please empty your brain below

All TfL's data is nonsense, of course. TfL predicted calamity during the Olympics which completely failed to materialise. In fact, the roads were much clearer during the olympics. TfL falsely assumes:

1. People won't switch from driving or taking taxis to cycling. This is nonsense: people will switch because it will be so much safer to cycle when the upgrade is built, and much of the congestion will go away.

2. Buses and cycles don't hold each other up because they travel at the same average speed. This is nonsense: at present, cycles get stuck behind buses at bus stops and buses get stuck behind cycles between bus stops. All this will go away when the upgrade is built.

3. Pedestrians always wait for the green man to cross. This is nonsense: when the upgrade is complete, most pedestrians will be able to cross the cycle track between bicycles instead of waiting for the green man, then they will have narrower motor lanes to cross than at present, which makes it easier and faster to cross between green men.

When New York installed protected cycle lanes like the CS2 upgrade, they thought motor traffic would slow down, but it got faster. Local business takings went up 49% and injuries to all road users fell rapidly, including people walking and cycling. Londoners deserve lots more upgrades like this.
Good numbercrunching by DG as ever. But disappointing to see that DG is recommending only "cyclists" will benefit. What about people who want to cycle but are too frightened because the present dangerous design of CS2 keeps killing people? I bet they outnumber current "cyclists" many times over.

And what about the people who live on the route (hello DG), who will benefit from less pollution as people choose to cycle instead of taking their car or getting the bus? Or the busy mums who will prefer to walk next to a flow of bicycles instead of the old system where pavements go next to the smelly buses?
Consultations today are merely tick-box exercises before changes are implemented, irrespective of public opinion.

Discuss.
My instinct tells me that if pedestrians will be affected by the introduction of right-turn lights for cyclists then surely ALL the traffic going the other way must also be affected when it is stopped to allow the right turns and so the journey times must be longer.
Cyclists will have safer and faster journeys. But there are many more pedestrians than cyclists or motorists, and they will have longer and more dangerous journeys, as they won't wait very long for the lights to change in their favour if they perceive a gap in the traffic.

Prediction: there will be many more extra pedestrian casualties and fatalities than the reduction in cyclist casualties and fatalities.
Waste of money - hardly any cyclists on it. Just like the dangleway. Perhaps you should do a survey of the number of cyclists using CS2.
i *need* to know DG, that that every morning that you cross your local road junction you time yourself to see how long you have to wait and enter this data into a spreadsheet.

Can we see a screenshot of the spreadsheet please? thanks.
Geofftech: I am sure DG will do exactly what you request, IF he thinks it will make interesting reading for all his readers. If not, not.
How many ‘typical’ pedestrian journeys in the area require more than one of these crossings to be made? If a 15 minute journey is extended on average by 20s, no big deal, but if there are half a dozen of these 20s extensions that’s more problematic.
FFS, they haven't even included PTWs.
Obviously a non-entity as far as they look at it.
Pedestrians always lose out when roads are rearranged. Having a cycle way next to the pavement only encourages bikes to use that as a short cut for missing traffic lights. Those extra 20 seconds spent waiting for the green light can mean missing that bus,(which of course will take longer anyway!)
Gotta say, one of the least appealing features of these proposals for these segregated lanes is that they're there - permanent - every hour of the day and every day of the week.
Even bus lanes (typically) have "off" times when other road users can use them.
And that would NOT be because buses couldn't operate if they didn't have the freedom to move in and out of the bus lanes laid down for them; it'd be on the simple logical basis that the majority of bus lanes do not need to be bus lanes (to the selfish exclusion of everybody else) ALL THE BLOODY TIME :(
RogerW

Surely the times bus lanes aren't specifically needed by buses is when traffic flow is light, so motor vehicles wouldn't benefit from using them. The beauty of 24-hour lanes is they are available if traffic spontaneously gets heavy at an unpredictable time. A similar logic will apply for cycle lanes.
Andrew wrote: "Prediction: there will be many more extra pedestrian casualties and fatalities than the reduction in cyclist casualties and fatalities"

But that's a fallacy. Pedestrian injuries always fall when segregated cycle lanes are installed. Here's what happened in New York:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/10/02/report-pedestrian-injuries-caused-by-cyclists-declining-in-nyc/
Sorry, Andrew, but no... there won't be ANY times these cycle lanes will be available to be shared by any other kinds of road users, as a result of the proposed raised kerbing dividers.
yesterday I went to Excel for a TfL exhibition about accessibility. There was a CS2 exhibit, I had a chat with one of the organisers, quoting what I could remember of what dg had said here.
(if I'd known beforehand I could have memorised the whole thing, but I'm no longer a cyclist so I've only taken an overall interest as it won't affect me personally). Anyway he agreed with the points about delays to pedestrians.
slightly off topic but there was also a mocked up tube train, destination Verney Junction, maps inside showing "The Beck Line" with many stations eg Down St, York Way, British Museum and many others, including Dollis Hill. I hadn't realised that had closed!!
Though supposedly it's actually quite dangerous to be a pedestrian, it's a danger most of us do not really perceive I don't think, so I'm saying that pedestrians generally feel safe. Cyclists on the other hand I'd imagine to feel quite unsafe at present. Even if we who wait at traffic lights have to wait longer, and we far outnumber cyclists, I'd be entirely happy to spend an extra few minutes of a journey standing safely at the road side with no worries of imminent truck-death and have cyclists be equally worry free about the same.
Yet again we have partial data about the impact on bus passengers. There is no point in just featuring one bus route when there are three that run along the main road in question plus others than run for short distances along it. There are also the impacts at somewhere like Mile End where considerable numbers of buses have to cross the Mile End Road where I assume wait times will be extended compared to now.

Under TfL's business case methodology you typically take the marginal change and multiply it by the numbers of users that will benefit / disbenefit. All those extra minutes per bus passenger will soon add up to a massive disbenefit number especially for those people forced to stand. The 25 is London's busiest bus route so huge numbers will be affected. This same partial "analysis" also applies to the N-S and E-W cycle superhighway proposals. If you are going to consult then please give people the *full* picture for all of those affected not a load of simplistic nonsense that does not tell the truth.

That criticism applies to the entire exercise - properly evaluate the impact for all cyclists, all car users, all commercial trade vehicles, motorcyclists, bus users and pedestrians and give us the total impacts in the business case. Only then can people have some confidence that a proper exercise is being done rather than presenting a bit of info for a scheme that is going to be implemented regardless because it is a Mayoral edict. It's about time City Hall gave us the truth.
Went to the consultation session today (10 Oct) at the Idea Store.
Was slightly amused by the sign at the entrance saying "TfL consultation in Lab1a"
Completed a questionnaire.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy