West End Project consultation - general comments

This thread is for general discussion

Overall the scheme looks poor for cyclists. The limited segregation being even lighter than RCS and very narrow and having loading bays blocking the lane is worrying. There is no treatment for junctions which is going to lead to a lot of left hooks. TCR has no provision for cycling and just tell cyclist to mix with heavy bus traffic 7-7 and then mix with general heavy traffic outside these times.

Routes tried in Manchester with just armadillos have been shown to be less that pointless http://madcyclelanesofmanchester.blogspot.ca/2014/02/salford-armadillos-fail-spectacularly.html

Its telling the pictures magically show more cyclists in the after shots despite not making any changes that would make cycling safer or more enjoyable. Clearly this will do little to nothing to make this a place most non serious cyclists want to be.

Sean: You wrote "Routes tried in Manchester with just armadillos have been shown to be less that pointless http://madcyclelanesofmanchester.blogspot.ca/2014/02/salford-armadillos-fail-spectacularly.html ".
The last comment on that post is dated 14 February and includes this:
"They're not built to be hit from 90 degree angle which they were. They will all be removed and re-installed by the supplier in the next 2 weeks."

So is there any more up-to-date information about this scheme?

The proposals for Princes Circus can be seen on a drawing at:

https://www.wearecamden.org/westendproject/assets/images/princes-circus-plan-resized

The aim is to provide a southboundroute via Gower Street and down into Covent Garden.

Note that we are not happy about the provision for cyclists movements between a two-way Endell Street and the southern end oF Shaftesbury Avenue.

Please suggest how this might be enhanced.

Well, it's all a bit of a mess, isn't it? They clearly haven't thought at all about how people on bikes should get around this area. They've just stuck a couple of ASLs and bits of protected lane that run out at junctions to give an illusion of having made an effort. I would suggest a full-scale re-think of cycling provision in the scheme that has a serious agenda of making this part of the west end accessible to everyone (of every age and ability) who wants to go there on a bike. Everything else is just lipsticking the pig.

Tom,

How about some constructive criticism? The only way to get from A to B is to work out how. It's no good to say "you wouldn't start from A".

Thanks, Jean

Briefly, we're not scheme designers, and on a scheme of this scale we shouldn't try to be. Our job is to push priorities, make the case for them, and hold authorities to minimum standards.

In this case, our key priority (and a key priority for the scheme as a whole) should be safe (objectively and subjectively) and direct access to the area on a bike for everyone, including children, families, the elderly, less able cyclists.

We can make a strong case for this priority on health, environmental, congestion and economic grounds, and we should be doing that in detail.

We should set out minimum technical standards to achieve this priority, and good standards, explain them to the designers, and evaluate and rank the various options in terms of these.

it might also be useful to set out sub-priorities (particularly in terms of routes), also ranked, as in:

1) A safe, high capacity route for all cyclists from Hampstead Rd to Endell St
2) Protected junctions to access the Tavistock Place route.
3) A safe, high capacity route to access Holborn and potential Clerkenwell Blvd.
4) Safe (but not necessarily high capacity) access to commerces on TCR

or something similar

In this case, we should reject the consultation scheme outright as, technically, it doesn't achieve this priority (unsurprisingly, as it wasn't designed to). Some of the other options will come closer, as they were drawn up with this priority in mind.

We should then leave it to the road designers to come up with suitable technical solutions, and the politicians to work out compromises in terms of bus, pedestrian and motor traffic priority that don't fall below the minimum standards we've set.

Hope this is constructive enough!

I would prefer really good cycle ways through the back streets. I currently use Gordon St. and Malet St. The worst bit is Bloomsbury St and getting to Covent Garden to carry on south, and the lack of an equivalent route going north from Trafalgar Sq.

Cyclists in the City is being incredibly generous here in claiming the scheme is 'light years' better than Westminster's. There's very little difference, in the end, between this scheme and Westminster's two-way scheme at Piccadilly. Camden, it's true, is a little more generous with the 2-way cycling on quiet one way streets - but neither scheme attempts to enable the main routes cyclists need to use, and both reinforce existing barriers to cycling for the majority by forcing people on bikes to share the road with high volumes of motor traffic and HGVs. (I am assuming Camden's intermittent rubber studs will be a hazard to people on bikes and no impediment at all to truck wheels, until someone produces a design drawing proving otherwise..)..

Open Letter from the Movement for a Liveable London has written an open letter in support of Camden’s West End Project plans.
“The West End Project presents the real opportunity to show how even the busiest London streets can be reclaimed from motor traffic dominance and made into much more enjoyable places for people. If successful, the project will do much to enable progressive schemes to be implemented elsewhere in this city, and others.”

http://movementforliveablelondon.com/news/

David Arditti (Vole O’Speed) has written "To gyrate or not to gyrate", suggesting how segregated cycle infrastructure may fit in with a combination of keeping the one-way streets and filtering out motor traffic:

http://www.voleospeed.co.uk/2014/06/to-gyrate-or-not-to-gyrate.html

Mark Ames on I bike London

tells us why he signed the open letter from the Movement for a Liveable London

"The plans are bold and sweeping and - crucially - look at the area as a whole as opposed to taking a street-by-street approach.

There is some concern, and justifiably so, about the provision for cycling in these plans. Some of the plan's results will be beneficial for cyclists, some less so, and I will endeavour to highlight in detail on my blog over the coming weeks exactly where I think there are problems and where the focus for improvement should be."

http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/an-open-letter-to-camdens-west-end.html

Rachel Aldred

Camden’s West End Project: is there space for inclusive cycling?

at

http://rachelaldred.org/writing/camdens-west-end-project-is-there-space-for-inclusive-cycling/

suggests that in the context of the proposed scheme, all through traffic should be filtered out of Gower Street so as to produce "University Avenue"

Fitzrovia News is keeping a log of the arguments for and against the proposals for West End Project

http://news.fitzrovia.org.uk/2014/06/16/camdens-west-end-project-consultation/

They promise to keep it up to date

Camden have made a lot of improvements for cyclists in the streets either side of TCR in recent years. They have introduced contraflows in one-way streets, extra cycle parking and blocked off Warren Street to through traffic.

But the improvements are being jeopardised by the changes to TCR. Traffic modelling figures produced by Camden show increased traffic in the side streets in Fitzrovia, much of this will come from increased numbers of taxis. Camden's traffic modelling provides figures for TCR with and without taxis. The traffic modelling stats are here http://www.wearecamden.org/westendproject/assets/documents/traffic-impacts

Rees: Thank you for your posting about the effects on the side streets in Fitzrovia.

I believe that if we give support to the general concepts of the WEP, one of several things our support should depend on is the filtering motor traffic to prevent it from using Fitzrovia Streets as a rat run, in fact to reduce the current flow of motor traffic.

Other streets that will need to be protected include Gordon Street, Torrington Place and Malet Street

By the way, I think you have misinterpreted the headings on the spreadsheet. The first one is 'existing flows' and the second 'flows if taxis allowed end to end on TCR'.

BUT anyway we must support the notion of keeping taxis out and I'd also like to increase massively the 'hours of operation.'

A short post from nuttyxander on Cycling Embassy of Great Britain website summarising other posts available as well as promising one of his own

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/node/3242

Jean,

If by 'general concepts of the WEP' you mean essentially this layout, then CCC's decision to support or not support should be based primarily on whether it can comply with LCC's democratically established policies on inclusive cycling - including on levels of traffic that cyclists should share with, on protection on roads with high levels of traffic, and on continuous high-standard networks. Note that both David Arditti and Rachel Aldred have provided strong arguments that the scheme should be rejected on the grounds that it cannot.

I think everyone would like to hear CCC's views here, so we can engage in constructive debate, particularly on the vital question of whether to campaign for improvements to this design, or to campaign for an alternative layout that is clearly better for inclusive cycling.

So do you think the consultation design complies with LCC policies in its present form, and if so, why?

If not, do you think it could be improved to comply with LCC policies , and if so how? (It would be useful if you could engage with the points that Rachel and David have made, here.)

Do you think any of the other options considered comply better with LCC policies on inclusive cycling?

If so, do you think there are other priorities that these other schemes don't reflect which means that we shouldn't campaign for them?

