changes to the Bow roundabout?

[Kiwiavenger]

just read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16521930 and wanted to know your comments on it, i remember the cyclist down threads surrounding this junction and to be fair i dont know of it that well having never travelled there

would the suggested plans work for the junction? ASLs and traffic lights etc

 

[stowie]

Travel it fairly regularly and am encouraged by this news (albeit quite sketchy at the moment).

Bow flyover Eastbound is two lanes, but rarely busy (everyone seems to want to go on the A12), and putting in really good cycle lanes both ways is perfectly feasible - westbound is already one lane with the excess road width simply hatched.

I see many cyclists (and myself) use the flyover in preference to the roundabout, so making this more accessible is my choice. I wonder how they will control the slip-roads which are the most difficult part of the flyover - ideally speed limits would be reduced (or at least policed) and the exit and entrance slips narrowed.

The cycle lights should be a reasonable idea as long as they work, and we don't become second class road-users waiting for ages for "our turn".

 

[subaqua]

traffic lights at the top of the slips visible from the flyover, would start to solve the problem .

 

[style over speed]

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/22247.aspx

pdf plans and comments link at bottom of the page, no pedestrian crossings…

 

[stowie]

My first optimistic view on this scheme appears misplaced. I wondered at the change of heart from TfL at installing cycle "early start" lights when they had been previously been adamant that any help for cyclists or pedestrians would incur an "unacceptable" delay to motor traffic. I now realise that there has been no change of heart - the cycle scheme at the roundabout is a massive compromise for cyclists in order to make sure there is absolutely no compromise in "traffic flow".

The videos put up by TfL here illustrate the issues.

The scheme at the roundabouts is basically a deep ASL with a filter lane. The ASL is controlled by standard traffic lights applicable to all road users, whilst the filter lane has a cycle specific light before the cyclist enters the ASL.

I think this works (I use the word losely) as follows.

1) When cyclists are in the ASL, they are held by the "standard" lights at red; whilst these lights are red, the cycling filter light is green to allow entry to the ASL.
2) The cycle filter light then goes to red to prevent any cyclist filtering from progressing to the ASL as the "standard" lights go to green.
3) The standard lights go green and the cyclists and vehicular traffic set off at the same time (Ok, so the video shows the front standard lights changing a fraction of a second before the ones at the back of the ASL, but I suspect most drivers will start to move based upon the lights in the front of the ASL anyway, and even if they don't the timing appears to be in the order of a second).

This means that

1) Cyclists will have to wait a minimum of 1 traffic light cycle (if they arrive at the filter when the standard lights are red) or a maximum of 2 traffic light cycles (if they arrive as the standard lights are turning green, but the filter light has turned red). Cyclists will therefore wait for around twice as long as vehicular traffic to negotiate the roundabout - assuming of course that cyclists don't just get pissed off and jump the filter or use the standard carriageway instead.

2) The cyclist "early start" is simply the time between the cyclists at the front of the ASL moving off and the time taken for the vehicular traffic to traverse the ASL. If you are slow at taking off and the cars behind are quick, it looks like there will still be conflict. And that is with the optimistic assumption that this ASL will be unique in not generally being encroached upon by the vehicular traffic anyway - at which point all "early start" advantage, no matter how small, disappears. Considering that the junction generally tails back at peak times, I would assume the ASL will be full of queueing traffic that didn't make the change in lights in time.

I am really pissed off at this scheme, now I understand what TfL have done. This is basically a rubbish attempt to give cyclists some head start, which probably will be massively compromised by encroachment of vehicles into the ASL anyway, and an attempt to separate cyclists by holding them up for possibly twice as long as the average motor vehicle. And it won't work anyway since some motorists will simply ignore the ASL as per usual. The whole scheme is massively compromised by TfLs utter obsession with traffic flow, to the point it won't work.

Maybe the flyover scheme will be better than the roundabout one. But I am somewhat more than cynical that the "proposal" for the flyover will ever be more than a suggestion on paper. Since it would involve lights that would have to affect traffic flow to aid cyclists onto the flyover, and removing a traffic lane to implement a cycle lane east-bound, I assume that the proposal will be quietly dropped as "impractical"

I expect that this scheme will mean most cyclists will continue to use the flyover as now, and that cyclists who don't want to negotiate the carriage-way to reach the flyover will have to use this scheme where they are delayed in order to be offered pretty much zero time advantage to pass the A12 exits before vehicular traffic comes, once again, into conflict with them.

