Are LCC in LaLa Land?

[Ham]

OK, just got back from the Eastbound run, and it is fully open.

In the interest of science, I went under the flyover and around the roundabout.

The approach to the roundabout has a standard bus-into-the-bike-lane stop, with nowhere for cyclist s to go and nowhere for the buses to pull out, so far so normal. Then there's the confusing lights as reported intoday's diamond geezer http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2013_10_01_archive.html#8937310924521735091 - of course as  a non-cyclist, he doesn't have the same perspective, actually they aren't so much confusing as boring. And, when the traffic snarls up completely here, it'll be everyone for themselves.

Onto the cycle lane eastbound. In contrast to the westbound, there are two normal bus-into-bike-lane stops, and one lane shimmy round. For my money, I'll have a lan-shimmy-round any day of the week, those who have been moaning about it, what better arrangement can you think of?

The one area I think is not exceptionally good is dealing with the traffic turning left into Westfield, that looks to be a recipe for disaster, unless it is governed by lights. Otherwise, it is SOOOOOOOOO much more pleasant than before. One thing that will be a little problemette that I didn't think about before - the lane is so wide that it will encourage two way cycling, in the short time I was there I encountered one such already, which is not how it is intended to be used (I don't think) and may well complicate matters.

But for the first time in my living memory Stratford High Street can be ridden by anyone without scaring the bejasus out of them.

[clarion]

OK.  That's some progress, at least.

[jane]

Charlie Lloyd from LCC rode the route from Bow to Stratford.  His video is here... As he says not great quality in the rain, but it gives a picture.    http://lcc.org.uk/articles/mayors-cycle-superhighway-2-extension-the-first-step-towards-going-dutch-for-london-cyclists His comments are interesting, definitely not the comments of a diehard segregationist.. He highlights the drawbacks accurately.

[Pete Owens]

A good job he was going at a moderate pace at 2:09.

[Ham]

A good job he was going at a moderate pace at 2:09.

That's the left turn highlighted in my report, Short of having a bikes only phase (which would be unlikely to be observed, there are already three traffic flows taking their turn at those lights) I can't see what might be done.

[Pete Owens]

But it is an illustration of the exactly the sort of danger inherent with parallel provision that cause many of us to be sceptical of segregation. 

At least at a set of lights (unlike the priority junctions) it would be possible to solve the problem by providing a stage for each stream of traffic arriving at the junction - and if this was a serious piece of infrastructure there would be such a stage. As it is, it is just another case of painting a bit of surplus tarmac blue leading cyclists to dangerous approaches at the junctions just like every other c**p UK facility. The only difference in this case is that there happens to be a lot more surplus tarmac as the width of the road is far in excess of that needed for the volume of traffic using it. The fact that they are unwilling to do anything that might disadvantage motor traffic to the slightest degree at the point where cyclists are most in need of protection demonstrates which road users the real priorities of those who designed the scheme.

[David Martin]

I'm pretty sure that that is not the case at all. The only alternative is to slow all traffic down to 15mph or slower. You will always get conflict between the faster moving cars wanting to turn left and cyclists. End of.

Unless of course you can come up with a design that is actually workable in the real world.

From what I can see on the video, and what I have ridden elsewhere, this looks like it is a massive bonus. Some extra signage indicating that left turnign drivers should ensure the way is clear before crossing the cycle lane would be good (if such an authorised sign exists)

[Ham]

But it is an illustration of the exactly the sort of danger inherent with parallel provision that cause many of us to be sceptical of segregation. 

At least at a set of lights (unlike the priority junctions) it would be possible to solve the problem by providing a stage for each stream of traffic arriving at the junction - and if this was a serious piece of infrastructure there would be such a stage. As it is, it is just another case of painting a bit of surplus tarmac blue leading cyclists to dangerous approaches at the junctions just like every other c**p UK facility. The only difference in this case is that there happens to be a lot more surplus tarmac as the width of the road is far in excess of that needed for the volume of traffic using it. The fact that they are unwilling to do anything that might disadvantage motor traffic to the slightest degree at the point where cyclists are most in need of protection demonstrates which road users the real priorities of those who designed the scheme.

Too many of your assumptions and statements are plain wrong, I'm afraid. You either don't know this section (most likely) or are an incurably miserable sod

There are currently already 4 phases to the lights, as I suggested adding another for bikes would not only add extra time to the cars but be very unlikely to be observed by cyclists. I don't discount the possibility of being a lot more clever with the phasing, but I 'm not holding my breath. The problem is that you have the major artery and a busy road, all needing to feed into Westfield via Wharton Road. It's the typical scenario where they might have used a roundabout - I'm glad they didn't.

Whatever else you might accuse this facility of, it certainly is NOT just painting a bit of surplus tarmac blue.

