Andrew Gilligan's Cycle Superhighways need YOUR support!

In recent weeks Boris Johnson, City Hall, and Andrew Gilligan (his cycling commissioner) have released plans for an ambitious network of dedicated, segregated cycle lanes across London. This really is a game-changer and exactly what Londoners have been asking for. However, with opposition springing up from the embattled and embittered motor lobby (as well as journalists or politicians that simply don't get it) it's extremely important than anyone who wants to be able to ride a bike in safety in London fills in the various consultations TfL have published so that far-reaching public support for these plans are noted and they don't get watered down, or worse, cancelled.

Proposed East-West route

A fully segregated two-way cycle route from Acton to Tower Hill. But we need you to make it a reality.

This route will run from Acton, along the Westway, through Lancaster Gate and the Royal Parks into Parliament Square, then along the Embankment and Lower and Upper Thames Street out through Tower Hill into Tower Hamlets. These plans aren't perfect, but they are a complete game changer from the horrible, dangerous and disgusting cycle environment currently found on many of these arterial routes.

These are big, important plans and need public support to make them a reality.

The Consultation on the East-West cycle highway plans is available here.

Proposed North-South route

Blackfriars road as it looks now, and as it will look if these plans go ahead. Which version is better for those on bike, those on foot, and Londoners in general?

The North-South cycle highway will run from King's Cross station down Farringdon Road, over Blackfriars Bridge and down to Elephant and Castle. Again, it's a fantastic and much needed route and it will have a great intersection with the East-West cycle highway at the north side of Blackfriars Bridge. But, again, it needs your support to make it a reality.

These plans aren't perfect, and niggles could be improved. But overall they are a massive move forward and should be supported as such.

The Consultation on the North-South cycle highway plans is available here.

Proposed Cycle Superhighway 2 (CS2) Upgrade - Aldgate to Bow Roundabout

Over 8 Londoners have been killed my people driving motor vehicles on this stretch of road in the last few years. Moreover, I know from personal experience of trying to visit a friend in Mile End that Whitechapel Road, which then becomes Mile End Road, is the only way to get out into this part of East London. So it's essential that we make this route safe for anyone on a bike to use, and this what these plans largely will do.

Like the North-South and East-West cycle highways, these new plans for the CS2 running from Aldgate to Bow would completely transform cycling in this crucial part of London. But because they would slightly increase motor traffic journey times on these specific routes, and because much of London and the UK is still run but a maniacal motor lobby that will accept no increase, not even the slightest, to their journey times (nor even the smallest reallocation of road space), it's extremely important that everyone takes time out of their day to respond to TfL's consultation and show widespread public support for the plans.

The Consultation on the Cycle Superhighway 2 [CS2] upgrade plans is available here.


Proposed cycle highway from Oval to Belgravia

Lovely two-way segregated track replaces horrible lane-sharing with buses, taxis, and HGVs.

This route is again a game-changer for cycling in London, providing segregated cycle tracks running along Vauxhall Bridge and then through the middle of the awful Vauxhall gyratory, cutting journey times for those on a bike, but more importantly making it much, much safer. The consultation for it has now closed but you can still contact TfL by email on the issue at: consultations@tfl.gov.uk.

This cycle route from Belgravia to Oval also important to place the East-West, North-South, and CS2 upgrade plans within a wider perspective. TfL is trying to build a real network of segregated cycle routes which is sort of completely amazing when one considers the woeful blue-paint-in-bus-lane that they rolled out back in 2010. There's been a complete step-change in their thinking, their planning, and their proposals, and it's important that any Londoner who has any interest in ever riding a bike to get from A to B gets behind TfL at this crucial juncture and says, 'yes, this is exactly the way to do it. No more half-arsed fudges please.'


What Businesses Can Do

London First, an organisation which claims to represent businesses in London, has come out against TfL's plans for segregated cycle lanes, citing spurious argument that don't add up. These include that the plans will lead to 'increased pedestrian crossing times', when in fact the timings for all of London's traffic lights are controlled electronically by TfL and therefore pedestrian crossing times depend on when TfL want you to cross, not if there's a cycle lane or not. Another gripe from the limo-from-Chelsea-to-Canary-Wharf-and-back lobby is that these plans will making things 'more dangerous' for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Again, this is baloney. Separating slower-moving cycle traffic than faster, wider motor traffic can only make things safer for both parties, as well as discouraging pavement cycling, and distancing motor traffic from the pavement which is only going to make things safer for pedestrians. 

This sustained, well-financed campaign of misinformation needs to be combatted, so if you work for a London employer please consider asking them to publicly back the Mayor's plans by signing up via this website: http://cyclingworks.wordpress.com/ 

What business (or person) wouldn't want a safe way to cycle through Parliament Square? The current layout of 4 lanes of speeding motor traffic is terrifying and unsafe for anyone on a bike. Humanising this massive public space in the centre of London can only be a good thing for business.

It's incredibly important that we all show as much public business support for these plans as possible. Danny Williams, who writes Cyclists in the City, has blogged about the issue in detail here: http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/how-you-can-help-make-londons-planned.html


Cycle Superhighway 2 (CS2) Extension - Bow to Stratford

TfL built the Cycle Superhighway 2 extension last year after consulting on their plans just as they are doing now with the East-West routes et al. It's worth remembering that though bits of it could definitely be improved (i.e. protection from motor traffic at junctions and lowering the intimidatingly high curbs on either side of the cycle path), the CS2 extension is largely a safe and pleasant route to use. There's no reason to think that all the other planned cycle highways wouldn't be too. In fact, the plans for the newer routes are largely regarded as being an improvement, in terms of design and safety, on the Cycle Superhighway 2 extension from 2013.

We need to get behind these new routes, and get behind the man who has turned what organisations like the London Cycling Campaign have called for, into concrete plans; Andrew Gilligan. In the video below, filmed at the London Cycling Campaign's big May demonstration ride through London, Gilligan says 2014 a 'test of strength'. These plans are ambitious, but need our democratic voices to be made a reality. 

Let's not be found wanting.

Easy to use definitions of "Cycle Superhighway" and "Quietway" for Andrew Gilligan, TfL, and local council officials

At the City of London Cycling Forum last month the City officials told us that they had already had a few meetings with Andrew Gilligan, but that these meetings had not been spent discussing any actual cycle lanes. Instead, they had used the time to discuss the definition of the words "Cycle Superhighway" and "Quietway" (which are used in the Mayor's Cycling Vision). It's great to know that our public officials are spending their time so efficiently, but I thought I'd try and make their lives even easier by defining these words myself.

Cycle Superhighway = completely physically separated from motor traffic + wide enough to accommodate the amount of Londoners who would want to use it.

(Using this definition Cycle Superhighway 2 is not a 'Cycle Superhighway' because it is not segregated from motor traffic; which helps explain why 3 people have been killed on it. Nor is the segregated track on Tavistock Place a 'Cycle Superhighway' because it is too narrow to easily contain all those that seek to use it, making it often dangerously busy.)

Quietway = a well-surfaced road with no through-traffic + a 20mph speed limit.

(Using this definition there would be a few 'Quietways' currently existing in Hackney and Islington, but somewhere like Soho which has through-traffic hurtling through narrow one-way systems at 30mph would be anything but a 'Quietway'.)

I know these definitions are somewhat stringent, but they could be used as a template for those at TfL and local councils trying to design and build cycle routes. The relative quality of a Quietway or Cycle Superhighway could be extremely quickly measured by looking at how much of it's route matched up to the two simple criteria.

Cycle campaigners could then use these definitions very effectively to criticise deficient parts of a proposed or build cycle route. One could say for instance that, "this Cycle Superhighway is nothing of the sort because only 50m of it is segregated", or, "this Quietway isn't fit for purpose because most of it contains fast-moving, dangerous through traffic that isn't capped by a 20mph limit. I'd be mad to let my child cycle to school along this route unless the through-traffic was removed and a 20mph limit put in place".

It's not that all roads in London need to be designed along the aforementioned guidelines, but that a route is simply not 'quiet', in any sense of the word, if there are taxis constantly rat-running it at 30mph. It's just a road with a sign on it. Similarly a route is not a 'cycle superhighway' if you're sharing a motor-traffic lane with HGVs. It's just a road with some blue paint on it.

