West End Project consultation - alternative options

In the light of the LCC Space for Cycling campaign, people ask why cyclists have been allocated only 3m of their own separate space out of the available total of 18m in Tottenham Court Road (TCR) and in the Gower Street alignment.

===============

CCC proposal January 2013
--------------------------------------
We proposed to Camden a pair of 2m wide lightly segregated cycle lanes in TCR with floating bus stops. South of Tottenham Street TCR isn't wide enough for the cycle lanes, let alone the bus stops.

This proposal and the outcome is described in a news item on our website:
http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/newsitems/ccc/tottenham-court-road
==========

Camden's consultation website has a page on options considered at:
http://www.wearecamden.org/westendproject/options/
Our January 2013 proposal is called 'Option 3'.

Options 5 and 6 on Camden's list were proposed by others.
-------------------------------

These two suggestions require that southbound buses remain on the Gower Street alignment so as to provide one side of the road without bus stops.

This will be detrimental to the bus services:
- bus stops will be relocated away from desire lines
- in the Gower Street alignment, bus priority is affected (buses in the general traffic lane)
But that sacrifice might be worth it if any option resulted in an excellent provision for cycling

An evaluation of the suggestions:

Option 5
------------
Two-way segregated cycle track on east side of TCR.

- This cannot fit in south of Torrington Place. There's not much point in treating the two halves of the road in different ways.
- The cross over at the northern end of TCR could be very clumsy
- Even if it did fit, there are safety issues caused by motor vehicles crossing the track at junctions;
- and pedestrians have difficulty crossing the road.

Option 6
------------
Single wide segregated cycle tracks on the east side of TCR and on the west side of Gower Street (with-flow off-side)

These are not desirable or even feasible for the following reasons:
- with-flow tracks would be placed on the wrong side of the road, making it very difficult for cyclists to turn left.
- Splitting a route onto two roads would make way-finding difficult.
- for cyclist safety, signals would be required at all junctions and extra signal time would be required at those already signalled
- in the narrower parts of the road, the carriageway isn't wide enough for buses to overtake one another.

I think the advantages of Camden's preferred scheme as sold to pedestrians are overstated. It's very convenient to suppose that the whole street suddenly becomes a space for people if you reduce general motor traffic a little, but you'd actually need to pedestrianise the road to achieve this.
I reject the idea that making a road 2-way, or limiting it to just (enormous and sometimes fatal) double-decker buses (and vehicular cyclists and delivery trucks and probably, let's face it, taxis), you make it attractive for pedestrians to wander across the road at will.
Pedestrians (kids/ elderly/ disabled) need segregated space, as do people on bikes. I'd like to see a scheme with widened pavements and segregated bike lanes (space for people!!) If this means maintaining one-way bus and general traffic, with adequate space for loading, then so be it. This must sound awful to people who have put years of their lives into campaigning for removal of gyratories, but I want to see a TCR that yells "Come here by bike. Everyone else does!" not "You get here by bus. Obviously."

I don't feel that any of CCC's reason's to reject options with Space for Cycling are robust enough:
.........................................................................................................................................
'Option 5
Two-way segregated cycle track on east side of TCR. This cannot fit in south of Torrington Place. There's not much point in treating the two halves of the road in different ways. "

---There is room for compromise here, especially if we draw a 2.4-metre width bus instead of making it look extra fat*, or agree to have a section of 3-metre-wide bidirectional track. We could even have light segregation (?wands/ bollards) which reduce the 0.5m concrete strip and make it easier for bikes/pedestrians to get out of the bike lane.

* http://www.wearecamden.org/westendproject/options/
.................................................................................................................................................
"Even if it did fit, there are safety issues caused by motor vehicles crossing the track at junctions"

-Agree there would need to be careful design at junctions.
With no cycle track at all, these conflicts are still a major issue.
.................................................................................................................................................
"and pedestrians have difficulty crossing the road."

-I don't accept that it's harder for a pedestrian to cross a 2-way bike lane than a 2-way bus and bike lane. With the option being consulted on, cycling speeds are likely to be high, with vehicular cyclists darting out from behind buses.
.................................................................................................................................................
"Option 6
Single wide segregated cycle tracks on the east side of TCR and on the west side of Gower Street (with-flow off-side) These are not desirable or even feasible for the following reasons:
-with-flow tracks would be placed on the wrong side of the road, making it very difficult for cyclists to turn left."

