Haringey Council’s draft Walking and Cycling Action Plan consultation closed on 10 January 2022. Together with several local organisations, Haringey Cycling Campaign submitted a detailed joint response to the plan and below is a brief summary of our key points:
We encourage Haringey Council to reallocate road space, creating quality cycle routes and safe junctions as standard throughout the borough. Our aim is to help create a network where cycling is a safe and enjoyable form of day-to-day travel for all.
Other London boroughs are taking up the challenge to create safe cycle networks and Haringey is currently being left behind, particularly when compared to neighbours Islington and Camden. Both these boroughs have brought forward their safe network targets in the light of changed transport use during the pandemic. Haringey has declared bold aims but we’d like to ensure that these become a reality.
Connectivity, where routes are safe, segregated where possible and continuous, particularly at junctions, is key to making Haringey’s streets open for cyclists of all ages. This will enable children who could cycle to school and also mobility-impaired users. It will also encourage women to cycle more, reducing the gender gap – research shows that 79% of women favour more protected cycle routes.
We urge Haringey to look at a united action plan for different forms of transport so that upgrades include road safety for all as a priority. We’d like to see assessment of projects requiring reallocation of road space and clear target completion dates that the council will work towards.
We encourage all communities to explore a safe cycle network, allowing us to reach our full cycling potential. We look forward to working with Haringey to create a cleaner, greener borough.
A recent government opinion poll showed 75% of people favoured encouraging people to walk or cycle to work instead of driving, with only 4% against.
Haringey Council is giving everyone an opportunity via this link to help shape Haringey’s walking and cycling action plan (WCAP) for the next 10 years.
Please take a moment to fill it in and pass the link on to others who can add their voice. The aim is to secure a long-term vision for a greener borough where walking and safe cycling play a key part. This will be the borough’s chance to engage with an active travel agenda, improving the health and safety of its residents, whilst reducing local pollution.
Your replies will help shape the council’s priorities in an ambitious 10-year action plan. Elements include Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), new cycle lanes and safer journeys for pedestrians, with public transport prioritised over driving.
Haringey states that its vision is simple: by 2031, they want:
A reputation for being one of the best walking and cycling boroughs, both regionally and nationally.
Walking and cycling as natural choices.
Active travel to have improved the wellbeing of residents.
To reduce motor vehicle use.
These are big ideas and we’d love to see them happen. There’s an election in May 2022 and a strong response now will help prioritise these aims for all councillors.
Firstly, there is a ‘Vision and Policies Questionnaire‘ with 11 brief questions. We encourage you to “agree” or “strongly agree” where asked, adding your own comments in the spaces provided.
There is also a short Delivery Plan Questionnaire, which sets out specific projects and has 7 questions. Again, we encourage you to “agree” or “strongly agree” where asked.
As well as answering the queries, you can leave comments on the interactive map by pinning a site where you feel changes need to be made.
For question 7, you might like to include some of the points we make here or below:
Connectivity is what’s needed or bad experiences will turn people back to their cars.
Road upgrades are only useful if safety is the first priority, otherwise it will just lead to faster speeds and more drivers in cars.
GPS has changed road use so that even smaller residential roads are becoming rat runs as cars try to avoid traffic on main thoroughfares.
Can the 2031 deadline be chunked into smaller deadlines so we can follow progress and witness accountability?
The consultation period ends on 10th January so please circulate this to others so that everyone can share their views. There will be a pop-up in-person session: Saturday 11th December 10am – 2pm at St Ann’s Library N15 5PU.
Following on from our post earlier this month regarding Low Traffic Neighbourhood consultations for the borough, HCC wrote to Haringey Council with our formal response to the proposed measures. The consultation has closed, however it’s not too late to write to your local councillors to voice your support for the schemes.
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods – Public Consultation
Thank you for giving HCC the opportunity to participate in the stakeholder and other consultation events, leading up to this consultation. The plan for 25 future LTN across the Borough is very welcome and we agree it is very important the three LTNs currently consulted on are a success. Generally the current plans are very well presented, however we would urge the following be considered in future communications –
1) Emphasise that each LTN is part of an overall plan for 25 future LTNs across the Borough. The consultations refer to a “wider programme…in the Council’s Draft Walking and Cycling Action Plan…..”, however being clearer on future LTNs would reduce the fear of long term traffic displacement.
