please empty your brain below
I don't buy the argument that replacing traffic lanes with cycle lanes makes congestion worse

Every other city in the world that converts lanes from traffic to cycling, congestion eases off. Why? Because people switch from bulky modes of transport like cars and taxis to space-efficient modes like bicycles.

And that's not all. Pedestrian collisions reduce too, and local trade goes up, because it's really hard to injure someone with a bicycle but really easy to stop and spend money in local shops and cafes.

Here's what happened in New York:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/nyregion/in-bloombergs-city-of-bike-lanes-data-show-cabs-gain-a-little-speed.html?_r=0

Sam | 29.11.13 - 2:08 a.m. | #

It's not the number of traffic lanes that causes or relieves congestion, it is junction design. Having just looked at aerial photos of the A11 from Whitechapel to Stratford, it is important to note that there are significant stretches at the western end where there is one traffic lane and one bus lane in each direction, which only widen into more lanes when approaching traffic lights. If the lights remain, there should really be bus lanes along the full length. Interestingly, beyond Stratford, all the roads feeding into the gyratory system are one lane in and one lane out.

Option 3 is interesting, but if there is room for a two-way central cycle track, there is room for two one-way peripheral cycle tracks? Not forgetting that cyclists will have to cross the road to reach them when going in at least one direction anyway.

Iain | 29.11.13 - 2:53 a.m. | #

I agree with Sam that the impact of solution 1 wouldn't be nearly as bad as you suggest - it's worth noting the phenomenon of induced demand and traffic evaporation - see this for example: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonas_eliasson_how_to_solve_traffic_jams.html which means that more people would choose not to make journeys or to travel by bike.

Currently much of the length of CS2 that I'm more familiar with (Whitechapel to Stepney, give or take) is used for eighteen hours a day as parking - mostly for unused minicabs - the bus lane only operates for three hours morning and afternoon peak. So most of the time it's only one lane wide in either direction.

I'd also disagree with the absence of parallel routes. One of the things that has always frustrated me about the poor state of CS2 is that there are two other equally vile, dangerous and polluted roads running nearly parallel with Mile End Road: Commercial Road and the Highway. To say we can't afford to lose one traffic lane in one of these three dual carriageways is hard to credit.

Harry | 29.11.13 - 7:31 a.m. | #

After yet another cyclist (the third this week) nearly took off my nose running through a pelican red light yesterday,I'd happily see bikes taxed, number-plated and harrassed by a London-wide army of Gatso cameras. Something like that should be included in this equality of road sharing concept.

Waterhouse | 29.11.13 - 8:08 a.m. | #

I'm with Waterhouse. I too, as a pedestrian, have had close encounters (impacts in my case, always my fault, according to the ill informed cyclists...). If they want to share the roads then they must share the responsibility. Pay road tax have insurance and be immediately identifiable. Just like cars, buses and other road users. Then there might just start to be a change in attitude by cavalier cyclists and a bit of respect returned by other road users. If cyclists don't like that then return the cycle lanes to roadway and get off your bike. It's not as if London doesn't have a pretty good public transport system.

PeteC | 29.11.13 - 8:42 a.m. | #

Road tax was abolished almost 80 years ago. What you're thinking is Vehicle Excise Duty, which as bikes are vehicles should be liable. Vehicle excise duty is based on emissions so electirc vehicles and other ultra-low emissions vehicles don't pay anything.

So with cyclists, lets think how much emissions they produce. Oh yeah, it's zero. So that would mean no Vehicle Excise Duty. Get it?

As a side note, money raised by VED doesn't go to pay for the upkeep. For main roads this upkeep is from TfL coffers which is mostly in the form of grant from the government and local roads are paid out of a mixture of council tax and a local government grant.

Flare | 29.11.13 - 8:51 a.m. | #

I disagree that taking away lanes will automatically lead to people changing from cars and taxis to cycling.

Firstly, it assumes that the majority using the road are private motorists who have the option to cycle but choose not to. Secondly, it ignores the needs of any commercial vehicles, or in fact any other road user and resident, as DG points out.