-Yes, at non-signalised junctions, right turns would be easier than left turns. With standard nearside bike lanes, right turns are very difficult. This is an argument for vehicular cycling, but we’re agreed that the vast majority of people want segregated space, so let’s look for ways to make it work.
.................................................................................................................................................
" Splitting a route onto two roads would make way-finding difficult."

-I don’t think this is a deal-breaker. (It’s the same way the bus goes.)

"-for cyclist safety, extra signal time would be required at all junctions.
-in the narrower parts of the road, the carriageway isn't wide enough for motors to overtake one another."

-I don't see how these 2 concerns override the concerns of ordinary people trying to get around town by bike without feeling/being under constant threat from motor traffic.

Tab - I agree with all the points you've made - and am still quite confused by what exactly Camden CC have been prioritising in their assessment of the various options.

Perhaps the representatives of Camden CC could outline their priorities on this thread?

I am hoping, obviously, that their first priority is direct, continuous and safe (objectively and subjectively) access to and through this area for all cyclists (including children, the elderly, family groups, less able cyclists, and all those who don't like cycling with heavy traffic and HGVs) - and clearly, if this is the priority, several other options should be ranked above the consultation option - but if inclusive, mass cycling is not their first priority, it would also be good to know now.

@ Jean regarding Option 6 - is buses being able to overtake one another an essential requirement? I'd have thought with the right stopping and scheduling arrangements, buses would not need to overtake one another - especially New Routemasters.

The reason I bring this up is both carriageway space and pedestrian safety / ease of informal crossing. A linear progression of vehicles (think a narrow single lane road or a tram line) is much easier to cross as its behaviour is so much more predictable. With buses pulling in and out here, there and everywhere, informal crossing is hard.

I've been to several central European cities where they run tramways through major public spaces, and they manage to mix a lot of pedestrians (and in some cases, cyclists) with a fairly high volume of big, heavy public transport vehicles, with overall good subjective safety because the path of the latter is so easy to predict. The tramlines in George Street and Church Street, Croydon, illustrate much the same principle albeit on a smaller scale, as does the single lane bus lane at the northern end of Rye Lane, Peckham.

Angus

Regarding Option 6:
"Single wide segregated cycle tracks on the east side of TCR and on the west side of Gower Street (with-flow off-side)"

And the issue of buses being able to overtake. I agree absolutely with your example of trams (which are on rails and hence don't overtake) that not buses not overtaking would be really good thing to have when the carriageway is being shared by cyclists.

In my summary of arguments, I was thinking more of when there was an obstruction such as a broken down bus or other vehicle and nothing would be able to get past.

Anyway, thank you for raising the point about buses staying behind one another. I think it's a very useful one.

No reply re priorities from Camden CC reps?

This is important. To rank design options, we need to establish and agree on a set of priorities for the scheme (at least, as regards cycling). When we've agreed on the priorities, we can discuss ranking the various options.

Extrapolating from CCC's responses to the various options presented by the council, I would estimate that they've ranked according to the following priorities, so far (most important first):

1) Journey times for existing cyclists.
2) Avoiding interaction with pedestrians
3) Direct, bidirectional routes
4) Reducing signalisation.
5) Easily understood junctions
6) Inclusive, mass cycling (lcc 2,000 pcu or segregation priorities)
7) Coherent single-standard network.

Perhaps I've extrapolated wrongly, or CCC think their ranking process went wrong at some point. In which case it would be good to know.

If I've concluded correctly, though, it would be good to know whether CCC would be prepared to re-think their ranking of the options with 6) and 7) as first and second priorities.

Hoping for some constructive and cooperative engagement here...

Hi reps of Camden Cyclists.

I am assuming this tweet: "WEP: Neither will we respond to comments that claim to extrapolate our priorities from other information we have given." is responding to this thread.

You have been (so far) been the only parties representing cyclists' interests to Camden council on this scheme. Clearly you have judged and responded to the various designs following a set of priorities.

Those of us involved in these discussions would strongly prefer not to have to extrapolate your priorities. You have been asked twice now, to just let us know what they are, because without an agreement on priorities, it's not possible to discuss how to evaluate and rank the various alternatives. And there is no point in this 'alternative options' thread.

If you want to continue representing cyclists' interests here (and this is not just a scheme that impacts on those in Camden, but also London-wide), then you need to be absolutely transparent about what you are prioritising in your ranking of designs, and in your responses to the council.

