Kennington. LCC and TfL foolishness. Now it's personal.

[Drago]

That gonna end in tears.

 

[StuAff]

Neil Young did a song about it.....Piece of C***.

 

[RedRider]

What's a stepped.cycle track? Hemmed in by a kerb?What's a raised carriageway? What's an improved urban realm for fark's sake?

It seems to be a scheme for exporting the congestion, frustration and some of the worries of motoring to the world of cycle commuting.

Seems like it.

Seems pedestrians get a raw deal too. Far less pavement and a cycle bus bypass to negotiate.

 

[srw]

I read it as mandatory use cycle lanes.

No such thing in the UK. Unless cycling is explicitly barred it's allowed everywhere on the road.

 

[benborp]

Is that on top of the MGIF thing that cycle commuting already seems to have?

Exactly that!

 

[mjr]

My prejudices against the LCC aren't really based on stuff I read here. They are largely based on the crappy emails LCC send to me themselves. They tend to be overly patronising and "Ooh look at us! We know what's best for you even more than you know yourself". I put them in the gap between BC and CTC and I can't say I'm a huge fan of CTC.

Yeah, I get those emails too and I know what you mean. I really ought to have a look at who's actually writing them. They feel a bit like it's been outsourced to a staffer semi-detached from cycling. Which I can understand - I don't envy our local newsletter editor who has to keep chasing volunteers for stories.

I'd put most CycleNation groups (including LCC) sort of in the gap and slightly off the BC (racing) and CTC (touring) axis. As far as I can tell, CN's always been more about pushing politicians to support lone practical riders, although it's not always headed forwards IMO.

Confining that number of London rush-hour cyclists at the Oval to that small a space while accommodating two diverging paths and traffic lights is a recipe for constant blue on blue incidents. The southbound A3/A23 junction has barely any capacity at all before the separate streams will foul.

Except that cyclists aren't confined to the blue lanes and nor should they be. I don't like that the straight-on northbound cycle lane is left of the turn-left carriageway lanes because it looks like your last chance to overflow into the carriageway lanes might be a long way back at Magee Street, if that pink line means a stupid Bloomsbury-style kerb rather than something you can ride over.

The consequences of encountering any misbehaving traffic, of any type, look far more severe, harder to mitigate and likely to be more frequent than at present.

Such as...?

Looking solely at cyclists' behaviour, using the straight, consistent CS7 along Kennington Park Road is dicey enough at the moment.

"straight, consistent CS7"??? Straight except that it hops lanes and consistent except that it suddenly vanishes from a cycle-only lane and reappears in an adjacent shared lane?

But so much for just kicking it, long after the consultation has passed. I ask again: what would be the best solution there?

I think I would have preferred a layout more like the about-to-be-replaced layout of the Hills Road bridge in Cambridge http://cambridge.cyclestreets.net/location/48831/ where the turn-left lane has to give way to crossing cycle lane traffic, but I doubt that's popular on CC.

 

[youngoldbloke]

Lets face it - If all the encouragement to get more and more people on bikes is successful, NONE of the existing provision will be adequate.

 

[booze and cake]

I live near here and myself and many others have complained about this junction for years. My main gripe is coming from Kennington to Oval and the danger of traffic cutting across CS7 to turn left onto the A23 Brixton Road, I've seen countless near misses here. Yet unless I'm misreading the diagram it seems they have'nt done a thing to change that (unless the traffic light phasing is now going to make turning right across CS7 impossible??) and seem to be focusing more on traffic going the other way towards Kennington, which was never any trouble before anyway.

The current painted smurf road is nowhere near wide enough for the volume of cyclists at rush hour, so by segregating it they seem to be trying to condemn cyclists to the gridlocked misery currently experienced by the forlorn motorists using this route at present. Traffic caused by the roadworks as they do this is absolute chaos, cars are often nose to tail in total gridlock every morning going back to Brixton. I refuse to be hemmed in and shall be ignoring the blue road of slowness and will instead continue to filter inbetween the mostly stationary traffic. Luckily I won't hear the shouts of 'get in the bloody cycle lane' as they'll be drowned out by the thumping techno from my headphones

 

[Origamist]

I've looked at that kaleidoscopic plan really hard and the only positive I can see is that they have banned left turns onto Harleyford St.

 

[mcshroom]

No such thing in the UK. Unless cycling is explicitly barred it's allowed everywhere on the road.

No there isn't, though it's possible to make them under existing laws such as the Humber bridge where bikes are banned from the main carriageway of the A15 over the bridge. Along with the raising of the adjacent road as it seemed to be labelled then I wondered if they were trying to do similar. May just be paranoia.

 

[mjr]

Yes, it's explicitly barred on that bit of A15, which is what was written. These plans don't seem toinclude such a ban, bbut people should keep watching the fine print to make sure because it wouldn't be the first time plans change after consultation

 

[benborp]

Except that cyclists aren't confined to the blue lanes and nor should they be. I don't like that the straight-on northbound cycle lane is left of the turn-left carriageway lanes because it looks like your last chance to overflow into the carriageway lanes might be a long way back at Magee Street, if that pink line means a stupid Bloomsbury-style kerb rather than something you can ride over.

