Rachel Aldred blogged last week about Transport for London’s proposals for Broad Lane in Tottenham, pointing out that this wide three lane road is going to be reduced in capacity to just a single lane in each direction – but without any separation for cycling from motor traffic included in the proposals. I headed up there on Thursday to take a look around.
Anyone who thinks London is a ‘cycling city’ will quickly have their illusions shattered as soon as they venture into areas like this in Zone 3. Just twenty minutes or so from Bloomsbury – where there are at least a relatively high number of people riding bikes – you arrive at Seven Sisters, where anyone cycling is vastly outnumbered by huge numbers of people travelling in private cars.
The A10 High Road at Seven Sisters
The proposals for Broad Lane are just one part of a large TfL scheme to restore what was a big system of one-way roads – the A10 High Road, Monument Way and Broad Lane – to two-way running for all traffic.
The Tottenham Hale proposals
The A10 here has already been returned from one-way flow northbound (with a contraflow south-bound bus lane) into a two-way road for motor traffic. But it’s quite obvious that cycling has been completely ignored in the ‘improvements’ that are already in place, despite a vast acreage of space available.
Count the lanes. Six, plus space to play with in the form of hatching, and gigantic pavements.
The proposals for the A10 did include a two-way cycle track, albeit one that is marooned on the inside of the pavement, that gives up at every single junction, and reverts to messy shared use at each signalised crossing.
The usual rubbish off-carriageway ‘infrastructure’
However I saw no sign of any cycle tracks here, despite this section of the works being largely complete.
Looking north on the A10. Gleaming new road and new pavement, but no cycle provision here
There is a bus lane, but this is not an enjoyable place to ride a bike, particularly as the buses are travelling as fast as everyone else – 30mph – and will squeeze past you in the bus lanes. And the junctions – where the bus lanes disappear – are terribly designed, as far as cycling as concerned.
The new junction with Monument Way. Looks fun, doesn’t it?
This is what we have come to expect from Transport for London – huge sums of money being spent on new schemes, without any serious thought for anyone who might choose to ride a bicycle. What is deeply worrying, however, is that there doesn’t seem to be any sign of this great big supertanker even beginning to alter course. The proposals for the Broad Lane section of this gyratory are an example of the TfL machine just ploughing on as before, with no thought for cycling as a mode of transport, despite a huge, huge opportunity to do something significant on this section of road.
The whole of Broad Lane is, at present, a three lane one way system. It’s awful. The shops and dwellings along it are blighted by roaring motor traffic.
As already alluded to, TfL will be reducing this three lane motorway to just a single lane in each direction, and introducing a 20mph limit. The pavements will be wider, there will be speed humps installed to slow traffic, and there will be new zebra crossings. These are undeniable and substantial improvements for people walking in the area. But as far as cycling is concerned, this scheme is yet another gigantic missed opportunity.
With the removal of a vehicle lane, there is clear scope to reallocate the space that will be gained to a protected cycle track in each direction. This is especially true on the eastern section of Broad Lane, where there currently exists a (deeply substandard) two-way cycle track, alongside the pavements and the three carriageway lanes.
When this road is reduced to two lanes, surely there will be space for cycling?
The original proposals for this scheme (now lost in the internet, but retrieved thanks to a commenter on Rachel’s blog) actually retained this cycle track, alongside the reduced number of lanes for motor vehicles.
As crap as it is now, but at least demonstrating that TfL did acknowledge separated cycling along this stretch of road, and that cycle tracks could easily be constructed properly here
But at some stage in the consultation process, someone at TfL has evidently decided that attempting to separate cycling from motor traffic on Broad Lane is no longer necessary, and that 20mph limits will suffice. Despite the consultation proposing that the changes will ‘make the area more accessible for those walking or cycling’, this cycle track is being removed, and there will be no dedicated space for cycling on what will undoubtedly remain a very busy road.
What the section of road photographed above will now look like, in the current consultationWide pavements alongside a two-way road
So despite the very poor quality of the existing cycle track, I think it is quite clear that these changes will actually diminish the attractiveness and accessibility of the eastern section of Broad Lane, for anyone riding a bike.
I counted roughly 30 vehicles a minute travelling along the road when I visited during the middle of the day (I took a short video, which you can see here), which amounts to around 1,800 vehicles an hour, at off-peak (and accords reasonably with the daily flow of 37,000 vehicles measured along here by the DfT). This volume may be reduced slightly by the changes to two-way running, but certainly not to a level where expecting anyone cycling to share the carriageway would be appropriate or reasonable.
There are industrial estates and retail parks along Broad Lane itself, which will inevitably mean that HGVs will continue to use it in significant numbers, along with buses and plenty of private motor traffic. I spotted several HGVs emerging from side roads as I visited the area.
The composition and volume of traffic travelling along Broad Lane is not likely to change significantly, and yet a scheme that purports to improve conditions for cycling is proposing to push people who currently cycle on a track, away from heavy traffic, into precisely the same space. It’s staggering.
The cycle track – as you can see from the picture above – is already being dug up and replaced with a wide pavement.
The cycle track is disappearing
This won’t even be a shared use pavement – you will be expected to cycle on the road, with the lorries.
What’s actually quite upsetting is that demand for cycling is already visible at the margins here, despite the atrocious conditions.
These two schoolboys were heading north with their two friends (I failed to photograph both pairs riding like this). Ordinarily they would have been on the cycle track, but as that is being dug up and removed, they were using the coned-off section of the road. In a few weeks’ time they will face the choice of cycling on a pavement, or riding with the lorries.
In fact all the cycling I saw on Broad Lane was on the pavement.
