Coventry Cycling Campaign

Cycle Lane review

2012-01-31T21:31:00.000Z

A few days ago, the Cycle Users' Consultation Group met to discuss theissues raised in the review of Coventry's cycle lanes.

We started with the A45, a road built in the 1930's with cycle tracks on both sides.Unfortunately, when changes were subsequently made to accommodate increasedtraffic flows little consideration was given to cyclists. This has lead to asituation where established facts on the ground make re-instating cyclingconditions to their original standard difficult and expensive.

After getting though about a quarter of the issues we decided to discuss Hales Street. I hope something better than the current arrangement will be provided. There's also an opportunity to make Greyfriars Lane bothway for cyclists. If Coventry Council wants to show that it is aware that cycling is a highly efficient user of scarcecity centre space, a low-carbon transport solution and helps tackle the obesityissue it would do something. Or maybe it doesn't?

Anyway here's a list of the issues raised about the signed cycle routes in the city:

Issue	Recommendation	Cost	Notes
A45 Stonebridge Off Road (N)
Cannot get access to route from north side at Stivichallroundabout. Access possible from Tollbar but not continuous. South side worksbut is narrow at eastern end.	Resolve as part of Tollbar Island. Current proposal is toremove route from north side of A45 and improve south side.	N/A	Depends on Highways Agency's works on Tollbar End
A45 Kenpas Off Road (N)
Route appears to terminate on north side just before StivichallIsland.	Convert footway (by Festival pub) to shared cycle route andsign route to Leaf Lane. Ensure future continuity on A45 as part of Tollbarscheme	Low	Needs report and signing
No crossing facilities at Leamington Rd junction.	Install non signalised crossing on end of Leamington Road. Goodroad width to accommodate	Med	Designs already available
Gap in route (on both sides) east of Kenilworth Rd. Presumablyremoved as part of A45 widening.	No option to widen or significantly improve. Convert footway toshared cycle route and cut back vegetation where possible.	Low	Needs report and signing
No signalised crossing facilities over Kenilworth Rd. Mustcross with traffic which can be difficult	Explore possibilities as part of LSTF. Likely to haveimplications on traffic flows	Med/High	Included in bid
A45 Fletcthamstead Off Road (N)
Gap in route (south side) West of Kenilworth Rd. Presumablyremoved as part of A45 widening. Already used heavily by cyclists	Convert footway to shared cycle route	Low	Needs report and signing
Short gap in route (north side) at Homebase Roundabout outsidepolice station. Also general lack of signing to indicate continuity ofroute	Widen footway to create shared cycle route. Consider roadmarkings, such as elephant feet markings, to delineate route	Med/Low
Large gap on (west side) between Standard Ave and Broad lane.Not clear how the road operates i.e. one way?	Needs contra flow cycle route at north end and appropriatesignage. Could be difficult to accommodate into the highway	Med	Could be addressed through LSTF
Large gap on (east side) between Sainsbury's and Broadlane	Wide footway would allow simple conversion from footway toshared cycle route.	Low
Gap on west side between Tile Hill La and Broad La	Widening could be difficult due to large trees so only optionis to convert to shared use	Low	Risk Assess
Gap on east side between Tile Hill La and Broad La	No room in highway for any widening, so only option is toconvert to shared use	Low	Risk Assess
Toucan crossing timings need adjusting as they require anunnecessary wait of around 40 seconds	UTMC informed	Low
A45 Dunchurch Off Road ()
Cannot get to route (west side) without cycling on busy sectionof A45. Unclear how this odd arrangement has occurred, presumably roadwidening	Remove route from cycle map, or amend to fit with the actual.Sign alternative on road route through residential area	Med/Low
Route does on start until end of Pickford Way slip road on eastside. Not clear why this arrangement exists and is dangerous for userstravelling towards Pickford Way	Remove route from cycle map, or amend to fit with the actual.Sign alternative on road route through residential area	Med/Low

Tile Hill lane A45 to Tile Hill lane east (nearBlockbusters) Off Road (N)
Route technically does not continue beyond A45 junctiontravelling west. Works well in opposite direction	Works to extend route across A45 to Tile Hill Lane west wouldrequire conversion to Toucan crossings which would be poor VFM. Leave fornow.	N/A	Consider through LSTF, but unlikely

Hearsall Common Tile Hill La to Kingston Rd Off Road(Y)
Route (north side) terminates half way along the common. Nocrossing or link to Canley station	Cross Hearsall Common via a new Toucan and continue routealongside the common to Earlsdon Ave North. Install new crossing point,uncontrolled, on Earlsdon Ave N opposite Kingston Rd.	High (But good VFM)	Scheme designed but not implemented due to Village Green

Kenilworth Road City boundary to Gibbet Hill Off Road(Poss)
Lack of signalised crossing facility at Gibbet Hill Rd. Crosswith traffic.	Signalise by installing Toucan, but would have impact ontraffic capacity / congestion	Med/High	Check if any UoW plans
Kenilworth Road Gibbet Hill to A45 Off Road (Poss)
Need controlled crossing at A45. Often raised by cyclists as adangerous crossing.	Signalise, but could be expensive and have major impact oncapacity	Med/High	Could explore through LSTF
Kenilworth Road A45 to Stoneleigh Ave Off Road (Y)
Need improved link into Stoneleigh Ave due to poorvisibility	Widen footway / convert to shared use. Cut back hedge.	Med	Designs already available

Spencer Park Through park Off road (Y)
Works well but needs maintenance on bridge deck	Request maintenance	Low

University of Warwick Lynchgate Road Off Road(Poss)
Missing link between new cycle route on Sir Henry Parks andUoW.	Currently included in Tesco Cannon Park 106	N/A
University of Warwick Gibbet Hill rd. Off Road(Poss)
Need link into university on Gibbet Hill Rd	50k Available in UoW 106. Limited highway room to much withouteffecting trees		Med/High
University of Warwick Gibbet Hill to main campus Off Road(N)
Works well	N/A

