from efficient but lower powered vacuum cleaners contribute to that 12% saving, not just in the UK but across all 28 members of the EU. January 2014 figures show there are 507 m people living within the 28 member states of the European Union. At an average household size of 2.4, there are some 211 m households, and I'm going to guess that at least one in two households in Europe has a vacuum cleaner.

Pushing through measures that, as machines are replaced, reduces energy use in an appliance used in 105,000,000 homes in Europe. That's brilliant.

If I was a manufacturer I'd rather have the task of creating an almost uniform product to sell to a 211 m household market, with agreed safety and power measures across all 28 countries. That's brilliant, as I'd hate to have to tailor my vacuum cleaners to each of the 28 member countries own idiosyncratic rules, but a set power limit in 28 countries provides me with one heck of an incentive to design and manufacture a market winning machine within that limit. It's worth noting that two of Which's existing 'Best Buys' already are within the new power limit, and that the chunky mega-cleaner, Henry, only has a 1200 watt motor.

The set limit also means that my product range doesn't need to include a stupidly powerful vacuum cleaner to get the custom of consumers who insist on buying the highest powered device available, regardless of their need for it or its real efficacy.

So there you have it - a carefully planned process to meet a sensible energy use goal that benefits the residents of 28 countries and allows manufacturers to design one product that meets the specification of all the countries. Brilliant. Well done our EU.

Please can some politicians and mainstream papers present a positive argument on EU topics in the future, to help me make up my mind.

Update 15/05/2016