please empty your brain below

DG,

I mostly view these concerns as someone who would like to be able to cycle down this road and can't because it's too dangerous. It's interesting reading the perspective of someone who is primarily a pedestrian/public transport user.

Ultimately, to me, this looks like a cycle improvement with very limited negative consequences for drivers or buses - TfL are trumpeting that there will be less than 125m of vehicle lane removed along the whole route for example. I don't see the banned right turns as an issue: each one had 1-200 drivers an hour using it, and parallel main roads (notably Commercial Road and the Eastway, which are pretty vile for any non-motorists) can easily take drivers to those locations.

I remember your review of CS3 when it opened and possibly CS2 and your noting that they wouldn't tempt you to get on a bike. Would you wish to cycle this route in a way you wouldn't have done the others?

(If it did tempt you, you might be more amenable to accepting the costs this incurs...)
i am concerned that in the cycle way debate (particularly the proposed new North/South and East/West segregated cycle ways), the pedestrian and public transport user is the one getting the raw deal
A busy cycle route yet I did not see any cyclists in your photos.
Harry,

I hope I made the point that the CS2 upgrade is very necessary - a blue stripe down the road is no superhighway at all. But a segregated lane can't be added without consequences for other road users, and there are several places where the impact will be non-trivial.

I'll come back and investigate the banned right turns more closely in the future; but railways, a canal and a cemetery mean there are no obvious alternative routes for local traffic apart from minor residential streets.

Don't hold your breath on seeing me taking up cycling anytime soon. My nearest road junction is still the dreaded Bow Roundabout.
John,

The photos were taken mid-afternoon, which is not a peak commuting time. CS2 gets a lot busier with bikes in the evening rush hour, but at this time of year that's after dark.
As someone who would cycle if these improvements meet their objective of making getting into town safer, I am cautiously optimistic. But with the huge caveat that if the cycle hire bikes outside Bow Road station are removed, I won't be able to access a bike. I made this point in my response to the consultation, but apparantly to no effect.
Hi DG,

Thanks for the answer - I phrased my comment ineptly: you did make it very clear you sympathised with the need to improve safety for cyclists.

As someone who until recently used Burdett Road on my commute (as a cyclist), I'm pretty certain most of the vehicles using it are not local (or even stopping), hence my conviction that the measures are unlikely to be a major problem. Were LBTH to identify more rat-running (as opposed to local access) as a result, the sensible thing to do would be to filter (limit through vehicle routes) on backstreets, which would improve conditions (air quality, safety, rat-running) for residents substantially, while maintaining access. I'm not holding my breath though.

I'd be fascinated to read your thoughts on the right turns and I should be clear that I'm very much looking forward to seeing your chronicle of the changes to street.

And if the do one day get Bow Roundabout redesigned/knocked down, perhaps you'll get to make use of that docking station which takes up so much of your pavement.
forgive my ignorance but you say ... "wands' will be used to prevent vehicles and cyclists from coming into contact ... what on earth are these?
I feel sure that Harry is correct and most of the vehicles using the main roads here (and elsewhere in London) are non local. Why should people living here have to live with high levels of through traffic? It doesn't sound as if road space for motorised vehicles is being reduced very much in this scheme, but the improved provision for cycling should have some effect on modal shift.

I think this is one of the big attractions of cycling to TfL. If significant numbers of people shift from cars (or even buses/ rail) it makes providing for them easier/ cheaper. The cost of a few miles of new tube line would presumably be enough to provide a decent segregated cycle network throughout large parts of London for example.

Whilst the improvements to CS2 will be welcomed by many cyclists/ potential cyclists a comprehensive network of segregated infrastructure will be needed before cycling becomes a mainstream activity. Don't expect to see small children cycling to school or little old ladies to the shops just yet. If it's not enough to attract DG it's likely it won't be enough to attract others.