Exactly. That cycle infrastructure will not accommodate the number of cyclists that will attempt to use it at peak times. People will use it, it will fill up, some will queue, some will jump the queue, some will bypass the cycle routes when they see they are busy, some will bypass the cycle routes as a matter of course. With this layout a cyclist would sensibly have to have made a decision on how to navigate this junction before they had passed the previous one (probably before they can see which route through is clearest), taken a position on the road and held it for 200-300m. The majority of people aren't going to be behave in such a clear cut disciplined manner. The infrastructure doesn't grant the flexibility to allow a mix of cyclists to navigate that junction safely.
A side note on the the cyclist's option to bypass the cycle infrastructure northbound - the three main traffic lanes have been reassigned from one turning left onto the A23 and two continuing straight on via the A3 to the other way round. Now, it's a regular occurrence as a cyclist to find oneself being bullied out of an attempt to use the centre lane to access the cycle lane and continue straight on. The provision of highly visible, disruptive cycle infrastructure while providing only one lane for all other traffic not using the cycle route on to the A3 isn't going to make that manoeuvre any easier to negotiate.

Such as...?

The current layout does have problems. Conflicts arise between those that wish to turn left and those that wish to continue straight on - this happens in both directions and isn't limited to solely cyclist/motorist interactions. These conflicts occur when streams diverge - the vehicles involved are initially travelling in the same direction and shouldn't have any conflict of priority; they do so when someone doesn't grant another road user the space and time one should expect. Dealing with this sort of conflict is part of the general awareness of travelling in a traffic stream, there are usually a few cues as to when a situation is developing. The resulting (hopefully) near miss is usually a squeeze.
The traffic streams with alternate priorities are held back at some distance and cross at right angles - visibility and awareness of any transgressor is pretty good - it's why many cyclists successfully RLJ.

The proposed layout separates different streams of traffic that originate from the same direction and then grants each stream different priorities as they cross each other. This means that if someone jumps a light or swaps lanes aggressively then they will come into conflict with those that are
i) already in close proximity
ii) probably less aware of the transgressors presence due to the acute angles involved
iii) more likely to collide as the streams cross at a sufficient enough angle to make a 'squeeze' less likely

The more complex arrangement will lead to more people making mistakes, more people deliberately flouting rules and laws and more opportunities for people to do so. Designing a junction in London without an awareness that this would be the case isn't feasible after Bow. This scheme is another whole area of fail.

"straight, consistent CS7"??? Straight except that it hops lanes and consistent except that it suddenly vanishes from a cycle-only lane and reappears in an adjacent shared lane?

The 850m of CS7 that continues on Kennington Park Road in a straight line, in the same lane, at the same width, with the same status broken only by markings for pedestrian crossings and bus stops. That bit.

But so much for just kicking it, long after the consultation has passed. I ask again: what would be the best solution there?

I think I would have preferred a layout more like the about-to-be-replaced layout of the Hills Road bridge in Cambridge http://cambridge.cyclestreets.net/location/48831/ where the turn-left lane has to give way to crossing cycle lane traffic, but I doubt that's popular on CC.

The Cambridge solution is pretty similar to the current northbound arrangement on the A3. The problem is scale, variety and complexity. The London junction carries more traffic, in more lanes, that backs up further. Its requirements change drastically through the day. There are other large junctions in close proximity and rush hour motor vehicle capacity will have knock on effects for miles in several directions. It's a symptom of London's unwieldy road system that was first bolloxed when the Romans decided to move London Bridge. I don't think that there is a hard infrastructure solution that will work in the space available. Banning turns and regulating traffic flows is one option (which this proposed layout does, and I can imagine that being the only solution to one of the essential requirements for this scheme - stop the repeated killing of cyclists outside Oval tube station). But I think such measures need to be far more robustly implemented. Brixton is an example where this has been done extensively, and for some distance from the centre, but for the sake of congestion management though.

Dare I say it, but paint, oodles of coloured paint that designates pretty much the whole junction as a mandatory cycle lane during rush hour might be the solution that offers flexibility. If mandatory cycle lanes were more like bus lanes in London that would be a game changer. Bus lanes are observed religiously because of enforcement. Many motorists don't even use them outside their hours of operation. Enforced mandatory cycle lanes would boost the effectiveness of advisory lanes as well. Both should have a minimum width of one standard traffic lane, it would make for a far more pleasant cycling experience - newcomer to old hand alike.

 

[benborp]

This appears to be close to the finished state, there is a temporary ramp onto the pavement at the start.

I can't say I'm impressed and the implementation of this section has made me aware of other flaws elsewhere in the plans that I hadn't anticipated.

What are others' thoughts?

 

[subaqua]

This appears to be close to the finished state, there is a temporary ramp onto the pavement at the start.

I can't say I'm impressed and the implementation of this section has made me aware of other flaws elsewhere in the plans that I hadn't anticipated.

What are other's thoughts?

If it is anything like the "new improved " bits of CS2 between aldgate and mile end, it will be a utter shambles. They really ought to get an engineer in who can

i) set a level accurately
ii) manage a contractor to ensure the correct levels are followed

And make sure it is kept clear of detritus that will batter wheels into Pringles in a quick timescale.

 

[mjr]

What are others' thoughts?

Where's the blooming protection? I was expecting a proper step with a slope on the cycleway side and gaps to allow entry/exit. Like the Bloomsbury cycleway but proper width and with the correct kerb on the cycleway side.

Time will tell, but it looks a bit like neither fish nor fowl: insufficient physical protection to prevent motorist encroachment yet enough that it's hazardous for cycles to overflow onto the carriageway, insufficient width for the volume of cycles yet enough to attract them.

How's the surface? Level and smooth machine-laid HRA 55/10? Wasn't it meant to be blue? Does it being black mean that they're going to be putting paint on top?