Response to Cambridge Circus Consultation

Westminster Council have recently come up with plans to close Moor St to cycling as part of 'changes' to Cambridge Circus. These plans are so appalling I've publicly posted my response to the consultation below.

Moor Street

Westminster Council's planned closure

------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Warden and Mr Balboa,

I'm writing to respond to the Cambridge Circus consultation as a local resident and worker who regularly cycles.

I think the plans are a significant step backwards for cycling in Westminster and wholeheartedly reject them. 

Closing Moor St to cycling is a very bad idea. Moor St is one of the few genuinely quiet and safe streets to cycle on in Westminster (due to the fact it is not a route for motorised through-traffic). People on bikes can already use Old Compton St but choose not to because it is far more dangerous and unpleasant due to rat-running traffic. Why further limit the already limited amount of routes there are for cycling in Westminster, especially when Moor St already contains a rather expensive cycle hire docking station?!

Furthermore, I believe it is perfectly easy to keep Moor St open to cycling. Cyclists and pedestrians currently interact harmoniously at the junction of Moor St and Charing Cross Road, and pedestrians do not need significantly more space here. If you are keen to improve things for pedestrians, areas like Oxford Street or parts of Soho could be much more fruitfully investigated, in my opinion.

It would be a terrible shame in Westminster Council were the only Council in London to be publicly closing cycle routes, especially given the current political, social and economic consensus on the benefits of increasing cycle rates.

I note that the Quietway plans are not finalised yet and I believe it would be incredibly retrograde to start closing cycle routes before you have even begun consulting on building any new ones.

Finally, the additional of 4 new bike parking stands is incredibly paltry given how much demand there is for cycle parking the West End. A scheme like this should be delivering closer to 40-50 new parking stands to cope with increasing demand in the West End and encourage sustainable transport. There's plenty of space for both bike parking and pedestrians and would be interested to see any evidence you might have to the contrary.

I think we should learn from the mistakes that were made with the changes to Haymarket over the last year (i.e. completely failing to design for cycling), rather than repeat them.

Very best wishes,

City of London officially goes 20mph on all streets with full enforcement by City of London Police; and Boris Johnson gives all-clear to major cycling upgrades following successful Space For Cycling protests by LCC

Two very big pieces of news for those that want to travel around London by bike in safety, and at least relative comfort:

Firstly, the City of London has officially gone 20mph with City of London police happy to enforce (Evening Standard article). This is a massive success and will make the whole area significantly safer for walking and cycling. It also shows that 20mph is not a 'left-wing-thing'. The heart of business in London, in fact the heart of business in the UK (and probably Europe) has backed 20mph because it makes sense in terms of saving lives and it makes sense economically.

The councils of both Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea now have absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not introducing at least a residential 20mph limit, if not a borough-wide 'Total 20' policy. Even if they are diehard Conservatives, that doesn't mean they should let Londoners be killed in their borough by inhumane traffic planning policies.

Secondly, a few days ago Boris Johnson wrote to the London Cycling Campaign, in response to the Space For Cycling protests which the LCC have organised, promising major improvements to:

1. Holborn one-way system (where Alan Neve was killed)
2. East-west Holborn contra-flow bus route on Bloomsbury Way
3. Aldgate East
4. Aldgate West
5. Cycle Superhighway 2 (where Philippine De Gerin-Ricard was killed)

This great result shows that BBC's Tom Edwards was right to say that the LCC now have 'teeth'. 

City Hall are right to be worried.

20mph limit for the City of London. Next step, borough-wide 20mph for Westminster. Step after that, 20mph limit for London

A 20mph borough-wide limit on all roads in the City of London has almost passed all the councils it needs to in order to become law. (Quite exciting and something long campaigned for by blogs like Cyclists in the City).

The new normal for the City of London. Photo courtesy of The Londonist.