Beth | 29.11.13 - 8:51 a.m. | #

Back to addressing CS2, please??

Gordon | 29.11.13 - 8:55 a.m. | #

Many roads outside of cities and towns do not have a sidewalk or pavement, so pedestrians then walk on and at the side of the road, and are even advised to walk facing the oncoming traffic. (Many do not follow this advice). As they are then another road user should they pay road tax as PeteC suggests cyclists should. The amount of wear produced by a pedestrian or a cyclist using a road is minute compared to cars and heavy vehicles. Horses, which also use Londons roads would produce more wear with their horse shoes. Some Electric cars pay zero or very low road tax.
As for insurance, some cyclists do take out insurance but I think it should be an option and not made compulsory. The general idea is to get more people cycling, reduce pollution and congestion, plus get exercise. Making insurance compulsory may deter people.
Londons transport system is pretty full during busy times so using a bicycle is a healthy option for some.
Cyclists should be more considerate and obey the traffic laws. Also do not creep up on the inside of buses or trucks turning left.

John | 29.11.13 - 9:21 a.m. | #

Have cycle lanes yes but don't go overboard. Stratford to Bow over the top. I go along there every day at about 9.30am and are lucky to see one cyclist using it. Waste of money and will not solve the problem at junctions which are still basically the same.

Putting in these over engineered lanes will not prevent more accidents.

Although it is rather silly to talk about VED for bikes there is a strong case for licensing cyclists with some compulsory basic training (CBT) to obtain that licence. Cyclists can then be disiplined properly like any other wheeled road user.

Agent Z | 29.11.13 - 9:39 a.m. | #

I'd say leave as is and just prevent large delivery vehicles entering Central London and key routes during the daytime. Yes there's have to be a shift in transport culture, but then everyone wins, cyclists, motorists, bus users and pedestrians.
Remember how pleasant London was during the Olympics with reduced traffic, and increased cycling?

Raouligan | 29.11.13 - 10:35 a.m. | #

The whole premise of the cycle superhighways seems flawed to me. Riding alongside motor traffic is both dangerous and unpleasant.
Why are these routes running on, or immediately alongside, arterial roads rather than using secluded secondary roads? Many side streets are designed to stop rat running by motor vehicles, but are (or could be) desined to allow cyclists through. The orbital route around the Elephant is one example of what can be done.
There are some points where traffic has to mix (the Thames bridges being the most obvious example).
CS2 should indeed run parallel to the A11/A118, but rather more than 2 metres away. Just quarter of a mile to the north a major infrastructure project is being built - why can the Crossrail project not include a cycle path alongside the railway?

timbo | 29.11.13 - 10:37 a.m. | #

No I don't remember how pleasant London was during the olympic games. I remember road closures, zil lanes and frustration all around. As to banning delivery vehicles during the day, well thats nice for cyclists, but local residents will have to pay the price of lorries keeping them awake at night.There just doesn't seem to be a win-win solution to cycling in London.

Tufnell Parker | 29.11.13 - 10:50 a.m. | #

Timbo - like a A real 'highway' cycle lane 200m to the north of CS2 alongside the Great Eastern Railway line perhaps?

Haulc | 29.11.13 - 11:13 a.m. | #

While its good to see TfL considering all options, it does seem pretty daft even floating the idea of the central lanes: they were tried and then removed in the Netherlands (because of the issues of joining/leaving the lane as mentioned). Why does TfL need to reinvent the wheel every time?

Rostopher | 29.11.13 - 11:22 a.m. | #

Is there any reason why the existing two traffic lanes can't be moved closer to the centre of the road (the old tram route) using the hashed area between lanes, then making room for a segregated cycle lane down each side of the road (I.E. next to the pavement)?

Jon Combe | 29.11.13 - 12:34 p.m. | #

Brian Dorling was an experienced cyclist and was motorcycle-trained rider, but that didn’t stop a tipper truck turning across his path at the Bow Intersection; Catriona Patel, an experienced commuter cyclist in training for the Etape du Tour, was killed at an ASL by a tipper lorry accelerating into her; Andrew McNicoll, an experienced commuter cyclist and Edinburgh Road Club rider, was killed while being overtaken by an articulated lorry; Deep Lee was struck from behind by a lorry as the lights turned green; Daniel Cox was run over by a driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.