Harry I'd agree with you on the filtering too. I believe it's called filtered permeability, basically you physically prevent through traffic, whilst maintaining access for residents and deliveries etc. It would be desirable if the banned turns did not reroute traffic onto unsuitable streets.
If you read the consultation report, which I'd recommend, you'll see that the banned right turns at Burdett Road aren't a deliberate choice, they're because TfL modelled lots of alternative solutions and ended up with massive traffic congestion. The option we've ended up with is the least worst.
Read the report? I thought that's what we paid you to do ;)

Might have to find some time, I'm sure it's interesting stuff. Off the top of top of my head the nearest usefull alternatives to the Burdett Road turns aren't great. I'm fairly sure one can get Harford St coming from the west. From the east it's all a bit of a mess. Isn't this going to lead to a fair few people doing U turns at this junction, or are these prevented by the scheme? Ok, I'll read the report.
As you so eloquently point out, DG, the worst bits about cycle lanes is that motorists tend to park in them, legally or not. Parked cars a cyclist can see over, parked vans just block everything. Then there are bus stops, and buses to deal with.

But the worst thing is that bike lanes are on the kerb edge of a road. That's where the tarmac gets uneven, patchy and lumpy, also sprinkled with broken glass. Nice!

Yes, if there are cycle lanes I'll use them, but sometimes I wonder who designed them, and for whom?
@ Caroline

I'm sure someone who is bit more clever than me will post a link to what "wands" look like. In the meantime...basically I think it refers to plastic flexi-tubes similar to traffic cones but slim and attached to road. They are flexible enough so that in a emergency can be driven over by fire/ambulance/police vehicles. They offer no real protection but are a physical/visable tool to keep vehicles apart.
Hmmm. Never has so much been given, by so many... to so few :(
thanks Ed ... I think I can visualise what you mean
Nice review. Your main point seems to be that bus passengers will incur some inconvenience as a result of the upgrade. I'd be amazed if it were possible to improve things radically for cyclists without some inconvenience to other road users. And why not? The numbers of cyclists commuting have risen hugely over the last 10 years. They should be given more space on the roads and maybe others should be willing to be slightly inconvenienced in the process. It seems a simple matter of courtesy to me.

That said I think you're right to spot some possible design flaws in this scheme. Let's see if you are right.
"inconvenience to other road users" indeed...but what say of all the noise, fumes and congestion caused by those "other road users". If more people cycle...because say things improve for cyclists, then those who travel by taxi, car, motorbike, van or lorry will in theory benefit too. There is less congestion, less fumes and less noise. The road will last longer...less roadworks. Hopefully less RTCs...which will save a great deal of hearthache not to mention the delays caused by "incidents". Think many people forget that the "convenience" of those who travel in their climate-controlled personal vehicle cause a "inconvenience" for those who walk, cycle and travel on often slow, over-crowded and (lets be honest) at times "unpleasant" buses.
Any improvements to cycle ways that keeps the cyclists from riding on the pavements of our towns and cities is to be applauded.
You speak about the slaughter of the bus stops, but in my view one of the main reasons that bus journeys are so tediously slow is that there are far too many bus stops. There really is no need for an intermediate stop between the DLR station and the roundabout.

However, I don't disagree that removing the stop by the roundabout where buses can currently stop without blocking traffic lanes is a ridiculous idea. They should retain that stop and use it for the driver changeovers rather than the stop at Bow Church DLR, which regularly blocks one of the two lanes of traffic with buses parked awaiting new drivers.
There really is a need for an intermediate stop between the DLR station and the roundabout. I can tell you this because
a) I live there
b) it's really busy
c) it's the point where two sets of three bus routes first meet.

The stop by the roundabout blocks the cycle lane and can't be bypassed, hence would be a dreadful place for driver changeovers.
Your rail bridge underpasses at a planned 1.5m sound pretty good compared to the fare around here:
https://meltdblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/hiding-in-the-shadows/

For stopped busses they reliably pull so close to the kerb and are of very standard widths. Although in the last photos above the cars will stream past blocking any cyclists it is possible to have the adjacent lane narrow enough that cars cant pass while the bus is stopped as shown in the 4th photo. Then cyclists safely use the remaining space in the lane to overtake the stopped bus.
Roger, you said:

"Hmmm. Never has so much been given, by so many... to so few :("

I presume you mean that there are few cyclists, so the road should not be improved for cyclists. Bit of a chicken and egg argument you've got going on there. Aside from the fact that this is a very busy cycle route, the improvements are not primarily for the people already using the route. They should be to make it suitable for everyone to use. You don't see many elderly people or children cycling around because the conditions are so terrible.

How much of the road are cyclists supposed to take up? They generally get a lot less than pedestrians, and constitute at least as many journeys along most of the route as pedestrians.

Have a think about what sort of roads you would cycle along with a young or elderly relative.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy