A success at McDonald's

In July, a planning application to extend McDonald's Restaurant, Canley was made.

Three of us objected, writing that the "application should be refused unless adequate cycle parking provided, in accordance with planning guidance for an outlet of this size."

The application has now been revised, with added cycle parking:

Cycle Parking - how much space?

We are all familiar with poor cycle parking. Last Sunday I tried to park my bicycle in the stands at the Draycote Water cafe only to find that the metalwork crushed my spokes. A few weeks before I had difficulty using the stands outside Warwick University's School of Law; they were too close together.

Standards for cycle parking have been established, for those who are bothered to look, as an alternative of just plumping for the "cheapest is always best" option.

With standards in mind, I examined a planning application to build a five storey student accommodation block on the site of the Aylesford Intermediate Care Centre in Hillfields (Reference: FUL/2016/0193).

The block is about a mile from Coventry's University Square, so cycling would be a credible alternative to walking.

The site is marked in red.

My comments:

The plans do not provide enough space to meet the promised bicycle parking capacity.

The Site Plan shows two cycle parking areas. One of 16 square metres and the other of 32 square metres. According to Transport for London, Sheffield Stand type bicycle parking uses 1.4 square metres per bicycle. With that technology, the space is adequate for no more than 34 bicycles. Higher capacity bicycle storage is available and according to a distributor, two tier bicycle racks can increase the number of bicycles parked by up to 50%. That would be enable a maximum of 51 bicycles to be parked in the spaces. Far less than the 120 promised in the Design and Access Statement.

The developer needs to make a more convincing case that their plans can accommodate 120 bicycles. Allowance must be made for bicycle manoeuvring in front of the racks. Two tier racks can be difficult for some types of user and can be unsafe unless fitted strictly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

As the storage is long-term it must have high levels of security (key access).

Furthermore, if the reserved space is only sufficient should the highest capacity system be employed, there will be no room for expansion should the proportion of tenants owning bicycles rise above the initial estimate. The development is a mile from the centre of Coventry University, far enough for cycling to have definite advantages over walking.

I understand that where high capacity cycle parking is needed, the Dutch use staggered stands:

Guides are used to raise the front wheel of each alternate bicycle, so that the handlebars are clear of their neighbours'. Simple, yet effective.

Whitley South

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) and Coventry City Council have submitted an application to build a Technology Campus called Whitley South. It will be located south of JLR's current site straddling both Stonebridge Highway (A45 combined with A46) and Rowley Road. 

In the application's "Non Technical Summary" it's claimed
measures included in the Travel Plan (when combined with the new bus route) aim to reduce car usage to no greater than 65% of employee commuter travel, against a typical figure of 81% in the surrounding parts of Coventry

But later it's written
Whilst the proposal aim to reduce car usage to 65% is outlined above, the design of the improvements to the highway network has been based on the prevalent 81% figure to ensure sufficient capacity will always be available
 
The reality is a detailed strategy about moving thousands of cars in and out of the new development but no more than a few vague words about bus and bicycle routes. Failure to plan is to plan for failure.

The area earmarked for development is shown in brown in this plan, with the new/improved motor traffic routes shown in red:

Motorists will be able to enter the new sites from Festival Island, Stonebridge Highway and the existing access on the A444. There will be a new bridge over Stonebridge Highway and measures will be put in place to prevent employees rat-running through Baginton.

The proposed (off carriageway) cycle routes are shown in green:

These routes are full of gaps. I've put two red crosses at gaps you won't be able to cycle across:

• between the entrance to the Stonebridge Trading Estate and the new bridge over the A45. The existing path on the south side of the A45 will be lost, its place taken by a slip road into the development.
• between the nature reserve north of Stonebridge Highway and Festival Island.

Cycle paths frequently interrupted by turning traffic are unpopular. It's not just the time spent waiting; cyclists lose energy when they brake, energy which they must recover by their own efforts! Some cyclists won't bother slowing, leading to crashes. While a person walking can come to an emergency stop in a few inches, a cyclist needs a much greater distance.

Experienced cyclists use the carriageway instead. Inexperienced cyclists will go by car.

Application details. Reference: OUT/2016/0405. Consultation closes 3 March.

Postscript

I put this comment about the planning application to both Coventry City (ref OUT/2016/0405) and Warwick District councils (ref W/16/0239):

To meet the ambition of greater cycle use by commuters, a condition must be put on the development regarding the quality of cycle routes. They must be safe, direct, attractive and easy to use. That means routes which do not require that cyclists give away to significant motor traffic flows.