I think that, by now, you may be able to guess where I believe TfL should shove this particular plan.

 

[yello]

I wonder how they will control the slip-roads which are the most difficult part of the flyover

That'd square with my experiences too. In my case, of the Staples Corner flyover. Whilst traffic was often far too fast over it, by far my greatest concern was the traffic joining it.

 

[dawesome]

Another half-measure from the planners. There was me thinking it would be a green phase just for bicycles, rather than a bigger ASZ. And TfL had the nerve to call the plans "innovative" and "radical".​

A spokesperson told me that in the past three years City Police issued 12 fixed penalties to motorists for entering ASZs unlawfully. Yet in the same period it handed out just over 6,000 fixed penalties to cyclists for jumping red lights.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/24/safety-red-lights-cyclists

 

[stowie]

Another half-measure from the planners. There was me thinking it would be a green phase just for bicycles, rather than a bigger ASZ. And TfL had the nerve to call the plans "innovative" and "radical".​

A spokesperson told me that in the past three years City Police issued 12 fixed penalties to motorists for entering ASZs unlawfully. Yet in the same period it handed out just over 6,000 fixed penalties to cyclists for jumping red lights.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/24/safety-red-lights-cyclists

Presumably "innovative" and "radical" sound better on press-releases than "bollocks" and "half arsed".

At peak times the slip road to the roundabout is heaving (certainly east-bound). So cars will legitimately enter the deep ASL on green, but with the vehicles crawling to get onto the A12, they will end up stopped in the ASL on red. This, as far as I know, is entirely legal - drivers can enter an ASL on green even if the exit is blocked. Not to mention that many will simply roll up to through the ASL anyway because they are completely unpoliced.

Call me mystic meg but here is my prediction. TfL will decide that the cycle-lane on flyover and lights to aid will disrupt traffic flow too much and will be unnecessary because they have "sorted out" the problem on the roundabout. The flyover cycle lane will be put under consultation indefinitely. The bow roundabout lights scheme as detailed by TfL now will be implemented.

Cyclists will get pissed off waiting for ages for lights to change and will ignore the filter lights. Complaints will be made as near misses continue. The ASL will be perma-blocked at peak times. The police will clamp down, not on the ASL enchroachment, but on cyclists jumping lights or ignoring the "facility". TfL will issue a statement about looking at options for "cyclist training". Most cyclists will ignore the roundabout and continue over the flyover without any extra help from TfL. The whole scheme will probably be costed at £10M or something idiotic. I will continue to refer to TfL using profanities that would be frowned upon in polite company.

 

[stowie]

Oh joy.

Apparently Newham council are the highway authority for the flyover. This is the same council that blocked CS2 to the Olympics until after them, so I think it will be a cold day in hell before any cycle lanes and lights get implemented on the flyover. So I guess we will be left with the cycle "double delay" cycle lights and ASLs full of vehicles.

Super.

 

[subaqua]

Oh joy.

Apparently Newham council are the highway authority for the flyover. This is the same council that blocked CS2 to the Olympics until after them, so I think it will be a cold day in hell before any cycle lanes and lights get implemented on the flyover. So I guess we will be left with the cycle "double delay" cycle lights and ASLs full of vehicles.

Super.

now thats not strictly true is it. they decided not to proceed as the security services/ODA/LOCOG advised not to let bicycles enter the park due to the chances some nutter would fill one full of semtex etc . why buid a lane using olympic development money when you could wait till later and take it from another budget. ( for those that are hard of thinking , th e last sentence is heavily dosed with sarcasm)
the time frames for doing "properly " were not avaialble so resources were used elsewhere. what councillors get told and what councilors tell you are 2 different things from the reality .

no doubt some clever person will put the pic up of the light column in the "cycle path" on Mountfitchet way and claim its a main route to the park, when its not. if the whole picture is posted its a different story.


bow needs dealing with sensibly and a bit of blue paint isn't going to work. what are the rules concerning box junctions for cyclists. could they make the ASLs box junctions, Newham does love a box junction camera and they can be used for prosecutions. maybe something to think about.

