An earlier post gives a short film clip of the evolution of the evolution of CS2 at this junction.Â First TfL installed CS2, then an island was put in to protect cyclists and then this as relaced with “wands” and finally this section of CS2 was removed altogether.Â All in the space of a few weeks.
On the front page of the Newham Recorder on 17 September indicated:
Cllr Ian Corbett, mayoral adviser for environment and infrastructure, said concerns about CS2 had been raised following â€œa number of serious near missesâ€.
â€œThe Council has made clear to TfL the urgent need to fully address all safety issues at this location and review the design proposals,â€ he said. â€œThis should be done in conjunction with key stakeholders such as the council, police, emergency services and cycling groups.â€
Newham Council were formally asked for information concerning the evidence for this change.Â Despite a legal obligation to answer and giving themselves more time to do so they have not, and having received a reminder (copied to Councillor Corbett) nothing has been forthcoming at the time of this post.
TfLhowever have, belatedly, responded to a request for information.Â I you would like to see the actual response please e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org
Whilst the response takes some untangling, it is clear that:
(1) TfL did not construct CS2 here as originally planned due to adjacent building work.Â Â It will be completed according to the original plan when that work is completed.
(2) Newham Council thenÂ agreed to the wand solution, but when they raised concerns it was considered by a safety auditor.
(3) The safety auditor is reported as noting “that the risk of collision with left-turning vehicles pre-dates the scheme and that the wands are having the effect of reducing the speed of turning vehicles, and therefore reducing the likelihood and severity of any collision when compared to the pre-construction layout. It was also recognised that until the final scheme can be delivered, options are limited. Removing the Cycle Superhighway from this section of Broadway altogether would not be recommended as the risk would remain, along with any new potential risks by removing the dedicated space for cyclists and conspicuous road surface.”
(3) TfL ‘s response and the supporting document indicate that the priniciple concern with the wands was confusion “poor driver behaviour” for example instances of drivers missing the turn into Tramway Avenue and backing up.
Newham Cyclists’ view is that the wands were the best of the options used from the perspective of cycle safety, but believed it was not properly signed, nor given sufficient time to bed in.
From the above it is reasonable to draw the following conclusions:
(a) Councillor Corbett has been less than forthcoming about Newham Council’s role, which has resulted in the waste of over Â£3000 of precious public funding for cycling facilities.
(b) The Council is not willing to substantiate his allegation of “a number of serious near misses” which is far different to confusion and poor driver behaviour.
(c) Newham Council has actively sacrificed cyclists protection in the face of a safety audit to accommodate driver misbehaviour and for the sake of a few signs.
At no time before or since have Newham Cyclists or LCC been consulted over these changes despite the Council’s apparent conversion to consultation.