No room for cyclists - get off and push

Summer at the Oval and cricket means the closure of a section of London Cycle Network route 3 adjacent to it. Normally this road is two-way and fully parked up on both sides. On match days parking is banned and this popular cycle safe route becomes a one-way street.  It seems to me that there should be no objection to this important cycle route being "No Entry Except Cyclists". Here's what Lambeth Council wrote when I asked them about this ban last June:

Firstly, please accept my apologies for the late response to your question regarding the arrangements around the Oval cricket road closures and one-way workings. This is something we will look at next year, as it is now too late to amend the Temporary Traffic Order.

I have spoken to the Lambeth Cycling Officer, and in his opinion it would be simpler to tell cyclists to dismount for the short section of Kennington Oval for which the one way working is in operation.

The diversion would be too long otherwise as it would entail using Clayton Street, Kennington Road, Kennington Park Road, Harleyford Street and then into Kennington Oval (the Red Route section) to rejoin LCN 3.

I appreciate that this is inconvenient, and as a cyclist myself I would find this irritating, and we will promise to look at this next year, although we will have to consult with the Police as a major part of the reason for the restrictions are safety related and allow the Police to monitor all traffic, including cyclists.

I hope this goes some way to answering your question, if you have any further issues, please do not hesitate to contact me,

Kind regards,

Tony Fellowes
Project Engineer
Transport & Highways
Housing, Regeneration and Environment Dept.
London Borough of Lambeth

I've emailed the Council to ask them why the police turned down their request for cycling to be allowed this year.

I'm willing to bet that most cyclists ignore the signs and the police ignore the transgressors. And somebody will be whinging about cyclists going the wrong way down one-way streets.

Oops, Oh Bollards!

 The AA to the rescue

I wonder whether this driver will be required to have a medical check and driving retest?

I saw this today on Cornwall Road (London Cycle Network Route 3) at the junction with Stamford Street. The primary school children I was teaching safe on-road cycling to weren't impressed.

And, for the record, they all considered Upper Ground, where they were to turn right into Cornwall Road, to be a very hostile cycling environment. That'll be one of those Olympic Cycling Greenways / National Cycle Networks - stuffed full of big lorries, big buses and belching taxis.

Why I bypass shopping at Tesco Kennington

 Today, on my way back from shopping at a rival to Tesco that I prefer to frequent I was forced to a halt because of a Tesco lorry parked on a double yellow line totally obstructing the cycle track in Vauxhall Street. This is one reason I shop elsewhere.

The driver could have found a sensible place to park and Tesco could have called his mobile when the store was ready to receive his load.

Instead Tesco are happy to place cyclists' lives at risk - this is after all part of London Cycle Network Route 3 - a backstreet route intended to be appealing and safe for inexperienced cyclists such as children. Needless to say this is not a one-off incidence but a frequent occurrence at this store.

I'm emailing the store manager to ask why the suggestion I make above is not already in place, and to ensure that it or a similar equivalent will be put in place and the situation never arise again. I'll publish his/her reply.

Cornwall Road Bollards

 Work to improve the London Cycle Network 3 route up Cornwall Road is practically completed, no doubt much to the annoyance of cabbies such as the one below who briefly enjoyed having a bit of a rat run to use.

TfL's Journey Planner and the London Cycle Network

I've got to get from Old Street to Lewisham this afternoon. TfL's Journey Planner proposes a back street route which I'm sure will be one of the London Cycle Network (LCN) routes. It's got more twists and turns than Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. I'd be happy to give it a go if I knew it was an identifiable, signed route.

The trouble is that most of the LCN is a convoluted mess for reasons I won't go into now. However there must be a couple of routes that are pretty well thought through and signed, such as LCN 3 in Lambeth from Clapham to Waterloo.

So, how bloody stupid are TfL that neither their Journey Planner nor their Local Cycling Guides (aka maps) flag this handful of useful, signed routes up.

The consequence is that I'll be taking the Old Kent Road instead of TfL's suggested route. I know I can follow that without stopping every couple of hundred yards to peer at a map at dusk.

The inscrutable Shirayama

Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd are referred to as Shiriyama in the draft Southbank and Waterloo Cycling Strategy.

They own the former County Hall and the bit of Belvedere Road between Westminster Bridge Road and Chicheley Street - the bit which is almost impassable by bicycle at either end and has no cycle parking along it.
P36 of the report says:
"Fig 10 above shows the cycle provision in place at each end of the privately-owned section of Belvedere Road, broadly described as the County Hall section. As revealed, signage, routes and markings are inadequate and representations must be made to the landowner Shiriyama to improve these according to an agreed scheme.
Should Shiriyama decline to make the suggested improvements, an alternative route may be considered via currently underutilised Forum Magnum Square, which is owned Galliard Ltd, and through a cycle lane created alongside the bus lane at Addington Street."