If you are not transparent about the priorities you have been using, and intend to use, and not open to discussion and comment of these priorities (and to campaigning for priorities that you do not personally share, if there is strong support for them), then you are representing no-one but yourselves (certainly not other cyclists, certainly not the LCC) - and you should step away from the process and hand over negotations to cyclists' representatives who are prepared to be both democratic and transparent.

Hi all,

Have discussed briefly with Jean over on Rachel Aldred's blog, but wanted to bring it over here where more of you are following.

I feel the WEP scheme as proposed by the council serves commuter cyclists somewhat well - certainly enough of an improvement to be worth supporting on that front - but completely fails to recognise the existence of leisure / utility / casual / family cycling, a much more pedestrian-like mode (in terms of wanting to, and being able to, stop and interact with shops, cafes, people etc), and, by making the TCR carriageway harder to cross than it could / should be, incorrectly favours through bus passengers over pedestrian shoppers.

The hierarchy of provision on TCR should look something like:
1) Pedestrian shoppers / tourists / workers
2=) Pedestrian "through traffic", people shopping by bike, shoppers arriving on the bus
3) Through bus passengers
4) Everything else (loading traffic, "through" cyclists, taxis where allowed)

My proposed alternative, in simple terms:
1) All through / fast cycle traffic uses Gower Street.
2) Narrow the TCR carriageway to a single 3m lane in each direction - buses cannot overtake one another
3) The remaining (very wide) pavement on TCR has a shared use element. Possibly an advisory dismount at the narrow, crowded southern pinch point if necessary.

So, in effect, TCR becomes a wide pedestrian boulevard, with cycles tolerated, and a narrow two-way bus lane through the middle.

Advantages:
* You can shop by bike, calmly and leisurely, without having to mix with buses.
* Buses move in a straight line, at slow speeds (~10mph) and don't overtake. This makes it much, much safer and easier for pedestrians to cross informally than dealing with 3-4 lanes of leap frogging buses.
* Potential to create a slow leisure/family-friendly cyclist route all the way from TCR Crossrail to Regent's Park.
* Traffic that can't be completely modally filtered is disincentivised from using TCR unless it absolutely has to.
* Easy hop-on / hop-off for able bodied people traveling on NB4L open platform buses.

Disadvantages:
* All bus routes move at the pace of the slowest; this can be mitigated somewhat by allowing open-platform operation of NB4L Routemasters.
* Pedestrians will encroach on the mixed use cycle lane - but for casual shopper cyclists (<10mph) that's probably not a major problem.
* Some pedestrian groups may not like the idea - but if so, I'd suggest that they are opposed to all casual browse-by-bike cycling.. casual interaction with shops is impossible if you're having to ride at speed and be constantly looking out for traffic.

Jean raises a valid point re broken down buses. Loading bays will need to be provided anyway - I'd suggest that in the (relatively unlikely) event of a bus breakdown, it be towed to the nearest loading bay in the first instance. I know it won't please some in the bus lobby to hear this, but anyone genuinely in a hurry should probably be on the Tube or Crossrail; fast cyclists should be accommodated on Gower Street.

For some reason the end of my above post got corrupted. Should read:

Disadvantages:
* All bus routes move at the pace of the slowest; this can be mitigated somewhat by allowing open-platform operation of NB4L Routemasters.
* Pedestrians will encroach on the mixed use cycle lane - but for casual shopper cyclists this is not such a deal breaker.
* In the event of a bus breaking down, it may cause significant delays - however, as loading bays will need to be provided anyway at various places along the length of the route, broken down vehicles can in the first instance be towed to the nearest one.

It may not please some in the bus lobby to hear this, but anyone genuinely in a hurry should probably be on the Tube or Crossrail; fast cyclists should be accommodated on Gower Street.

Some example links with somewhat similar layouts:
Central Zagreb - trams and a low volume of general traffic, rather than buses:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@45.813274,15.970852,3a,75y,265.71h,84.39t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sXMMSrY7eqdq0XHBl93vUxQ!2e0

Amsterdam - much more cluttered with street furniture, but similar in principle:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.373241,4.893412,3a,75y,24.02h,78.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shvpQVrcZYv2jiIiXjlnvBA!2e0

Trams and pedestrians in Croydon:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Croydon/@51.373845,-0.099209,3a,75y,77.69h,84.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1ssBfaKaeeTBQybn9EXfB1XA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x4875fe2a84421673:0xd574f25dc50c4945

A single lane bus facility in Peckham Rye:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Rye+Lane+Market/@51.472023,-0.069748,3a,75y,322.95h,60.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sB3USrjp3ApbgW09ekg_qfg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x487603a03013c2cb:0x41ad0785239f603a
(Note: the bollards on the right in Peckham have since been replaced by a two-way shared use track. It's a popular route for commuter cyclists and as a result there is some degree of conflict, but I'm not suggesting commuter cyclists should use TCR).

