Concerns about motor vehicle flows in TCR

Speeds: Tottenham Court Road is already included in Camden's borough-wide 20 mph limit. Enforcement of this limit will be an important issue.

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

Motor Vehicle Flows: TCR will have 90 buses an hour in each direction. This load on its own may be just about acceptable for sharing.

But what's crucial is the extra flows using short sections of TCR e.g. between Torrington Place and Howland Street or between Goodge Street and Chenies Street. the routes are on:
http://www.wearecamden.org/westendproject/assets/images/traffic-east-west-resized
The traffic impacts in the morning peak are shown in a table at:
http://www.wearecamden.org/westendproject/assets/documents/traffic-impacts
For example about 400 extra motors in the morning peak hour between Torrington Place and Howland Street.

In all of the presentations, Camden has spoken of "local traffic" on these east-west routes. Logically this should exclude through traffic, for example going via Howland Street to Oxford Circus or Marble Arch.

For safer cycling the application of filters to prevent through routes via these east-west links is essential.

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

Hours of operation:
The consultation gives 8 am to 7pm Monday to Saturday but the response allows for suggestions of other times.
We understand that loading is allowed only until 8pm.

But since it is the addition of the private motor vehicles that adds to the motor vehicle flow, we could consider asking for longer hours of operation, particularly on Sundays.

90 buses an hour is one every 40 seconds on average. A London bus is 2.5m wide so even if they drove banging wing mirrors with buses travelling the other way that only leaves 2m for a cyclist and in practice probably 1m. That is not sufficient, especially for being passed by a large vehicle like a bus.. TCR is a wide road. Why such narrow lanes? If we're going to make TCR cycle friendly lets have proper space for buses and cyclists to co-exist please.

Anybody who officially supports sharing TCR between buses and bicycles
should be expelled from the LCC. It is totally against the principles
adopted at the latest AGM.

Regards

Andrea Casalotti
077 2788 3475

There's no reason why CCC would want to support this scheme. There's no 'space for cycling' here. The proposed elements of 'cycle infrastructure' are no-where near the quality that LCC's own policies demand.

The so-called 'semi-segregated' lanes on Gower St are 1.5m wide including segregation. Effective semi-segregation, providing real separation from traffic,even with armadillos, takes up 30-40cm. So the usable width of these lanes will be 1.1 to 1.2m - no-where near the minimum 2m needed for bikes to pass each other, essential on a route this busy (or for comfortable use of cargo bikes, handcycles, mobility scooters, family bikes..). The other option with the space available is 1.5m mandatory lanes with, essentially rubber studs on the outside. Which will provide no protection at all from the heavy HGV traffic that will be using this route, and some hazard to cyclists. The lanes also run out well before all junctions, (the points where protection is really essential) leaving cyclists exposed to heavy vehicle traffic, and left hook collisions.

On Tottenham Court Rd, people on bikes will be expected to share the road with up to 100 buses/hour in each direction, plus local traffic and delivery traffic. The road will be opened to all traffic before 8am and after 7pm.

There's nothing on either road that will make the kind of space for cycling that's suitable for the elderly, for families with children, for less able cyclists - and for the majority who don't like to cycle in heavy traffic, and among heavy vehicles. It's worrying that neither Camden Council, nor CCC have considered these users in any way in their response to any of the various options that have been considered, given that they are the priority in LCC's current policy, and should be the priority for any administration wanting to improve environmental and health outcomes, and reduce congestion.

The scheme isn't even good for pedestrians. It does almost nothing to reduce motor traffic (the major impediment to crossing roads), and instead routes more buses through the highest density of pedestrians. As on Oxford St, this will result in high rates of injury and death.

CCC and LCC should reject the scheme outright, and campaign for one of the many better options that have been considered, or an option that removes through motor traffic entirely from either Gower St or TCR. Bus priority measures should be used to ensure minimal delays to buses. Service and delivery should access should be allowed at off-peak. The last priority here should be taxi and private motor through traffic (rather than the first priority, as it appears to be in the current scheme.)

On the question of the protected space motion others have cited it but not actually shown the working. I think that might be helpful, and reckon the PCU counts are as follows just taking buses into consideration and looking at 2012 (2013 data still not published):

Southbound on Gower Street (Count Point 48159, just north of Great Russell St)
1,441 buses so PCU of 2,882

Two similar counts on Tottenham Court Road
Northbound on TCR (Count Point 37101, just south of Howland St)
985 buses so PCU of 1,970
Northbound on TCR (Count Point 8469, just north of Stephen St)
982 buses so PCU of 1,964
Full data on my AADF count points map here (which I should probably promote a bit more, but I am working on a better version of): https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=17kjyGeMlh5qOb0UD3a2VwaxD173Cjssy61SDQ_Y

Interesting question is - are any of these buses actually coaches (British Museum is nearby, so variance in count on Gower Street is odd), and are those being excluded by the ban on TCR 2-way? Also, presumably we should be looking at the PCU count in both directions, in which case it seems likely to be close to 4,000 PCU - double the value from the motion. The motion of course asks us to seek volume and speed reduction where things are over 20mph and 2000 PCU.
http://rachelaldred.org/writing/20mph-2000pcu-using-it-for-local-campaigning/

Yes - there are also coaches heading to and from the West End..

In any case, PCU counts are somewhat academic when a significant amount of motor traffic is HGVs or buses. In this case, cycling with children (for example) starts to feel subjectively unsafe at much lower traffic levels. As Rachel Aldred mentions in the link you provided:

'The benchmark chosen for volume is 2,000 PCU (Passenger Car Units – a size-based measure) per day. According to TfL figures, a car or taxi counts for one PCU, a motorcycle 0.5PCU, a bus 2 PCU, and an HGV 2.3 PCU. I think this metric is too low for motorcycles and HGVs; HGVs in particular create massively elevated risks for cyclists. I’m pushing TfL to be a leader here (ahead of the Dutch!) and start using a risk-based metric; until then, I suggested LCC sticks with PCUs but raises additional concerns where HGV volumes are high.'

On risk - it would be interesting (but possibly more subjective) to apply the draft CLoS (Cycling Level of Service) assessment in the new TfL London Cycle Design Standards on TCR/Gower Street as well - it is a bit more risk and subjective safety based, presumably after lobbying such as Rachel Aldred mentioned.

One benefit of the map is the data is more easily out there if people do want to try and find better figures for PCU values than the TfL ones. I'm all ears if anyone has some suggestions.

If we can't get a decent cycle space allocated with all the width available on TCR, what hope is there for the rest of London?

Tom: you wrote "The so-called 'semi-segregated' lanes on Gower St are 1.5m wide including segregation" and you suggested that the usable width would be only 1.1 to 1.2 metres.

But that is not the case. Camden have committed quite clearly to the provision of 1.5 m segregated lanes *inside* the segregation (and that the nearside kerbs would be reduced to avoid pedal-strikes). That is perfectly feasible for virtually to whole length of Gower Street and Bloomsbury Street.

We shall of course re-iterate the importance of that in our response. Were they to default on that commitment the council know that it would seriously undermine their working relationship with us and with the cycling community.

George:

How does that add up? If Camden have committed to put the segregation outside the track, that's going to need at least 0.3m more carriageway space.

So, looking at absolute minimums, we have a track of 1.5m (which should really only be the case for short stretches, because bikes can't pass each other..) and segregation of 0.3m (will need to be solid because of the heavy traffic on this road). Both sides makes 3.6m in all. Given 9m of carriageway, you're left with 5.4m for two-way vehicles. That's very, very tight, given this level of traffic and numbers of HGVs (and makes solid segregation even more important, as vehicles will tend to encroach). If this is really what Camden are committing to, it would be good to see it in writing (with dimensions) on the consultation page.

Even with this segregation, the lanes still run out at junctions, forcing people on bikes to mix with motor traffic, and exposing them to left hook risks. I guess one could ban turns, or make all-ways green cycle junctions, but there are none of these in the design.

Finally, semi-segregation. Armadillos have their place - they're useful when one wants to extend protected lanes quickly and cheaply, as has been done in Barcelona. They clearly need ongoing maintenance, though. There's no reason not to use well-designed kerbs rather than chunks of plastic when rebuilding an entire street, in a £26 million scheme..

@alex - Look at the DfT traffic counts further up the road (just south of Percy Street). Much more motor traffic due to E-W through routes transiting via TCR.

@Andrea - The LCC does not expel members for having an opinion! However, LCC staff and elected officers should of course implement policy as voted for by the members - or be held to account if they do not.

@George

I'm confused by Camden's "commitment" to the segregated tracks on Gower St. Why do they have loading bays *inside* the tracks?

@Mustafa

I did look at that count point by Percy Street, it's CP 8469, but I was seeking to show only the counts for buses as that was what was being cited without figures. I think you raise a very interesting question on E-W traffic - what do the figures show on joining traffic now? Well, at the more southern count point at present (CP 8469) you currently see
about 14,000 vehicles per day (I'll cite vpd over PCU as the figures are all clearly above 2000PCU), this is a decline from around 20,000 per day prior to the changes on the road for Crossrail. I think that's important to note, as it shows about 1/3 of traffic has evaporated just because of the Crossrail works.
The more northerly count point is in fact the one with more vehicles outside it. (CP37101) It was running at around 36,000 vehicles per day prior to Crossrail and now shows more like 21,000 - an even more impressive decease but that does back up your point - which is that something like 7,000 or an extra 50% / third of traffic joins heading north from the narrower section of TCR. It's likely much of this comes from Goodge Street (CP 38595) which sees about 6,000 vehicles per day. The Goodge Street figure has also declined a bit but earlier than the start of crossrail works (it was over 8000 vpd in 2007).

Regardless, that means the PCU figure in large sections will be much higher than even 4000PCU, and perhaps closer to 10000PCU (which would still be about half of the current level for one way traffic but nowhere near low enough to believe it to be a quieter street that could be pleasant to cycle on).

I think this does back up a (absolute? I mean it's still not really ideal) minimum option for protected space though from the junction around Goodge Street up to Euston Circus. This section of TCR is, by Camden Council's own map, 11-12m wide and pavements there are hardly that narrow now. Where they are difficult to walk I find primarily is at bus stops. Effective pavement width for pedestrians walking along could potentially be enhanced with bus stop islands inside of protected space. I think it's not that helpful that Camden Council are seeing width in once section as a block to changes further along the street, also it would be plausible (but perhaps also not ideal) to see a narrowing of protected cycle space alongside a bus stop island.

Just wanted to comment on Jean's comment on the CItycyclists blog:

" Either TCR or Gower Street must be part of the central London Grid. See our notes and map when the Grid was announced:

We envisage a route down Hampstead Road, into North Gower Street, across Euston Road into Gower Street and then on to Covent Garden via a two-way Endell Street (as proposed). We see the proposal for the 1.5m tracks in Gower Street down to Shaftesbury Avenue as a beginning - the way to go towards something better, e.g. eventually filtering out the motors until there is no need for cycle infrastructure. "

I don't think, in this case, this will turn out to be a workable or effective strategy. Three reasons.

First, the priority is allowing access on bikes for all users now, not at some point in the future. There are designs that have been drawn up that do this. The arguments against them are weak (and not always correct). The value of allowing access to all users was not considered in the assessment and ranking of these options. Re-assessing those should be first priority.

Second, cementing in half-baked infrastructure now will also cement in traffic levels and user choices. The proposals for Gower St really won't provide anything for anyone other than existing cyclists (and will probably be more of an obstacle than a help to those). They won't help us move towards a future with more people choosing to cycle. It may just embed the prejudices against infrastructure from those who've only seen it built badly.

Finally, there is, of course, an option to move directly to a bikes and pedestrians (& delivery) only Gower St, or TCR. Again, the value of this option, in terms of improvements to transport choices, health, and environment has not been correctly assessed. It would certainly be better for those who aren't enthusiastic about cycle infrastructure to campaign for this, rather than for mediocre cycle tracks that they hope will disappear..

@Alex: we do have the actual predicted bus counts for TCR. These are to be 90 buses an hour each way. But, no coaches will be allowed during the hours of closure.

PCU motor flow figures on TCR between Goodge Street and Grafton Way. I calculated them from a spreadsheet on the consultation website giving flows in side streets. I have been told the figures are PCUs. Find spreadsheet from a link on:
http://www.wearecamden.org/westendproject/traffic/

The permitted movements are shown at;
http://www.wearecamden.org/westendproject/assets/images/traffic-east-west-resized

Percy Street -> Store Street:
Percy Street: Store Street: 51

Goodge Street-> Chenies Street:
Goodge Street: 141 Chenies Street: 146
so from that west - east movement we gain 140 odd PCUs on TCR. in this sectuon

Torrington Place-> Howland Street and Tottenham Street:
Torrington Place: 396 Howland Street 315
this east-west movement provides 396 extra in this section

Maple Street -> University Street
Maple Street: 125, University Street 135 (at a cross over, none added to TCR)

Grafton Way-> Grafton Way
Grafton Way (E): 486 Grafton Way (W): 173
That is, 313 added to TCR (NB)
--------

So apart from north of Grafton Way, we have at most ~400 PCUs per hour added.