Boris Johnson's Cycle KillerHighways

Yesterday the Evening Standard asked me to write a comment piece for them in response to a lorry driver killing (another) female on a bike in London. ES doesn't publish the content online, so here's my edit of what I wrote for them:

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

We already know that junctions like Aldgate are incredibly dangerous for cyclists. This is because Boris Johnson has simply put blue paint on the road in the middle of a traffic lane being used by high volumes of heavy, fast moving vehicles, like the lorry that was responsible for the French student’s death. Handing out leaflets about Advance Stop Boxes or trying to put a higher volume of cyclists on the road (Boris’s “solution”) is going to do nothing to make this safer for those on a bike. As the three deaths so far on CS2 show, accidents can, and do, happen. When our roads are designed badly these accidents result in deaths. The humane option, and the one used to make cycling safer world-wide in cities such as New York, Amsterdam and Copenhagen, is to physically segregate lethal motor traffic from cyclists, so that tragic deaths like Friday’s become near-impossible. A physical barrier separating cycle lanes means that it’s simply not possible for HGVs and cyclists to collide with each other. At junctions with large amounts of traffic turning left a second cycle lane for cyclists going straight on can be used to prevent bikes and buses coming into conflict, or a separate cycle-only traffic light phase can be created. Unsurprisingly, 20mph limits also help a great deal, and are the norm in Berlin, Paris and Zurich.

However, all of these measures involve reallocating road-space from motor traffic to cycles-only, leading to the possible contraction or removal of a traffic lane. Similarly, 20mph limits and cycle-only traffic light phases will slightly slow down traffic. Up till now, TfL have prioritized motor traffic capacity and speed over cycle safety (while hypocritically spending large sums of money encouraging Londoners to cycle in unimproved conditions). The result has been an appallingly high number of cycle deaths in our capital – a number which is continually rising – including three deaths on Cycle “SuperHighway” 2 alone.

The question TfL, the boroughs, and Londoners need to ask themselves is are we willing to see a 30 second increase in traffic journey times in order to prevent further tragedy on our streets, where a Darwinian road environment means that those who obey the law are the most likely to die? Are we willing to see a slight reduction in traffic capacity in order to create a city which is unpolluted, quiet, cleaner, greener, and no longer the capital of the fattest nation in Western Europe? Are we willing to partially reduce the number of empty taxis that sit needlessly in traffic choking our streets with exhaust in order to bring London’s road safety up to the mark set by international rivals like New York and Tokyo?

Unfortunately, the current City of London plans for redesigning Aldgate show they are spending £12million to create a mere 70m of segregated cycle lane, despite the fact the average distance between the buildings on either side of the street is 22m. This is not only a colossal waste of money (as the Cycle “SuperHighways” were), but it’s not going to do anything to make this dangerous area safer for cyclists, despite the fact with 22m to play with there is ample room for cycle-only lanes.

Our city planners are stuck in the 1970s, designing inhospitable streets that kill French students. They need to join us in 2013 and make tough decisions about motor traffic capacity in order to create a London that is actually safe to cycle in. Not a London where Boris Johnson tells us we just need to ‘keep our wits about us’ and then Londoner’s like Dr Katherine Giles (killed by an HGV in April) lose their lives on the way to work.

Space for cyclists physically separated from motorised traffic is *not* hard to provide. This photo is from  Heidelberg, Germany. We need this sort of street design all over London. And we need it now.

Article printed as a letter in Tuesday's Evening Standard (9/7/2013)

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

On a side note, it is telling how nervous and worried Boris Johnson looks in the video of BBC's recent report on this needless tragedy. Johnson gave the BBC some absolute crap about 'safety in numbers'. Put more cyclists sharing 'general traffic lanes' with HGVs and lorries on Cycle "SuperHighway" 2, and you are going to have even more cycle deaths, not fewer. The Mayor needs to get his act together. He doesn't even look like he believes in what he's saying as he says it...

Thoughts on TfL's Cycle Superhighway 5 (CS5) 'Response to Consultation'

TfL recently published the responses to the consultation they held on the new, improved Cycle Superhighway 5 (CS5), they will build running from Victoria to New Cross Gate. It's a fairly long document (download here), so I thought it might be worth picking out some of the more pertinent details for those interested in cycling:

The poorly designed CS3. Much of the new CS5 route will be physically segregated 'using cats’ eyes, rumble strips, traffic wands or similar' , leading (among other benefits) to less of the above occurring.

A) Some politicians are getting it (very) right:

Caroline Pidgeon, London Assembly AM (Lib Dem, twitter) gave a fantastic response:

I had the pleasure of briefly conversing with Caroline Pidgeon via email last September, as one of many people she spoke to when investigating cycling in London. She clearly 'gets cycling' now. This is fantastic to see since it's this kind of political support that's needed if we want segregated lanes to be built in London.

B) Some politicians are getting it (very) wrong:

The responses from Westminster City Council by Cllr Edward Argar (Conservative) and Cllr Alan Bradley (Conservative) were, frankly, awful:

1) Countless scientific studies have shown that motor traffic levels expand and contract to match capacity. Thus, Los Angeles has one of the world's largest road systems, but also many of the world's worst traffic jams:

Los Angeles' freeways: a case study in why more roads doesn't mean less congestion.

And on the flip-side, when London's motor traffic capacity was drastically cut by up to 33% (source: RAC) for the 2012 Olympics, was there increased congestion? No, in fact in many places there was less congestion. Did London grind to a halt? No, we delivered a great Olympic Games, while the City and everything else continued running very smoothly.

Edward Argar's and Alan Bradley's 'serious concerns' about 'increased congestion' are therefore simply not grounded in reality. This is what gets my goat. Edward Argar is 'Cabinet Member for City Management & Transport'. He also studied History at Oriel College, Oxford. He's clearly an intelligent person. Yet, he's not looking at the data (even though that's what he's paid to do) about how traffic congestion is and isn't caused. Westminster Cyclists seem much better informed:

It's surely Edward Argar's job to note that 'a similar approach on Grosvenor Road and Millbank has led to a large increase in cyclists without seeming to significantly increase traffic congestion'. Disappointingly, he hasn't; yet.

2) Both councillors also expressed concerns about 'increased rat-running'. This is perhaps even more frustrating since it is blatantly hypocritical. Westminster Council are actually currently opposing measures to curb rat-running such as 20mph limits and blocking motor traffic through-routes:

Warren Street, Camden: through-route closed to motor traffic. This is what Westminster Council would be doing if they were actually concerned about rat-running.

If Westminster Council wants to discourage rat-running there are many easier (and more effectual) ways to do it than by blocking the CS5.

C) TfL are (broadly) trying their best:

1) Bizarrely, the Department for Transport seems to be against any cycle stop boxes larger than 7.5m:

It's clear that 2m segregated cycle lanes are better than advance stop lines (ASLs), but if I've got a truck behind me, I'd rather have 10m than 7.5m space between me and a vehicle that can easily kill. This is where The Times's #cyclesafe petition to get the Coalition to actively support cycling comes in. There's a limit to how much TfL can do if their efforts are being actively retarded by central government. 

Cameron needs to get behind cycling, or face the political consequences at the next election.

TfL should not have to 'win' support from the DfT to make infrastructure safer for cyclists. The DfT should be pushing TfL to make these changes. That the impetus is coming from TfL, under direct control of the Mayor, says a lot about the drastically different stances on cycling of Boris Johnson and David Cameron respectively....

2) TfL are having safer cycling infrastructure blocked by local residents and businesses:

This is an unusual instance where the proposed improvements have actually worsened following consultation. I believe we need to pay attention to examples like this because it doesn't make sense to beat up TfL on everything, if (occasionally) the real opposition lies elsewhere. If TfL's attitude to cycling is changing this should be welcomed and embraced, even if it can't always yield results.

