A11 Mile End Road/ Burdett Road - Cycle Scheme

tfl has analysed the responses to proposals to upgrade the junction which will go a little way to improve the conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, but they could have done so much better.

Transport for London (TfL) had a rash of public consultations just before Christmas under the Mayor's "Better Junctions" initiative. The idea was to look at the "worst" junctions in London which have been whittled down from 500 which were quickly reviewed, to 100 which were going to be looked at in more detail. Of course, what about the other 400?

Anyway, whatever the motivation behind this review, the outcomes are gradually being reported on and decisions being made. We have had schemes such as the Lambeth Roundabout being shelved in favour of off-street trials, but others being taken forward as-consulted.

One such scheme is the junction of the A11 Mile End Road and Burdett Road which currently looks like this, complete with left turn slip roads from the side roads onto the A11, multi-lane approaches and blue "superhighway" stripes which offer pretty much no protection and may lull some users into a false sense of security. Pedestrians also have to cross several roads to get across the whole road.  In fact, pretty much a standard UK layout when a dual carriageway passes through an urban area (or cuts a community in half as it does here).

The biggest changes for the new layout is the removal of the left turn slip lanes which are especially hazardous to cyclists trying to cycle across the junction, mandatory cycle lanes "feeding" advanced stop lines and slightly narrower crossing points for pedestrians who of course no longer have the slip roads to cross.

The trouble is that there are still multi-lane approaches (3) and so cyclists turning right when traffic is flowing will still find it difficult and with oncoming traffic still flowing, I am not sure how anyone except the fast and furious will get there (I suspect they will get off the road and use the green men)

The left turn conditions are better without the slip roads, but where vehicles want to turn left when cyclists are not in the ASLs, we still have the left hook issue. 

Pedestrians still have to cross several roads to get across the whole junction, but it is a bit better than currently.

So, the layout is a bit better and perhaps brings the layout from the 1970s to the 2000s, but it is still old hat. In fact, the only cyclists who this helps are existing users - it will not attract new cyclists and certainly not children. After the enthusiasm of the proposed CS2 extension to Stratford (on Newham's roads), has TfL dropped back to form on its own network where it doesn't want to make tough road space reallocation decisions (apart from the slip roads)?

CS2 is not very good and this (in my opinion) makes it slightly better, but perhaps TfL should have looked at a common London junction like this and looked at a radical redesign to prioritise pedestrians and cyclists over traffic, even off road as a trial to roll out afterwards rather than spend precious money now?

I can, though, think of terrible junctions in Outer-London which this scheme would be great for to bring the debate forward (and as much as activists would argue, local politicians would not do radical - yet).

Of course, the political decision will be one to restrict the motorised traffic flow on a busy urban dual carriageway. Even in work, I have colleagues who baulk at the idea as car ownership and use is an aspiration, a freedom and I probably shouldn't give a view on politicians because as usual, I need to earn a living!

Setting Local Speed Limits

The department for transport has updated its guidance to highway authorities for setting local speed limits which is a step forward, but it has missed a massive opportunity with 20mph speed limits.

Last summer/autumn, the Government, through the DfT, consulted on changing its advice on setting local speed limits. Of course, with our big sports day, I am not surprised if you missed it, chances are your local council missed it as well.

Well, as with all good consultations, the responses have been carefully considered and new guidance has been issued - more on that in a bit.

The consultation responses are interesting. 250 individuals responded, but only 83 local authorities bothered. Now, DfT contacts local authorities and other groups for such things routinely and never advertises such consultations. The individuals will be people interested in the subject, but even so, they still outnumber the people that introduce speed limits!

As usual, the police made a big play about 20mph zones needing to be self-enforcing (traffic calming); a view echoed by the magistrates. The police are really reluctant to enforce speed limits anyway and 20mph scares them right off.

