London’s new Dutch-style east-west route

notsoblue

This looks really over engineered.... Its almost like they're taking the "Dutch" idea to an extreme to make it appear unfeasible.

Ian.B

TGOTB wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

iPete wrote:

Could someone tell me what the actual f*** is going on here?



All that nonsense to achieve the same thing as removing two car lanes from either side and painting them blue (like Millbank/ CS8), done!

Good. Grief.

Why on earth are they trying to apply a set of "rules" designed for single carriageway roads, to the of two dual carriageways with slip roads? Any road layout that needs that many arrows and lines painted all over it has failed before it has even been built.

:shock:
It has clearly been designed by a committee (I use the word "design" in its loosest sense...)

Dear oh dear. +1 to comments above - all that's needed is an extension of the blue lanes to link CS8 with CS3

Where on earth are those two cyclists at the bottom crossing to/from?

And that nice free-flowing, lorry-free traffic is rather disingenuous and will, reduced to single lanes, be a solid jam of frustrated motorists inching along.

kurako

Consultation pages are here if anyone wants to add anything. I agree totally that anything with so many lines and arrows is a total failure. There's a link to a survey towards the bottom of the pages.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/eastwest

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/northsouth

iPete

Thanks, the offending section is 5: Victoria Embankment (Temple Avenue – Blackfriars)

Somehow managed not to call them idiots.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cyclin ... mbined.pdf

Ian.B

Horrendous bottleneck from Embankment at Westminster Bridge junction, turning right to Parliament Square - involving going straight ahead to cross the road and then a constricted right angle turn into the bike lane, whilst avoiding bikes queuing in the west to east direction:

surrey_commuter

am alone in thinking that 2 way cycle lane are dangerous as most cyclist seem totally inept at judging distances when overtaking into oncoming cyclists

drlodge

Surrey Commuter wrote:

am alone in thinking that 2 way cycle lane are dangerous as most cyclist seem totally inept at judging distances when overtaking into oncoming cyclists

No you're not. As echoed above and I hinted at, just an extension of the blue cycle lane in each direction would be a much better, simpler and cheaper solution.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TGOTB wrote:

I hope the bit along the Emankment is either wide enough to allow reasonable speed and overtaking, or that bikes continue to be permitted (and tolerated!) on the road. I don't particularly mind if I can no longer do 25-30 mph along that section of road, but I don't want to be perpetually stuck at 10mph behind bunches of tourists/chatting girls/mobile phone users...

This has potential to be an utter clusterfuck.

The cycle path on Viccy Embankment will be between the road and the river, right? So not so useful for eastbound cyclists who wish to turn left into Northumberland Ave, Savoy Place, or at Temple Tube. Which realistically means I'll want to ride in the (narrower) traffic lane as I do now. And just think how much motorists are going to love me for that.

And within the cycle path at commuter times, the sheer volume of traffic will make progress v v difficult I suspect.

As for that white-line-fest CGI mock up borrowed from the Sims, there's more traffic on that section of the Embankment early on a Sunday morning!

jzed

If its anything like the new sections of CS2, they'll add loads of traffic lights, and ensure they're on red every time you get to them to give priority to traffic coming from side streets.

I would love to ride CS2 with Boris and point out how his engineers and designers are all feckwits.

notsoblue

Surrey Commuter wrote:

am alone in thinking that 2 way cycle lane are dangerous as most cyclist seem totally inept at judging distances when overtaking into oncoming cyclists

My experience of 2 way cycle lanes in London is that they don't really accommodate the different groups of cyclists very well. The North/South cycle lane on the eastern side of Hyde Park can get pretty hairy sometimes, and you often see people riding outside of the white lines to avoid slower riders (usually tourists on boris bikes weaving about). Also, around the bloomsbury/brunswick square area where there are segregated two way cycle lanes, it can get quite congested at times because they just haven't reserved enough space. And junctions become very complicated if you have two way cycle lanes on one side of a one way street that goes into a two way street. In those situations I tend to just use the road.

I'm not sure what the answer is here.

rower63

One upshot of the spread of all this cycle infrastructure is that drivers will feel even more empowered to tell cyclists to get off their road

drlodge

So if this cycle lane goes ahead, will cyclists still be allowed on the road? Unless there are signs expressly prohibiting cyclists (and what about horses???) then I assume we could still use the road if we want.

cookeeemonster

drlodge wrote:

So if this cycle lane goes ahead, will cyclists still be allowed on the road? Unless there are signs expressly prohibiting cyclists (and what about horses???) then I assume we could still use the road if we want.

They are building a bloody cyclepath not going through parliament to change the bloody law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!



Calm down people. This is for normal people to use not just us (so our kids/partners/parents/grandparents and so on).

I'm also concerned about overtaking room and will say that when I put my views down (I'm a long term hater of cable street when busy) but this is nevertheless a step in the right direction. It's a proof of concept that if successful, will provide ammunition to change it for the better later/create new improved ones later on. Think of it like that.

kurako

It seems to be they are so obsessed with a 'segregated' cycle path they have forgotten the practicalities. As for Greg wanting to turn left I think you are expected to use crossing points to get across. Those are coloured brown on the plans. Rather apt I think since that's how your shorts are likely to end up ;-p

rower63

notsoblue wrote:

... junctions become very complicated if you have two way cycle lanes on one side of a one way street that goes into a two way street. In those situations I tend to just use the road.

A few years ago I spent hours pulling up all the studies and reports I could find, comparing data from cycle-lane-infrastructure vs without. I was gobsmacked to find that the majority of the studies of those I found unequivocally concluded that cyclists have been more likely to die in a cycle-infrastructure environment than otherwise. At some stage separated networks must necessarily intersect, and at those intersections there's confusion and is where most of the bad stuff happens: one moment you're fully segregated and protected tooling along without a care in the world, next you suddenly have to switch back on again to interpret a complex junction. Looking at the graphic here, it's not difficult to envisage :shock:

cookeeemonster

rower63 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

... junctions become very complicated if you have two way cycle lanes on one side of a one way street that goes into a two way street. In those situations I tend to just use the road.

A few years ago I spent hours pulling up all the studies and reports I could find, comparing data from cycle-lane-infrastructure vs without. I was gobsmacked to find that the majority of the studies of those I found unequivocally concluded that cyclists have been more likely to die in a cycle-infrastructure environment than otherwise. At some stage separated networks must necessarily intersect, and at those intersections there's confusion and is where most of the bad stuff happens: one moment you're fully segregated and protected tooling along without a care in the world, next you suddenly have to switch back on again to interpret a complex junction. Looking at the graphic here, it's not difficult to envisage :shock:

was this data taken from the Netherlands etc or here? That could be the problem. It's not just segregation people are campaigning for - it's proper segregation to Dutch standards. This isn't it...but it's a major step and if it doesn't pass the consultation...then we could wait at least one more generation before we get another chance...by which time people will be fatter, the city will be more congested/polluted, cyclists will be hated even more and so on and so forth.

It's a big deal.

iPete

Give me a bucket of blue paint and I'll run CS8 East to West using the same amount of road space in the proposals but without all the twiddle.

rower63

CookeeeMonster wrote:

was this data taken from the Netherlands etc or here?

As I recall, the studies were from across Europe including Holland because there's so much history and data from there. I don't think there was one from the UK as there was not enough/no data.
I've also read since of a number of studies across Canada and the US, which were much more equivocal, i.e. inconclusive. But the thing there again is that they were inconclusive, i.e. still not concluding that segregated networks are safer.
What I'm also amazed at is that nobody in charge seems ever to question the "cycle-routes-must-be-safer" dogma when the data says otherwise. It's almost as though it's one of those unsayable things.

notsoblue

rower63 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

... junctions become very complicated if you have two way cycle lanes on one side of a one way street that goes into a two way street. In those situations I tend to just use the road.

A few years ago I spent hours pulling up all the studies and reports I could find, comparing data from cycle-lane-infrastructure vs without. I was gobsmacked to find that the majority of the studies of those I found unequivocally concluded that cyclists have been more likely to die in a cycle-infrastructure environment than otherwise. At some stage separated networks must necessarily intersect, and at those intersections there's confusion and is where most of the bad stuff happens: one moment you're fully segregated and protected tooling along without a care in the world, next you suddenly have to switch back on again to interpret a complex junction. Looking at the graphic here, it's not difficult to envisage :shock:

I can see how that would be the case.

The truth of the matter is that in London it is (for the moment at least) impossible for a cyclist to be entirely segregated for many of the journeys they want to make. So focusing on making cotton wool lined pillow tubes for people on omafietsen is useless if they're going to have to ride on a 4 lane red route or a huge gyratory at some point in their journey. An example of this is the journey from Richmond to Marylebone, which isn't too bad if you go across Putney Bridge, and down Fulham Road. But eventually you come to the mess that are the roads leading up to Hyde Park Corner, and then Marble Arch. Fine for a seasoned rider, but to a beginner it would be as scary as running with the bulls.

I'd like to see more clearly marked cycle lanes, even on major roads. Not to segregate cyclists, but just to make it clear that they have a right to be there. Most of what makes cycling hard in London (and the UK in general) is that the only way to ride safely is to be assertive and claim your right to space on the road. I think a well designed road is one where vulnerable road users don't feel like they're annoying trespassers, inconveniencing road users that have a right to be there.

coopster_the_1st

iPete wrote:

Give me a bucket of blue paint and I'll run CS8 East to West using the same amount of road space in the proposals but without all the twiddle.

I agree with you broadly here and think this sort of infrastructure is needed around junctions rather than on straight stretches of road but will play devils advocate with the above suggestion so everything is considered.

How would you deal with each of the following with the blue paint lane suggestion? Bus stops, coach parking, loading bays, side roads

cookeeemonster

Coopster the 1st wrote:

iPete wrote:

Give me a bucket of blue paint and I'll run CS8 East to West using the same amount of road space in the proposals but without all the twiddle.

I agree with you broadly here and think this sort of infrastructure is needed around junctions rather than on straight stretches of road but will play devils advocate with the above suggestion so everything is considered.

How would you deal with each of the following with the blue paint lane suggestion? Bus stops, coach parking, loading bays, side roads

ok my last post on this thread (possibly ) cos we all are all sticking to our original opinions.

You give me blue paint...I give you...some images copied from a bike blogger last year

drlodge

CookeeeMonster - that's brilliant 8)

iPete

CookeeeMonster wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

iPete wrote:

Give me a bucket of blue paint and I'll run CS8 East to West using the same amount of road space in the proposals but without all the twiddle.

I agree with you broadly here and think this sort of infrastructure is needed around junctions rather than on straight stretches of road but will play devils advocate with the above suggestion so everything is considered.

How would you deal with each of the following with the blue paint lane suggestion? Bus stops, coach parking, loading bays, side roads

ok my last post on this thread (possibly ) cos we all are all sticking to our original opinions.

You give me blue paint...I give you...some images copied from a bike blogger last year

The big pot of blue paint is only applicable to the aforementioned mess proposed on parts of Embankment... there are very few bus stops or side roads, all you need to do is modify Parliament square to be a bus parking depot, done!

keyser__soze

Am I the only one that thinks it's rather good? Sure, there are a few pinch points and it's not ideal for the speed merchants on here but if (and this is a big if) it isn't watered down and turned into a CS3 I think it's a big step forward. Segregation may make overtaking slightly more difficult but it also reserves space for cyclists - no more buses/coaches parked over the lanes, nor mopeds, taxis and lorries taking most of the space. Taking the whole of the slip road at Blackfriars for cyclists is pretty impressive.

tgotb

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Am I the only one that thinks it's rather good? Sure, there are a few pinch points and it's not ideal for the speed merchants on here but if (and this is a big if) it isn't watered down and turned into a CS3 I think it's a big step forward. Segregation may make overtaking slightly more difficult but it also reserves space for cyclists - no more buses/coaches parked over the lanes, nor mopeds, taxis and lorries taking most of the space. Taking the whole of the slip road at Blackfriars for cyclists is pretty impressive.

That's fine, but my fear is that it'll make cycling so slow that it'll drive regular commuters onto different (possibly more unsafe) routes. During the rush hour, 95% of cyclists are doing at least 15mph, and my experience of similar segregated routes is that the average speed will be a lot lower than that.
Lots of cyclists are going to end up either in the same lane as the cars (where they're more likely to be hassled by drivers who think they have no right to be there), or on the Strand and Fleet Street (anyone here think diverting more cyclists around Aldwych is a good idea?)

If you don't understand why Amsterdam-style commuting won't work in London, just compare maps of the two cities. The median commuting distance in London is probably around 15 miles, whereas in Amsterdam it looks more like 1-2 miles. Riding 10-15 miles twice a day, at Dutch cycling speeds, just isn't a viable option for most people.

kurako

I think the best option is just to have a nice wide road so that cars can go about their business and cyclists have space at the side. Where things get hairy is when there is a lack of space due to too many lanes being squeezed in or artificial pinch points.

The whole stretch from PS through Blackfriars and onto the Highway could comfortably have one wide lane in each direction for motor traffic while leaving ample space for bikes. If they did this they would also be able to fit in plenty of space for tourist coaches since the place they stop now has 3 lanes westbound, 2 eastbound and a central reservation.

London roads needs less clutter not more with all these bizarre crossing points and dedicated paths switching from one side to the other for no apparent reason (Blackfriars). And if having all the bikes shoved to one side is better I wonder why they still have 2 bike lanes either side of the road at Farringdon (section 4 option B on the north south route). It's all just very muddled and confusing!

roger_merriman

rower63 wrote:

CookeeeMonster wrote:

was this data taken from the Netherlands etc or here?

As I recall, the studies were from across Europe including Holland because there's so much history and data from there. I don't think there was one from the UK as there was not enough/no data.
I've also read since of a number of studies across Canada and the US, which were much more equivocal, i.e. inconclusive. But the thing there again is that they were inconclusive, i.e. still not concluding that segregated networks are safer.
What I'm also amazed at is that nobody in charge seems ever to question the "cycle-routes-must-be-safer" dogma when the data says otherwise. It's almost as though it's one of those unsayable things.

I suspect this is mostly about perception of risk rather than any inherent risk it's self.

rower63

roger merriman wrote:

rower63 wrote:

CookeeeMonster wrote:

was this data taken from the Netherlands etc or here?

As I recall, the studies were from across Europe including Holland because there's so much history and data from there. I don't think there was one from the UK as there was not enough/no data.
I've also read since of a number of studies across Canada and the US, which were much more equivocal, i.e. inconclusive. But the thing there again is that they were inconclusive, i.e. still not concluding that segregated networks are safer.
What I'm also amazed at is that nobody in charge seems ever to question the "cycle-routes-must-be-safer" dogma when the data says otherwise. It's almost as though it's one of those unsayable things.

I suspect this is mostly about perception of risk rather than any inherent risk it's self.

They were a mixture of academic and officially commissioned statistical studies of actual accident data, not surveys, so perception was ruled out.
It was enough for me to completely change my mind about cycle-lane infrastructure.

roger_merriman

rower63 wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

rower63 wrote:

CookeeeMonster wrote:

was this data taken from the Netherlands etc or here?

As I recall, the studies were from across Europe including Holland because there's so much history and data from there. I don't think there was one from the UK as there was not enough/no data.
I've also read since of a number of studies across Canada and the US, which were much more equivocal, i.e. inconclusive. But the thing there again is that they were inconclusive, i.e. still not concluding that segregated networks are safer.
What I'm also amazed at is that nobody in charge seems ever to question the "cycle-routes-must-be-safer" dogma when the data says otherwise. It's almost as though it's one of those unsayable things.

I suspect this is mostly about perception of risk rather than any inherent risk it's self.

They were a mixture of academic and officially commissioned statistical studies of actual accident data, not surveys, so perception was ruled out.

I was thinking more the desire to have segregated bike lanes etc, busy traffic if your slow is unnerving.

rower63

roger merriman wrote:

I was thinking more the desire to have segregated bike lanes etc, busy traffic if your slow is unnerving.

ah, OK. as you were