I sense that the South Bank Employers Group and Lambeth Council are frustrated by the company - as no doubt are many people who happen to ride bikes. In fact, page 32 of the report says £4000 has been allocated with Lambeth Approved Cycle Route Complementary Measures 2009 to 'negotiate with landowners on removal of obstacles in Belvedere Road'. I bet that's Shirayama they're talking about.

A quick Google search throws up the following sort of comments since Shirayama bought County Hall:

Lambeth Council Overview and Scrutiny Cttee minutes of Thursday, 12 July 2007 7.00 pm
"£100,000 from the development in County Hall Riverside Building which is the final payment from developers Shirayama Shokusan Co Ltd in relation to the employment and training obligation in the agreement signed back in 1993. This brings to a close a long and arduous pursuit by the Council."

Lambeth Council Finance Scrutiny Cttee re S106 monies, 26 Sept 2001
"Other Outstanding Significant Planning Obligations

As can be seen from the S 106 Schedule the implementation of Section 106 Agreements, there are a range of direct obligations to be implemented by the developer that need to be monitored and pursued with developers. In terms of the County Hall Riverside Building S106 Agreement, there are a number of outstanding obligations to be undertaken by the developer, which I would bring to your attention to give a complete response to your queries.
• Under Clause 3.3 a Child Care Facility was to be provided, principally for the
use of children of persons employed on the site. Despite some initial discussions with Social Services on the requirements to run an operational nursery, this service has not to date been provided. I understand there have been issues in relation to the provision of necessary information to Social Services, and whether the County Hall riverside Building can provide a suitable nursery location in line with latest nursery provision guidance.
• Under Clause 3.10 a Children’s Library was to have provided within the County Hall, Riverside Building. Although a room has been designated for the Children’s Library to go into, no Library provision has been made. In discussions with the former Head of Library Services, David Jones, it was agreed that the Council would specify and cost out the implementation of a library facility, The specification costs identified would be used to either to pursue the owners Shirayama to implement as in the agreement or alter the agreement for some form of alternative provision. The location of proposed Children’s Library is not ideal in terms of access.
• Under Clause 3.15 and 3.16 of the agreement the owners Shirayama were
suppose to submit a proposal for a traffic management scheme for Belvedere Road (adjoining County Hall), and implement them subject to the Council approval. A scheme was submitted after the completion of the North and South Block residential schemes. However, the Council has not approved the details.
Planning is currently co-ordinating the actions of a number of departments on the
outstanding issues for the County Hall agreement. This will require further corporate response and action on how best to deliver the original objectives behind the Section 106 Agreement, and possibly some alterations to original agreement. It is proposed to establish a cross-directorate officer group to coordinate implementation in future for major Section 106 Planning Obligations."

I wonder what the original S106 and planning conditions were for County Hall when it was sold to this unattractive company.

A rubbish route with many black, poisonous objects

Putting the knee-jerk desire to ban cyclists from the riverside aside, the South Bank Strategy has many good points, including acknowledging how rubbish the Belvedere Road route is currently. It recognises the need to create cycle routes that cyclists will enjoy using.

This is the real way to encourage cycling (with all the pluses of reducing CO2, NOx, noise pollution, heart-attacks, diabetes etc.) while also reducing conflict with pedestrians.

The report quotes TfL's 2008 'Attitudes to Cycling' study which found that nine out of ten Londoners agreed with the statement that 'traffic makes people afraid of cycling in London'.

It also states, 'The Spine Route (Upper Ground and Belvedere Road) serves as a service road for HGVs, a bus route, a national and local cycle route and a key walking route'. How they've managed not to notice it's also used by a zillion diesel-exhaust-bellowing taxis a day, not to mention mini-cabs and private cars, is beyond me.

I have yet to find in the report any suggestions on ways to reduce motor-traffic usage in the area. Examples of sustainable options include finding ways to reduce the number of HGVs needed (eg reusable crockery rather than disposable; water fountains rather than bottled water on sale); re-routing taxis to have drop offs along Stamford Street (a short walk is good for you and adaptions can be arranged for the disabled), and a road-closure at some point (permeable to pedestrians and cyclists) to prevent rat-running motor traffic.

As cycle route plans are worked up, let's hope Cycling England's five Key Design Features for a Cycle Network are adhered to:
Coherence : The cycling infrastructure should form a coherent entity, linking all trip origins and destinations; with a continuous level of provision;
Directness : Routes should be as direct as possible, based on desire lines, since detours and delays will deter use;
Attractiveness: Routes must be attractive to cyclists on subjective as well as objective criteria. Lighting, personal safety, aesthetics, noise and integration with the surrounding area are important;
Safety : Designs should minimise the danger for cyclists and other road users; and
Comfort: Cycle routes need smooth, well-maintained surfaces, regular sweeping, and gentle gradients. Routes must be convenient to use and avoid complicated manoeuvres and
interruptions.