You can read a rather excellent report by Philip Everett (Director of the Built Environment) and Craig Stansfield (Team Leader, Transportation Strategy and Programmes) here. Much of the report deserves quoting, but I've selected the best bits to make your life easier:

There has been a dramatic rise in the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians, and with the advent of Crossrail increasing the number of pedestrians and the encouragement of cycling generally, these numbers can only increase. Compared with the rest of London, in the City these groups are disproportionately highly represented in the casualty statistics. The situation can therefore only get worse unless we do something different. (p.1)

In response to this the City predicts that a borough-wide 20mph limit would lead to,

predicted casualty savings of between 8–9%, i.e., around 30–40 casualties per annum. (p.1)

 The City then notes that:

The often-quoted low average speeds within the City mask both streets where average speeds are over 20mph and also peak traffic speeds at various times such as evenings and weekends. Secondary benefits such as reduced pollution and health improvements through modal shift to cycling are likely to occur. (p.2)

And:

There is little or no disbenefit to introducing a 20mph speed limit and in particular journey-time increases would be minimal given the size of the City. (p.2)

They also supply this interesting local example of a 20mph limit leading casualties to drop from nine to nil:

Several years ago, Transport for London introduced a 20mph limit on Upper Thames Street between Swan Lane and Queen Street to facilitate the refurbishment of Walbrook Wharf. There was a dramatic reduction in casualties. The three-year casualty total before the speed-limit reduction was nine and the total for the three years of the 20mph limit was nil. (p.5)

Finally, the City notes a 20mph limit would be in line with national and international best practice since:

All boroughs surrounding the City, with the exception of the City of Westminster, have adopted 20mph for all, or most, of their area. (p.7)

And...

Internationally, New York, Paris and Tokyo have, or plan to, introduce substantial speed-reduction initiatives in at least part of those cities. (p.7)

This really is fantastic news for all those cycling in through the City and follows hot on the heels of Islington becoming the first borough to officially go 20mph!

Photo courtesy of BolgarB on Twitter.

There's more good news too: Boris Johnson's Environment Advisor, Isabel Dedring, has come out as a strong supporter of a London-wide 20mph limit. She said in June 2013 that:

[A London-wide 20mph limit] could be realistic by 2020. It could be one of these things like smoking (in public places) where suddenly we get to the stage where we can’t believe it would ever have been OK to drive above 20mph.

20mph borough-wide limits brings a whole series of advantages to a neighbourhood:

• Less pollution.
• Better air quality; bad air quality kills over 4,000 Londoners a year prematurely.
• Safer environment for pedestrians.
• Safer environment for cyclists.
• Smoother traffic flow with less sudden accelerating and braking meaning shorter journey times for motorists.
• Few collision and accidents meaning shorter journey times for motorists. (Drawing Rings Around the World has highlighted recent TfL data, that shows delays due to collisions are now more than twice as large as for roadworks.)
• Quieter streets.

Obviously what we really want is proper cycle infrastructure, including wide, continuous, segregated cycle lanes on busy roads. However, 20mph limits shouldn't be sniffed at by cycle campaigners.

20mph zones can bring real benefits, particularly during off-peak times when motorists on empty streets will regularly pass you at 30, 40, or even 50mph. Moreover, they transform a dangerous pass at 30mph from something almost 'expected' or even 'required' of a motorist (since it's easily possible to fail a driving test for going too slowly or not 'driving to the limit') into something illegal (even if enforcement is often difficult). This means if a motorist recklessly hits a cyclist or pedestrian at 30mph and kills them it's much easier to prosecute the driver for their (now) illegal actions. This in turn will lead to safer and more responsible driving by motorists.

30mph 'shopping' streets: dangerous, polluted, and uninviting. Bad for business too.

A 20mph limit also sends out a wider message to those using cars which is that the safety of cyclists and pedestrians is being prioritised over and above that of journey times for motorists. Ultimately, this message needs to sink in and be accepted by the wider non-cycling majority in order to for politicians to feel there are 'votes' in giving over more road-space to cycle-only lanes.

A 20mph borough-wide limit is not a bad place to start. It tells everyone this is a borough where pedestrian safety and cycle safety is the number one priority. From here, it is surely easier to start reallocating parking spaces or traffic lanes into segregated cycle tracks.

