E4 Cycle Route Exeter University to Redhayes Bridge - Recommendations from Exeter Cycling Campaign
1.0 Introduction Exeter Cycling Campaign has prepared this report to provide recommendations for Devon County Council and appointed consultants to consider and adopt for the emerging cycle infrastructure design in Exeter. Exeter Cycling Campaign welcomes the initiative to progress E4 as one of the key strategic routes, encouraging people in and around Exeter to cycle for their everyday journeys. The report has been prepared in response to an evaluation of the emerging E4 design proposals which do not follow best practice guidance and do not offer the potential to address Exeter s transport challenges. If the design for Route E4 falls short of providing a high quality cycle connection it risks only catering for people already cycling rather than enabling a large uptake in cycling. This would be a huge missed opportunity. Exeter Cycling Campaign s interpretation of this is that the design brief is not sufficiently ambitious and does not adequately emphasise a connected infrastructure strategy. Connectivity lies at the heart of transport infrastructure design. Cycling infrastructure should be no different and needs to be safe, convenient and connected. There are thousands of people working and studying at the University making it a key feature of the city and its growth. Providing a well-designed cycle connection from the University to nearby neighbourhoods has the potential to provide a convenient connection for a large population of students and staff. Furthermore, with a constantly evolving student population, new travel and commuting behaviours are easily adopted (assuming good quality infrastructure is introduced). Furthermore, other citizens throughout Exeter will be able to take advantage of a safe and convenient cycle provision on this key route for the city. If designed well, the E4 route will serve as an example that addresses the multitude of issues that our city faces. It has the potential to serve as a catalyst and an exemplar for the future of cycle infrastructure in Exeter. Exeter faces significant challenges with increasing congestion, pollution and health issues, exacerbated by an ever increasing population. These problems can, however, be addressed by re-evaluating our transport infrastructure and considering cycling as a serious and important travel alternative as successfully proved by a number of UK cities. Consequently, the pollution, congestion and health concerns can be managed and the city s future growth potential can be unlocked. In this report we present recommendations and design proposals that have been prepared by spatial design and transport professionals as well as local residents, with best practice street design guidance highlighted and adopted wherever possible. Transport infrastructure policy emphasises a hierarchy of priorities based on movement efficiencies and infrastructure cost, starting with pedestrians and cyclists. This needs to be adopted in practice in addition to the following key design principles (see overleaf). Adopting the recommendations identified in this report for the E4 route will promote cycling across the city and as a consequence a new and broad demographic of users will be encouraged to adopt this safe, convenient, spatially efficient and healthy mode of travel.
2.0 Key Design Principles Maintain a consistent design approach across the length of the route; Avoid an ad hoc mix of different types of paths and junctions - a continuous approach makes a route more legible and easier to navigate along, especially for new users. Consider the context & plan for a comprehensive cycle network; Ultimately, every street should be safe to cycle on, providing people cycling with at least as many options as those driving. Currently Exeter s cycle network is characterised by an opportunistic approach compared to a fully comprehensive network (such as Copenhagen for example - see overleaf) Avoid using shared paths for pedestrians and cyclists; As best practice design guidance documents, shared paths compromise the movement of both pedestrians and cyclists and are only suitable when there are either very few pedestrians or very few people cycling. This is not the case on Route E4. Get the priorities right - first pedestrians & cyclists, then buses & cars; The triangle opposite shows the order of priority that needs to be adopted in practice as well as policy. This clear way of prioritising will make it easier to take design decisions along the way when compromises may need to be made. Adopt best practice guidance; It is now widely acknowledged that existing national guidance on cycling and walking infrastructure (e.g. Manual for Streets) is inadequate and national guidance from DfT is currently being drafted. Until that guidance is published there is existing good guidance available such as Making Space for Cycling & London Cycling Design Standards by TfL.
2.1 Cycle Network Comparison: Exeter vs. Copenhagen Exeter s existing city centre cycle network is defined by a somewhat illegible collection of disconnected paths with inadequate prioritisation. Copenhagen by comparison has a comprehensive network of segregated cycling infrastructure that has great clarity. This ensures all streets of Copenhagen are safe and convenient to cycle on. Exeter has an opportunity to start thinking about a strategy for cycling as a network of joined up, rather than disconnected, routes. Exeter Cycle Map key points from response: Copenhagen Cycle Map
3.0 E4 Cycle Route Proposal The current proposal for E4 suggest a number of varied design solutions including a combination of on-road and off-road cycle paths with little cycle specific segregation in order to provide a safe route. Such an approach does not give the impression of being informed by or relative to a clear strategy for a connected cycling infrastructure network in Exeter, nor does it follow widely adopted design guidance. This is, however, eminently achieveable. There are understandably spatial constraints to this and any existing street profile in Exeter. As a result, therefore, Exeter Cycling Campaign has prepared the following design strategy for the E4 Route that firstly highlights concerns with the present proposals and subsequently proposes an adoptable general street profile design that importantly includes the specific design of the key junctions at Stoke Hill Roundabout and Pennsylvania Road. This report concludes with a visualisation that represents the proposals hereby identified applied to a key section of Union Road.