As to whether or not they have just reclaimed surplus tarmac, well. You haven't seen the congestion here have you? The idea that there was surplus tarmac would come as a surprise to the drivers and planners.  There is no question in the minds of anyone who knows and uses this route that the scheme will disadvantage drivers. That's one of the  things that worries me about it, whether this will result in poorer driver consideration if I'm not in the facility (as I probably won't be over the flyover)

It may not be a perfect shield of invulnerability for cyclists, but it is likely the single best facility in London, and one that answers a real problem and demand.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I've watched the first minute of the video and I'm disappointed and worried already. The very first side road, at 48s, is very nearly just a normal treatment; the blue paint stops and although there is still a cycle lane which, in theory, has priority over the side road, there is minimal separation from the main carriageway - just a paint line. It looks like left hook city. I thought there was supposed to be about a car's length between main carriageway and cycle lane so that turning traffic does treat it as a separate junction and give way? I can't see this one being particularly safe.

[Cudzoziemiec]

My overall impression is that it's just another cycle lane. Not particularly bad but not especially good, just the normal lane which fades down at each side road. The only novel thing about it seem to be the floating bus stops, which as far as it's possible to tell don't seem to be that bad.

[Ham]

The unique thing isn't the lane, it is the context.


East London is cut off by the the Lea, by the Marshes and by the industrial wasteland that is now the Olympic Park. If you want to come into London from the East, there are effectively only 4 routes, the A13, Stratford High Street, A12, Lea Bridge Road - this image shows what's happening http://goo.gl/maps/B7rwp .  In  contrast to everywhere else in London. there are no back streets, no alternatives. For all those to the east of Stratford, Stratford High Street is the only practical option. That's the case for vehicles as well, with obvious conflict. The A13 has had cycle provision added on the sides, but that is really badly affected by junctions.

The A12 next north (not the actual A12 which is effectively motorway and bikes are banned, but the underlying streets) is a mixed bag that dumps you into Hackney

Lea Bridge is structualy incapable of being updated along much of its length because of the terrain around.

For years there have been campaigns to improve the lot of the cycling commuter, which have been steadfastly ignored in preference to the needs of motorised traffic. Before the olympics they even took away much of the bus lane infrastructure that made life bearable. It has been really shit in the meantime.

This facility is a real triumph, they took away a whole freakin' lane from the motorist and gave it to the cyclist, astonishing because there was the width to do the normal half arsed thing on the wide pavement. I can think of nowhere else in the UK where anything like this has happened.

So before you start carping and whinging, consider that. For all its failings, this deserves to be lauded to the skies.

[cake monster]

You may be miffed at the criticism, but calling it carping and whingeing is unjustified. Lauded to the hilt is overstating it somewhat, I'd reserve that for something that did'nt have a number failings (of which a number of perfectly reasonable ones have been identified in this thread).

I agree it sets a good precedent of taking away motor vehicle space and making dedicated cycling space, and despite having initial concerns of the bus stop bypass I'll reserve judgement on them for now, give it a few months, and see the pedestrian and cyclist feedback.

But it does nothing to address the big bottleneck before the flyover and motor traffic encroachment in the cycle lane, does not address the danger at the roundabout where the deaths occured, and still has the left hook possibilities at 2.09 in that vid as you state. Oh and EEK that bit at the beginning of the video at 11 secs where he pulls over and wait for a gap to get to the smurf road gave me the fear. Not a safe place for groups of cyclists to be gathering waiting for a gap.   

These are the bits that concern me.  All well good being segregated from the traffic along the straights between junctions but they were'nt the main danger points before, so all the main danger points to the mass hordes of potential new cyclists remain. It seems we have the extra costs of the segregation model without the promised protections of the go dutch model, not ideal. I guess the worry is that not too many compromises are made. It seems inevitable to me there's going to be a funding gap between what the campaigners want and what TFL are prepared to fund. Its ensuring this gap is not bridged by sidestepping the danger points, as this is not likely to decrease the number of fatalities or increase the number of new cyclists, if indeed perceived danger is the major barrier to increased cycling levels.   

I don't blame LCC for this particularly, and I have duly noted from this thread the good work they do. Ultimately it is TFL, and I'd totally despair at having to deal with them, especially when those in charge are more adept at foot in mouth moments than addressing the real issues. Todays example:

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2013/11/london-road-casualties-rise-for-first-time-in-seven-years-with-serious-cycle-injuries-up-18.html

Anyway as said its a small step in the right direction, I just wish there was'nt so much unsavoury infighting that pervades all the similar threads, regardless of forum, across the internet. Human nature I suppose. This forums thread has been better than most and I think the criticism has by and large been constructive, so please take it as such. Thank you and good luck to all those working in this area, you must all have the patience of saints and skins as thick as rhinos.

[Ham]

My update after a week of operation.

It's not if there will be an accident, it is when.

There are two areas

The car left hook at Wharton Road will happen, hopefully not too bad, I think Carpenters Road has the potential to be more dangerous. The bus stop ped/bike interface probably won't happen as people are a bit wary around there, much more likely (ie a racing certainty) are the areas near the pedestrian crossings. When the road clogs up (as it does every day at rush hour) the pedestrians filter every which way through the stopped traffic, they now pop out into the bike lane where some riders will be doing inappropriate speed.

[Pete Owens]

Saw this photo in another forum:
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYTMgkMCIAAy6T7.jpg

[mcshroom]

Well you got a free swimming pool into the bargain

[Ham]

I saw that in RL

[Cudzoziemiec]

So it sounds as if after all the fanfare, the cynics were right and it's yet another crap facility. Ok, it's probably an improvement on nothing, especially in terms of confidence boosting, but it's still a long way from Amsterdam. It's somewhere in the North Sea, neither full, safe and boring segregation, nor the Englishman's freedom of the Queen's highway. And it has the same weak points as always - junctions.

[mcshroom]

It's somewhere in the North Sea.

Or under it if you look at that picture

[djm778]

This will be a brief and somewhat general addition to the debate but here goes - after walking the route Eastbound from the Bow roundabout approach I find the CS2 extension / improvement a bit of a mixed bag.

Firstly, it is undoubtedly BETTER than how it was before! Is it great - NO. However, I do get the feeling that TFL are crawling (all be it slowly) towards a better benchmark.

Secondly, bits I liked - although not an outright fan of segregation the wide seperate blue way certainly is safer on the whole than fighting with the traffic and does appear to be confidence inspiring and will hopefully attract more cycling in that area, and give regular cyclists respite from traffic for at least part of their journey. Compared to the preceeding bit from the City up to Bow roundabout it is bliss!

Thirdly, bits I didn't like - Bow roundabout and access to CS2 from the flyover is still a mess and still dangerous, however, I don't know if any upgrade to this section was intended as part of the extension or if this will come in the near future as part of the Junction Review. It was a rainy day and (as pictured somewhere!) there was a bit of flooding to small sections of the superhighway. The interfaces with the junctions, I don't understand why the solid blue does not extend across these with some king of priority markings for cyclists. It does look a bit like you're protected along straight bits then on your own at the junctions - perhaps when I get the chance to cycle it, it will feel different, and of course walking the route I didn't get a feel for the traffic lighting and how that effects the journey.

Lastly, just for Ham - yes there was one cyclist going the wrong way along the eastbound route - I agree this was bound to happen, and there was NO post in the second of the 'bus sections' just a neat blue filled in square from where it had been plucked ;-).

I hope to get to test this bit out on the bike very soon, and I also wonder if they have snagging left to do - I did get the feeling they have not quite finished.

[red marley]

Here's a really uplifting example of how removing segregation can utterly transform an urban space for the better. And this is not something from Scandinavia or the Netherlands, but in car-loving Cheshire...

http://youtu.be/-vzDDMzq7d0

We should be demanding more of this visionary thinking.

[Pete Owens]

If anyone is visiting this part of the world it is worth taking a trip to Poynton to see just how transformational the scheme is.

[Riggers]

What a marvelous scheme in Poynton! A success story.

[Cudzoziemiec]

What's interesting is that they did nothing for cyclists, pedestrians or traffic flow, instead they did it for shopkeepers and residents but it has benefited all those groups of people too.

[citoyen]

They've done something similar in Ashford (Kent). Over the years, the town centre had become isolated by the growth of the ring road, eventually becoming little more than an island in the middle of a six-lane ring gyratory. It was really difficult to get to the town centre and as a result, the town was dying on its arse.

They've completely changed the priorities and the main route now skirts only one side of the town centre. Part of the old ring road has been transformed in a similar way to the Poynton system (or indeed like Exhibition Road in London), with the distinction between footpath and carriageway blurred. It's still not perfect but is a massive improvement.

As Cudzo says, *everyone* benefits from this type of approach.

[Cudzoziemiec]

(There are half a dozen threads where this could have gone, I chose this one because it's already the longest)

A common complaint in towns and cities today is the privatisation of public areas, which can mean anything from commercial sponsorship and naming of sports stadiums to gated communities, none of it seemingly relevant to anything in this board. But perhaps the way we use roads is another symptom of the same trend.

Thus, with no other viable alternative to provide transportation between the sectors, cars have proliferated, not only on the grid roads, where they have created congestion, but also within the sectors, where the environment is deteriorating and public space is converted into parking space.
...
By removing all cars from the sector, a lot of space is liberated. It is estimated that about 25% of the total surface area of the sector is currently used by cars, either for driving or parking...
...
In fact, a lot of space, which is currently used for parking in the market street, could be leased out to commercial activities...

That's from a discussion of Chandigarh, an Indian city designed in the 1950s by Le Corbusier. (scroll down to "Sector 19") The details are not transferable to other places because of the city's specific design, but the problems are ubiquitous and the attitudes which might be used to solve them are universally applicable.