2) Try to simplify language and presentation. For example while we agree the expression “modal filter” be used in preference to the inaccurate description “road closure”, it would help if the illustration of a modal filter could be shown immediately below, as many people are not familiar with this sort of technical language.
3) Show existing pedestrian crossings, Toucan crossings and cycle contra-flows. This information should also be shown in all future design drawings.
4) For all schemes include measures:-
To improve walking and cycling permeability on the periphery of the LTN. To make local distributor roads cycle friendly. To improve pedestrian and cycle junction safety and usability at the cell periphery.
In the short term there will be an increase in motor traffic on local distributor roads, so in the absence of these measures, the potential of LTNs for modal shift will not be realised and the overall project could fail.
We support the proposed LTN measures and school streets.
1) Myddleton Rd should be made 2-way for cycles to facilitate access to the local shops and the station.
2) The one-way streets at the North of area B (LB Enfield) should all revert to 2-way. If keeping them one way is essential to avoid a mini rat run, cycle contra-flow should be permitted. (NB The LTN “exit” arrow is pointing the wrong way at Melbourne Avenue). Cycles should be exempted from the existing right turn ban in to Kelvin Avenue.
3) TfL should change the lane designations at the Bounds Green Rd junction to the A406. The two left turn traffic lanes on the N bound approach are extremely dangerous, as cycles have to cross 2 lanes of traffic to go straight ahead. Many drivers in fact use the 2nd lane to go ahead, so on a bike you risk being overtaken by fast moving traffic on both sides. The Toucan crossings do not have cycle entries to shared use pavement and do not work.
4) There should be protected cycle lanes on Bounds Green Rd, with priority maintained at all junctions.
5) HCC would support a bus gate on Brownlow Rd (LB Enfield).
6) There should be a protected cycle route on Durnsford Rd, at least from the Library up to Bounds Green Station, possibly a 2-way track to replace parking on the N side of the road.
HCC supports the overall scheme in principle and the proposed school streets. The proposed bus gate on CS1 is particularly welcome.
1) There are a number of changes proposed to the existing very complicated one-way street system in area “A”, for example the reversal of flow on Lordsmead Road. Existing and proposed cycle contra-flow is not indicated in the plans, however we assume it is intended this will be retained at this road and the splitter island relocated to the North. There is presently no signage at the North end of the road to warn drivers there is a cycle contra-flow, so they think cycles are “going the wrong way” and this encourages aggressive behaviour, surely not what we want in an LTN! It is vital that adequate warning signage be provided. The same situation applies at many other streets in the existing one-way system. HCC has previously requested improved signage and some has been provided, but drivers often don’t see it, or ignore it and push past without slowing down or allowing adequate space for cycles to keep out of the “door zone”. This can easily put off anyone taking up or returning to cycling.
2) Rather than adjusting and improving this complicated and dangerous system, we suggest it would be far better for all these LTN roads to revert to normal 2-way operation. Historically the one-way system was introduced to cope with high traffic flows and the quieter roads were not made one-way. With lower traffic levels 2-way streets should work perfectly well, ending the current confusion, reducing traffic speeds, improving pedestrian and cycle safety, saving on signage maintenance and reducing street “clutter”. Some passing places may be needed and these might be combined with planting.
3) On CS1, leaving the LTN via Church Lane, the cycle contra-flow is obstructed by parked vehicles. The parking should be removed.
4) We suggest an urgent review of road maintenance coordinated with the inception of the LTN, for example repair of the appalling road surface on Philip Lane (especially just after the junction with Jansons Road).
5) The existing speed cushions, for example on a section of Higham road, tend to push cycle riders in to the door zone and encourage drivers to take a dominant centre road position. The speed cushions should be replaced by sinusoidal humps, or removed.
6) In area “B” the LTN proposals should work very well, in particular the school streets, however there is presently a problem with some drivers speeding on the long straight roads, such as Mannock Road. As far as can be remembered there was an in-depth public consultation carried out by Sustrans for the West Green Environmental Area and only a limited number of speed tables were introduced (for example at the East of Mannock Road). These seem to be adequate on the quieter residential roads, but not enough on present “rat runs”. We suggest limited speed table provision be extended to the North of area “B” and traffic speeds be monitored.
We very much welcome the proposals in option A. Option B would deny the benefits of the LTN to many residents and would continue the rat runs through to Hermitage Road. In view of this we would not support Option B and our comments below relate to Option A only.
1) Protected cycle lanes should be provided on St Ann’s. There is ample width for this and this could a “quick win” for modal shift.
2) The large redevelopment of the hospital site to the South of St Ann’s Rd should be fully integrated to the LTN, in terms of pedestrian and cycle access and permeability, with routes through to Stanhope Gardens and to Oakdale Road, via the old railway arch.
3) The creation of new one-way streets, for example Falmer Road, as realignments of existing one way streets now severed by modal filters, seems unnecessary. With reduced traffic levels all these streets and other existing one-way streets could become 2-way. If they are not, cycle contra-flow will be essential for the LTN to work.
4) There are local cycle routes to the North, South and East of the LTN, however these are not signposted. To encourage modal shift the following routes need to be signposted-
From West Green triangle to Wood Green and Lordship Rec, via Downhills Park (signage planned but never implemented)
From North Grove to Hackney, via Hermitage Road (the LTN should reduce traffic on this road)
From West Green Road and Brunswick Park towards CS1 and the Lea Valley
5) In time the crossings related to the routes as 3) above need to be reviewed for safety, for example the crossing at Seven Sisters Rd should be upgraded for cycle use and there should be parallel crossings at the West Green triangle, to connect the shared use area to Philip Lane and Clinton Road.
6) To improve local permeability, cycle access should be opened up at Brunel Walk and the South end of Braemar Rd.
7) The proposed no left turn from Seven Sisters Rd to Suffield Rd will make it very difficult for residents to access the road when travelling from the South. As far as we can see they would have to go a long way round via Tottenham Hale. We suggest Suffield Rd be filtered at the N to avoid this. In any case cycles should be exempt from any banned turn.
We trust our comments can be taken in to account in finalising the designs and we look forward to contributing further in the consultation process.
Low traffic neighbourhoods reduce through traffic on residential side roads, and encourage residents to walk, cycle, play and meet in a healthier and less polluted environment.
St Ann’s Scheme Background: St Ann’s ward, located in the centre of the borough has some of the highest levels of pedestrian and cycling casualties, and the highest levels of through-traffic in the borough. It also has low car ownership with 60% of households having no motor vehicle. The levels of through-traffic are especially detrimental for the seven schools in the ward. St Ann’s – suggested consultation response: Please show support for Option A proposed by the council, which would significantly reduce levels of through-traffic by five schools and a nursery, improving air quality and road safety for young residents. Option B keeps through-traffic running, through Avenue Road, Cornwall Road, and Black Boy Lane.
Bruce Grove West Green Scheme Background: The scheme will cover an area stretching from Turnpike Lane station to Tottenham High Road, having been expanded westwards after requests from residents. In the eastern part of the neighbourhood, around 30 people have been hurt walking or cycling in the last 4 years, one of the worst records in London. Bruce Grove is also Haringey’s most densely populated ward and has the lowest proportion of open space (only 5%). Bruce Grove – suggested consultation response: Please show support for the scheme and give (both positive and constructive) feedback on the design. You may wish to express concern about the difficulty of cycling on many of the one-way streets within the area and also ask the council to improve sections of poor quality pavement alongside the LTN to help make it more inclusive for everyone walking or rolling on the neighbourhood’s streets.
Bounds Green Scheme Background: Bounds Green has long been plagued by rat-running as commuter traffic leaves the North Circular road and takes a number of residential routes through the area. Haringey is running the consultation alongside the adjacent Bowes LTN trials by Enfield Council with two main areas being implemented. ‘B’ is bounded by the North Circular, Bounds Green Road and High Road to the east. ‘C’ is to the west side and edged by Bounds Green Road, Durnsford Road and the industrial estate. This scheme will enable safe local cycle journeys between Wood Green/Hornsey and Palmers Green. Bounds Green – suggested consultation response: Please show support for the scheme and give (both positive and constructive) feedback on the design.
Don’t forget the deadline – 17th September 2021!
Below are some links to further resources on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods which explain a little more about them and how they work:
‘Daddy, can we please cycle to Finsbury Park again this weekend?’
Last summer extraordinary things happened in one part of Haringey. It was a summer of fun for kids: on roads and streets where before there was only bad air and road traffic noise, now there was the sound of kids playing out. Street football was a daily occurrence, children were using the road to cycle to school and there was even the occasional lemonade stand. It wasn’t just children who were joining in with being more active. Adults across this large area realised they didn’t really need the car for their shorter journeys – walking was nearly as fast and made them feel pretty good now the air was cleaner. Cycling to Finsbury Park to pick up the tube was quicker than the bus and nicer than cramming onto the packed trains, and getting there on a bike suddenly seemed easy now the journey could be done mostly without having to ride with speeding traffic.
Surely this was all the work of a council fully committed to the health of their residents, the sort that would make bold claims about making their borough the most liveable in London? Sadly this utopia did not last. While other boroughs nearby were permanently closing roads to through traffic to entrench a new, healthier lifestyle in their boroughs, Wightman Road and its adjoining roads were reopened as through routes for motor traffic. The weekend bike rides to the park had to stop.
‘I’m sorry. There’s no safe way to cycle there now’.
As a cycle campaign we are of course primarily interested in high quality provision for cycling that allows anyone to feel confident using a bike to get around. This has been the focus of our continuing engagement in the Green Lanes Area Transport Study. There are many ways to achieve this but many options that improve conditions for people on bikes also have much wider benefits for those in the area – even if they never cycle. For example making areas more healthy and liveable, reducing air pollution and even reducing journey times for drivers by lowering overall traffic levels and simplifying routes. If you live in or travel through Harringay or the Green Lanes area, you have until Sunday to complete the council survey on future options for Wightman Road and the surrounding area. We believe this is an issue primarily for local people to decide, so please take a look at Living Wightman’s advice on how to complete the survey. While some of the options presented can deliver a suitable cycle route (in particular we recommend you support the proposal for a northbound cycle track on Green Lanes, desperately needed in an area with no safe north/south routes), the option to ‘filter’ Wightman Road will deliver multiple health and air quality benefits as well as a safe route suitable for all-ages cycling. Many parts of this borough are already ‘filtered’ to through traffic. Other boroughs which are right next to Haringey are showing how such schemes, if well managed, can reduce traffic over a wide area. The use of Wightman Road as a conduit for through traffic has negative consequences for the areas to the north and south that also have long-standing issues with excessive through traffic.
The council’s response to the issues encountered on Wightman Road is a real test for them – are they serious about tackling pollution and unlocking the massive potential for active travel in this borough? Or, as suggested by the recent consultation on the Wood Green AAP, is the future of our borough just as polluted, congested and unhealthy as our present? This is your chance to tell the council what sort of place you want this borough to evolve into. Don’t miss the chance to have your voice heard.
Haringey Cycling Campaign have met with Haringey Council and provided a detailed response to the Wood Green Area Action Plan consultation, based on discussions with members at our last monthly meeting. But we know that many of our members and supporters will want to add their own voices to this consultation. Remember, you have until this Friday 31 March to have your say!
We’ve outlined our thoughts below, and highlighted in bold some of the main points we feel really need to be made. Please feel free to cut and paste into your own response, or write your own response if you’d prefer. As we are a cycling campaign, our comments relate only to proposed cycling provision and related traffic management in the area. We do not feel it is within our remit to comment on any of the other elements of the plan, but as individual responders, you are of course welcome to do so yourselves.
