Janet Street-Porter’s views on the Cycle Superhighways

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

Boris More Damaging than the Blitz, and Age Discriminatory

Lord Lawson, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer (and no relation to the writer although folks often call me Nigel), said in the House of Lords last week (14/12/2015) that what is happening now “has done more damage, and is doing more damage, to London than almost anything since the Blitz“. He was referring to the “Mayor’s addiction to cycling” and the introduction of the Cycle Superhighways by Boris Johnson and Transport for London.

He also suggested that the current support of cycling was hugely age discriminatory because there is a huge section of the population of a certain age (well represented in the House of Lords of course) for whom cycling is not a practical option.

Lord Higgins complained about the “appalling increases in congestion and pollution caused by the introduction of bicycle lanes” and suggested they should be shared instead during most of the day. He particularly referred to Lower Thames Street where he suggested “they are likely to die from carbon monoxide poisoning” or other pollution any moment now.

Comment: Lord Lawson hit the nail on the head. Since the road works to put in the East-West Cycle Superhighway have reduced traffic to one lane from two there has been a massive increase in congestion across the whole of central London. Queues on the Embankment and Upper/Lower Thames Street can back up for miles in peak periods and even during off-peak periods there are long delays. In addition traffic is diverting to other routes to travel East/West causing congestion in the City and West End. Indeed the whole central London road network has been seriously degraded.

It does of course affect all traffic so even bus users have suffered as a result. This situation will not get better when the road works have finished.

Roger Lawson

Challenge to Embankment Superhighway

Our last blog post was about rising congestion in London and the impact of road space reductions such as the cycle superhighway on the Embankment. But London taxi drivers are not letting the matter rest. They have now lodged an application for a judicial review in the High Court on the grounds that TfL should have sought planning permission before beginning construction.

London taxi drivers are of course one of the groups who have been most severely impacted by road space reductions in London and have been threatening legal action for some time. Richard Maffett of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) suggested that cyclists safety could have been improved by other means and said “Roads are there to move goods and people around, and they’ve been gridlocked for the rest of London road users”.

Comment: One cannot but agree. See this note for our analysis of the scheme before it was approved: http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/Cycle%20Superhighway%20East-West.pdf

Roger Lawson

More Consultation on the East-West Cycle Superhighway

Transport for London (TfL) have issued another consultation on the details of the East-West Cycle Superhighway route through St James Park and Green Park, plus the junction of Northumberland Avenue and Victoria Embankment.  Some improvements have been made which will reduce journey times for vehicles.

You can see more information and respond to the consultation on-line via this web page: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/east-west-phase-2?cid=east-west-consult but you have to do so before the 29th March!

The latest journey time impacts for the whole route are now here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/c075a39a/user_uploads/traffic-data-table-updated.pdf

You can see they are not as bad as originally forecast but still increase journey times from the Limehouse Link Tunnel to Hyde Park Corner by over 6 minutes both east and westbound at certain times.

Roger Lawson

How Much is “Ambience” Worth? The Economics of the East-West Cycle Superhighway

The East-West Cycle Superhighway has a range of benefits and disbenefits. Some people will gain (mainly cyclists) while others will lose out (motorists from traffic delays, and even bus passengers and pedestrians). There is of course a way of combining all these different advantages and disadvantages as with any other major transport scheme which is to calculate the Net Present Value (NPV), or Cost/Benefit ratio. This also gives a good measure of whether it is sensible to invest in a scheme, in comparison with investing in something else instead.

Well what is the NPV of this Superhighway? It was given in the report to the TfL Board before they made a decision to proceed and is present here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/board-20140205-part-1-item06-cycling-vision-portfolio.pdf

Note that the financial budget for all the Cycle Superhighways that was approved is £162 million which is of course a very substantial sum.

You can see the NPV (or Benefit to Cost Ratio, BCR, as the report calls it) on page 65. This shows that although there are positive overall benefits over 30 years for the other cycle superhighways, the East-West one has a negative value of minus £200 million.  And that’s even after valuing the improved “ambience” for pedestrians at £14 million, improved ambience to cyclists of £8.2 million, improved ambience to “others” of £5 million and reduced absenteeism at £1.2 million. Bus operations have a disbenefit of minus £5 million and although health and safety show positive figures they are swamped by the minus £37 million from traffic delays.

They don’t even include the reduced “ambience” for motorists and goods vehicle drivers stuck in traffic jams.

Stephen Glaister of the RAC Foundation said he was astonished the scheme is going ahead given economic disbenefits of £200m. The other superhighways are also questionable depending on whether you believe the “ambience” improvement (and they don’t say how that is measured or valued) offsets the negative impact of increased journey times.

In the view of this writer, this scheme smacks of irrationality and of course these figures were not provided before the scheme went to public consultation so no informed responses to the consultation were possible. A stitch-up by TfL management and by Boris Johnson in essence. As I already said to him, I won’t be voting for him ever again based on his promotion of this scheme so his ambitions on the national political scene may not be as good as he thinks, if others take the same view.

Roger Lawson

TfL Board Approves East-West Cycle Superhighway

The Transport for London board have now approved the East-West Cycle Superhighway. The web site Politics.co.uk revealed some of the discussions on the matter that took place in the board meeting. Here’s some of it:

Sir John Armitt, Chairman of the National Express Group, said that cyclists had only themselves to blame for fatal collisions on the roads. To quote: “I would say the biggest danger to London cyclists on the roads in London are actually themselves”. He also said “”The way in which many, many, many of them ride one is surprised that in fact the number of accidents is not far larger because it is an entirely different way of cycling to which you see in many other cities”. He also said that he did not take the result of the TfL consultation seriously, which indicated a majority in support of the scheme, because “Without knowing where somebody is coming from when they respond to an opinion poll then it is pretty difficult to take on board the support or non-support for a scheme.”

Other board members from the Canary Wharf Group and taxi drivers also opposed the scheme. But Peter Hendy then reported that another cyclists had died in a collision with a coach, so the proposal was passed.

Comment: The behaviour of cyclists in London is certainly exceptionally bad, and in reality the consultation result was probably obtained by promotion of it by cyclist groups and by dubious repeated submissions from the same people (it is very difficult to avoid fraudulent behaviour in on-line surveys). I would certainly dispute that the outcome of the consultation and the board’s decision is a fair representation of public opinion on this scheme.

Note that TfL have revised some of the proposals for this Cycle Superhighway and are doing further consultations on it. The Lancaster Gate, Hyde Park, St. James Park, Green Park and Victoria Embankment/Northumberland Avenue sections have been substantially changed. Go here to see the latest plans and to submit your opinions on them before the 29th March: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/east-west-phase-2

Roger Lawson

Chelsea Bridge to Embankment – A New Kind of Junction

Transport for London have invented a new junction layout to enable cyclists to turn right by first going left and then waiting. Not only will this cause delays as they already admit, but it will surely be dangerous.  This is what I said in response to a public consultation (available here if you wish to make your own comments: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/chelsea-bridge ):

“This is one of daftest proposals I have seen in a long time. The proposed road layout will be exceedingly confusing for anyone who is not familiar with the junction – and yes there are people who drive in London who don’t know the roads unbelievable as you seem to think it is.

Apart from the delay to east-bound traffic, it will be positively dangerous as cyclists potentially are turning right in front of traffic on exiting from Chelsea Bridge.

Please reconsider!

This seems to be yet another attempt to favour cyclists over other traffic in the name of safety. But safe this will not be as even cyclists may not understand it and are likely to ignore the new layout. You have until the 20th March to respond to the consultation.

Roger Lawson

Go ahead for East-West Cycle Superhighway

Boris Johnson has given the go ahead for the East-West Cycle Superhighway that will run along the Embankment, despite many objections from taxi drivers, many businesses and business groups and local boroughs including the City of London. It only now needs to be approved by the Transport for London Board.

But there have been some amendments made to the plans to reduce the additional delays on the travel time from Limehouse Link to Hyde Park Corner from 16 minutes to just over 6 minutes. One change has been to increase the originally proposed two lanes to three at pinchpoints such as Tower Hill, Blackfriars Underpass and near Temple Station (it’s currently 4 lanes of course). With a slight narrowing of the segregated cycle track at certain points, this will mean two lanes are retained along all the westbound route. But the east bound route is also heavily congested, particularly in the evening rush hour and that is going to become very much worse. The plans to “hold back” traffic by signal changes and other means from these roads will also still take place, thus affecting a wider area.

Comment: The Freight Transport Association called the announcement “Rushing into delays” which well sums up the speed of implementation of these proposals without proper consideration at the behest of the Mayor before he leaves office, and the likely outcome. It is extremely disappointing that the Major has succumbed to cyclists vociferous promotion of this scheme which will have a very damaging impact on the road network in London. A judicial review has been threatened by some interested parties and it is to be hoped that this will be pursued. It would certainly get my support.

Roger Lawson

East-West Cycle Superhighway, and Transparency Consultation

Our last Newsletter covered the proposals for a new East-West Cycle Superhighway along the Embankment and Upper/Lower Thames Street.  Readers of the last newsletter were urged to strongly oppose the proposal which would reduce a lot of the road to one lane, increase traffic congestion and substantially increase journey times based on Transport for London’s (TfL’s) own predictions. This article is an update on the status of these proposals.

This writer wrote personally to the Mayor, Boris Johnson, on the 5th October explaining what was wrong with those proposals and suggesting he needs “to listen to the general population, not to a prejudiced minority of cycling fanatics”. I pointed out that there has not been a proper cost/benefit analysis of the proposals and the public consultation was grossly defective. I also made it very clear I would not be voting for any candidate for Mayor of London who supports these proposals.

Just before Xmas I got a response from Mr Johnson. Among the statements therein are:

“The route of the East-West Superhighway has been chosen to minimise impacts on other users…”.

“The proposed cycle track would, for the most part, replace only one traffic lane”.

“TfL continues to assess the potential impacts of the proposals…..”.

The fact that not all the route is reduced to one lane surely does not help. If you introduce bottlenecks on a major thoroughfare the overall capacity of the route is reduced.

Meanwhile in mid-November Howard Dauber of the Canary Wharf Group appeared on BBC TV News spelling out the objections to the scheme. In particular he stated that the “mitigation” measures being considered by TfL imply the holding back of traffic on main arterial routes. So for example using traffic light control to reduce traffic entering this route from the East (i.e. from Canary Wharf!). Mr Dauber seems to be trying to generate wider opposition to the scheme, and may be developing alternative proposals.

The City of London Corporation have also considered the matter and raised a number of objections. For example, they expressed concerns about the impact on pedestrians, and that TfL should “consider alternative design measures to ensure a resilient road network and demonstrate how the network will accommodate planned and unplanned road works“. They also asked for more time for consultation and a different approach by TfL when such major proposals are being developed (like everyone else, they don’t like being presented with an almost final design without any prior consultation).

Incidentally on the latter subject, TfL have issued a public consultation on “Transparency” about how they wish to be “open and accountable”. As one of the least open and accountable organisations in this writers personal experience, you may like to submit your own comments as I have done. TfL’s public consultations tend to be more of a PR exercise that real public engagement, with the key decisions already set in stone.

Will TfL and the Mayor listen? We wait to see, and the results of the public consultation on the East-West Superhighway are yet to be published.

Note that I have also taken up this issue with my GLA Member and my Member of Parliament (I think it is a national issue as well as just a London issue when the capital’s road network is being destroyed by political dogma).

Roger Lawson