Cycle lanes in Wandsworth and Tooting Bec Commons Desegregation

Here is the response I received about the planned changes to our local cycle lanes.  The answers are quite shocking.  

For Wandsworth Council to claim that the lines are too expensive to maintain, but to have spent virtually no money on maintenance of them is somewhat concerning!  

As you'll see there are no serious recorded accidents on the segregated cycle lanes, but there are numerous on the roads surrounding the Commons - spending money on cycle lanes that are relatively safe instead of on the roads that are not beggars belief.  Anyway, apologies for the delay in sharing this, I've not been well of late and been more on the stick than the wheels!

Please take a few seconds to sign our petition opposing the bizarre desegregation plans: you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/keep-the-cycle-lanes-in-wandsworth-common-and-tooting-bec-common

Response to FoI request from Wandsworth Council:

"Freedom of Information Act request - 2014/9209 - Desegregation of Shared-Use Paths

I refer to your request for information received on 24/03/2014.  Please see the information below in response to your request: -

Please provide the following information (preferably in an electronic format, such as .pdf files sent by email):

1 Confirmation of the numbers of people who have been recorded by Wandsworth Council ('the Council') as supporting, and the number of those opposing, the proposed changes to the cycle lanes in Tooting Bec Common and Wandsworth Common ('the cycle lanes'). 

In support

1 member of public

SUSTRANS

Wandsworth Common MAC

Tooting Common MAC

Opposing

Open Spaces Society

1 member of public

Petition signed by 376 people

2 Details of the projected cost savings from the desegregation of the cycle lanes.

The projected cost saving of not having to remark the raised white line and repeater symbols is £22,195 every 6 to 10 years. 

3a Details of the amounts spent (specifically) on maintaining the cycle lanes per annum since the current layout was implemented (excluding cleaning / sweeping of paths).

See response to 3b

3b Details of any works that have been undertaken to repair or improve the painted lines, path surface or bicycle/pedestrian symbols on the cycle lanes since the current layout was implemented.

No maintenance works have been carried out to the central white line or cycle symbols on the cycle tracks since they were introduced in 2006/7.

Several small areas of tactile paving have been repaired. 

3c Details of the problems that the raised white lines have allegedly caused for Council vehicles (or those of the Council's contractors) and an explanation of the alleged associated costs, with supporting evidence.  If no such information is held, please explain why such an allegation was made to Sadiq Khan MP. 

The white lines in themselves pose no problems to Parks maintenance vehicles.  The problem was that heavy maintenance vehicles used to remark the white lines, which carry heavy boilers to heat the thermoplastic material, experience difficulty driving on the soft ground adjacent to the cycle tracks.  This would entail maintenance crews having to work uneconomically as they would regularly have to return to their lorry parked on the highway to fill their marking machines with material.

3d Please explain why the Council or its contractors would use vehicles in the Commons that are unable to cope with the raised, white dividing lines (which are significantly smaller than the large number of traffic-calming facilities in the borough, like speed humps and raised tables at junctions).

See response to 3c

4 Details of the number and severity of recorded collisions on the cycle lanes over the past ten years.  Details of the number and severity of collisions on the roads adjoining/bisecting the two Commons. 

Wandsworth Common cycle route

No recorded collisions

Wandsworth common adjoining/bisecting roads

Fatal= 1

Severe = 8

Slight =  85

Tooting Commons cycle route

No recorded collisions

Tooting Commons adjoining/bisecting roads

Fatal= 0

Severe = 2

Slight =  51

5 An explanation of how this desegregation proposal meets the policy of the Council to provide segregated cycle lanes 'where possible'.

Council policy on cycle route segregation was formulated in 2005; since then guidance from Transport for London, Department for Transport and SUSTRANS has progressed, and their policies encourages unsegregated use with off highway tracks where appropriate.  Council policy will be updated in due course to reflect this development.

6 Where was funding for the construction of the current layout of the cycle lanes obtained from?

Transport for London

7 Where will funding for the desegregation of the cycle lanes be obtained from?

Transport for London

8 If the project is to be financed from funds intended for the improvement of cycling facilities, why is a scheme that the vast majority of local cyclists oppose deemed to be an appropriate use of such funding?

There is no evidence to suggest that the vast majority of local cyclists oppose the proposal, as demonstrated by the Wandsworth Cycling Campaign’s support of the proposals.  Also, SUSTRANS’s  support lends weight to cyclists being in favour of desegregating these tracks.

9a What is the Council's understanding of the policy of Guide Dogs and the RNIB regarding unsegregated cycle lanes (particularly heavily-used ones)? 

The RNIB and Guide Dogs preference is for segregated facilities on cycle tracks.