While we accept that plans are at an early stage, we welcome the stated intention to encourage walking and cycling and to improve the local cycle network. However the routes shown in the plans are mainly existing cycle routes which are of a poor quality. The new connections proposed do not suggest cycling is being planned for as a serious mode of transport. Although the proposed cycle routes are welcome additions as leisure routes or connectors to a proper cycle network, they cannot form the backbone of a comprehensive provision for cycling. Overall, the network shown does not seem central to the transport element of the regeneration plan, and does not deal with the key issues currently limiting the take-up of cycling for transport in this area. Significant modal shift towards more sustainable methods of transport will come about principally by a reduction of through traffic in residential areas and the provision of protected space for cycling on the main north/south and east/west main road routes. The AAP should include at its core a high quality cycle network if it wants to reflect a truly modern approach to traffic management that enables anyone to choose to cycle to work, shops, school or to leisure facilities.
The plans as they stand appear to represent outdated ideas about traffic management. Making more space for motor traffic is a sure way to attract more traffic to the area, a phenomenon known as ‘induced traffic’ that has been observed by transport professionals repeatedly since 1925. Allowing more through traffic on Mary Neuner Way with no restrictions to traffic on adjoining roads will only exacerbate the current unacceptable traffic levels in this area, Wightman Road to the south and the residential areas to the north. This project is an opportunity to sort out these problems once and for all and must not be missed. A coordinated policy for traffic reduction is essential and we suggest that all possible measures to achieve this be considered. Haringey’s neighbouring boroughs have shown that a reduction in road capacity for motor vehicles is a reliable way to reduce overall motor traffic volumes and enable active travel.
As part of measures to modernise roads in and around the area, the dangerous junction at Turnpike Lane/Wightman Road must be overhauled or it will remain a key barrier to north/south cycling to and from the Heartlands area. Suggestions that reductions in capacity at this junction will exacerbate traffic problems simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
One of the stated aims of the AAP is to bring more shoppers to Wood Green from the Palace Gates/Alexandra Park area and beyond. These efforts will be seriously undermined if principle routes into Wood Green, such as Station Road, remain hostile to active travel. To attract more visitors from north and south of the area, the creation of dedicated, protected space for cycling on Wood Green High Road must be a priority. Enfield Council are currently building cycle tracks on Green Lanes that will stop at the border. Hackney Council are considering doing the same on Green Lanes to the south of Haringey. Green Lanes will remain the principle north/south route for cycling in this part of the borough and should be modernised to form a continuous network with our neighbouring boroughs.
The AAP provides the opportunity to break with the past and begin to build the kind of inclusive, modern road environment that Haringey residents deserve. Cycling in Wood Green is currently mainly the preserve of the quick and the brave, meaning most residents do not feel safe enough to benefit from active travel due to a road environment that is heavily balanced towards the private car. The opportunity presented by the AAP to rectify this unfairness must not be missed.
Haringey Council is currently consulting on a number of proposals for the Hornsey Park area, on Hornsey Park Road between Clarendon Road and Avenue Road. You can see detail of this consultation on the website of the Parkside Malvern Residents Association. We fully support PMRA’s ambition for a quieter Hornsey Park Road that is less dominated by motor traffic.
Those of you who are local to, or cycle through this area may wish to respond to this consultation in detail. When doing so please include in your response an objection to the proposal to reduce carriageway lane widths to 3.2m. We have provided a detailed response to the wider aspects of the plans, but our overriding concern is that the proposed road widths be brought into line with London’s published standards for cycle design:
The London Cycle Design Standards specifically warn against lanes of this width and instead offers the following guidance: ‘If the proportion of HGV and public service vehicle traffic is less than 10 per cent then, subject to the carriageway geometry and speed and volume of traffic, motor traffic lane widths may generally be reduced to between 2.5 and 2.9 metres.’ Reducing the road width from 3.2m to 2.5-2.9m would also enhance the desired speed reduction and ‘gateway’ effect. We are strongly opposed to the proposed 3.2m width as this is likely to leave room for doubt about whether sufficient room is available for overtaking, increasing the possibility that following vehicles will attempt to pass far too closely. There are roads very near to Hornsey Park Road that feel hostile to cycling due to close passes and dangerous tailgating, exacerbated by the road widths present alongside traffic islands. We are anxious that this situation is not replicated on Hornsey Park Road.
These proposals were discussed at Haringey Cycling Campaign’s monthly meeting on the 14 November. Unfortunately, we found very little to recommend from a cycling perspective. The junction treatment outside Bruce Grove station is likely to benefit pedestrians and to a lesser extent those on bikes. However, in our view the remainder of the proposed work would decrease safety for people cycling, and as such we are requesting TfL go back to the drawing board and come back with something much better. Our reasoning is set out below – you may wish to raise these points in your response. Remember the consultation closes on 7 December!
The proposals include a dangerous and unnecessary pinch point The new signalised pedestrian crossing proposes to narrow the existing carriageway width to 3m in each direction. We object to this creation of a pinch point, which seems unnecessary for pedestrian safety as the proposed crossing is signalised. We are concerned that the proposed narrowing will increase conflict between road users – in theory cycles should “take the lane” to prevent dangerous overtaking but this would only be a sensible approach on a road with light volumes of traffic travelling at low speeds. For what we think are obvious reasons, this approach is not applicable to this situation.
Proposals remove existing cycle provision
There is an existing cycle route (LCN 54) that crosses the High Rd at St Loys Rd. In 2003 and 2006 detailed proposals were made, but not implemented, to upgrade this crossing. There are presently cycle reservations to the north and south of the junction, which are at least some assistance in crossing the High Road. The present proposals include the removal of the south reservation and this is not an acceptable alteration as no replacement provision is shown.
Current proposals are incompatible with increasing cycle numbers
A 2007 Transport for London scheme for the A10 from Monument Way to St Loys Rd, consulted on but not implemented, included cycle lanes. There remains ample road space for comprehensive cycle provision. Indeed, as part of implementing Mini Holland, Enfield are currently consulting on a proposal for protected cycle tracks on the A1010 up to the Haringey border. Cycle Superhighway 1 does not provide a suitable alternative route, particularly with the decision not to filter through traffic on Broadwater Road. The A10 at Bruce Grove is and will remain heavily used by cycles: Planning policy for Tottenham regeneration seeks to reduce private car use and improving cycle provision in Enfield and Waltham Forest means that the ambition for the A10 should be as a main cycle route.
We therefore urge that these proposals are either redesigned or not taken forward as part of this scheme.
The response below is a draft on behalf of Haringey Cycling Campaign and London Cycling Campaign – there may be minor edits after the London Cycling Campaign IRG (Infrastructure Review Group) meeting on Thursday 26th March.
We feel there are many problems with the present proposals.
TfL are already reconsidering the South section of the route through Haringey, following our objections to the St Ann’s Road alignment.
Hopefully there will also be a rethink on the centre section from South Tottenham station, past Seven Sisters Road to Philip Lane, which includes sections of shared space on the pavement outside a busy Seven Sisters underground station entrance and High Road bus stop – where local cyclists have recently been stopped from cycling by MPS Haringey (although the acting Inspector has since apologised by email and sent a memo to all neighbourhood team reminding officers what a shared use space sign looks like).
UPDATE: Keep a look out for how to respond to the CS1 consultation – WE WILL NEED YOUR SUPPORT.
Here’s the proposed two-way cycle track on the pavement on the High Road north of Seven Sisters.
What to know what we think of the latest plans? Here’s our letter to Haringey Council regarding the proposed alignment of Cycle Superhighway 1:
1st February 2015
TfL have recently issued revised drawings for CS1. The trees which encroached on the cycle path near Seven Sisters Underground have been relocated and parking which obstructed access to the contra flow near Lordship Lane has been removed, however it seems no other comments from LCC/ HCC have been addressed and apart from these points the drawings appear identical to those issued before. The new drawings have been reviewed by the LCC Infrastructure Review Group (IRG) and it was agreed points as below would be raised in the forthcoming TfL Design Review Group. We will keep you informed of any comments from LCC.
As stated previously the alignment does not make sense. If this alignment is used there are a number of issues to address:-
1) Modal filter needed at Frinton Rd
2) Frinton to St Ann’s Rd is a right turn onto a hugely busy road – must be signalised and segregated
3) In the High Rd at the rail bridge, the reduced 2.5m pavement width on the east side of the toucan is not suitable. The toucan should be moved closer to the Crowland Rd Junction.
4) The “stepping stone” markings proposed look confusing, with no clarity for pedestrian or cycle priority. Not appropriate for a cycle superhighway to go through a shared use area – it is a busy area and there will be conflict.