Thanks

Jean, I hope I haven't misinterpreted the headings on the spreadsheet!

There are two spreadsheets: sheet 1, base vs proposed; sheet 2, base vs proposed w taxis.

I compared the two. On sheet 1, Charlotte Street south of Goodge Street 42% increase (column E); sheet 2, Charlotte Street south of Goodge Street 3% increase (column E).

Does that make sense?

Tom and everyone else who is still reading this thread:

- I hope you will continue to read it, as I will post links to any relevant blogs that I come across and would welcome others doing so as well.

- by this time, anyone who has studied the messages on the 'motor vehicle flow' thread will be aware that with 900 buses a day in each direction TCR will be well above the 2000pcs recommended in Motion 3 passed at the LCC AGM last October.

- regarding Motion 5: "a coherent single-standard network" clearly refers to the CSs and Quietways (QWs); and neither TCR nor Gower is in LCC's recommendation for the Grid which specifies a route down Gordon Street. See the map at
http://goo.gl/maps/dV16w

- we do now and will in the future insist on the standards of Motion 3 in each Grid route as it is designed and implemented (e.g. Royal College Street and its extensions; Tavistock Place; Theobalds Road).

- the WEP proposal as it stands will increase the permeability for cyclists in the area via the many side streets as well as on TCR and Gower.

- the additional permeability will enable QW enhancements:
- a quieter re-routing of route 0 (Tavistock Place route) via Huntley Street
- make it possible for QW 38 to cross in both directions between Bayley Street and Percy Street
- as well as many other useful two-way cross links.

- the amount of excess motor flow depends on the amount of through traffic via the side streets and the hours of operation. Any response that we send in should detail how these should be modified, e.g. by cutting out rat-running.

- if we reject the consultation and that results in its failure, the taxi drivers and van drivers and many other motor users will be celebrating; it may be years before it gets going again and, in that case, what would we gain?

- if we accept it, we will be in a position to input to the design e.g. of the junctions as well as to push for reduction of motor flow on TCR and in the side streets such as Gordon Street, Howland Street and Malet that are on our QWs.

I would like to disagree 'on principle' with the last point.

We should not support a scheme that we may think it is 'faulty' simply because otherwise there will be no change at all . It is not CCC responsibility if 'faulty' proposals are made. I would prefer to send them back to the drawing board than agreeing to a scheme that does not totally satisfy me. In my opinion it takes longer to fix errors ( which could also be repeated ) than waiting for a better solution.

Thanks Jean,

In terms of the grid, it appears the GLA (and I suspect LCC as well, though their reps should confirm) would prefer Gower St / TCR to be part of the Grid, if Camden can be persuaded to build routes there to a high enough standard. The GLA map shows as much: https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/plugin-central-london-grid-map.pdf. Certainly, if a route can be built to standard, Gower/TCR will be much more useful North/South routes for mass inclusive cycling than Gordon St, which ends in a maze in Bloomsbury. So we should be campaigning for TCR/Gower to be part of the Grid, and to be built to LCC policy standards.

In any case, as a matter of policy, we should be asking for all big new road improvement schemes to provide inclusive cycling to LCC policy standards. If we just rely on the cycling budget, providing good cycling conditions across London will take forever. We need to ensure that when money is spent for other reasons, high quality cycling improvements are mandated too.

In terms of CCC's decision here - it's not just to support or not. The choice should be between a) supporting this scheme (and hoping for some small improvements beyond the consultation design) or b) rejecting this scheme, on the principle that it offers too little for cycling for the money, and making a very good case for, then campaigning hard for, a better option. I'll write another post comparing these choices.

OK, so to Camden CC's two possible choices.

choice a): supporting this scheme (and hoping for some small improvements beyond the consultation design)

advantages;

- the scheme offers some big short-term improvements, overall, for people who cycle in london already - taming very unpleasant multi-lane roads, and significantly improving permeability
- re-thinking the TCR/ torrington place junction will be a big improvement, too.
- supporting it makes it more likely to happen, and gives us more chance of a strong voice in pushing for small improvements

disadvantages:

- the scheme does nothing at all (either on Gower, or TCR) for all the people who would like to cycle in london but don't because of the traffic - so nothing for mass, inclusive cycling (lcc's key policy).
- for lcc to be seen to be accepting this without a fight will damage its reputation, and support in the future.
- the segregation proposals on gower st look unrealistic and will probably need to be removed from the plan.
- the 'bus and cycle' route on tcr will have 7,000 vpd +taxis on its central section, and be a free for all at night. we may be able to restrict night-time use, but probably not taxi use as a through route. all told, this won't just be non-lcc-compliant. it won't be pleasant at all.
- the cycling provision is essentially discriminatory (see rachel aldred's work on this)
- there's some increased chance of left hooks in the gower st junction
- there's no intention for traffic reduction or modal shift beyond what we see now from the crossrail works - so none of the road safety, environmental congestion, or health improvements that may come from fewer cars and taxis, and more bikes - and no significant movement towards a bike-dominated centre city in the long term.
- the scheme design locks in gower st as the main motor traffic route to the west end, and TCR as the main bus route - so it'll be difficult to improve on once it's built. We'll be stuck with this arranghement for the next 10-15 years, at least.
- the scheme doesn't work to enable the most useful cycle routes, north up Hampstead Rd, south

please add suggestions of more advantages/disadvantages. next post, camden CC's other possible choice.

sorry, that was supposed to end: - the scheme doesn't work to enable the most useful cycle routes, north up Hampstead Rd via euston circus, south down endell st, and east to holborn and old st via new oxford st..

ok, choice b): rejecting this scheme, on the principle that it offers too little for cycling for the money, and making a very good case for, then campaigning hard for, a better option.

advantages:

- it's the only way we'll get high quality conditions for mass inclusive cycling (or significant traffic reduction) on this axis in the next 15 years
- there are clearly options on the table that would seem to allow inclusive mass cycling on tcr/gower, including those described by rachel aldred and david arditti
- tcr/gower is a good coherent north/south route. there aren't any existing, and no others that could take the place. (and it should be part of the grid)
- reading the consultation, we don't seem to have yet made an effective case to Camden Council for the health, environmental and congestion benefits of mass, inclusive cycling - or explained to them clearly the technical demands of this. explaining why we're rejecting the consultation design and asking them to do better will be a great opportunity to do this - and show them the opportunities they're missing by failing to do assess the option in terms of traffic reduction, changes in modal share etc

disadvantages

- we may get less input in the consultation scheme if it goes ahead (though, it might be argued that by setting higher standards, we may push them to do more)
- if we reject the scheme, it may be cancelled entirely, and we'll lose the benefits for existing cyclists (possible, but unlikely i think - the scheme is intended to deal with increased pedestrian numbers - and those pedestrians aren't going away.. and when the cabs look at it closely, they'll see it's actually quite favorable to them)
- there may be no single 'mass cycling' solution that can get sufficient political support.

again, please add to /criticise this..

conclusion:

the choice between a) and b) should depend on ccc's priorities (which is why i was asking about those on the other thread)

if ccc's priority is to lock in a few significant short-term improvements for people who already cycle in london, they should support the scheme, and push for small improvements.

if ccc's priority (like LCC's) is to enable mass, inclusive cycling in Camden and beyond - and to work for the environmental, health and congestion improvements of long-term trafffic reduction and modal switch, then they should reject the consultation scheme, and push for something much better.

one important point here is that CCC is 'the local branch of the london cycling campaign'. it's confusing, to say the least if CCC's priorities differ sharply from LCC's.

but, most importantly, given that (if you agree with my argument) CCC's priorities should determine the choice they make here, it would be good to know what those priorities are. Is CCC's first priority here, like LCC's, promoting mass, inclusive cycling in Camden, or is it securing improvements that are only in the interests of those who already cycle?

Tom,

We don't share your pessimism about Camden's aspirations to provide infrastructure for inclusive mass cycling. Perhaps you should ask them what their position is at our Open Meeting on Monday evening.

Of course CCC's prime campaigning objective is to achieve inclusive mass cycling. Throughout our interaction with Camden on the West End Project over the past 2-3 years we have pushed hard for the inclusion of infrastructure that would maximise the space for that, as we have done on the other major and minor measures that they have planned and installed in recent years.

