Jump to content

Recommended Posts

TfL consultation is now open on their plans for a North-South and East-West mostly segregated cycle track routes through central London.


North South runs Elephant to King's Cross. East West runs Tower Hill to Acton.


East West one here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/eastwest/consult_view


North South one here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/northsouth



Personally I think this is the biggest step forwards I've seen in my time cycling in London (since 2005). They're not perfect of course, but please have your say. Historic opportunity that could easily be defeated/whittled down to being nothing like as good.

  • Administrator

I know this isn't strictly East Dulwich but there's a lot of cyclists on the forum so this will stay in the General ED issues section.


And if it turns into a "bloody cyclists think they own the pavements" vs "damn car drivers pay for this with their road taxes" type argument again I'm going to Lounge it promptly.

I've gone through the proposals in detail. Apart from my current role of East Dulwich councillor, I used chair Southwark Cyclists for a number of years campaigning for better cycle facilities.


I'm really disappointed with what is proposed. I would not expect to use these facilities while cycling around town but remain on the parallel roads. Two-way segregated cycle faciltities are really retrograde - I've not seen these while cycling around on busy Amsterdam and Copenhagen streets.

The proposals clearly have no understanding of the current facilities and junctions that effectively are planned to repeated in this scheme. Current problems cyclists are encountering with cyclists congestion (Churchyard Road/Newington Butts, Wellington Street/Waterloo Bridge southbound lights). It means cyclists bunch to avoid missing a green phase blocking the opposing direction of cyclists. It also means they block pedestrians walking along the road.


Sad that no mention of a green wave of signalled junctions working together so cyclists don't need to stop once they hit the perfect speed a la Copenhagen - which also works well for motor vehicles. This would help avoid cyclsits bunching at traffic lights as well as speeding up journeys.


The route from Elephant & Castle to St.George's Circus is indirect. Cyclsits already cyclnig the route will ignore the new facility. New cyclsits will soon realise they're being sent on a daft indirect route.


Also talk of severe disruption for over a year on the route. This would be aleviated by seperate one-way cyclse lanes which each take up less space and in many cases wouldnt need central islands etc being repositioned.

I am slightly nervous about the idea of having having cyclist going in both directions on the same narrow path and the fact that some of the paths will at pavement level (pedestrians will walk in them, stand in them talking on their phone etc.). Looks like a genuine attempt to make cycling safer though.

I think cyclists are willing to sacrifice directness for a pleasant ride.


For example, I know several cyclists who use LCN23+CS7+Cannon Street to get to Bank, where Walworth+E&C Roundabout+Borough High St+London Bridge would be the quickest route.


As long as the pleasant route is well-signposted, I don't see a problem.

I agree with the concerns about the paths being bi-directional with (from the looks of things) no markings or physical separation (such as cats eyes) between the opposing cycle lanes. Anyone who has ever cycled in Richmond Park will be well familiar with the small(ish) minority of idiot cyclists who will move out at speed into oncoming traffic in order to over take slower cyclists. Although the pictures in the proposal show a wide cycle lane with apparently room to overtake safely, I fear in practice this will not be the case.


I also can't understand why the proposal shows the lane beginning on the north side of the Elephant & Castle roundabout. It is well documented that the E&C Roundabout is the number 1 fatality black spot for cyclists in London but it is crossing the roundabout that is the problem - so surely the safe lane needs to begin BEFORE not after the roundabout?!

stepover, the E&C roundabout scheme proposals were already up for consultation earlier this year. The results can be seen here. https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/elephant-and-castle


Also everyone, the extension to CS5 is still up for consultation -- it may be of interest to those of you who cycle along the CS5 route through Peckham and Camberwell. The extension covers Oval to Belgravia. View & comment here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/cs5-inner/consult_view

And I don't understand JB's underlying negative stance either. Is that because it doesn't run down Lordship Lane? Seems a bit political.


Phasing of lights and cats eyes are minor details imo, and comparing London to Amsterdam etc just isn't realistic; those cities have been positive towards cyclists for decades now, and what works there wouldn't work here.