It is important to know that a 20mph zone is a traffic-calmed area subject to this speed limit with signs at the entry points saying Zone. A 20mph limit is simply shown by the normal round speed limit signs which say 20 and with little 20 signs used as repeaters. For a limit to be introduced, traffic needs to be running at less than 24mph (I have simplified) and a Zone needs to be traffic calmed.

There are some very strange organisations listed such as AA Limos and the MAD Driving School. But, they have every right to comment as did CTC, BRAKE and Living Streets.

So, in introducing the new guidance. DfT states;

Speed limits should be evidence-led and self-explaining and seek to reinforce people’s assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. They should encourage self-compliance. Speed limits should be seen by drivers as the maximum rather than a target speed.

Traffic authorities are asked to keep their speed limits under review with changing circumstances, and to consider the introduction of more 20 miles per hour limits and zones, over time, in urban areas and built-up village streets that are primarily residential, to ensure greater safety for pedestrians and cyclists, using the criteria contained in this guidance.

I recommend that any campaigner reads the guidance in detail as it will arm you with the knowledge to push for lower urban speed limits. To be fair to DfT, there is a hint of pushing local authorities to look at more 20mph Zones and limits, especially where walking and cycling are a large component of movements. But, the requirement for 20mph to be self-enforcing is still very much in evidence.

I have designed and built quite a few 20mph Zones and they are all traffic calmed, many with humps. I don't like humps as they create complaints about noise and vibration and are not that great to cycle over. But, if designed correctly, they absolutely reduce traffic speed and residents have often said that you come to live with them. They can also expensive to build and maintain but as stated, the police don't like to have to enforce the 20mph speed limit and humps are often the answer.

20mph limits are good for lower casualties, can reduce traffic dominance, but are not the whole answer - closure of rat runs would also massively improve walking and cycling conditions and the perception of safety.

So, what is the missed opportunity? I am no fan of politicians and the less I say about the Coalition the better, but there are quite a few bits of legislation and many cuts they have imposed on local authorities in a very short time. 

With speed limits and specifically 20mph, they could have very easily imposed legislation to tell local authorities that by a certain date (2 years would have been enough) all lit roads currently with a 30mph limit (called restricted roads) would become 20mph. Any road which is to remain at 30mph would need to be selected in advance and signed accordingly. This could have been rolled our regionally like digital TV, had an awareness campaign and the police told to get on with it. It could have been funded out of the billion pounds they have recently announced to build more roads with.

Of course, there would be local rows over which streets would stay at 30mph, but such a plan would have shown decisive leadership on the part of the government and local politicians would had to have stood up and be counted on their approach to walking, cycling and road safety. This is how we could have started a cultural shift.

Instead, we still have guidance suggesting we might think about 20mph speed limits at bit more, if traffic is either going slow already or if we have money for traffic calming, oh and if the police go along with us.

Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 2 extension – Bow roundabout to Stratford Town Centre

WHY WE SHOULD SUPPORT TFL'S PROPOSED EXTENSION OF CYCLE SUPERHIGHWAY 2

Just a quick post about TfL's planned proposals to extend Cycle Superhighway 2, the details of which can be viewed here.

Something has changed at TfL. They are daring to propose segregated cycle lanes/ tracks on the proposed CS2 extension which would run from the horrible Bow Interchange to Stratford Town Centre. They are also proposing to take the track behind some of the bus stops. A fair bit of the space for this is being taken away from traffic lanes (wow!).

The scheme is not perfect, but I am not going to debate that in detail here and besides, the Alternative Department for Transport's blog has plenty of detail.

There are many pundits, bloggers and activists out there who have an opinion on these issues and I really think that this scheme has got enough in it for most people. We should all be writing in support of the project and encourage people we know to do so as well. I have no problem with people making suggestions for improvements to the ideas as that is what consultation is for, but we cannot afford for dissenting voices (more on that in a bit).

Despite having an Olympic makeover, Stratford High Street is an urban motorway and in some ways worse than cycling along some of the outer London dual carriageways (not by much though!).

The reason that this scheme should be supported is that this is the first time (happy to be corrected) that such a radical scheme has been proposed for such a main artery in London and if it can be done here, just imagine how London could look and operate in the next few years.

I would love to have an account on how this scheme came into being in terms of the debate within TfL, what political buy-in there was and who is really pulling the strings. 

I am also utterly convinced that many engineers working at TfL and the boroughs have it in them to pull off such radical changes to our highway network, but the thing which has stifled us is the lack of political and senior officer leadership and possibly them willing to take a risk on doing something so different from the predict and provide for the private car that the past 50 years has given us.

My three worries are:

(i) This scheme is actually on Newham's highway network and so will their politicians have the proverbials to see it through?

(ii) When this is shown to be a success, will TfL and the boroughs roll it out?

(iii) If the organised cycle lobby in-fights, then it might be another excuse not to do a proper job.

This could be the master stroke. If Newham throws the scheme out, then TfL can blame them - after all, they did their best to push a radical scheme. If the cycle lobby argues and in-fights, another excuse not to go ahead. But (and this is what is genuinely exciting), if the scheme goes in, it will give TfL and the boroughs the mandate to take this concept forward across London.

Here are two artist's impressions showing what this scheme could look like from TfL's website. I have submitted my response in support, please do the same.

London catches up with the rest and despite TfL's graphic, you don't need to be a MAMIL to use this cycle track!

Where Is The Accessible Transport?

Are we still living in the dark ages?

Well, as has become the family custom, just before Christmas, we headed "up West" to see the lights. As usual, I couldn't quite switch off, but hey, who can? I got thinking a bit about how accessible transport in London really is.

Starting with the train, our local mainline station has no lifts and so people using wheelchairs and mobility scooters are basically screwed. The solution is to travel a couple of stops out of London to a station with lifts, swap platforms and then come back in - not much help if you want to travel in a group as you either go it alone or drag the whole group out of their way. For us, we no longer need to use a pushchair and so didn't have the grief of staggering down the steps carrying one.

Fortunately, with Crossrail coming on stream in around 2018/19, our station will be getting "step free access to street level" (or "lifts") - not bad really, it will have only taken nearly 25 years since modern disability legislation came into force! But out of the 37 Crossrail stations, only 29 will have step free access. What about the other 8? None of these stations are underground and so there is no technical challenge (bridges over the tracks with stairs and lifts to each platform). [photo from National Rail Enquries - Manor Park, will not be getting a Crossrail lift] Not bad Crossrail, but no gold star. Of course, there is still the massive gap and step between the train and the platform and so there will still be people who cannot access the service. 

Then we have the Underground. Now, this is a huge and in many cases very old system. The idea of an accessible train network didn't cross the minds of the Victorians and those subsequently expanding the system. It was not until the Jubilee Line Extension was conceived that did anyone seriously think about accessibility and the new stations were made step free from train to platform and platform to street (lifts). That is not to say other stations aren't accessible, but there are whole areas which are not accessible. TfL has produced a (slightly complicated) map for tube accessibility, but the "boldly to go" blog has a simpler map which shows how far the system has to go in reality to be properly accessible rather than shades of accessible.

The problem with the Underground is that making all stations step free (train to platform and platform to street) is a massive technical challenge and will be hugely costly. Some stations would need to be effectively rebuilt so the platforms are at a different level or are straightened out. Many tunnels are only just large enough for the trains and so there is no space to relay tracks slightly higher or lower. It is going to take decades for the system to be fully accessible.

Buses next! We are pretty well-served in London as our buses are new, frequent (even in Outer-London) and more often than not, they get you where you need to go. The other feature that I don't think many people realise is that apart from a handful of old Routemasters (for the tourists) London's bus fleet is made up of low floor buses, which means that with the right treatment on the kerb edge, passengers of all mobility can access them [photo from TfL Bus Stop Design Guidance, 2006]

The trouble is the kerb side is controlled by the 33 boroughs and Transport for London (major routes). It is all very well having a low floor bus, but if the vehicle cannot get close to the kerb (and a kerb of the right height), then the bus stop is not accessible. TfL has guidance for bus stop design (yes I am a geek), but it is not mandatory and each borough can deal with the issue in their own way. The provision of accessible bus stops across London is therefore highly variable. 

