TFL Network Operating Strategy Consultation - Tell Them It's Shit.

more points to use, if anyone wants them.. (from a post on lambeth cyclists yahoo group)

Re: Network Operating Strategy. TfLs anti cycling policy.

In case it's of interest, here's my contribution to the consultation on TFL's
Network Operating Strategy (https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/nos). I'd
welcome any thoughts...

1. The statistics in the Foreword about volumes of journey by different mode do
   not seem to include the huge amount of walking that people do as part of their
   use of other forms of transport – e.g. walking to the Tube or bus stop. This
   suggests that you’re significantly undercounting the importance of walking as
   a
   form of transport in London.
   Â
   
2. Chapter 2 appears to be heavily oriented towards considering the needs of
   motor traffic, as opposed to other road users (people on buses, bike and foot).
   For example, the research conducted by MVA Consultancy explicitly only addresses
   KPIs for motorists, and there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent survey for
   other
   road users. The finding that cyclists were significantly less satisfied with the
   TLRN than other users does not appear to be addressed anywhere in the document.
   What are your proposals to improve satisfaction levels? As you know, the Traffic
   Management Act requires TFL to manage on behalf of all road users, not just
   motorised traffic.
   Â
   
3. The document does not address the recurring conflict between smoothing
   traffic flow and encouraging modal shift. At junction after junction in central
   London (e.g. Oval, Blackfriars, Elephant and Castle), TFL is proposing designs
   that promote smoother flow of motorised traffic, while creating dangerous or
   off-putting conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. The document doesn’t
   present any data about the impact of road conditions on people’s willingness
   to
   switch to more sustainable modes of transport, even though there is plenty of
   evidence to show that people are put off modal shift (particularly shift to
   cycling) by the perception that the roads are dangerous and dirty owing to the
   prioritisation of motor vehicles.
   Â
   
4. The document does not address the proposal to reduce traffic speeds in
   central London to 20mph. This would have the effect of lowering pollution,
   smoothing traffic flow, improving safety, improving the public realm and
   encouraging modal shift, all of which are TFL objectives. The document scarcely
   addresses the impact on the public realm of prioritising road space for
   fast-moving motorised traffic.
   Â
   
5. While stating that the objective is not to increase the overall number of
   vehicle journeys, the document does not address the question of whether it might
   actually be helpful to reduce the number of vehicle journeys. One way of doing
   so would be to increase overall space for cycling and walking, which would
   contribute significantly to the modal-shift objective, while also improving
   reliability of journey times (the timings of journeys on bike and foot are
   typically much more reliable than journeys by car) and reducing congestion
   (cyclists don’t get congested). There is a huge amount of evidence to show
   that
   reducing road space for vehicles leads to reduced overall vehicle use; indeed in
   the numerous places across London where road space for motor traffic has been
   reduced, the increase in congestion, predicted by TfL's models, has not
   happened. A reduction in the overall volume of motorised journeys would also
   have the very significant added benefit of reducing London’s shocking levels
   of
   air pollution.
   
   

Â

1. One weakness of the TLRN that does not appear to be addressed is the lack of
   crossing facilities for pedestrians at many junctions. This has an enormous
   negative effect on street conditions across the City. To use some examples with
   which I am particularly familiar, there is no safe way to cross Farringdon Road
   at the junction with Charterhouse Street and similarly there is no safe way to
   reach Kennington Park from the Brixton Road. In both cases people on foot (in my
   case, often with a baby in tow) simply have to hope not to be hit by fast-moving
   vehicles.
   
   

Â

1. Similarly, the phasing of lights at many pedestrian crossings across the TLRN
   requires pedestrians to wait for unacceptably long times. Surely the free
   movement of non-motorised human beings should be given equal priority to the
   free movement of motorised human beings.
   Â
   Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to this consultation. I look forward to
   seeing a revised version.
   
   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]