@jean, your numbers are vehicles per hour (do you know if averages or peak)?

Alex is looking at PCUs per day which is the unit used by design guidance.

ma499: these are am peak figures. Sorry not to say.

ma499: just to complete it: am peak HOUR.

note: whilst PCU and vehicle counts differ, without a split of vehicle counts it's not really possible to convert. The following is simplified by only taking account of buses (PCU value of 2) and assuming everything else nets out to a PCU of 1 (taxis, cars) overall which from the DfT figures looks not unreasonable for rough working (though obviously it depends on how vans, mid sized goods and HGV deliveries are ultimately directed).

The standard conversion factor used by TfL I believe is to take a peak hour PCU count and multiply it by 10 to get a daily figure. On that basis it's up to 4000 PCU/day added from the side streets. Roughly in the realm of my estimate based on the three DfT count points.

As to it being 90 buses an hour each way in peak then it's 3,600 PCU/day, surely? 90 (peak hour bus value) * 2(PCU value) * 2 (both directions) * 10 (factor to get full day figure from peak hour figure) = 3,600 PCU.
Again, in line with what I'd picked up by going from the DfT count points. There are possibly something like 800 PCU a day (400 movements) of coach movements though to be diverted onto Gower Street or kept there.

I don't see anything in those numbers to make me any less keen to see protected space on TCR, so I think I'll try to focus my attention on the issues and opportunities for that.

I note that TfL Buses are proposing to divert bus route 10 away from Tottenham Court Road, which would reduce bus flows by around 7 buses per hour in each direction. Consultation closes on 15 December 2015:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/7-10-98

Yes, we noted that with interest. It will make TCR marginally pleasanter after its re-construction for the WEP as a buses and cycles only street in 2017 when it should result 14 fewer buses/hour.

Apologies for waking an old thread, but TCR became two-way at the weekend, so this scheme is now partially realised.

So far only Southbound is bus and cycle only.

My initial impressions:

* bus traffic flow is much lighter than I expected, and the road most of the time looks empty.

* Some odd choices have been made at junctions. E.g. it is not permitted for Southbound cyclists to turn right onto the main Howland Street cycleway.

* There are some bizarre ASL designs.

* There is a short northbound cycle lane, which merges with the main traffic (via a potential conflict with left-turning vehicles) via a cycle traffic light.

* The cycle traffic lights are not all correctly timed yet.

Overall, a mixed bag. That said if the Southbound bus flow is representative of what the whole road will be like next year, the fears in this thread are not realised. Have their been some routes axed along this axis?

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your input after the opening of the new southbound lane on TCR for buses and cycles only. it prompted me to pop down for a quick review. Here are my comments on your points. 

* bus traffic flow is much lighter than I expected, and the road most of the time looks empty.

Agreed. Camden kept telling is it would be like that back in 2014 and it's pleasing to see it. The bus routes using it now (in both directions) are just those that were using TCR and Gower Street before the switch so it is reasonable to hope that the relative calmness you see on the southbound lane will persist and that the northbound lane will become almost equally calm in 2020 when much of it closes to non-bus-and-cycle traffic.

* Some odd choices have been made at junctions. E.g. it is not permitted for Southbound cyclists to turn right onto the main Howland Street cycleway.

I suspect that we did object to that and were overruled because it would require an extra phase in the signal cycle for right-turning southbound cycles only - and that's not a strong desire line.

* There are some bizarre ASL designs.

Which ones are you thinking of? They look like normal ASLs to me. Hopefully the bus drivers will respect them. 

* There is a short northbound cycle lane, which merges with the main traffic (via a potential conflict with left-turning vehicles) via a cycle traffic light.

The design here is certainly not what we were expecting. We did expect the two northbound cycle lanes approaching the Howland Street junction, as shown in this photo and they are clearly provided so that cycles in the RH lane can proceed without risk of left hooks by the motors turning into Howland. But the signal design is both unsafe and very inconvenient. The signals are shown in this photo. The idea being that cyclists wait while the low-level signal is red and motors are allowed to turn as shown by the green high-level signal. So I waited for a full cycle of the signals expecting to get a green cycle signal but that never happened. I eventually noticed the obscure small push button to the right of my handlebars in the photo. It turned out to a 'Cycle Demand Button' (though not labelled as such) and after pushing it I did get a green cycle signal.

This is an entirely inappropriate design for a heavily-used cycle track. It won't do at all to expect cyclists to dismount and press a button so they can proceed without risking a serious left-hook collision.

* The cycle traffic lights are not all correctly timed yet.

Overall, a mixed bag. That said if the Southbound bus flow is representative of what the whole road will be like next year, the fears in this thread are not realised. Have their been some routes axed along this axis?

Agreed - Cycle demand button is unacceptable. I assume they didn't want a separate phase unless cyclists were waiting, but would a detector loop work OK? Or if monitoring shows cyclists present most of the time then put in a regular stage at the end of the left-turn stage.

We also had some comments from a cyclist who was very unhappy with the northbound traffic volumes and the difficulty of sharing with buses. Would be good to get more feedback on the interaction between cyclists and buses on both the northbound and southbound carriageways.

We should start a list of issues and ask for a meeting fairly soon.

The northbound lane is quite congested (long tailbacks even mid-afternoon) and quite a few motorbikes undertaking. It will be a bit better when they remove the rows cones they have put in place to make it clear to drivers where they are supposed to go.

I actually saw a cone being driven straight over by an Uber turning out of the Torrington Place junction.

Even if the 'cyclists on demand' button is replaced with a sensor, the Howland Street junction will remain very dangerous for cyclists proceeding straight north on TCR because the low-level signal is unnoticeable. I saw several cyclists proceeding ahead and conflicting with cars because they noticed only the green signal for motors.

The low-level signal should be replaced with a full-height signal post beside the cycle track (not beside the motor lane) with a full-size cycle signal and a low-level repeater signal. And the cycle signal should either be activated by a sensor or it should get a green phase in every signal cycle. 

We intend to take this up urgently with Camden's West End Project team.

Correction: 

On a second visit to the Howland Street junction today I observed a different signal behaviour. The low-level cycle signal on the right of the two cycle lanes (intended to control straight-ahead cycles) was getting a 5 second green phase whenever the main signal (for motors) goes red. This photo illustrates the cycle signal in its short green phase. Either I missed this yesterday or the signal timings were still being set up.

There are still issues of safety and convenience for cyclists at this junction:

• The low-level signal is too easy to overlook. Every cyclist I have seen pass through the junction to continue up TCR has failed to see it on red and proceeded across Howland Street when they were at risk of a left hook. Low level cycle signals are not normally regarded as adequate on their own, they usually act as repeaters for a larger high-level signal, such as this one on the left of the track at the junction of Royal College Street and Camden Road.
• Pedestrians crossing Howland Street here get an on demand green that is much longer, probably ~ 15 seconds. There is no reason why the signal for cycles going ahead on TCR shouldn't be green at the same time, since turning motors are being held in TCR.

What's the button for if there is always a signal?  On-Demand might make sense for rarely used crossings of major roads outside the city but in London they're a recipe for confusion.  

There is one on CS3 Cable Street and I freqeuently see people confused that they've not had a green phase (as i was myself repeatedly).  You can use a facility many times when other people have pressed it so never be aware it exists. 

We have now raised the concerns over the Howland Street junction with Camden's WEP team in the following terms: 

Safety: 

• The low-level cycle signal appears to be contradicted by the high-level signal intended for motors.
• Even if the high-level signal was better directed and/or masked, the low-level signal is not sufficiently visible to ensure safe control of cycle movements. Our understanding is that low-level cycle signals are normally used only as ‘repeaters’ for a large signal head showing the same information.
• We are not clear what the intended signal phases are and our testing hasn’t fully clarified that. There is an ‘on demand’ button beside the cycle lane which suggests that all cyclists proceeding north are expected to dismount and press the button. But on a second visit we observed that the low-level cycle signal gives a short (5 second) green phase whenever the motor signal changes to red. 
• What we have observed (on two visits this week at mid-morning/afternoon) was that cyclists generally don’t see the low-level signal on red and seeing the high-level green for motors they proceed up TCR, which is a recipe for a left hook collision, since both cyclists and left-turning motors are likely to believe they have the right of way.

Convenience:

• We were very surprised to see the  ‘on demand’ button. At such an important and heavily-used junction it is inappropriate and conveys a bad message about the status of cyclists on the road.
• Restricting northbound cycle movements to a 5 second phase in each full cycle seems inappropriate and unnecessary. We see no reason why cyclists shouldn’t get a green whenever the signal for the pedestrian crossing on Howland Street is green.

They sent a quick response saying they were already aware and looking into it. I re-emphasised the urgency of solving the left-hook issue.

John, George,

Thanks for all your efforts on this.

