Industry fears over London bike routes and lorry ban

Two major schemes given formal go-ahead by Transport for London (TfL) last month look set to have a considerable impact on fleets operating in the capital: an ambitious dedicated cycle route project, and a ban on most lorries without basic safety equipment from entering London.

The decision by TfL to build two brand new segregated ‘cycle superhighways’ through the capital by 2016 has been greeted with significant concern by voices within the road freight and passenger transport industries.

Among other new cycle routes and upgrades, TfL plans a three-mile north-south segregated route from Kings Cross to the Elephant and Castle via Blackfriars Bridge – but it is a more ambitious, west-east route that has caused the most controversy among transport trade groups.

Dubbed ‘Crossrail for bikes’, the 18-mile lane will take over one carriageway of the Westway elevated highway – which was once part of the A40(M) and was originally constructed in the 1960s to increase capacity – then run through Paddington, Hyde Park, Parliament Square and the Embankment, to Tower Bridge.

Concerns raised by transport groups include the elimination of much-used coach parking spaces, the reduction in capacity of already congested roads, and difficulties in making kerb-side deliveries to businesses along the route.

Christopher Snelling, head of urban logistics at the Freight Transport Association (FTA), said that while the association was not opposed to the schemes in principle, it had concerns about the speed at which they were being introduced.

“These projects will be in place for decades, and therefore more time should be spent now getting all of the aspects understood and correct before work begins,” he said.

“The information published on delay times still does not reflect how industry and private motorists actually use these roads. And yet the first roadworks to build these superhighways will start in just a few weeks’ time.

“By this April we will see works underway on the proposed routes, affecting some key routes into the centre of London. It seems that the target pushing this is the aim to finish the routes by May 2016 – when the mayor leaves office.”

He added that there would be considerable impact on traffic not just on the routes themselves, but also across London and even out to the M25, as TfL re-sequences red lights to make it harder for motor traffic to get on the routes.

“Given the tight constraints of drivers’ hours rules, this could result in significantly increased costs to the logistics industry, and that means increased costs for the businesses and residents in London who rely on them.”

On a positive note, he added: “The improvements that have been announced today show how careful work can improve the situation to better reflect the balance of London’s transport needs, and the revised plans issued are an improvement on those previously put out – traffic delays have been reduced somewhat and more loading capacity has been added than was planned before.

“TfL has also committed today to work further with the freight industry to refine the loading facilities on the routes before they go live, which we welcome.”

The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK (CPT) expressed disappointment that TfL intends to proceed with the superhighway, which it said would result as it stands in fewer coach parking facilities, inconvenience to visitors and increased traffic congestion, thereby inevitably adding to operator costs.

CPT’s coaching executive, Andy Warrender, said: “Throughout the consultation process CPT has made very robust and consistent representations to TfL about the effect on coach parking and how this adversely affects a large proportion of almost 50 million visitors a year who travel to the capital by coach.

“We understand that… TfL intends to press ahead quickly with works to create the cycle superhighway; and we are concerned that this haste will result in the loss of coach parking facilities before adequate replacement parking has been identified. This disruption, at the start of the summer season, is a double whammy for the tourist industry.

“TfL has indicated that discussions can continue and we welcome the opportunity to further press for proper facilities for coaches. We remain very concerned that at this late stage there is still scant information available about the impact on the wider road network, traffic flow and on general congestion across London which has the capability to drastically add to journey times for visitors and Londoners alike.

“Overall we still believe this scheme has the potential to cause more disruption and inconvenience to a major part of London’s economy than the benefits it will deliver.”

Other organisations to have voiced concerns over the proposals include the City of London Corporation, the Canary Wharf Group, the London Chamber of Commerce, the London Taxi Drivers’ Association and some NHS trusts. Some of these organisations actually have members on the TfL board.

One board member, National Express Group chairman Sir John Armitt, said: “I would say the biggest danger to London cyclists on the roads in London are actually themselves.

“The way in which many, many, many of them ride, one is surprised that in fact the number of accidents is not far larger, because it is an entirely different way of cycling to which you see in many other cities.”

Some fleet operators have been vocal in welcoming the project. Jacqueline O’Donovan, managing director at O’Donovan Waste Disposal, said: “We are fully supportive of the TfL’s plans for the east-west cycleway. London’s roads are extremely congested and heavy goods vehicles account for 16 per cent of London’s traffic, so investing in specific cycle lanes to give cyclists a safe environment is very worthwhile.

“We would also hope that money can be invested in education and training for cyclists as well, as they are ultimately responsible for their safety, and navigating extremely congested roads is very challenging for all.”

Meanwhile, most trucks with gross weights of over 3.5 tonnes will have to be fitted with sideguards and Class V and VI mirrors, or find themselves effectively banned from entering London as of 1 September, when the Safer Lorry Scheme comes into force.

The restrictions – which will affect most vehicles currently exempt from national legislation requiring basic safety equipment – will operate within the same area as the London low emission zone, which is broadly coterminous with the Greater London administrative boundary.

Limited exemptions apply, which are detailed on the Transport for London website.

The scheme will see 600 ‘Safer HGV Zone’ signs erected across London, as Mayor Boris Johnson aims to make the capital a safer place for cyclists and pedestrians.

The mayor said: “We know that a large number of cyclist deaths and serious injuries involve a relatively small number of trucks and lorries that are not fitted with basic safety equipment.

“Such vehicles are not welcome in the capital and the Safer Lorry Scheme will see them effectively banned from our streets. The lives of thousands of cyclists and pedestrians will be much safer as a result and I urge all operators of HGVs to get on board and make it a success.”

A combination of the police, the DVSA and the Industrial HGV Taskforce will enforce the scheme 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and breaches could cost a maximum of £1,000.

Nigel Base, commercial vehicle development manager at the SMMT, warned that confusion may lie ahead if different local authorities impose different regulations on operators.

“Legislation should be decided with a Europe-wide approach to avoid a future logistics nightmare,” he said.

“Our members are continually innovating when it comes to vehicle design and safety. A number of measures are being trialled which will provide even greater benefits than the specifications being imposed by TfL.”

Some operators of smaller vehicles in the 3.5-to-7-tonne category have expressed concern that the addition of extra ‘big truck size’ mirrors may actually pose a safety hazard, by creating blind-spots and extra protrusions on vehicles that, size-wise, are little different from Transit-size vans.