Trained and experienced cyclists are being killed on the roads; they were not covered in a ton of steel armour and crash protection. How would taxing them or using number plates help? Better road design and driver awareness has to be the priority.

Geo_rich | 29.11.13 - 1:37 p.m. | #

@haulc

Exactly - why not?

This neatly gets cyclists across both the River Lea and the East Cross route. And, unlike HGVs, trains are not in the habit of swerving unexpectly into the next lane.

timbo | 29.11.13 - 2:59 p.m. | #

"Geo_rich" - because it might, just might encourage them to behave like responsible, accountable road users rather than the aggressive, self-righteous bunch of wilfully law-oblivious morons they almost exclusively are today.

Which would clearly reduce their chances of ending the day wrapped around the axle of an HGV.

I second Waterhouse's comments, and would add the suggestion that they should be required to be tested for knowledge and application of the laws of the road.

Simon | 29.11.13 - 5:07 p.m. | #

I'm also with Waterhouse. Bow road I lost count of the number of times I nearly got killed/injured by cyclists when using the proper crossings (lights on for pedestrians to cross). Using the overground - I've lost count of the numberof times I've been pinned to the side of the carriage by inconsiderate bike owners who seem to think they can take their f-ing bike anywhere with impunity.
As a one time cyclist - I lost count of the number of times I nearly lost it with people opening their stationary car doors (not checking), buses driving into me-out on me, other cyclists crowding me off the narrow space...gave up, never want to go there ever again. P--s-off if you lost think I'm going to cart all my work stuff on a bike in all weathers and have no where to store the bl--din bike when I get there.
I make no apologies for developing extreme views against arrogant, law breaking and selfish cyclists. (yeah, there are drivers like that but I can identify and sue them.)

B | 29.11.13 - 8:40 p.m. | #

On the way home tonight, I noticed workmen scraping-up the blue tarmac around the Bow Roundabout. How many versions of this crossing are there going to be, and how much has it cost so far?

Ghostface | 30.11.13 - 1:34 a.m. | #

Very late to the party with this but great article. I wrote a bit about this on my blog and the desire for using very wide paving which exists in many areas.

Sam - you're wrong in your first post. TfL reduced a lane from Plumstead to Woolwich in 2002 for a bus and cycle lane. Traffic became horrendous and made bus travel far, far slower. My bus commute went from 20 minutes to an hour. It has never recovered to what is was before, and very expensive remedial work had to occur. Bus reliability and frequency declined massively as huge queues built up on the single lane approach roads.

Moving lampposts from roadside to the other side of the pavement isn't too difficult - those workmen were just slow! In Bristol many lamp posts are on the other side including newly installed ones. This makes it far easier to install lanes in the future.

A lane on paving would also reduce much of the street clutter there by removing railings & excessive, un-needed signage. Compulsory purchase could be used to minimise gardens (many of which are in terrible condition) for the greater good.

fromthemurkydepths | Homepage | 06.12.13 - 8:32 p.m. | #

I feel that option 3 is a NO GO! How do cyclists enter and exit without the same problems as they counter along this route today.

Option 2 seems the best option so far and I am more than happy to guive up some pavement to the cyclists if they do the following: do not cycle through red lights along this route, do not cycle on the pavement to get around traffic quicker along this route, read the road and give way to drivers turning left when there is a break in the path, unlike they do now.

In addition I feel cylcists should have the same laws as motorcycles and drivers and these should be enforced. Helmets and high viz should be mandatory, headphones and mobile phones banned and lights have to be bigger than a 50 pence piece! They should also have some form of cycling proficiency/highway code knowledge.

I also feel that if cylcists want better rights along the road then they need to be insured and the bike licenced as well as making some form of contribution to the wear and tear of the road surfaces by means of a tax.

Although this route is dangerous, cyclists just cant have their cake and eat it!

Kelly | 09.12.13 - 12:51 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy