The preliminary designs for the cycle lane on the A105 have been released. I have some comments, but since I'm not an expert it is hard for me to judge, especially since the designs aren't very clear. Does any one have any comments that are worth mentioning when the public consultation continues, or perhaps by emailing the company?
Broken link
I will be at the Enfield Cycling Campaign meeting to discuss the plans and produce an ECC official response. Neither I nor anyone else there are experts, so I'll be writing my views on here if anyone would like to comment.
I'll edit the response as I go through the whole plan.
Link 1
Page1
I can't fault the ASL because that's where the route ends. Because actually segregating the cyclists is deemed too expensive according to the council, we are stuck with armadillos for now.
I'm not sure if Enfield council have a strategy for the invetible illegal parking, but I think if the armadillos are study enough ( they will be solid rubber, not plastic, as far as I know ) and if the height of the armadillos is greater than the gap between car and road, then that should prevent most illegal; if they try to park their car, they will become stuck. Perhaps this could work.
One other point that is quite general is that of side roads. Some are raised which makes priority clear, but many are not. What methods can be used to prevent drivers not giving way?
Regarding the shared space, overall it seems quite pointless.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.64741,-0.079706,3a,75y,8.12h,73.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSPfvq5PFyPTrUkUCJhTMDw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The enterance involves a 90 degree turn and is probably raised. I think an alternative design could be just to direct the cyclists onto that part of the road and perhaps remove the central enterance. The side road would be one way. At the south end the road could begin to be narrowed. I haven't come up with a method for the cycle track to rejoin the main road yet.
Should the original design be kept as it is?
I am finding armadillos extremely dangerous.
My cargo trike can either go between two, but the gap is not quite enough to prevent a wheel hitting one and thus being dangerously shoved in another direction causing yaw, or over the top of the middle of one extremely slowly.
As I assume the near future is 25% of young families not having cars but using these as their main local transport form, as is the case now in Copenhagen, I think we have a major issue.
And are ASL's ever acceptable? Are you happy with an eight year old being there?
I don't find ASLs accepatable in the slightest. But since the route ends at that point, it doesn't make much difference. With that I mean if it wasn't there, the eight year old would continue by cycling on the road anyway.
I would also much prefer proper segregation, but when I asked about it they said that the cost of reengineering the drainage system was too high. Are there other alternatives?
I don't find ASLs accepatable in the slightest. But since the route ends at that point, it doesn't make much difference. With that I mean if it wasn't there, the eight year old would have to continue by cycling on the road anyway.
I would also much prefer proper segregation, but when I asked about it they said that the cost of reengineering the drainage system was too high. Are there other alternatives?
I think the bad junction design along the entire scheme is a bigger issue than the armadillos, though, so I definitely want that to be altered.
There almost always are! I am surprised how often professionals have not actually worked through all the possibilities - what happens is that possible solutions often involve working with someone else, and these get thrown into a mythical too difficult box, when actually it is a win win win for everyone, but does require people to discuss together and find joint solutions!
There almost always are! I am surprised how often professionals have not actually worked through all the possibilities - what happens is that possible solutions often involve working with someone else, and these get thrown into a mythical too difficult box, when actually it is a win win win for everyone, but does require people to discuss together and find joint solutions!
There almost always are! I am surprised how often professionals have not actually worked through all the possibilities - what happens is that possible solutions often involve working with someone else, and these get thrown into a mythical too difficult box, when actually it is a win win win for everyone, but does require people to discuss together and find joint solutions!
There almost always are! I am surprised how often professionals have not actually worked through all the possibilities - what happens is that possible solutions often involve working with someone else, and these get thrown into a mythical too difficult box, when actually it is a win win win for everyone, but does require people to discuss together and find joint solutions!
The cost of reengineering the drainage system was too high? How much are they paying for tunnel-drain stones?
Does it even require drainage reengineering if they leave the cycleway at carriageway level and leave gaps in the protection kerb in line with the existing drains?
This smells like a brush-off. What am I missing here?
I think what they said applied to designs where the cycle lane is raised relative to the carriageway so that it is near footway level. But you do raise a good point
.It could be that I misinterpreted what they were saying.
I've spent the last few hours looking at the designs, and many things they do do not make sense. As an example, they are deliberately moving the cycle lane out for car parking in many places rather than just keeping the cycle lane inside the car parking. This will add more costs because they have to alter the kerbs, while making it less safe for cyclists.
The routes are being designed by the private engineering company 'Jacobs' who most likely have minimal cycling infrastructure experience.
One amusing design is assuming that cyclists will go through the car driveway to a Sainsbury's rather than just taking the front entrance. New signalisation is being built for this.
I do wonder if proper cost benefit analyses have been done, or is that just a harrumphed assertion. What is the cost of a set of traffic lights compared with 100 metres of cycle path?
And have they forgotten their public equality duty? Where are the impact asessments? Safe routes to school plans, opportunities for planning gains? What do they think "access" means?
The routes are being designed by 'Jacobs', a private engineering company. I'm not sure what experience they have with cycling infrastructure, but I'm guessing that it's minimal.
The best solution would probably be for the designers to go on a study tour so they could have a far better idea of what works. It's obvious that they don't fully understand cycling safety because the plans have several flaws, particularly at junctions.
Sorry for spaming this page, but I have another problem to bring up.
At junctions the cycle tracks are only for the North-South route and not East-West, so many are very convoluted in nature and not particularly safe. It is here that the East-West routes has ASLs.
The whole process is completely unjust. A fortune is being spent on consultants who do not understand first principles here - I just searched for the term "access" at the consultants site and ...
how much is being spent to enable professional discussion of options?
The whole process feels like a money generation process to divert tax payers money and get poor results
The whole process is completely unjust. A fortune is being spent on consultants who do not understand first principles here - I just searched for the term "access" at the consultants site and ...
how much is being spent to enable professional discussion of options?
The whole process feels like a money generation process to divert tax payers money and get poor results
It doesn't look intentional. I think it's more to do with a lack of standards and not enough experience . The result is mediocre design at best and a lot of wasted money.
Actually, what it looks like is the designers jumping on every currently fashionable bandwaggon and seeing where they can include some of it rather than thinking about how to ease the progress of cyclists throughout the scheme area. So we see bits of cycle lane, bits of shared use, armadillos, traffic lights converted to roundabouts, roundabouts converted to traffic lights, cycle lanes suddenly veering off the road to go behind some parking across a side road junction then back onto the carriageway.
Looking at the mini Holland designs in Waltham Forest, it seems they've been able to do much more with less money. Perhaps the focus in Enfield has been too much in the town centres.
Apparently at zebra crossing the armadillos must end a few meters before because of the zig zag lines required. This is really absurd and I'm sure it isn't the only solution.
Are there any ways to get around this and the 'illegality'of simultaneous green junctions?
Does not green on a traffic light mean you may proceed with caution? I know it is completely ignored but I cannot see how there can be any illegality here!
.
Does not green on a traffic light mean you may proceed with caution? I know it is completely ignored but I cannot see how there can be any illegality here!
In Ipswich near the station there is a green left filter where there is only one lane, therefore any traffic going straihght on but stopped at the red light to go on block the traffic. This has to be a similar situation!
That would be sensible, but
That would be sensible, but Britain apparently doesn't do that. You cannot have perpendicularly moving traffic be given a green phase at the same time - that applies to bicycles, which are frustratingly not differentiated from motor traffic.
What forbids simultaneous greens? There's been at least one in central Oxford described in http://cycle.travel/city/oxford/news/oxford_revamp_angers_cyclists although it's not very popular.
I've seen an article on As Easy Riding a Bike about that Junction. The company still say it's illegal but I'm going to try to get them used.
For other junction designs, an old roundabout is being converted into a signalised junction. It seems making it a Dutch Roundabout would be easier. I've hashed together a possible design but I'm not happy with it. Would anyone give any comments? (If I could paste the images in, which I can't for some reason).
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/conflicting-greens-... and why not link to the images hosted somewhere else?
Good point.
http://postimg.org/image/6bmig6313/ . http://postimg.org/image/dcai8y4t3/ . http://postimg.org/image/opx1k5fbr/ . There are no dimensions yet. Some turns look awkward and I'm not sure if trucks or buses could use this. The South to West turn is currently not allowed and instead occurs prior to the junction. Unfortunately, East West tracks will not be made so it's hard to design them continue along that direction and then suddenly for them to end (the typical British way).
At last year's cycle city I spoke to someone from TRL who'd been involved in the tests of various cycling infrastructure, carried out on behalf of TfL. He was of the opinion that simultaneous green could be used in this country.
I think the problem is how you define 'simultaneous green'. My understanding of Dutch practice is that cyclists go at the same time as peds, giving way to them as and when. This would be a big no-no in the UK. However, a 'cycle scramble' similar to an all-red for peds would, I believe be possible. My understanding is it's those potential conflicts with pedestrians when they get a green man that aren't allowed and are the stumbling block.
