Category Archives: Consultation Responses

Wall of Death: FOI Questions and Replies

Questions:

Each of these questions was asked by Will Nickell through Freedom of Information requests sent to every London borough. All figures are taken directly from their responses.

Q1. What percentage of your borough’s total road kilometres consists of fully, hard-segregated cycle routes?

Q2. How many total kilometres of fully, hard-segregated cycle routes does this equate to?

Q3. Since the 6th of May 2010, how much money in pounds sterling has been spent from your borough’s transport budget on creating further,  fully, hard-segregated cycle routes?

Q4. In relation to the above question, what percentage of your total transport spend within your borough for the named period did this constitute?

Q5. For the period between the 1st of April 2014 and the 31st of March 2015,  how much total money in pounds sterling from your borough’s transport budget has been, or will be, allocated to creating further,  fully, hard-segregated cycle routes?

Q6. For the period mentioned in Q5, what percentage of your borough’s transport budget does this constitute?

Q7. What percentage of road kilometres under your sole control are 20mph roads?

Answers:

Click on each borough’s name to see the actual FOI request and the response received (links to the ‘What do they know?’ website).

Authority

Q1 (%)

Q2 (km)

Q3 (£)

Q4 (%)

Q5 (£)

Q6 (%)

Q7 (%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barking

1

4.5

0

0

750,000

34

15

Barnet

0

0

0

0

400,000

11

3

Bexley

0

0

0

0

///

///

7.25

Brent

1

1

///

///

///

///

28.38

Bromley

0

0

0

0

0

0

4.9

Camden

1.63

4.2

320,000

3.1

0

0

100

Croydon

///

///

0

0

///

///

///

Ealing

<1

1

400,000

2

///

///

50

Enfield

0

0

0

0

0

0

19

Greenwich

1.2

6.5

0

0

0

0

39

Hackney

0.2

0.5

0

0

0

0

87.9

Hammersmith
(updated)

1.9

4.2

0

0

///

///

28.1

Haringey

0

0

0

0

///

///

42.8

Harrow
(updated)

1.4

6.5

0

0

0

0

15

Havering

0

0

0

0

0

0

///

Hillingdon

<1

3

0

0

0

0

///

Hounslow

0

0

0

0

200,000

9

25

Islington

0.5

1

0

0

///

///

100

Kensington

0

0.1

0

0

0

0

0

Kingston-Upon-Thames
(updated)

0.53

1.744

80,000

0.6

///

///

40

Lambeth

0

0

0

0

0

0

67

Lewisham

0.05

0.25

0

0

///

///

64

City of London

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

Merton

1

1.5

0

0

///

///

20

Newham
(updated)

0.98

4.12

380,000

1.89

///

///

35.5

Redbridge

0.38

2

0

0

0

0

18

Richmond-Upon-Thames

0

0

0

0

///

///

DIY

Southwark

///

///

///

///

///

///

DIY

Sutton

0

0.5

0

0

0

0

10

Tower Hamlets

0

0

0

0

0

0

85

Waltham Forest

1.79

8.79

75,000

3

320,000

14.9

33

Wandsworth

0

0

0

0

0

0

DIY

Westminster

0.05

0.178

0

0

///

///

0.13

Aside: FOI request also sent to Transport for London and is included here for reference…

Transport for London

///

///

6,800,000
(CS2 extension)

DIY
(0.07)

107,000,000

2

0.6

Legend

/// = Answer not provided.
DIY = Council provided some data, but stated maths should be done by us.

UPDATES:

  • 13 May 2014:
    • Hammersmith and Fulham borough council responded on 13 May.
  • 28 April 2014:
    • Newham borough council responded on 27th March
    • Kingston-Upon-Thames borough council responded on 2nd April
    • Harrow did not re-supply the information as requested; but a way was found to get at the original data that they had provided

___________________________________________________________________

Appendix

Formal Objection to TfL Proposals for Abbey Street / Tower Bridge Road Junction

Donnachadh McCarthy writes…

The proposal by Transport for London for Tower Bridge Road at Abbey Street.
The proposal by Transport for London for Tower Bridge Road at Abbey Street.

A formal objection from the Stop Killing Cyclists group to Transport for London’s proposals for Abbey Street / Tower Bridge Road junction have now been submitted.

Additional objections from members very welcome – feel free to plagiarise as you see fit. The proposal from TfL; and contact details:

Here is the letter that has been sent in…

“Dear TfL

We wish to formally object to the proposals for Abbey Street Junction pedestrian cyclist safety.

Whilst welcoming your intention to make the Abbey Street/Tower Mill Road junction safer, we believe the proposals made do not adequately address the safety of pedestrians and cyclists adequately.

Whilst we welcome the left-hand ban for trucks at two corners as due to how Southwark Council designed the adjacent two new developments, these turns are too dangerous for cyclists and traffic to mix on.

But banning cyclists from using 50% of the left-hand turns at the junction is not acceptable as there are no safety reasons for doing do. The reason given by TfL for the ban is not cyclist safety but to facilitate speed for traffic through the junction.

Indeed the proposal to re-route cyclists through the adjacent graveyard increases the danger as it creates a new unregulated traffic interchange as cyclists re-emerge from the graveyard to re-join the traffic on Tower Bridge Road.

It also creates a new danger for pedestrian danger as the cyclists emerge unexpectedly from the graveyard to cross the pavement to re-join the traffic. Cyclists and pedestrians do not need such unnecessary conflict to be designed into these proposals.

Your proposal fails Go Dutch standards abysmally and leaves this junction almost as dangerous as it was when the cycling tragedy occurred.

TfL need to tear up this proposal and start from scratch with the Dutch standard layout for junctions, to address pedestrian and cyclists’ safety as the priority not speed of traffic.

This approach makes junctions safer for both pedestrians and cyclists, without banning left hand turns.

If the physical failure to design in safety by the two new building developments at the junction, means that this Dutch approach is not feasible, you should instead install dual function traffic light system, whereby the cyclists and pedestrians cross at the same time, rather than forcing cyclists to cross at same time as HGVs.

Such dual function pedestrian/cycling lights are already in place at a small number of junctions in the borough.

We strenuously also oppose Option 1 which prioritises traffic flow over pedestrian safety. It is not acceptable to have two sides of the junction to be uncontrolled for pedestrians.

The dual lane approach which fails to provide protected access to the advance stop lines on Tower Bridge Road should be deleted and replaced with a single lane approach with protected cycle-lane access to the advanced stop-lines.

Many thanks

pp Stop Killing Cyclists

Donnachadh McCarthy FRSA