How to get past resident and business opposition is a more difficult matter. For starters, I'd propose two ways:

• When TfL does build infrastructure properly (as we hope for the CS2 2013 Stratford extension) its our job to help publicise and make crystal clear the benefits that accompany 'doing it right'. That way TfL have more political firepower to convince residents and businesses they need to 'do it right' elsewhere in London, even if this means banning certain left turns.
• Further publicising the public realm and commercial benefits that greater cycling brings. E.g. (from Mark Treasure at AsEasyAsRidingABike) 'Street in Horsham got pedestrianised (during the day) last year. Footfall up 6%, 90% of traders in favour now'

If anyone else has any ideas, comments are most welcomed. I suppose I feel that in 2013 though TfL is very far from perfect, they're not always the key interested party that needs convincing. Cycle campaigners should, perhaps, be supporting TfL (in certain cases) and trying to win around these resistant groups instead.

Delivery of 4 new TfL Cycle SuperHighways accelerated to 2013

EDIT (18/1/13) - As is probably abundantly clear now, TfL have quickly scrapped their previous plans (which I outlined below) to open 4 new Cycle Superhighways in 2013. This is obviously disappointing.

However, the plans drawn up for the CS2 extension show that TfL might now be significantly shifting their policy to supporting full segregated cycle lanes instead of the current rubbish 'blue-paint-only' that characterises much of the first 4 Cycle Superhighways.

If this is the case, it is possible that the other 4 Cycle Superhighways that were meant to open this year have been delayed so they can made into fully segregated lanes which - understandably - will require substantially more planning, application, and build time.

Fingers crossed eh? The BBC clearly thinks that cycle blogging has led to real, concrete improvements for cyclists.

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

A while ago I was trawling the internet for information on the Boris Bike Scheme expansion which I could then put on wikipedia (because I'm young and cool like that) and I found this article from the London Cyclist: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/no-new-superhighways-in-2012-or-2013-but-the-cycle-hire-scheme-continues-to-expand/

As the URL makes clear, the Mayor said back in Dec 2011 there would be no new Superhighways in 2013. But that's strange because if one now checks the TfL website for Cycle Superhighways (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/15832.aspx) the delivery dates have been brought forward and we are now promised 4 new Superhighways in 2013 and another 4 by 2015.

Evidence from TfL website (3/9/2012)!

The most likely explanation for what has happened is that the increased number of cyclists on London's roads, and perhaps the efforts of cycle campaigners, has led to the Mayor and TfL deciding to accelerated their delivery schedule (we do, after all, live in a democracy). The reason the decision has not been widely publicised is probably because the excuse given back in December 2011 for no new SuperHighways in 2013 was 'a restricted delivery window caused by the 2012 Olympic Games'. Suddenly going back on this would make it seem like there was no good reason for not implementing the SuperHighways in 2013 in the first place...

What does this development mean for cycling in London?

Well, firstly its a big positive for everyone that likes cycling in London. TfL clearly listens to us, at some level, and does (sometimes) alter its policy accordingly. Pats on the back all-round.

My second point is much more important. If TfL has accelerated 4 of its SuperHighways to a 2013 delivery date then it can accelerate the other 4. There is no need for us to wait until 2015 for them. Massive flyovers take 3 years to build. Painting a bit of tarmac blue (which is all that much of the current Cycle Superhighways consist of) takes about a week. I firmly believe that if enough pressure was exerted we could see those last 4 SuperHighways implemented well before 2015, especially since the 2013 Superhighways will only further boost cyclist numbers, and therefore public pressure on politicians to do more for cycle infrastructure.

Map showing future Cycle Superhighways (and junctions proposed for improvements). Available on TfL website; click here to view full-size. As can be seen, the routes proposed for 2015 are clearly NOT going take 3 years to build.

Moreover, as many cyclists online have made clear, the standards to which the last 4 Cycle Superhighways were made is simply not good enough compared to international best-practice.

Given that the Mayor pledged the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) to build new cycle routes in-line with international best-practice as part of his 2012 election manifesto, I also believe that with further pressure from Londoners we could see these new Cycle Superhighways being built to significantly higher standards than the first 4 were.

Wider. Better protected. Better signposted. I'm getting excited just thinking about them...

