By the end of next year, TfL plan to have made improvements
to 35 priority junctions. These will be interim measures, seeking to mitigate
the worst effects of a different set of priorities inherited from a previous
generation. One thing to bear in mind here, according to an EU publication
entitled Promotion of Cycling, is that it is vital that cyclists can be
seen by motorists at junctions. This does not mean kitting cyclists out in
hi-viz gear, of course, but enabling them to position themselves in the right
place relative to the motor traffic.
Also by the end of next year, TfL plan to have completed the
CS2 extension and all of CS5. TfL are mindful of the lessons
which have already been learned during the implementation of the CS programme
to date, they say. Most notable of these is the importance of developing an
infrastructure which draws in many more people, and not just those from within a
fairly narrow demographic.
TfL have indicated that the next phase of the CS programme will seek
to do as much as possible in accordance with the Go Dutch principles, as identified by the London Cycle Campaign. These can
be summarised as follows:
Equality: Cyclists do not have the protection that occupants
of motor vehicles enjoy, so equality of transport choice means priority
provision for safe cycling.
Continuity: The everyday journeys we know many Londoners
would like to make by bike need to be continuous, unobstructed, and built
into a network.
Quality: Whatever their age or experience, cyclists must be
welcomed by high quality, end-to-end provision.
[...] The subjective experience is important, but so is a technical
commitment to quality.
Rachel Aldred said that the current TfL campaigns on
cycling show images of people riding their bikes through parks and along quiet streets.
Rachel is sure that this campaign has been well-researched, and this
suggests to her that what the images show is what people actually want; that
is, to be able to cycle in pleasant conditions, away from lots of motor
traffic. And so, she says, we need to replicate those conditions wherever
possible.
Rachel said that we don’t need to segregate every single
road in London, but rather, segregated routes should form the backbone of a network that
is friendly to people of all abilities. Karen Dee from the Freight Trade
Association agreed, in a roundabout way, in the sense that she thought segregation
might be the answer in some places. You’ve just got to look and see what's
going on in each location, she said: where are most of the cyclists going to be?
what sort of times of day? do goods vehicles need to be there or not?
This is quite interesting, actually, because at the
committee hearing, Ben Plowden thought the time had come to ask what sort of road network we want. For myself, I don't believe it is possible to consider the ongoing development of a cycle
network without also considering what should be happening to
the road network. David Arditti and the CEoGB propose a systematic approach, arguing that you should begin by establishing what type of road it is, and what its purpose should be in
both the car and bike network. The treatment of the road, be it segregation or something else, would then follow on from this automatically, as surely as a dog follows its nose. The FTA have a somewhat different but not entirely dissimilar view. They argue that it's not going to be same solution for every
part of London, of course; it’s such a big place, after all. But as far as they are
concerned, all of the tools that are available to us have got to be used, in the
most appropriate places.
In response to a slightly different but related question,
Ben said that TfL would develop a network for cyclists in phases. Probably the
first phase of building would include lots and lots of "interim
measures". However, also planned is the CS2 extension and all of CS5, and these really ought to set the standard.
I am particularly interested in the CS5 route, probably for
historical reasons.
Version 1 of the CS programme (image from bikeradar.com) |
You can see that it was originally intended that CS5 should connect to Hyde Park Corner. The arguments in favour of restoring the full length of this 'backbone' route are compelling. KenningtonPeople on Bikes has recently been able to establish that the Mayor is planning a rather radical programme for Vauxhall Cross—"better than
It would make so much more of a difference if this route
connected to other parts of the existing cycle infrastructure (which an
extension to Hyde Park Corner would provide, as opposed to simply leaving the route
dangling like a loose thread). As Londonneur has recently
explained: "The Cycle Superhighways have been widely criticised on
engineering grounds, but their design is flawed at a much deeper level.
They capture existing commuter trips but fail to potentiate new journeys,
because the routes do not intersect to form a network."
Cyclists in the City recently highlighted a piece from the New
York Daily News which captured this sentiment very well:
"We need an intelligent, systemic plan [...]. This
plan should connect the dots [...] with a rational network of bike lanes that
not only guide cyclists between the places they want to
travel to, but also along the routes that are best-suited to absorbing large numbers of
bikers and interfering the least with pedestrians and motorists.