9b How can the desegregation of the cycle lanes benefit those with visual, hearing or mobility disabilities?

Shared unsegregated use encourages cyclists to reduce their speeds and take more care as they do not have the perceived priority they experience under segregation.

9c What impact assessment has been undertaken of the impact of these proposed changes to the cycle lanes on disabled people, young and old people and other people who have 'protected characteristics' as defined by the Equality Act? 

Feedback from stakeholders and user groups, including those representing disabled groups, has been considered together with a safety audit which takes into account the needs of all users irrespective of age and both able bodied and disabled. 

10 What is the Council's understanding of other guidance regarding the segregation of shared-use cycle lanes that have high levels of usage (as issued by Sustrans, TfL and the DfT, including the Mayor's 'Cycling Vision' document)?  Does the Council consider these cycle lanes to have high levels of usage by cyclists and/or pedestrians?

The TfL publication “London Cycling Design Standards”, Draft Appendix D , Off-highway design guidance gives the following criteria for usage designation.  This guidance was developed in association with SUSTRANS.  The Council does not consider the cycle lanes across Wandsworth and Tooting Commons to have high usage in accordance with this guidance.

Level of flow on greenway	Pedestrians per hour	Cyclists per hour
Very low	0-120	1-10
Low	120-200	10-50
Medium	200-450	50-150
High	450-900	150-450
Very high	>900	>450

11 What are the current usage levels of the cycle lanes?  When were these measured, and by whom?

The survey data available was captured in 2007.

Survey location	Pedestrians per hour		Cyclists per hour
	weekday	weekend	weekday	weekend
Tooting Commons	55	133	34	34
	Very low	low	low	low
Wandsworth common	187	247	62	62
	low	medium	medium	medium

12 Please explain why no letters or leaflets were sent to residents around the two Commons to advise them of these proposals.  What is the Council's policy regarding such correspondence?

It was not considered appropriate or necessary in the circumstances to send leaflets to nearby residents.  Many users of the commons do not live locally and it was decided that notices should be displayed prominently at all access points to the cycle tracks so as many users as possible could be informed.  Notification was also provided in the local Guardian newspaper.  Councillors and the Wandsworth and Tooting Commons Management Advisory Committees were also informed, together with all statutory consultees which include local groups representing pedestrians and cyclists."    

My submission to TfL about the planned Quietways

Please add your voice to ensure that vast amounts of public money are not wasted on another cycling scheme (especially unsegregated ones like CS2).  Just search for 'TfL consultation hub Quietways'.  

My submission might give you some ideas.  The main idea re-reading this gave me was that I really need to learn to be less verbose!! 

1. The branding of this scheme as being 'for a new kind of cyclist' is divisive, discriminatory and frankly, bizarre.  The scheme will be used by all kinds of people who cycle.  Many people who cycle who ride a bit faster will prefer to use these safer and easier to navigate routes.  So-called 'fast commuter cyclists' rarely travel above 20 MPH and there is no reason for them not to be encouraged to use all of the Grid.  The idea that people who cycle quickly can complete a journey only using main roads is ridiculous.  All cyclists need to get to numerous destinations, many of which will necessitate travelling away from main roads. 

The scheme should be designed for and promoted to *all* people who cycle or could be encouraged to.

2. Accessible cycles, such as recumbent ones, require a bit more space for turning and appropriate sight lines (railings, and low-level signage are a particular danger for those riding at lower heights).  Planning for the scheme to be accessible to a wide range of disabled people should be embedded from the outset.  It is unacceptable that the needs of disabled people who cycle (or want to) were not prominently mentioned in the consultation documents.  Other provisions that are helpful to all people who cycle but especially disabled cyclists include:

- kerbs / footrests at junctions to make waiting more comfortable, and moving away safer.
- clear signage on all routes in accessible formats.  Route numbers only marked on the carriageway are insufficient.  Looking at the road surface repeatedly could be dangerous.  At every 'decision point' (usually junctions), eye-level direction signage should be used.  Signage should be fixed in a way so that it cannot be moved easily by vandals.
- maximum use of any form of segregation.
- tube lines are easier to visualise than bus routes.  Branded routes should use tube lines where possible. The East West route could be branded 'Cross-Trail' and the North South one 'Thames-Link'.  'North-Circular', 'South Circular' and M25 routes should be added and connected to other routes, especially Superhighways.
- large Advanced Stop Line (ASL) waiting areas which can be accessed by all cyclists via Lead-in Cycle Lanes (LICL) - the 'gates' that are replacing many LICLs are only accessible to the most able and confident cyclists.  The Grid should have ASLs with segregated or semi-segregated LICLs wherever possible.
- consideration of 'no overtaking cyclists' rules and signs on narrow sections of road.  Disabled cyclists are less likely to follow a completely straight line and need more space when drivers overtake them.
- provision of tabbards, cycle jackets, etc with 'disabled cyclist, give extra space', or 'Deaf cyclist - I can't hear you', 'New cyclist' etc text and logos to be made available via TfL website and travel information centres (even if for a fee to cover costs).
- provision of effective air filter masks to enable cyclists with asthma, cystic fibrosis, COPD, etc to cycle more safely (again perhaps for a modest fee).
- Cycle Hire docking stations and website to have brief videos in British Sign Language with subtitles, and ones with simplified English explaining how to use the system.
- instalment payment plan (quarterly, monthly or weekly direct debit or continuous card payment) to enable those on fixed/low incomes to buy annual Cycle Hire access.
- 'gift card' Cycle Hire access to be available so organisations, families etc can buy access for others.
- free or discounted access to a Cycle Hire for Freedom Pass holders, perhaps using similar type of reimbursement scheme as provided to bus operators - thus incentivising the Cycle Hire operator to enable and promote access to disabled people.
- greater, active engagement with organisations representing disabled people during design, implementation and evaluation.
- more use of British Sign Language videos on TfL website, including cycling sections.

3. People who cycle in London and their loved ones are extremely frustrated by the poor quality and excessive delays in delivery of existing schemes like the Superhighways and arerightly sceptical that this plan will come to fruition.  A clear delivery timetable should be publicised, reasons for delays announced clearly and a process of 'over-programming' used to ensure that available funds are routinely spent, not rolled over.  TfL planning and engineering staff to be incentivised to get cycle schemes delivered and financially rewarded for delivering routes that are safe and increase modal shift.

4. Appropriate solutions for all kinds of roads and junctions such as all those in the Grid have already been created by Dutch planners and engineers.  Instead of seeking excuses for ignoring these, Dutch planning guidance should be followed as closely as possible.

5. Wherever a street has more than one lane for traffic on one-way streets or more than two lanes for traffic on two-way streets, it should be assumed that there is sufficient road space for full or semi physical segregation.

6. Segregation should not be avoided in the way suggested for Quietways.  Segregation makes cycling accessible to many more people, especially disabled, nervous, inexperienced, older and younger cyclists.  Segregation works and as Royal College Street has proven, can be done cheaply whilst delivering 50% or more increase in cycle traffic.

7. 20 MPH speed limits should be introduced on all routes where cyclists are expected to share road space with motorised traffic.  There can be no exceptions to this.  Traffic in the Grid area rarely moves above this speed anyway and any perceived increase in travel times will be offset by lives saved, injuries avoided, plus the multiple benefits of modal shift and improved air quality.

8. Sensor controlled traffic lights in the Grid must be able to detect the presence of waiting cyclists to reduce the risk of red light jumping.  Greater use of traffic light offence cameras should be used to prosecute red light jumping offences.  Cyclists who feel safe and are not made to wait excessively are much less likely to jump red lights.  Offences should be analysed to inform planning and revisions to the scheme.  For example, if large numbers of cyclists are jumping red lights at a specific junction, the reasons for that should be obtained and responded to.  When fixed penalty notices are issued, the cyclist should be asked why they jumped the light and this data recorded on the notice and analysed.

9. On side streets, the risk of 'dooring' incidents is increased.  Where parking bays on narrow streets create such risks, road markings (lines, not bike symbols which few people understand) should clearly indicate that cyclists should ride a safe distance away from parked cars.

10. Parking and speed of motor traffic should be considered to be of *significantly* lower importance than safety of all road users.

11. Wherever possible, slow and considerate pavement cycling should be permitted and encouraged for very young children and other vulnerable cyclists.

12. The Grid should be designed and promoted as a 'first step' and an expansion programme considered from the outset - there is no reason that it should not spread out to cover all of the area defined as 'inner London'.  Including as a minimum: all of Camden, Hackney, Islington, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham, Chelsea, Westminster and The City.

13. Journeys will start and end on all roads in the area.  In addition to the proposed Grid routes, safe space and riding conditions should be provided on all roads.

14. Bus lanes are not suitable for many vulnerable cyclists.  Most bus drivers strongly support segregation.  Shared bus/cycle lanes should be used only as a last resort.

15. Junctions designed to minimise the risk of injury from left-turning vehicles.

16. Significantly greater use of traffic police and CCTV on an ongoing basis to fine / prosecute drivers who do not indicate well in advance of turning where full segregation is not provided.  Cyclists die and are injured at junctions in alarming numbers and most collisions are entirely avoidable.

17. White painted lines indicating unsegregated cycle lanes to have uneven, rumble surfacing as used in Stockholm, making it impossible for drivers to enter cycle lanes unknowingly.

18. Contracts for planners to include a requirement to conform to the highest design standard, incorporating Go Dutch principles.  Planners who put motor traffic speed above pedestrian and cyclist safety should be removed from their posts.

19. Design standards for cycling to be readily available on TfL website, including links from cycling pages.

20. Cycle journey planner to be updated to take into account issues like Hyde Park shutting at night and options for safe routes with minimal turns - many routes suggested at present are nearly impossible to memorise before starting a new journey. Frequent stops to check printed maps or maps on a mobile device are dangerous, frustrating and retard modal shift.

21. Support for affordable cycle hubs, cafés and public showers.  Have a scheme like the one where pubs and businesses are paid to allow public access to the toilets, for them to be paid for providing public cycle stands, showers, etc, with greater contribution for best facilities.  Analyse such schemes to see if they can become self- financing through increased patronage of participating businesses.  Make such data accessible to website and App programmers so they can be added to popular cycle hire, Bike Hub, Cyclestreets, etc services.

22. Parking spaces for Blue Badge holders to be increased wherever parking bays are removed so that those who genuinely need to drive can do.  More spaces should be made available to Blue Badge holders who do not also have a Camden Green Badge or Westminster White Badge so disabled people from outside central London can access the area covered by the Grid more easily.

23. Go Dutch, Go Dutch, Go Dutch!

24. Get on with it!!

Cycle Superhighway 5 update

TfL has been rather quiet about the planned Cycle Superhighway 5... 

In an attempt to squeeze some more details about this from TfL, I made a Freedom of Information request, and got the response copied below. 

Sadly, the details about the delays and new timetable hasn't revealed much new, but the financial breakdown is certainly new to me. 

Only 57% of the £15 million budget will be spent on the infrastructure for CS5.  Over £2,350,000 is being spent on design work, but the initial designs were so bad, they have been chucked in the bin.  

The new plan to put in green painted lanes then change them to blue later will probably eat up even more of the infrastructure budget.  

It really is time for TfL to stop dithering and get on with this.  If they listened to cyclists and used tried and tested Dutch designs in the first place, more could be spent on the decent infrastructure we need so urgently.   

Here's the response:

1.    What are the reasons for the delays in completing CS5?

We have decided to postpone the full opening of the New Cross – Oval section of CS5 until we have finalised our previously announced plans for semi-segregation. Semi-segregation will see all the bus and mandatory cycle lanes on this part of the route separated from the general traffic using measures such as cats’ eyes, rumble strips, traffic ‘wands’, or a combination. Semi-segregation is not being done immediately as we are trialling which form of separation works best.

The blue surfacing and signage associated with Barclays Cycle Superhighways will therefore not be delivered as part of the first phase of work. We will however complete a number of previously announced road layout changes in this area, by March 2014.  These changes include new cycle and bus lanes, road resurfacing, and new junction layouts.  We will review these layouts as part of our work to install semi-segregation, to see if they can be even further improved for cyclists. Green cycle surfacing will be used until this part of the route is ready to be opened as a Barclays Cycle Superhighway.

We will also implement the new and extended 20mph speed limits in Camberwell town centre and New Cross respectively early this year. Additionally, we are proposing a new 20mph speed limit in Peckham town centre, and will consult on this in the spring.

As previously announced, we are substantially upgrading the previous proposals for the Oval – central London section of CS5.

2.    What is the projected delivery timetable for CS5?

The future delivery timescale is not yet confirmed as this will depend on the extent of proposals for the Oval to central London section, and the response we receive to public consultation. We plan to start the public consultation by summer 2014.

3.    Please provide a breakdown of the expenditure for CS5, noting in particular how much of the total budget will be spent on infrastructure. 

The CS5 cost estimate covering New Cross to Central London is:

Activity	Cost (£m)
Infrastructure design	£2.35
Construction	£8.65
Powers and Consents	£0.01
Marketing	£0.17
Supporting Measures	£1.34
Staff costs	£0.92
Total Base Cost	£13.45
Risk	£1.73
Estimated Final Cost	£15.18

What do you think?  Am I being unreasonable about this?  Should it really take over £2.3 million to design one cycle route?! 

Welcome!

Welcome to my first blog on cycling, transport in London and disability. 

I hope you find it interesting!

I became interested in safe cycling when a brilliant, kind woman I knew was killed by a tipper truck in London.  I believe that everyone who wants to cycle should be able to do so without fear.  I'm disabled and hope to make people more aware of the needs of disabled people who cycle or would like to.