Category Archives: Road Network

Kingston, Surbiton and New Malden Road Changes

Posted on by
Reply

The London Borough of Kingston upon Thames is consulting on proposals to change many roads in their borough as part of the “Go Cycle” programme to encourage cycling and walking. This is what one local resident had to say on the subject:

Kingston

The key points of this proposal are:

  1. Imposing a 20 limit on the main road (Wheatfield Way, then Clarence Street and Wood Street) affecting all traffic travelling in/out from/to the South (Surbiton, Tolworth, the A3) and the West (Hampton Court, Teddington)
  2. Filling this route with humps and raised tables, intending to create what appear to be ‘shared spaces’.
  3. Taking away a filter lane and a traffic light queuing lane, both on Wheatfield Way.
  4. Encouraging cyclists to use the route put partially in place of these traffic lanes, and a route running round the outside of main Kingston – ie the long way round.

All proposals need to be opposed:

  1. It is not remotely appropriate for the speed limit to be reduced.  This is deliberately designed to be a loop round the key parts of Kingston, one that through traffic can and should use as a main road, at a sensible speed.  On top of this, 20 is very bad for pollution, something Kingston is struggling with.
  2. They want to put humps in the main road – used by thousands of cars, buses and lorries.  Does this need an explanation as to why it should be opposed?!  Further, these are designed to be like shared spaces, especially round the station – and these are both dangerous and unpopular with vulnerable road users, as you have well documented.  Outside the station in particular is a shared cycle/pedestrian lane crossing a 3-lane road next to a T-junction.  It needs order, not chaos.
  3. These are not minor, just because they may be low use at many times.  The scheme talks of wanting to reduce congestion, but on a road that already easily gets heavily congested, taking away any road space like this will only lead to one thing.  (The scheme says “some journey times will change slightly” – I presume this is easily translated?).
  4. This is just not a good cycle route.  The short way from Surbiton to Kingston Station (Which incidentally is a heavy bus centre but very low traffic usage) is Brook Street, Eden Street, Castle Street and Fife Road.  Those using the mini-Holland mess on Portsmouth Road will use High Street, not join this.   This is a rotten proposal all round.

Surbiton:

The plans are:

  1. Narrow Claremont Road, removing parking spaces, for a separate cycleway
  2. Making a mess of the Claremont Road/Maple Road junction
  3. Adding more humps – to Avenue Elmers this time
  4. Closing Surbiton Crescent (which doesn’t appear to be up for consultation?!)
  5. Painting lots of bicycle signs on roads.

This should also be opposed:

  1. Those parking spaces are well used.  If not during operational hours, that’s because the restrictions are overly oppressive.  Their loss cannot be good for the residents or business along there.

Also, this seem to create a number of hazards with pedestrians, at the The Crescent junction, and at the bus stop half way down Claremont Road, which is quite well used, very well served, and incidentally also right by a crossing linking the park to a footpath.  This cycle land is a very bad design.

A better design would be a lane round The Crescent, which is not significantly longer, uses a much quieter road, can avoid issues where that road meets Claremont Road, and shouldn’t interfere nearly as much with pedestrians.

  1. I just don’t understand where cyclists and pedestrians are supposed to go on this junction.  It’s just not friendly to users.

3/4. These are completely pointless.  What benefit do they bring, other than to waste more money recklessly thrown at these schemes?

New Malden:

The plan here is to replace the Fountain Roundabout with a traffic light junction.

Actually, this I approve of.  Though roundabouts may have more capacity than traffic lights, it’s no good when they are naturally poorly designed, too small for the levels of traffic, and quite genuinely hazardous.  It is also true that, while ‘New Malden Fountain’ is a landmark of sorts, it is completely unreachable.  I do not agree that the crossings are pedestrian unfriendly, at least for a roundabout, but the alternative is better.

The only complaint is that No Right Turn from Malden Road to Burlington Road.  Quite apart from affecting the 265 bus route, this is unnecessary, and primarily a pain to locals.  This is a tweak, though.

The most important part of this proposal though is that it does (even if by accident) consider road users.

It is important to note that once again there is lots of money being thrown at big schemes on main roads that are designed to impede motor traffic.  The schemes even invite ‘cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users’ to respond – not even naming drivers as users of note!

This must be opposed.  It must have alarmed you and many of your readers to see absolutely no regard paid to drivers’ needs by any of the mayoral candidates in the London Mayoral elections, and here is another example of motorists being ignored.  Drivers must therefore speak up; planners must know that drivers care, drivers will fight for their space, and that drivers are going to keep on driving. Most of these plans ignore drivers, dismissing them as a problem, a nuisance, a disease that can be cured.  It must be heard that to ignore or treat drivers like this is unacceptable.

These plans will probably not be dumped regardless – so it is worth pointing out that the New Malden plan shows drivers’ needs can be considered too, and that schemes can be designed for their benefit.

I hope you, and all members in the area, take the time to respond, and strongly oppose the Kingston and Surbiton proposals.

The public consultations on these schemes are present here: http://consult.kingston.gov.uk/portal/planning/go/consultations_summer_2016/

But you need to respond by the 18th July.

Roger Lawson 13/7/2016

Driving in the Cycle Superhighway on Shorter Street

Posted on by
10

Car in Cycle Superhighway Shorter St-AThe  photograph above is of someone mistakenly driving into the Cycle Superhighway which runs along Shorter Street in the City of London (near Tower Bridge). The driver appeared unaware that this is not a road but a two-way cycle path.

This is an easy mistake to make because Shorter Street used to be open to all traffic but now consists of a cycle lane and a bus lane. No cars are supposed to use either but sat-navs still direct you to turn right to get onto Lower/Upper Thames Street and there is no obvious alternative route.

A few moments after the photo was taken, another car entered the bus lane, no doubt for the same reason.

The writer has been asking TfL to explain which alternative route they expect vehicles to take but I have yet to get an answer. There were many objections to the closure of Shorter Street which was totally unreasonable and shows a lack of understanding of routes vehicles need to take. I will be pursuing this issue until I get some sensible answers.

Roger Lawson

New Mayor’s Broken Promise

Posted on by
Reply

No sooner had new London Mayor Sadiq Khan taken office than it transpired that one of his key vote winning pledges was not what it seemed. He promised to freeze public transport fares for four years but that will only apply to certain fares it is now reported.

Mr Khan told the London Assembly last week that the price freeze would not extend to season tickets because they can include stages on trains run by private companies. Those companies are regulated by the Government and not by the Mayor and TfL. The Government has rejected any idea of freezing fares so the Mayor’s original promise cannot be delivered in full.

Mike Brown, Transport Commissioner, gave us the good news though. This means the cost of the “promise” will only be a £600m impact on TfL’s budgets rather than the £1.9bn that he was talking about under the previous regime. But that’s a lot of money to find to fill the hole in the budget and still deliver on the Mayor’s other promises.

Mr Khan is hoping to save money by tackling inefficiencies in TFL where more than 400 staff earn more than £100,000 a year and both they and their families get free travel perks (now under review).

Old Mayor’s Advice Ignored – Bus Passengers the Main Losers

An article in Local Transport Today (LTT) had long-standing public transport supporter David Begg complaining that Boris Johnson ignored advice to reduce road vehicle demand in central London while introducing the cycle superhighways. By not reducing traffic volumes, the result has been worsening congestion and slower traffic speeds. He said “Bus passengers have been the main losers”. The article reported that bus speeds have fallen by more than 5% on a third of routes in London in the last year. This has also reduced bus passenger volumes. But even Mr Begg concedes that “It is the substantial reduction in road space, with planned roadworks increasing by 362% over the last three years, which has led to significant increases in congestion”. Editor’s comment: how amusing to see this arch advocate of road pricing and congestion charging admit that congestion has been caused in London by the previous Mayor’s perverse destruction of the road network in the pursuit to get us all cycling.

Roger Lawson

Opposition to Cycle Superhighway 11

Posted on by
Reply

There is mounting opposition to Cycle Superhighway 11 in North London. This scheme includes changes to the road layout at Swiss Cottage and closure of the Outer Circle of Regents Park to traffic for much of the day.