In particular,

1. Cycle paths are required
   • Along the western and northern parts of the development between Rowley Road and the path along the south side of Stonebridge Highway, with spurs to any staffed buildings, to avoid the large motor traffic flows at the new roundabouts and the car park entrances.
   • On Festival Island (centre), along the whole circumference. This would provide direct routes to the employment centres on both sides of Stonebridge Highway. 
2. The cycle route between the new developments and Toll Bar End at the north end of the new bridge over Stonebridge Highway needs to be re-considered. The current plans show a ramp between the east side of the link road and path on the north side of Stonebridge Highway (towards Toll Bar End). Cyclists are expected to cross the link road in three stages. Moving the ramp to the other side of the link road, so that the route uses the subway with a "dog leg" arrangement to reach the "Jaguar link road" path would remove the delay/danger of an at-grade crossing.
3. The cycle paths must have priority over side roads (car park egresses in particular), otherwise they won't be used.
4. The timings at light controlled junctions must be cyclist friendly.

Section 106 money for improvements to the cycle routes to Coventry railway station (for rail+cycle commuting), south/east Coventry and Kenilworth needs to be investigated.

Coventry's Precinct

People cycling on paths designated for pedestrians indicates a failure of town planning.

Coventry's Precinct is a classic example of poor planning for cycling:

(source)

The maps show the centre of Coventry as it was in 1937 and as it is today. In 1937, Broadgate was linked to Corporation Street by Smithford Street, providing a direct east-west route between Gosford Street and Spon Street. By 2009, the heart of Coventry had been pedestrianised (marked in pink on the map).

The Precinct now blocks the central east-west route. People travelling by car don't notice; the ring road provides a speedy highway without traffic signals. People using cycles are expected to use Fairfax Street, Hales Street and Corporation Street, with their traffic signals, one-way system and stop-start buses.

In recent weeks journey times for cyclists using the Fairfax Street, Hales Street and Corporation Street route have dramatically increased as a result of extra traffic lights and temporary one-way restrictions:

• Corporation Street: extra traffic signals at Spon Street and Upper Well Street.
• Corporation Street: west-bound only between Bishop Street and Upper Well Street.
• Fairfax Street / Trinity Street / Hales Street junction (Whittle Arch): west-bound only
• Fairfax Street / Priory Street junction: extra traffic signals

It's no surprise that complaints about cycling in the Precinct have grown louder in recent weeks. Cyclists in a hurry are cutting through the pedestrianised area, taking the route of the now almost forgotten Smithford Street.

I suspect that the complaints aren't really about cycling as such, they are more about speeding cyclists. This "rat running" will continue until it takes less time to use Fairfax Street and Corporation Street to cycle between Coventry University and Spon Street than to cut through the pedestrianised area.

Aldi near Cannon Park

Aldi has applied for planning permission for a new store at Shultern Lane:

(Marked with the red line)

I've put in a comment:

The Transport Assessment (section 3.6) states that space will be provided for 8 cycles to be securely parked.

No grounds for supposing that this is adequate are given in the Transport Assessment. Yet in March 2015 the Cannon Park Shopping Centre Manager (Tim Pople) stated that 100 places were planned to be in operation there for the 2015/6 academic year.

The centre is 300m from the proposed development so the demographic of its customers will be similar. 

See planning application FUL/2015/2906

Update

Planning permission was granted on 11 November, but with a condition that the building must not be used until the developers have provided adequate cycle parking (the council to decide what is adequate).

The council has also got £56,000 from Lidl to help pay for the construction of a three metre wide shared use footway/cycleway between Lynchgate Road and De Montfort Way. That is a path along the north side of Shultern Road between Lynchgate Road and the section of Shultern Road barred to motor traffic.

Roundabout for the A45 / Broad Lane junction

Coventry City Council is proposing substantial changes:

 The current arrangement (google satellite view)

The council proposes to add a roundabout and alter the traffic signals:

Council proposals

In both of the above images, Broad Lane crosses between right and left (east and west) and the A45 crosses between top and bottom (north & south).

I understand that the traffic lights on the A45 will follow a cycle of just under 60 seconds:

1. Traffic from A45 (south) held
2. Traffic from both A45 directions held
3. Traffic from A45 (north) held
4. Traffic from both A45 directions held

More details from Coventry Telegraph.

What about Cycling?

Roundabouts are often dangerous for cycling. Motorists leaving the roundabout cross the path of cyclists. Motorists trying to enter the roundabout may overlook cyclists already on the roundabout, especially if the cyclist is too close to the outside kerb or the motorist is impatient.

