My response to Central London Grid Consultation

Comments on Lambeth Aspect of the Central London Cycling Grid

1. Key to Lambeth is the borough’s intention to have cycling as 20% of trips by 2020, with 15% by 2015. To achieve this, and make a fantastic place, the central tourist part of Lambeth must have as little motor traffic as possible, with motor traffic reduction across the whole area the absolute key. Lambeth, unlike Westminster, is not motor-centric and this should therefore be facilitated at the highest level by TfL as well as the borough. There is urgency needed to meet the cycling modal share targets so LCC’s priority ‘coarse grid’ measures needs to be expedited within months, not years.

Lambeth’s policy is for 1 – 100 cycling, that a parent conveying a one year old; an eight year cycling to school; and a nonagenarian can all cycle in comfort and safety; feeble measures are unacceptable.

2. There must be frequent and excellent places to cross the Inner Ring Road.

3. The grid has to accord to the realities of how people behave. It needs to adopt the core Dutch cycling design principles: Direct, Comfortable, Safe, Attractive and Coherent.

Directness and Coherence are not met by parts of the Lambeth part of the grid as it stands, largely I suspect because the Grid is envisioned by TfL to be a mix of ‘slower quietways and cycling superhighways’ with nothing in between.

a)      The majority of cyclists using Waterloo Bridge are likely to continue to use Waterloo Road as it is direct (a straight line) and comfortable (gentle gradient, whereas the ascent/descent from Upper Ground / Belvedere Road is steep and bendy). Should this not be the focus of the Grid? There is a time penalty for using Cornwall Road as against Waterloo Road and I question whether this can be shortened to make it sufficiently attractive to a large number of cyclists.  The Cornwall Road option can undoubtedly work as a ‘slower quietway’, if the southbound access to it off Waterloo Bridge is super safe and the traffic light phasing at the Cut is hugely improved (or better lights removed due to filtered permeability removing through motor traffic in the Cut), but remains indirect.
 b)      Crossing Westminster Bridge to or from the cycling superhighway on the northern side, will people really go round the houses to get to / from Elephant and Castle rather than the direct route of Westminster Bridge Road?
 c)       Why is there a gap on Lambeth Road outside Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park when it’s the obvious, direct route to the Cycling Superhighway (6?) and passes the front door of one of our National Museums?

4. I am pleased to see positive examples of Directness and Coherence:

a) The riverside route being created to link the American Embassy and Vauxhall to the London Eye and Tate Modern. This has huge tourist potential and needs to be exceptionally family and visitor friendly.

b) Kennington Road linking CS7 and the planned quietway through Kennington Park to Baylis Road and the Cut and beyond. The crossing of the Inner Ring Road needs to be made much more pleasant. The junction of Kennington Road and Lambeth Road lends itself to a scramble lights system.

c) The Vauxhall, Nine Elms Battersea linear park linking through Vauxhall Walk to Hercules Road, Baylis Road, the Cut. Can this please all have motor vehicle access only rather than be a motor traffic through route (save buses as appropriate) or fantastic segregation if through traffic remains in part. A Dutch quality route between St Thomas’ and Guys Hospitals needs to be factored in.

5) I cannot stress enough the importance of the bridges and their junctions each end being made child cycle friendly within a short time scale. There is not a single child friendly bridge currently and this presents a huge obstacle to cycling journeys to school, shops and attractions across the river.

I suggest tacking a ped’n footway addition to Waterloo Bridge on the east side, on the east side of the steps down to the Imax. This would allow the existing pavement to the west of the steps to be made into a mandatory, maybe segregated, cycle lane to the quietway exit, while retaining a bus and general traffic lane towards the roundabout.  Through rearrangement of the lanes and bus stops at the northern end it should be a simple matter to allow an easy transition for children to Covent Garden from the South Bank complex and vis versa (Wellington Street and Bow Street in Westminster should have no motor traffic, save lorry deliveries at specific time slots).

6) Minor notes:

a) I question why Courtenay Street is highlighted rather than more direct Cardigan Street?

b) a route from Reedworth Street through the car park of Cotton Gardens and across Kennington Lane (through relocating the adjacent Pelican and making it a Toucan) into Cottington Street and Othello Street to Kennington Park Road by Kennington tube station would be fairly easy and increase permeability of the inner ring road.