However, it is disappointing that many councils still oppose borough-wide 20mph limits. As the City of London document notes, Westminster Council is the only council bordering the City that continues to do so. This is especially disappointing given that the City's remarks on Crossrail, long-term increase in cyclists, and comparatively high casualty rates, apply even more firmly to Westminster than they do to the Square Mile:

There has been a dramatic rise in the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians, and with the advent of Crossrail increasing the number of pedestrians and the encouragement of cycling generally, these numbers can only increase. Compared with the rest of London, in the City these groups are disproportionately highly represented in the casualty statistics. The situation can therefore only get worse unless we do something different. [Westminster is the London Council with the highest number of pedestrian and cyclist casualties.]
 (p.1)

Furthermore, in March 2013 Westminster Council itself released data showing that two thirds of crashes (68%) between cyclists and motorists were the fault of the driver. Yet, disappointingly Westminster Council is still opposing a borough-wide 20mph limit even on boundary streets with Camden!

This is very sad, especially given that since so many roads in London are single-lane, 20mph limits are by and large self-enforcing, because it only takes one driver to drive at 20mph to slow the whole traffic flow down.

Councils, like Westminster, which claim 20mph limits are a waste of money because they cannot be enforced are using the line as a false, weasel argument to conceal their real reason for opposition. They just want to be able to drive at 30mph whether or not this leads to tragically high numbers of road casualties.

The simple fact is that every part of UK that has seen 20mph limits installed has also seen a significant drop in casualties and significant drop in maximum speeds (here's an example from DfT of un-enforced limits leading to a reduction in casulties in Portsmouth), which puts paid to the fatuous idea, still ignorantly propagated by Councils like Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea, that 20mph limits are somehow 'useless'. Though 20mph zones are always more effective when accompanied by strict enforcement and traffic calming measures (which don't -  as many do - create dangerous pinch points between cyclists and motorised traffic), a 20mph limit unaccompanied by these measures is still a significant improvement for everyone using that street.

Moreover, as the City of London's report highlights, areas like Westminster are in real danger of falling behing their international competition in New York and Tokyo by refusing to humanise and tame their dangerous roads through the creation of a borough-wide 20mph limit. Westminster has even refused to make Oxford Street 20mph, despite the fact it receives over-200 million annual pedestrian visitors. Shocking...

When is it ever safe to drive down Oxford Street at 30mph? So why is it still legal to do that?

If we want London to become a 20mph city we need to make our voices heard in support this policy; the best place to start is with your local borough. Bit by bit we can do it.

And, if you do get in touch with your local politicians, make sure you don't accept any of this crap about un-enforced or lightly enforced limits being 'useless' or 'a waste of money'!

Cycling is now the dominant mode of travel on Central London's roads, yet still idiotically ignored by Westminster Council in new Bayswater plans.

The Evening Standard published an article a few days ago with some rather stunning figures about bike travel in London:

• On Theobald's Road 64% of vehicles in the morning peak are bikes.
• On Kennington Park Road 57% of vehicles in the morning peak are bikes.
• On Old Street 49% of vehicles in morning peak are bikes.
• In Central London 24% of all traffic are bikes during the morning peak; 16% acros the whole day.
• On Blackfriars, Waterloo and London bridges cyclists make up 42% of traffic and 15% of people, though they take up only 12% of road space
• By contrast: taxis on Oxford Street take up 37% of road space but only carry 1% of passengers!

As Andrew Gilligan says "These extraordinary figures disprove any claim that cycling is marginal and that investing in it is indulgent." I believe it's importnat to make that clear, especially to members of the general public that may not cycle themselves. In fact, I think Gilligan's approach of securing approval for his £1 billion cycle plan by stressing the benefits to those that don't cycle is extremely intelligent.

Cycling is important. Those that choose to travel by bike not only help the environment and reduce road congestion, they also work all manner of jobs and contribute significantly to London's (and Britain's) GDP.

This idea that only those that drive actually have jobs, and so to promote economic growth we need to build more roads, is absolutely crap, as Evening Standard's latest figures show.

These guys are clearly adding nothing to London's economy.... Photo from Standard article.

If we want London to grow economically we need to make its workforce safer. Therefore, since 24% of all vehicles during the morning peak are bikes, we logically need to make those that choose to cycle safer.

