Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Ludgate Circus Cycle Superhighway plans increase danger to pedestrians, warns City of London

Corporation calls on TfL to revise plans for junction that has seen two cyclist fatalities this year

Ludgate Circus, the London junction where two cyclists have lost their lives following collisions with lorries during the past six months, will be made more dangerous for pedestrians if a planned Cycle Superhighway goes ahead in its current form, warns the City of London Corporation.

As the planning authority for that junction and other parts of the route of two proposed segregated bike lanes, the Corporation’s demand for changes could impact the project.

The claim was made in a report examined by the Corporation’s Planning and Transportation Committee last week as it considered its interim response to the current consultation being conducted by Transport for London (TfL) on the two proposed Cycle Superhighways that will pass through the Square Mile.

Dubbed ‘Crossrail for the Bike,’ one of the routes, running north to south from King’s Cross to Elephant & Castle, passes through Ludgate Circus which the Corporation’s director of the built environment describes in his report as “the most dangerous location in the City.”

The report says: “TfL’s proposals have significant benefits as well as implications. However, those benefits are heavily biased towards cycling. This unbalanced approach leads to significant implications for other users.”

It also claims: “The overall impact of the current proposals on pedestrians, local access and the environment are not in keeping with the Mayor of London’s Vision to ‘create better places for everyone’.”

On the subject of Ludgate Circus, the report says:  “It is already a location where many pedestrians ignore the pedestrian crossings. The proposed stagger crossings, reduced refuges island widths, excessive increases in wait times and the additional two-way cycle lane running through the junction, will add further risks and collisions, particularly to pedestrians.”

The report highlighted 11 points for TfL to consider, one of which related specifically to the junction, saying: “Pedestrian crossings need to be simple, straightforward and useable. At Ludgate Circus, they need to be single stage crossings. In other locations, they should also ideally be single stage crossings.”

Members of the committee approved the report and are requesting a one-week extension from TfL to the consultation period, due to expire on 9 November to give more time for its final response to be drawn up.

Yesterday, a 26-year-old female cyclist died at the Royal London Hospital from injuries suffered when, according to witnesses, she was “crushed” following a collision with a tipper truck at Ludgate Circus last Friday.

In April this year, 32-year-old Victor Manuel Ben Rodriguez lost his life as a result of head injuries sustained when he was hit by a lorry while cycling through the same junction.

In a post on its Facebok page last Friday, London Cycling Campaign said of the latest incident: "Although we don't know the circumstances, this is a tragic illustration of why junctions like these need #space4cycling and why it's so important that plans like the N-S Superhighway (which include measures to make this junction safer for cyclists) must go ahead."

Yesterday, after it was confirmed the rider has died, the group wrote: "We're very saddened to hear that the cyclist who collided with HGV on Friday at Ludgate Hill has died. Our thoughts are with the familiy & friends."

A YouGov poll of 1,002 Londoners last week found nearly two thirds of respondents, 64 per cent, in favour of the Cycle Superhighways even if they removed traffic lanes from motorised traffic. Just one in four people, 24 per cent, objected to the plans, with ‘don’t knows’ making up the balance.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

10 comments

Avatar
a.jumper | 9 years ago
0 likes

So what are the numbers? How many people are killed walking across the road here?

I'd quite like informal zebras like Bristol Baldwin Street here, but the proposal with its larger refuges and new crossings where I don't think any exist at present seems good enough to me.

Avatar
Paul M | 9 years ago
0 likes

The City doth protest too much, methinks.

It has a poor record in standing up to TfL over pedestrian crossing designs and timings - just look at the furore over the removal of the crossing at Watergate, crossing New Bridge St in front of Blackfriars tube station, forcing pedestrians to make a 270 degree circuit of three roads if they wised to cross the road from the UNliver Building to teh Blackfriar pub. Something like 500 citizens wrote to object to this in the consultations on the Blackfriars Junction redesign, but nary a squeak from the City.

As for the crossing at Ludgate Circus, there are currently no controlled crossing, not even zebras, across the east-west axis of Fleet St and Ludgate Hill, and across the north-south axis, crossing Farringdon St or New Bridge St, are two stage - it may be possible to cross in one stage if you are quick, but green lights for traffic turning left from Fleet St into Farringdon St or from Ludgate Hill into New Bridge St, ensure that most of the time they are two stage.

It is not to say that the City doesn't have a point in some respects. Longer waits for pedestrians are implied in a couple of instances (most are neutral or even an improvement) but the answer to that is simple - take away some of the time allocated to motor traffic, which has been lengthened relentlessly over the last few years and which gets worse still with SCOOT technology.

Avatar
andreacasalotti | 9 years ago
0 likes

What people need to understand is that this is purely a personal spat between the Transport Dept at City and Gilligan. They fell out a year ago with the design of the Cycling Grid, and now they engage in this infantile skirmish (putting lives at risk, but these idiots just don't care).

Avatar
AleT | 9 years ago
0 likes

I work in the City and cycle and walk through it every day. I would say things are slowly improving for cyclists and pedestrians. Making many streets two way for cycling and the blanket 20mph speed limit spring to mind.

In this case though I really don't understand why the City objects to two stage crossings as part of a cycle plan, but seem to have nothing against them in every other junction in the city.

Avatar
TeamExtreme | 9 years ago
0 likes

I can't find the proposals online, but wouldn't a 'Shibuya-style' diagonal crossing like Oxford Circus work well here for pedestrians?

There's a huge amount of space to work at that intersection and I'm sure there's room for a segregated cycle lane as well adequate road and pavement space.

Avatar
CumbrianDynamo | 9 years ago
0 likes

Er, but surely every road at that junction already has a two-stage crossing in all but name as the timing of the lights makes crossing in one go fairly difficult. Two of them (on Fleet Street and Ludgate Hill) have very narrow central "refuge" islands. The plans above make it look as though the proposals are a significant improvement for pedestrians as there is more space for them to wait in the centre of the road if caught between lights.

If the City were so bothered about this, why didn't they push for the introduction of single-stage crossings or longer light phases before now?

Avatar
timlennon | 9 years ago
0 likes

“Pedestrian crossings need to be simple, straightforward and useable. At Ludgate Circus, they need to be single stage crossings. In other locations, they should also ideally be single stage crossings.”

Exactly. I work in the area, and couldn't agree with this simple statement of principle more. (Yes, I also cycle through there.)

Having said all this, the proposals will be at worse neutral for pedestrians, I think.

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 9 years ago
0 likes

The city is a horrible place to be a pedestrian. These plans actually improve things for pedestrians far, far more than they make things worse.

Thats probably why they're objecting.

Avatar
Jaytee replied to EddyBerckx | 9 years ago
0 likes

Staggered crossings cause delays for pedestrians (in favour of other users), double the amount of crossing movements they must make and shift them away from desire lines. It is inevitable that as a result few people will use the crossings. How does that make them safer?

Avatar
Jaytee replied to EddyBerckx | 9 years ago
0 likes

If the lights are using a typical 90 second cycle. it could take a pedestrians up to 6 minutes to cross two arms two arms of the junction!!!

Latest Comments