City of London Quietways consultation

The City of London are consulting on their Cycle Quietways and their proposals lack the quality and vision to make cycling accessible for everyone - We need your help to get this improved.

The City's aim "to improve safety and cater for the predicted increase in cycling, whilst minimising the impact on other road users and local occupiers" has led them to a watered down scheme where most of the changes are "minor, such as new or amended road markings, wayfinding signage, parking bay alterations". You can view detailed plans of the proposals here.

This approach has led to a scheme which fails to adequately provide for the "new and less confident cyclists" they are hoping to encourage.

Please respond to the consultation by emailing quietways@cityoflondon.gov.uk

I have copied my response to the consultation below, please feel free to use it as the basis of your response:

Dear City of London,

I am responding to your consultation about the proposed Quietway cycle routes through the City.

I fully support the aim of these schemes to encourage "new and less confident cyclists" to cycle more. Some of the sections proposed seem to provide the kinds of safe and protected conditions which would persuade people to cycle when they otherwise wouldn't.

However there are several other sections where the roads are left largely the same, such as installing a larger Advance Stop Line Area. Many potential new cyclists are concerned about safety on the roads and small adjustments to provision will make little difference to cyclist's experience and perception of the route, so this will not help persuade more to use it. If the City of London wants to really encourage non-cyclists to take up cycling as a form of transport the provision needs to be consistently of higher quality rather than the current patchy proposals.

In addition, the routes proposed are somewhat indirect so to ensure the routes are attractive to cyclists the phasing and priority at junctions should be adjusted to ensure the route is not more inconvenient than the more direct roads. Otherwise large numbers of cyclists may end up ignoring those sections of the routes.

Some specific comments on the plans as numbered in the consultation documentation:

• Plan 1: I welcome the use of segregation to create an inviting route, however I am concerned by the junction between Snow Hill and West Smithfield west-bound cycle lane as there is a lack of visibility for both cyclists and motorists. The position of the crossing, just past the corner, is less than ideal and this should be orientated so the crossing is more perpendicular to the road. In addition the inside kerb of the roadway needs to be adjusted to take account of the lane on the far side, there is a risk that a motorist following the inside kerb line realise late that they are heading straight in to a cycle lane. Ideally this whole junction would be redesigned so the cycle route crossed Snow Hill in one go with a single safe crossing, rather than having to deal with the arms separately and rather awkwardly.
• Plan 3: Cloth Fair is too narrow to accommodate motor traffic and should be made access only. I note that drawing a picture of a bike on the road next to an arrow doesn't make it any easier for a beginner to make a right turn and is exactly the kind of 'provision' which makes it difficult to persuade people cycling is a safe option they could try out.
• Plan 4: The pinch point which is created at the entrance to Beech Street for cyclists heading east is bound to cause conflict and will feel very unsafe for new and less confident cyclists, especially given that many cyclists experience aggression from motorists associated with situations like this, where the driver wants to get past to a clear road ahead and isn't prepared to be a little patient. In addition the left-right from Middle Street to Long Lane looks difficult and unappealing for the "new and less confident cyclists" this scheme is aimed at.
• Plan 6: I welcome the introduction of the no-through route for motor traffic and am sure that a large number of potential cyclists would regard this as safe and inviting.
• Plan 8: I am concerned by the junction between Wood Street and London Wall. For cyclists heading south the junction encourages cyclists to start off on the left hand side and traverse the traffic diagonally. This arrangement simply isn't acceptable given the numbers of cyclists who have been killed in 'left hook' type collisions, it encourages cyclists to put themselves in the danger zone and increases the risk of a fatality. The markings encouraging cyclists to cross the lane diagonally from the left should be removed and the radius on the bend tightened to ensure there is no space for a vehicle to get on the outside of a cyclist. Alternatively southbound traffic should be removed from Wood Street as part of a one way system for motor traffic, with a segregated counter-flow cycle lane introduced.

I hope these suggestions help you improve the quality of these proposals.

Kind regards,

Fred

Proposed Quietway routes (purple)

Consultations - 'Quietways' and more!

Did you know there are now three 'Quietway' junction proposals out to consultation? TfL are consulting on junctions on Stamford Street (part of Quietway 2), City Road and Great Dover Street.

In particular City Road is worth commenting on - although the lane widening on Colebrooke Row is needed, the proposals for two stage right turns at look confusing and possibly inadequate with clear potential for conflict with pedestrians. Cyclists are directed to a small area with no separation from the road, their backs to the traffic and pointing in the wrong direction. As there are already ways to make two stage right turns in these locations, I can't see people will want to use the proposals currently drawn.

What these proposals say about the Quietway programme:

• TfL thinks building a Quietway mostly means making bigger ASLs.
• All the proposals maintain the current traffic arrangements at the junctions and many of the improvements are improved versions of the existing infrastructure or purely cosmetic.  
• The proposals do not attempt to significantly improve the conditions for cycling at these junctions.

Haven't we been here before?

New signs, maps and pictures of bikes painted in the road, but missing out on meaningful improvements or cycle infrastructure. TfL appear to be repeating the same mistakes they made with the original Cycle Superhighways. The success of a route will depends on the quality of the provision.

The idea of Quietways was to make use of back routes with little motor traffic to provide a safe, inviting and cost-effective network of routes (an idea I support). However the designers seem to have interpreted this to mean it's OK to produce ineffective/cosmetic interventions with negligible benefits to cyclists and designs which either are either lazy or lacking in ambition.

TfL need to learn that real improvements are needed to create routes for inclusive cycling: More signage isn't going to convince people to take up cycling when they feel the the roads aren't safe!

The Quietways should be more ambitious about providing high quality provision through the junctions and where possible eliminating all through traffic from routes. The Colebrooke Row scheme should have sorted out a route which is currently disjointed, instead Owen Street is untouched and only half the route is resolved to a decent standard. Any two stage right turns need adequately sized and marked waiting areas in the right locations in order to make these viable.

This is what Stamford Street would look like with a shot of ambition:

@miroirdufou @nuttyxander @AlternativeDfT @VoleOSpeed Now I know how wide Stamford Street is I'd do this pic.twitter.com/QHVQSamcEj
— maidstoneonbike (@maidstoneonbike) December 15, 2014

Dangerous (safer!) junction consultations still open!

Have you checked out Old Street roundabout, Vauxhall Cross and Stockwell Cross? All still open for your comments - please support them!

The good news is that TfL are now getting a lot of the big decisions right, after a lot of work from campaigners like the LCC (and their Space4Cycling guidance). However there are some areas for criticism:

• Some of the details give the impression the designers think a bike is new kind of car - 20m slip lanes suggest a frustrated motorway designer did Old Street roundabout.
• In other areas the design is incoherent - as if the cyclists can evaporate when the designers run out of ideas. I hope the lane on the east of Old Street is a drawing error and they don't plan to have it slim down to a pinch point and then widen a few metres later seeming fed from the pavement... it would literally make no sense if they wanted to do this on purpose.
• Finally the proposals for Stockwell Road are disappointing in that they include potential for cyclists to get left hooked, despite making improvements elsewhere. While there are some measures to mitigate this (early start), they should follow through and completely remove this possibility.

While progress sometimes often feels slow, after decades ignoring cycling the UK is overcoming a lack of knowledge and standards. Hopefully consultation responses help push things forwards? Comment below if you want.