The physical constraints of London’s streets

Mayor Boris Johnson has written a letter to the London Cycling Campaign explaining, among other things, his response to their Love London, Go Dutch campaign, which calls for Cycle Superhighways to be completed to ‘Go Dutch’ standards, that all planned developments on roads TfL control also meet these standards, and for three major flagship schemes for a Dutch-style infrastructure makeover. These are campaign demands Boris has pledged to meet.

In that letter, he writes

I have asked TfL to review the “Go Dutch” campaign to ascertain how the principles it establishes can be incorporated into the design and implementation of cycling schemes in London, taking into account the UK legal framework and regulations, the physical constraints of London’s streets, and the needs of all road users.

The ‘physical constraints of London streets’ is a response Boris has given before to requests that he consider the prioritisation of segregated routes for cycling on them, in a similarly worded statement back in February 2011 –

In many places, the existing layout of roads and buildings means that there is simply not enough space to provide segregated cycle lanes without adversely impacting other users. As a highway authority TfL has to consider the needs of all road users

Are there really ‘physical constraints’ on London’s streets, ones that prevent the construction of cycle tracks, with (or without) impinging on ‘the needs of all road users’? Is there a lack of space?

Let’s look at a selection of main roads, mostly in central London.

Piccadilly –

St. James’s Street (this prior to an expensive re-design of the street, restoring it to two-way flow) –

Victoria Embankment –

Vauxhall Bridge Road –

Victoria Street –

Theobald’s Road –

Clerkenwell Road –

Gray’s Inn Road –

High Holborn –

Cliveden Place –

Fleet Street –

The Strand (this is just one side of the gyratory) –

The Mall (an obvious one) –

Northumberland Avenue –

Cannon Street –

Buckingham Palace Road –

Uxbridge Road –

Camden Road –

Stratford High Street –

Holborn –

Ludgate Hill –

King’s Cross Gyratory –

Aldgate –

Cromwell Road –

Russell Square –

Mile End Road –

Wigmore Street –

Euston Road –

Regent Street –

Tottenham Court Road –

St. Paul’s Church Yard –

Whitehall –

Parliament Square –

Gower Street –

Exhibition Road –

Wandsworth Roundabout –

Portland Place –

Birdcage Walk –

Whitechapel High Street –

You get the idea.

Bizarrely people seem to have an insistent belief that London’s streets are ‘narrow’. At a guess I would imagine this belief stems from an assumption that because London has, in some places, a medieval street pattern, its streets are necessarily medieval in layout. But while the City of London, in particular, has largely retained its original layout, the history of construction in London is generally one of a desire to impose order with wide, grand streets.

Looking at these pictures it is worth noting both the huge distances between the building frontages in every single case, and also that, in the great majority of examples, the entire road width is given over to the passage and storage of private motor vehicles. The pictures tell us that the real issue in London is not ‘physical constraints’ or ‘a lack of space’ but rather how that space is allocated. In other words, how those ‘other road users’ might be affected.

In many places, they needn’t be affected at all, because the amount of space is vast. But I think Boris has to grasp the nettle and recognise that space will need to be reallocated if he is going to ultimately solve the problems of congestion in London. Back in May, the author of the Cycalogical blog wrote that

Part of the congestion problem [in London] is that people don’t see a realistic alternative to driving. Buses aren’t much of an alternative if they’re caught up in the same congestion as the cars. For most people, cycling isn’t an alternative because even residential roads are perceived as too dangerous for cycling – mainly because they’re full of the rat-running traffic I referred to earlier trying to avoid the congestion hotspots. So people are driving distances of less than a mile in some cases, distances that are  cyclable by anyone of average fitness. We know at least 50% of London car journeys could easily be cycled – we also know the main reason people don’t cycle is fear of traffic, although 30-40% of people would like to cycle. In simple terms, there is no good reason why London can’t be like Amsterdam.

… My appeal to Boris is this: stop treating cycling as some sort of expensive, taxpayer-funded play scheme. Cycling is not a game, it is a transport mode, and one that is well-adapted to the age of austerity by virtue of its low infrastructure and low end-user costs. This is a city that desperately needs a bold strategy to relieve it of congestion. Make cycling in London safe and that will stand as a worthy legacy, with lower transport costs, better public health and an improved environment. Do nothing and London will fall further behind its European competitors, who already have more efficient transport systems in which cycling is an increasingly integrated and important part.

Boris’s current strategy of dealing with congestion seems to involve tinkering around the edges with signal timings and junction capacity, which amount to little more than trying to squeeze every last drop of capacity for motor vehicles out of the current system. It is ultimately unsustainable as a strategy. He needs to drop the fairly insipid current approach of ‘selling’ cycling by means of  ‘encouragement’ and get behind serious moves to shift people out of their cars and onto bicycles; serious strategies like London Cycling Campaign’s Go Dutch, that present a realistic solution to the transport difficulties London continues to face, by making cycling a safe, inviting and convenient option for all, rather than just a hardened minority.

The space is there.