Oppose planning application for new Merlin Entertainments attraction at County Hall

Merlin Entertainments have a planning application for a new commercially-sensitive-so-undisclosed attraction to open at County Hall (already home to Merlin Entertainments existing London Eye and Aquarium, oh and the recently moved London Dungeon) which they expect to attract 600-700,000 visitor a year, whereas the Movieum it will replace attracts c50,000.

The proposed new visitor attraction is predicted to generate an additional 3-4% of the existing visitor numbers.

To the best of my knowledge no meaningful measures have been taken to make cycling better at County Hall (particularly the cycle route on Belvedere Road) with any of the previous developments. However, to the detriment of people on bikes, the large number of pedestrians on the river front has led to County Hall inhibiting cycling along the Thames Path.

I urge you to spend five minutes on Lambeth's website opposing the plans until a substantial improvement in the cycle route behind County Hall and cycle parking on site is undertaken. Please do it now if you can - there's only until February 18th. (I'll stick some photos in the blog when I have time, but don't delay acting until I do!)

The application is number 13/06055/FUL on planning.lambeth.gov.uk and once you have signed in to the site you can comment. Feel free to cut and paste bits from my objection (publicly viewable) or from this blog, or if you're a planning expert, make comments on my blog for people to include in their objection. Below I detail the policy areas that I consider are not being engaged with in this application.

The Transport Assessment, written by Atkins, for the new attraction confirms that the privately owned part of Belvedere Road behind County Hall is a cycle route - National Cycle Network route 4 as it happens. It is also a London Cycle Network route and a planned part of the Mayor's new central London cycle grid.

The owners of County Hall choose to make it a difficult area to enter and exit, and recently tried to make it even worse than it is.

They also provide no public cycle parking in their grounds. There is none on their section of Belvedere Road and none on Forum Magnum Square.

The Transport Assessment states (my emphasis):

4.15. Cycle parking stands are provided to the south of the concourse area of the London Eye located adjacent to Belvedere Road as well as numerous other locations around County Hall. In addition, cycle parking is also provided at Waterloo Tube Station a seven minute walk from the new visitor attraction and also adjacent to Royal Festival Hall on Belvedere Road a five minute walk from the site. 

8.10. No additional cycle parking is proposed as part of this planning application.

The absence of cycle parking within the grounds of County Hall is glossed over and nothing is said at all about the dreadful quality of the cycle route access / egress at County Hall, nor are any measures proposed to improve it.

So, let's see how this stacks up to policy that's cited within the Transport Assessment. Let's start with the big one, National Planning Policy Framework: Transport:

2.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published March 2012 sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. There are 12 core principles that underpin planning and decision-taking and the key one for transport is the promoting of sustainable transport, namely:
 actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and
 focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.

In my view, no improvements to a poor quality cycle route coupled with no more cycle parking seems to fly in the face of that.

2.2. A key planning objective is to ensure that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. When preparing development plans or considering planning applications, local authorities should:
 accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;
 give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high
 quality public transport facilities;
 create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones;
 incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and
 consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

I would suggest that the transition from the road to the cycle path here exemplifies pedestrian / cyclist conflict and street clutter.

Now, what about regional level? The Mayor's Transport Strategy 2010 includes:

2.5. The Mayor’s transport vision is: ‘London’s transport system should excel among those of world cities, providing access to opportunities for all its people and enterprises, achieving the highest environmental standards and leading the world in its approach to tackling urban transport challenges of the 21st century.’
and
2.8. In October 2013 Revised Early Minor Alterations were published. A revision which is applicable here
is:
 New developments should provide cycle parking and cycle changing facilities to encourage more cycling. Cycle parking provided for staff should be suitable for long stay parking. 

Quite clearly the cycle route access and egress at County Hall falls far short of world leading infrastructure, as does an absence of public cycle parking on the site.

At borough level, the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011, section 4 includes

(g) Promoting walking and cycling, including through improvements to existing provision and
provision in and around new development for cycling, cycle parking, the public realm and
transport and highway infrastructure. 