Instinctively some might brand this kind of behaviour ‘anti-social’, but the tragedy is that if these people had a safe and attractive place to ride their bikes, they would use it. They wouldn’t choose to use pavements where they have to share with pedestrians.
Unfortunately I suspect the outcome of the changes on Broad Lane will be to continue to push people who want to ride into conflict with pedestrians. Space is being taken away from motor traffic, but it is not being used productively or sensibly.
Three lanes will go down to two, but there will be no space for cycling
Will people ride in the volume of motor traffic shown in these pictures? Or will they continue to ride (illegally) on the wide new pavements? I don’t think it’s difficult to discern the answer.
Demand for cycling in London will continue to be suppressed by schemes like this. Roads that carry tens of thousands of vehicles a day will not suddenly become attractive to ordinary people – let alone the children who attend the primary and secondary schools on and around Broad Lane – merely with the addition of a 20mph speed limit and some speed humps. Physical separation is needed, and yet on a road where that space is being taken away from motor vehicles, it is not being sensibly reallocated. The evidence of this scheme – and others like it – suggests that cycling remains an invisible mode of transport as far as TfL is concerned. When will this change?
The consultation runs until 18th October – have your say here
As Easy As Riding A Bike 
I left a response to the consultation. Roads of this size should always have cycling provision. This should be standard in TFL’s guidelines for developments. They should not be permitted to ignore a whole form of transport, especially one that could help with the problem of congestion, public and environment health. TFL will never, ever help cyclists except for the odd scheme that sucks up all the available money and gets lots of good PR for them. I’m afraid that what will motivate them to work is a large number of cyclist deaths that can be attributed to their design layouts. But that won’t happen (thankfully) because cyclists will choose to use the pavement (continuing to attract the abuse of ignorant drivers) or not cycle at all. Dutch cycling provision remains a dream for decades to come.
I agree that TfL is seeming impervious to change. Boris has failed, lobbying has been ineffective, road deaths haven’t changed their approach either.
I don’t know what we should do but we can’t accept this continuing.
The last time I was genuinely worried about the road I was cycling on was when going to Enfield via Tottenham. There were a series of extremely unsafe feeling roads and I used to do the Bow flyover etc twice a day. The cycling provision in the area is non existent or covered in broken glass, badly signposted and doesn’t join up. How have TfL managed to come up with a proposal which makes this worse!
It is very sad that our money is being wasted on making the roads worse through this missed opportunity.
To be fair the junction was terrible before , and it is not due for completion until december 2014 so some of these will receive better cycle paths.
I agree it’s a missed opportunity but I used to commute on this every day, and it was really bad.
I’m a Californian in support of Dutch style infrastructure. I wonder if my perception is correct that British campaign blogs never seem to mention the names of the managers and staff of the agency that is responsible for crap designs. Who are the staff of TfL? Do they have some kind of bicycle advisory committee, like this one in California – http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/bike/cbac.html. And is it manned by Forester/Franklin acolytes, like the California one is? That would explain much.
Interesting point. Though surely, ultimately, the relevant name for all TfL decisions is “Boris”? Or does it not work like that? Who _does_ have real control over these things?
I don’t think Boris does have this kind of control over TfL, he’s certainly not the type to take responsibility of the details anyway. Past experience given the response to his ‘vision for cycling’ (it has been ignored by TfL) is that Boris is not able to change what TfL actually build except possibly in a few high profile projects.
Activist blogs here in the States have called out agency managers by name and I think it has been effective. I wonder if you don’t see names on British blogs because of fear of libel, which I understand is more of a concern in Britain then here.
I would like to see them named and shamed. I think they hide behind being a faceless and largely unaccountable organisation.
I responded to the consultation, and also emailed Andrew Gilligan, Boris’s cycling tsar. Gilligan’s response was as follows:
Dear Mr Guy,
These things have a long lead-in. The Tottenham scheme was designed and contracts signed for the work last year, before I joined. I’m trying to pull it back, but I can’t promise I’ll succeed; the further advanced the work is, the harder it is to change, and as you know, work on other parts of this scheme has already started. Give me a shout in a month and I’ll tell you where I’ve got to.
Andrew
So now TFL are actively removing cycling infrastructure? Scandalous!
I live here. One danger you’ve not listed is the O’Donovan’s skip lorries. There’s a rubbish tip/sorting centre in Markfield Road, which runs off the SE corner of the one-way, ODonovan’s lorries are apparently exempt from all traffic laws, eg speed limits and lane discipline. They will now be coming both ways along Broad Lane, adding to the lively mix of traffic. Don’t forget to include this detail in any negotiations with TfL, and in the consultation feedback.
Statistically those lorries are some of the most likely to cause fatalities on London’s roads (construction industry goods vehicles, especially muck away & demolition) – I would encourage you to contact the council about this if you haven’t already.
The motorway width pavement north of the A10 High Road j/w West Green Road, up to j/w Town Hall Approach, is an unsegregated shared-use denoted by four low-viz slab insets and some ‘temporary’ blue stickers on bollards put there 2 years ago come November. It has no entry or exit points with dropped kerbs. Down at the Seven Sisters Road j/w High Road they have installed Toucan crossings (2) but it is currently illegal to cycle on pavements that do not indicate shared use, these being south and just north of that junction. And what happened to Cycle Superhighway 10 in all this planning? I am an aging local resident who still prefers to dominate the highway on his bike riding the primary positioning but having to constantly twist and turn to eyeball the nearest other road-users. I feel sad that TfL have bodged this job so far. I do hope that Andrew Gilligan can get some cycling infrastructure changes made here before December 2014.
Pingback: Resistance to change | As Easy As Riding A Bike