Holyhead Cycle Route All On road advisory (N)
Stops at Four Pounds Ave and at Pickford Way roundabout	Sections between Southbank Rd and Four Pounds Ave due to beremoved. A new signed route will provide continuous signed on road route intoCity Centre. The western end will be extended via new developer funded routesto Browns La Jaguar	Funded

Allesley Park Through Park Off road (N)
Route ends at park exit near A45	Needs signing and consider improved crossing over A45 slips atwestern exit	Low/Med

Jaguar Whitley Whitley Common Off Road (N)
Appears to work well	N/A
Coat of Arms / Memorial Park Into Jaguar Off Road(N)
Section through wooded area needs lighting, and route needsextending to Allard Way alongside London Road	Light wooded area link to Abbey Road and create new routealongside London Road.	Med/High
Coat of Arms / Memorial Park Into Jaguar Off Road(N)
Link to Leaf lane is narrow but works well	N/A

Coat of Arms / Memorial Park Coat of Arms Bridge Road Onroad (N)
Works well although some maintenance issues e.g. leaves androad surface	N/A
Coat of Arms / Memorial Park Through Park Off road(N)
No signing to indicate it is a cycle route, and missing link atnorthern end towards Warwick Rd /Earlsdon	Sign new link from Coat of Arms to Leamington Road Park.Consider options for extending route through Warwick Road Park	Low

Allard Way London Road to Jasmine Grove Off Road(N)
Route ends at Humber Road. North end links into Jasmine Groveand Lang bank Ave cycle route	Extend route from Humber Rd to Riverside Close throughconversion of footway. Would require better crossing facilities over ASDA andHumber Rd	Med/High	Tie into ASDA development, on hold
Allard Way Jasmine Grove to Binley Rd N/A (N)
No suitable route between Jasmine Grove and existing route fromWhitworth Ave.	Either create on road signed route along Barley Lea/WhitworthAve/Linfield or create new route along Sowe Valley to fill gap. Final sectionfrom Second Ave to Binley Rd will be addressed through New Century Parkdevelopment, but would also benefit from cycle route alongside Allard Way	On road low, Sowe Valley or med/high	Designs done
No route between Second Ave and Binley Road	Needs existing footway widening, but limited room, or new routethrough New Century Park. Ideally both as NCP not as convenient	Med/High	Some design work done. Was included in NCP developmentdesign.

Peugeot Stoke All on main spine road Off road (N)
Links well into east/Terry Road but ends abruptly on southernarm on Humber Road just before bridge, where the route is needed most! The roadis narrow and changes to 40 mph,	Review speed limit. Consider off road route, but could be landissues, and expensive	N/A	Speed review requested

Prologis Park / Arena All Off road (N)
Generally works well although access from the east is not goodoff Foleshill Road	Link existing crossing on Foleshill Rd near Windmill Rd/Arenaby converting footway to cycle route. Limited room in highway	Med	Risk assess

Canal All Off road (Y)
Generally works well. Section between City Centre and LeicesterCauseway yet to be upgraded.	Upgrade first section. Better signing and maintenance wouldhelp on existing. Would benefit from supporting signed on road link route fromCity Centre e.g. through Hillfields. Still plans to continue route north toBedworth	High	Address canal towpath extension through LSTF.

Binley Road Sky Blue Way On/off road (N)
Key missing link between Far Gosford St and Binley / A444roundabout (south side), and along Far Gosford St which is one way. Very wellused route.	Address FGS by create new cycle route along Sky Blue Wayutilising bus lane and new cut-through by new hotel. Consider removing parkingbays on south side of Binley Road to accommodate cycle route. Existing footwaybit narrow.	Med/High	Gap included in hotel plans
Binley Road A444 to Allard Way On road advisory (N)
Works well, although some sections too narrow around Brays lato Church la. Route ends at Allard way	Remark cycle route around Brays Lane to accommodate bufferbetween parking and cycle route.	Med

Broad lane Hawthorn to Banner Off road (Y)
Forms part of NCN. Works well but not yet complete. Will linkinto new Banner La route	Complete route as part of Bannerbrook Sec 106 works	N/A

Naul's Mill Park Barkers Butts to Randle St Off road(N)
Pleasant route, but poorly maintained.	Needs resurfacing. Many people cycle on better maintained mainpath through park.		Check if highway/inform parks dept

Compass Court Spon St to Windsor St Off Road (Y)
Works well	N/A	N/A

West of Rugby Club Between Butts and Sovereign Rd Off Road(Y)
Route does not link in Compass Court route as end of Upper SponSt is one way.	Create cycle contraflow	Med

Techno Centre Puma Way to Parkside Off Road (N)
Works well. Wrong tactile paving	N/A	N/A	Not highway

Subways Jct 6 Off road (N)
Missing link between Coventry station and subway cycle route toCity Centre	Address through 2012 and LSTF by creating contraflow route onEaton Rd	Med
Subways Jct 2 Off road (N)
Existing route to Millennium Square ends abruptly at ChauntryPlace and does not link into Stoney Stanton or Foleshill Rd	Create new shared use cycle track to end of Stoney Stanton Rd.Tie into possible Pool Meadow access improvements	Med
Subways Jct 5 (N)
Missing link between subway at jct 5 and Park Road	Create new segregated shared use route, but requires CycleTracks Act order	Low
Subways Jct 8 (N)
Fill in Hill St Subway? Cyclists use both the subway andbridge	Carry out quick count to assess situation	N/A
Subways Jct 4 N/A (N)
No provision for cyclists around Gulson /London Rd	Convert footway to segregated shared use	Low	Designs done

Stoney Road Bridge: Southbound cars banned

2012-01-30T14:45:00.000Z

There's a proposed Traffic Regulation Order banning private motor vehicles from travelling south over Stoney Road's railway bridge. Taxis are now to be included in the ban.
Text:

Modification of a Road Traffic Order

City of Coventry (Stoney Road) (Bus Lane) Order 2011

Coventry City Council ("the Council"), under the Road TrafficRegulation Act 1984 (as amended) and the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, intends to modify the aboveRoad Traffic Regulation Order ("the Order").

The Order was advertised on 13th October 2010, and sought to implement a buslane in the nearside lane of Stoney Road (south carriageway) from a point four(4) metres south west of its junction with Manor Road to a point forty-seven(47) metres north of its junction with Michaelmas Road.

As advertised, the Order permitted buses, taxis, private hire vehicles,pedal cycles and vehicles accessing 41 and/or 43 Stoney Road, to travel in thebus lane.

The Council received a number of responses in favour of the proposaltogether with a number of formal objections. These were formally considered atthe Cabinet Member (City Services) meeting held on 13th December 2011. At themeeting the decision was reached that the Order should be modified to prohibittaxis (hackney carriages and private hire vehicles) using the bus lane.

As a result of the aforementioned decision the Council hereby gives noticethat the Order is to be modified thereby prohibiting taxis (hackney carriagesand private hire vehicles) from using the bus lane. Buses, pedal cycles andvehicles accessing 41 and/or 43 Stoney Road, will continue to be permitted touse the bus lane.

A copy of this notice, the modified Order, plan and modified Statement ofReasons for making the Order may be inspected at Civic Centre 4 (ReceptionArea), Much Park Street, Coventry, during normal office hours. Any objectionsto the proposed modification should be forwarded to Mr R Parkes, CommercialTeam, Legal Services, Coventry City Council, 4th Floor, Christchurch House,Greyfriars Lane, Coventry CV1 2QL by no later than Thursday, 16th February2012.

Any person requiring further information in connection with this proposedmodification should contact the Council's Traffic Management Team during normaloffice hours on telephone number 024 76834209.

Chris West
Director of Finance & Legal Services
Council House
Coventry
Dated: 26th January 2012

Binley Road / Brindle Avenue junction

2012-01-15T17:25:00.000Z

Coventry council is proposing to make some changes to the junction:

Adding a Toucan crossing across Brindle Avenue and shifting the crossing on the citybound carriageway closer to Brindle Avenue

Diagram Notice of Intent.

Extending the bus lane on the outbound carriageway

Diagram Traffic Regulation Order

Phoenix Way (A444) Entrance to Tesco Arena

2012-01-04T09:58:00.001Z

I should have posted this earlier, but better late than never!

Coventry Council is proposing to add Toucan crossings to the junction of Phoenix Way with Classic Drive. This will make cycling and walking along the A444 between Bedlam Lane and the Ricoh Areana easier.

It re-instates the cycle/pedestrian path diverted when Classic Way was built.

More details:

From the covering letter:

It is proposed to make some changes to the junction of Phoenix Way /Classic Drive (Tesco, Arena Retail Park) / Car Park C of the Ricoh Arena. It isproposed to install pedestrian / cycle crossing facilities, and revoke theexisting Traffic Regulation Order that prohibits various manoeuvres at thejunction.
If you wish to object to either of these proposals please write to Mr RParkes, as per the detail on the attached notices by no later than12th January 2012.
If you would like to discuss this proposal in more detail please contact SimonGordon on 02476 832107.

Hales Street - One Way!

2012-01-02T16:55:00.001Z

No entry signs have been erected on the Whittle Arch end of Hales Street.

Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders have been issued prohibiting riding and driving westwards along Hales Street between the Arches and Bishop Street. A taxi rank has been marked in Hales Street.

Yet back in March 2011 proposed Traffic Regulation Order were on view as follows:

City of Coventry (City Centre) (No. 1) (Prohibition of Driving, One Way, Variation and Revocation) Order 2011

This order shall come into operation [...]
1. In this order
2. reference [...]
3. "Pedal Cycle" has the same meaning as in Regulation 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
4. [...]
Save as provided in Articles 4, 5, and 6 of this Order, no person shall ride or drive [...] any vehicle on the lengths of road specified in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Order other than in the direction specified in the second column and at the times specified in the third column of the said Schedule.
Nothing in Article 3 of this Order shall apply to any vehicle listed in the First Schedule to this Order
[...]

First Schedule

Nothing in Article 3 of this Order shall apply to any

Pedal Cycle
vehicle being used for police, fire or ambulance service [...]
[...]

Second Schedule

Length of Road	Direction	Times
[...]	[...]	[...]
Hales Street between its junction with Bishop Street and its junction with Trinity Street	Eastbound	All Times
[...]	[...]	[...]

[...] shows where irrelevant text has been omitted .

I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure that the original text meant that most vehicles were to be prohibited from travelling westbound on Hales Street. Exceptions were for emergency services responding to emergencies and for pedal cycles.

Before Christmas I telephoned the council's traffic management department concerning the issue.

I was told that the Traffic Regulation Order hadn't been brought into force yet as the council wanted to allow time for the issues to be fully debated. It was thought unfair to make changes on the ground and then, when faced with opposition, to conclude that it would be too expensive to change things. Nevertheless the Traffic Regulation Order had been passed by various committees and would go ahead largely unchanged.

So what has happened? Did a few people, after a short chat, decide that as bus stops were to go on the museum side of Hales Street, the taxi rank would go on the other side? Simply forgetting about cyclists?

What has happened to the idea of discussing issues with interested citizens of Coventry before changing things on the ground? To the Rule of Law and Due Process?

Hales Street is an important route for cyclists travelling westwards across the city centre. It avoids the gradient on Gosford Street and the heavy traffic of the ring road. Faced with a no entry sign just past Trinity Street, cyclists will choose one of these options:

Take their chances and cycle through.
Ride on the footway putting pedestrians at risk.
Push their bicycles on the footway
Cycle along Palmer Way.
Cycle along Palmer Way taking a shortcut to the Burgess via the alleyway by
"Club Release".

I'm pretty sure options (a) and (b) will be the most popular. Palmer Way is indirect, has a poor surface and an upwards gradient. It is often partially blocked and is probably unfamiliar to most cyclists.

One-way for motor vehicles, bothway for cyclists has worked before. As illustrated in this photograph from a Department of Transport publication: (LTN 2/08, Figure 7.6):

Railway Station to Broadgate

2011-11-30T21:44:00.003Z

I make no apologies for returning to matters concerning the city centre. Big changes are being made to the area's traffic arrangements. Thankfully there doesn't seem to be any which are negative for cyclists.

On 28th November Edward Healey (Area Manager, Sustrans) and myself were briefed by Mike Waters and Nigel Mills of the council's Transport Planning department about the improvements to the pedestrian route between the Railway Station and Bull Yard. Cycling will be legal along most of the route.

Currently there is no reasonable cycle route from the station to Broadgate.

The only legal cycling route means dodging the cars on the gyratory. Cyclists have two illegal choices, the pavement or the wrong way along Eaton Road (shown).

The council is considering widening the pavement shown in the left of the image. The footway would then be suitable for shared pedestrian/cyclist use. Unfortunately that might cost more than the council is willing to spend on a scheme which will only last until the Friargate development starts, probably within the next 20 years.

On a more positive note, the Department of Transport is now more willing than ever to allow low-cost contraflow cycling schemes. The civil engineering works might involve little more than the addition of a small "except cyclists" sign underneath the main red "No Entry" signs.

At the ring road the subway is being replaced by a Toucan crossing. At Toucan crossings cyclists have the same rights as pedestrians.

To calm motorists before they reach the new Toucan crossing, there will be traffic signals to the right of the point shown; at the end of Manor Road, on the slip road from the westbound ring road carriageway and on the roundabout itself.

Cycling towards the city centre from the new crossing over the ring road towards the city centre will be legal:

The subway under Greyfriars Road will go, replaced by a seven metre wide Zebra crossing. North of Greyfriars Road, Warwick Road will be reduced to a single carriageway with a lane in each direction. So all the space filled with buses and cars in the image to the right will be given to pedestrians and cyclists!

I understand that the giant planter at the end of Warwick Lane (between the British Heart Foundation shop and Methodist Central Hall) will go, encouraging cyclists to divert to the right when travelling towards Broadgate.

A problem with an alternative route through Bull Yard and around the Barracks car park is that it would encourage cycling though the narrow passage between the car park and the Upper Precinct and in the Upper Precinct itself.

If a route were provided using Warwick Lane, a cyclist's contraflow would have to be provided on Greyfriars Lane south of its junction with Salt Lane.

Coventry's "Cycle Lane" Review

2011-10-31T21:28:00.001Z

Following representations by members of The Earlsdon Wheelers cycling club, Coventry Council has decided to conduct a review of "Cycle Lanes" in the city.

Traffic engineers use the term "Cycle Lane" for an area on the carriageway, marked by white lines, from which motor traffic is barred. Other people might have different definitions, but I'm not sure what they might be.

Many regular cyclists agree that while parts of Coventry's road network are reasonable for cycling, there are far too many places which are unacceptably hazardous. So many places in fact that few journeys in Coventry can be completed by bicycle without ending up in locations which feel too risky for comfortable cycling.

If Coventry were like many a city in the Netherlands there would 30 kph (18 mph) speed limits on the side streets. Main roads would have cycle paths alongside the carriageway. Cyclists on the paths would have priority over traffic turning into or out of the side roads.

YouTube clip showing Cycle Routes in Dutch cities

While I see the lower speed limits on Coventry's side streets as a practical option in the coming years, I don't think the same can be said about cycle paths on the main radial roads. To build those sort of paths, car parking or traffic lanes would have to go. Given general public attitudes and the small numbers of cyclists in the city, that's not an option.

So, by and large, we will have to work out ways of sharing the road with motorists. That's not to say that cycle paths alongside Allard Way, the river Sowe, Coundon Wedge Drive or any of the "A" or "B" class roads in the countryside aren't practical. It's in the built up areas where cycle paths will rarely work.

I understand that part of the review will involve asking cyclists which parts of Coventry's road network are particularly bad. I'll publicise how people can submit their views when I find out myself!

Connect2 Kenilworth Opens!

2011-10-01T16:49:00.001+01:00

Or at least the cycle & pedestrian path between Kenilworth's Coventry Road and Abbey Fields:

View Kenilworth Connect2 in a larger map

Opening Ceremony

The path between Warwick University campus (Sports Pavilion) and Cryfield Grange Road is due to be completed by the end of January 2012, while the path between Cryfield Grange Road and the new bridge is expected to be completed before June 2012.

Holyhead Road

2011-08-31T14:33:00.006+01:00

Coventry Council has published a "Street News" stating that they plan to change Holyhead Road, but don't give much detail. Link to what they do say.

I've commented saying that the junction should be improved to make it legal, safe and convenient to cycle from one section of Barras Lane to the other.

That would encourage people to switch from car to cycle when wishing to travel between the area served by Coundon Road and that bounded by Holyhead Road, Butts Road and the Coventry-Nuneaton railway. It would also make cycling between Albany Road (Earlsdon) and Barkers Butts Lane a more convenient option. The alternatives of the B4107 (Four Pounds Avenue with its 40 mph traffic) or going into and out of the city centre are rather inconvenient and cycle unfriendly.

I'm told that part of the Holyhead Road scheme involves the removal of some cycle lane, but I don't know how much. The council says they will advise me of any proposals relating to the cycle lanes.

Cycle lanes can sometimes do more harm than good, a lot depends on how wide they are. These Binley Road lanes are on the offside of parked cars with no buffer zone for opening car doors.

The Street News promises the introduction of Advanced Stop Lines for cyclists at the Grayswood Avenue, Barras Lane and Four Pounds Avenue junctions. Advanced Stop Lines seem to be "flavour of the year" at the moment. They are popular with cyclists in congested cities as they give a space for us to wait where we can be seen by motorists while the lights are on red. However there are problems. How to reach the Line? If you undertake traffic on the left you face the risk of car passengers opening car doors or motorists lurching to the left into a side road. Overtaking on the right (like a motorcyclist) gets around those problems, but there is oncoming traffic and the possibility that the motors on the left might start moving before you can reach the Advanced Stop Line.

Sometimes approach cycle lanes are provided, leading to hours of argument over where they should go! Some motorists regard cyclists undertaking/overtaking as queue jumpers.

I think it's not worth passing traffic waiting at a traffic light unless there's a long queue. Best to join the queue at the end, in the middle (not the side!) of whichever lane is appropriate. Advanced Stop Lines are only of use where a cyclist joining the end of the queue during a red phase will often miss the next green phase.

Here's a barrister's view of Advanced Stop Lines. I'd suggest the best improvement to Advanced Stop Lines would be to add a new phase to the signals to allow cyclists to leave the junction 10 to 15 seconds before the motors.

Fairfax Street - Are we being squeezed?

2011-08-01T20:19:00.001+01:00

Last Thursday (28 July) council officiers and some local cyclists visited Fairfax Street to see whether the road layout could be improved for cyclists.

There used to be two traffic lanes in both directions, but recently the carriageway has been narrowed. Westbound there's sufficient room for a motorist to over-take a cyclist:

Eastbound, the road has been narrowed to about three metres, leaving insufficient room for a motorist to overtake a cyclist:

To pass through this narrow section, cyclists should first check that there is no problem in moving out to the centre of the lane, move out and remain there until they have passed both pinch points. Unfortunately some cyclists won't want to "take the lane" like that and will have problems with the new road arrangement.

Moving the kerb or central lamp posts is probably out of the question on cost grounds. One possibility would be to provide a "cyclists' by-pass" like the one on Coat of Arms Bridge Road:

For this to work, parking would have to be banned between the two pinch points. That would mean moving the short term coach parking (ie tourist pick up and drop down) elsewhere. The car park on the north side of Fairfax street is an obvious alternative.

There are differences to the environment at the Coat of Arms Bridge Road. The route there is for children going to Stivichall Primary School; few cyclists on Fairfax Street will be children. Furthermore the pinch point on Coat of Arms Bridge Road doesn't also serve as a pedestrian crossing. On Fairfax Street a cyclists' by-pass might increase the possibility of crashes between people walking across Fairfax Street and people cycling along Fairfax Street, as the pedestrians would have to look out for traffic at three places instead of two.

There would also be a problem of cyclists who wish to turn right into Cox Street using the by-pass: they would be at risk from traffic turing left into Cox Street:

Another alternative would be to widen the central reservation and remove the build-out, widening the eastbound lane to the same width as the westbound (4.5m).

Bus Lanes

2011-07-05T15:34:00.001+01:00

Coventry council is reviewing bus lanes in the city with the intention or removing those which "cause undesirable congestion or pose hazards".

Bus lanes also serve as useful cycle lanes, ensuring that drivers allow sufficient space when overtaking cyclists. So if any are removed consideration should be given to providing a wide cycle lane as a replacement.

On some single carriageway roads there's a bus lane in only one direction, with the rest of the traffic squeezed into two narrow lanes (one for each direction). Such narrow lanes pose a hazard to cyclists travelling on the opposite side of the road from the bus lane as motorists cannot safely overtake without encroaching into the oncoming traffic lane. Motorists are often wary of doing this and are tempted to pass cyclists too closely.

Whilst recognising that bus lanes often allow bus passengers to avoid the worst of the congestion caused by motorists, there are places where they are not much use. Just as a number of things labelled "cycle facility" don't really benefit cyclists, it would not be a surprise to me if there were a number of useless bus priority measures.

Send any comments for the bus lane review to
trafficmanagement@coventry.gov.uk

Shared Space?

2011-06-02T14:28:00.001+01:00

On 20th May I met Colin Knight (Head of Coventry Council's Planning, Transport & Highways Department) who briefed me on how Coventry Council's plans for changing the city centre in preparation for the 2012 Olympics would impact cycling.

With all such meetings it's very much the council telling us what they are going to do. It's unlikely that Cyclic could affect the outcome on any issue which the council regards as closed. Nevertheless the changes do look positive for cycling. One of the fundamental ideas is the concept of "shared space" .

From at least the 1950's, if not earlier, the big idea for handling traffic in towns was that differing types had to be separated. Motorists should have their own roads; not only motorways but also roads like Coventry's ring road. Pedestrians would have pavements and walkways. Where paths crossed, the pedestrians would be carried over or under the motorists' route. As for cyclists, received wisdom was that we would disappear. By the 1980's and 1990's we hadn't quite disappeared, but were thought to be pedestrians on wheels who could easily fit onto the pedestrian paths.

When there was a problem with road safety the answer was usually more segregation; railings on the kerb to pen pedestrians in, subways to take them under the most minor of roads. Back in the 1970's there was even a subway in Broadgate and another between the two pavements on either side of Fairfax Street; the road between Pool Meadow and Sainsbury's!.

As fewer pedestrians and cyclists used the roads in towns and cites, motorists started to drive faster, treating the roads as their own. The severity of crashes increased and the roads became barriers blocking one area from another (Sky Blue Way and the A45?).

It was time for some new thinking. Perhaps traffic levels should be cut, speeds lowered and people allowed to move slowly without being bullied out of the way? The proposals for Coventry's city centre seem to fit into this new mode of thinking:

Most private car traffic to go. It takes up too much room
Keep speeds below 20 mph
Expect buses, taxis and pedal cycles to share the carriageway on equal terms
Where there's no carriageway (or traffic speeds make cycling hazardous), allow cyclists to use pedestrian areas. Cyclists will be expected to give way to pedestrians. If a cyclist abuses the situation, it's an issue about that particular person rather than every cyclist.
Separate pedestrians and motorised traffic with the conventional carriageway / footway approach but expect drivers & riders to give crossing pedestrians a reasonable chance at key points. Not for bus drivers and cyclists to barge across junctions at speed without a thought for pedestrians but also not to expect them to wait minutes for a seemingly unending stream of pedestrians to pass.

It might be argued that cyclists should have their own paths. However experience in Coventry and elsewhere is not positive:

Cars parked on a cycle path. Trinity Street. 2008.

A pedestrian using a cycle path. Warwick Row 2011

Note the upstands. These are an attempt to keep pedestrians and cyclists separate but in practice pose a safety hazard. If a cyclist makes a turn to avoid a pedestrian and hits the upstand at a shallow angle, they will come off!

A number of roads will be one-way for taxis and buses. We hope that they will remain two way for cyclists:

Hales Street a few years ago. As shown in the Department of Transport's recommendations (LTN 2/08 see Figure 7.6)

Cycling Allowed!

2011-05-02T19:43:00.001+01:00

Recently the gap in Ansty Road's central reservation at Mellowdew Road/Wykley Road has been closed to motor traffic. But not to pedal cycles.

Looking at the google satellite view, the reasoning behind the closure is clear:

There wasn't room in the gap for more than one motorist to wait. So if a car
were already waiting in the gap when a second motorist arrived wishing to turn
right from Ansty Road, the second vehicle would have to wait in one of the
traffic lanes. Leaving only one lane for the main Ansty Road traffic. Given
that the rest of Ansty Road has two lanes on each carriageway and the speed
limit is 40 mph, there was plenty of scope for dangerous incidents
.
As a matter of fact pedal cycles have also been banned from making right turns from Ansty Road at the junction. But it's quite easy for cyclists to turn left into one of the side roads, make a U turn and then cross into the central reservation and wait there. There's plenty of room:

There was a suggestion that cyclists should also be banned from crossing, presumably from the traditional policy of making life difficult for cyclists. It would have lead people to cycle on the pedestrian crossing facility. Cycle routes which are shorter than car routes are commonplace in cycle-friendly Netherlands, it's a pleasant surprise to see one being created here.

An alternative might have been to keep the route open for motorists but make it safer by reducing the speed limit on Ansty Road. That would have brought problems of enforcement, besides there's a vocal minority of motorists who resent any reduction in speed limits.

More barriers

2011-04-01T15:35:00.008+01:00

Spotted on the cycle path outside Jaguar Whitley.

I suppose the justification for these barriers is that they will slow cyclists approaching the road - to make sure that they give way to motorists. Three points:

There's an upward gradient on cycle path as it approaches the road, so cyclists will slow anyway
Most cyclists will surely avoid the barriers by cycling on the pedestrian path
If this were the Netherlands, the motorists would be expected to give way to the cyclists

At least the distance between the barriers is the minimum recommended, rather than considerably less (see previous post dated 14 November 2010).

Coventry 2012

2011-03-01T14:06:00.000Z

Coventry Council has applied to the European Regional Development Fund for money to revamp a number of sites in the city centre. The council have posted artist's impressions of their proposals here. The website also shows photographs of the existing street layouts.

As the price of petrol and diesel rises and as more people become aware of how everyday cycling can improve physical fitness we are likely to see more people cycling, yet the council's proposals don't give much indication of how cyclists will use the redesigned junctions.

Railway Station to Greyfriars Road

At junction 6, the council proposes that one of the subways is replaced by a pedestrian crossing. This will be much more inviting to visitors arriving by train than the current murky hole:

Current

Proposed

The published proposals give no indication of what will happen to the shared pedestrian/cyclist route which currently goes through the junction.

Access to the railway station could be greatly improved by adding a cycle path along Eaton Road (currently one-way) and allowing cyclist-pedestrian shared use at the crossing shown and through the gyratory.

The council proposes to remove the subway under Greyfriars Road:

Current

Proposed

What will cyclists do here?

Currently there's a ridiculously narrow cycle path though the subway. This could be replaced by a convenient transition from cycle path to carriageway. Cyclists traveling eastwards would cycle down New Union Street whilst those destined for the West or North would cycle to Queen Victoria Road.

Other junctions

The proposals for the junctions at Little Park Street / High Street, Jordon Well / Cox Street and Bishop's Street / Hales Street appear cycle friendly:

Some people believe that Dutch style cycle paths separated from both pedestrians and cars are ideal for cyclists. Yet how much public support can you expect for that solution, given the general attitude towards cycling in this country? There would be a battle over every single square inch of space which might otherwise be used for cars. Providing for cycling by sharing the carriageway, reducing traffic speed and volume, seems a much more practical option for Coventry's centre.

Broadgate and High Street

For years Coventry Council has been attempting to pedestrianise Broadgate and High Street. Its commitment to Sustainable Transport has its limits! Just in case anyone gets the wrong impression, in Coventry Pedestrianisation means No Cycling and thus is to be opposed by anyone wanting to promote cycling.

The visualisations do suggest that some types of traffic will be allowed:

However it seems likely that Broadgate & High Street will be made one-way with no exemption for cycles. This will lead to more cycling in the pedestrian areas, which in High Street will be quite narrow.

I fear that the recent cuts will mean that the few people left at the council who understand cycling will have little opportunity to help design cycle routes.

West Midlands Local Transport Plan

2011-01-25T09:52:00.000Z

"WITH an estimated quarter of Coventry adults tipping the scales as obese, health chiefs have urged residents to start tackling weight problems during National Obesity Week." Coventry Observer 18 Jan. 80% per cent of Coventry adults take less than the recommended level of exercise.

Fifty years ago there was no obesity problem. Fifty years ago people would think nothing of walking or cycling to work. A mile walking or five cycling. The decline in daily physical activity, as well as junk food, is a major factor increasing waistlines.

While the strategy in the West Midlands Metropolitan Area's Local Transport Plan has some fine words to say about getting people to walk and cycle more (that's active travel in the jargon), when it comes to proposals for action things are rather different.

According to the Implementation Plan, the transport priorities for Coventry over the next few (2011 – 2026) years are:

Regeneration, road maintenance, the north/south transport links, highway management and local congestion.

These are mostly about getting from A to B faster. The problems of physical inactivity, air pollution and road casualties are just ignored. Nothing is mentioned about residents parking schemes, rat-running or on-verge parking either.

Yet a 2009 Cabinet Office Strategy Unit report on urban transport found that while the costs to society due to congestion were £10.9bn, the costs of road casualties (£8.7bn), poor air quality (£4.5-10.6bn) and physical inactivity (£9.8bn) were in total about three times as much.

Some more detailed points about what the Local Transport Plan says about cycling:

While its good to see school pupils being targeted for promotion, it seems to me that opportunities to influence the over-16 market, students in particular, are overlooked. Student parking is a significant issue for residents while active modes are attractive to students on tight budgets. An exclusive focus on under 16's may increase the perception that cycling is something for children.
Cycle civil engineering infrastructure. Why not
- Remove all anti-motorcycle barriers which are not Disability Discrimination Act compliant? These are a hinderance to all cyclists as well as being an insurmountable barrier for many wheelchair users and disabled cyclists.
- Assess every one-way traffic scheme for its suitability for conversion to cycle-contraflow?
Training. There's a national aspiration to give all children the chance to achieve BikeAbility Level 2. For anyone unfamiliar with BikeAbility, traffic light controlled junctions, roundabouts, multi-lane roads, hazard perception and route planning are not covered until Level 3. While it's reasonable to say that a "safe cycle route" doesn't need BikeAbility Level 3 skills to use it, the unfortunate reality is that most journeys under 5 miles currently made by car do require Level 3 skills. Route planning skills are needed to discover BikeAbility Level 2 routes! While it may be the case that it's too much to give Level 3 training to primary school pupils, it should be regarded as standard for teenagers and adults. Level 3 training not only gives people more confidence and reduces their exposure to risk, it's also a tool to combat pavement cycling.

Friargate

2011-01-03T11:25:00.000Z

The updated proposals for the Friargate development have been published. Link (ref no: P/2010/1915)

The proposals for cycling look like this:

This is a great improvement on the current layout of junction 6. The gyratory is a death zone for cyclists and the alternatives involve "dog legs" disappearing into holes in the ground. Also good are

the greatly improved link between the railway station and the end of the pedestrian/cyclist bridge at Grosvenor Road
the decision to design the road environment for a maximum vehicle speed of 20mph
the removal of the subway under Greyfriars Road at its junction with Warwick Road. I hope this will enable any cycle tracks in the area to reach the minimum width recommended in the Department of Transport's Local Transport Note 2/08 "Cycle Infrastructure Design".

But

As Warwick Road rises to go over the railway, it's divided into three narrow lanes. So narrow that motorists can't overtake cyclists without encroaching into another lane, which leads them to overtake too closely. Thus a reduction to two lanes, without significant loss of carriageway width would be desirable for cyclists.
The idea of a "Get off and push cycle route" is just not realistic. In reality people with cycles will not dismount, so these routes need to be designed to ensure that people who do cycle in these areas do not cause problems for pedestrians.

Some things to add

Widening of the footbridge across the ring road (currently linking Friars Road and Manor Road) to safely allow shared pedestrian/cyclist use. That would provide a direct cycle route between Coventry University and the station.
A cycle only link between Warwick Road and Friars Road, running just north of the ring road. To allow cyclists to avoid the main pedestrian flows to/from the station and the traffic signals on New Union St. and Warwick Road (at Greyfriars Lane, Bull Yard and Greyfriars Road).

Various turns are going to be banned to counter the danger of motorists rat-running down some of the side roads. These bans should not apply to cyclists, to make cycling more attractive. In general roads which would be rat runs for motorists provide very good cycle routes.

Chicanes on Bike Paths

2010-11-14T21:06:00.000Z

These are often a cause of complaint for cyclists.

Take the path between Yew Close and Ashdown Close in Lower Stoke, marked in blue on the map:
&lt;p&gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;

Originally it was pretty good path, wide with a kerb separating pedestrians from cyclists.

But then two sets of chicanes were put in (marked with hazard signs on the map)

It's impossible to get past without dismounting, as this young lady demonstrates:

According to the Department of Transport:

If staggered (chicane) barriers are used, the arrangement should be designed to slow cyclists rather than force them to dismount. Chicane layouts should provide gaps of at least 1.5 metres between barriers and walls, and at least the same distance between barriers. Tandems, tricycles and child trailers require at least 2 metres between consecutive barriers. (Local Transport Note 2/08 - October 2008, section 8.15.5)

There's only about 1.0 metres between the barriers on this path! (It's a double barrier).

