Kensington to Hanger Lane cycle superhighway

[Wheeledweenie]

I think I've sussed this one out. The obvious route, which is the A4020 Uxbridge Road, goes through the borough that really doesn't want bus lanes - Ealing.

If we were to look beyond our own sectional interest for a second, then I think the question might be - what can the transfer from car to bike or from car to public transport do for the street or town. The Uxbridge Road, last time I went down it, was a traffic jam. Prioritising (dread word) buses and bikes, and discouraging cars would make deliveries easier, bring more people to the doorstep of the businesses on the road, and make walking along the street an altogether more comfortable thing.*

I accept that there is an argument that goes 'few people use what could be an important radial route, and linking of the cycle paths along the A40 will encourage more to do so', but it looks doomed to me.....

*and that goes for Streatham High Road as well......

The Ealing section is by no means the worst for bus lanes. Having used the Uxbridge Road from Southall to Shepherd's Bush every work day for nearly a year I'd say Acton broadway poses the biggest challenge and, even then, the main issue is people parking in the cycle lanes. Surely it'd be more cost effective to warden a route already used, they could even gain money through ticketing (although I don't drive I do hate over-zealous wardens but the parkinbg in this area is dangerous and needs policing).

 

[dellzeqq]

Although it's 10 years old, quite a lot of the issues in this paper are still relevant:

http://www.ealingcycling.org.uk/SubjectPages/Reports/UxbrRdRoute.html

With the proposed A40 - TFL are looking for an easier/cheaper alternative, instead of grasping the nettle with the Uxbridge Road.

the problem with the LCC report (and, in fairness, I don't think they'd write the same thing today) is that it considers cycling as an end in itself. For you and I it may well be, but it's the potential that cycling has for making places more civilises, and, amazingly, getting people from A to B in good time, and, better yet, saving a chunk of planet that should be the 'driver' (sorry). And the means to do this isn't particularly sophisticated - you do as Wheeledweenie (and the LCC study) suggests - enforce parking restrictions, and run red tarmac down high streets, with sensible provision for service parking.

When I read stuff about right turn schemes for bikes I shudder. The cost, both financial and physical, really can't be justified. It's a bit like that contraflow bike lane that will form part of the eastbound 'cycling superhighway' - it costs an absolute mint, and puts another layer of traffic in the way of pedestrians getting from their house to the corner shop.

I still cling to the thought that if cycling is more congenial then people will cycle. By congenial I mean relatively quick and perceived as safe. The perception of safety is enhanced by making traffic predictable, reducing the speed of motor vehicles, and there being more cyclists.

The quickness is more subtle, because actually, despite the presence on city streets of lycra clad superheros (that's you, Mr. O) the time taken by bicycle trips is pretty uniform. There's a notional time which is distance divided by comfortable speed, and we add to that the time taken to get by obstructions, in the form of traffic jams and traffic lights, and, in the case of cycle lanes, absurd deviations. The result is that the Babe can do Streatham Hill to Islington in 45 minutes (and, as you have seen, Mr. O, she is not quick) while I can do it in 35. Take out the mess that is The Cut and you could probably slice two minutes off that for each of us. Take out the mess that is the Farringdon Road, and you could take out another three minutes for each of us. My point, for those of you still awake, is that rather than getting jiggy with maps with continuous lines that represent a multitude of sins, we might be better off looking at the trips people are making already, which tend to be on the very streets that the DfT thinks we should not be on, and working out how to make those more congenial. And, to go round in a small, but virtuous circle, to see if that congeniality is not co-eval with an increased congeniality for pedestrians and bus passengers.

 

[Wheeledweenie]

A near standing ovation for Dellzeqq, exactly what I meant. Hurrah!

 

[Origamist]

Pretty much everything you've written dovetails with my own views: subjective safety, making popular cycling corridors more convenient for vulnerable road users, (last night I dreamt of a 10 metre deep ASL reservoir - sad eh?), the renaissance of the bus lane, civilising the streets etc.

Choosing the A40 over the increasingly popular route for cyclists that is the Uxbridge Road shows an abject lack of imagination; it's the salient where Boris' "smoothing traffic flow" agenda clashes with his "cycling revolution".

 

[DJ]

Thats very nicely put Dellzeqq and I dont see how any cyclist could disagree with you.

 

[dellzeqq]

aw shucks! You guys........

 

[yello]

I could disagree... for no other reason than to be contrary, which is my want. But I won't.

I'm not sure I understood all sufficiently to say that I'm in agreement, but the following had be nodding in agreement...

we might be better off looking at the trips people are making already, which tend to be on the very streets that the DfT thinks we should not be on, and working out how to make those more congenial.

One might argue that cyclists aren't using some roads because they aren't sufficiently 'congenial' but that wouldn't square with my experience and opinion.

I was one of the few cyclists on the A40 cycle path, yet there were noticeably more on the Uxbridge Road when I dropped down onto that. There is any number of reasons for that but the horror that was Sheperds Bush roundabout didn't deter cyclists.

I do think that the radial link that is the A40 is just not one that cyclists would tend to use. As someone said (Jimbo?) it's probably crossed more than travelled. My experience tells me the Uxbridge Road is used more.

 

[Origamist]

A lot of commuting cyclists choose routes based on convenience and expedience. These roads are often multi-lane with high levels of traffic - not LCN material.

Masses of cyclists coursing through A-road arterials can manufacture a degree of cordiality and safety by force of numbers. The challenge for superhighway planners is can they engineer greater levels of comfort for cyclists on popular routes?

Maybe the cyclepaths of the A40 will become more popular, but I doubt they will compete with the number of cyclists using the Uxbrige Rd. What you will end up with is a de facto SuperH and an official SuperH - maybe they will complement one another - who knows?

 

[jonesy]

The irony is that there are times of the day when the solitary cyclist is the fastest thing on the A40 (and it's been known out to J5 of the M40, ahem).

I'm going to do what no sane person should do - disagree with Jonesy on transport. I do think there's considerable potential for longer radial commutes in London, and the wide differential between (say) the number of cyclists on the A24/A3 on the one hand and (say) the A404 on the other makes me think that if the A404 could, by some miracle, by made more congenial to cycling then there would be a great deal more cyclists.

Ah, if you think you are disagreeing on this point then I've been unclear somewhere. I'd fully agree with you that there is potential for longer cycle commutes, but the requirement there is for routes that are direct, convenient and fast; while still being useful for shorter intermediate journeys along their length. What appeared to be being described was slow, inconvenient and discontinuous (as is so much of the NCN).

Edit- picking up your point about 'quickness' in a later post... I quite agree. Although I cited NTS figures for distance of cycle trips, the critical factor in deciding whether to cycle or use another mode is surely journey time- if cycling is faster than taking the bus or tube, or driving and parking then there is a clear advantage to doing it. Other factors, like safety will then come into it, but if there is no advantage, then safety or attractiveness won't be sufficient to overcome the time penalty. So the further we are trying to encourage people to cycle, then the faster and more direct and continuous the route has to be to maintain cycling's time advantage.

 

[dellzeqq]

Ah, if you think you are disagreeing on this point then I've been unclear somewhere. I'd fully agree with you that there is potential for longer cycle commutes,.

phew! (wipes brow, puts aside scotch and soda.......)