A better way? Our comments on the Longlevens B4063 cycleway scheme.

The western section of the route uses a stepped single direction cycle track, with a 75mm angled kerb both up to the pavement and into the carriageway section occupied by motor vehicles. There are three main adverse challenges with the adopted solution;

• Widths are below absolute minimum standards. LTN1/20 states the absolute minimum width should be 1900mm (1500mm + 2 x 200mm allowance for >60mm vertical features on each side) The cycleway narrows to less than 1.4m at worst, and is below compliance for significant lengths in both directions. This provides less tolerance for striking a kerb, excludes some types of adapted cycles, prevents overtaking by cyclists travelling at different speeds, and makes it impossible to use with younger children who require adjacent supervision. Should this non-compliant design be taken forwards, an enforced 20mph speed limit would at the very least reduce the impact slightly, although it cannot compensate for such narrow widths.
• Excessive proximity to heavy traffic. The narrow cycleway is unbuffered and immediately adjacent to a 3.2m motor vehicle lane, which has busy traffic in both directions. The visual separation of the cycle lane from the main carriageway is likely to mean that the majority of motor vehicle users will no longer provide a 1.5m passing distance. Given that traffic approaches from behind the cycle user who is travelling in the same direction, this will give rise to repeated close passing, and significant buffeting, particularly from larger vehicles which will often be driven even closer to the cycle lane due to the road widths.

• Combined with the narrow widths, the adopted solution essentially ‘engineers in’ what would otherwise be illegal close passes, meaning a poorer experience than if the lanes were not there at all. The immediate proximity of these poor-quality cycle lane sections to the motor carriageway section also increases the risk of road aggression to cyclists choosing to stay on that main carriageway, as there will be a strong perception they should be ‘in their lane’. Combined with the kerb profiles, this risks further risky encounters between cycle users and motor vehicles.
• Kerb profiles are obstructive to lateral movement. The choice of 75mm angled kerbs not only creates a significant vertical feature with risk of slipping (down) or catching pedals (up), but also prevents the easy transition of a cyclist onto/off the main carriageway area, particularly whilst maintaining momentum. Our observation has shown that this section of the B4063 experiences regular and sustained pavement parking, and this type of kerb will make it much harder for a cycle user to go round such obstructions, to overtake a slower cycle user, or indeed to accommodate a cycle rider inadvertently travelling the wrong way. These impacts will also be disproportionately felt by those riding a cycle adapted for their disability. Based on review of practice elsewhere, this type of cycleway is better delivered either with a flat, ‘Cambridge’ or ‘Bristol’ type kerb, which provides distinction but is more forgiving to lateral cycle movement.

Junctions are points of particular risk for cycle users, and are where a high number of KSI collisions occur. Features such as parallel cycle ways introduce new risks, particularly for less confident cycle users who are more likely to be in this section of the carriageway.

• We recognise a positive direction in overall approach to junction design, with the adoption of continuous materials, raised tables, and ‘Dutch’ kerbs, favouring pedestrians and cycle users. We welcome the recognition, in line with our past feedback on earlier sections, that the use of dropped kerbs for every driveway creates an uncomfortable ride experience that facilitates less controlled motor vehicle encounters.
• We support the proposed junction movement restriction of the uncontrolled filter slip from the Old Cheltenham Road, and the removal of the poorly aligned ASL and painted lane across the eastbound movement at the Oxstalls Lane junction.
• There are high risk conflict points where motorised traffic crosses the cycleway. We are particularly concerned about where the two-way cycleway crosses the entrances to the coop retail store, and the petrol station near Windermere Road. These are high traffic crossings of a bi-directional cycleway with no setback, and where a driver’s attention is often focussed away from an approaching cycle user. For example, a vehicle exiting the petrol station to head eastbound is not cued to check for approaching westbound cycle users crossing their path. Similarly, a vehicle waiting to turn into the co-op from the westbound carriageway is focussed on oncoming eastbound traffic rather than a cycle user making faster progress from behind them.

• Sight lines are restricted at junctions. The limited width of the corridor means that approaches to junctions are only set back at the last moment, meaning there is insufficient time for a cycle user to cover the range of motor vehicle approach directions. It is important that a cycle user is able to fully appreciate the range of vehicle approaches without needing to stop and lose momentum.
• Junction geometry remains open and focussed on faster motor vehicle movement. LTN1/20 requires a maximum corner radius of 6m for a bent-out crossing, but junctions (e.g., Elmbridge Road shows radii well beyond 10m, with the ‘Dutch’ kerbs covering several excess meters of crossing space). This allows vehicles to maintain higher speed through junctions and increases risk of collision with crossing priority cycle traffic. We believe any junctions should be significantly tightened, reducing speed and also creating more space for improved sight lines on approaches.

• Several junctions and kerbs facilitate pavement parking. The lack of a defined vehicle corridor at wider expanses of pavements near junctions will enable motor vehicles to be parked across pavement areas, restricting sightlines and mobility. Recognising the necessary minimum widths for cycles, wheelchairs and pushchairs, careful consideration is needed of planting and street furniture strategies to prevent vehicular ingress to pedestrian and cycle areas.

The decision on this overall strategic route meant that the bottleneck near Pearman Briggs caravan dealer was inevitable, and we can see no alternative given the constrained width.

We note;

• Both the council’s own LTP (Local Transport Plan Section 3.3.8) and LTN1/20 (Section 6.5.4) identify that requiring pedestrians and cycle users to share space is unsatisfactory in urban environments, particularly in locations like this where there is also significant pedestrian movement amplified by the limited footways crossing the Horsbere Brook, and that whilst the labelled sections are above 3.0m, some sections at constraints even fall below this absolute minimum.
• In recognition that more cycle users are likely to stay on the motor vehicle carriageway through this section, we would advise provision is made for cycle users to leave and join the cycleway easily at the approaches, and that cycle symbols be installed centrally on the carriageway to reinforce the expected presence of more cycle users in this location.
• We also encourage the council to explore opportunities to provide pedestrians with better alternatives, such as a crossing to allow pedestrians to use the southern footway, and opening up a path along the Horsbere Brook easement to Kimberley Close, to create a more dedicated cycling area on the northern side.

Coherence reflects the overall legibility of the route, and how easy it is for riders to understand where they should be and where they are going.

• There is a complex mix of different types of cycle path, causing the route to lack coherence, particularly for occasional users. As well as creating a poor experience, this introduces additional risk where a cycle user heads the wrong way down the very narrow, kerb bounded, single-direction cycle tracks. Particularly heading westbound, a cycle user must recognise the very abrupt left turn across to the Southbound side at Windermere Road, which could easily be mistaken for a north/south crossing route. The different mix of types of tracks also make positioning and flow much harder to achieve.

• There are challenges with the ‘turn in two’ arrangement into Nine Elms Road. As well as varying from the LTN 1/20 diagram, this is a new and unique type of movement for cycle users in Gloucestershire. It is likely to be disorientating, and risks cycle users finding themselves unexpectedly in a flow of traffic, or taking the wrong route. Particularly given the design intention of the route to be accessible to less confident cycle users, this appears to be the wrong choice. There is sufficient space at this junction with only limited road space reallocation to create an all ways set of protected movements, and this would be preferable.

The route appropriately uses a number of signalised crossing movements when moving the cycleway across the main carriageway. However, these are particular points that impact on coherence, and the overall capacity and utility of the route for the mass transit of cycle users.

• The majority of the cycle crossings, for example at Windermere Road and Oxstalls Lane appear to have not been designed with cycle geometry in mind. In particular, there are sharp turns up to 270 degrees, and limited waiting space. For example, cycles heading north to south at Windermere Road will block West to East movements, and similarly, cycles waiting to make the popular south to north movement into Oxstalls Lane will block cycle traffic heading into Gloucester.

• With appropriate highway reallocation, and crossing repositioning, it is possible to create additional width to allow cycles to bypass queuing cyclists. Given its importance, the transition to the southbound carriageway at Windermere Road is particularly tight, and we believe at the very least, a diagonal crossing should be used to facilitate gentler lines, and to at least create some coherence.

• There appears to be no provision for a cyclist leaving Oxstalls Lane southbound to be able to access the cycle route heading west, or to cross into Grafton Road. This risks cycle users travelling the ‘wrong way’ along single direction cycle tracks, at a narrowed section.

One of the challenges where overall corridor width is limited is that pedestrians and cycle users are forced into narrower spaces rather than impede motor vehicle flow. Bus stops have also been particular points of controversy in previous schemes, and have specific equality impacts that need to be considered.

• There is pedestrian/cycle conflict at several of the bus stops within this scheme, particularly created by the decision to retain several bus laybys, a measure largely focussed on maintaining private motor vehicle flow. The design of some bus bypasses does not recognise pedestrian desire lines, nor the visual restrictions that street furniture will introduce. We believe that bus stops should be retained on road to provide more space for more comfortable passing.

The plans do not show a range of important features, such as sign poles and new cabinets.

• In our previous contributions to other elements of the Gloucester to Cheltenham cycleway, we have consistently found that unmarked street furniture, such as signage, electrical boxes, significantly impair the quality of the route. We also note that stated widths are often compromised by the width of the physical materials used to bound them. This is evident in the existing provision near the Elmbridge Court roundabout, where multiple obstacles are present directly in the cycleway, and in mistakes made in siting signage along the West Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme. We are obviously unable to comment on unmarked items, but strongly request their presence is carefully considered, and the impact of vertical features (as described in LTN 1/20 Table 5-3) is acknowledged when assessing compliance.
• Again, from our experience of other recent Gloucestershire County Council highway schemes, the locations of push buttons for cycle crossings is important for accessibility, and these have generally been poorly implemented to date. We encourage the council to specifically engage with cycle users on the positioning, heights and orientation of crossing buttons, and to consider adopting a general principle of automatically triggered approach sensors on the main desire lines.

• The timing of lights will also affect the desirability of the route, and again, past schemes such as the Telstar Way crossing have shown that extended waits encourage cyclists to attempt to make progress through moving traffic flows, or to remain on the faster carriageway route.

• Whilst noting the roundabout forms part of a separate scheme, we are concerned that the narrow approach and departure lanes form a poor basis for resolving this junction, and that ultimately given the very high risk at this location, the value of this Longlevens section (which is unlikely to be complete until 2024), is massively restricted until the roundabout risk is also addressed. We have a particular concern that by constructing this section in isolation of the roundabout, less confident cycle users will be drawn into attempting the roundabout, increasing the likelihood of significant harm until the route is continuous.
• Irrespective of route taken, in enabling all direction movements, Estcourt Roundabout requires substantial revision. At the volumes of traffic for this location, it cannot be safely designed for cyclists as a roundabout, and we urge the council to progress a change for this being a signallised crossroads junction.
• Given Estcourt Roundabout is not included within this phase of the works, we strongly encourage the council review additional enabling measures on the parallel routes, particularly through removal of the barriers that prevent easy cycle traffic travelling via the Oxstalls Campus to rejoin the Estcourt Road having crossed Wotton Brook.