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
for 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!