Tag Archives: tfl

In support of… taxis

5 March, 2015 Joe 1 Comment

Here’s where I’m coming from with this one. Let me say it simply:

More regular cyclists means lower private car ownership, less congestion for taxis to deal with, and more non-car-owners taking taxi trips.

OK, now for the detailed bit…

An organisation called the London Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA) – representing about a third of black cabs apparently, so a minority – has been railing against Transport for London (TfL)’s £913 million investment in cycling over this decade. They’re led by a bloke called Steve McNamara, who (when he’s not comparing cyclists to ISIS) complains that this is far too much money. It’s kicked up quite a fuss.

I’m not sure how much money he thinks should be spent to reducing the 145 deaths and 4496 serious injuries to cyclists, in London, in the last decade. He doesn’t say. And he doesn’t point out either that over the same period as that £0.9bn cycling spend TfL are allocating £34bn to other modes of transport. But rather than laying into taxi drivers, I actually want to use this post to support and (in a roundabout way) defend them.

Now I’m going a bit out of my comfort zone here. I’ve had run-ins with taxis, including one serious accident (he pulled a U-turn without signalling as I filtered outside stationary traffic, wiped me out, and drove off after giving false information, illegally). But you can attribute that to us both being in a hurry. Generally, although there isn’t an additional driving competency test to be a cabbie (the Knowledge tests wayfinding, not driving skill – which means cabbies are no less or more qualified than anyone else with a cat B license), cabbies are fairly aware of their surroundings. And they’re used to driving near bikes. This means that when finely judging risk – as I have to do every second on the road as a cyclist, something I barely have to bother with when I’m driving – I am more worried by a tourist in a private car than a taxi.

So I’m happy to share the roads with cabs. But it seems a minority of them don’t really reciprocate that – in fact they hate cyclists – and I really, really can’t see why.

The argument against bikes, from the taxi cab, is two-pronged as far as I can tell: that bikes clutter up the road, slowing traffic, and secondly that bikes take fares away from taxis. Let’s look at those:

Do bikes clutter up the road? Well in a word, no! On a typical zone 1-3 trip, even on Mrs. LJP’s clunky old sit-up-and-beg bike, I’ll overtake every vehicle along the way except motorbikes. And that’s without jumping lights, overtaking unsafely, or breaking a sweat. Congestion is just so bad that I can’t help it, something the data proves. So I don’t cause congestion, I leapfrog it. That row of stationary cars with a single person in on the A11? Those aren’t bikes, they’re, well.. cars.

Ah! Say the drivers at this point: Bikes are causing that! By taking road space! So if only we built more roads! Well… most of the vehicles on the roads are still private cars, and each one takes the space of 4-10 bikes, depending on the traffic conditions, so I think we could make our own minds up on that one. Not that we need to: TfL have said, officially, that they are simply unable to wring any more space out of London’s roads for private cars [link 2]. In the next decade-and-a-half, London will gain an extra million-and-a-half-people. That’s why they’ve been investing heavily in bikes, walking, and public transport for the last 10 years. It isn’t that they’ve suddenly become hippies – I’ve met a fair few of them and they’re all pretty small-C conservative – but because, as engineers they make decisions based on evidence, and the simple fact is there isn’t any more space to use in London, and cycling, public transport and – yes – taxis are the most efficient use of that space, not private cars.

Secondly do bikes take fares away from taxis? Well taxi fares are under pressure from minicabs and Hailo, but that’s nothing to do with cycles (although it is a lot to do with private car use in the centre of London again) so let’s just note that it would be more appropriate for the LTDA to focus their ire on that and move on. I suppose we can split
taxi fares into two types – regular short hops during the day/evening, in central London, and longer trips that happen occasionally. Taxis prefer the first type as it’s a much better income stream – more predictable and less hassle (fair enough).

Well if city workers are choosing to use bikes over taxis, presumably because it’s cheaper, quicker, and more convenient, then that’s a pretty damning indictment of taxis’ levels of service. And does the LTDA think it’ll win these customers back by ranting at them? Doubt it.

This leads onto the second point about bikes and taxi fares – cyclists are also taxi customers – and big ones. Car ownership has been declining in every London borough, for two decades – but driving licence registrations have held steady. So how do all these non-car-owners get about? Well, our daughter is nearly a year old, and we walk, we cycle (without her), we use public transport, we hire cars for longer trips and, for shopping trips etc, – guess what – we take taxis! Now at the moment our daughter is small enough that’s not a problem, it works well. But in a year from now, we’ll need to cycle with her for some trips – if its safe enough to do so. If it isn’t we can’t afford lots of taxi trips to take her to the nursery etc – and we’ll be forced to buy a car. And then we’ll probably never take a taxi again; why would we when we have a car?

Put really simply, more regular cyclists means lower private car ownership, less congestion for taxis to deal with, and more people taking taxi trips.

So I’ll ask it again: why is the LTDA so against cyclists?

Not minicabs?
Not Hailo?
Not unlicensed mopeds?
Not private cars?

These are all far bigger inconveniences to their working lives, and far bigger threats to their livelihood – but the LTDA have picked on cyclists – why? The simplest explanation to me is they just don’t like bikes. It’s visceral, it’s illogical, and it’s short-sightedly picking on the one group of other road users who ought to be natural allies. If I was a cabbie, especially an LTDA member, I’d be spitting teeth at LTDA’s failure to spot a natural ally, and work with them. But hey, it takes all sorts… right?

Tweet this Digg Post to LinkedIn Slashdot Stumble This

Activism, Cycling

A tale of two consultations: Proof Westminster Council want to undermine cycling

9 July, 2014 Joe 5 Comments

Two major TfL consultations are out today. Both involve key strategic roads which have to be made safer for the large (and ever-growing) numbers of cycle commuters they carry from South London to work in Central London. One has some very promising ideas, though a few tweaks could help. The other continues the same welcome attitude forward as far as the Embankment – and then stops, abruptly. TfL’s second proposal is fatally compromised by the anti-bike attitude of the council they have to work with.

That’s right: Westminster City Council have shown, again, that they don’t understand or care about the safety of the cycling journeys their own policy aims to promote. The best indictment of their involvement is the first proposal, so let’s have a quick look at that…

The good

The first proposal concerns the ‘Oval Triangle’ junctions – the junction of two extremely busy key routes at Oval – northeast from Stockwell to Central London / Waterloo (the A3); and west from New Cross / A2 to Central London / Victoria.

Both routes are major arteries for motor traffic as well as cycles: the A3 / A202 continuation of the A2; and Cycle Superhighways CS7 (built) and CS5 (planned). As you’d hope, TfL have treated cycling as a serious, essential part of the transport infrastructure. There are lots of great aspects including segregated space and advanced early-start traffic light phases to separate cycles in both space and time from other road users:

Artist’s impression of segregated cycle tracks at Oval. Copyright: TfL

There are a few niggles. A few motor left-turns that create danger for straight-ahead cycles (left-hook risks) disproportionate to the number of motorists actually using these routes have been banned, without provision for cycles to turn left themselves. One of these (A3 junction with Harleyford St) does so without segregated space for cycling – I suspect some motorists may ignore the no-left-turn prohibition and turn left anyway, so this cycle lane needs protection to be safe. But overall these plans are a massive improvement on the status quo ante, so TfL and Lambeth Council should be proud.

The bad

The second proposal effectively picks up one of those routes (Cycle Superhighway CS5 / A202) – northwest from Camberwell to Victoria – where the first left off. The contrast couldn’t be more stark. As far as the north end of Vauxhall Bridge the physical segregation of cycle traffic introduced at Oval is continued, and there are some promising ideas for the lethal Vauxhall Cross gyratory. Not perfect, but much better than before, and probably near-to-acceptable with some tweaks:

Detail of the proposed CS5 round Vauxhall. Copyright TfL.

But once cyclists cross the Thames, into Westminster City Council territory, they’re shepherded safely as far as the junction with the Embankment at CS2, and then left abruptly in the lurch. This is because instead offering segregated cycling along the obvious, direct, desirable route to Victoria – Vauxhall Bridge Road – TfL and Westminster have elected to shove cycles down a back street hundreds of metres from there. In fact, rather than picking the one obvious route and working to improve it, they’ve offered three circuitous ones, for us, the public to prioritise – all of which are irrelevant to commuter journeys west from South London.

Three ‘options’ to get from Vauxhall to Victoria. All of them pointlessly indirect. Copyright TfL.

The stated destination of this route is ‘Belgravia’ but a majority of cycle journeys along the rest of CS5 are to Victoria (rail) station (not many cyclists commute on coaches…) or onwards to Hyde Park Corner. So surely this route has to have these trips in mind?

EDIT [10th July 2014]: I’ve realised readers may not be familiar with the history of CS5, which cycle groups – and TfL – originally hoped would follow the obvious, sensible, direct route past Victoria on Vauxhall Bridge Rd. Westminster blocked this too – Mark Treasure has a good summary history.

