The Permeability Project

Maximising route choice, minimising diversion

An addition to Hackney's Transport Action Plan proposed by the London Cycling Campaign in Hackney

Introduction

The London Planning Advisory Committee's motor traffic reduction target for Hackney:

30% by 2005

This is an ambitious target. People will still want and need to travel. Public transport will take up some of the slack, but for local travel there will still be nothing to beat the bike. To achieve the necessary increase, we have to make cycling and walking the natural choice.

Amendment to key objective 2

Key objective 2 in the draft TAP reads:

"We will make our streets healthy and safe for pedestrians and cyclists enabling them to travel easily around the borough."

At present the natural movement of cycle traffic is restricted in many ways, notably

• one-way working
• road closures without access for cycle traffic
• severance due to ignorance of the need for permeability in land use planning

We therefore suggest adding 'convenient' to "healthy and safe" in this key objective.

Our proposal: 'The Permeability Project'

In order to achieve real convenience for cycle traffic, we propose the initiation of a 'Permeability Project', aiming for a street network with minimum diversion for cycle journeys, allowing direct and uncomplicated travel. The Permeability Project would consist of two stages, completion of which we suggest could fit into the time-frame of two years and five years respectively:

1. Stage One - a comprehensive review of all streets in the borough with the aim of identifying all physical and traffic management restrictions to cycle traffic on the network

2. Stage Two - implementing solutions to remove these obstacles

Potential solutions

Solutions may include:

• restoring streets to two way operation for all traffic
• building cycle 'slips' allowing cycle access (where previously no entry to all traffic)
• contraflow cycle lanes
• opening up road closures to cycle traffic
• making exceptions for cycle traffic in traffic management orders, e.g. 'no right turn except cycles'

The aim of the Comprehensive Review would be to produce a dynamic map of the borough showing all impediments to cycle traffic, identifying what plans are pending in each case, and drawing up a prioritisation plan for rectifying the problems. In many cases the work which needs to be done can be done as part of other schemes, e.g. 'safer routes', area calming, etc. This Review would establish permeability as a key aim in traffic management, and would ensure that the measures are incorporated into all schemes. A great deal will be changing in the streetscape in the next few years - we must make sure that we don't miss these opportunities to create a fine mesh network. Mistakes (e.g. recent renewal of road closure between Enfield Road and De Beauvoir Square without providing cycle gaps) are expensive to reverse.

The measures required are already being slowly implemented in a piecemeal fashion, often as part of other projects, e.g. Fanshaw St N1 now has a contraflow lane as part of the Hoxton and Haggerston Controlled Parking Zone. The Comprehensive Review would enable us to quantify the task, establish a more methodical approach and provide the framework for increasing the pace of change.

Benefits

Beneficial spin-offs of the Permeability Project in addition to a fine-meshed cycle network:

• Road danger reduction - drivers behave with more caution where they expect two-way traffic
• Decrease in number of parking spaces for motor vehicles
• Reallocation of road space to benign modes - this isn't just about segregating space. The whole street network should be managed with walking and cycling as the top priority.
• 'Safer routes to school' - will work best if the street network is not only safer but also quicker and more convenient, thanks to permeability for cycle traffic.
• Increase in cycling according to the National Cycling Strategy
• Supporting cycling for LBH employees
• Two-way working favours local motor traffic over through motor traffic (good for local business/local facilities)

Conclusion

We recognise that this proposal would have resource implications. Some increase in planning budgets may be necessary. However, we believe that significant long-term savings will be made by the better co-ordination of policy and planning in this area. Moreover, if we are to meet the targets for increase in cycle traffic and decrease in motor traffic, this work will be unavoidable.

Trevor Parsons, London Cycling Campaign in Hackney, August 1998

We've achieved a few advances in cycle permeability in the five years since I wrote this proposal, some quite notable like the partial dismantling of the Shoreditch one-way system. But we have yet to see a systematic approach to the issue.

Trevor Parsons, November 2003

"The 'grain' of cyclists' desire lines is somewhat between that of the car and the pedestrian, and being forced to detour is far less acceptable to cyclists than to motorists. The detours are unacceptable to pedestrians too, of course, but they can walk through the planners' neatly planted flowerbeds. The road network should be laid out for the convenience and pleasure of the cyclists."
Jeremy Parker