The Power Of Dreams

I guess many of you recognised the title of this post as honda's tag line and of course it is a part of the process of using advertising to raise "brand awareness", flog us stuff and so on.

There have been many memorable adverts over the years and you will have your favourites, whether clever, witty, fronted by celebrities of the day or even causing incandescent outrage in the Daily Mail (or similar) such as Tango's Happy Slap which was banned (or was it? I cannot remember or be bothered to check quite frankly).

Of course, today's news is the ruling of the Advertising Standards Authority in response to 5 complaints about Cycle Scotland's Nice Way Code advert "Horse" advert. The ASA concluded;


The ASA acknowledged that the ad was primarily encouraging motorists to take care when driving within the vicinity of cyclists.

We noted that the cyclist in the final scene was not wearing a helmet or any other safety attire, and appeared to be more than 0.5 metres from the parking lane. We also acknowledged that the cyclist was shown in broad daylight on a fairly large lane without any traffic.

We understood that UK law did not require cyclists to wear helmets or cycle at least 0.5 metres from the kerb. However, under the Highway Code it was recommended as good practice for cyclists to wear helmets. Therefore, we considered that the scene featuring the cyclist on a road without wearing a helmet undermined the recommendations set out in the Highway Code. Furthermore, we were concerned that whilst the cyclist was more than 0.5 metres from the kerb, they appeared to be located more in the centre of the lane when the car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic. Therefore, for those reasons we concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.

The ad breached BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1 and 4.4 (Harm and offence).

The ASA stated that the following action should be taken;


The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Cycling Scotland that any future ads featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position.

Lots of bloggers have done this one and although I am jumping on the band wagon (safely of course), I have a few slightly different comments and with a highways twist of course. First, I have never been a huge fan of "marketing" in road safety as most of it is crap in my view, although I am a fan of the 30 for a reason adverts and those like it - possibly because I have children of my own. I would much rather we did less marketing and promotion in favour of building stuff, but I have a vested interest.

Vauxhall's Corsa "smoke" advert depicting people leaning out of car
windows wafting smoke was fine by the ASA

My problem with the ASA is that the ruling is another knock at people wanting to use bikes for day to day transport and by essentially stating that adverts featuring cycling need to include helmets and riding at the road edge, they are unwittingly adding to the creep that riding a bike is something to be accommodated at the edges. Honda, Tango and 30 have stuck in my mind and advertising must have an effect otherwise "they" wouldn't do it.

As for Cycle Scotland's advert, the first 0.5 metres of the carriageway appears to have had a haunch repair (the carriageway edge), or a utility trench reinstatement or the like. You don't want to be cycling at the kerb edge as you will catch your pedals, you don't want to be cycling along the joint between the main carriageway surface and the repaired area as it may well grab your wheels and throw you off.

Additionally, the final frame of the advert shows potholes well out from the kerb, perhaps a metre or so and therefore, the woman on the bike is sensibly keeping away from the damaged surface. The other thing which is about 0.5 metres wide is a carriageway gully (drain to some) which is not something to cycle on either.

The advertising industry does need to be reined in from time to time and I am glad that we have bodies like the ASA, but their judgements on adverts should not encroach into areas of law or government policy as this ruling has. The Highway Code may recommend wearing a helmet, but it is not the law. Me blasting along CS2 on a training run, probably a good idea. On a cycle track going to the supermarket at 5mph with Ranty Mini on a bike with stabilisers, don't be silly.

Old Street. Have we got your attention yet?
Image Google Streetview.

One area where the advertising industry should be reined is in relation to billboards placed in prominent locations clearly aimed at passing drivers and therefore causing a distraction. Sadly, despite people like me objecting to them on behalf of highway authorities and studies raising concern, they sweep across our neighbourhoods. Of course, nobody involved in a crash will really want to admit to being distracted.

No, all of this crap makes it a little more difficult to get around by bike and makes my job slightly more difficult in trying to deal with the attitudes of some people. I hope the ASA change their ruling or are forced to. In the meantime though...

Update 30/1/14
Turns out that it wasn't a repair she was avoiding, it was cobbles! Thanks to @andy_fab.

Oh and now the ASA has withdrawn the ruling pending a review! 

The Crappy Alley

I posted a couple of photos on Twitter the other day showing an alleyway which besides being utterly hostile to people on bikes, was quite literally a barrier to many other people.

I came across the alleyway on my way home from a site visit. So as it is on my patch, I need to do something about it (more on that later). 

Despite thinking I know my area, I am still finding little corners, more so since I have been getting round by bike as it is sometimes nice to get off the main roads and away from the traffic.

This little alleyway basically runs between the end of a small residential estate with no through roads and a service road to a much bigger road. The much bigger road has a wide footway and despite not being a designated cycle track, people cycle along it anyway. The little estate is flanked by another road which is more of a local kind, but still busy and so the alleyway and the estate is a welcome and quiet potential alternative.

The alleyway is a touch over 3 metres wide and about 40 metres long. It needs resurfacing and the lighting isn't great. However, the worst thing about it is that it is barricaded at both ends. Nominally, no cycles are allowed, but the clutter will either prevent many other users using it or at least make life difficult. 

People using mobility scooters will not get through and anyone using a wheelchair might squeeze past. People pushing prams and buggies will struggle with the hoop. Blind and partially-sighted people will find the route difficult, as would people using sticks.

I showed the photos to a colleague who was an erstwhile installer of odds and ends of street furniture (and whom I could get going into a debate!) and I suggested that the whole lot should be ripped out, the alleyway resurfaced and the no cycling sign removed - in short, make it fully accessible to all. He recounted past arguments with residents who wanted barriers put in to stop yobbos and mopeds and bikes whizzing though, although he would remove them again on complaint from a disabled person.

I am not going to criticise him too much because we (in local government) are often put under pressure to do "something" and a barrier is cheap and easy to do (that is a whole post in itself!). We are often beaten with the stock phrases of "an accident waiting to happen" or "will you wait until someone is hurt". The phrases are used too much by people with their incandescence; although I am respectful of people who make the same point without resorting to this type of language. 

My own view is that we should start without the clutter and if anti-social behaviour becomes an issue, that should be dealt with rather than make life more difficult for people every day on the off chance someone might take a moped through and hit someone. Of course, this was never "designed" as more likely stuff was added over the years to deal with a problem long since forgotten about.

Riding of pedal cycles prohibited. Diagram 951 from
The Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002

In the case of an alleyway like this, the only thing to stop is people driving along it in cars and a single bollard in a path this wide is enough. In fact at the other end of the alleyway there is a lamp column right in the middle and that would be enough. 

Once I got back into the office, I checked the highways register (a map of which streets and ways are designated as public highways). The reason the "no cycling" sign is there is because the alleyway is a designated public footpath and so is defined in the Highways Act 1980 as:

"a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway"

A bit of a bugger when you want to cycle, although it is not entirely clear cut if cycling is "properly" banned and my next job will be to check out the history to see if there is a bye-law or traffic order in place. CTC has a good summary on this issue here. 

There must be thousands of these across he country and I accept some will not really by wide enough, but as well as not having the clutter in the first place, there is no good reason not to open up such routes for cycling. It wouldn't cost much and would be something we could do pretty quickly.

I will leave you with this photo of a little link between Sheppard Drive and Stevenson Crescent in Bermondsey which is an alley with a footway and a cycle track. 

OK, much more space than at my site, but my point is that the area is not penned in at each end with clutter. I think it will take me a while, but crappy alley is now on my "to do" list as it doesn't need to be this way.

Update 27th January 2014
Well, here is another reason to despise the Coalition's decision to scrap Cycling England. It produced a handy guide on the legal processes for cycle schemes and handily included a description on how to use the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 which is aimed at converting or added cycle tracks to public footpaths (now you see why I am pedantic about the right terminology in my posts!).

Oh, I also added Crappy Alley to a list of small schemes and links which I will be bunging into the pot for annual funding bids for TfL Mayor's Cycling Vision schemes. To that extent, it is now on a "to do" list properly!

SkyCycle: Ticket To Ride or We Can Work It Out?

I have muttered a little bit about the concept and even suggested that we should stop giving oxygen to the idea, but I cannot contain myself any longer, I need to comment. I did surprise myself where my thoughts took me though.

The SkyCycle concept. Image from Foster + Partners.

I have been prompted to comment after reading a post by Stephen Fleming of Cycle Space. His post thinks beyond the criticisms of the scheme and offers plenty of positives, but you should also read Jim Davis' post on the scheme for another perspective. From my point of view, I want to concentrate on some of the physical aspects of the concept which has been developed by Space Syntax, Foster + Partners and Exterior Architecture.

For those living under a rock, the concept is essentially building a series of elevated cycle tracks above railway corridors in suburban London so that people can cycle in safety and comfort into the city or at least longer distances, which in itself is not a bad thing when compared to schemes such as the blue paint of the Superhighways.

The Shard. Something from Blade Runner or the 
personal hell of a window cleaner?

To me, architects have always been a slightly odd bunch. They are not always bound by the practicalities of building things and this is a good thing as they do challenge engineers and perhaps force them to up their game. I think The Shard is an amazing building, but my mind always wanders back to the poor sod who has to clean the windows!

Of course, most architects are like most engineers in that they get on with the day to day job of designing and building stuff which doesn't generate any headlines. I guess the difference is that there are a few famous architects out there whereas most people won't be able to name a living civil engineer.

Foster is a big international name and anyone with a passing interest in the built environment will have heard of him. He is no stranger to London of course. If I mention the London Millennium Bridge, you may not know what I mean. If I mention The Wobbly Bridge, you will know exactly what I mean. 

The London Millennium Bridge: with no wobble.

It is remembered as "wobbly" because of unforeseen problems with high numbers starting to walk "in step". Basically, vibrations start in the bridge because of people walking and the vibrations make the pedestrians walk in time which then amplifies into a very noticeable movement. 

As it happens, it was a cutting edge piece of bridge engineering (one of my favourites) and the problem was cured by the engineers using "dampers" (kind of like car suspension) to stop the movement. All is now well and it is a piece of London. But, Foster is remembered for it rather than the engineers who made the vision work.

SkyCycle does come from the high-profile, perhaps even "showman" kind of designers proposing a concept with very little information on how the whole thing is going to work, but it is enough to make the headlines (and possibly raise the profile of the smaller companies - they still need to eat after all). It has prompted a trial by Twitter and the Bloggers with complete dismissal by many.

Engineers are often accused of ignoring the concept and going straight for the problems (or it might just be me), but until there a list of the problems (or challenges if you prefer), we worry about how something will work. Look back at the concept drawing and you will see that the project is basically a continuous bridge deck supported by the gantries holding up the overhead power cables. This raises issues;

• The gantries are designed to hold up the cables (under tension with weights every so often) and not a structure above. The gantries would need replacing with something up to the job, or independent support is required.

• How will the underside of the bridge deck be inspected with power cables between the ground and the cables as these things need to be checked from time to time.

• Of course, many rail lines are not powered overhead, they are powered by a third rail and so these routes would need stand alone bridge deck support.

• How will any inspections take place as the line would need to be closed to do so. OK, Network Rail inspects its kit and this would just be another thing on the list, but extra work.

A particularly hideous footbridge over the High Speed 1 railway.
High parapets with a roof cage - is this what SkyCycle will really
look like?

More generally, there are other issues;

• The Railways don't like stuff chucked over the sides of bridges onto the track and so where bridges (especially footbridges) cross tracks, they tend to have high parapets (footbridges often have cages on top!). The concept suggests transparent parapets which would be madly expensive. Of course, without a clear view, then concept fails as a nice place to be!

• Many railways are in cutting and the SkyCycle bridge deck will nicely end up at a level overlooking houses and gardens. Where railways are on embankment, the view will be even better.

• What will happen at locations where the railways go under roads, as in most cases, there is only limited clearance. In some locations, there is no clearance as the cables attached to the over bridges. Will SkyCycle sail up over the road bridge and back down the other side? Roads need just over 5 metres clearance for vehicles and so we could end up with some huge approach ramps and SkyCycle way up in the air! Many bridges are "humps" over the railway anyway. (Although I guess SkyCycle could be accommodated with Toucan crossings at the roads!)

The SkyCycle over Barking Station.
Image adapted from Google Streetview.

• Many stations on suburban railways are above the level of the railway and often within a parade of shops. Will SkyCycle sail over the top of the buildings?

• Access ramps to SkyCycle will need to be very long to be useful and so land take to the street network away from the railway will be problematic.

• We also have the inevitable questions of build and maintenance costs (who will pay) and if users will be charged. Plus (quite rightly) campaigners are worried that it could suck money it at the expense of other much needed local infrastructure.

There will be lots of other things that I haven't thought about, but it doesn't appear the designers have either. Had we seen press releases with a little more detail, then people may not have been so scathing or dismissive as there is some merit in the concept (gasp!).

Using a rail corridor for something else in London. Ridiculous.
Oh. Wait. Hungerford Bridge.
Image from Google Streetview.

If you look around London, there are many railways which cross over or are crossed over by the road network. South London has its low railway bridges over roads, East London has its hump-backed bridges over railways. 

Highway space often narrows right down at bridges and so if we are looking at access for people on bikes, they are squeezed in with road traffic and pedestrians often have narrow footways. We also have the Thames which cuts London in two and so the idea of using railway corridors might actually help create links between areas which are horrible to get between now.

The concept of building of permanent ways above streets and railways is also nothing new, just look at some of the urban viaducts of the M11/ A406 junctions or the Docklands Light Railway. Providing elevated space for cycling (and walking) might actually create direct, convenient links.

So, while I remain hugely sceptical about the scheme as a whole, there are some problems that short sections of SkyCycle can solve when railway land is thought of as space available to facilitate cycling bridges or viaducts. Perhaps we are just too quick to judge things these days, but equally, people with ideas need to give some detail or they will be dismissed. 

I do worry, though, that the show-boating we get from some professionals does rather take attention away from a lot of the basic day to day things we should be doing now. These interventions are never celebrated, but nor do their designers seek celebrity. Most of us do this kind of work as our day job and that is why you haven't heard of us!

Traffic Signal Pie - First Slice

We have all heard of traffic jam, but what about traffic signal pie? This week I will try and explain how traffic signals work at stand-alone crossings (bear with me as I am bound to get something wrong!)

Traffic signal engineering is a whole sub-set of highway engineering and the people who make it work are clever people. Much of the technology is beyond me, but I will do my best to give you some insight over the next few weeks (I am not sure how many posts this will take and if it will be signals every week for a bit yet - yes, making it up as I go along). When talking about "drivers", this is defined in legislation for the purposes of traffic signals and will apply to those using the carriageway - including cyclists! (it is weird, but rules is rules).

Some other useful lingo is that we refer to traffic signals rather than traffic lights. When we talk about each individual "light", we call them "aspects". For example, a basic traffic signal aimed at "drivers" has three aspects; red, amber and green. The posts on which the traffic signals sit are called poles and the cluster of signals is known as a head.

A Pelican crossing (red man way in the distance) and the ubiquitous
push button to give pedestrian demand.

Let's start with standalone crossings. We have Pelican, Puffin, Toucan and Pegasus. Pelican gets its name from Pedestrian LIght CONtrolled (PELICON - it's artistic licence). Essentially, pedestrians arrive at the crossing and see a "red man" on the other side of the road. They press a button on a yellow box on a pole on their side of the road to "tell" the signal computer that they want to cross (demand). The box lights up with a "WAIT" signal to show pedestrians that the button has been pressed) - #streetgeek time. As part of a recent consultation on changes traffic signs, it was suggested that the "WAIT" be replaced with a red light similar for Puffins (see below) because of a lack of supply of the filament bulbs for the "WAIT"!

After a bit drivers get an amber signal and then quickly, a red traffic signal. Shortly after pedestrians get a steady "green man" which appears on the traffic signals on the other side of the carriageway. After a while the green man flashes and then just after, drivers get a flashing amber and then a green.

The amber and then red signals to drivers is an absolute instruction to stop. The flashing amber is an instruction to allow people crossing to finish. The green is an indication that drivers may proceed beyond the stop line. The red man is essentially a warning that it is not safe to cross. The steady green man suggests that pedestrians may cross. The flashing green man means that a pedestrian may finish crossing, but shouldn't start to cross if not already started.

A Toucan crossing with far side aspects. Under the red man is the
green man and to the right of the green man is the green bike.

Next up, Toucan crossings. Toucan is really silly "Two Can" cross which means both pedestrians and cyclists. Toucans are basically the same as Pelicans, except there is a green bike as well as a green man (more on this in a bit) and there is no flashing amber/ green. When the bike/ pedestrian stage is complete, drivers will see a red, red/amber, then green. To indicate demand, cyclists press the button on the yellow box on the pole.

A Puffin crossing. You can just see the red man on the push button
box. In this case, there are extra pedestrian aspects as this crossing
is often busy and people block the view of the lower box. Puffins tend
to have two push buttons on each side of the road.

Puffins continue the avian theme and this is shorthand for Pedestrian User-Friendly Intelligent Crossing. The big difference is that the pedestrian aspects are displayed on the push-button (near side aspects) whereas for a Pelican, they are far-sided. The pedestrian aspects are the simple red/ green men. When the button is pressed, a little red rectangle lights up or a ring of red lights around the push button lights up. The signal phasing is the same for a Toucan (no flashing amber/ green).

The "Countdown" aspect. This one is actually outside TfL HQ in
Southwark, London on a junction, but they are being used at
standalone crossings too.

Just to get a bit more confusing, Toucans can also be like Puffins and have near side aspects and in this case there is a red bike as well as a red man. It is all getting rather messy. The other thing to cover now is the non-birdlike Pedestrian Countdown At Traffic Signals (PC@TS). 

Pushed by Transport for London (and now with UK-wide authority for use by the Department for Transport), this system adds another pedestrian aspect on Pelican crossings (and junctions which I will cover another time). PC@TS essentially creates a hybrid Pelican where the flashing amber/ green man is replaced. Drivers will get the red, red/ amber, green sequence and pedestrians will see a green man and the the countdown aspect which is an amber signal which counts down the number of seconds in which they have left to cross. There is a very small gap between the end of the countdown and traffic getting a green.

The final type of signalised crossing is a Pegasus which has nothing to do with birds, it is for people on horseback. From memory, there are 4 in London and they are basically Toucans for riders and horses with a high level push button for the rider. They can have far or near sided aspects and red/ green pictures of someone on a horse is used.

I have already mentioned pedestrians and cyclists pushing a button to indicate crossing demand, but what other detection is used with crossings? For traffic, the basic arrangement is the use of microwave vehicle detectors (MVDs) which are the little camera-like boxes on top of the traffic signals. They essentially emit a beam which a moving vehicle causes to reflect back to the unit and is so detected. The other method of detection is magnetic induction loops cut into the carriageway surface. Where general traffic speeds are above 35mph, then additional sets of loops are provided further away from the crossing to track the approach speed over distance which is a safety feature.

For Puffin crossings and "Puffin-style" Toucans (near sided aspects), "people" detection is used. First, sensors can "see" people waiting to cross and so if the demand button is pressed and someone wanders off, the demand can be cancelled, thus not triggering a red signal to traffic. They also have sensors "watching" the crossing area and if there are people taking longer to cross (because there are lots of them, or someone is moving more slowly), then traffic will be held a little longer.

I have no idea how these sensors work and so if you do, then please add a comment! I do know that some of the older kit was a bit temperamental and used to pick up things other than people which messed up the timings. There also used to be pressure mats in the footway to detect someone waiting, but I don't think these are used any more because again, they were temperamental.

Not the Vogons as suggested by some on Twitter, but a tactile cone.
A little out of focus, but you get the point!

There are two other features to mention. First, signalised crossings can have an audible (bleeper) signal which runs when the green man is shown to assist blind and partially-sighted people. Sometimes it turns off or the volume reduces at night if used in a residential area.

Second, there is the "tactile cone" which is a little upside down cone placed under the push button of the crossing. The cone rotates where then green man shows and again, is to help blind and partially sighted people, but will be of assistance to anyone with reduced hearing and eyesight.

So, what about the timings and the set-up of a signalised crossing. If you are really interested in the detail there is loads in The Design of Pedestrian Crossings, but I want to keep things a little more simple.