John wrote:- "We also had some comments from a cyclist who was very unhappy with the northbound traffic volumes and the difficulty of sharing with buses. Would be good to get more feedback on the interaction between cyclists and buses on both the northbound and southbound carriageways."

I've just cycled both southbound and northbound this afternoon for the first time.

Southbound is amazing; much better than the Gower St raceway and delivers you more directly into the centre of the West End. Altogether a great win. It helped that I was the only user on the entire SB road.

Northbound was awful. One continuous queue of vehicles from the Dominion Theatre all the way to UCLH. What makes it awful for cycling is the ability to filter to the right of the queue has been removed by the continuous cones. If you want to make any progress you have to filter left and that just goes against everything I know about passing HGVs (of which there are many) and buses on their insides. Unpleasant and dangerous.

If it was my regular commute I would probably cycle on the wrong side of the road, past the cones, and only duck back in when oncoming buses require.

I'm looking forward to motors being removed.

I should also add: for years I've been using Albany Street; Eversholt Street; and Midland Road for getting to and from the West End from Camden, but returning to TCR yesterday, seeing how direct it is and how likely I am to use it more often in the future, shows how thoroughly awful Hampstead Road is.

An aggressive race track, made worse by the HS2 disruptions.

There is little point doing all the TCR work if it just dumps cyclists on Hampstead Road.

I wonder once the main motor traffic is removed in 2020 will we have an opportunity to revisit the number of signalised pedestrian crossings. I'm always in favour of zebra crossings where possible.

On today's southbound journey I was stopped nine times by red signals. The above trace is my Strava record.

There must be a better way of mixing walkers and people on bikes.

Yesterday we received this update from the West End Project Team:

Dear all – as an update for you we have taken the decision to close the Howland Street cycle lane on Tottenham Court Road pending further investigations by us.

I'm not sure whether this refers to both lanes or only the 'ahead' lane. If anyone is passing that way it would be useful if they could get a photo of the closure.

The whole track (both lanes) were closed by dense arrangement of cones when I passed last night.

Get Outlook for iOS

From: George Coulouris <notifications@cyclescape.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 9:56 am
To: ma499
Subject: Re: [Cyclescape] Concerns about motor vehicle flows in TCR

George Coulouris [Committee] added a message to the thread

Yesterday we received this update from the West End Project Team:

I'm not sure whether this refers to both lanes or only the 'ahead' lane. If anyone is passing that way it would be useful if they could get a photo of the closure.

From Cyclescape discussion thread.
You can reply to the email and the message will be added to the thread.
Everyone can view this discussion thread and post messages.
You can stop following this thread.

Some further comments on the cycle track. Firstly, thanks for Camden Cyclists continued efforts on this.

I spoke to some of the West End Project Team at this junction a couple of weeks ago when I stumbled upon them having a discussion and asking workers to deploy cones down the middle of the track on TCR leading up to Howland Street. One of the team was kind enough to tell me what was going on.

First there is a trip hazard - the kerb down the middle of the track separating left turning and straight ahead lanes. They were aware of cyclists hitting this and falling. The reason the raised kerb is there is that the surface is not actually finished. It is supposed to be a "stepped track" and the kerb stones are meant to be flush with the road surface. They were also aware of problems with the signalling (as mentioned above).

The other thing that was happening is that it was still being used as a loading bay - a Gregg's lorry was photographed in it one morning, despite the "no loading" markings and signs and, erm, it is a cycle track not a loading bay.

As mentioned above there are some odd things. You can't turn right into Howland Street going south bound, but you can turn right into Torrington Place going northbound. Making any right turn is pretty hair-raising even for me (I'm bald!). I'm not happy cycling around so many buses. 

Also some of the low-level traffic lights for cyclists give you an early start but most don't seem to. The other thing is that they are placed at such a low level that pedestrians waiting to cross at busy junctions often stand obscuring them from view.

There is an increase in eastbound motor traffic congestion on Goodge Street and Mortimer Street. 

I'm prepared to give Camden some benefit of the doubt and am hoping that the northbound congestion will force "traffic evaporation". But there needs to be restrictions on east-west traffic and also west-east traffic which is why I've suggested to Camden and Westminster councils closing Goodge Street/Mortimer Street, Howland Street/New Cavendish Street and Clipstone/Maple Street to through traffic by installing bollards where the pairs of streets meet. This would maintain motor vehicle access in and out but remove all through traffic.

