The War On The Motorist Continues

Proposals for double yellow lines in London Road and New Place Road, Pulborough, will be discussed next week.

Cllr Frank Wilkinson, chairman of the Chanctonbury county local committee, said: “The proposals aim to solve the problem of vehicles parking on the New Place Road near the junction with the A29 London Road.

“Access is required at all times as the main road is a bus route. Parking impacts on the safe turning of traffic.”

Double yellow lines are evidently necessary at this location because some people are too lazy or ignorant to park considerately. The road is being blocked, and traffic is consequently backing up onto the rather busy A29.

Let’s see what headline the local free paper, The Resident, chose to give this story.

A new yellow peril?

Yes. Making it illegal for motorists to dangerously block roads with their parked vehicles is clearly a threat to us all.

Celebrating ‘National Climate Week’ with West Sussex County Council

Last week was ‘National Climate Week.’ I know, it was hard to miss it.

West Sussex County Council got in to the spirit of things by holding a workshop for children at County Hall North in Horsham, entitled ‘The Carbon Detectives’ –

Pupils can learn how to become a carbon detective at a free workshop on Monday. West Sussex County Council’s carbon management team will host the workshop at County Hall North, Horsham, in support of National Climate Week (March 21-27).

The Carbon Detectives is a programme which supports schools in reducing their carbon footprint by encouraging pupils aged eight to twelve to detect how they can help save energy and money.

Sounds great.

In fact, I think the Council’s ‘carbon management team’ should spring into action right away, and investigate their very own building, the venue where this workshop was being held – County Hall North.

Just like Horsham District Council’s offices, right across the street, there are no cycle stands anywhere outside the building.

This building is bang in the centre of the town. It should be easy and convenient to cycle to these offices, and lock up your bike, but it isn’t. (This raises the delicious absurdity of most of the children who attended this climate action ‘workshop’ being dropped off by motor vehicle).

Needless to say, there are, of course, plenty of parking spaces out the front of the building, presumably reserved for those important people who naturally enough will never be using a bicycle to arrive here –

What about the staff?

Well, at the rear of the building, there is plenty of parking.

And more parking.

And more parking.

And more parking.

And more parking.

And…

Well, you get the idea. Probably between two and three hundred car parking spaces.

What about places to park bikes?

Dotted about the lower level of the car park are these cycle racks, nearly entirely unused. I don’t blame Council employees for not using them, by the way, because they are next to useless – you can only lock your front wheel to them. The one and only bicycle I found –

could quite easily be stolen in about five seconds by an opportunistic thief, wandering in off the street as I did, either by snipping the lock, or removing the wheel. Proper Sheffield stands are needed, or any kind of stand that would allow the frame of the bicycle to be locked up.

If you are a member of the public, and you are visiting County Hall North, you will not be able to park here, because

Due to limited parking only staff who are based at County Hall North have permission to park there.

‘Limited parking’?

If this is limited, I’d like to see what the Council considers to be generous. Anyway, the council has helpfully provided the prospective visitor with this information sheet, advising you of the numerous locations nearby where you can park.

If you are not arriving by car (and why would you not?) the other ‘alternatives’ are arriving by train, bus, or on foot. Arriving by bicycle is not mentioned as an ‘alternative’. This is hardly surprising, of course, given that there are no cycle stands available here to the public, but it gives yet further indication of how the bicycle figures nowhere in West Sussex County Council’s ideas about how people can, or should, get about.

Does a council that provides hundreds of free parking spaces for its employees at its offices, with no bike stands out the front of the building, and only a handful of insecure bike racks in their staff car park, send out a message that it is serious about reducing carbon emissions? I don’t think so.

Nevertheless, there are some fine words in the Council press release promoting their ‘Carbon Detectives’ workshop, about how committed they are on the issue of energy reduction –

County Council Cabinet Member for Environment and Economy, Deborah Urquhart, said : “Reducing carbon emissions is a top priority for the county council. We are always looking at ways to encourage people to help themselves have a greener environment.“

Really? I don’t think Ms Urquhart is looking hard enough.

If reducing emissions really was a ‘top priority’, she should try addressing the conditions outside her very own offices, which prioritize driving, and offer very little encouragement, if any, to people who might wish to use a bicycle.

A cycle lane comes to an end. North Street, Horsham – outside the council offices.

History Repeating

On 18th March 2008, Nga Diep was killed while cycling to work, at the junction of Ilderton Road, and Rotherhithe New Road, in south-east London. She was pressed up against pedestrian railings by a skip lorry, before falling under the wheels. The verdict was accidental death – on the basis that, upon moving away from the lights, the skip lorry driver was not aware of her presence alongside his vehicle.

Almost exactly three years later, a cyclist has been killed, yesterday, at the junction of Tooley Street and Tanner Street, again in south-east London.

From the pictures that have appeared in the press, the collision seems to have taken place on this bend, immediately after the traffic lights, as the road curves left.

The driver involved was arrested, and taken for questioning. I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of any inquest or trial, but, I think, several observations can be made.

As with Nga Diep’s death, a skip lorry is involved, proceeding in the same direction as the cyclist, on a left-hand turn just after some traffic lights. Again, pedestrian railings are present.

The incident occurred barely a mile from where Nga Diep was killed.

Are lessons being learnt?

Here is what happens if you type ‘cyclist’ into Google in the U.K. –

Horsham District Council, and Cycle Parking

One of the ‘Key Issues’ for the Horsham District, listed in the newly-published West Sussex County Council Transport Plan 2011-26, is that

There is a lack of secure public cycle parking through the District, particularly in Horsham

[page 60]

And nowhere is this more true than right outside Horsham District Council’s offices, centrally located in the town, where if you wish to arrive by bicycle, you will have to improvise and find some way to lock your bicycle to the hand rails, because – naturally enough – there are no cycle stands here.

If, on the other hand, you are arriving by car, you will find yourself treated to free parking. Sorry, FREE PARKING.

Plenty of spaces here –

And more free car parking spaces behind the building –

But, naturally, no cycle stands, anywhere.

To repeat – the Park North office is in the middle of the town. It is easily accessible by bike. A council that was serious about ‘Sustainable Travel’ would be putting in cycle stands, and not offering dozens of free car parking spaces.

Why don’t Horsham District Council make a start on addressing one of the ‘Key Issues’ in the district, right here, on their own doorstep?

UPDATE 29/03/11

Upon further investigation, I have managed to find some cycle stands at Horsham District Council’s offices at Park North. However, it is not at all clear whether they are for public use.

At the rear of the building, if you proceed down the ramp to the private car park (ignoring the sign, and skirting around the barrier designed to stop people parking in the spaces reserved for council members) –

you will find these attractive stands, lurking in the far corner. 

The signage suggests that this is private property, and even if these stands are accessible to the general public, they are far from convenient, or easy to find.

When I asked at the Council’s reception desk, no-one was aware of any cycle stands at the building.

A slightly unrepresentative picture of the Cycle Superhighways

A recent piece on infrastructure for cyclists at the Cycling Mobility website, charting the debate amongst cycling advocates about the utility and safety of protected cycled lanes, is illustrated with this picture of Southwark Bridge, on Superhighway 7.

The picture serves to contradict a comment that Mark Ames (of ibikelondon) makes about the Superhighways, in the article –

because there is no barrier to separate cyclists from traffic, the riding experience can still be very frightening

The Cycling Mobility author immediately notes, in brackets, that this is not strictly correct –

as the picture opposite shows, the planners have incorporated raised kerbs for at least part of the routes

This is obviously true, but the ‘part’ of the routes we are talking about are minimal. The vast majority of the Superhighways are just paint on the road, as this video of Superhighway 7 shows –

Besides Southwark Bridge, there are only two other bits of separation on the entire length of the route; some brief, superficial kerbing at the intimidatory gyratory at the A3/A203 interchange, and some short parts of the lengthy diversion onto back streets that allows cyclists to avoid the horrible Elephant & Castle roundabout.

