City of London vs Southwark Cyclists

Why will this cyclist wait a very long time and then ignore the red light?

In my blogpost of 19th December I wrote about this traffic light:


Finally, in the City of London, the cyclist push-and-wait traffic lights at the junction of Queen Street and Queen Victoria Street weren't working as has been the case for a good three weeks now. Clearly no-one in the City's highways department cycles over Southwark Bridge in a month of Sundays.


There's now good and bad news. The bad news is worse than the good news.


Finally there is now power to these lights (maybe as a result of my reporting it) and as you can see a working red light.


On the bad news side,I have absolutely no idea if the amber and green lights work because cyclists have been prevented from pressing the button that eventually makes the lights change from red to green. (Would a motorist at this crossroads be expected to press a bloody button?)


The cyclists' button is attached to this traffic light

I filled in the on-line reporting form on the City of London website at noon today, so a traffic queue problem of this nature (somewhat less problematic to solve than the Hammersmith Flyover) should have been resolved by  commuter rush-hour tomorrow morning, or at least by the Olympics. I won't be there so please let me know if it's been fixed in the morning or, presumably surely, by the evening rush-hour.


It's totally deplorable that, at the end of Cycling Superhighway 7, cyclists should even have to press a button for the lights to work. It's comparatively incidental in comparison that the accursed button has been barricaded away. 


Let's see what the City of London's strategy says (my bold)

The Transport Objectives in the City of London Community Strategy 2004 – 2014

• To facilitate the provision of an enhanced public transport system which is punctual, reliable, not overcrowded and accessible to all and has greater capacity, especially at peak times.
• To facilitate greater ease of interchange and higher standards of customer information.
• To maintain productive and effective relationships with the strategic transport authorities, operators and policy makers, including the development and maintenance of robust contingency plans.
• To improve the ‘pedestrian experience’.
•  To encourage improvements to the safety of all modes of transport.
• To encourage cycling.
• To deter breaches of traffic regulations.
• To facilitate the maximisation of transport choice at all times of day.
• To maintain the traffic flow.

In all mildness, the City of London can't be said to be doing very well with regard to the last five points of their strategy here.

Carnage on Cycling Supercrapway 7 tonight

I came as close to a collision as I have in a very long time tonight. A pedestrian ran into the centre of the road from behind some parked cars. She wasn't looking as she was running across the road. If she had looked before leaving the pavement she wouldn't have seen me as I couldn't see her because of the legally parked cars in the cycling superhighway blocking our view of each other. Thanks to my training I was well in the middle of the general traffic lane and had time to bellow nonsensically while doing an emergency stop.

If this was a proper cycling superhighway the problem wouldn't have occurred because the bloody cars wouldn't have been there.

On the cycle Bypass at E&C a motorist and a pedestrian crossing had collided. The car, which was on the pavement when I first saw it had been taken away but the damage remained. The crossing had been taped off to pedestrians and the lights were stuck on green for the motor traffic, meaning that pedestrians and cyclists on the superhighway had to gamble their way across the multiple traffic lanes. Why didn't the authorities put the motor traffic lane on red and force the motorists to decide when the way was clear? (By the way the light at the bottom of the traffic light in the picture above isn't a green light, it's TfL's sign, for cheapskate reasons, prohibiting cyclists from a desirable right turn into the bus and cycle lane).

Further up the road just before Southwark Bridge, under the railway bridge, roadworks are going on. Where are the signs telling the bloody motorists to get out of your car and push it, like the cyclists are asked to do for some lack of reason.

Finally, in the City of London, the cyclist push-and-wait traffic lights at the junction of Queen Street and Queen Victoria Street weren't working as has been the case for a good three weeks now. Clearly no-one in the City's highways department cycles over Southwark Bridge in a month of Sundays.

This kind of shit provision and consideration for cyclists and pedestrians is another reason why I'll be at the Vigil outside Kings Cross at 6pm this Tuesday.

If anyone from TfL or the City of London reads this, as well as everyone else, please go and see the wonderful film 'Urbanized' at the Barbican to the 23rd December, to see what changes are needed and why London's cycling and walking provision needs major improvement, not tinkering while smoothing the car carnage.

Westminster, Brent and the City versus cycling

On Thursday I went to teach in a Primary School just north of Queen's Park Station in Brent, adjoining Westminster. I took the cycle route signed here in Westminster and turned right as marked. So far so good:

 Still in Westminster I came to the next junction which had no sign post so I assumed straight on would be the way although the sign says dead end.

Still just in Westminster I saw a sign confirming I was on the right track, though there was no dropped kerb.

 I obeyed the sign and went straight ahead crossing the three lane gyratory

 into the lane opposite, now in Brent, and through the car park

 to come out onto the same gyratory that I had just crossed and needed to cross again.

 The school was on the next road with a continuous stream of motor traffic

and car parking (or school run drop off) spaces slap bang outside. There were no cycle parking racks in the school.

Not all the kids were able to make it up a slight incline (not really a hill) without stopping, maybe due to not cycling frequently enough to know how to work the gears effectively or build up their stamina. That road ran alongside the local Queen's Park which would have been a great place for the kids to develop bike skills and stamina, except that the sign clearly says 'No Cycling'

 and the park is controlled by, you guessed, the City of London.

Game, set and match to the authorities versus those trying to encourage cycling.

LIP enhancement in the City

I'm told that a fair number of people who ride bikes have already written to the City of London commenting on their draft Transport Local Implementation Plan. Clearly the more who so the better the final version should be. All the stuff you need is on the Cyclists in the City blog and that should be your first port of call.

Below is the submission I made, as a frequent cyclist in the City, with respect to their LIP. It was prefaced by a bit of background information on me and the places/routes I use in the City. On re-reading it a final, final edit would have been beneficial but, hey, at least I sent it in and can cross it off the 'to do' list!

"Within the draft LIP I can see that the City views active travel as being of great importance. I am however very concerned that the actions and spending allocation outlined will fail to achieve the step change that is needed. I consider the City currently to be subservient to the demands of motor traffic and neither pleasant for existing cyclists or likely to inspire people who don't currently cycle to do so. I make comments on the draft below that I hope can inform the final version.


a) A significant omission from the LIP is ANY descriptive information whatsoever on the ten major projects listed in Appendix 3 that, according to the budget, are forecast to account for £30m of the £117m spend over this 3 year period. Please can information on these ten projects and their transport implications, with a map highlighting the ground they account for within the City, be included in the final version.

b) There is no doubt that people prefer to cycle where there is a convenient, direct route that is away from motor traffic, as they perceive that the size, speed and brute force of vehicles has the potential to kill. This understandably results in fear of motor traffic by other road users (whatever the accident stats show). To get people to cycle you need to remove this sense of fear which means removing motor traffic from their desired routes to the greatest extent possible, and where motor traffic remains reducing its volume and speed as far as possible.

To this end I am encouraged in seeing the very limited number of roads for through motor-traffic shown in the Transport Hierarchy map (Figure 3D) and ask that the LIP gives considerably more information on how it is intended to implemement and enforce this.

For example, the map shows that Southwark Bridge and London Bridge should only be used by motor vehicle traffic with a destination or origin within the City of London (excepting buses). Can the LIP please include details of how this is measured, what the current levels transgressing this are, the targeted reduction over the three years and how this will be achieved? Reducing through traffic using these bridges should also, I imagine, permit the redeployment or saving of a considerable sum of money that otherwise would need to be spend on the bridges' upkeep.

c) Reducing through traffic is not sufficient in itself. There must also be targets and methodologies to reduce motor traffic journeys originating within or destined for the City of London.

I therefore ask that the Good Performance aspect of Table 4D is changed from 'not relevant' to have one target set for reducing the number of motor vehicle journeys originating/ending within the City, with a second relating to a reduction in the amount of motor traffic travelling through the City on roads that are not intended for that purpose within the transport hierarchy.

The volume of motor traffic and its knock on cost appears particularly significant given quotes in the LIP such as, "3.8 Highway renewal in the City is based upon the results of regular checks of highway condition and how the paving of the City's streets is coping with the huge volume of traffic that the City is subject to and with other paving-stressing factors such as the weather and water runoff.", and, "3.10 The highly constrained funding environment that is likely to prevail for the initial few years of the local implementation plan period is likely to mean that highway maintenance will form a much greater proportion of the City Corporation's total transport investment over the plan period than was the case during the last plan period when larger capital projects were more numerous."

Reducing motor traffic volume will reduce the cost of highway renewal (as well as playing a key role in reducing air and noise pollution as you outline in 5.4.1, 5.4.2 and 5.6.1.)

Given these obvious benefits, alongside clear benefits for pedestrians and cyclists, I ask that a targeted reduction in motor traffic as outlined above is accompanied by a plan on how this is to be achieved. Within this I would expect to see particular targets set and plan of action laid out to reduce taxi and van mileage in the City. For example, companies such as Darwin's Deli and Office Depot demonstrate the potential for a considerable proportion of deliveries to be made by cycle, while cycle hire and cycle rickshaws offer clear alternatives to taxis and minicabs.

d) On the cycling front, I am concerned that your trajectory diagram, 4F2, doesn't include any years prior to 2010 to allow readers to see how ambitious or not the target is against growth over recent years. Please can the LIP also include reflection on why the previous LIP target to have 12% of all vehicular traffic made by cycle was missed so massively, and with what degree of confidence you feel able to set the new targets and have real belief that your actions (rather than those of Boris Johnston) can achieve a cycling revolution in the City in the very near future?

e) A relatively straightforward change to supplement the measures I outline above is to set very low speed limits - certainly under 20mph in back streets, with 20mph as the default elsewhere (or better still 30kph as on the continent, or 17mph) with exceptions as reasonably justified. Reducing the speed in this way is unlikely to affect a motor vehicles total journey time, given that a burst of speed tends to result in the vehicle simply reaching the next red lght quicker.

f) I also find the lack of any reference to Cycling Superhighways worrying and want the LIP to clarify the City of London's plans with regard to these. Does the City have any plans to facilitate transition between CS3 and 7 for example or is the plan to ignore their existence? Where are the budgets for these kind of changes shown and are they sufficient for quality links to be made and signed?

g) There remains the need for buses and lorries but every effort should be made to make their drivers as cycle aware as possible, with on-road cycle training being part of their training. Due to the ease with which these vehicles can kill there must be the highest standards of enforcement of safety for these vehicles and their drivers.

I look forward to seeing the revised LIP and over the next couple of years finding the City to be a quieter, less polluted, and more mellow place to cycle and walk, with lower speed limits, greater segregation of motor traffic, more deliveries undertaken by cycle, cycle rickshaws, many more hire bikes, much more cycle parking, more considerate lorry and bus drivers, and far fewer taxis, private cars and vans."

Force change in the City

The motor traffic sodden Square Mile has produced its draft Transport 'Local Implementation Plan' (LIP) for consultation and I strongly urge you to spend a few minutes bunging an email pointing out that the City of London is, by and large, not a pleasant place to cycle in.

You should also express doubts that the draft LIP is going to achieve the kind of modal shift to cycling that they intend. It's probably also worth pointing out how dismally they did against target with their last LIP.

The photo above, with a cycle lane running straight into the back of a taxi rank, shows the City's typical way of supporting all transport modes equally. And anyone who has ever tried to find their way from Cycling Superhighway 3 to Cycling Superhighway 7, both ending by the City, will realise what utter disregard the City of London's authorities have for making cycling an easy way to get around.

You can either
a) lie back supinely and let them continue to waffle about targets for cyclists while doing bugger all meaningful to achieve it,
or
b) you can email them expressing your anger at their failure to effect real change to date and emphasise the need for them to invest in ways of making active travel, walking and cycling, the mellow way to get around.

Everything you need (including a draft email to adapt/use) is on the excellent Cyclists in the City blog. Please go there now and write that email! It'll be good practice for Lambeth's LIP, the draft of which is due out shortly.