Instead these pathetic back routes are chosen for the convenience of Westminster Council – whose cognitive dissonance on cycling issues is now impossible to ignore – and not commuters. Indeed, the map (schematic) doesn’t make clear quite how far out of anyone’s way these routes would go, since the actual distances are distorted:

This is like needing a coffee, but being offered tapwater, drainwater, or urine. What is ‘ambitious, transformative, innovative’ about this? What part of ‘direct, coherent and safe’ don’t they understand? Why have they ignored the Mayor’s vision of direct, coherent, safe, child-friendly routes laid out in his Vision for Cycling, which other central London boroughs have embraced with concrete, ambitious but sensible schemes of their own?

The ugly

We can’t be sure, but given the strength of these TfL proposals south of the Thames, and the ludicrous options north of it, we have to assume that Westminster successfully blocked whatever TfL came up with on their patch (I suspect this is so from the fawning comments about Westminster’s cycle policy in the proposal notes). More than a decade ago, they torpedoed sensible plans for a cross-London network linking major rail stations (Camden went ahead anyway, with the isolated, but still useful Tavistock Square link). Now they’re at it again, and in a 21st-Century London council this is unforgivable.

Many inner London councils, including Lambeth, Camden, Hackney and my own Southwark, are on-board with cycling because they recognise it’s a logistical, not just political, necessity. Given their location, Westminster’s involvement in delivering a truly useful and safe cross-london cycle network is vital. I’m left wondering whether Westminster’s apparent stranglehold on planning for cycle infrastructure is down to deliberate malice, not incompetence.

This is not a political point

At present, these roads are unsafe, some lethally so. But they don’t need to be – there is space, and money, to improve them. But if Westminster City Council don’t start building for bikes, then to my mind, they’ll be culpable for the inevitable deaths that will occur.

Tweet this Digg Post to LinkedIn Slashdot Stumble This

Activism, Cycling

Space for Cycling in Southwark – Ride and campaign

8 May, 2014 Joe Leave a comment

We need safer environments to cycle in – everyone knows that. Safe protected space to cycle in reduces conflict with motor traffic and pedestrians, improves congestion and most importantly brings the health and wellbeing benefits of cycling to all cyclists, old and very young – not just macho 30-somethings like me.

Well-designed cycle facilities have been tough to find in London for years, but things are changing, with real momentum to finally sort it out properly. The Space4Cycling campaign is a good example of that. Launched by London Cycling Campaign and other groups last year, it really effectively highlighted the dangers we face, and the easy ways to remove them.

This year’s campaign is a once-quadrennially (ahem) opportunity to get things done using this year’s local elections to put pressure on councils effectively. Teams of LCC volunteers have polled thousands of London’s cycle commuters to highlight the most important sections of their particular routes and drawn up a proposed infrastructure improvement, or ‘ask’ in every singleBy joining the campaign, you can send a message to every prospective council candidate in your ward that you want to sort cycling out – and they’re listening. At the time of writing this, more than 1-in-3 candidates across London have responded to over 33,000 messages from the public by committing to deliver the cycling ask in their ward over the next 4 years.

Space4Cycling in Southwark – Ride Sat 10th May

Southwark, where I live, is one of the best and busiest boroughs in London. As well as hosting thousands of cyclists (>3000 LCC members live in Southwark!) there are tens of thousands of commuter trips through the Borough every day. Of course, our central location means lots of other road traffic as well, and it doesn’t help that the Council is one of the poorest in London.

Things are changing though, with the Cycle Superhighways CS7 and CS2 due to be improved ‘soon’ (crossing my fingers) and joined by CS5 from New X to Victoria (after a terrible start and a couple of rounds of consultation, TfL are now looking at more physical segregation here).

So to get the maximum possible impact Southwark Cyclists, the LCC local group, are running a fact-finding ride / demonstration this Saturday 10th May through some of the most dangerous parts of central Southwark. Candidates are invited to see for themselves, and a number (including all major parties) are likely to come. So come along, and you can tell them in person about the dangers you face on Southwark’s streets.

The ride will be guided, and take approximately 1 hour from 11am, finishing at midday at the Park Life Café, in Burgess Park. Meet at Queen St on the north end of Southwark Bridge (start of CS7) – just look out for a load of cyclists!

The Big Ride – Saturday 17th May

The focus of all the cross-London campaigns is The Big Ride, where thousands of cycle campaigners, celebs, politicians and well, the rest of us are marching (cycling) on Westminster to show our demand for change.

Last year’s ride attracted tens of thousands of cyclists and as a direct result, Boris signed up to Love London, Go Dutch at the eleventh hour. Come along for the ride this year and get some real change on London’s roads!

Tweet this Digg Post to LinkedIn Slashdot Stumble This