 

[marafi]

I wonder how long that would take because i would need to go through that to get to Univeristy. Hurray let there be more changes to junctions made!

 

[stowie]

[quote="subaqua, post: 1681406, member: 13512"]now thats not strictly true is it. they decided not to proceed as the security services/ODA/LOCOG advised not to let bicycles enter the park due to the chances some nutter would fill one full of semtex etc . why buid a lane using olympic development money when you could wait till later and take it from another budget. ( for those that are hard of thinking , th e last sentence is heavily dosed with sarcasm)
the time frames for doing "properly " were not avaialble so resources were used elsewhere. what councillors get told and what councilors tell you are 2 different things from the reality .

no doubt some clever person will put the pic up of the light column in the "cycle path" on Mountfitchet way and claim its a main route to the park, when its not. if the whole picture is posted its a different story.


bow needs dealing with sensibly and a bit of blue paint isn't going to work. what are the rules concerning box junctions for cyclists. could they make the ASLs box junctions, Newham does love a box junction camera and they can be used for prosecutions. maybe something to think about.[/quote]

Newham appeared to be trying to blame the ODA with the ODA saying that they had nothing to do with the decision. Then a variety of reasons for not being able to extend the route seem to have been floated, ranging from the unlikely to the downright weird .My personal favourite is the following, taken from the ES.

A Newham council spokesman said: ​

"Our primary concern is cyclists' safety. Newham council is committed to a cycling legacy from 2012 and we are in constructive negotiations with TfL about the route. Kulveer Ranger will be visiting the borough later this summer so we can work together on the best way forward."​

Which appears to be saying "we are so worried about cyclists we are not going to do anything to the main route into Stratford for them".​

​

I would love to understand the real reason why this couldn't go ahead. Especially since the road and environs were being heavily reworked at the time anyway - surely the regeneration plans should have considered cycling from the outset?!​

​

I cannot see why a box junction couldn't be superimposed on the ASL, although I expect that box junctions apply to cyclists as well, so using this would technically mean cyclists were also committing an offence. Besides I could see that having a box junction would impede motor movements at peak times, and, since this appears to be the worst possible scenario for TfL, anything that does this is off the table.​

​

I like the flyover plan, but I cannot imagine that it will go ahead.​

 

[dawesome]

Newham Council has justified the decision to block at Bow the Mayor of London's Cycle Superhighway from Aldgate to Ilford (CS2) in the following way:

"I can inform you that the decision to defer the implementation of the route between Bow and Ilford was taken by the London Borough of Newham and Transport for London (TfL) for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons was the Council's opposition to coloured road surfacing, in accordance with design guidance for the borough's roads, without the coloured surfacing the route would not be identifiable as a Cycle Superhighway."

We then pointed out that blue paint had been used in Newham on the Cycle Superhighway from Tower Gateway to Barking (CS3) along the A13. Newham Council replied as follows:

"Cycle Superhighway Route 3 runs along the A13, this road is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and is managed and operated by TfL. Newham has no Highway responsibilities for this road, the installation of blue surfacing was carried out by TfL as the Highway Authority for the A13, Newham's streetscape design guidance does not apply to the A13."

We now have a letter from the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, which does not accord with views of Newham Council. Boris Johnson states:

"The Council has issues with the coloured blue surfacing. The council's design guide (published in 2009) recommends that pigment of any colour should not be used on borough roads"

But Boris Johnson continues:

"The borough has made exceptions to this stance on the A13, where part of CSH route 3 comes onto the borough highway. However, the borough felt unable to extend this approach to the other route and their position is that there will be no blue surfacing on Romford Road, Stratford High Street, or Stratford Broadway".

In the above correspondence to us Newham Council did not tell us that they had made "exceptions" and, according to Boris Johnson, allowed blue paint on a Newham highway. Newham said "the installation of blue surfacing was carried out by TfL"

In other words the statement that Newham Council made to us about blue paint appears to contradict the stated views of the Mayor of London.

It would appear that Newham is hiding behind the blue paint issue to justify its extraordinary decision not to take TfL funding for the implementation of CS2. Implementing CS2 would have enhanced cycling facilities and safety on Newham highways.

If Newham made "exceptions" on CS3 they could have made exceptions on CS2.

We have now submitted a Freedom of Information request to Transport for London asking them how much money has been lost to Newham residents, ratepayers and cyclists as a result of Newham's decision to block CS2.
TfL figures show that the number of cyclists along the first two Cycle Superhighway routes, which run from Merton to the City and Barking to Tower Gateway, have risen by 70 percent with increases of 100 per cent or more seen on some sections during peak hours.
CS2 money is not the only TfL finance for cycling infrastructure improvements lost to the borough. Newham decided in 2010 not to apply for Biking Borough status. Thirteen other boroughs did apply and as a result will share £4m for, as TfL put it:

"The funding will help boroughs engage the local community in cycling, create better cycle infrastructure and parking as well as making cycling safer."

The Mayor of London has said:

"I fully intend to ensure that the cycling share of London journeys is massively increased in the coming years. TfL is working towards a target of 5% by 2025, but I will be working with TfL and the boroughs on new ideas that might enable us to be more ambitious".

Newham has the lowest cycle share of any borough in London, less than 1%. Our neigbouring borough, Hackney, already have at least 8% cycle share.

We sincerely hope that Newham Council will review its decision not to implement CS2, and its general neglect of cycling issues. Newham Cyclists is ready to assist Newham Council's in improving their sustainable transport performance.

Following advice from officers and staff at Newham Council an invitation was issued by the Council for a deputation of adult and child cyclists from the Woodcraft Folk to attend a Newham Cabinet meeting on 17 March 2011. This deputation was supported by Newham Cyclists.

On the 15 March the deputation was vetoed by the Chair of Cabinet, the Mayor, Sir Robin Wales. Woodcraft Folk are now considering making a formal complaint to the Council about the vetoed deputation.

The deputation was to raise with Newham Cabinet members the lack of policy support for cycling within the borough. In particular the deputation was to raise the issue of the blocking at Bow by Newham Council of the Mayor of London's Cycle Superhighway(CS2) from Aldgate to Ilford. This action has prevented an improvement in cycling facilities in the borough and also stopped the London Borough of Redbridge from enjoying the benefits of the Cycle Superhighway. Instead Newham Council have created a six lane highway in Stratford High Street without any improvement in cycling facilities

A further issue to have been raised by the deputation was the failure of Newham Council to apply to become a Transport for London Biking Borough. By becoming a biking borough Newham would have received funding from Transport for London for cycling improvements.

Newham Cyclists now have documented evidence of a pattern of refusals by Newham Council to engage with residents of Newham on cycling issues.

Newham Cyclists have been rebuffed by the Council in their attempts to establish a Cycle Liaison Group as part of a sustainable transport policy for the borough.

The negative attitude of Newham Council to cycling initiatives is inexplicable given the widespread support for cycling inititives by many Newham Councillors. Newham Cyclists is also aware of widespread anger of Newham staff to cycling inititives being vetoed by the Council.

Over the last few years Newham Cyclists have taken a number of initives to promote cycling in the borough. These include the publication of the 'Ride and stride' leaflet, the promotion of a series of New Newham Rides and responses to Newham's Local Implementation Plan and Core Strategy document.

It is disappointing, therefore, to find that Newham Council, at its highest level, refuses to engage positively with its residents and rate payers on cycling and sustainable transport issues.

 

[garythespud]

Yup, sounds like Newham council and Robin Wales. If there's nothing in it for him, he's simply not interested. I cycle in Newham everyday and the road surfaces are appalling. Factory Road in Silvertown (going to foot tunnel and ferry) used to be like a WWI trench with potholes the size of tanks. And disgraceful you can't cycle the CS2. And the one-way in Stratford is just a tragedy waiting to happen.

 

[dawesome]

Yup, sounds like Newham council and Robin Wales. If there's nothing in it for him, he's simply not interested. I cycle in Newham everyday and the road surfaces are appalling. Factory Road in Silvertown (going to foot tunnel and ferry) used to be like a WWI trench with potholes the size of tanks. And disgraceful you can't cycle the CS2. And the one-way in Stratford is just a tragedy waiting to happen.

Look at the radical difference in cycling rates next door in Hackney, that's tragic, all those wonderful rides missed! People WANT to be able to cycle safely all the way up to the bosses of the council who say "No!".