5) High Rd/Seven Sisters Rd needs to be a cycle segregated T Junction, with one phase, not toucans.
6) Cycle friendly signal control needed at West Green Rd junction as LCDS Fig 4.9 options 1 and 2 to allow movements, as shown in HCC drawing.
7) Proximity of Underground exits serious risk of conflict – pedestrians both sides. Peds will need a crossing point to get into the Underground and clear signage.
8) Outside College of North East London: raised tree planter is used as informal seating by students. Major risk of conflict and lack of continuity. Need to reconfigure tree pit or purchase land from College.
9) Where the roads split and CS1 goes up Town Hall Approach Rd: this is a very busy narrow section of one way road: when buses are stopped here cyclists won’t be able to pass. Need to let cyclists onto the paved area to overtake buses, to feed in to re-configured straight across toucan to join to local E/W cycle route.
10) Need to provide hatched centre line marking at TH Approach all traffic 2-way section, to ensure awareness of oncoming traffic.
11) Junction of Town Hall Approach Rd and Philip Lane is a busy junction. Philip Lane needs proper segregation – junction should be cycle segregated leading into protected tracks. Armadillos or wands may work here – stepped tracks wouldn’t be acceptable if there is a risk that they would be parked on. All of Philip Lane (pages 13, 14, 15) needs segregation.
12) Strode Rd into Sperling Rd – only about 3m wide – entirely unsuitable to share with pedestrians
13) At Lordship Lane bus stop conflicts with S bound cycle 2-stage turn. Move bus stop to other side of Broadwater Rd junction. Cyclists turning right into a major road will require control (lights).
14) Lordship Lane needs two toucans synchronised to get cyclists across. This would eradicate need for traffic islands with cycle bollards, allowing room for segregated tracks.
HCC lobbied strongly for CS1 to avoid St Ann’s Rd, but now that it is definitely following this alignment, it needs to be made as cycle friendly as possible. Another major concern to HCC, is the design of the junctions in the area of Seven Sisters Station and the related pedestrian areas. It seems TfL aim to thread CS1 through this area with a minimum of change to the recently completed work, which in spite of repeated reminders to the design team, took no account of the planned CS1. This simply will not work. There have been numerous complaints on the dangers of the present layout, for example going straight ahead from West Green Rd to Broad Lane, across other traffic flows. If CS1 is “bolted on” to this already unsatisfactory situation, a need for many more dangerous manoeuvres will be added. For example how will cycles access CS1 from Broad Lane? Are they meant to filter through waiting pedestrians at the unsegregated Toucan Crossings? This might be acceptable for a low volume cycle route, but for a superhighway and the high pedestrian traffic in this location, it isn’t.
We can find no precedent for the “stepping stone” shared use markings proposed by TfL and think they will cause confusion. There are precedents for clearly marked cycle paths in pedestrian areas, for example in Seville where studs are used in conjunction with pedestrian priority signs (where appropriate). The photograph below shows a cycle route at a tramline crossing (see also
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/28/seville-cycling-capital-southern-europe-bike-lanesfor a general review of cycle provision in Seville). There is also guidance on cycle route shared use marking and junction design in the new London Cycle Design Standards. TfL are presently building or upgrading a number of Cycle Superhighways following these Standards and it would be a real missed opportunity if the only Superhighway planned for Haringey is not compliant. I would be grateful if you could take this up with TfL.
Regards, Michael Poteliakhoff
Coordinator, Haringey Cycling Campaign
The consultation on Cycle Superhighway 1 was due to launch in late 2014, but consultation is now due in February 2015, and CS1 is due for completion in April 2016.
TfL’s current proposals can be seen in TfL Board papers at https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/board-20150204-part-1-item-07a-propose-csh-scheme.pdf (pages 50-55).
London Cycling Campaign and Haringey Cycling Campaign have objected to the proposed alignment in Haringey, in particular the narrow and very busy section along St Ann’s Rd, but we are now concentrating on whatever alignment goes ahead being built to the best possible standard.
It looks as if it’s going to be more of a “Superquietway” than a proper CS. Our full consultation response comments will be made when the details go public – make sure you give TfL your feedback!