But don’t take it from me. Transport for London actively argued against separation on the routes, on the grounds that they are not used frequently enough throughout the day (i.e. outside commuting hours) to justify it. Boris is also against separation, but for a different reason – there isn’t enough room. (See the excellent comment by David Arditti here).

When it comes to the separation on Southwark Bridge itself, as Joe Dunckley notes in the comments, far from being ‘incorporated’ by the Superhighway planners, the kerbs were there already, and weren’t constructed with cyclists in mind.

Here is a picture of Cycle Superhighway 7, just south of Southwark Bridge –

The ‘Superhighway’ plays second fiddle to short-stay parking bays, which could have been removed to make way for a proper cycle lane, separated or otherwise, but haven’t been. And deliciously, the bit of blue paint that signifies that this is a ‘Cycle Superhighway’ has been partially obliterated by some recent roadworks, which have also helpfully left a large pothole.

This is the Superhighway.

Segregated Lanes in London, and ‘Lack of Space’

My attention has been drawn, via Crap Waltham Forest and Karl McCracken, to the recent comments of Alison Dines, the leader of Islington Cyclists’ Action Group, about the possibility of safer, separated cycle lanes in London. In an interview with the local paper, principally about the dangers posed to cyclists by speeding motorists and dangerous road layouts, she argues that

People who don’t cycle say they would like to see segregated bike lanes like they do in some European cities. Unfortunately, it is never going to happen in London because we don’t have the space.

I am not sure I agree. There are undoubtedly reasons why segregated bike lanes may not happen in London – lack of political will being the most notable – but ‘space’ is certainly not one of them. Let’s take a look, for instance, at the three locations where Ms Dines identifies particular dangers to cyclists –

Speeding traffic is not the only problem. On top of that, there are the big gyratory systems at Archway, Highbury Corner and Old Street which pose big dangers.

Archway –

Highbury Corner –

Old Street –

‘We don’t have the space’?

I don’t mean to criticize Ms Dines – she has correctly diagnosed that these gyratories are dangerous and unpleasant, regardless of the speed of traffic on them. But I think we should be clear about what, if anything, is preventing the construction of properly-designed, safe, segregated lanes in these areas.

It isn’t lack of space.

West Sussex County Council’s 2011-26 Transport Plan, and Cycling In Horsham

King’s Road, Horsham. A typical Horsham ‘Cycle Route’. The post carries a nice blue sign with a bicycle picture on it.

West Sussex County Council’s newly published Transport Plan 2011-2026 admits that, in the Horsham district,

The current provision of pedestrian and cycling facilities throughout the District, and in particular within Horsham, are not sufficient to support and maintain sustainable travel. This is because much of the network is disjointed and suffers from inadequate signing, safe crossing points and poor surfacing.

[page 60]

The current provision can’t even support sustainable travel? Oh dear.

Well, at least they are being honest. They expect that walking and cycling could, quite possibly, decline here, as things stand.

Now, for a County Council that is genuinely concerned about being ‘sustainable’, this kind of admission would be a rather large problem. We would expect to see proposals in the Transport Plan about actual improvements of those facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, that make them safe, usable and well-connected, to get more journeys in Horsham District made by sustainable means.

A bit more Dutch, in other words.

But West Sussex County Council is not such a Council. In their very own transport plan, they admit that they are only concerned with

Maintaining or increasing the levels of cycling in West Sussex

[page 31]

Now, for Horsham, ‘maintaining’ means keeping levels of cycling hovering around a miserable 1% of all journeys.

So it’s not surprising, therefore, that of the twenty proposed ‘aims’ for Horsham’s Implementation Plan, we see only one proposal that explicitly mentions cycling, namely

Working with the local community and interest groups to identify priorities and encourage sustainable travel by improving the cycle and pedestrian network. This may include: new or improved cycle and pedestrian routes; signing; changes to speed limits; cycle parking; repairing and maintaing surfaces.

[page 61]

‘May include’.

Given that West Sussex County Council’s plans for cycling are so miserably unambitious, concerned only with a vague statement that pledges interest in ‘maintaining’ the currently piss-poor levels of cycling in the county, I’m not holding out much hope for those ‘new and improved’ routes.

Very, Very Scilly – Liberal Democrat Cognitive Dissonance

Energy secretary, Chris Huhne, Saturday 5th March –

Getting off the oil hook is made all the more urgent by the crisis in the Middle East. We cannot afford to go on relying on such a volatile source of energy when we can have clean, green and secure energy from low-carbon sources,” he said. “The carbon plan is about ensuring that the whole of government is engaged in a joined-up effort to lead us into a low-carbon world.

Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St. Ives, Friday 4th March –

You can’t drive very far on the Isles of Scilly! With a population of little over 2,000, most of whom don’t have a private car, the cost to the Treasury of implementing the pilot 5p per litre rebate is relatively small. The key will be to see whether the full benefit of the 5p per litre rebate is genuinely handed on to the end customer and is not used to enhance the margin of suppliers/retailers.

That’s right.

While the leadership of the Liberal Democrats are arguing, in the light of recent instability, that Great Britain is far too reliant on oil for its energy, one of their MPs is, simultaneously, an enthusiastic supporter of a rebate for the price of fuel for the inhabitants of the Isles of Scilly.

The Isles of Scilly.

St. Mary’s, the largest of the Scilly Isles, is barely two miles across. The Scilly Isles have the warmest and sunniest climate of anywhere in the British Isles.

Who is driving on the Scilly Isles, and why on earth should we be making it cheaper for them do so?

But it gets even worse. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander is also getting in on the act –

Everyone in the country is feeling the pressure of high fuel prices, but these island communities are where the prices are highest and the pressure is huge on families.

Perhaps these families are under ‘huge pressure’ to get in their cars and drive ludicrously short distances, on very quiet roads, on a beautiful, sunny island.

I doubt it.

If they are driving, what that tells me is that the price of fuel is far too cheap, and the last thing any political party apparently serious about reducing dependence on oil should be doing is making it even cheaper.

Last word to Andrew George –

You can’t drive very far on the Isles of Scilly!

The joined-up political thinking of the Liberal Democrats.

Horsham Cycle Routes, Route 2 – North Parade

Last week, I started a series examining, in detail, the ‘Existing Cycle Routes’ in Horsham, which featured in the ‘Provisional’ version of West Sussex County Council’s newly published Transport Plan.

The first route I looked at doesn’t go anywhere.

About the best that can be said for the route I am going to consider in this post is that it does not have that particular disadvantage.

Here it is, in the WSCC Transport Plan* –

It’s the blue line, running north-south, directly into the centre of the town. Looks inviting!

And here it is, in a picture.

Welcome to the North Parade ‘Cycle Route’. It’s got blue signs along it, telling you it’s a Cycle Route. What more could you want?

Well, your first problem, as a cyclist, is actually getting onto this ‘Cycle Route’. If you are joining the southern end of North Parade from an easterly direction, you have to make a right turn from the Albion Way racetrack dual carriageway. And that means negotiating your way into the right lane of three, here –

Good luck.

This is a frankly nerve-shredding experience, even for a regular cyclist – but be thankful. You are now so on edge that, as you proceed northbound on the ‘Cycle Route’, your cat-like reflexes will fully prepare you for the hazards posed by the ‘door zone’, as you cycle past the cars parked alongside the takeaway outlets – a prime spot for people leaping without warning out of their cars.

Mmm.

Now I can hear the sceptical among you wondering, ‘Hang on minute. This is supposed to be a Cycle Route. But this looks suspiciously like a road. And more than that, an ordinary road, with no bicycles painted on it, or anything. What gives?’

Be patient. For lo, here is some paint.

And a nice blue sign as well, in case you were confused about whether this was a ‘Cycle Route’, or just an ordinary road with some faint hieroglyphics in the gutter.