3.1 Route Alignment 1. Cycle Path to be continued down to New North Road for continuity 3. Consider remodelling roundabouts to ease pedestrian and cycle crossing 5. New cycle and footbridge to avoid steep ascend/ descend and sharp turns 7. Ensure track is well lit and width sufficient for vechicles to safely pass cyclist 2. Carriageway narrowed to one lane (as Magdalen Road) to enable contionous cycle lane at narrow part of Union Road 4. Alternative route alignment to be seriously considered - reasons are detailed towards the end of the report 6. Safety concerns on dark path with little natural surveillance and potential conflicts between users
3.2 Design Concept We are proposing that that the cycle route is defined by a segregated two-way cycle lane continuous along the length of the route. The merits of two-way cycle lanes are often debated and the reasoning for this proposal is outlined below. In addition we are proposing that footpaths are widened to meet minimum standards of 2 metres. The space is typically generated by locally removing onstreet parking (not throughout Union Road, however). Benefits of two-way cycle lane: A two-way cycle lane requires less width than two single way lanes; Union Road, like many of Exeter s roads are narrow and this approach can therefore more easily be accommodated across the city. The additional lane allows cyclists to overtake each other safely. Future-proofing; The two-way cycle lane could, if required, be converted to a one-way lane with a lane added on the opposite side, should demand for cycling capacity increase. The cycle provision is proposed for the north side of Union Rd/Prince of Wales Rd, which has the fewest junctions and is best connected to the university and other facilities. Conflict with parked cars can be avoided, allocating on-street parking on the opposite side of the road. Challenges of two-way cycle lane: Cycling on the same side of the road as the general traffic is in general the ideal approach if space is available (but a consistent approach along the whole route is higher priority). Junction design requires more thought to ensure vehicles are made aware that cyclist will be coming from both directions. However, there are relatively few side roads on the north side and these can be effectively designed for.
3.3 Typical Road Section In this report we have focused on Union Road as this is the most challenging section of the route. The following street profiles show how the existing spatial constraints of Union Road can still be accommodated with improved cycle infrastructure. Union Road Typical Section This principle can be applied along all main road sections of the E4 route, with the exception of narrow sections of Union Road (see below) Width allows for bus route to be maintained. On street parking can occasionally be accommodated on opposite side to cycle path with carriageway narrowed to accommodate two cars passing or reduced to one lane in some instances. Footpath 2m Typical Section Two-way cyclepath 2.5m Carriageway 6m Footpath 2m Union Road Narrow Section Carriageway to be narrowed to one lane at pinch points to ensure footpath and cycle path widths can be maintained. Junction of Union Road-Prince of Wales Road-Pennsylvania Road to operate with shuttle working traffic lights as Magdalen Road-College Road junction. (See drawing next page) Other narrow sections of Union Road to operate with priority system as Magdalen Road section between Fairpark Road and Denmark Road. These narrow sections will inevitably result in reduced capacity for vehicles but the total capacity of the road will increase as cycle lanes has got a higher movement efficiency. Footpath 2m Narrow Section Two-way cyclepath 2.5m Carriageway 3.5m Footpath 2m
3.4 Union Road - Prince of Wales Road - Pennsylvania Road Junction Pennsylvania Road Union Road Signal moved back from main junction Prince of Wales Road Signalised junction Pennsylvania Road
3.5 Stoke Hill Roundabout Re-design Stoke Hill Roundabout is an important feature of the E4 route. Any design proposal needs to address this junction, which also has the opportunity to improve the street environment for pedestrians and create a more efficient use of space, potentially offering valuable development land for the city. Current Issues Roundabouts are generally difficult to cross safely and conveniently for both pedestrians and cyclists. Flared entries encourage higher vehicle speeds and makes correct positioning for cyclists difficult. The roundabout is too small for the number of branches, resulting in branches located too closely together. Poor visibility on approach from Old Tiverton Road encourages cars to rush through the roundabout. Narrow footways and high traffic speeds result in very poor experience for pedestrians. High traffic speeds result in poor experience for cyclists. This junction is a key connection to Stoke Hill School, crossing is currently difficult due to high volumes of traffic. Proposal (see overleaf) Replace roundabout with signalised junction. Significantly improved pedestrian experience, in particular to enable safe and convenient crossing for children and parents going to Stoke Hill School. E4 cycle route continues consistently. Development land unlocked.
3.5 Stoke Hill Roundabout Re-design Stoke Hill Stoke Hill School Potential development opportunity? Potential new pocket park Union Road Prince Charles Road Signalised junction Old Tiverton Road Potential development opportunity Mount Pleasant Road
3.6 Visualisation: Union Road