My personal view: I can’t support the current plan, because I belive it fails to create welcoming conditions for inclusive, mass cycling (and actually, I think we could do better for walking too, while maintaining good bus services). I’ve thought hard about this. I know there’s goodwill and a lot of thought and effort gone into the plan, and even the limited advances offered are contested. People whose opinions I respect disagree. But ultimately this is the bottom line for me:
If we can’t get inclusive space for cycling, in a major, four-year scheme put forward by one of London’s most progressive boroughs for cycling, in a world class university quarter with key cycle alignments: will we ever get it?
Inclusive cycling is close to my heart. With colleagues I’ve been analysing English Census data from 2001 and 2011 and I was shocked to see how limited our ‘cycling revolution’ is. I thought places with increases in cycling would see some increased diversity among cyclists. This turns out to be wrong. The gender balance of cycle commuting in Inner London has barely shifted and the age balance has tilted further towards the young. The data suggest even where cycling is rising, cycling conditions still disproportionately exclude women, older and disabled people. Rises in cycling are also skewed towards richer areas.
It’s as if, even at our best we’ve still been building cycle routes aimed at a minority of adults who are younger, middle-class, able-bodied, fit, and male. Ironically those tend to be groups with good access to alternative modes (e.g. cars) and less need of cycling’s health benefits than those excluded. So I would argue for inclusive design for equity reasons, but also, it’s the only way we will ever achieve mass cycling, with all the associated benefits for our city. And first this means space for cycling, away from fast or heavy motor traffic (although of course, not only that). I think alongside the other laudable objectives of the West End Project, building for mass, inclusive cycling needs to be an explicit priority.
What do we need to change, for the plan to be inclusive? I think the headline ask is for at least one of the two main North-South roads running down through the scheme area (either Tottenham Court Road – “TCR” or Gower Street) to be ‘safe and inviting for cycling’ for people of all abilities. To simplify: 20mph speeds and under 2000 Passenger Car Units per day OR high quality segregation (the draft Cycling Level of Service Assessment in LCDS is also useful).
As discussed below, neither TCR nor Gower will provide safe and inviting cycling under the current plans. Ways of getting there are (a) high-quality segregated infrastructure or (b) filtering to very low levels of motor traffic. My suggested compromise is (b) on Gower Street (close it to through motor traffic) while retaining bus priority on TCR. But if that’s not on offer, I’d want proper segregation from high volumes of buses or other motors, the approach the Vole argues for. Both have pluses and minuses, but I note that Vole’s and my plans both involve reducing and restricting private motor traffic. They don’t hit other sustainable modes to boost cycling, but offer more radically liveable solutions.
I say more below. But whatever you think, please find out more and make your voice heard. This is a major Central London scheme, it affects many of us directly and will set the tone for the future. Look at the proposals; go to Camden Cyclists’ open meeting about it on 30th June, 7pm – 9pm at the YMCA Indian Student Hostel, 41 Fitzroy Square W1T 6AQ. (You must book here). There you’ll hear from Phil Jones and John Futcher, the lead councillor and officer for the scheme (good people who listen and care passionately about sustainable transport), put forward your views and contribute to LCC’s response. You can also join cycle campaign discussions via Cyclescape and respond to the official consultation.
And look at the contrasting views expressed by Vole O’Speed, by Cyclists in the City, and by ibikelondon.
What’s good and bad about the scheme, and why I’m not supporting it
Current conditions for cycling on TCR and Gower Street are terrible. I’m too scared to ride on Gower Street: as the consultation site states, ‘There is a speeding problem in the northern section of Gower Street and a congestion problem in Bloomsbury Street‘.
I cycle a stretch of TCR on my route to work. On this three lane road there’s a narrow cycle lane which, although mandatory at peak hours, is usually blocked by loading motors. I sometimes walk on Gower Street and – despite the beautiful historic buildings – the severance, fumes and noise caused by three lanes of motor traffic make this unpleasant at best. So, I appreciate that Camden are acknowledging these issues and, as elsewhere, trying hard to create more liveable, people-friendly environments. I like some of the proposed permeability improvements for cycling at junctions or side streets, such as filtering Bayley Street.