Don't forget, from April 2020 Tottenham Court Road will be open to all traffic - north- and south-bound completely unrestricted - from 7pm every evening and all day on Sunday. https://www3.camden.gov.uk/westendproject/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Moving-around-Tottenham-Court-Road-from-Spring-2020.pdf

There is an update from Camden Council about the cycle lane on TCR connecting Torrington Place to Howland Street:

"We will be working on the cycle lane on Tottenham Court Road and the junction of Howland Street from the 22nd July to the 12th August. This will include some necessary overnight working as well as bus and traffic diversions.

"We are making changes to the way that the cycle lane has been constructed and the cycle traffic signals in this area in partnership with TfL. As per the above information the first part of the works are planned to take place during July and August. Changes to the signals will then follow".

They have indeed started work. The kerb separating the segregated tracks is gone!

Is the solution here mixing with the traffic? Has anyone seen a revised plan?

The new layout has the low kerb between the two cycle lanes removed and a new high-level signal installed to hold cycles heading straight when motor traffic has a left filter. The kerb between the cycle lanes and main carriageway remains but I believe is being relaid and widened to make room for the new signal. There will also be a change in phasing of the lights.

I'd like to be able to give an update on behalf of @camdencyclists, but we have no definitive information on the next steps. So instead I'll give a summary of what we know:

•  Camden included this segregated cycle track in their original design for the re-configuration of Tottenham Court Road with an excellent intention to make the Howland Street junction safe, both for westbound cyclists turning left into Howland Street and for those proceeding north up TCR. 
• when the original design was built and opened last May it immediately became clear that cyclists going north were genuinely unable to see or understand the cycle-specific signals that had been installed. This put them in substantial danger since they were going ahead at the same time as left-turning motors, crossing paths.
• Camden then closed the cycle track and work out another design which they discussed with us, with more prominent signals for cyclists and temporary information panels. 
• In August when the track was re-opened it with the new design they observed that many northbound cyclists were going ahead on red despite a much more visible signal. The weak point was that northbound cycles were only getting a very short green period once in a very long total signal cycle time.
• Camden closed the junction once again in August. We believe they are working on a new design, but we have no idea what it contains.
• Our view is that the junction could be made safe with two green phases for cycles in each signal cycle and extra (permanent) signage but a better solution would be to close Howland Street to motor traffic, thereby requiring motor vehicles to use Euston Road.
• As mitigating points,
  • Camden are unable to determine signal timings or physical layout, that is under the control of TfL  Camden have to just ask politely.
  • There is no approved signal that shows a cycle green with a left arrow, which would help clarify to the signals at this junction. Fixing that requires a DfT initiative.

<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1597905992;
mso-list-template-ids:-1;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
-->

Thank you for the update George – I was getting increasingly frustrated with the situation at this junction that I use daily. I previously had no understanding of why the track was closed.

I do agree with closing the left into Howland Street for motors. But if they aren’t going to do this, isn’t a simpler solution for northbound cycle traffic to merge into the motor flow *prior* to the lights? There’s no segregation north of this junction so I don’t see any significant drop in utility. This could be done, for example, with the northbound lane becoming an ASL feeder with the segregation barrier shifting to between the two cycle lanes towards the junction approach, rather than between the cycle lanes and the carriage way.

What is being done about diversions for whatever LCN0- is called now, given the Gower Street works? It’s disappointing that there is nothing signed.

Current diversions of LCN0 are described on a different thread:

camdencyclists.cyclescape.org/threads/5021

But I am surprised to hear that there are no signs - I will chase this.

The latest from Camden's WEP team on the TCR-Howland cycle lane, by email today.

Thank you for your patience while we made changes to improve how the lane operated. This has included working with Transport for London to remove the cyclist push button and replace this with a sensor which will recognise approaching bikes and automatically change the lights. We have also made changes to the layout of the cycle lane to make it easier for cyclists to use. During August we trialled the cycle lane and although the lane was fully approved by the independent safety auditors, we were uncomfortable with the number of cyclists not using the lane correctly. In early October we again trialled the reopening of the cycle lane complete with further changes. We worked alongside a compliance team from Transport for London to provide an onsite presence, warning cyclists of the danger of ignoring red signals. The lane has been closed again while we analyse the data from the trial. We will continue to work with Transport for London and others to open this facility on a permanent basis as soon as possible, as long as it is safe to do so.