In any major infrastructure project the council are faced with two main types of constraint - of physical space and political feasibility. Our position is that we will always push them to the limits of those constraints and will argue fiercely and tirelessly with them about where the limits set by those constraints lie.

But once we have gone through the constraints in great detail and pushed their limits as far as possible, we believe it is more productive to work with the council to produce the best scheme for cycling possible within them, while still continuing to push for improvements (major and minor) as and when the limits are relaxed (e.g. by reductions in motor traffic or an improved political outlook for sustainable travel).

You mention the other schemes on the table. All of them were discussed with Camden during the extended negotiations and several of them were proposed and argued for vigorously by CCC. Unfortunately, we have became convinced by the facts and engineering evaluations tabled by Camden that they are not feasible within the currently existing physical and political constraints.

Of course we're hoping to hear further suggestions for improvements and to push for them. That's what the meeting on Monday is all about.

One more blog post, from Mark Treasure (As Easy As Riding A Bike) with the title:

"Designing for existing mode share".

which expands the theme suggested by the title, saying that cycling campaigners who he says are all too often “happy to sacrifice the quality of the transport mode they want to see more of, in the interests of wider scheme objectives.

For the WEP, he says: “ it falls short on cycling, and to such an extent that it really has to be improved”.

Mark Treasure's blog post at:

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/designing-for-existing-mode-share/

includes a link to a page on our website (May 2013) that includes the following:

"-- we will support the Camden proposal unless some much better alternative comes up. However, we feel that it will not do much to encourage new people to cycle, although the increase of permeability will allow those that want to to escape via the side streets..."

BUT Camden Cyclists are waiting until after Monday's meeting to decide how we will reply to the consultation.

From Mark Treasure's new blog post

"The point, in quite general terms, is that if 32m of space, at minimum, can’t be imaginatively arranged to allocate just 4m of it to proper cycling provision, in a sympathetic borough with all the opportunities detailed above, then we are really in a tremendous pickle."

So I thought I would try to find 4m for cycling in Gower Street. The width between buildings is mostly a bit more than 15m (average 16m). Taking 10m for the carriageway (of which 4m for cyclists) leaves an average of 2.5m+ for each footway.

I used a set of maps of Gower Street with seventeen numbered points and a spreadsheet giving the width of (west footway, carriageway, east footway). I looked up the positions of the trees on Google Maps and used the spreadsheet to work out how to get the 10m wide carraigeway. The result is achieved without damaging any trees and with no footway narrower than 2m wide and most 2.5 m or more, average 2.9m.

I've joined up all the maps and added the trees (green circles), the existing measurements (black) and my proposed measurements (in red).

The result in a JPG file. (13Mbyte). It has highish res so you can blow it up and look at the details. It is at:

http://www.dollimore.net/t/MapGower-with-10m-carriageway.jpeg

Or if you prefer, I will email it to you.

OK Jean. So this 10m carriageway width would create two 3m general traffic lanes. To utilise the full 2m in each direction for cycling you would need a similar design to the half-height cycle tracks on Old Shoreham Road in Brighton. I would be concerned that here there would be too much pressure leading to taxis and vans stopping on such a track. Alternatively you could go down to 1.5m cycle tracks and have a 0.5m segregating island, which would be a more effective barrier to stopping. It's all rather tight in this whole concept, and the problem, at bottom, is giving so much space to buses with their monopoly on Tottenham Court Road.

So this version would be some improvement on Camden's scheme, IF they could be persuaded to abandon the loading bays in Gower Street. But schemes that preserve one-way working are better all round.

Jean - certainly an interesting suggestion. Obviously, it's preferable for space for cycling to be taken from carriageway rather than footway, but if that's not politically feasible, it might be a way to go. What would you do about the junctions, and the north and south ends of the track?

Thinking a bit more widely - Camden have also been told (by the courts) to solve the Holborn issue. So we shouldn't just be thinking about Gower St and TCR, but also about Woburn Place, New Oxford St, and St Giles High St...

So one option (of many) might be to separate modes as follows (all 2-way):

TCR: Bikes and (high flows of) pedestrians (and access)
Gower: Buses only (and improvements for pedestrians)
Woburn Place: Cars and HGVs
New Oxford St: buses only (and improvements for pedestrians)
St Giles High St - cars, HGVs, and segregated bikes (i think there's space?)

thoughts?

Tom,

About 'thinking more widely' that may be productive for LCC to do for the whole of London.

But the WEP is already the largest consultation I've seen in the ten years I've been organising our responses. I believe that sorting out traffic for the whole of Camden south of the Euston Road is another project altogether.

Clearly, they won't want to work out all the details now!

But, they should certainly have a general strategy as to how they want the main roads in Camden to end up (both North and South of Euston Rd.) in 10-15 yrs time.. so buses on which routes, inclusive cycling on which routes, cars on which routes, where they want to semi-pedestrianise. It can't all be done at once, obviously - but if they have the vision, each redesign of a part will eventually contribute to a whole that makes sense.

So, to get the West End Project right, they should also know (in general terms) what they want to do with both the High St gyratory, and the Holborn gyratory....

The whole of London is a different question. May need Westminster to achieve transport sanity first..

David,

Thank you for suggesting the idea of a half height cycle track, which does have the advantage of using all the available width. After all we have a short length of track in Purchese Street that uses a similar idea but distinguished by material rather than height.

http://goo.gl/maps/sAA3J

There must be solutions to issues of parking. Agree about the loading bays and need to think how they might be treated, e.g. narrow cycle lane going round the back?

I have to disagree with you that any scheme I've seen so far that preserves one-way working is better for Gower Street. I hate only being able to go one-way in Gower Street - it completely confuses navigation round the area, e.g. if you come up Museum Street and turn left on Great Russell Street thinking you might be able to go across to Charlotte Street, the idea collapses as soon as you reach Gower Street.

Not everybody uses Apps to find their way about!

(I guess the main reason for introducing Woburn Place into our responses right now is to make the point that there's another direct north-south route between Camden and Central London which is dominated by private motor traffic. It just re-frames the question to make pushing for a solution that strongly prioritises pedestrians, buses and bikes, and sharply reduces private motor traffic on Gower and TCR, sound more sensible.)

Regarding Jean and David's discussion on one-way and two-way - this is where it's useful to have priorities established before discussing particular designs. If we were left with a choice of only David's design or the consultation design, absent other factors, we should choose the consultation design if permeability is a higher priority than inclusive cycling, and David's design if inclusive cycling is the priority.

I agree with Tom that it would be interesting to discuss the relative importance of "permeability" and "inclusive cycling" but at this stage in this consultation, I believe that it would be premature to try to write a rule about their relative priorities.

You'd need a proper measure of permeability including the effects on the Quietways crossing the roads in question. e.g. one of the 'options' mentioned in the consultation had SB cycling on TCR and NB on Gower. This would have made two of the cross routes inoperable - a loss of permeability relative to both the consultation and what we have now.

Another option has SB on Gower and NB on TCR which still works for the current version of Route 0 but a two-way route would be preferable. It fails the route of QW 38 because you wouldn't be able to go from Percy Street to Bayley Street.

So, in this case, the loss of potential permeability on Quietways, makes me prefer the consultation design to either of those options.

I would be interested to hear what others think.

Thanks Jean,

I would argue that ' mass inclusive cycling' has already been set as the key priority london-wide by LCC through the 'Go Dutch' vote by the membership, the strong popular support it has had, and through David Arditti and Rachel Aldred's motions that formalised that support. If you disagree, would be good to bring the question up at the meeting - it does need to be resolved.

I am convinced, though, that setting mass inclusive cycling as the key priority is the correct long term strategy, even for existing cyclists. It's only through getting much larger numbers of cyclists out there - and showing significant modal shift - that we can make the arguments for big junction changes to improve safety, and significant traffic reduction, and for mass cycling as a public good, rather than a special interest - especially with the more sceptical councils. We should acknowledge that, to do this, in the short term, we will need to make some choices that don't give much advantage to existing cyclists (or even some mild disbenefits, in journey times for example). With increasing numbers, though, we will have more political influence, and the chance to reverse those disbenefits, allowing a better situation for everyone. The Tavistock route might be an example of this process - even as a compromised version of inclusive cycling, it has drawn enough cyclists to the route that it's now possible to make the argument for closing the road to through traffic entirely. This wouldn't have been possible ten-fifteen years ago...