I'm in two minds on whether I'll use all of the segregated routes all the time as if it's too congested on them, I'd rather go along the road. However, I can see that for those who don't cycle regularly and are nervous, they're a great idea. I'd probably have used them for my first few weeks of cycle commuting. A shout out to the great cycle training that Southwark Council offers though - it's a brilliant way to improve confidence on the roads until these come in.


I do have concerns that they'll be maintained well (cleaned/swept of debris and that they'll be gritted in the winter - not cyclists put their bikes away in October!) and that having cyclists off the roads, will make drivers less used to dealing with them (i.e. giving appropriate space when passing). London drivers are much more cyclist-aware. than those in other parts of the country.


As cosmonaut says, the Vauxhall bit is still open but not for much longer so get any thoughts in fast.


Lastly, in terms of green light phasing, I did ask this at the public consultation meeting for the Vauxhall one since there's a stretch at the south end of the bridge that has quite a few lights. The spokesperson there did say that the lights would be phased so that cyclists could have a green wave as they went across that section - partly since they accept that space could be tight and there won't be room to have a bottleneck if each one goes red.

...and it's not wide enough to have bike going in both directions.

The north/south link shows Blackfriars bridge road. That section looks good, but check the rest out. Overall I think it's positive that there is a genuine effort to improve things though and this is our opportunity to feed into it and suggest improvements.

I agree, good start, but we should definitely add our ideas for improvements.


If they are spending that much money on this, I would have liked to see phased traffic lights that allow cyclists to go slightly before the motorised vehicles for cyclists who stay on the roads.

There are plans to radically improve the Elephant interchange which may help make this route more usable.

The info is here - again there was a consultation about that - the summary of what came up is at the end.


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/elephant-and-castle

Hi ultraburner,

I'm negative because the design ignores the problems the proposed junction designs are already causing when just junctions without the cycle lanes. I've given two examples of where these types of junctions already don't work. Do take a look during rushhours and then tell me I'm wrong.


The proposals appear to ignore the experiences of Amsterdam and Copenhagen. With all due respect to ruffers the expecation would be much higher cycle flows coming from further away on average (Utrecht is a much smaller less populated town). So many of the cyclists would expect to cycle further and faster (proven maximum time people are willing to commute) and be less likely to dawdle on such facilities. The scheme would work if it was only intended for low numbers of cyclists. But the intent which I applaud is to significantly boost cycling.


At the northern end of the route they're proposing one-way cycle lanes each side of the road, then merging them into one two-way cycle route in the middle and southern sections. It's muddled thinking. From my cycle campaigning experience once they blow a significant amount of money on a scheme if it's not right, unless it's clearly killing people, it won't be changed or corrected for a decade or two and we'll be stuck with it.


Please take a look at Churchyard Row/Newington Butts and Wellington/Waterloo Bridge junctions during evening rushhour. You'll see many cyclists waiting for the lights to change. They bunch rather than queue backwards to ensure they'll get across on the next green phase. Imagine this at every red light along the route blocking the opposing cyclists. If they do proceed with two-way segregation then they need to significantly widen the throat of each area cyclists will wait when the lights are red and the opposing receiving throat for cyclists to filter back down into a stream of regular proposed lane widths. This is done for motor vehicles so it isn't as if the traffic engineers don't understand the need for this.


Hi Too Good To Be True,

The research shows that cyclists will only go further for clear safety benefits. Avoiding the E&C roundabout is a very clear safety benefit. The proposed indirect route from E&C to St.George's appears no safer than the current bus and cycle one-way contraflow route directly along London Road.

Similar cycle parking research shows very few cyclsits will park their bicycles more than 20m from their destination. Hence all the fly bike parking you see.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One thing that strikes me about having a two way

> lane is that it's going to be pretty difficult for

> cars passing across it from side streets to spot

> people coming in both directions.



No different from spotting cars coming in both directions though surely? Or have I missed something?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...