There are some often very nice aspects of the plans related to public space. The Huntley Street improvements look good and will benefit patients at the local hospitals. There’s a lovely looking proposed green space at Alfred Place – where I hope some considerate cycling will still be permitted, given motor vehicle access will be allowed for loading purposes at peak times. I’ll discuss Princes Circus below – the proposals do not, sadly, look good for cycling – but the idea of turning this fume-choked hell-hole into a pleasant place to sit is great.
The proposals are as a whole clearly an improvement from the very poor current situation in this area.
BUT. And it’s a big BUT. These plans are deeply inadequate for cycling. I know there are compromises to be made. I know we are not going to get something perfect, and that we need to provide good bus services, cater for large and growing numbers of pedestrians, as well as supporting the transition to mass cycling. But while a relatively hardy commuter like me will see benefits on my journey – for which I am grateful – the improvements don’t mean facilitating cycling for all.
As I mentioned earlier, the London Cycling Campaign has policy suggesting people on bikes should not be expected to share space with high volumes of motor traffic (defined as over 2,000 Passenger Car Units per day). Both main roads, TCR and Gower (both the A400), will fail this under the proposed scheme, and both are likely to score poorly on the draft LCDS Cycling Level of Service tool. This issue will come up again and again in London. And there will be many cases where policy-makers say ‘sorry, we’re prioritising buses, so we can’t provide space for cycling’ and cycle advocates have to accept this. We won’t get space for cycling on every road. Sometimes it’ll be ‘sorry, pedestrian priority means we need to re-route buses’. It’s hard. If it was easy there would be children and grandparents riding everywhere now.
But especially as Gower St and Tottenham Court Road are alternative alignments on the Central London Cycle Grid, surely one of them should be good for mass, inclusive cycling. That shouldn’t be an unreasonable thing to hope to see, in 2018, which is when it’ll be built, surely?
TCR, the wider road, will fail the PCU test on two-way bus traffic alone – there may be around 900 buses daily each way, which would equate to 3,600 PCUs. On top of this there may be substantial numbers (thousands daily) of private motor traffic able to join from side streets (taxis will be able to access most of Tottenham Court Road this way during the restricted hours), along with full private motor vehicle access on Sundays, before 8am and after 7pm, and access for loading (which will be allowed at peak times, when cycling levels are highest).
Even without this though, the numbers of buses involved are too high for mass, inclusive cycling. While both roads will be in Camden’s 20mph zone, this on its own, while welcome, does not compensate for the high volumes of motor traffic that will remain on both.
What about Gower Street? With full two-way access for motor vehicles, levels will be far too high for sharing (currently it sees 15,000 motor vehicles per day one way). In theory segregation could be the answer here. But the proposed ‘protected lanes’ cannot have adequate effective width (for such a key corridor, we need 2m and ideally 2.5m each way). With a 9-9.5m carriageway width for most of the road, two motor vehicle lanes of 3m seems only to leave 3-3.5m for the two lanes, with the width of the segregating islands meaning an effective width of between 1.2-1.4m per lane, at most 1.5m if you narrow pavements and carriageway slightly.
And even with armadillos between us, I don’t much fancy riding in a 1.5m lane close to several HGVs a minute at peak, and I’m pretty sure those currently too scared to cycle in Central London won’t be attracted by it. Camden’s own Royal College Street is much better, offering 2m each way and greater segregation – and this at lower motor traffic flows. And while narrow light segregation could be justified as allowing scope for expansion, there is no space for that here without returning to the one-way system (and why create something so narrow in the first place, on a key alignment?) The existence of loading bays in the cycle tracks doesn’t inspire confidence either.
It’s also worrying to read in a powerpoint about the scheme (and two of the other options) that there will be big increases of motor traffic on Gordon Street, a recommended ‘quiet cycle route’ linking the Torrington track and university area with Euston. There’s a base projection of 309 motors per peak hour on Gordon St by 2016. That’s likely to mean over 2,000 PCU which – on a key route – suggests an urgent need for filtering. However, the preferred West End Project option as modelled predicts a large increase to 443 motors per peak hour by 2016 – which could well equate to 5,000 PCU per day, a long way from ‘quiet’.
Rising motor traffic on Gordon St ispredicted for all three options, but the chosen plan is a double whammy for cycling. Unlike the other two options (which, whatever their other disbenefits, offer fairly wide segregated tracks) neither TCR nor Gower Street provide good space for cycling, while an existing alternative may be lost.
What do I think is needed?
Camden Council has, to its credit, considered a range of other options, some of which would be better for cycling than the selected option (the other advantages and disadvantages vary). These are as follows:
Options 1 and 2 are both clearly worse for cycling than the current proposals, as they introduce additional motor traffic on TCR, while still expecting cyclists to share space with motors.
Option 3 involves two-way buses on TCR while also providing a segregated cycle track in each direction. It is stated that 13m is needed to fit this in without losing large amounts of pavement, and therefore it wasn’t assessed further. Option 3 could clearly meet the LCC standards, but it’s unlikely to leave enough pavement for the high and rising levels of pedestrians.
(An alternative might be to instead use a bi-directional track on the East side, which would mean more efficient use of space, as cycle flows are highly tidal at peak. These tracks are more problematic at junctions although I think we could do better than some of our existing bi-directional tracks – and I think we shouldn’t rule them out as a potential solution where there are substantial competing demands for space from different sustainable modes.)
Option 4 involves closing either Gower Street or Tottenham Court Road to all traffic except cycling. This one was also rejected early on because it ‘would lead to an unacceptable amount of traffic diverting onto surrounding residential streets and unacceptable delays to buses.’ The assumptions here seem to be (a) that rat-running would be possible and (b) that the other road would then be open to all two-way through motor traffic.
One version of 4+ would mean going ahead with something like the current plans for Tottenham Court Road, but also (a) closing Gower to through motors and (b) restricting rat-running by restricting motor access to local streets – ideally by thorough area-based filtering within the project area, ensuring full local access to addresses, but stopping drivers using residential streets as cut throughs. (Currently there are some extra restrictions on rat-running planned; a mixture of modal filters and one-way restrictions). While TCR would still not be great for cycling, Gower would then experience such low levels of motor traffic that it should meet the LCC threshold and score highly on the LCDS Level of Service tool. And personally, I’d accept that compromise, although there would still be details to be worked out on that and other streets.
Making Gower Street cycle-only (and limited access) would have substantial benefits for walking and cycling. Just imagine – instead of thousands of two way motor vehicles per day, there would be two-way cycles (and very occasional and slow use by motors as ‘guests’). Massive benefits for residents and local workers who’d have a true cycle corridor available to them. Also for the thousands and thousands of students and hospital patients who will otherwise continue to suffer from severance, air pollution and injury risk caused by Gower Street remaining a busy motorised thoroughfare. Gower Street could become part of a ‘University Corridor’, which I imagine as a direct, safe and pleasant route running all the way from the UCL buildings at Euston Square to Kings College at Waterloo.
So a reworked, more ambitious Option 4+ is, I think, my preferred option. While a shame that TCR would remain inadequate for cycling, it turns Gower Street into the true ‘place’ it should be with multiple benefits for cycling and walking, while allowing the bus priority on TCR and the gyratory removal, that Camden Council are clearly very keen on. It’s a compromise, but I think an acceptable one, whereas the current plans aren’t.
There are (what look like pretty narrow) protected lanes proposed along a major road – here part of Shaftesbury Avenue. Most riders are likely to be accessing Endell Street, but while motors have a direct and smooth route onto the continuation of Shaftesbury Avenue, it’s really not clear what cyclists do. A shared use crossing doesn’t provide them with an easy route to Endell either North or Southbound. This needs re-thinking in order to allow cyclists to safely use this important alignment: I would suggest a bi-directional cycle track on the East side of Shaftesbury Avenue would offer greater safety and connectivity than the lanes, alongside changes to the crossing arrangements to allow riders easily to get N-S between Endell Street and the Shaftesbury track.
Finally, what about Camden’s other options, 5 and 6? I think these have been too speedily dismissed, although on balance I suspect option 4+ might be more likely to gain broader support given its clear pedestrian and liveability co-benefits. Options 5 and 6 both involve keeping the one-way system, and the consultation site warns of potential bus delays.
However, both also involve the provision of protected space: either a bi-directional track on TCR, or a one-way track on each road. And providing segregated tracks is likely to provide a much higher level of service than the current plans, even though the junctions need careful consideration where off-side or bi-directional tracks are provided. Even given Options 5 and 6 are not perfect, an option providing protected space could be a workable alternative for cycling, even if compromises had to be made on space at the bottom of TCR.
At the moment, key reasons for ruling out options 5 and 6 are limited space at the bottom of Tottenham Court Road. The smallest width has been used to constrain the whole option. Not surprisingly this means that cycle safety is traded off against bus times and pedestrian comfort, making it appear impossible given the high volumes of pedestrians and buses.
Yet it might be possible to put, for example, two motor traffic lanes along most of Tottenham Court Road as per option 5, allowing bus priority on that stretch. This could substantially reduce the bus delays that would occur if TCR was only one lane along the entire length, which would mean no bus priority (as per option 5a). The Vole’s plans pick up on this, and add a segregated Southbound lane on Gower Street.
It doesn’t look like these kinds of compromises (4+ or the Vole Plan) have been considered, but I think they seem more promising than 1.5m lanes on Gower Street with little protection from adjacent heavy motor traffic. Personally, I think a filtered Gower Street may be the most promising, but there’s a good case for segregation on TCR if a filtered Gower is not going to happen as part of this scheme.
Of course, there are bike-related improvements under the current plans, but these will mostly offer minor benefits for existing ‘cyclists’. They will not encourage mass cycling by people currently reluctant to ride in Central London. On these grounds I think we – those who identify as cycle advocates, and other people who want to see the best solution for equitable, sustainable and healthy transport – need to suggest something better.
And finally again; whatever you think, find out more: let’s talk about whether, and how, this scheme could cater for mass, inclusive cycling in 2018. If you can, go to Camden Cyclists’ open meeting about it on 30th June, 7pm – 9pm at the YMCA Indian Student Hostel, 41 Fitzroy Square, London, W1T 6AQ. Contribute to cycle campaign discussions via Cyclescape ; read and respond to the consultation.
Pingback: Camden’s West End Project consultation | Fitzrovia News
A Petri Dish experiment to consider…
The LCDS states that cyclists “function best when treated as vehicles”. A claim I’d dispute – “vehicle” suggests a skilled, well-trained operator, capable of a steady pace of 15-20mph, and a primary function of _movement_. This fundamentally misunderstands casual and utility cycling – whereas a non moving vehicle has little or no “place” role – its occupants are typically not able to interact with place without parking and getting out – on a bike I can stop, talk to people, look in shop windows, step off to sit at a cafe table etc. – provided, of course, that I’m not expected to behave like a vehicle.
Children on bikes, and tourists on Boris bikes, cannot and should not be expected to behave “as vehicles” – they are there for a different reason. Operating a vehicle in a city is a mentally demanding, mostly joyless experience of getting from A to B _because you have to_. We, and Camden Council, should aspire to much better than that for people on bikes.
So, acknowledging that cyclists want to behave both like pedestrians and vehicles (depending on who you ask, bikes are flexible and amazing, or cyclists want to have their cake and eat it), and that streets have place and movement roles, what might a scheme look like to accommodate this?
TCR has more of a place role – as a shopping destination, above all. This is somewhat compromised by the need to put an awful lot of buses along it, but it’s still very much a destination in its own right. Gower Street is more about movement – there’s much less of a desire to meander along it.
So why not offer cyclists both, and see which they actually want to use?
This would mean implementing Gower Street much as planned – armadillos, one-way cycle lanes, build for cyclists trying to get from A to B at 12-20mph.
But on TCR, try something different. Instead of lightly segregating bikes from traffic, lightly segregate them from pedestrians. Narrow the carriageway to the point where it’ll carry one bus in each direction, and no more. The rest can be an asymmetric wide footway, with a two-way cycle track marked in studs along it on one side. It will be slow. Pedestrians will encroach on it. There will probably be a bit of conflict here and there. But that’s OK – anyone in a hurry can use Gower Street; TCR becomes a place you can meander along on a bike, as a wheeled pedestrian.
Interesting thoughts Angus. On Gower though, I think it’s partly such a ‘movement’ street because we’ve forced three lanes of motor traffic down a narrow-ish carriageway for many years. With many destinations – university buildings, a park part way up, shops and tourist attractions further down, etc. its street function could fairly easily be shifted, I think. It could be made much more of a ‘place’ if we removed through motor traffic – while retaining and enhancing the movement function for for cycles.
It certainly could – though current proposals rather imply that the planners have little in the way of place ambition for it.
I’m not sure if you know the north end of Rye Lane in Peckham, but I’m imagining TCR looking something like that, on a bigger scale. It’s not without conflict, but it does a great job of enabling people to shop casually by bike – something that seems like a reasonable and pragmatic ambition for one of London’s major shopping streets.
It’s certainly not the best for cyclists in a hurry, and would be worse over the much longer distance of TCR – the track on Rye Lane is only a couple of hundred metres long – but there’d be an alternative fast route two blocks over.
I know it’s a bit dual-networky, however I’d argue that shopping / sightseeing by bike and through-commuting are perhaps different enough to justify it.
Angus – your ideas for TCR are interesting – but they depend on the availability of Gower as a through route for everyone who wants to get anywhere reasonably fast on a bike – and the existing proposals (narrow and/or badly protected lanes that don’t provide any protection at junctions (or at the north end of the road) don’t really make it usable for anyone other than existing cyclists. If Gower were closed to through traffic, or kept one way with two way bike tracks, the idea for TCR might be a good addition, though…
I’d qualify that a bit – the Gower Street light seg looks suitable for existing cyclists and other people who are _similar to_ existing cyclists, in terms of journey type and skill level. So you might get a 50% increase in the number of adults using it, but you’d get a 0% increase on the 0 8-year-olds currently using it.
The problem with doing what I’ve suggested on TCR without removing most of the non-bus traffic is that the carriageway needs to be narrow (not much more than one bus width in each direction) otherwise there’s too much likelihood of conflict between pedestrians and buses.
I’m thinking of TCR as fundamentally, a wide pedestrianised space, where cycling is tolerated, but which (out of necessity) has a bus route through the middle of it. It’s not uncommon in big town centres in mainland Europe to have that sort of layout with trams rather than buses.
I forgot to add above – and I don’t know how feasible this is, but anyway…
One of the positives with trams, when compared to buses on a typical street, is that, except at junctions, their path is entirely predictable.
The drawings of TCR that Camden have published show approx. 3 lanes’ worth of carriageway with buses able to leapfrog one another. Good news for bus companies – they don’t need to take much care in scheduling to fit lots of routes through the same space – but bad news for cyclists and pedestrians.
What I’ve suggested above puts all the buses in a straight line – they can’t play leapfrog. This should make it easier for pedestrians to cross informally; if most of the routes on TCR will ultimately be New Routemasters, then buses having to wait behind one another is rather less of a problem – boarding times are shorter, and people can hop on and off as they please.
Not being able to overtake buses is also a significant disincentive to any other motor traffic that can’t be forcibly mode-filtered – only loading traffic that needs to be there is likely to bother.
Angus: your proposal for TCR, basically to give the buses 6m of road space, leaving the rest to pedestrians and cyclists to share could be compared to the situation in Byng Place: two-way cycle traffic on the edge of a very wide footway on one side of the street (with a tiny drop down to carriageway level).
True there are no buses and the distance is only about 70 m
but it does give the general idea of your proposal.
Indeed. I’d also compare it to central Zagreb:
(nb: the bollards on the right in Peckham have since been replaced by a shared use cycle track).
The down side is that all bus routes take as long as the slowest individual route (determined by boarding time) – but those NB4L Routemasters should really come in to their own – finally a justification for three doors and an open rear platform. I’d like to see the buses keep their speeds right down (<10mph) to make it easy both for pedestrians to cross informally and for the able bodied to hop on and off buses as they please.
I'd also argue that the hierarchy of provision for TCR should look something like:
1) Pedestrian shoppers
2=) Pedestrian through traffic, cycle shoppers, bus shoppers
3) Through bus passengers
I know it won't please some in the bus lobby to hear this, but anyone genuinely in a hurry should probably be on the Tube or Crossrail.. or if they're on a bike, on Gower Street. My point is, though, on TCR the comfort of pedestrians and pedestrian-like-cyclists, and ease of casual boarding for bus passengers using the shops here, should take priority over through bus traffic.
It seems to me that cycle campaigners are always willing to compromise for some hypothetically “least-worst” scenario. It’s time to put our foot down: if the authorities are not going to provide top quality, segregated infrastructure we should have the guts to walk away from it and put our energies into mobilising, organising and educating the public.
Our mantra should not be:
“What do we want?”
“Baby steps towards something better”
“When do we want it?”
“Next time, …. Er well, some time in the future at least”
We want it yesterday. Or at least now. It’s time to stop fannying about, peoples’ lives are on the line.
Pingback: Camden's West End Project - Look Around The Corner | Amble Scope
Pingback: Camden’s West End Project: Compromise or Capitulation? | The Alternative Department for Transport