Car-ventry

2010-09-20T14:51:00.000+01:00

The Campaign for Better Transport report ranks Coventry 18th out of 19 for cycling and walking.

See Car Dependency Scorecard

Coventry Telegraph article

The least car dependent cities were Nottingham, London and Brighton and Hove. These cities have put a lot of effort into developing alternatives to the car while Luton, Peterborough & Milton Keynes come at the bottom of the list.

The position of Peterborough & Milton Keynes is no surprise. They have been designed around the car with fast roads connecting pockets of habitation. They have plenty of token cycle paths, but with distances between And B so large and the paths often being indirect and of poor quality, people don't use them. They are cycle paths designed by people who don't cycle for other people to use.

The cores of most British cities were built before the age of mass car ownership and sooner or later they get to the stage where they can't cope with the traffic. Coventry reached that stage in the 1960's and the response was to build the ring road. With the hard times Coventry has had since the 1970's traffic growth has been subdued and so Coventry's roads have managed to cope. There has been little incentive for individuals or the council to develop alternatives to the car.

Problems loom on the horizon. Jobs are always being lost, in a dynamic economy new ones are created. If they are created on the outskirts, we lose the greenbelt and create jobs which most people cannot reach except by car. The latter increases the traffic on the roads. One way forward is create jobs in the city centre, where more people can reach them on foot, by bicycle or public transport. The new Severn Trent building provides an example. Unfortunately things are not always so easy. The new Friargate development promises more jobs in the centre, but the council seems unable to come up with a plan which won't lead to a lot of traffic spilling out onto residential roads. Stoney Road, Humphrey Burton Road and Michaelmas Road at least. If not Quinton Road and Daventry Road as well.

Threat to Kenilworth Connect2 scheme (temporarily) averted

2010-09-11T11:08:00.000+01:00

At the Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Cabinet meeting on 9th September it was decided to defer the decision on whether to cut funding for the project.
Kenilworth councillor John Whitehouse put the case for continued funding. In the words of an email he sent:

My thanks to everyone who responded to my email on Tuesday by emailing Cllrs Farnell and Cockburn to express your support for the Connect2 Kenilworth scheme. The response was tremendous - beyond my expectations given the short timescale - and demonstrated the strength and depth of support for this project across many different sections of our local community.

I believe that your efforts bore fruit, and the immediate danger - that our project would be axed without proper debate - has been averted. At today's WCC Cabinet meeting I was able to make the case for continuing the project as planned (with the bridge) to completion, and was listened to. The upshot was that decision on whether or not to stop the project was deferred,and in the meantime we can continue to do work on the scheme.

Clearly I would have like an outright victory today, i.e. an irrevocable commitment to complete the project, but in the circumstances I think we achieved the best result we could have done. We now have a breathing space, probably of a couple of months.

There is a concern in the Cabinet that going ahead with a £400,000 bridge in these straitened times would look like an extravagance to the general public. After all, it's only for cyclists isn't it? (No it isn't - it's for pedestrians and disabled users as well, and for horse riders on other parts of the route). There seems to be a desire to complete the rest of the scheme, but why can't we settle for a toucan crossing over the Coventry Road instead?

The irony is that because Sustrans remain acutely keen for WCC to complete the scheme with the bridge as planned, they have offered extra help, but made it clear that a scheme without the bridge would no longer attract anything like the same amount of Lottery funding. In reality, if WCC wants to complete the scheme rather than leave the route part built, it will cost no more to WCC to build it with the bridge than without it!

Supporters of the scheme might think such a choice was a no-brainer, but these are difficult times and going to get worse, so public opinion cannot be ignored. Hence my belief that we need to spend the next couple of months demonstrating unambiguously the continued strength of public support for the scheme that they voted for locally in their thousands at the end of 2007. All ideas on how we can best do that would be welcomed.

Kind Regards,

John Whitehouse

Chair - Connect2 Kenilworth Steering Group

City Centre Car Parking

2010-08-28T09:46:00.000+01:00

To provide convenient access to city centre car parking, motorists get this:

While pedestrians and cyclists battle for space in holes in the ground:

The main article in the August 2010 edition of the Coventry Society's newsletter applauded the Council's decision to maintain the Barracks car park for at least another five years.

I wrote the following email to the society's chairman:

[...]

One point about this car park which is often overlooked is that access traffic conflicts with people using more environmentally sustainable modes of transport on the Inner Circulatory Road.

As you are aware, the Inner Circulatory Road forms a ring around the core of the city consisting of (among others) Fairfax street, Corporation Street, Grayfriars Road, New Union Street, Little Park Street and Cox Street. It serves as a sort of ring road for buses and pedal cycles. However unlike the ring road built for private motor vehicles, it does not provide uninterrupted passage. There are numerous traffic signals and intersections which delay cyclists and bus users. Thus to encourage people to switch from car to public or non-motorised transport, with obvious environmental benefits, it would be beneficial to remove car park access traffic from the Inner Circulatory Road. Less traffic would also increase the road's attractiveness to pedestrians. Access traffic for the Barracks car park causes a problem in New Union Street and Warwick Road, while the West Orchards car park access traffic causes congestion at the Corporation Street / Upper Well Street junction.

In the case of Hertford Street the conflict between car park access traffic and pedestrian traffic has been resolved by channeling the former into an underpass. I suspect, however, that a similar solution for the Inner Circulatory Road would be too expensive. I therefore support the suggestion that the Barracks car park and others within the Inner Circulatory Road be moved outside the Circulatory Road. This would have little effect on journey times as the average speed of cars between the car parks and the roads directly accessing the Ring Road is not much higher than walking speed.

If car park access traffic were removed from the Inner Circulatory Road, opening the road to general traffic may become a more practical option, as the threat of it being overwhelmed by cars travelling to and from the multi-storey car parks would disappear.

[...]
19 August 2010.