-
um, bullet points? if you really want
● network operating strategy defines tfl's goals when designing junctions and streets and crossings.
● right now, it's all about speeding up motor traffic, and letting as much motor traffic get along the roads as possible
● this leads to junctions like this: http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2011/06/transport-for-london-wont-answer.html
● they need to rewrite the strategy to include cyclist safety (barely mentioned) and perceived safety, pedestrian safety (barely mentioned) , traffic calming and speed reduction where necessary, demand management (by making other modes more attractive), and permeability.
● they need to add cyclists and pedestrians and the cost of traffic blight into the models they use, and (as motor traffic act 2004 instructs, manage the network to optimise traffic flow and ensure safety for all users (bus riders, cyclists, pedestrians, motorists) not just motorists.
● road design that only prioritises the fast passage of as much traffic as possible gets cyclists killed. see junction above.
●enough bullets?
-
fair enough. the above should be more than adequate. they will only aggregate, at best, not read anything in detail.
that said, it is not that i, in particular, want people to comment. anyone who cares about the safety of themselves and their friends should be making themselves aware of this stuff, and acting on it, i think. there are way too many avoidable deaths and injuries due to wrong-headed road design...
-
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...- 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.
 - 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.
 - 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.
 - 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.
 - 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
- 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
- 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]
- The statistics in the Foreword about volumes of journey by different mode do
-
last bump
closes tomorrow
more ideas for comments here:
Fox
neu
itsbruce
alien8-
Post a reply
About
TFL Network Operating Strategy Consultation - Tell Them It's Shit.
Posted by
http://cycalogical.blogspot.com/2011/06/network-operating-strategy-consultation.html
Network Operating Strategy - Consultation
As has been pointed out elsewhere, TfL have a consultation on its new Draft Network Operating Strategy. Yes, that's 'draft', not 'daft', although you might think otherwise after reading it. What is a Network Operating Strategy? It's quite simply, how TfL run the road network, which is, from a cycling point of view, not very well, and the new strategy does nothing to improve a woeful record. It's written, one gets the impression, by people who've cut-and-pasted a few 'green' paragraphs from other places but whose mindset is stuck in the 1980s 'predict-and-provide-more-urban-motorways' school of thought.
Remember that the City of London's LIP received 110-odd comments, most of which were from cyclists, and TfL were deluged by cyclists' complaints about Blackfriars Bridge. It does make a difference. It is essential that you comment here (https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/nos ) before 15 July and let 'em know we're out there.
The document acknowledges that cyclists are the least satisfied road users. That matters because the Mayor wants to increase cycling, which could be rather difficult if all other transport modes are more satisfying. Although in a couple of places the document talks about promoting walking and cycling, and modal shift, there is very little in the strategy to actually achieve this: it talks the talk, but quite literally doesn't walk the walk or indeed ride the bike.
The strategy measures journey times, but it ignores the journey times of cyclists, who make up more than 30% of traffic on certain routes at peak times. It completely ignores the cyclist's perspective on how good the road network is - it does not measure subjective safety. It does not talk about using lower speed limits or other traffic-calming features to make roads less intimidating. In fact, throughout the document it not only doesn't mention speed limits, it exclusively refers to 'speed' as a positive aspiration and not once does it refer to excessive speed of traffic as a problem. The tone of the document is almost all traffic flow - that is - more, faster motor traffic. There's no acknowledgement that encouraging cycling would be good for traffic flow as it would take cars off the road.
The document does not acknowledge that there is a conflict between measures that make cars go faster and the interests of cyclists. This document effectively allows TfL to continue to ignore cyclists, because there is nothing in the strategy that requires them to consider cyclist safety or even cycle journey times when designing roads. In short, this is a recipe for more Blackfriars Bridge junctions, rather an attempt to fix the historical strategy which has been an attempt to create urban motorways whereever possible.