.gifs

'interesting' car ads can get fucked. all of them.

'interesting' car ads can get fucked. all of them.

Would you prefer "boring" ones?

The way the two dogs look at each other is great. "WTF is that shitty goat's problem?"

If I had to choose ten dinner guests, alive or dead, that cat would be one.

Urrrgh, can't stop watching.. Urrgh

shit gif

Brilliant

http://hackney.cc/old_street_city_road/

Much much better, anything that's not a roundabout is a massive improvement already.

I really dislike that.

Is there a lot of citable and clear evidence about the impact on traffic flow and safety overall?

I know cross-junctions have a reduced risk to cyclists, but my understanding was the roundabouts had a dramatically reduced risk overall.

City Road has such an enormous traffic flow that is dumped into Old St that my gut feeling is that the junction needs to acknowledge the flow from the North to East and vice versa, and that the cross-junction shown above goes against that.

As such I think it will foul up the area with severe traffic which will then be the cause of new risk to cyclists and pedestrians whilst making the area ugly.

I'm personally in favour of the type of junction that shuts off one side of the roundabout and creates a single flowing road around the junction.

I thought that was the proposal that was going ahead?

Of course, what I really think should happen is way too dramatic... but bulldoze the space between City Road and Great Eastern St and connect those up, moving the traffic away from Old St junction, which could then be a cross-junction, and whilst you're at it redeveloping the buildings around it.

^ +1

Cars already back up a fair bit on old st roundabout at busy times, a cross-junction will only make it worse.

As velocio says, re-routing traffic around it would be much better

Traffic can adapt, if there's an increase number of congestion, it'll force people to rethink their transport choice/route.

It happen during the Olympic where the first few days were chaos, after that, a sudden increase in bicycle purchases, change transport mode to buses, tube, walking etc. and it pretty much fixed itself.

^ +1

Traffic can adapt, if there's an increase number of congestion, it'll force people to rethink their transport choice/route.

Traffic evaporation ftw!

Can't wait to put those words of wisdom to use on Monday during peak period.

Cheers ed!

I concede it is true.

This is why there is no traffic whatsoever at around Knightsbridge.

None at all, as everyone re-thought their transport choice and route.

I really dislike that.

Is there a lot of citable and clear evidence about the impact on traffic flow and safety overall?

Oh yes.

I know cross-junctions have a reduced risk to cyclists, but my understanding was the roundabouts had a dramatically reduced risk overall.

It obviously depends on design--there are badly-designed crossroads, too, but generally crossroads have a much-reduced collision risk compared to roundabouts.

The issue at hand is, first and foremost, that LB Islington and TfL are minded to create a completely ridiculous 'peninsula' design. I wish I could show you drawings but I'm not allowed to, as TfL only circulate these on the understanding that they remain confidential. We have seen them, however, and were quite shocked by them. They're a right dog's breakfast. Horrendously complicated and they would leave the junction far too traffic-dominated.

City Road has such an enormous traffic flow that is dumped into Old St that my gut feeling is that the junction needs to acknowledge the flow from the North to East and vice versa, and that the cross-junction shown above goes against that.

You're quite right there. The north to east and vice versa flow is on the Inner Ring Road, the cell boundary for the Central London Congestion Charging Zone. It is certainly the most dominant flow at this junction. The drawing is certainly intended to signal a reduced motor traffic capacity of the junction. Both Old Street and City Road take far too much motor traffic, reducing the potential for sustainable forms of traffic, e.g. pedestrian traffic or cycle traffic. Traffic engineers will always tell you that the world will end if you reduce motor traffic capacity, but it won't. The evidence is very clear that where motor traffic capacity is reduced, people will switch to other modes. There needn't be a reduction in traffic, just in the kinds of traffic you encounter there. Lots of stuff on-line, but this short summary is a good start:

http://www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf

A finalised design would, of course, not look exactly like the one we've drawn. TfL have already issued dire warnings that they'd have to go for a huge crossroads that wouldn't leave any room for development--well, that's precisely missing the point. :) TfL always start designs from assumptions of motor traffic dominance, and we are simply showing the potential that could exist if you started to design from the requirements of the place, as a destination, as a place to linger, as a people-friendly environment. If we don't show this, there will be no way of meeting somewhere in the middle.

There are obviously technical challenges to overcome, and the scheme would be expensive, having to cover over the railway station underneath, but it would be very worthwhile investment. Much of it could be financed from developer contributions, who would be able to develop prime land in a key location, where there is a well-established precedent for tall forms (unlike, say, at London Bridge). It would work.

As such I think it will foul up the area with severe traffic which will then be the cause of new risk to cyclists and pedestrians whilst making the area ugly.

We don't think so. It would lead to a reduction of motor traffic and an increase in cycle and pedestrian traffic. This has been demonstrated in countless places.

We've been through this merry dance with TfL many times. Back in 2002/3, when the Old Street/City Road junction was signalised, which reduced its motor traffic capacity, and when the Inner Ring Road was created, returning the Shoreditch gyratory to two-way operation, we had the same dire predictions from them. Needless to say, there was no more congestion than before, but the modal mix shifted dramatically in favour of cycling, walking, and public transport use. At another place on the Inner Ring Road, Vauxhall Cross, motor traffic capacity was reduced by 10% at the time and while Vauxhall Cross is obviously still a horrible area (sadly, it wasn't returned to two-way as fully as Shoreditch), it was worse before. Again, there weren't any real problems.

