Plea for help! TfL's Wandsworth Gyratory plans are a travesty - but will anyone say so?!

After some thought, I decided to edit this post.  A lot.

It originally had a load of waffle about lots of worthy stuff, but can be summed up so much more easily and clearly (I hope!)...

Where are the cycle tracks for Wandsworth TfL?!

(See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/wandsworth-town-centre - deadline 17/1)

TfL are upgrading lots of major junctions and every similar project includes protected cycleways...

Except Wandsworth Town Centre.

Did we do something wrong?

The ONLY way you can enable young children, older and disabled people to get around safely on bikes around heavy vehicles in a town centre is to physically protect them with kerbed cycle tracks and low&slow traffic streets.

The cycle tracks being planned or built at Elephant & Castle, Aldgate, Stockwell, Archway, Vauxhall, Whipps Cross Roundabout, Blackfriars, Westminster Bridge South, etc, etc, aren't perfect, but at least there are some!

Cycle tracks are also brilliant for scooter users, wheelchair users and all other kinds of human on wheels.  They also significantly reduce the pollution inhaled by pedestrians and make driving less stressful and faster for motor vehicle drivers.

Yes roadspace has to be reallocated, but it does when we build footpaths.  There is no evidence of proper cycle tracks ever causing delays for drivers - all those studied showed faster journeys for drivers in every example but one, where there was no change.

Protected cycle tracks benefit everyone.  They can only do that when we build them.  Despite our hostile roads, Wandsworth's commuter cycling levels are already double the London average and over half of residents own bikes.

If you have some time to spare to help fight for decent #spaceforcycling in Wandsworth, please get in touch.

Please take just a couple of minutes to ask TfL (before 17 January 2016) to build a proper cycle network in Wandsworth.  One that exists on more than a PowerPoint slide.



PS Previous comments have been retained but deleted from public view as they don't relate well to this modified post and some included mention of other people and I don't have time to ensure they get a right to reply.

PPS I know that the minute section of segregated cycle track on one corner of Wandsworth Roundabout will be retained.  Not the TfL took much effort to highlight that.  I can't think why.

PPPS Oh no, I can.

PPPPS Give em hell! Grrr...

Why I am not supporting the 'Save Wandsworth Common' Crossrail 2 campaign.

... well, it's about time I restarted this blog!  I've been surprised by how many people have read my posts and started to follow me on Twitter, so thanks for taking the time to read what I have to say, it's your views and support that has got me back at the keyboard.

Sorry for the long delay since my last post, sometimes this being sick and disabled thing can be a royal pain in the backside!!  So, after a couple of operations, loads of different medicines and a gruelling physio/rehab programme, I'm hopefully going to be able to write a bit more often.  Life is still a major struggle, but at least I'm getting over a particularly horrid patch.

Hope it's not all waffle, but no promises ;-P

Below is a copy of my post on the Wandsworth Gaurdian's website in response to the 'Save Wandsworth Common' (sic) campaign that has restarted following TfL's announcement of a planned route change.  As the Common is effectively my front garden, I think this qualifies me for a 'I'm not a NIMBY' badge!

I can't promise to be able to debate this, but alternative viewpoints are welcome in the Comments.

"I live opposite the Common, where the shaft is planned and can't support this campaign based on the information available.  And I'm not sure why all the vitriol is being directed at a local councillor when this is a TfL decision...

If it will cost an extra £500 million to go via Tooting, where is the money coming from.  Put it into perspective: the entire cycling budget for TfL for all of greater London (which funds most borough cycling projects too) is less than £98 million per year.  £500 million could pay for a brand new hospital or an entire tram line.  We can't just be NIMBYs, we need to have a logical alternative and none has yet been suggested.

The other options if Balham is chosen all involve demolishing homes, churches, schools and/or businesses.

And the killer argument for me is: what about the frikkin railway lines?!  The planned shaft will take a tiny piece of land.  The railway lines that bisect the Common take tons of land and how many people campaign for them to be ripped out or put in tunnels?  None (well apart from me who keeps suggesting that at least some of the rail track gets covered by a green bridge and getting zero support from the ranty NIMBYs who just prefer to say No to everything).

It makes no sense to support the railway lines (which were built on land that used to be part of the Common), but not this single shaft that is necessary to deliver a vital new public transport service serving millions of people.

Sometimes, we need to recognise that our fear of change distorts our perceptions and encourages us to make illogical decisions.  This is one of those times.  The idea of our lovely Common being a building site for a long time isn't nice but I'm sure people felt the same when the railway lines were built.

The shaft will help take cars off the roads.  The roads around the Common suffer traffic jams every day and the pollution levels on the roads around the Common are a disgrace.  That is a real threat to us all - hundreds of Wandsworth residents die early from pollution and thousands from lack of exercise every year.  That's not just stats.  It's our friends, our families, ourselves who suffer and die early for no good reason.

Why not campaign for something that would improve the Common?  If not my green bridge idea, by placing cycle tracks between the roads and the footpaths around the Common, we could hugely reduce the pollution inhaled by pedestrians, get cyclists off the pavements, give people a proper alternative to driving local trips, reduce collisions and reduce the increasing volume of cyclists using the ++awful shared-use footpaths on the Common.  We could also create 'pocket parks', adding more greenery to streets surrounding the Common.  Please respond to the consultation, but please also try to make some sensible suggestions as just saying No isn't likely to achieve much."

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!!