The latest from Camden's WEP disinformation team

Tottenham Court Road / Howland Street cycle lane update Thank you for your patience while we made changes to improve how the lane operated. This has included working with Transport for London to remove the cyclist push button and replace this with a sensor which will recognise approaching bikes and automatically change the lights. We have also made changes to the layout of the cycle lane to make it easier for cyclists to use. During August we trialled the cycle lane and although the lane was fully approved by the independent safety auditors, we were uncomfortable with the number of cyclists not using the lane correctly. In early October we again trialled the reopening of the cycle lane complete with further changes. We worked alongside a compliance team from Transport for London to provide an onsite presence, warning cyclists of the danger of ignoring red signals. The lane has been closed again while we analyse the data from the trial. We will continue to work with Transport for London and others to open this facility on a permanent basis as soon as possible, as long as it is safe to do so.

Yes, I know. It's the same as last month.

The latest from Camden Council on the Tottenham Court Road to Howland Street cycle lane (from West End Project - Stakeholder Briefing January 2020)

Thank you for your patience (sic) while we made changes to improve how the lane operated. This has included working with Transport for London to remove the cyclist push button and replace this with a sensor which will recognise approaching bikes and automatically change the lights. We have also made changes to the layout of the cycle lane to make it easier for cyclists to use. 

During August we trialled the cycle lane and although the lane was fully approved by the independent safety auditors, we were uncomfortable with the number of cyclists not using the lane correctly.

In early October we again trialled the reopening of the cycle lane complete with further changes. We worked alongside a compliance team from Transport for London to provide an onsite presence, warning cyclists of the danger of ignoring red signals. The lane remains closed while we analyse the data from the trial.

We will continue to work with Transport for London and others to open this facility on a permanent basis as soon as possible, as long as it is safe to do so.

Latest on the Howland Street junction is that the segregated lane on Tottenham Court Road will remain closed until Gower Street is open for northbound traffic and traffic volumes on TCR drop. At that point they can re-time the signals and hopefully the layout will work. This is scheduled for the Easter weekend...

What I interpret from John’s update is that Camden Council are delaying retuning the signals until Easter because they believe the safety benefits to cyclists of doing so earlier are outweighed by the delay caused to Northbound motor vehicles on TCR. Have I understood that correctly? In which case, are we making appropriate representations about traffic evaporation?

Get Outlook for iOS

[Committee] added

Probably I didn't put it very well. With the current volumes of northbound traffic Camden and TfL feel that the layout using the segregated lane cannot be made safe due to the left-hook risk. But ma499 is right that if TfL were willing to tolerate a significant additional delay to buses (currently going at less than walking speed) then additional time could be given to cyclists.

According to a FOI response, this is the reasoning behind the closure. And note the explanation given about 

We are currently reviewing the best way to increase northbound cyclist compliance. We are exploring further changes to signals with TfL and balancing this with the increase in compliance we expect to see once the full traffic restrictions come into place in the spring. A decision is expected on this before 2020. We are recommending that the cycle lane remains closed now until the full traffic restrictions come into place on Tottenham Court Road. At this stage there will be an increase in left turning traffic into Howland Street. This it is hoped will make it clearer to north travelling cyclists why they are being held at a red light and in turn improve compliance.

My emphasis above.

So it is actually an increase in left turning traffic that Camden/TfL sees as reducing danger. Not something I agree with. 

I mean "note the explanation about traffic flow". That's real traffic, not cycles by the way (NB irony).

That's a really bizarre argument.

I assume that there will be more traffic on Howland Street once motors except buses can no longer carry on up TCR - this is something that could be another seriously negative outcome of the WEP. I assume that this was modelled?
John Chamberlain

I doubt very much that there will be that much more motor traffic entering Howland Street (in the long term). It is Torrington Place (west of Gower Street) that will see the large increase. The TCR restrictions are only from 8am to 7pm Monday to Saturday.

In the short term there will be an increase in Howland Street motor traffic as drivers get used to the new arrangements. But in the long term there will be no increase, according to Camden/TfL's own modelling. 

(See the bottom of this news article for the full set of modelling stats https://news.fitzrovia.org.uk/2014/06/16/camdens-west-end-project-consultation/)

Note that the actual volume of motors on Torrington will be much less due to the Tavi-Torrington changes already made. The increase will come from drivers coming north up Gower Street instead of TCR and turning left into Torrington.

Camden's latest brainwave on the TCR cycle track... an ASL

The ASL is of course just a sticking plaster on a very unsatisfactory design. It should bring a little benefit if cyclists aren't obstructed from reaching it by motor traffic. Had they been thinking of comfort/safety for cyclists as they claim they would have installed it as soon as the dedicated track was closed.