I'm personally in favour of the type of junction that shuts off one side of the roundabout and creates a single flowing road around the junction.

I thought that was the proposal that was going ahead?

That's what they're planning to do now, yes. It sounds like a great idea in theory but it would do nothing to change the status quo of a disjointed urban environment, severance, too much noise and pollution, and a lot of completely unsustainable traffic. Hopefully, they'll release drawings at some point so this can be seen. They are some of the worst designs I've ever seen (and I've seen a few).

Of course, what I really think should happen is way too dramatic... but bulldoze the space between City Road and Great Eastern St and connect those up, moving the traffic away from Old St junction, which could then be a cross-junction, and whilst you're at it redeveloping the buildings around it.

It's certainly an idea. The aim would be to create, effectively, two zones, one which would be envisaged to be motor-traffic dominated and one which was hoped to be less so, and that is an approach that's been put into practice in many places. The classic examples are the by-pass road or the motorway box. Unfortunately, what it leads to in practice is only more motor traffic. The 'old junction' will remain just as congested as before, whereas there will be increased motor traffic flows on the 'new road'. Newbury is a good example where this has happened, but there are many others. You can mitigate the effect of this to some extent by modally filtering the interior, as has been done in Groningen, but the policy should really be to reduce motor traffic even more.

Now, obviously, traffic is a good thing--this always needs stressing because many automatically assume that traffic has to be cars. We're saying 'let's have more traffic there, but fewer cars', i.e. people walking, cycling, and using public transport. The potential for traffic is too suppressed by the waste of space that is motor traffic in an inner city.

(People dreamed of razing much of London to the ground to build more roads and have more motor traffic for the best part of the last century. It happened in other cities, especially American ones, which subsequently saw their inner-city areas decline. Building your economy on unsustainable transport isn't such a great idea.

Fortunately, London proved utterly cack-handed at ushering in this brave new world. It was lucky in retaining a great many human-scale, liveable streets. They did start the plan for destruction at Old Street/City Road and in a few other places, of course, knocking down the corners, and intending to proceed to knocking down the buildings along the adjacent streets. Needless to say, most of these plans failed and, fortunately, only very few urban motorways were built. If you're interested in that history, search for 'Bressey Plan' or 'Greater London Plan' (there were various others after those). It is now time to throw off that legacy of failure.

London is an extraordinarily successful city, but its success was not built on motor traffic; it was built on public transport and walking. We are now trying to add cycling to the mix, which never had a very high share in London. The constant focus on motor traffic only damages London's economy and reduces its potential. Other forms of traffic are far more efficient.)

We're certainly looking forward to all of this debate and we're very happy to kick it off. :)

Traffic can adapt, if there's an increase number of congestion, it'll force people to rethink their transport choice/route.

It happen during the Olympic where the first few days were chaos, after that, a sudden increase in bicycle purchases, change transport mode to buses, tube, walking etc. and it pretty much fixed itself.

Traffic evaporation ftw!

Can't wait to put those words of wisdom to use on Monday during peak period.

Cheers ed!

I concede it is true.

This is why there is no traffic whatsoever at around Knightsbridge.

None at all, as everyone re-thought their transport choice and route.

Congestion only ever creeps up to a certain level. After that, the first people will find it intolerable and switch modes. Others will be able to tolerate it more and will remain stuck in the queues.

Knightsbridge is a good example of what happens if you actively incentivise driving, i.e. the opposite of what we're suggesting. The City of Westminster collects a very high share of its revenue from car parking, one of the most damaging transport policies in existence in the capital. It still aims to increase motor traffic capacity in order to boost that revenue. As a result, they attract much less traffic than they could--Knightsbridge in planning terms is classed as one of London's two International Centres, i.e. its biggest and most powerful. Some people commute there by plane. However, its potential would be even greater if they changed the modal mix in favour of other modes of transport.

I think two of your arguments contradict each other Oliver.

Namely that you acknowledge that the junction is part of the inner ring and the boundary to the charging zone... both huge reasons a lot of people unfamiliar with the area take that route (as locals already know it's hell and avoid it).

And then you argue that people will find it intolerable and will switch modes, but I would say that the very people who comprise the majority of flow down City Road are those who are not local and would not build the intolerance required to change their behaviour.

There are just some routes that are core, not local, and have a high volume of traffic that isn't going to acquire experience that will change behaviour.

I believe Old St, as it is positioned on the inner ring and edge of the charging zone, is that.

I really truly, and deeply, believe that the proposal of a cross-junction for Old St is flawed to the core.

Now that's not to suggest I'm party to what the alternatives are, as you have been privy to them and I have not. So I don't know the downsides to the peninsula system as it's been proposed or any other alternatives. It doesn't affect my opinion that a cross-junction would really screw the area, more than has been managed by incompetence... and that would be something.

Anyway... moar gifs!