CS5 submission

1 ABOUT ME
I live approximately 500m from the proposed CS5 route, very near its eastern terminus in New Cross. I am a frequent cyclist, for leisure and commuting, in London and have been for some time. I have cycled the route of CS5 many times. I would consider myself a relatively confident vehicular cyclist, coping well in heavy and fastmoving traffic; however, my preference is for segregated facilities away from motor traffic. I am a member (though not particularly active) of the London Cycling Campaign and of Lewisham Cyclists, although I should stress that I represent nobody but myself in this submission.

2 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
1) In general, CS5 is a modest, but definite, improvement on what currently exists along this route. 2) This being said, as currently proposed CS5 represents a wasted opportunity: given the time, effort, money and engineering disruption entailed, certain changes to CS5 would (in my view) entail greater objective and subjective safety along the route, would improve continuity and convenience for cyclists, would encourage more use from current non-cyclists, and would contribute to TfL and the Mayors objective of an increase in modal share for cycling at the expense (primarily) of private motor vehicles. These general improvements are: a. Greater use of fully segregated cycle tracks (taking an approach of using segregated facilities unless there is a strong reason not to, rather than inserting them as an additional measure where they seem most needed) b. Less reliance on shared use of bus lanes c. Provision of adequate means for cyclists to bypass stationary buses at bus stops without moving into motor traffic (I understand that interesting proposals for this category of issue are currently proposed for the CS2 extension in Newham) d. Use of cyclist-only traffic signals and signal phases to avoid conflict with motor vehicles at junctions e. Increased use of raised tables for side roads, to emphasise the right of way for cycles approaching on the main road route f. Less (if possible, no) reliance on shared space solutions, which place cyclists and pedestrians in conflict, are slow, inconvenient and often discontinuous 3) There are improvements to facilities for cyclists that are difficult to capture in road plans, but which also have a material effect on objective and subjective safety. In no particular order and with reference to no particular section, I would like TfL to take account of the following in its approach to CS5 and other facilities: a. Traffic lights are placed high up, and are positioned so that they are best viewed from the first (motorist) stop line at an ASL: all too often, when positioned legally as a cyclist towards the front of an ASL, it is difficult to see the traffic lights. TfL should consider smaller, lower sets of signals for cyclists (along the lines used in other European countries). b. In my experience, ASLs are routinely disregarded by motorists; anecdotally, I understand that punishments for motorists violating them are almost unknown. TfL should consider using red light camera technology to catch motorists who enter ASLs at red lights, and begin enforcement measures as a matter of course. c. Cycle surfacing must have enough friction to be safe in all weather conditions: I hope that TfL will give regard to this factor when choosing materials. d. Signage is an important, and underrated, factor in cycle convenience and safety: existing route signage in London is discontinuous, easy to miss, and confusing. TfL should give

thought to the signage used for this route, and how destinations off CS5 and the CS network are signed for cyclists.

3 SECTION 1 VAUXHALL BRIDGE ROAD (NEATHOUSE PLACE-CHARLWOOD STREET)

1) Advisory Cycle Lane from Neathouse Place to halfway between Gillingham Street and Francis Street (W and E bound): could this not be a mandatory cycle lane? In particular, the E-bound lane is on the inside of a curve, meaning that fast-moving vehicles could take the line and make incursions into the lane. 2) The mandatory cycle lane from near Francis Street onwards is welcome and will improve the current situation. However, it would be even more beneficial to have a fully segregated cycle lane (as in the current proposals for part of the extension to CS2 through Newham). 3) The continuation of the cycle lane past side roads is welcome, and an improvement on cycle facilities found elsewhere (where right of way is often given to motor traffic on the side roads, forcing cyclists on the main road route to give way at each side road). Even better would be raised tables at these junctions, further calling attention to the need to give way to cycle traffic to those motor vehicles attempting to join Vauxhall Bridge Road from the side roads. 4) Bus stops near Neathouse Place, Upper Tatchbrook Street and Warwick Way are wider than the cycle lane, with cycle traffic to move out into motor traffic to bypass stopped buses: this creates conflict at these points, and reduces subjective safety to cyclists. 5) Consideration should be given to cyclists travelling Westbound at Neathouse Place who want to enter the right filter lane (i.e. to go up Wilton Road towards the Apollo Theatre and the front of Victoria Station): under these plans this is possible when the traffic lights are red (cyclists can manoeuvre towards the right of the new ASL), but not when the lights are green and traffic is proceeding at 20+mph across the junction. I recommend separating motorised and bicycle traffic light phases, to allow cyclists a separate phase in which to turn right when motor traffic is held. 6) The new right turn area for cyclists turning into Bloomburg Street is a welcome improvement on what currently exists, but is still not a subjectively safe facility (particularly if a cyclist arrives here when the traffic is moving through a green light). Even better would be a separate light phase for right-turning cyclists in which motor traffic is held at red.

4 SECTION 2: VAUXHALL BRIDGE ROAD SOUTH (CHARLWOOD STREET DRUMMOND GATE)

1) Eastbound combined bus and cycle lane should be 24/7 operation to improve subjective safety. 2) Segregated facilities should be preferred over combined bus and cycle lanes. However, the wider facility is an improvement. 3) Eastbound cycle lane becomes advisory as it approaches the ASL at John Islip Street: in practice, the experience from existing CSes across London is that the lane at this point will become full of queuing traffic, forcing cyclists to queue with motor traffic. This reduces objective and subjective safety, potentially blocks access to the ASL (particularly given the number of coaches and other wide vehicles which use this road), and would be very offputting to cyclists not already accustomed to cycling in hostile conditions. I strongly recommend providing at least a mandatory cycle lane here, and at best a fully segregated lane. 4) West bound approaching Drummond Gate, the proposed lane is a huge improvement on the current facility which guides cyclists down the left filter lane, forcing cyclists who intend to proceed on Vauxhall Bridge Road toward Victoria to pull back into fast-moving traffic. However, it is a shame that

it is only an advisory lane: splitting the left filter with a kerb at the ASL and providing a segregated cycle track from there would be preferable. 5) The new mandatory cycle lane is welcome; why not fully segregate it with a kerb, given that the road space has already been allocated exclusively to cyclists for this portion of the route?

5 SECTION 3: MILLBANK/GROSVENOR ROAD

1) In general, although there is significant work planned for this section and the advanced start sections are very large, there are still hazards which reduce subjective and objective safety. 2) Eastbound from Bessborough Gardens: a. It is welcome that cyclists are provided with a kerb-separated lane as they approach the junction. The larger early-start facility will mean that for cyclists arriving at the junction when the traffic lights are red there is an improved ability to get ahead of the traffic, which frequently moves through this junction in great volume and at excessive speed. b. However, if the lights are green, cyclists proceeding from here Eastbound towards Vauxhall Bridge can be left-hooked by motorists turning left into Millbank. c. I strongly recommend providing separate light phases for motor vehicles and cyclists here: i. PHASE 1: green for onbound motor and cycle traffic, green for left turning cycles, red for left turning motor vehicles. ii. PHASE 2: red for onbound cycles, green for left turning cycles, green for left turning and onbound motor vehicles. 3) Westbound from Vauxhall Bridge, the same situation is faced. 4) In general: it would be better if the junction were treated like a Dutch roundabout for cycles, with an entirely separate phase for cyclists when all motor traffic (from all four roads) is held. This would be analogous to the situation for pedestrians at Oxford Circus, for example.

6 SECTION 4 VAUXHALL BRIDGE (OPTION 1)

1) The Eastbound off-carriage way cycle track is very welcome, and should serve as a model to be aimed for generally for CS5. 2) As discussed by other cycle campaigners, the early start facility here appears to be an always stop facility: when motor vehicles are held at red, cyclists are held at red at the forward line, and when motor vehicles proceed at green, cyclists are held at red at the first cyclist stop line. It would be better to introduce a phase during the period when Eastbound motor traffic is held at red in which cycle traffic can proceed through at green without stopping: this makes the route more convenient and continuous, and contributes to subjective safety (as cyclists feel more vulnerable when they are stopped or moving slowly). 3) It is not obvious from this plan how cycle traffic arrives at the eastern end of Vauxhall Bridge when travelling in a westbound direction, how cycles will be held at signals, and how continuous this route would be. I would welcome more information on this point. 4) The westbound facility is a shared bus lane this would be better as a separate cycle track, similar to that on the eastbound facility.

7 SECTION 4 VAUXHALL BRIDGE (OPTION 2)

1) Whilst the lack of a fully separated cycle track on the bridge means that this option is not preferred overall to option 1, I feel that the dedicated phase for buses and cycles at the eastern end of the bridge for eastbound cycle traffic is a component that could (with adaptation) be beneficial if integrated into option 1.

8 SECTION 5 VAUXHALL GYRATORY (OPTION 1 SUBWAY )

1) The segregated cycle lane for eastbound cycles immediately to the North of Vauxhall station is welcome: it should be extended so that it covers the narrow section between the north- and southbound approaches to Albert Embankment (i.e. so that the only break in the segregated lane is the actual road mouth openings themselves). 2) For eastbound cycles, the facility becomes seriously inadequate at the termination of this segregated lane at the ASL in front of the Royal Albert Tavern: a. It appears that the correct way to proceed east here is to mount the pavement, wait with queuing pedestrians for a green crossing signal, cross the new shared space area at the point where Kennington Lane and Harleyford Road meet with pedestrians, and join an unsegregated, two-way cycle lane on Harleyford Road which (for eastbound cyclists) runs against the flow of motor traffic. b. It is not obvious what eastbound cyclists do to join the eastbound carriageway when they reach the end of Harleyford Road where it meets Durham Street, and they are expected to merge with motor traffic moving from Durham Street. There is also no cycle facility for eastbound cycles on Harleyford road east of Durham Street (I do not consider cycle patches in the roadway a facility). c. This treatment is discontinuous, will be difficult and confusing to describe in signage, brings cyclists into conflict with pedestrians at a busy crossing, and causes eastbound cyclists to ride against the flow of traffic on Harleyford Road (at best, with only westbound cyclists insulating them from motor traffic; at worst, with nothing separating them from fast-moving heavy westbound vehicles but paint on the road). d. My strong recommendation is that this treatment is not implemented, as it is objectively unsafe and extremely offputting to cyclists. A better treatment, if possible, would be for cycles to continue up Kennington Lane and down Durham Street with the flow of eastbound motor traffic. 3) For westbound cyclists the situation is better, but suboptimal. It is not obvious how westbound cycles arriving at the Harleyford Road ASL opposite the entrance to Durham Street move into the right-lane two-way cycle lane when the lights are green, for instance: it would be better if the westbound cycle lane were in the left lane, which would allow westbound cycles to proceed smoothly through these lights when they are at green. 4) Where Harleyford Road meets South Lambeth Road, cycles leave the carriage way and join pedestrians. This is suboptimal, for two reasons: a. Cyclists must mix with pedestrians on a busy crossing, coming into conflict with them. b. Cyclists must stop at the road crossing, entailing a full stop and new start to carry on through the subway westbound track: this reduces the sense of continuity to the facility. 5) It would be better if westbound cycles were on the left side of Harleyford Road, rather than the right, and had a separate light phase as they met South Lambeth Road to allow them to access the subway westbound track while motor traffic is held at red.

9 SECTION 5 VAUXHALL GYRATORY (OPTION 2 GYRATORY)

1) Although there are aspects of this treatment which avoid some of the worst aspects of option 1, overall it feels like a light touch approach with minimal facilities for cyclists. Therefore, my (marginal) preference is for a blend of options 1 and 2, with the improvements I suggest in these sections, to make it safe, convenient and continuous. 2) For eastbound cyclists, the comments on the segregated cycle lane are as for my comments at 6.1 above.

