Hailsham, Polegate and Eastbourne Movement and Access Corridor (HPE MAC) (Phase 1)

Transcription

1 Hailsham, Polegate and Eastbourne Movement and Access Corridor (HPE MAC) (Phase 1) General Notes Cycling Infrastructure Shared use pathways will not be used by experienced cyclists because it is dangerous to cycle on them at more than about 15mph (the lowest speed at which most experienced cyclists will be travelling on the flat) when sharing space with pedestrians, particularly children. In addition, experienced cyclists including commuters do not wish to lose their priority at a junction crossing. Nor do they wish to dismount at any point or slow to a crawl to navigate narrow infrastructure. It is recommended that cyclists likely to be travelling at more than 15mph (most experienced cyclists) use the road. Therefore, the design must allow for the continued ease of travel for cyclists using the road and consideration must be given to areas where cyclists will be brought into conflict with drivers since it is inevitable that some drivers will exhibit aggressive behaviour to cyclists that do not use the shared use pathway, in fact some believe that this is a legal requirement. Planners consistently fail to realise this crucial point with the result that the journeys of experienced cyclists are made more difficult and dangerous by the new infrastructure because their space has been compromised. Most cycle paths and shared use pathways are used by inexperienced cyclists and children only other cyclists will be using the road. Advanced stop lines for cyclists help to extend the positive message that drivers are sharing the road. They give cyclists additional time to get rolling away from motorised traffic. In-road painted cycle lanes must not be used except in the rare situation that there is significant real-estate available for a very wide lane. Narrow lanes that do not comply with best practice on width, such as those already found on the Eastbourne Road should be removed for the benefit of cyclists because they cause drivers to drive to the line giving insufficient safe room, rather than safely overtaking as shown in the Highway Code. In fact, the lane on Eastbourne Road is not wide enough to accommodate the width of a cycle at certain points it s frankly quite appalling and reflects badly on East Sussex roads planners who regularly demonstrate that they are not familiar with best practice. Consideration should always be given to cyclist s entry and exit from any infrastructure and not, for example opposite Tesco fuel station, be dumped from a narrow lane into traffic restricted by a pinch point. Instead of painted narrow lanes, Sharrows should be used to remind drivers that they are sharing the road with cyclists. Again, cyclists do not wish to lose their priority, dismount or negotiate tight and difficult infrastructure any more than a driver wishes to stop and wait in a lengthy traffic queue caused by bad infrastructure. In the previous round of infrastructure change aimed at cyclists in Eastbourne town centre, the views of cyclists were routinely ignored resulting in inappropriate infrastructure design. Some of it was subsequently removed wasting tax-payer s money. Sadly, most of the dangerous infrastructure remains, for example the bizarre lanes in Devonshire Place that encourage cyclists to ride in the door zone of parked vehicles. Bus Lanes Short bus lanes should not be installed. All motorised traffic should be given optimised infrastructure. There is no valid environmental argument to prioritise an empty fossil-fuelled bus over a modern, clean hybrid car. Furthermore, suburban congestion is not relieved by prioritising one form of motorised transport over another, it is achieved by encouraging local journeys to be taken by foot or cycle and by ensuring a smooth flow for all other motorised vehicles equally, so that

2 they are not sat emitting exhaust fumes at junctions and do not come into conflict with other road users. Planners consistently fail to accept that drivers will not be encouraged to take the bus by providing short bus lanes that reduce bus journey times by a few seconds. This intellectual dishonesty extends to the existing A27 signs comparing journey times by train completely ignoring the fact that trains do not depart from your front door nor deliver you to your destination, requiring of course additional journeys. Drivers may be encouraged to take public transport only if it provides a significant reduction in journey time and cost whilst remaining reasonably comfortable in comparison to their own car. It must be accepted that many will accept a longer journey time in the comfort of their own vehicle. It appears that no consideration has been given to prioritising cars with passengers (e.g. car sharing) or electric vehicles. The road space used for bus lanes, whether additional to the existing road space or not, should be used to prioritise non-motorised traffic and pedestrians and to smooth traffic flow for all motorised vehicles equally. Driving The plans do not include any information relating to study of current driver behaviour and requirements along the proposed infrastructure route. Whilst it is important that the new infrastructure encourages non-motorised transport, the needs of drivers must be carefully considered if they are not to create congestion, additional pollution or come into conflict with other road users. Sound infrastructure design ensures that all motorised vehicles are as free flowing as possible. Wannock Road/High Street/Eastbourne Road Junction 1. In favour of slips but they are only of use if they start from further back than the average queue length of the junction, otherwise they are blocked by queuing traffic and just become empty tarmac. 2. In favour of additional lane but where lanes merge into one again, merge in turn signs should be placed ahead of the merge point, since it is widespread practice for inexperienced/incompetent/ignorant drivers to block merging traffic deliberately i.e. not let someone merge in front of them, which causes traffic delays. 3. Stated advantage is to reduce traffic queues but where is the data/logic for this and how has this been calculated? 4. The bus lane must not go ahead. This is a pointless lane of ridiculously short length that creates disruption to the flow of other road users. Buses should be provided with a bus layby allowing them to exit the traffic flow and re-join it. The area designated as a proposed bus lane should be used to extend the dual lane approach to the junction which will reduce queue length. No consideration has been given to how traffic merges at the end of the bus lane and the bus lane does not ease buses through the junction. You have non-permitted traffic making a left lane change across the permitted traffic which includes bicycles and motorbikes. The non-permitted traffic will be keen to cross into the left lane to join the shortest queue or position themselves ahead of a left turn and this will bring road users into conflict, most particularly cyclists and motor cyclists with drivers. This has not been properly thought through. 5. Forward stop lines for cyclists are excellent but thought needs to be given to the cyclist s entry into these. Cyclists should not under any circumstances be encouraged up the inside of queuing traffic, especially where there is a left turn or lane-changing vehicles, since this is a significant cause of cyclist death and injury.

3 Eastbourne Road 1. The infrastructure is overly complicated and introduces numerous infrastructure entry and exit points for buses and cyclists. Each entry and exit point is a hazard since it requires different road users to merge back together or cross each other, which is often not executed with care and skill. 2. Short bus lanes use real-estate that could be better used to prioritise non-motorised traffic and they do not reduce bus journey times by any useful margin. 3. The statement The introduction of the bus lanes does not impact on the capacity of the road network for other traffic is not evidenced and unlikely to be true. Firstly, the realestate whether new or existing can be better used by prioritising non-motorised traffic and smoothing traffic flow for all motorised vehicles. Secondly, the buses must enter and exit short lanes which creates disruption to all traffic flow including their own. 4. The bus lane requires left-turning traffic to cross it, which will result in cyclists being lefthooked. It is preferable that cyclists remain in the traffic flow in primary position, reducing the chance of being left hooked. 5. The phrase Turn Right Facility for Cyclists fills most cyclists with dread. What on earth is this for? Planners think that cyclists need paint to demonstrate which direction to turn? Thankfully these don t appear to be kerbed like others in the Eastbourne area, but it s just utterly flawed thinking that shows planners don t understand the needs of cyclists. 6. This section of road appears to be littered with proposed signage. It s just appalling and demonstrates the flawed thinking of planners. If so many instructional signs are necessary then the infrastructure has not been properly designed, since if it was then it would be more intuitive and not require high volume signage. 7. Sharrows need to be placed on the carriageway to remind drivers that they are sharing the road with cyclists and that cyclists may legally still use the road despite the new shared used pathway. 8. There is negative impact on cyclists travelling towards Eastbourne, since the narrow road at this point is further compromised by the new infrastructure. 9. It is a positive step to remove the narrow, painted cycle lanes along this road. However, they need to be replaced with sharrows to remind drivers that they are still sharing the road with cyclists. I am deliberately making this point twice because cyclists WILL experience increased aggression and conflict from drivers who believe that cyclists should be using the new shared-use infrastructure. Experienced cyclists will not (and should not) use the shared use infrastructure for the reasons set out in my general notes. Best practice planning advice widely available from CTC and other cycling groups provides further guidance on this for planners. 10. The Eastbourne bound bus lane at the Huggets Lane junction should not be implemented. It reduces the ability for vehicles to flow into the two ahead lanes at the traffic lights to avoid being hampered by left turners. There is currently conflict at this point in two areas. One is at the entry to the two lanes where left lane users are often mid-lane, blocking the smooth progress of drivers who have looked further ahead and are using anticipation to smooth progress. These twin lanes should be lengthened to smooth traffic flow. The other is where the two lanes merge again and this would benefit from a merge in turn sign because less experienced/unskilled drivers often deliberately block drivers in the right-hand lane from merging back in front of them, which impedes traffic flow at this point and creates a hazard for the right turn into the filling station. There is no significant journey time saving for buses by implementing a short lane, it impedes the smooth progress for the majority of the

4 motorised traffic and it also requires buses to re-join the traffic flow close to the junction, resulting in conflict. It leaves insufficient room for queuing traffic which will increase journey times, most particularly at peak times. Willingdon Road Cycle Route 1. Provision of an on-road cycle route along Cooper s Hill and Wish Hill requires signage only : NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Cyclists may use any road they wish, except where restricted by law (e.g. motorways). If cyclists wish to use Cooper s Hill and Wish Hill, then they will do so of their own accord. Signing this will create the expectation among drivers that cyclists should no longer be on the Eastbourne Road and this will bring drivers into conflict with vulnerable road users. In addition, cyclists object to local authority claiming a target has been met for cycling infrastructure by erecting a sign to confirm what they are already entitled to do. It s an entirely dishonest practice and not in anyone s interests other than those employed by the local authority. 2. What on earth is that proposed railing along Willingdon Road? Why is this necessary? Railings when viewed from any angle other than directly at 90 deg present a solid wall. This restricts the view of drivers which harms road safety. How on earth are you supposed to see up the road when exiting Ratton Drive? It will restrict the view of cyclists and all other road users. It will restrict the view of vehicles entering Ratton Drive who will not be able to see vehicles exiting Willingdon Road until the very last moment. In addition, it is an absolute eye sore in an attractive area. It must under no circumstances be installed and sadly reflects road planner s lack of accident causation knowledge, where they seem to have no understanding of the importance of sight lines. In addition, no consideration has been given to escape route for cyclists using the road, who are now trapped by a guard rail along the entire length. The road width is restricted by central hatching which brings drivers into conflict with cyclists who now have no means of escape to their left. It s just appalling infrastructure design. 3. The grass verge and trees have been completely removed in these proposals. This is an attractive area and the proposed tarmac covering to replace green space is not acceptable. I am a Ratton resident and my children have walked, scootered and cycled to Ocklynge and Cavendish schools for the last decade. We have had no difficulty using the existing pavement and grass verge along this road. The Home Office has released very clear guidance about allowing young cyclists to use the pavement where sensible to do so and there has been no problem with my children cycling along here to school. We see very few other families walking to school along this stretch and widening the pathway will not suddenly increase usage. There is no need to increase the pavement width at this point and there is certainly no need to remove the attractive green space. 4. The road here is very wide but wasted by a central hatched area which was installed some years ago after a flawed traffic calming/speed reduction campaign. Why not remove this central hatching and release the space instead over both sides of the road to prioritise pedestrian and cyclist usage without removing the green space? 5. Focus should be on ensuring a safe crossing into Park Lane, installing a pavement in Park Lane where there currently is none and removing the existing trapping point crossing that brings drivers into conflict with cyclists and other vulnerable road users, to instead replace with a proper light controlled crossing.