A petition at Change.org has been organised against this scheme and already has several thousand signatures. This is what the petition organisers have to say: “Transport for London (under the charge of their “Cycling Tsar” Andrew Gilligan) are proposing to implement a catastrophically ill-planned scheme called “Cycle Superhighway 11”.

This scheme, if allowed to go ahead, will adversely affect local residents, all road users and public transport users in : Finchley Road, Swiss Cottage, Avenue Road, Regents Park, St John’s Wood, Baker Street and all surrounding areas by causing TOTAL GRIDLOCK on the roads and increased air pollution to all the affected areas as a result.

It is strongly suspected that this scheme has been DELIBERATELY designed to cause maximum road congestion and make life as miserable as possible for motorists that we simply abandon our cars and vans and lorries and instead join Boris Johnson and Andrew Gilligan’s utopian “cycling-vision”.

Please help support this petition to stop Transport for London from destroying some of the nicest, greenest areas of London and turning  a major section of London into a congested car park.”

Please sign this petition at https://www.change.org/p/transport-for-london-stop-transport-for-london-s-ill-planned-cycle-superhighway-11-scheme-in-north-london if you will be affected by this scheme. It certainly appears to be the case that this is yet another example of the possible increased congestion caused by a Cycle Superhighway being ignored. In other words cyclists being favoured without any regard to the impact on other road users – or indeed any proper cost/benefit justification being provided.

London Mayor Transport Policies

Posted on by
Reply

As we are coming up to the election of a new London Mayor on May 5th, and of course for representatives to sit on the Greater London Assembly as well, it looks a timely moment to look at the policies of the main parties. I will only comment on their transport policies.

There is one thing that clearly differentiates the two main candidates for Mayor. It is that one is the son of a billionaire financier and businessman, while the other is the son of a London bus driver. You can easily guess which is which of course, but their policies on transport are actually not that much different. Both candidates will continue to support that expensive hand out to the electorate called the “Freedom Pass” where both the rich and poor get encouraged to consume public transport by unjustifiable subsidies which impose a major financial burden on local borough councils (and which the public end up paying for but not transparently). Both support the proposed new East London river crossings, investment in Crossrail 2 and tougher rules on HGVs entering London.

They are also both keen to reduce air pollution in London, and to encourage cycling. So Conservative Zac Goldsmith says “Dirty cars, vans and buses contaminate the air we breathe” and he intends to “make London the greenest city on earth”. As he also says in his manifesto, he has been a lifelong environmentalist and is opposed to expanding Heathrow airport.

Labour’s candidate, Sadiq Khan, is keen to expand London’s public transport network while making it more affordable. One difference between the candidates is that Mr Khan would freeze fares for 4 years and cut Transport for London’s budget. Indeed he is threatening to take personal control of TfL by chairing that organisation. As he says, TfL is a vast organisation but he thinks it is inefficient and flabby. He suggests there are major efficiency savings to be made but he would spend more of TfL’s budget on cycling – expansion of the Superhighway network and Quietways for example. He would also spend more on support of 20mph zones. Mr Goldsmith says that freezing fares is not practical to meet the investment plans for TfL and maintain operations, i.e. that a budget could not be devised to do this.

Mr Khan also opposes a third runway at Heathrow but prefers expansion of Gatwick to meet demand for air travel growth. He supports keeping the Congestion Charge (aka “Tax”) as its current level but he would bring forward the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and extend it to major arterial routes “or a wider section of central London” as he rates cleaning up London’s air to be a priority. He would also call upon the Government to “introduce a diesel vehicle scrappage scheme”, although that would surely not be likely to prompt a positive response.

Incidentally both candidates seem keen to pedestrianise Oxford Street. That has always been a popular concept but ignores the practicality of routing all the buses elsewhere apart from the objections from the retailers that this would deter a lot of their customers.

The Green Party (candidate Sian Berry), who actually did quite well in the last London elections, would also like more investment in walking, cycling and public transport. They would introduce a “smarter” congestion charge system with much more extensive coverage and also expand the ULEZ. They also support a workplace parking levy.

UKIP (candidate Peter Whittle) do not seem to have published a specific London manifesto at the time of writing, but historically they have vowed to scrap HS2, have opposed speed cameras being used simply to raise revenue, and opposed road tolls and congestion charging.

