The Cycling Embassy have published their response to Transport for London’s consultation on their proposed improvements to the roundabout at the northern end of Lambeth Bridge, as seen below.
The Embassy response essentially mirrors the suggestions of the Dutch Cycling Embassy, and Rachel Aldred. It argues that providing for two categories of cyclists on this roundabout (by allowing some cyclists to use the pavement, while recognising that many will continue to use the roundabout) results in sub-optimal provision for both groups.
Cyclists on the pavement are brought into conflict with pedestrians, and have the unenviable task of trying to cycle across zebra crossings, with dubious priority. They also have to leave and re-enter the carriageway at dangerous places, and at sharp angles; for instance –
Meanwhile those cyclists who continue to use the carriageway will find that this scheme has actually made things worse for them. The conflict points on exit and entry remain; for instance, from Millbank, the cycle lane and vehicle lane open out into two vehicle lanes, and onto Millbank, two lanes quickly merge into one –
At these locations this conflict will be kept, and the carriageway will be narrowed by the pavement build-outs, constructed over the existing hatched areas, and widening of the existing islands, like the one seen in the picture above.
A bold solution would be to redesign the roundabout, providing one treatment that is suitable for all cyclists to use; namely a Dutch-style roundabout, with a wide segregated track around the perimeter. Indeed, this is precisely what the Dutch Cycling Embassy recommend, having visited the site last week.
It would look like this –
The tracks would run, with priority, across the proposed raised tables for the existing zebra crossings. Department for Transport regulations currently permit priority for cycle tracks, on such a raised table. Strictly, the zebra would have to be separated from the cycle track by two zig-zags, although there is surely room for experimentation in the separation, bringing the two closer together.
The one outstanding issue is, of course, that this roundabout requires a single vehicle lane on entry and exit, and around the roundabout; the existing roundabout has two lanes on entry and exit, as well as around it, and this arrangement is maintained under the proposed improvements.
Clearly a reduction in the number of lanes on entry and exit would affect the motor vehicle capacity of the roundabout. However it is worth noting that all the roads approaching the roundabout are single carriageway, and that on several of the arms, the two lane queuing space is particularly short. Indeed on some of the arms, motor traffic seems to enter in single file already.
I also took this ten minute video of the entry from Millbank (you can also the entry from the bridge in the background, to the right).
This was at rush hour. If you don’t want to sit through the entire video, I can tell you that only on a handful of occasions did motor vehicles enter the roundabout side by side; the great majority of vehicles entered in single file, from both the visible arms. So there is already some scope for reduction of the number of lanes on entry and exit, to make the roundabout safer, and to create space for a cycle track.
We should also consider that sensible transport policy in a major city should involve trying to get people out of cars and onto modes of transport that use space more efficiently, and that aren’t as polluting. Creating safe ways of negotiating roundabouts like this one are a sensible way of enabling bicycle use, instead of car use. Charlie Holland has taken a look at the bridge, and discovered that there is a huge amount of capacity here, if we consider how many of the private vehicles are single occupancy. It’s high time that sane modes of inner-city transport were prioritised, at the expense of inappropriate ones, rather than the other way around.
And, of course, Boris – who Transport for London answer to – has only this year pledged his support to Go Dutch, which demands that he
Make sure all planned developments on the main roads that they controls are complete to Go Dutch standards, especially junctions.
‘Going Dutch’ means high-quality, wide segregated tracks around the perimeter of the roundabout. It doesn’t mean putting cyclists on the pavement.
The consultation is still open today – responses can be submitted here
I simply will not cycle around a roundabout unless I am taking the first left and even then only if it’s a very small roundabout. Apart from that I always use the pavement and cycle across any pedestrian crossing. Having said that I am an unashamed pavement cyclist on any road faster than 30mph anyway. I value my life far too much to even attempt to vehicular cycle.
If they want more people to cycle then they are going to have to start taking Dutch style infrastructure seriously, especially at roundabouts and junctions. All these half arsed attempts they keep wasting money on to make cycling safe in this country simply aren’t working. Our busy roads and junctions do not need cycle lanes, they need cycle paths/tracks totally seperate from motorised vehicles. On road cycle lanes are not creating safer cycling.
I work nearby, my observations are very similar. Vehicles mostly treat entry/exit as single lane. Why are TfL clinging on to these extra lanes in the belief that it increases ‘capacity’ when simply observing vehicle movements show this is not the case? I suspect it is a case of traffic modelling software doing a ‘computer says no’. Reminds me of something tweeted recently by someone along the lines of: (road planner says) ‘Why do we need a site visit? We have maps!’
Grant: I was the one who tweeted a cartoon a week ago, a commissionar crying out to a planner: “Another new highway?!” > “The model made me do it.”
I’ve been thinking about the zebra crossing issues which come up with cycle track designs under the present regulations for a while now, and it dawned on me that most of the existing road network and most proposed changes to these roads fall at least somewhat short of regulations, with no apparent consequences for those signing them off. Therefore, I think that the current solution should be to propose that the regulations are simply ignored, as is standard practice in almost every other aspect of road design guidance, at least somewhere in the UK.
Pingback: CTC asks for a vehicular cycling solution again | The Alternative Department for Transport
Pingback: We don’t need ‘innovative’ solutions – copy what works | As Easy As Riding A Bike
Pingback: When can Lambeth Bridge finally Go Dutch? - Amble Scope
Pingback: When can Lambeth Bridge finally Go Dutch? | Alex in the Cities