5 6. You don t need double yellow lines where parking is restricted by law anyway, such as on junctions. This is just clutter. 7. There are multiple painted arrows directing cyclists as if they must follow a specific route onto or off the shared use pathway. This gives the impression to drivers that cyclists must use the shared use pathway, which experienced cyclists will not and this brings drivers into conflict with cyclists. If a cyclist wishes to exit the road to use the pathway then then can do so without the guidance of a painted arrow. A cyclist in any case should have his head up looking at the road ahead, not towards the ground. 8. Experienced cyclists will not slow or delay their journey to enter and exit this infrastructure and lose their priority at the junction of Wish Hill. The infrastructure will be used by school children and inexperienced cyclists only. There has not been enough consideration given to the majority of cyclists who will quite rightly continue to use the road. 9. The cyclist s slip lane into the forward stop line at Park Avenue should be removed since this encourages cyclists to go up the inside of left turning traffic which is a major cause of death and injury. 10. The new infrastructure is littered with new signage which is completely unnecessary at such regularity. This littering of our local area by road planners flawed thinking must stop. 11. Again, there is no narrative on existing points of road user conflict and how the new infrastructure is designed to address this. For example, drivers are unsure whether they are allowed to cross into the hatched area to overtake cyclists and this brings drivers into conflict with cyclists who end up being tailgated or close-passed. The proposed infrastructure addresses none of these current problems. 12. Just look at the comparison between the two photos. The top shows an area of some natural beauty and the proposal shows a dour, grey and grotesque view of tarmac and hideous fencing. The planners should quite frankly be ashamed of themselves since there are many proposals that could have better served the needs of local families without damaging the current natural amenities. Park Avenue and Park Lane Cycle Route and Traffic Calming 1. This is It is widely understood that physical traffic calming measures such as humps and cushions have no effect on the worst offenders but instead create additional noise and exhaust pollution with vehicles speeding up and slowing down between the road hazards. In addition, they divert the attention of drivers to navigating the humps rather than scanning the road ahead for vulnerable road users. They also create hazards for cyclists who are either forced into the kerb to go around them, losing their primary position towards other infrastructure, or hit them potentially destabilising them and damaging a wheel. If I was a resident along Park Avenue I would be campaigning for these not to be installed as I would have no wish to experience the additional noise and pollution that they create. Instead design a road which promotes gentle and considerate driving, with priority given to walking and cycling. Any measure that creates unnecessary braking and swerving brings noise, pollution and conflict with vulnerable road users. The research on this is feely available and it astonishes me that such schemes are still being proposed. 2. The Kings Drive end of Park Avenue is very difficult for pedestrians to cross, especially with children. This is because the entrance is shallow from Kings Drive which means a higher entry speed for cars and restricted view for pedestrians of approaching traffic. There is no provision for a new crossing at this point. Instead, speed bumps are proposed right after the

6 turn which will catch drivers unaware and divert their attention to braking and swerving right when they need to be watching for pedestrians. It seems that the problems at this junction have not been observed or identified by planners and their proposals do nothing to improve this junction. 3. The in-road painted lane in Kings Drive is too narrow and should be removed entirely since it encourages drivers to drive to the line and provide insufficient space for cyclists when passing. It should be replaced with sharrows. Greater consideration needs to be given to cyclists, particularly families and children trying to enter the road at this point, or cross to the existing pelican crossing to Hampden Park and the college. 4. There is no traffic speed problem in Park Lane during school pick-up and drop-off periods. Speed bumps do not address the problem of the occasional speeding driver out of these peak periods. Mainly the problem arises from those short-cutting Kings Drive to Willingdon Road avoiding the roundabout. Consideration should therefore be given to reducing the width of Park Lane to a single lane at the half-way point to discourage short-cutting. Speed bumps will generate increased noise and pollution for residents and create hazards for cyclists using this road. One of them is even adjacent to residents parking which will create difficulty where a vehicle s front valance will be damaged when swung through a parallel parking manoeuvre across the hump. 5. Nothing has been proposed to address the lack of a pavement at the Willingdon Road end of Park Lane, leaving a huge gap in the infrastructure for school users! This is just an astonishing lack of joined up thinking. That section is currently dangerous for pedestrians because there is no safe refuge at all for a significant distance, with dense hedging on one side and a steep bank on the other, just where drivers have a blind swing left and down from Willingdon Road. It s as if planners haven t even been to have a look at this junction which is busy as used for school drop-off and access. 6. No provision has been made for onwards journeys across Kings Drive through to Decoy Drive which is a very difficult and hazardous crossing for pedestrians and impossible for inexperienced cyclists due to high traffic flow and poor sight lines for drivers coming from Kings Drive. Victoria Drive Bus Lane Option One / Option Two 1. Difference between options appears to be speed limit only. A 20 mph speed limit is of no value on this stretch of road. The traffic speed at peak school times is walking pace. Outside of peak school times a 20 mph speed limit is not necessary. 2. The key feature of this proposal appears to be the short bus lane which will allow buses to queue jump the congestion at the light controlled junction. Instead of reducing available road space for the majority of road users which will increase congestion, I suggest planners look to smooth flow through the junction itself to reduce queueing and look closely at the light phasing for the same reason. 3. The existing road markings encourage drivers to wait in a diagonal position to cross traffic from Eastbourne into Victoria Drive. This is contrary to safe driving practice whereby drivers should wait parallel to oncoming traffic to reduce the risk of being pushed head-on into it by a driver failing to stop behind. The proposed junction markings appear to retain this flaw and provide no safe refuge for right turning vehicles. No consideration has been given to the safe refuge of right turning road-user cyclists who are placed right in the middle of a fast flowing junction.

7 4. The proposed bus lane makes this stretch of road more dangerous for cyclists. Experienced cyclists must take primary position during the descent to the traffic lights because otherwise they are pinched against the kerb by drivers positioning to turn left. If cyclists take the proposed bus lane they then have to exit it just moments later into the left-hand side of queueing traffic. This is dangerous, encourages cyclists to go up the inside of stationary traffic which is a major cause of death and injury and means experienced cyclists are most likely not to use the bus lane which will then bring them into conflict with drivers in a narrow section of road. The entire proposal is ill conceived. 5. There is plenty of scope along this stretch of Victoria Drive to prioritise pedestrians and cyclists and their needs have been completely ignored. 6. Cycle ramps between shared used pathway and road fill cyclists with dread because experience of them elsewhere is that they are hazardous and have injured a number of local cyclists (e.g. St Anthony s Avenue). The detail of these is unclear from the plans but I have yet to see a scheme of cycle ramp which was safe and convenient to use. The general rule is that if you need a ramp to transition between the infrastructure then you have not designed that infrastructure properly. Predicted Outcomes of the Proposals 1. There is no mention of the outcomes of surveying existing traffic volumes and journeys, nor existing causes of congestion, collision or conflict. Understanding where people are going along with the current problems is crucial to design proposals that properly cater for them. 2. There is no evidence that marginal improvements (in the case of these proposals less than one minute in all cases) in bus journey times encourages use. 3. The proposed bus infrastructure creates further congestion since the majority of traffic is made up of cars, therefore the proposed bus lane simply increases congestion overall. 4. Except for the Polegate junction proposals, no consideration has been given to the smooth flow of car traffic, which forms the majority of congestion and will form the majority of increased road use with new housing developments. The smooth flow of car traffic benefits everyone through reduced congestion and pollution and reduced conflict with vulnerable road users. 5. No consideration has been given to real-life outcomes. For example, speed humps increase noise and pollution for local residents. Increased car congestion creates frustration and conflict among all road users. Entry and exit points for short lengths of new infrastructure create hazards and difficulties for vulnerable road users. Experienced cyclists will rightly continue to use the road and must not be discouraged, endangered or marginalised. There is no evidence that bus lanes encourage drivers to take the bus. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that safer infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists does improve participation, but this has not been considered fully and properly in these proposals, wherein the same old design mistakes are being made. 6. There is a lengthy narrative about the bus company involvement in these proposals, but none involving the majority of infrastructure users, namely pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. It is evident from the proposals that the bus company has been overly influential since the proposals are centred around new bus lanes. This is ill conceived and does not cater for the majority of road and pavement users. Buses can reduce congestion in city and high-density areas, but this is a suburban area and bus travel has minimal impact on congestion. There is no impact on pollution because a bus emits on average 99 times the volume of pollutants of

8 a modern car but only takes at most 75 passengers. Furthermore, buses routinely run at significantly less than capacity with often just a handful of passengers out of peak times, more suited to a minibus which would have a lower impact on the environment. The way forward in the area subject of these proposals is to prioritise pedestrians and cyclists to reduce motorised transport for short local journeys. Whilst there are positive aspects to these proposals, they fail to address the major problems and do not in most cases address current road user conflict points. The proposals do not address many of the existing congestion problems (e.g. Victoria Drive, Polegate) which could be smoothed by better design. Some elements of these proposals create additional problems for existing vulnerable road users where they are brought into conflict with drivers. 7. I am against those aspects of the proposals that do not prioritise the safe journeys of pedestrians and cyclists. I am against those elements of the proposals that are flawed and do not comply with best practice infrastructure design. I am for those aspects of the proposals that improve the journeys and safety of pedestrians and cyclists and that also improve the flow of all motor vehicle traffic, not just buses, to reduce congestion and pollution. Iain Brogden 12 Linway Ratton iain@ciscom.co.uk