Move along, no improvement planned here

At local level there's the Waterloo Area Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which states,

New developments should connect to and improve the cycle network with direct, safe and
well-lit cycle routes.

and, finally, let's not forget Lambeth's Transport Plan 2011

2.13. Lambeth’s Transport Plan objectives are:
 Promote sustainable healthy travel behaviour
 Improve the condition of principal roads
 Improve Air Quality
 Reduce the perceived and actual danger on Lambeth’s roads
 Reduce CO2 emissions 

The Transport Consultancy fails to cite Lambeth's Cycling Strategy 2013, with its target of 20% of trips by cycle by 2020, and the demand for partnership working to achieve this. I would suggest that the application shows a distinct disinterest in helping achieve this.

The Challenge of Change in Vauxhall

Last night, at the invitation of a vocal Harleyford Road resident, I attended a meeting between a handful of residents and Transport for London about Cycling Superhighway 5 between New Cross Gate and Victoria via Vauxhall Bridge.

TfL proposes to turn one of the three lanes of one-way motor traffic on Harleyford Road, between the Vauxhall end of the cricket ground and the Royal Vauxhall Tavern, into a two-way cycling track. A number of properties face onto the road and some residents have concerns about the proposed track.

The meeting was for Transport for London to present their current plans following a previous meeting about a year ago. Members of the Cycling Superhighway design and consultation team were there, and, lest there be any doubt that TfL are taking this seriously, Andrew Gilligan, the Mayor’s Cycling Commissioner, and Nigel Hardy, TfL’s Head of Capital Development came to meet the half-dozen residents.

For those who don’t know the area, Harleyford Road is a TfL controlled strategic ‘red-route’ that runs up from the Oval towards Vauxhall Bridge. As this map, from this great resource, of 1831 shows, it has been a major road carrying people and goods between south and north London since the first Vauxhall Bridge was built in 1812.

In Victorian times I imagine it was frequently congested; noisy due to the clatter of horse shoes and rumble of wagon wheels; liberally splattered in horse poo and pee. The coming of the motor vehicle, which could do in one trip what it previously too six horses and carts to do, may have seemed a huge relief to the residents at that time.

As time went by however motor vehicle numbers and trips soared resulting in the noisy, polluted, race track that is Vauxhall as we know it today.

At first glance one may doubt the sanity of anyone who chooses to live on such a motorway, but the traffic will presumably have altered to a degree over the years (e.g. I believe the red-route controls were implemented in 1998), and the large houses are centrally located, well connected to public transport, and cheaper than ones facing onto a quieter street. And there are off-peak times

The meeting was shouty and jumped around from topic to topic quite erratically, but I will try to capture the points that were discussed and some comments and suggestions I have. It’s pertinent to note that all the residents present seemed to live on the side of the road on which the cycle track is proposed to be placed (the right hand lane in the photo above, heading towards Vauxhall). One stated that she is a fair-weather cyclist.

Loading and Unloading – At present the red-route status means that, according to a resident, you cannot load/unload between 7am and 7pm Monday to Saturday. The concern is access to hearses, ambulances, refuse trucks, fire engines, supermarket delivery vehicles, cars used by the infirm and removal lorries during those hours if one of three motor traffic lanes has been replaced by a two-way cycle lane.

TfL pointed out that the existing loading bays that have been provided for most loading/unloading in Durham Street would remain. I pointed out even if vehicles stopped in one lane that would still leave a motor traffic lane available going in the same direction for motor vehicles to use. I also suggested that an off-peak loading bay on Harleyford Road would be worthy of consideration by TfL, which they took on board as a proposal.  I took this photo in the early afternoon today and you can see that there is no shortage of space despite a broken down car.

A further concern was the ability of people to cross a low barrier between the road and cycle lane that will prevent drivers from parking on the cycle lane. I suggested some wheelchair width gaps – insufficient to get a vehicle into – would permit this. TfL seemed happy to explore this.

An additional issue was that people loading/unloading on this road (rather than in the Durham Street bay provided) would have to cross a two-way cycle lane to reach the vehicle. Apparently cyclists travel at 30mph (and presumably are impervious to injury in a collision as well as being beyond Olympic racing status) so that would present great difficulties. A TfL observation that the peak hour tidal flow tended to be in one-direction appeared to be lost in the general hubbub.

The problems that would arise in the future from two-way cycling in the future were felt likely to be the same as the current ones, where people ride their cycles against the traffic on the pavement, the difference being that  they would be riding on a separate track instead of the pavement.

Pedestrian/Cyclist Interaction – Some people are rushing from A to C, through B where some locals are pootling around. Regardless of form of transport there can be conflict in this circumstance and excellent design plays a massive role in reducing this.

The underlying issue in Vauxhall is how to successfully balance the needs of a transport ‘corridor’ with a place where people live. We must not end up with barren streets as exemplified a little further down Harleyford Road by the sullen wall along the Oval cricket ground. TfL’s urban designers have done good work in producing the draft Nine Elms cycling strategy, but there was no indication in the plans presented last night of place-making being considered here.  For example, could trees be used at places to mark the divide between the road and the cycle lane, and could a more harmonious colour than blue be used for the lane. Ultimately, can the movement of goods and people be so improved that Harleyford Road can become a quiet, pleasant, safe and spacious boulevard through which thousands of people move?

Inconsiderate road users, regardless of their transport mode, need to be encouraged to behave differently. Design plays a huge part in this, but so does education.  I hope that local primary schools St Anne’s and Wyvil will be offering cycle training, which addresses this, to their pupils this year in preparation for the gradual introduction of their new routes to school.

Access to Driveways – There are a handful of permitted driveways and residents are concerned about accessing or leaving them given a segregated cycle lane to cross. TfL said that access would be maintained.

Some residents felt it was most unlikely that there would be a gap in the flow of people riding bicycles sufficient to allow them to turn into or out of their drive and asked for proof in the form of an existing example. TfL cited Cable Street which has had such a cycle lane for over a decade.

Putting out Rubbish – I don’t know where residents are currently required to put their bins out for collection. I presume on the pavement. The pavement will remain in place, albeit with fewer people riding bikes on it. Anyway, it’s a concern that TfL and Lambeth will need to ensure is checked out.

Air Pollution – It was argued that providing dedicated space for people to ride bikes may increase air pollution because where there were three lanes of motor traffic there will now be only two. TfL said that traffic light phasing would be used to manage this. No benefits of more people cycling rather than driving or being driven and the knock on reduction in air pollution were raised.

Banned right turn from Harleyford Road to Kennington Lane – a small number of drivers currently make this right turn. To facilitate the efficient, direct and safe passage of the existing and forecast number of people riding bicycles, TfL propose that the few motorists make this small part of their journey around the existing gyratory. I think that it was to do with this point that a resident suggested it would be a better idea here to maintain the right turn for the few and a good idea if the thousands of people riding bikes dismounted and walked their bikes across the road.

My Conclusion

Residents last night didn’t cite any potential benefits such as cleaner air; the motor traffic being further away from their front door reducing noise and serious collision danger; a fitter population reducing their NHS liability; or enhanced mobility options for adults and children in the houses thanks to a child-usable cycle lane outside the front door. It seemed unlikely that any of the owners expect a cycle lane replacing a lane of motor traffic will increase the value of the houses.

Change can be threatening and it is easy to anticipate real or imaginary problems and focus on these. 

This is not to say that the matters that residents raised were trivial and of no matter. Some are real concerns and, especially at this early stage of London ‘going Dutch’, they need to be heard and responded to. A particular concern of mine is that cycle lanes do not become loading bays like the one outside Tesco on the gyratory, and so sensible loading/unloading provision needs to be designed in from the outset. 

Change is achieved incrementally – a cycling superhighway here is likely to be a step towards a much better future both for residents and for those who pass through. I am gratified that the residents are questioning the process and that Transport for London at a senior level are engaging with them.

I look forward to seeing pensioners and primary school children riding through Vauxhall alongside the ladies and gentlemen who commute to work.

Making North Lambeth Cycle Friendly - Public Meeting 20th Jan

PUBLIC MEETING arranged by Lambeth Cyclists (please tell others in the area)

How can North Lambeth be rapidly transformed into a place where adults and children feel safe and comfortable cycling around?

We know that cycling provides astonishing health benefits; doesn’t pollute; helps fight climate change; is cheap; and could provide a quick and independent form of travel around the central London area for adults of all ages as well as children.

But our road system is currently intimidating; not just to children but also to many people who would cycle if it were made pleasant to do so.

What changes need to be made for North Lambeth to become a place where people of all ages cycle without fear to friends, to shops, to school, or to work?

How long will it take for changes to take place and what obstacles need to be overcome? Are our schools, our doctors, our politicians, our businesses, our transport professionals, and our residents doing all they can to make this area fantastic for cycling?

How can we retain the benefits that motor vehicles provide in moving large numbers of people and heavy goods, while also being unconcerned about our children travelling by bike?

Will Vauxhall be more cycling friendly than Amsterdam, as Boris Johnson promised? Will the proposed central London grid deliver real change? Will the Myatt’s Fields developments result in a cycling culture? Will all local schools provide cycle training to their pupils?

This is the first in a series of five monthly meetings around Lambeth providing a chance to meet Lambeth Cyclists, the borough group of the London Cycling Campaign, and discuss the neighbourhood changes needed to make cycling the easy and obvious choice for local journeys.

If you live in, work in, or travel through Oval, Vassall, Princes or Bishop’s Ward (broadly from Myatt’s Fields and Vauxhall up to the Thames) then please come along.

Monday 20^th January 2014 at 7.30pm

Vauxhall Griffin (Ruby Room), 8 Wyvil Road, SW8 2TH (www.thevauxhallgriffin.com)

www.lambethcyclists.org.uk

An end of year token from the Royal Parks

In March 2012 I started an intermittent dialogue with the Royal Parks concerning the Mall's closure on Sunday and the absence of signage to say that cycling is permitted. It's worth scanning the email exchanges here if you haven't followed the saga to date.

I'm pleased to say that the Royal Parks have now found the funds to purchase their bespoke sign (no conventional 'except cycles' or 'motorbike over car in red circle' sign for them).. Here it is:

The sign is put out on Sundays on the Mall near Horse Guards Road, next to a couple of conventional 'No Entry' signs like this one:

Unfortunately the Royal Parks appear not yet to have found the will or the budget for a similar sign on the Marlborough Road entrance

and I'm willing to bet nothing has been amended at the Buckingham Gate or Hyde Park Corner road closures.

Happy New Year to the Royal Parks, trying as always.

Fun with signs

There are all kinds of blog posts I should be writing now, about the new central London cycling grid for example.

Instead here are some pictures I've taken over the past few weeks. I've no idea who is/are responsible for all these sign stickers, or indeed if they're all by one person or group, but I'm enjoying spotting them so let's hope the trend continues. (update - many are the work of an artist called Clet Abraham)

.

CS5 Vauxhall to Victoria planned Route

From latest Mayor's Question Time:

Cycle route Victoria to Vauxhall

Question No: 2013/4071 Darren Johnson
Why are you proposing to divert CS5 onto Belgrave Road because the direct route would involve cycle
lanes which "remove some general traffic space on Vauxhall Bridge Road"?
Your cycling adviser says Belgrave Road has advantages because it is "fairly quiet, we wouldn't need to make any changes to the road, apart from intermittent markings." Rather than implement another second rate cycling safety scheme that will have to be fixed at a later date, why don't you do it right first time?

Written response from the Mayor 

The Vauxhall Bridge Road proposal was for cycle lanes which would not meet the standards laid down in my Vision for Cycling in this location. Given the volume of traffic on this road, and the number of buses using it, it would be impossible to do anything better. Therefore we have moved the Cycle Superhighway to Belgrave Road, which sees a much smaller proportion of motor traffic and, crucially, a fifth of the volume of HGVs. The new route avoids the need for northbound cyclists to filter into the middle of heavy, fast-moving traffic at Bessborough Gardens and avoids conflict with left turning traffic into Richmond Gate. It also allows cyclists to cross the Victoria area without having to negotiate the deeply unpleasant gyratory at Victoria station, a place made even more hazardous by building works. It provides a contraflow segregated track through to the north of the area and will connect with other Quietway routes. I am very surprised that you should describe it as a second-rate scheme