Centralised discussion space for TfL plans and cycling in London

Your local labour councillors, in the hope they mention it to Sadiq Khan. the mayor is now the authority on what gets built and where. TfL will only do what the mayor/gilligan tells them to. The mayor is the only person with enough clout to get anything done outside of councils such as Camden.

Regent's park plans look good, ban on through traffic during rush hours, decent lanes up to swiss cottage, but it all stops there. Brent are basically poo pooing anything of any note.

I've had a go on the e/w embankment route and it's coming along nicely. CS2 seems fine where it's ready, and the piece from North of Vauxhall bridge to oval seems fairly pleasant as well.

Mostly these routes are a bit slower than sticking to the road, but they are a fucking lot less hassle.

I'm only wanting to suggest a small parking restriction near a junction. No building required.

respond to tfl consultations. i got an email minutes ago about CS6 new proposals (presumably because i've commented previously). you can view proposals and comment here... http://tfl.gov.uk/cycle-north-south

edit - in light of your above post, yeah speak to your councillor would be best

aah, probably just local councillors then, though parking is a dodgy one for politicians for obvious reasons

Just got an email from TfL about the Elephant to CP Quiet Way
Comments to Lambeth Council

Odd one as I am reasonably local and I can't work out why they would route cyclists up (or down) narrow/busy Gypsy Hil) rather than the already (wide and) quiet College Rd to CP. Not being as masochistic as some of you, I know what I'd rather go up

Perhaps the feudal landlord that is the Dulwich Estate will have none of it

This is going to be so good:

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/documents/get_lob?id=4119&age=&field=file

I agree but why is the column for 1,600 people in cars bigger than the column for 1,600 people on bikes? (p6)

Ride bikes = lose weight.

I'd guess the number of cars is wrong rather than the height of the column.

Hah!

hmmm, very little offered to cyclists there. Given busses are the biggest threat to cycling safety and the numbers involved through there it seems a reasonable scheme for bus and peds but of little benefit to cyclists.

Not too mention it's a free for all after 7pm, and they're already talking about allowing taxis in as well...

Given buses are the biggest threat to cycling safety

This oft-repeated claim is not true.

I'm not sure if you appreciate quite how sensational this initiative is. I've worked on this stuff for seventeen years as a volunteer and I never thought I'd see something like this. It's the Bank junction, one of the most historic and iconic places in the world and certainly in London. If it gets adopted, it will be by far the most transformative traffic scheme that London has seen since Congestion Charging.

The lobbying by interest groups that is currently going on is an inevitable part of the process and a lot of options will have to be examined before a final decision is taken.

Also, it's important not to always think 'what's in it for cyclists'. That's not how successful street design works. (I'm obviously fully aware of people claiming the opposite--as it happens, there is absolutely zero potential for kerb nerdery here, so it's irrelevant in any case. Not that this fact will stop them trying. :) )

just got something through the door about Quiet Cycling Route 6 where it bisects Leytonstone High Road

They have provided me with blank paper to put my comments. Anyone with knowledge of this stuff let me know what i should write if anything ?

Picture of proposed works

https://www.flickr.com/photos/99782232@N00/24899833583/in/dateposted-public/

for larger image
anyone want to tell them anything ?

I'm not going to be excited about a heavily used 5-way bus junction as a cycle route. Thinking that removal of 15-25% of motor traffic is good news doesn't wash with me.

And I am far from thinking, what's in it for cyclists only, decent cycle tracks offer people a viable alternative to dangerous and polluting busses.

Link to numbers: https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/environmental-enhancement/strategies/Documents/analysis-of-the-priority-areas-1-part-4.pdf

Cable Street (CS3) changes released by Tower Hamlets yesterday, all seems quite good until you realise how much lane-changing there will be as a cyclist.

It seems they want eastbound and westbound cyclists to slam into each other at one point, having to keep changing lanes, leaving and rejoining the carriageway. It's mad!

1 Attachment

Crawford street to Bridport land westbound.... Mandatory cycle lane....since when the fuck have they ever been able to be mandatory? I don't know the area at all so no idea what it's like or will be like, but if the cycle lane is shit, there's no way I'm using it no matter how big the 'mandatory cycle lane' sign is. I am traffic, I'll use the road thanks.
Anyone able to enlighten me on this? I may be getting unnecessarily angry granted.

easy tiger, mandatory normally means mandatory that cars stay out. Cycles always have the option to use the main carriageway short of some specific order.

Oh, that mandatory... Ha!

Forgot to update this. I replied to the consultation and they're going to follow up in May. Here's what they said:

Thank you for your interest in Tower Hamlets Council’s proposal for Cable Street and your reply to the early consultation on the principles of the scheme. We have noted your comments but due to the high level of interest and the amount of detail within the scheme, once we have reviewed those comments we intend to hold a number of further events within the Cable Street area which will allow us to explain the details and answer any questions you have. These are likely to take place in May.

I don't see how ^^^ that definition of "mandatory" stacks up against "segregated", which is also used in the document.

Maybe a mandatory one is against the flow of the main carriageway on a one way section?

Wouldn't "segregated" be physically separate, eg. on the pavement or with kerbs between the lane and the carriageway, whereas "mandatory" would be physically on the road but with a solid white "do not cross" line?

The switching sides thing that happens on CS3 (East of that area) is totes bonkers.

I haven't read the document but as it goes, advisory lane is a dashed line at the side, cars 'should' not cross the line unless necessary. Zero legal weight and widely seen as more dangerous than nothing. Mandatory lane, solid line at the side of the road, cars 'must' not enter the lane. Little legal weight and not seen as much better than the advisory lane. Segregated lane, a portion of the road with a physical demarcation, from studs to wands to kerbs to half height kerbs to orcas to armadillos... Widely favoured by the public, disliked by other campaigners.

Yes, 'mandatory' is for (painted) cycle lanes, designated by a solid white line.

'Segregated' or 'separate' usually means kerb or grade separation, as you say, although it can also be used to demarcate segregated and unsegregated shared use (between pedestrians and cyclists) on the footway or in parks, and the segregation there is usually by a white line).

The switching sides thing that happens on CS3 (East of that area) is totes bonkers.

Yes, it's high time we saw the end of the current design.

Makes sense. That's for the clarification.

Mandatory cycle lanes carry a potential £100 fine and 3 points for drivers who use them, much like bus lanes.

I'd expect to see some cameras enforcing them sometime in the future and when the next generation of traffic hobby Bobby get deployed I think more drivers will be getting FPNs in the post.