There are also a large number of other minor party candidates, if you don’t find any of the above to your liking. And don’t forget this is a transferable voting system (a supplementary vote where your second choice is used if there is no outright winner on first choices). So there is no harm in declaring your preference for a minority candidate. Just make sure you VOTE FOR SOMEONE.

Zac Goldsmith’s views on cycling 

Now it just so happens that I was able to ask a couple of questions of Zac Goldsmith at a recent husting meeting. I asked him what he was going to do to sort out the traffic congestion that Boris had created with the Cycle Superhighways, and whether he was a keen cyclist himself. In answer to the first question he said he would look at the issue when the works had been completed, and might consider mitigation measures if necessary. He avoided answering the second question altogether. An altogether weak response. I am afraid Mr Goldsmith comes across as a glib and slick politician but one who is not likely to win the election, particularly if he goes on in this manner. Needless to say he is trailing in the opinion polls at present.

But whichever candidate wins, it looks like we will get a continuation of the policies pursued in the last few years which have been so damaging to the road network of London.

Roger Lawson

Janet Street-Porter’s views on the Cycle Superhighways

Posted on by
Reply

Well known media personality Janet Street-Porter has given her views on the Cycle Superhighways in London in the Independent. She said “Sometimes it’s time to stand up and speak out, at the risk of causing offence and attracting sneers” – and she got the predictable response from the cycling lobby. She continued: “I’ve finally had enough of Boris Johnson – the man who has brought this wonderful city to its knees in the name of cycling” and “London has been turned into a gridlocked building site as roads are dug up and rebuilt to create Boris’s follies, a network of cycling superhighways”.

She argues that the extra congestion, and hence air pollution this has created has made even walking in London an unpleasant activity and she also complains that the young, the elderly or disabled may be unable to cycle. The article which also attacks cyclists as being subject to ridiculously few rules and that they frequently ride on pavements is well worth reading on the web. She concludes with the comment “If Boris becomes Prime Minister, God help us” which this writer cannot but agree with. He’s already lost my vote.

Zac Goldsmith’s views on cycling

Now it just so happens that I was able to ask a couple of questions of the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London who may take over from Boris at a recent husting meeting – Zac Goldsmith. I asked him what he was going to do to sort out the traffic congestion that Boris had created with the Cycle Superhighways, and whether he was a keen cyclist himself. In answer to the first question he said he would look at the issue when the works had been completed, and might consider mitigation measures if necessary. He avoided answering the second question altogether. An altogether weak response. I am afraid Mr Goldsmith comes across as a glib and slick politician but one who is not likely to win the election, particularly if he goes on in this manner.

Chris Boardman’s views on cycling

Olympic champion Chris Boardman was reported as saying in the Daily Telegraph that he does not ride a bike in London because it does not feel safe. He would prefer to walk. But he did argue that the Government should spend more money supporting cycling.

Shorter Street Closed

The latest destruction of road space caused by the Cycle Superhighway is the closure of Shorter Street near Tower Hill. This is a short bit of road that enables traffic coming down Mansell Street to the east to turn right so as to go west along Tower Hill and Lower Thames Street. It also enables vehicles parked in the Minories car park at Tower Hill to go to the west. They now have no practical route to do this as they can only go straight ahead (across Tower Bridge) or turn left towards The Highway. This writer did complain to TfL that this was nonsensical in the consultation on the proposals but it seems they have taken no notice.

Traffic Congestion Increased

An article by David Williams in the London Evening Standard recently reported that traffic congestion in London has been increasing. Apparently data from TomTom reveals that congestion is 14% worse in London than it was five years ago. But it need not be so – congestion in the rest of Europe over that period is 3% down, which surely demonstrates how damaging have been the policies of Boris Johnson. TomTom even reported that the “added delay” over free flowing traffic conditions rose by 37% in 2014 alone! One of the worse routes was the Embankment to Lower Thames Street for a reason you can no doubt guess – the Cycle Superhighway of course. But the new road design at the Elephant & Castle was another hot spot.

Roger Lawson

Travel in London – It’s Certainly Changing

Posted on by
Reply

A report that should be essential reading for everyone who has to travel around the London metropolis has recently been published by Transport for London (TfL). It’s called “Travel in London – Report 8). It shows how transport in London has been changing, partly as a result of the growth in population, partly from attempts to encourage cycling and “modal shift” in general and the impact of a buoyant economy. Here’s a brief summary of the contents, with some comments.

The population of London grew to a record 8.6 million people in 2015, the highest point since 1939. In 2014 total trips rose to 26.6 million in the average day – that’s 8% more than in 2008, and 2% more than the previous year. In other words, travel has been showing strong growth in London.

There is however a trend for falling private car use, but rising use of public transport and more cycling and walking. As it says “a feat unprecedented in any major city“, driven by “consistent policies”. The population of London is expected to continue to grow rapidly, but will feature more older people.

About half of all bus journeys in England are now made in London – an unbelievable figure which demonstrates just how much they are subsidised. But bus patronage has levelled off in recent years because of “a similar trend in service supply”, i.e. fewer buses are being run as subsidies have been slightly reduced so the consumption falls to put it in plain English.

London Underground, DLR and Overground rail services likewise show strong growth with more capacity on these lines supporting the growth.

Road traffic has fallen for much of the last decade, but has increased in the last two years. For example traffic volumes were up by 3.4% in central London in the most recent year, and 1.9% in outer London. This is thought to reflect population growth and economic trends, but the increase in traffic has brought pressure to bear as congestion rises from reduced road space and other causes. As the document says: “….effective network capacity for general traffic continued to be reallocated to other MTS (Mayors Transport Strategy) priorities“.  I think they mean changes to accommodate more cyclists, more bus lanes, removal of gyratories in the name of road safety and similar such measures. There was a sharp 13% increase in average traffic delay in 2014 according to the report, which won’t surprise anyone who has to drive in London – and that does not even reflect the changes made since the start of 2015.

The number of licensed taxis has remained stable, but the number of private hire vehicles (minicabs) has risen sharply – up by 19% in the latest year alone. That has had a significant impact on traffic congestion of course.

Cycling levels rose by 10.3% between 2013 and 2014, and walking has risen but only by the same trend as population growth. There could be more people commuting into central London by bike than by car soon, but that change is much less noticeable in the outer London boroughs.

There are positive trends in CO2, PM10 and NOX emissions (a lot of which come from transport vehicles) reflecting initiatives to improve local air quality.

Comment: this report shows the impact that Boris Johnson’s policies have been having on transport in London. Basically more people cycling, with cars discouraged by reductions in road capacity. Cycling has also been encouraged by sharp increases in public transport fares which have been rising faster than inflation making it one of the most expensive cities in the world for public transport – unless of course you are one of those who hold a Freedom pass where your travel is subsidised by the rest of the population for reasons which this writer finds difficult to understand. Originally introduced by the Greater London Council in 1973, it has remained a financial millstone around the necks of London boroughs even though the GLA was subsequently abolished by Margaret Thatcher.

Encouraging more cycling has had some unintended consequences because it is one of the less safe modes of transport, particularly when you get a lot of new, inexperienced cyclists on the roads or those who like to “pedal furiously” as is now a frequent sight on the roads of London. The end result is demands for more measures to improve the safety of cyclists, which can be very expensive.

Are all these changes of benefit? You might not think so if you are one of those increasing numbers of older people who are not able or willing to cycle. It seems unfortunate that Londoners have never really been asked what they would like as public consultations on these matters have been low key and certainly the cost/benefit of all these changes have never been spelled out. But it seems unlikely that this will be a debating topic for the competing Mayoral candidates.

Roger Lawson

Mayor’s Transport Budget

Posted on by
Reply

When you wish to see what is happening in London, and what the priorities for transport will be in future, one of the key documents to look at is the Mayor of London’s Transport Budget. His new budget for 2016/2017 has just been published. Here are a few comments on it:

Improving bus journey reliability is a key objective. But guess what, bus journey times have been negatively impacted by the “Road Modernisation Plan” (which includes on-going “improvements” to a number of major road junctions and lots of cycle lanes which have removed road space). As a result “bus mitigation schemes” are required. What does that mean? Probably a lot more bus lanes in essence.

The Road Modernisation Plan is actually costing £4 billion although some of that will apparently go on improving or maintaining existing assets – such as strengthening the Hammersmith Flyover and upgrading the Fore Street tunnel. It will also include “transformational” projects to replace the Wandsworth town centre gyratory, the Vauxhall Cross Gyratory, and projects for the Euston Road, King’s Cross, Highbury Corner and Croydon Fiveways.

For cycling projects there will be £913 million spent through to 2021/2022 which includes the Cycle Superhighways, a number of “Quietways” (cycle routes on minor roads) and numerous smaller projects.

Money will be spent on replacing obsolete wet film speed cameras by digital cameras (amount to be spent not declared), on financing 20 mph schemes, and a trial of “mandatory Intelligent Speed Assistance” (note the rebranding from the former “Intelligent Speed Adaptation”!).

You can see the real priorities by looking at the proposed split of the capital expenditure budget for 2016/2017. This is £1,673m (47%) on Rail and Underground, £1,299m (36%) on Crossrail, £435m (12%) on Surface Transport, with the balance of 5% on “Corporate” (the latter includes commercial development and ticketing projects). In other words, the road network is yet again to be starved of funding in comparison with rail/underground projects despite the road network being used for many more journeys (counting bus trips, private cars, cycling, etc). Indeed if you consider the expenditure on cycling and buses alone, there is surely not much left for other improvements to the road network.

So now you know where the money goes.

Roger Lawson

Castles in the Air, or Tunnels under London?

Posted on by
Reply

Boris Johnson has proposed two new east-west tunnels under London to reduce congestion by up to 20 per cent. With the population of London still growing rapidly, and measures such as the cycle superhighways reducing road space for vehicles on key east-west routs, the Mayor of London invited TfL (Transport for London) to look into using tunnels to relieve congestion last year.

TfL have suggested that two major routes be examined in detail – one running from the A40 at Park Royal in the west to the A12 at Hackney Wick in the east, and one running from the A4 at Chiswick to the A13 in Beckton. In addition there are proposals for “flyunders” at various locations such as on the A13 at Barking and to replace the Hammersmith flyover.

The Mayor is calling for the Government to divert some of the Vehicle Excise Duty they collect from Londoners (about £500 million per year) to help finance these schemes.

Comment: After managing to seriously damage the road network of London during his time as Mayor (by removing road space in favour of cyclists, removing gyratory schemes that actually helped traffic flows, and lots of other minor degradations such as closing roads) he is leaving this as a parting shot to his electorate before moving onto to higher things. Will such major investments in cross-London tunnels actually happen in your or my lifetime? It seems exceedingly unlikely from the past experience of long term planning in London. Tunnels have been used successfully in Boston, USA and in cities in Scandinavia but they are exceedingly expensive. We certainly have the technology to build such tunnels now relatively quickly, as is apparent from the Crossrail project, but is it likely that the idea for tunnels will be pursued by his successor as Mayor? With the two main candidates competing on their “environmental” credentials, it seems unlikely they will work hard to obtain the required funding even if they were advised to take on these projects.

Roger Lawson

More Congestion in the City

Posted on by
Reply

We have covered the worsening congestion in the City of London arising from the works around Aldgate and the impact of the new Cycle Superhighways during 2015. But it is going to get worse in 2016.

There will be in addition be major works that will close the junction of Aldgate, Leadenhall Street and Fenchurch Street requiring that all three roads be closed from January to April.

In addition Tower Bridge will be closed to “re-deck” the bascules (the raising part of the road surface). This is likely to take place in Q4 2016 and will require traffic on the inner ring road to be diverted via the Congestion Charge zone to use Southwark or London Bridges.

The end of 2016 might also see a closure of Bank junction (see previous blog post on that topic).

Note that the Highways Team in the City of London Corporation now have their own Facebook page (see https://www.facebook.com/Squarehighways) and Twitter feed so you can easily give them your comments on news items.

There is one thing for certain in 2016 – road users will find life more difficult in the City.

Roger Lawson