Boris Johnson also mentioned in his election manifesto a vague commitment to build an East-West Cycle Superhighway. It isn't on TfL's map above. We need to put it on the map (literally). This is NOT an infeasible project and if we could use the increasing momentum of utility cycling (no pun intended) to get it built, it could potentially completely revolutionise cycling in Central London. [If London were personified by David Cameron, then building an East-West cycle Superhighway through the centre of town would be the equivalent of branding the words 'I LOVE CYCLING' on Cameron's forehead for life.]

Essentially the voice of the utility cycling community is clearly being heard (at last!) by London's political leaders. But that is only more reason for us to shout both louder and clearer about exactly what improvements we want to see over the next few years, especially since idiotic local councillors have the power to do so much to obstruct TfL's efforts to build cycle Superhighways through their boroughs.

I've written extensively in this blog about the window of opportunity for cycling in London created this year by the Tour de France, followed by the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, and finally the Tour de Britain to finish off (over a million spectators were recorded in 2011 - how many will it be this year with Wiggins involved?).

This window of opportunity has been widened by the AA's call for more cycle lanes (along with Carol Ann Duffy's), and the strong campaigning by British Cycling - a group which has itself more than doubled membership since 2008 to over 50,000 - for both a justice review for when people are hurt or killed on the road, and international-standard protected cycle infrastructure.

Right now, this window has been widened further still by George Osborne's, and the rest of our Government's, calls for investment in infrastructure to help tackle the recession.

Cycle infrastructure certainly isn't as expensive as the Thames Hub Airport would be (which we should build, by the bye). However, it certainly isn't that cheap either, especially in a city as complex as London. If cycle infrastructure could be made part of the national infrastructure-investment 'picture' that would help secure the kind of money necessary to fund the radical road engineering projects which will inevitably be necessary to create uniformly great cycling infrastructure across London, not just blue paint.

So, if you are reading this, please take a moment to have your voice heard at this critical time by:

1. Writing to your local MPs and Councillors (www.writetothem.com)
2. Writing to your MP through this contact detail too, some of them can be very reticent (http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/)
3. Writing to TfL at londonstreets@tfl.gov.uk
4.. Writing to Cameron, Osbourne and Clegg (http://www.number10.gov.uk/contact-us/, http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/contact, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/contact_index.htm)
5. Encouraging your friends and family to get on their bikes to get around London. The higher the recorded number of cycle journeys around London is the more the Government and TfL will do to make cyclists safer and better accommodated (they want votes; UK is a democracy).

6. Finally, like charity, good cycle infrastructure begins at home. Making as many journeys as you can by bike is another effective way of creating change in our city. Drivers see you cycle, making them more aware of all cyclists. People see you cycle, making them jealous that you can filter traffic and encouraging them to cycle themselves. The government registers you cycling, and does that little bit more to represent cyclists at a national level as numbers increase.

If you usually undertake a long commute sans-bike, why not try it by bike a few times a week when the weather is good? Or if you're tootling around Central London and left your regular bike at home, consider getting a £1 day registration for the Boris Bikes instead of using a tube, bus, or taxi to get somewhere.

(comments welcomed)

More user-friendly map of proposed Cycle SuperHighways. Remember that strong local support in every borough will be essential if the new Cycle SuperHighways are to be built, and built to a high standard of safety. Full-size map available to view here.

Footnote

For those interested in the Boris Bike scheme, the 2013 expansion shows all the signs that it is going ahead although obviously voicing your support locally (and nationally) will help make sure funding does not fall through, which might still be a potential problem. Moreover, if your Borough is not included in the scheme currently, nor in the planned expansion, the 2013 increase clearly demonstrates that TfL and the Boris Johnson are open-minded about further expansion - the Mayor has said publicly he sees it's expansion as an 'ongoing project' - so if you want Boris Bikes near your house write to TfL and let them know (email: BarclaysCycleHire@TfL.gov.uk)!

A further increase in the Boris Bike scheme can also be tied in with the Government's proposed plans for overall investment in transport infrastructure, so now is the perfect time to ask TfL and your local MPs for Boris Bikes to come to your Borough.

Furthermore, for any Hammersmith and Fulham residents, or regular visitors, visit the H&F website here to suggest potential Docking Stations and influence the future shape of the BCH expansion in 2013. The more local support gets heard, the greater the expansion will be. Simples.