Jean -

This is certainly interesting as a solution. It combines good permeability with (just about) adequate separation and capacity, and avoids bus conflict. On the downside, it takes space away from pedestrians rather than private motor traffic. We would need to check out pedestrian comfort levels on Gower St (once buses are removed). Is there a source for that? (and do we know the bike capacity of a 2m stepped track like this?)

What would you propose to do to avoid left hooks and enable easy right turns at the junctions (particularly at existing e/w cycle routes?

How would you extend the same level of service and capacity to create an easy-to-use integrated two-way segregated route from the south end of Hampstead Rd to the north end of Endell St?

@tom, you may have reasons for withholding your real world identity and we have recognised that up to now. But it has now caused a problem - your Cyclescape comments were wrongly ascribed to another at Monday's meeting - and it may well cause more.
So, as I explained on the other WEP thread, I'm asking you complete your Cyclescape profile with at least your last name.

Above are some notes from the meeting held last Monday evening (30 June) at which Camden officers presented the current WEP proposals and were questioned by members of the audience. These notes are an edited account, not a complete transcript. All the errors and omissions are mine.

George -

Thanks - but this is a public forum and I prefer to remain not-internet-searchable on these matters. LCC member, cyclist in Camden, representing no-one but myself. Agenda is only to achieve mass inclusive cycling across Camden and London. Arguments, perspectives, questions are only to this end, and should be judged on their merits. I hope this is sufficient information and you'll respect the choice of public anonymity.

Hi all,

I've been thinking about what Camden officials said about having no numbers of expected cyclists or modal shift.

So I had another look at the TfL's cycling potential report https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/analysis-of-cycling-potential.pdf.pdf

They suggest as much as 40-50% of current motorised trips (cars and buses) could be cycled. And importantly, 4 in 10 potential trips are for leisure and shopping purposes - hence the argument for tracks on TCR instead of Gower.

So, could we argue that genuine provision which is attractive enough for anyone to cycle (eg my mum, Elizabeth from last night etc) could lead to a modal shift of say 30% from buses and cars to bikes (being fairly conservative there)?

And if we assume this modal shift, could we then ask them to model the alternative options to see how bus journey times etc compare with 30% fewer buses and cars? I imagine it might mean delays of less than 15 minutes.

Secondly, did Camden consider a full pedestrianisation of TCR? What were the reasons for rejecting it if so?

Thirdly, did they reject the scheme which offers the widest pavement scheme - which I believe is David Arditti's preffered option: 3m wide bus lane + 4m cycle tracks = 7m road = 2m less than their current proposal.

Fourth, the road will be flat - has there been any concern about increased pavement cycling?

Cheers,

Tom Harrison

@tom (anonymous):
I'm sorry, but as a campaign that engages with the public in many face-to-face forums and meetings, I don't see how it is defensible for us to take account of anonymously-expressed opinions.

George -

If you want to set requirements for participating in a discussion, you need to do so at the outset, not when it has already been under way for two weeks.

In any case, this is a discussion, not a vote. It's useful to know if anyone involved represents any organisation or interest - but otherwise arguments can stand on their merit.

Let's not get distracted from the question in hand, which is how to come up with the best possible cycling solution for the West End Project. I think everyone would be interested in CCC's thoughts on the best solutions for the Gower St junctions.

CCC's proposal for Gower Street was really a challenge to Camden to widen the proposed cycle lanes and to optimise the use of space and improve protection by using stepped tracks instead of armadillos.

The issues for the junctions are the same irrespective of the width of the lane and the type of segregation. These depend on the type of junction - whether it is a major junction (e.g. Euston Circus), a smaller junction with signals (e.g. Torrington Place) or a non-signalled junction where Gower Street has priority (I doubt there are any where Gower doesn't have priority).

These are all very well documented in the new draft LCDS (2) chapter 4. The summary is in Figure 4.9.
As an example of a design that I'd like to see at Euston Circus, 4.4.20 describes a method of signalling that eliminates left hooks and which Camden is soon to implement at Cobden junction.

I don't think it appropriate for me to write more about this here, but I think that a separate working group on the junctions on Gower and TCR could be very useful. The output could be an addendum to the response to the consultation.