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
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Shared Space?
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:
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)
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.
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)
Monday, 2 May 2011
Cycling Allowed!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