That said, I agree that permeability is a key issue in Camden - I dislike the one-way systems as much as you do - and inclusive cycling east-west is as important as it is north-south, so yes, we should take those factors into account.

Tom,

I think you have missed the point I was trying to make:

the two quiet east-west routes I mentioned are already suitable for "mass cycling" apart from issues that will be fixed fairly soon under the Grid program. These will within I hope two years produce quiet ways right across Camden suitable for mass cycling.

I mentioned a pair of "Options" (let's call them 6a and 6b) that were proposed in relation to retaining one-way working on TCR and Gower. Both of those options would reduce the utility of the two quiet routes by cutting them into two halves. That is, they will reduce the opportunity for mass cycling, not just for those that already cycle.

So to repeat what I said this morning I prefer the consultation design to either of those options.

Jean - was primarily addressing this, about priorities:

" I agree with Tom that it would be interesting to discuss the relative importance of "permeability" and "inclusive cycling" but at this stage in this consultation, I believe that it would be premature to try to write a rule about their relative priorities."

I agree with your point that it's important to make east-west inclusive cycling work as well as north-south - and that 6a and 6b might still need a solution for this to be worked out. We should look at relative usage/demand if there's a need to prioritise here. I assume a cycle contraflow track (6b?) wouldn't exclude allowing bikes to head in the opposite direction on either road - though they wouldn't have the same protections, so wouldn't be fully inclusive (though still as good as consultation scheme?)?

Maybe David could comment?

(One other point - I understand that many people involved in this discussion have strong individual preferences about the final design. Our individual preferences, though, should not be relevant here. As LCC's policy note clarifies, our job is only to attempt to judge and rank the various design options within the framework of LCC's own democratically determined policies and priorities - and I hope that's what we'll be invited to do this evening.)

Last night's CCC meeting on the West End Project:

- Many thanks to all who attended and contributed to what was a very valuable and wide-ranging discussion.
- Equal thanks to the Camden Council representatives who presented the project very clearly and and stayed to the end, playing a major role in the discussions that followed.
- I won't attempt to summarise – we are preparing a full report covering the many points made.

At last night's meeting we were informed by the Camden reps that they have extended the consultation period to 1 August. No doubt the consultation site at https://www.wearecamden.org/westendproject/ will be updated with this info soon.

A note about anonymity on Cyclescape:

- We (CCC and LCC) are a public campaign, not just an online pressure group. It is important that contributions made online can be linked to the individuals who appear at meetings and participate in other campaigning activities. That requires that everyone is signed up with their full name.

- I'm therefore asking all who participate in this and other CCC and LCC discussions to update their Cyclescape profile to show their full names - and a photo would be helpful too.

At Monday's meeting there was some discussion about the demand for cycle facilities on Gower Street. In the note attached above I have made a first stab at listing some important trip generator destinations, with estimates for current numbers and likely growth.

These notes (above) are an edited account (not a complete transcript) of the meeting hosted by Camden Cyclists at which Camden officers presented their proposals for the WEP. All errors and omissions are mine.

Hi @george

sorry i probs posted on wrong thread. great work exploring potential trips - a really important response to the conversations at the meeting. - well done!

could i ask where your figures are from? it would be great if we could ask these institutions for any data they have.

a few comments on the approach:

a) cycle parking could grow to meet demand
b) cycle numbers growth should reflect i) population growth - including increase in people movement from new destinations and ii) modal shift.
c) referring to the TFL's potential trip analysis - i would think 25% is v conservative, particularly as UCL should have a majority cycling due to demographics.
d) it would be good to have cycling growth divided by options - ie a design option which facilitated both higher capacity (ie wider cycle tracks) and higher subjective safety (ie,.cycle tracks at all) should warrant a much higher predicted growth than camden's current option.

hope that's useful,

Tom Harrison

@Tom Harrison

My post was just a first cut at answering the comment 'there are few destinations for cyclists around Gower Street and Bloomsbury Street - it's not a cycling desire line'. by providing evidence in support of the answer 'few yes, but they're very big and have a demographic who are likely to cycle'.

The staff and student numbers at the various institutions were taken from their websites. I then estimated current and future cycling numbers from the current and projected cycling modal share for Camden, modified by personal knowledge of the constraints currently imposed by cycle parking. I freely acknowledge that further work is needed to give more reliable figures, e.g. based on information from the institutions themselves and from the Boris Bike statistics.

On your specific points:
| a) cycle parking could grow to meet demand

Agreed, but constraints on space and the cost of land may mean that provision will always lag substantially. Folding bikes are a work-around for some people and of course Boris Bikes. It's arguable that we should be campaigning for many more of those in the WEP area.

| b) cycle numbers growth should reflect
| i) population growth - including increase in people movement from new destinations and
| ii) modal shift.
Agreed, but that sounds like a project for a geographer.

| c) referring to the TFL's potential trip analysis - i would think 25% is v conservative, particularly as UCL should have a majority cycling due to demographics.
I was thinking the same way, but for my immediate purpose a conservative assumption is adequate.

| d) it would be good to have cycling growth divided by options - ie a design option which facilitated both higher capacity (ie wider cycle tracks) and higher subjective safety (ie,.cycle tracks at all) should warrant a much higher predicted growth than camden's current option.
Again, that's a more refined approach and would surely be helpful, but wasn't available or needed for my 'first cut'.

Are there any geographers out there who might help us take this further?

@george couloris thanks for your response - hope i didnt seem to be critical - trying to be constructive, hopefully some geographers will step forward - UCL Bartlett might help. It might be worth putting forward a proposal for help from them, i know they have working groups for certain live issues.

re bike parking, having lived in oxford for a while, i can say that dumping bikes against an academic building works just fine :) for non students, i agree we should be calling for a whole lot more parking, especially nearer the soho end which is always particularly nightmarish for leaving my bike when going out. would also be v important to increase shop footfall - thats one one success of kingsland high st i feel.

do you know how much they intend to increase it by, and if it varies by scheme option?

cheers

Tom H

Sorry that should be Pedestrian Comfort Level "assessment" not "Assistance".

@George

Its a bit late but as someone who does not use this very much I did not realize you had replayed to me

If you want to see everything on that blog about armadillos you can see it on this url

http://madcyclelanesofmanchester.blogspot.ca/search/label/armadillos

Is there a way to get cyclescape to email me when someone @'s me ?

For your info, a consultation is now taking place on a very long list of bus service changes proposed as part of the West End Project:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/tottenham-court-road

Even at busy times of day it amazes me how 'empty' TCR and Gower Street are apart from where the junctions create a choke point. Makes you really wonder why they need as many motor traffic lanes, especially as there seems to be such difficulty in maintaining the surfaces of those lanes.

Simon Munk has encouraged the Westminster and Camden local groups to respond to the bus service consultation. Please see below a first draft of the Westminster group's response, which we need to submit (probably by email) by next Sunday 24 July. It would be useful to have a transcript or video of Val Shawcross's comments, because at the moment I have only press articles about her comments - please tell me if you have this. I could be wrong, but I understand that she favours bus service frequency reductions, rather than the diversion of bus services onto parallel roads.
---

I am writing on behalf of Westminster Cycling Campaign, the local group of the London Cycling Campaign. Thank you for inviting us to comment on proposed bus service changes in the Tottenham Court Road area.

We note comments given by Deputy Mayor of London for Transport Valerie Shawcross to the London Assembly on Wednesday 13 July 2016 that within the next four years Oxford Street will be closed to motor vehicles. This will include bus services 10, 73/N73 & 390 which are subject to the current consultation, and we note that the Deputy Mayor states that the ban would be implemented first on the eastern section of Oxford Street between Oxford Circus and Tottenham Court Road.

In this context, we consider the proposed bus service changes to be a missed opportunity to prepare the ground for the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street. We think that Transport for London should be introducing bus service frequency reductions and/or the diversion of a bus route from Oxford Street onto A5204 Mortimer Street. We cannot support the current proposals which are silent about Oxford Street pedestrianisation and give the impression of a ‘business as usual’ approach from Transport for London.