Cycling along Broad Lane

I think cyclists using the carriageway will find the new arrangement to be no more or less daunting than the current arrangement. It won't be the most dangerous sort of roundabout as traffic lights will protect cyclists from traffic entering from the A45. The big change is the addition of Toucan crossings to provide an off-carriageway route over the junction.

Off-carriageway cycle paths typically suffer from the following problems:

• Sharing with pedestrians. The narrower the path the bigger the problem.
• Turns too tight; routes are often designed for pedestrians rather than cyclists. Pedestrians have a far smaller turning circle than cyclists.
• Hazards on returning to the carriageway.

The council has yet to publish details of the off-carriageway cycle route, so specific comments cannot be made at the moment. The vehicular entrance/exit to the Wing Wah restaurant (SW corner of the junction) will pose difficulties for westbound cyclists rejoining Broad Lane.

Cycling along the A45

There won't be much difference for people cycling along the A45. The council is, however, proposing a change 200m north of the junction, on the east side of the A45 which could lead to an improvement.

At the moment the service road on the east side is one-way, southbound (marked with arrows):

The council proposes to cut a gap between the service road and the A45 at the point marked with the blue spot. Motorists coming from the northern suburbs will join the A45 at that point, but their access to the service road south of the point will be blocked.

If the footway along the east side of the A45 were made into a shared use path, people would be allowed to cycle legally from the Broad Lane junction alongside the A45 carriageway to the "blue spot". From there they could continue to the residential areas to the north. I'm negotiating with the council about this point.

UPDATE August 2015

At the Public Services Cabinet Member meeting (4th August), it was agreed that the footway running alongside the A45 between Broad Lane and Rembrandt Close be converted into a shared use footway/cycleway. This will provide a safe and convenient route between the Broad Lane junction and the Windsford Avenue / Buckingham Rise area (avoiding Wildcroft Road).

It was also agreed to provide a puffin crossing on Broad Lane to the east of the A45. This might help people cycling to/from Sainsbury's.

Butts Road / Albany Road junction

Getting over (or under) the ring road is a major problem for cyclists in Coventry. One of the safer crossing places is the Spon Street subway. It's also part of Cycle Coventry Routes 12 & 13, shown in yellow on Coventry Council's cycle map:

Routes 12 & 13 provide a fairly direct path to Hearsall Common, but they are not very useful for those cycling to or from the Earlsdon Street area. This could be improved by adding a link between Meadow Street and Albany Road, as indicated with a red blob on the map.

Exiting from Albany Road, cycling with the traffic, it's easy enough to turn right into the Butts Road bus lane. Unfortunately, as the google streetview image shows, you then have to bump up over the kerb and cycle five metres before bumping down to Meadow Street:

The Earlsdon bound trip presents bigger problems. You might cycle to the middle of Butts Road and join the traffic waiting to turn right into Albany Road. Or you might dismount and use the pedestrian crossing to walk across Butts Road. 

Many would find waiting in the middle of Butts Road daunting. Others might try cycling across the pedestrian crossing, annoying pedestrians whilst trying to negotiate the sharp bends and ending up on the wrong side of Albany Road:

Current routes from Meadow Street to Albany Road (Google satellite).

There are simple solutions to these problems.

1. Add dropped kerbs and 3 more metres of blacktop to provide a cycle path between Meadow Street and Butts Road
2. Add dropped kerbs to the central reservation, providing a refuge for cyclists turning right into Butts Road. Once in Butts Road, they would turn left at the traffic lights into Albany Road:

Proposed routes:

The fence on the central reservation has already gone. The reservation is over two metres wide, so there's enough of room for cyclists to safely wait for a gap in the traffic. Bicycles being about 1.8 m long. Waiting there would be much safer than on the carriageway proper and cyclists would only need to look for traffic coming from one direction at a time.

An application has been made for planning permission build a five storey extension to the Sherbourne House student accommodation block on Meadow Street. I've proposed that the developers should be required to contribute money to help provide the links described above. There will be a pressing need for cycle facilities, as students will be prohibited from bringing cars into Coventry as a condition of their tenancy.

City Centre Action Plan

A consultation on the City Centre Action Plan has recently closed.

I wasn't impressed with the plan. Too little consideration was given to cycle and bus routes to and through the city centre. The council seems to be stuck in the 20th century view that people should travel to the centre by car and then walk about before returning home by car.

I'm reminded of what happened with "Council Square". As a result of objections raised by myself, the council agreed that make cycling legal along the four sides of the square (Little Park Street, Much Park Street, Earl Street and St John’s Street). But the roads haven't been designed to properly accommodate cycling.  The carriageways are designed for motor vehicles, the pavements for pedestrians.  The only things for cyclists are signs indicating that cycling is legal in both directions on the Much Park Street and St John’s Street carriageways and that the pavements on the south side of Earl Street and the east side of Little Park Street are shared use pedestrian/cyclist paths.

Anyway here's my comments on the Action Plan:

• The routes to the car parks need to be re-thought to reduce the conflict between cars accessing the parking and buses, cyclists and pedestrians. The access to the West Orchard car park demonstrates a poor design, with a large volume of car traffic crossing a major pedestrian, cyclist and bus route along Corporation Street. The grade separated access to the barracks car park at Hertford Street demonstrates a good design.
• On-street car parking on Far Gosford Street needs to be replaced by off-street parking. This will allow Far Gosford Street to become bothway for cycling.
  
  The current recommended city-bound cycle route (along Sky Blue Way) is very unpopular leading to footway cycling on Sky Blue Way and Far Gosford Street. Far Gosford Street has the potential to be a major cycle route from east Coventry to the city centre. Parked and unloading vehicles provide significant blocks to buses using the street.
  
• Improved cycle access is needed between Warwick Road (& thus the railway station) and Broadgate. Warwick Lane and Greyfriars Lane could be used.
• Better cycle access is needed between Technology Park Quarter (Parkside) and both Gulson Road and the railway station. This would also improve the link between the station and east Coventry (via Gulson Road).

Canal Basin Bridge - not fit for purpose

Coventry Council is proposing to replace the Canal Basin pedestrian bridge over the ring road. The bridge links St. Nicholas Road / Canal Basin with Bishop Street.

Details of proposals: part1 part2 (pdfs).

James Avery has written a post on the issue.

Here's the contents of a letter from myself, published in the Coventry Telegraph on 13 March 2015:


The canal basin bridge over the ring road is not fit for purpose.

A safe cycle route between the canal basin and Bishop Street is needed. Cycling is banned on the pedestrian bridge as it's too narrow. Few dare to cycle across the Radford Road or Foleshill Road roundabouts.

At the Bishop Street end, the gradient causes trouble for wheelchair users and pram pushers. It's too steep.

This is not just about existing cyclists. Many more people would cycle if the routes were felt to be safe and convenient. But few are prepared to cycle on the roads as they currently exist. More cycling would mean improved public health and more efficient use of space. Cycle paths have seven times the carrying capacity of lanes dedicated to private cars.

A surface crossing is, perhaps, not the right answer. It would cause delay to motorists, pedestrians and cyclist alike. Has the council looked at an underpass for walkers & cyclists? What about a new, better bridge, perhaps with a spiral ramp at the city end?

Ideas from a Citizen

Last December, Mike Lees sent the following letter to Councillor Lancaster (Coventry Council's Cabinet Member for Public Services):

Dear Ms. Lancaster,

I was pleased to read of the improvements to cycling in Citivision. I would like to suggest some low cost improvements to help fellow cyclists.

1. Drapers Field bridge, West side - the kerb needs lowering or instead, place a wedge of tarmac in the gutter. There used to be a wedge but someone removed it! It didn't block the gutter.
2. Make Greyfriars Lane and Salt Lane two way for cyclists. (less need to cycle through the precinct)
3. Lower the kerb at Cooke St. Gate.
4. Make it legal to cycle on the pavements adjacent to the ring road.
5. Make it legal to cycle on the pavement on the east side of Foleshill Road from Harnall Lane round to White Street.
6. Keresley Road dual carriageway, both sides.Currently the inner lanes on both sides are used as a car park. They easily could be made into cycle lanes. All the houses (except for a handful) have rear car access. In the vast majority of cases there is no reason to park on the road. This section of road provides a quick route down to Radford. The road would be safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
   

------

He was promised "comprehensive feedback to you in the New Year when I have fully investigated the proposals."

---

I made some comments to Mike on these suggestions. Here they are with Mike's responses

1 Drapers Field bridge	The council want to greatly increase the traffic on Leicester Row - so that brings up the issue of what cyclists do when they get to Leicester Row! REPLY - Make a new cycle path on the pavement to Foleshill Road. It's quite wide. Then either go north or cross Foleshill Road and go south down new cycle path (see 5) to city centre.
2) Make Greyfriars Lane and Salt Lane two way for cyclists.	The council will no doubt claim that there's a safety hazard with the taxis. REPLY Is there any evidence this is the case? Cyclists use it the wrong way even if its not legal Would the council prefer people to cycle through the precinct?
3) Lower the kerb at Cooke St. Gate.	Yes!
4) Make it legal to cycle on the pavements adjacent to the ring road.	Yes. I often cycle on the fragment that goes past Queens' Road Baptist Church, connecting Queens Road with the subway under the ring road.
5) Make it legal to cycle on the pavement on the east side of Foleshill Road from Harnall Lane round to White Street.	Good idea, although the footway probably needs widening (esp. near bus stop) and there needs to be a safe and convenient way of cycling on and off the path at the Harnall Lane end.
6) Keresley Road dual carriageway, both sides.	Unfortunately there would probably be great resistance from the residents. Is there enough room to move the parking further toward the centre of the road to provide a cycle track between the parked cars and the footway? People find cycling with a barrier of parked cars between them and moving traffic better than a white line. The side road junctions would have to be carefully re-designed to ensure that cyclists got priority over turning traffic. All rather expensive I'm afraid! REPLY The west side of Keresley Road between Kelmscote Road and the Old Shepherd island is served by a service road - Stennels Close - double yellow lines would not inconvenience the residents . A cheaper solution would be to severely restrict parking on the rest of Keresley Rd - say to 1hr max. This would still be a considerable improvement on the current situation. Have there been any complaints about road safety on Keresley Rd? If so reducing car parking and thus increasing visibility would surely address the issue

Tollbar End death

January's meeting of the Cycle Coventry Advisory Group began with a minute's silence to commemorate the death of Andrew Wolfindale, who was killed in a collision with an HGV at Toll Bar End on 6 January.

As is usual with a death resulting from a Road Traffic Incident, the police are investigating the circumstances of the crash.

Is that good enough? The police will only concern themselves with whether a case can made which will be strong enough to stand up in court. Everyone is "considered innocent until proven guilty", so it's not unlikely that no case will come to court. Yet a man has died, so something, and I expect quite a number of things, weren't as safe as could be reasonably expected. A lot of other people who use the junction think so too. But unlike incidents which involve trains or aircraft, there will be no body to conduct a full public investigation and to make (legally binding) recommendations to improve future safety.

It's no wonder that travelling on the highways is far more dangerous than travelling across the skies or in a train.

Whitley Business Park Expansion

A planning application has been made to extend the Whitley Business Park to the south west.

As James Avery explains in his blog, it's "another example of a planning scheme in Coventry which completely fails to provide the required cycle access, in accordance with Coventry City council's own policies, which clearly require cycle and pedestrian access to be safe, convenient and direct."

Here's a map of the proposal:



The proposed new road (shown in red) will serve the storage and distribution unit (shown in blue).

About 100 metres south of the new road, there's the cycle path along the north side of the A45/A46. It would be so easy to provide a link. Yet the Highways Agency (who manage the A46) has no comment on the scheme.

At the moment the A45/A46 cycle path only provides a route to the east (Toll Bar End and Selsey Close / Sunbury Road), but a link over the Stivichall Interchange ("Festival Island") seems feasible. On the roundabout there's space on the bridge over the A444 and traffic lights at the junction with the slip road from the A444:

Existing cyclist/pedestrian paths are shown in green as are paths due to be re-instated as when the A45/A46  Tollbar End Improvement Scheme has been completed.  Shown in red is a possible route to link Finham & Stivichall to the Whitley Business Park.

TollBar End

Here's a diagram of what Tollbar End should look like once the current works are finished (Autumn 2016):

Shared pedestrian/cyclist paths are provided, shown as brown dashed lines.

It's certainly not the best possible solution. Cyclists in a hurry might prefer the carriageway as it has fewer traffic lights than the paths. Subways would be a better solution, but would cost a lot. Such sums might be better spent on other ways of getting cyclists past the A45/A46.

Two potential cycle routes crossing the A45/A46:

1. Between Willenhall, the site of the old Peugoet factory and Ryton village. This would encourage people working at the industrial site and living in Coventry or Ryton to cycle to work. There's already a subway under the A46 between Willenhall Wood and Orchard Retail Park.
2. Between Whitley and Baginton. A new bridge over the A45/A46 is proposed as part of a development south of the A45.

With the first idea in mind I sent an email to Rugby Borough Council on 28 November suggesting that the former Peugoet factory development should include a cycle route segregated from motor traffic, running between Tollbar End and Ryton. The reply was swift and full. The opportunity for making the route a condition for granting planning approval should have been made in 2008 or 2011. But neither the Highways Agency nor Warwickshire County Council Highways Department raised the matter.

Neither Warwickshire County Council or the Highways Agency seem bothered that people will only access the site by car. They seem not to understand that if a better cycle route were provided it would take local car traffic off this congested part of the 'Strategic Road Network', as well as giving local people more opportunity to increase their cardiovascular fitness levels.

* *

Also in November, I received details about the signing for Non Motorised Users of TollBar End. The direction signs seemed reasonable, what annoyed me were the proposed "Cyclists Dismount" and "End of Cycle Route" signs.

Back in March 2012, the Department of Transport conceded that "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" normally made more sense than "Cyclists Dismount"(see link - look for 'diagram 966')

"[This] sign should be provided only where cyclists are required to use a pedestrian crossing facility that they cannot legally cycle on, at the entrance to a pedestrian area, at a location with a low headroom or width restriction [...] or at places where visibility is restricted to such an extent that cycling would be unsafe" (link)

I wonder how long it will take for the Department of Transport's insight to reach the Highway Agency's contractors (Hyder Consulting)?

 The "End of Cycle Route" sign is a useless waste of space. It's placed at the scheme's boundaries; where the authorities couldn't think of any other sign.

Where are the "End of Motor Route" signs?

Crossing Sandy Lane and cycling on Kingfield Road

Cycle Coventry route 1 improves the route between the city centre and the Ricoh Arena

Crossing the ring road

It's proposed to use a toucan crossing. Some people think that would delay traffic and be unsafe. More

Crossing Sandy Lane

Something like this is being considered by the council:

After crossing the recreation ground, cyclists would cross Sandy Lane just north-east of Caldecote Road and use a pavement conversion to reach Daimler Road.

Cycle paths on the inside of cars can have problems: cycling in the "door zone" and cars crossing from the carriageway. Newspaper report on a terrible piece of "cycle infrastructure" in Farnborough. Still in Sandy Lane there are no places where cars cross and there should be enough width for cyclists to avoid the door zone.

Kingfield Road

The council is considering widening the pavement on the west side, putting in a crossing, and widening the pavement on the east side up to Lockhurst Lane. Then crossing Kingfield Road again, using the pavement on the west side of Lockhurst Lane to the signalised crossing and then the pavement on the east side to Station Street West.

I suspect there will be a significant safety problems with cars darting from the carriageway into the various side roads and factory entrances:

What works for pedestrians doesn't work for cyclists.

A pedestrian has a stopping distance of a few inches, allowing them to avoid a collision with a car darting into a side road from the main road. More than that, the Highway Code states that motorists turning into a side road should give way to pedestrians already crossing. Cyclists travel at least three times faster than pedestrians and so need about ten times the stopping distance. So if a cyclist is close to the side road he/she won't have enough space to avoid a collision. Slowing to walking pace before crossing any entrance or side road is no way to make progress. While a motorist can regain lost speed by pressing their right foot, a cyclist has to find the lost kinetic energy from within their own body.

Setting the side road crossing back from the carriageway offers a solution; cyclists can see whether a car is heading their way significantly sooner. Even better is to give priority to cyclists as well.

Bollards might be needed to stop pavement parking.


After dark many people won't want to use the path through the woods and park. I suspect faster cyclists won't use the new route; they will use the Kingfield Road carriageway.

Henley Road

Coventry Council is proposing to improve the Henley Road section of the cycle route between University Hospital and Longford Park.

The proposals include

1. Widening the Henley Road footways to create shared pedestrian/cyclist paths:
   • On the north side between the Sowe river bridge and Deedmore Road. This is likely to be about 2.4m wide.
   • On the south side between the new Toucan crossing and Brierley Road. This is likely to be just over 3m wide.
2. Adding Toucan crossings to Henley Road at the points shown with red markers on the map. This includes adding Toucan phases to all three arms of the Deedmore Road / Henley Road junction

Details of the proposed scheme. A presentation was given to a local Neighbourhood Forum on 3 September.

I'm concerned about the lack of segregation between pedestrians and cyclists - the footway close to Henley College can get busy. Also there's some issues about the crossing of Henley Mill Lane:

• the turn for motorists needs to be made sharper; to slow traffic
• cyclists travelling on the new path along Henley Road need to retain their priority over turning traffic
• there should be enough space to allow a car
  • turning into Henley Mill Lane to clear the Henley Road carriageway before having to stop for pedestrians & cyclists
  • leaving Henley Mill Lane, waiting for a gap in the Henley Road traffic, to clear the pedestrian/cyclist path.

A good example of a cycle path crossing a side road:

Details of the proposed scheme

Netherlands Study Tour

In mid June, four of us from the West Midlands went on a David Hembro Study Tour. The most remarkable thing about cycling in the Netherlands is the sheer number of cyclists:

Only a small minority of Dutch cyclists ride mountain/road bikes or wear helmets/Lycra. Despite the proportion of such sporty cyclists among the general population being higher in the Netherlands than the UK, they are swamped by the large number of people who use a bicycle to ride a couple of miles from A to B.

It's not the flatness of the Netherlands that encourages cycling (much of eastern England is just as flat) and certainly not the weather - it's often raining and the wind can be punishing. It's the way cyclists are separated from motor traffic, often onto to routes which are shorter than those taken by motorists.

Back in the 1950's the streets of Coventry were full of cyclists. Then people bought cars in large numbers, just as they did in the Netherlands. Conditions on the roads got much worse for cycling. In the UK, and in many other countries, few good cycling facilities were built and cycle use declined dramatically. For reasons no-one seems to understand very well, the Dutch highway authorities built decent cycle facilities and so many car owners continue to use their bicycles for short journeys.

 

Dutch cycle path crossing a side road. Note priorities, footway and sight-lines.

More traffic on Lynchgate Road

Those who cycle to the University of Warwick via its Lynchgate Road entrance will be disappointed to learn that the University wishes to put a large car park just inside the entrance with access via Lynchgate Road:

They propose a roundabout where the Science Park access road and the access road to the new car park meets Lynchgate Road. Link to planning application.

Plenty of people have objected, complaining about the traffic increase the proposal, if adopted, would bring.  Here's my comment:

I object to this planning application as it will have a negative impact on pedestrian and cyclist access to the University and Science Park.

The Department for Transport's "Manual for Streets (2007)" adopts a hierarchy of users to assist in design, planning and development control decisions. This places pedestrians at the top, followed by cyclists, then public transport, with unaccompanied private­ car users last. Furthermore there are local policies AM8 (Improving Pedestrian Routes) and AM11 (Improving Cycling Facilities).

The University's Lynchgate Road entrance has the potential to be the major access point for pedestrians and cyclists working and studying at the campus and Science Park, due to the large volume of residential housing within walking and cycling distances. In addition there is a great potential for rail plus cycle commuting from further afield via the Canley and Coventry railway stations.

According to The Department for Transport's LTN "Cycle Infrastructure Design" the first thing to be considered when creating or improving a cycle route is Traffic Volume Reduction (followed by Traffic Speed Reduction). The application proposes a Traffic Volume Increase on Lynchgate Road. It also proposes a downgrade of the cyclist/pedestrian route within the University campus from segregation between cyclists and pedestrians to a shared pedestrian/cyclist path. Such arrangements are unsuitable for routes with medium to high cyclist and pedestrian use.

If the car park is to be built, a much more imaginative approach needs to be taken to its access by motor traffic. An approach which reduces rather than increases the delay and danger posed to pedestrians and cyclists. One possibility would be to have access via the Science Park's Sir William Lyons Road and to move the access between Sir William Lyons Road and the public highway significantly closer to Kirby Corner Road.

Canley Railway Station to Warwick University

Coventry Council is consulting on a number of traffic schemes in South West Coventry. The schemes are mostly about making it easier to access the various employment and study sites in the area by car.

It's a chance to get things improved for cyclists as well!

The map shows a cycle route between the city centre and Kenilworth:

Open map in a new window

The section between Canley Railway Station and the University of Warwick links various residential areas with Westwood Business Park, the University of Warwick and the University's Science Park. People living close to any of the railway stations along the line to Birmingham could also use this section as part of a train + cycle commute. 

How might it be improved?

Sir Henry Parkes Road, between Canley station and the A45 has little traffic. Unfortunately the road is rather wide, a relic of the days when the road and railway met at a level crossing and a major car factory was on the north side of the tracks. So there is speeding. To make the road more cycle-friendly, the centre white line should be removed and the speed limit reduced to 20 mph. Other changes to the layout should be considered to encourage motorists to slow down. Perhaps 2m wide cycle lanes should be painted on both sides, even wider where they pass areas where cars might be parked.

Sir Henry Parkes Road - View towards the A45

Motorists need to reduce their speed as they leave the A45 roundabout

As can be seen from the map, the current recommended route for cyclists from the NE side of the A45 to Lynchgate Road uses seven Toucan crossings in a distance of less than 700m. No help is provided at either Sir Henry Parkes Road (NE of A45) or Lynchgate Road to join/leave this "toucan crossing tour".

One way of reducing the number of Toucan crossings would be to remove the bus lane on Sir Henry Parkes Road to make room for a cycle path on the south-eastern side. Cyclists who don't want to use the carriageway would no longer need to cross Sir Henry Parkes Road and then cross back when travelling between Lynchgate Road and the A45. They would avoid three Toucan crossings.

 

The refuge in the centre of the A45 is too narrow

Lynchgate Road is a subject on its own. Large numbers of pedestrians must cross this road to reach the shopping centre from the Science Park. None of the pedestrian crossing points are marked with traffic signs or Belisha beacons.

A large sign blocks the view of pedestrians about to cross left to right

 

Recently added "safety" feature (hidden behind Tesco sign)

Sign of a recent fatality

Traffic speed and volume need to be drastically reduced on Lynchgate Road.

One way of cutting volume would be to block Lynchgate Road south of the shopping centre and replace the current Science Park entry/exit with one much closer to Shultern Lane:

Improved A45 / Kenilworth Road junction

For years cyclists have complained about the A45 crossing of the Kenilworth Road cycle path.

There was simply no phase when it was safe for cyclists to cross the west bound carriageway of Fletchamstead Highway. At busy times there was often a constant stream of traffic coming from either Kenpas Highway or Kenilworth Road.

Recently, as part of Cycle Coventry, a Toucan crossing was added linking the two segments of cycle path.

The central reservation is rather small:

A number of issues have been raised:

1. It might get dangerously full in summer when the fair weather cyclists are out.
2. It's the wrong way around. When a cyclist or pedestrian crosses to the road's centre, he/she must then turn right to go towards the exit. At which point he/she is facing away from the traffic. If the reservation had been designed so that the cyclist/ pedestrian turned left on entry, they would be facing the traffic as they approached the exit; a more satisfactory approach.
3. Motorists turning left into Fletchamstead Highway from Kenilworth Road will be faced with a stop sign only a few metres into the A45. If following traffic is not expecting the vehicle in front to stop, this might lead to shunt incidents and / or motorists ploughing straight across the Toucan crossing.  Against this it's worth remarking that the left turn from Kenilworth Road is quite tight, so motorists won't be travelling very fast; moving the crossing closer to Kenilworth Road would increase the hazard of tailbacks reaching the Kenilworth Road.

The shared pedestrian/cyclist space between the Toucan crossing and Kenilworth Road is rather narrow:

Fletchamstead Highway - south side

Fletchamstead Highway - north side

The A45 (Coventry by pass) built with cycle paths along its whole length. They were subsequently sacrificed at Kenilworth Road to make the A45 carriageway wider. It had been hoped that a Toucan crossing would be provided across the southern arm of Kenilworth Road as a token towards reinstatement of the paths, but the crossing is only a Puffin. Pedestrians only, although a person pushing a cycle is regarded in law as a pedestrian. Perhaps there was just too little space for a Toucan crossing. There's certainly not much space for a child's buggy or a wheelchair:

Overall the changes to the junction are a definite improvement for cycling. Despite this some cyclists will continue to find it more convenient to use the carriageway to cross the A45 when travelling towards Coventry. Indeed many cyclists will continue to use the carriageway along the whole of Kenilworth Road, to avoid having to give way to turning traffic at Cannon Hill Road, Aberton Way, Gibbet Hill Road and Cryfield Grange Road. Cyclists using the carriageway when travelling south  avoid crossing the road at the ends of the path.

We still have a long way to go to reach Dutch standards of highway engineering for cyclists. That's shown by the statistics on cycle use. In the Netherlands, 27% of journeys are made by bike, in the UK less than two percent.

Bridge over A444 at Whitley - Planning committee adds conditions

To recap, here's a diagram of the original proposal:

 




To see the area in its current state, go to google maps and put 52.387153, -1.492980 into the search box.

So to cross from Black Prince Avenue (at the bottom left hand corner of the diagram) towards  Whitley Academy (off the top right hand corner of the diagram), school children would have to use four Toucan Crossings.  Plenty of temptation to take shortcuts across the commuter traffic going to the Jaguar Land Rover plant and the Whitley Business Park (at the bottom right hand corner of the diagram)!

On 6th February Coventry Council agreed to make some improvements to the scheme:

Coventry Council also promised to look into possibilities for reducing the number of Toucan Crossings for pedestrians and cyclists travelling between Black Prince Avenue and the Jaguar Land Rover plant / Whitley Business Park.  Both the original and the new proposals have us crossing three carriageways. One idea is to provide subways under the two new slip roads and a path along the south side of the new bridge. The new slip roads are to/from the A444 south of the bridges.

Toucan Crossings are not as safe as some people think. See this article about a driver jumping a red light on a Pelican crossing and killing a cyclist.

Update September 2015
The final result is a bit different from either of the above plans.  The differences from the second diagram are:

1. The Toucan crossing at the extreme east is now staggered into two halves.
2. The subway along the river (under the carriageway) has disappeared.
3. There's a shared use cyclist/pedestrian path along the south side of the new bridge, with  light controlled crossings over Leaf Lane and the slip road from the northbound A46.  There's no lights on the crossing over the slip road to the southbound A46.