3) After the Royal Albert Tavern turning it is correct (in my view) that eastbound cycles proceed along Kennington Lane, as in this option: however, cycle facilities appear to dry up after the St Annes Church bus stop (stop T). In particular, it would be very hazardous and not at all appealing on subjective safety grounds to manoeuvre into the right lane to proceed down Durham Street on the present plans: a potential improvement would be traffic lights where Kennington Lane meets Durham Street, with one phase in which right-turning motor traffic is held at red while onbound cycles and motor vehicles and right-turning cycles can proceed at green. 4) On Durham Street, a mandatory (or, even better, segregated) lane would be preferable to an advisory lane. 5) When eastbound cycles depart Durham Street onto Harleyford Road, the facility disappears and is replaced with cycle patches: this should be replaced with a mandatory or segregated track. 6) For westbound cycles, the same issue described for option 1 at 6.3 of my comments is found where the cycle path moves into the right lane. However, here it is even worse than in option 1: after the ASL at the bottom of Durham Street, the facility disappears (replaced again by patches and reappears on the right. This would be so offputting for cyclists not used to a highly hostile road environment that it barely qualifies as a cycle facility at all, and would simply be a waste of money spent on paint. 7) Wherever placed, the Harleyford Road cycle lane should be mandatory and, if possible, kerb segregated. 8) The treatment of westbound cycles on South Lambeth Road is the most seriously inadequate portion of these recommendations, and I sincerely hope that it is not implemented: at best it is no change from the present situation, at worse it is more dangerous as it forces cyclists to move gradually over to the right across four lanes of heavy traffic racing (often at speeds in excess of the speed limit) towards the traffic lights.

10 SECTION 6 KENNINGTON OVAL/HARLEYFORD ROAD

1) In general this section is a good improvement on what currently exists, with the following caveats: a. The cycle paths (east- and westbound) do not bypass the bus stops adequately, but rather force cyclists into the path of motor vehicles when passing stationary buses. b. It would be preferable for a fully segregated cycle lane, rather than a shared cycle-bus facility. c. It is not clear from these plans what hours of operation are in force for this shared bus lane it should be 24/7.

11 SECTION 7 OVAL JUNCTION

1) The banned left turn from Harleyford Road into Kennington Park Road is welcome, but to be clear, it should apply to motor traffic only, and not to cycles. It is not clear from the plans whether this is the casae. 2) A separate cycle phase at the traffic lights from Harleyford Road westbound (either proceeding onwards or turning left into Kennington Park Road) would be preferred. In fact, a full cycle phase at this junction, at which no motor vehicles may move from any directions but cycles can move in any direction, should be considered. 3) The 2m wide mandatory cycle lane on Camberwell New Road for westbound cycles is welcome. It would be even better if it were segregated, except for at road mouths. 4) For eastbound cycles approaching from Camberwell New Road, the cycle path does not bypass the bus stop adequately: a proper bypass (segregated if possible) should be considered. 5) The 10m ASL is a good improvement.

6) After Camberwell New Road crosses Brixton New Road, the westbound lane deteriorates in quality. It would be better to have a mandatory (or segregated) cycle lane to the crossing level with the eastern end of St Marks Church. 7) From here, whilst the left turn only lane is a good idea, the positioning of the advisory cycle path between this and the onbound lane is subjectively (and possibly objectively) dangerous. It would be better to separate each with a kerb, so that leftbound traffic is hived off into a kerb-segregated lane, with a cycle track to its right, segregated in turn by another kerb from the onbound lanes.

12 SECTION 8 CAMBERWELL NEW ROAD

1) In general this section is an improvement. However, the following could improve matters even more: a. At the westmost end, the eastbound cycle lane does not bypass the bus stop adequately: ensure that such a facility is provided. b. The mandatory eastbound lane is an improvement: it would be even better if it was segregated. c. To the east of Vassal Road, the lane should be mandatory and should pass the bus stop without forcing cyclists into motor traffic. This is true for the other bus stops in this section. d. The rest of the eastbound cycle lane should be mandatory as is, it appears to just be cycle surfacing, which motorists can enter freely. This will be covered by queuing traffic. e. The raised tables at Councillor Street and County Grove are a welcome feature, which could be used elsewhere on CS5.

13 SECTION 10 PECKHAM ROAD (WEST)

1) In general this is a very good section indeed, being almost all mandatory cycle lane. However, where possible this could be improved by a segregated lane, and there are still some unprotected bus stops where cyclists will be forced into the path of motor traffic (westbound between Shenley Road and Vestry Road, and eastbound opposite the entrance to Talfourd Road).

14 SECTION 11 PECKHAM ROAD (EAST)

1) For eastbound cyclists, a mandatory (or segregated) lane would be preferred to cycle surfacing in a shared bus lane. There is also an unprotected bus stop near Sumner Avenue. 2) CS5 disappears before Peckham Road meets Melon Road, meaning that ongoing cycles mingle with left-turning motor vehicles: this increases the risk of a left hook, and is not subjectively safe. The bus stop after Melon Road is also not protected. 3) After Melon Road, towards and after Peckham Hill Street, a mandatory or segregated lane would be preferable to the cycle surfacing proposed. 4) For westbound cyclists, whilst a new right turn area for cyclists is welcome, this will not be entirely safe in subjective terms unless there is a separate light phase for cyclists at this junction, holding traffic at red whilst cycles turn right safely. 5) The mix of mandatory and advisory lanes and surfacing after the junction with Peckham Hill Street is confusing and unnecessary: this should be entirely mandatory (or, preferably, segregated), and should continue along Peckham High Street to meet the currently proposed mandatory section after Bellenden Road.

15 SECTION 12: PECKHAM HIGH STREET QUEENS ROAD(WEST)

1) In general this section is inadequate: it consists almost entirely of cycle surfacing (with no legal force) and shared bus lanes.

2) However, there are some welcome features that should be retained if this section is revised: the raised table at Meeting House Lane, for example, should be retained and this approach should be considered elsewhere. In addition, the wider bus lane which bypasses bus stops at the eastern end of this section (where it approaches Carlton Grove) is preferred to an unprotected bus stop. 3) There is a left-hook risk for eastbound cycles coming up to Staffordshire Street, as onbound cycles may come into conflict with left-turning motor vehicles in the filter lane. Separate light phases should be considered. 4) For westbound cyclists, a segregated lane similar to that proposed at 9.7 above would be preferable at the junction with Clayton Grove. 5) The bus stop after Clayton Grove is unprotected for westbound cyclists, meaning that they are forced into motor traffic.

16 SECTION 13 QUEENS ROAD (CARLTON GROVE POMEROY STREET)

1) The mandatory cycle lanes are good in this section. They ought to be entirely continuous (rather than becoming cycle surfacing before Asylum Road), and (preferably) should be segregated. 2) The right turn area for cyclists into Lugard Road would benefit from a cyclist-only green light phase, to ensure that cyclists are objectively and feel subjectively safe when using this facility. 3) There are unprotected bus stops in this section, which would benefit from revision. 4) The raised table at Asylum Road is a good idea, which could be used elsewhere.

17 SECTION 14 QUEENS ROAD EAST (POMEROY STREET TO PEPYS ROAD)

1) The mix of mandatory, advisory and cycle-surfaced lanes here is confusing and unnecessary: the treatment should be mandatory throughout. There is already an off-road facility, which could provide the space necessary for an entirely segregated, mandatory track. 2) A separate cycle phase for eastbound cyclists where Queens Road meets New Cross Road would be beneficial; at minimum, advisory road markings (not just patches) should be considered here. 3) There are also unprotected bus stops in this section.

18 SECTION 15 NEW CROSS

1) The proposed 20mph limit here is welcome: I would be interested to see the enforcement proposals for this (cameras etc). 2) A separate mandatory (or segregated) cycle lane would be preferable to shared bus lanes. All of the bus stops are also unprotected in this section.