The next fun feature of this ‘Cycle Route’ you will encounter is a pinch point, created by a pedestrian island. Here, the carriageway narrows to the extent that there is a conflict between the cycle lane, and the amount of space required for motor vehicles to pass through the pinch point. And on an official ‘Cycle Route’, the only solution for a conflict of this kind is to

just get rid of the cycle lane at the most dangerous point, and leave cyclists to fend for themselves.

Now, to be fair, this is slightly less dangerous than keeping the cycle lane there, because that would fool the naive cyclist into thinking they would be safe in the lane. But the fact remains that you have to be a brave cyclist indeed to emerge from your cycle lane at this point and take the centre of the lane, especially with the speed of traffic along this road. It’s just a little bit unacceptable.

What I find upsetting is that North Parade is one the two main arterial routes into the centre of the town from the north, where most people live. The potential for getting people to cycle in to town on this road is huge, and as the above photograph shows, there is no lack of space for providing more protection for cyclists, infrastructure that would make a novice feel safe, and would make their journey into town by bike easy and pleasant.

But instead, we have a gravel-strewn cycle lane that I strongly suspect is far narrower than DfT guidelines, that leaves cyclists to fend for themselves at the points where they most need assistance (at pinch points, or going past parked cars), on a road that is a minefield to access at one end.

This is what West Sussex County Council have the chutzpah to consider as an ‘Existing Cycle Route’, when in reality the fast-fading paint here (probably all that makes this road qualify as a ‘Route’, along with the signs) makes the road, in all probability, more hazardous for cyclists.

Not good enough.

*This map is taken from the provisional version of West Sussex County Council’s Transport Plan 2011/26. This document – which no longer appears to be available online – carried maps of each of the major West Sussex towns, with details of current and proposed facilities for sustainable travel. These maps are, for whatever reason, not present in the finalized version of the Transport Plan 2011-26.

Transport for London, and London’s bridges

The Cyclists In The City blog has been doing an excellent job recently in documenting the rather unpleasant potential consequences for cyclists arising from the proposed redesign of the Blackfriars Bridge gyratory.

Reading the back and forth with Transport for London, it is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that this body is almost entirely fixated on the needs of motor vehicles on London’s roads. When they refer to ‘traffic flow’, they mean the flow of motor vehicles, not bicycles. Bicycles are not ‘traffic’ for TfL. Why else would they be proposing to reintroduce three southbound vehicle lanes onto the bridge, in the name of managing ‘traffic flow’ – a measure that simultaneously makes it far more unpleasant to cycle in this area?

TfL, it seems, are quite prepared to completely ignore bicycles as ‘traffic’, despite the fact that, on Blackfriars Bridge, bicycles currently compose 35.6% of all northbound morning traffic. That – incredibly – is more than all motor vehicles combined, and yet the needs of cyclists, apparently, figure nowhere in TfL’s plans for the gyratory redesign. TfL are proposing the bare minimum – literally –

maintaining a cycle lane of 1.5m, which is the minimum width identified within the London Cycle Design Standards.

Whoop-di-doo. That’s going to be a massive help in negotiating a three-lane race track.

Now, the numbers of cyclists crossing London Bridge – while not quite as impressive as Blackfriars Bridge – are still significant, as a proportion of the total. But as with Blackfriars, we see a road network that does not reflect this reality.

London Bridge, in all its glory –

Now, it is incredible, to me, that in 2011, we find the bridges in our city so geared around a mode of transport so unsuited to a dense urban network. The unpleasant and dangerous railings have recently been removed, but this is still, effectively, a motorway, right in the heart of our capital city, three lanes in each direction.

But setting that aside, what is most absurd is that the northbound entrance to this bridge, here,

is only one lane wide. This governs the rate at which vehicles can enter the bridge. So why open out the carriageway, immediately, to three lanes? Even at the height of rush hour, you will never see this bridge full of traffic.

The road layout does not make sense, on the most basic level.

Welcome to the weird world of Transport for London, and their skewed priorities.