"This plan cannot be developed piecemeal, with bits of
bike lanes that stop and start within one Community District (which might be
more welcoming to bikers), skip the next, then start up again on some distant
street that doesn’t lead bikers to where they really want to go anyway.
"Bike paths need to flow like bloodstreams: We need
networks, not snippets."
In fairness to TfL, they do seem to have taken this point on
board.
***
Just recently, CTC's Hierarchy of Provision has come in for
a bit of stick. But what would CTC's critics do instead? As one commentator
pointed out at the beginning of this year: "First, we need to articulate what’s wrong with HoP and [explain] why it’s failed. Second, we need to say what we’d put in its place."
My own list reads as follows:
1. Think in terms of a network: "the key
word," Steffen Rasmussen said, “is an holistic approach.”
2. Plan the network: Ben Plowden said that TfL
would be working with the boroughs to identify those routes which would
complement the Cycle Superhighways.
3. Study the feasibility of the network: if TfL
and the Mayor were minded to deliver a cycle network, Ben said they would
first establish what would need to be done in order for the network plan to be
realised. This would include an assessment of how much it would cost to
implement.
4. Introduce the network: Ben said that TfL would
develop a cycle network in phases.
5. Develop the network further according to
priority interventions and a timetable: the key here is sustained
investment.
I will mention this just in passing. All I know about
cycling in York
is what I have read from Freewheeler, where he reports that the cycling modal
share has stagnated, and may even now be falling back. This is almost certainly due to a lack
of sustained investment; that is, the authorities (and CTC?) have failed to build on the momentum that was built up during the earlier, more formative stages. The idea, of course,
is to progressively reprioritise our towns and cities in favour of pedestrians
and cyclists, to create an environment which is more focused on activity,
on people and places, rather than on the car. This doesn't appear to have
happened in York
beyond a fairly rudimentary level.
Anyway, Steffen said that research had shown that 88%
of people would choose cycling if it was easy, quick and direct, not every day
perhaps, but on a regular basis at least. Rachel made the point that the
people who cycle in London—and the people who would like to cycle—want
dedicated, safe, fast and pleasant infrastructure. They don't want a choice
between infrastructure that's pleasant and infrastructure that's direct—they
want both!
Rachel thought we could create this infrastructure. "We
need to be ambitious," she said. Roelof echoed this idea by saying that if
we can accelerate the development of an amenable cycling environment,
mainstream, then we should do it.
Rachel explained that fears about traffic chaos resulting
from a reallocation of the road space are often ill-founded. People adapt. We need to
have faith in that, she said. However, as Roelof also said, "Do not
underestimate that you have to come a long way."
Both Ben Plowden and Richard Tracey indicated as much. We
have [only just] started the journey towards a more cyclised city, Ben said, and
we're doing so from a very different place than our continental neighbours. The
cycling population of Amsterdam
never fell below one in four, for example. As Matthew Wright has recently
observed: "In the 1970s, when the Dutch began [redeveloping] their cycling
infrastructure, modal share across the country was approx 25%. It had come down
from over 50% in the previous 20 years. So, there was a massive voting
population of active and recently active cyclists who could see the benefit of,
and vote for, improvements in facilities."
Ben also made the point that we have inherited a road
network from an earlier generation who, quite simply, had different priorities
and different ideas. This cannot be changed with a click of the fingers. This
being the case, if cyclists want routes which are meaningful and direct—and
they do—then there has to be some acceptance from them that if it's going to
get better, it's going to take time.
Ben told the committee hearing that the Cycle Superhighways
were designed to appeal to commuter cyclists. If a cycle network is going to be
developed, who would it be for? Caroline Pidgeon has said: “We cannot have a
situation where more people are being encouraged to cycle at the same time as
more cyclists are being killed or injured." Thus, if a wider network is
going to be developed—and in particular if it is going to be developed in
phases—then in the early days it clearly would not be suitable for everyone.
This, I think, would need to be emphasised.
No comments:
Post a Comment