One of the big issues is that because everyone is fighting for kerb side space in London (for parking and loading), the second you propose parking controls so buses can access a stop, you have a riot on your hands from residents and shopkeepers who will lose parking space outside of their premises (I have done enough bus stop accessibility consultations to last a lifetime!). The other problem is that even with an accessible stop, many bus drivers seem incapable of actually stopping close into the kerb which makes it harder to sell the idea to politicians who feel that as much parking as possible is the aim for a transport system!

The last component in the Christmas trip is the bits of the day when we were on foot. This has important accessibility implications as the walking routes need to be large enough to cope with the number of users, fairly flat, no puddles or trips, clear and when people wish to cross the road, facilities need to be step free. I could write a book on this subject, but again, the provision is highly variable. Many areas around the centre of London (Westminster, Camden, Southwark, etc) are very walkable thanks to the millions of pounds spent there on the streets over the last several decades.

But there are a lot of problems. Advertising boards seem to be breeding and are always in the way, especially in busy areas. Around Westminster there is an easy game of "spot the government building" to be had; whereby these buildings are surrounded by bollards and walls designed to keep the blast from truck bombs away from the buildings (but don't protect those on the street!) - non government buildings are conspicuous by a lack of bollards. These bollards and walls are the tips of are structural icebergs - there are huge foundations under the footway surface which will stop a lorry (just don't crash into one on a motorbike eh?). 

The trouble is, these bollards are placed right in the middle of pedestrian crossings and at a height to make male eyes water, are very tight for people using buggies and wheelchairs; and they ruin the look of the street. [photo from Google Streetview - Horseferry Road, outside the Department for Transport!]. I realise the need for "security", but why can't the buildings be hardened or something less intrusive and anti-accessibility be used? Dropped kerbs flush with the road surface are also lacking all over London and indeed, Newham has recently had its backside smacked for not following national guidance on tactile paving surface to help blind and partially-sighted people.

So what is the point of this rambling blog? Well, I am coming at this from somebody who is able-bodied and relatively fit, so the trip into London was no major hassle. A couple of years ago, we would have had to think a bit more about our route as we would have had a pushchair to contend with. Our planning would have minimised the amount of bags to carry, possibly used a Jubilee Line station in central London (for the lift) and had a couple of buses go by because they couldn't take another pushchair (actually, that happened a lot). But, in the future, I will not be quite as fit or hot on my feet and so how will I cope then? Will I find it difficult to use stairs (the family knees are not a good sign)? What if I am using a wheelchair, or a stick or my eyesight fails?

Many people wrongly assume that accessible transport is all about wheelchairs (a politician's stock understanding) - certainly I often have to explain who may need a little assistance to access a highway network, often at no additional cost to a scheme - just good design. London has some very accessible transport and streets, but it has a lot of terrible provision and how many people cope with it on a daily basis is beyond me.

For me, an accessible transport system should be seamless - for example, a group getting on a train might have a person using a wheelchair with them, but they should all be able to travel together and got off at the station of their choice. A partially-sighted person using a pedestrian crossing around Westminster should not have to avoid bollards placed right in their way, people travelling with small children should not have to carry a pushchair down the steps to the Tube. There shouldn't need to be people "planning" their journey around a substandard network, they should be able to turn up and just use it, no matter their circumstances. 

So, perhaps London is not in the Dark Ages, but there is a hell of a way to go to get into the light that should be the 21st Century.

UPDATE 4-1-13

Well, we had a little trip to Docklands & Greenwich today and so I thought I would mention the Docklands Light Railway which is completely accessible (street to platform and platform to train) and worthy of a mention. I think the DLR should be expanded even further, it is a really good service.

Photo showing truly step-free access between train and platform at Crossharbour.