In the diagram, I have amalgamated some of the information from the design guide linked above, but added little pictures of who sees what because I think it is easier to follow.

The reason I am calling these posts "traffic signal pie" is because it is a useful way to think of how time is allocated to who gets which signal. For a Pelican crossing, there are 7 slices which can vary in time, but for any given situation will add up to the whole pie - the whole cycle of the signals. For a pelican crossing, of course, the flashing amber is for the pedestrians, but if they are finished crossing, the drivers can have what is left.

The time ranges for the periods in the diagram depend on site conditions and the design guide gives full details. (A) is all to do with traffic flow, speed and method of detection. If there is no pedestrian demand, the signal to traffic stays green. When the button is pressed, traffic might be stopped quickly if it has had a green for some time. A road with faster traffic (actual speeds are used which is a debate in itself) will have a longer period before stopping so approach speeds can be checked and loops are used.

(B) is fixed and allows a driver to clear the crossing on the amber signal if they are too close to stop. (C) is set to 3 seconds where the speed is above 35mph (read the guidance for more). (D) varies by crossing width (it is in the guidance and for example is set to 4 seconds for a crossing of up to 7.5 metres). The plus 2 is used if it is observed that people turn back thinking they cannot cross in time.

(E) can be used to extend the red signal to drivers if there is concern or evidence that drivers are perhaps bullying their way through on a flashing amber. (F) is normally set to 6 seconds, plus 1 second for each 1.2 metres in crossing width above 6 metres. Periods (D), (E) and (F) are essentially the part of the cycle which campaigners for longer crossing times are targeting. Period (G) is set at 1 second for crossings under 10.5 metres wide and 2 for wider crossings.

A slightly non-standard layout here. There are far-sided traffic signals
and the green is a bike symbol. This is not a Toucan, but actually a
junction - there is a stop line for bikes just out of shot although in this
case, demand is still push buttons.

The other types of crossing have similar set ups, but obviously without the flashing amber. This is a long post and so I will leave you to look up those in the guidance. One point to mention is that we haven't made out minds up on what is the best form of signalised crossing. In London, TfL did studies on Puffins and Countdown and both were generally positive. In fact, TfL are pushing for Countdown (with far-sided signals) everywhere now. There has been controversy as TfL has used the opportunity to reduce the time given to the green man period.

Personally as a user, I like far-sided signals with Countdown (i.e. no flashing amber) on the basis that I can see when I can cross and I know how long I have left and I hope authorisation is given to allow it at Toucans too. The timing issue is important, but not the point of this post. The issue I have with Puffins is that once you start to cross, you have lost the "comfort" of seeing a signal. The flip side was that Puffins were set up to you look towards traffic when watching for a green man and the detection gave you longer if needed.

A far-sided set up with detection is theoretically possible in that walking speed can be measured during the green man period and a slower person would trigger a higher starting number for Countdown. I don't think anyone is looking at this unfortunately. It is worth mentioning the tricky subject of high speed roads and that is anything 40mph and higher. Detection using loops is absolutely vital for speeds (actual) above 35mph and up 50mph. Beyond that, serious consideration should be given to reducing traffic speeds (see page 3 in the linked document) because of the clear safety risks to pedestrians if a driver ignores the signal (OK, bad enough at lower speeds). Actually, a bridge or tunnel might be a better idea.

That's it for this post. I will debate time allocation in a future post, but hopefully this gives you a start in the tricky issue of signals.

Profit or people: what is public transport for?

Public Transport-wise, I am fortunate to live in london as there is so much choice. I am even more fortunate that I don't have to use it too much because I can ride my bike for many of my journeys (despite it being the cycling hell-hole that is outer-london!)

OK, that is a strange statement. It is great that there is so much public transport choice to get around, but it is expensive. I am glad I don't have to pay for the annual multi-thousand pound ticket to stand on a train every day like so many people have to.

Sheep and llamas grazing peacefully in front of Canary Wharf.
Not doctored, this is Mudchute Farm!

Small example. I took Ranty Junior and Ranty Mini for a day out this week as there was a brief lull in the rain and we needed some fresh air. They love travelling on trains and so we got ourselves to Stratford and then onto the DLR down to Royal Victoria. We had a return trip on the Dangleway (as tourists rather than commuters!) and then on to Crossharbour for a visit to Mudchute Farm (one of London's little gems). We went back on the DLR and picked up the Overground from Shadwell making our way to Camden for a late lunch (Mexican as it happens!).