And yet cycling is still being designed out of London's roads by awful new schemes such as Westminster Council's proposals for the Bayswater area.

These plans are, frankly, atrocious. Cycle parking is being removed since it is 'clutter' (yes, 'clutter'!). Car parking spaces will be increased leading to more congestion, more fumes, more noise, more road traffic accidents, and more road traffic deaths.

Photo from PDF of Westminster's proposed 'improvements'.

You can see in the photo of the proposed 'improvements' for Queensway North a couple of things:

• No cycle lanes of any kind. This is simply idiotic. Plenty of space for segregated lanes in each direction on this Queensway.
• Cyclists positioned in a 'death zone' between opening car doors from stationary vehicles and oncoming taxis and private cars that are driving dangerously close to them. The Highway Code, by contrast, states motorists should "give cyclists at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car".

Notice a difference between this photo (courtesy of The Highway Code) and the last one?

Moreover, these plans are also bad economics. Westminster Council note that "Queensway is a busy shopping street at the heart of Bayswater." They want to improve its qualities as "a shopping and leisure destination". Yet, in their efforts to achieve this Westminster Council are pretending they're in the 1970s, lagging embarrassingly far behind New York City's Department for Transport that has long recognised the economic benefits that increased cycle traffic brings:

Photo courtesy NYC Department of Transportation. The figures speak for themselves.

Westminster Council may not be much bothered about achieving a 58% decrease in injuries to all street users. Perhaps they aren't... That's very sad if it's the case....

But, if they want to be "encouraging people to stay and use the streets shops and eateries" in Bayswater they might just take note of the 49% increase in retail sales. (Yes, 49%!)

What is shocking about these plans is not just that they demonstrate little or no concern for preventing traffic accidents and deaths, but they are also bad, bad economics.

Westminster Council have also tried to contextualise their improvements within the surrounding area, but again they are dangerously off-track.

Map from consultation document showing Bayswater and surrounding areas.

There are a few crucial bits of information left off this map:

• Portobello Market is a 5 minute cycle away.
• Later in 2013 the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme will be expanding to encompass the entirety of Portobello Market (it already covers Westbourne Grove and Paddington Station).
• Hyde Park, and particularly 'Broad Walk', a long, wide path located next to Queensway, accounts for a huge proportion of the total Boris Bike trips made every year, as this video shows:

Therefore, there might be a significant commercial advantage to be gained if a safe cycle network were created linking Portobello, Westbourne Grove, Paddington, Hyde Park, and of course, Bayswater.

But are Westminster at all interested in this? No. 

Are they even aware of the potentially enormous economic benefits to be had if tourists on Boris Bikes could be lured out of Hyde Park to spend money in Bayswater? No.

Are Westminster Council even considering that most token of gestures to make pedestrians and cyclists safer, something that the City of London recently wrote had "little or no disbenefit", a 20mph speed limit? No, no chance (at present...). 

Do they want their pedestrians and cyclists to be safer? Not if it slows down motor traffic...

We are left with: more car parking; more motor cars; more road traffic accidents and deaths.

That's all we're getting in Bayswater, despite the fact 24% of morning peak vehicles are now bicycles. Appalling.

But something can be done - if you take a similar view to these plans then please:

A) Fill in the consultation online: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/environment/planning/majorprojects/queensway/

The feedback form includes a specific section "cycle parking and provision", so it's well worth filling in. Perhaps these plans can be improved on. I certainly hope so.

B) Write an email suggesting that cycle lanes and a 20mph zone (among other improvements for cyclists such as more cycle parking) could be very profitably integrated into the Bayswater plans to:

Councillor Edward Argar

Cabinet Member for City Management, Transport and the Environment

Westminster City Council

eargar@westminster.gov.uk

Since Councillor Argar is also Cabinet Member for 'the Environment' there should be an added incentive for him to embrace cycle and pedestrian safety by promoting cycling as an environmentally friendly form of travel...

Plenty of space on Queensway for proper segregated cycle lanes like this example from Montreal, Canada. Trouble is, Westminster won't build them... Image courtesy of StreetsBlog.org