The fares were as follows;

Adult off-peak Travelcard - £8.90

Child off-peak Travelcard - £3.40 (we needed two!)

Airline adult (with Travelcard discount) - £6.40

Airline child (with Travelcard discount) - £3.20 (again, we needed two).

This gave a grand total of £15.70 on Travelcards and £12.80 on the cable car - getting on for 30 quid for travel, without stopping for lunch! That is half a tank of petrol or about 180 miles of driving by way of a comparison.

A massive white elephant for public transport, but great as a piece
of civil engineering - I bring you The Dangleway

Fine, the cable car was a treat and for a tourist attraction it is a bit of fun. It is a great bit of civil engineering, but it is laughable as a piece of public transport on the cost of the fare alone, not to mention how little used it is for regular commuting. It should have been a bridge which would have not been affected by the wind and could be open 24-7; the cable car closes at night, but at least it takes bikes!

The Travelcard has been around for as long as I can remember and it gets you on mainline trains (within Zones 1 - 6), the Underground, the Overground, the DLR, London Buses and Tramlink (which I have yet to try) and so for a city the size of London, the off-peak fare is good value, although at peak times it pretty much doubles, not to mention the peak fares for those coming in from outside of the Capital to work.

Bike hire docking station, East Ferry Road,
Isle of Dogs

We also have the London Cycle Hire scheme which now covers a huge part of the central area of London. The scheme has access charges, plus time charges for over 30 minutes of use.

Again, not something I have used as it hasn't made its way to outer London (and I doubt it will) and if coming into central London, I will either be coming by train or cycle in (for a leisure/ train run).

All of these transport modes are classed as "public" transport, which essentially means you just turn up and use it for a charge. Taxis (Black Cabs) are also kind of public transport as you flag one down as and when you use it, but they are priced out of use by most people in my view.

So what else do we have. Well, that would be the car, walking and cycling. In terms of access to infrastructure, walking is free (well, you need shoes I suppose), apart from cycle hire, you will need a bike to cycle and for driving, there is the cost of getting/ hiring a car and all of the running costs. This is the interesting thing. The infrastructure for "public" transport to run on has essentially been paid for from the public purse (forget about sponsorship, there is no such thing as a free lunch) but users pay to access.

Compare this with driving, walking and cycling, these modes are essentially "private" or "personal" transport, but you can access the infrastructure for free. This does seem a bit perverse to me and I wonder if rather than say, the government trying to reduce the public subsidy of running rail services, this "public" transport should be made cheaper to that it can be accessible to more people financially as moving lots of people around a city is surely what transport should be for?

The inevitable conclusion of this rambling is to get round to ideas such as the Foster + Partners' regurgitation of the SkyCycle proposal for elevated cycleways above railways. I think it is pie in the sky, but I won't be rude about it. The thing that has got my brain working is that it would end up being another piece of so-called "public" transport in that users will be charged for access. I can imagine it now, tap in and out with Oyster; sponsorship even. Forget the technicalities, the planning issues, this could be a money spinner.

Or we could have charges for "private" cycling such as a London-wide cycling charging zone where users have to display a number plate. How about for pedestrians; we could have a two-tier system for pedestrian crossings. The basic service would be as now, but with a longer wait for a green man. For those who could afford it, they can put their 50p in the slot and the light would change for them straight away. Of course, attendants would be required to make sure the poor scum are held back for the cheapskate phase!

OK, I am getting silly. On our trip this week, we were in areas very well served by public transport and yet there was still a lot of traffic. Crossing the road by Camden Lock Market was horrible and a driver jumped the red light of the pelican crossing near Crossharbour DLR. 

I am not an economist or a transport planner, but in my opinion, if London is to deal with the transport problems it faces, then in my view, it lies with cheaper and denser public transport and more priority for walking and cycling to help with local and shorter journeys. We also need to get away from giving any oxygen to projects such as the cable car and SkyCycle as they take effort and indeed resources away from what we really should be doing.