Calling all Southenders, and any interested parties.
I know this is a long post., but please try to read through.
As you know Southend was awarded funding to become a cycling town, we're now about to enter the final third financial year of this matched funding project.
At bid time when, as CTC rep for the area, I was approached for support I was in two minds. On one hand it would be good for cycling, but historically I had been given the impression that Southend Council pursued their own agenda and just claimed to consult stakeholders – no actual action actually being taken on the stakeholder's responses.
The majority of the focus of schemes in the past seems to have been on installing off carriageway paths where possible, and downright ignoring cyclists at all other times. Twice in meetings regarding the LTP (Local Transport Plan) I asked the council what their plans were for cycle route S1 (the length of the A13 from Hadleigh to centre Southend). Their responses were unanimous and consistent, “we expect you to use the Prittle Brook Greenway and not the A13”.This greenway was a longer ride for most A13 users and in one two mile section had nineteen road crossings to negotiate! Not a suitable alternative.
In the initial meetings of the cycle town I was encouraged at the promised level of communication and stakeholder involvement. In front of John Grimshaw I asked Anna Waite for assurance that cycling would be considered in all road schemes and not just the cycle network. I felt that we had turned a corner from the ways of the past.
To date though I'm feeling that they haven't changed their ways at all. It seems to me that stakeholders are being ignored still, and road schemes aren't necessarily cycle friendly.
The groups that supposed to communicate together (listed in Appendix B of agenda item 591
here ) still haven't been set up. Myself, Wowbagger and Fatbloke go along to the Cycle Group metings. At the last one it was confirmed that there is no feed between the Programme Board and ourselves. Our terms of reference are
The Cycling Group is open to organisations, groups and individuals that wish to become involved in the Cycling Southend Programme to promote Southend as a Cycling Town. The Group will appoint two representatives to the Cycling Southend Stakeholder Group to represent the views of the cycle user particularly in matters of design and cycling promotion.
Primarily the Group will offer sound practical advice to the Project Board and harness the experience and enthusiasm of Southend cyclists, particularly in relation to:-
Receiving reports and updates from the Borough Council on the progress of schemes and future plans;
Commenting on proposals and offering constructive advice working with the Project Board;
Bringing ideas and proposals forward that support the aims and objectives of the Cycling Southend Programme via their representation on the Stakeholder Group
Helping with awareness raising promotions and events;
Participating in road safety events to raise the profile of safer cycling;
Working with the Council`s “Bike Squad” to promote cycling to employers, schools, public etc.
The proposals aren't really being shown to us, and our feedback does not seem to have been heard. The only reason we seem to go there is to listen to an update form the council as to what they've been up to, and then to vent our spleens at deaf ears.
The first scheme I questioned the council over was the
junction of London Road and West Road. I presume that in order to slow down traffic forking left into West Road the kerbline was built out. And central islands realigned.
The whole of the snowy triangle that the pedestrian is standing on is the new construction, which is in the carriageway of the old road line.
The problem with that is that a car having approached in the left hand lane and turning left follows a natural convex curve, but that takes it well away from the kerbline since the road is concave in layout.
I witnessed a cyclist here who was stopped at the red light in primary position, and when the lights went green she cycled left through that junction. Although she stayed in what appeared to be a primary position there was ample room for a van to overtake her. Unfortunately the kerb and central island come together to form a pinch point, bringing these two road users into conflict.
Coming the other way, following the A13 from Southend to Hadleigh, at the approach to this junction there are two lanes (straight ahead and dedicated turn right). After the junction is a tight pinch point as again the kerb and island come together. It is impossible to protect your road space by holding primary since drivers use the right turn lane to overtake the cyclist. The black car here is just entering the funnel that squeezes cyclists and drivers together.
I raised this danger with the Council and they put up CCTV cameras, to monitor the path cyclists took through the junction. I chased often for the results, none came. Finally I managed to get a response! It contained just the volumes of cyclists using the juntion in certain time slots, broken down by pavement/red light jumping/etc. I chased again for the line the cyclists took, only to find out that the cameras didn't actually capture the Hadleigh Bound pinch point. They would realign the camera and start again.... the cameras still haven't moved.
The traffic calming scheme for North Road was interesting. It wasn't brought to the cycle group, but I did find out about the public consultation so went along. Of the discussions I had and the comments I submitted, I recall two.
1) When the cobbled gateway features were installed to ensure that there were not grooves running in the cyclist line of travel that would cause them to lose balance.
2) That when they narrowed the road to install a raised zebra crossing that they cater for cyclists needing to take primary instead of being pushed to the kerb, and that they were not to install a speed cushion in the cyclist's path.
This is how they constructed that zebra crossing. The cyclist has to pass the cushion before swinging out more sharply to avoid the new build out.
This is how they constructed the gateway features.
On the 4th Jan (so before this latest round of snow) there was ice built up in these dangerous ruts.
At the forum meetings we'd raised warnings of this, yet the design engineers failed to spot it.
Since day one I have had a major fear re the gateway feature pictured. In order to pass it a cyclist needs to slow and pull into the gutter. In doing so it encourages the motorist to overtake and left hook. I have had several meetings with the council over this At one of them at the roadside a passerby stopped to ask who in the council he could complain to regarding the dangerous features.
At the first cycling group following the installation of these gateway features, many of the members were up in arms at how dangerous these were.
I was assured that they were progressing three options and that I'd be kept up to date with costs and options. Finally I received an email with attached PDF scan of a letter to me.
Now although they say that the cycle bypasses are fine, those white granite surrounds are the only thing my studded tyres have slipped on in the recent weather. Slowing to use the bypass also increases the risk of a left hook, one of which I have now suffered. With respect to the zebra crossing, that advisory lane hasn't appeared in the last two months.
To the south end of this scheme in Brighten Road is an amusing cycle lane. It just stops at a dead end. I have taken engineers to this site who agree it is wrong, yet nothing has happened to rectify it. I believe that wowbagger brought this one to the attention of the cycle forum.
The contraflow lane in the other direction is more amusing. Note how they had to divert the lane dividers into the cycle lane, narrowing it, to cater for the bollard that has a no-entry sign on it...
In Bournemouth Park Road a similar issue is seen with regards speed cushions installed on the approach to a bollard.
Once again I saw this scheme at public consultation. It seemed a great scheme. Moving the parking to be “two wheel up on verge” to gain road space, and also burning off the central hatched area to replace it with a centre line. This allowed space for the cyclists to be overtaken, and speed cushions were placed at each side road to slow traffic and reduce the risk of collision.
I had one feedback item on my form though, which I discussed at length with the scheme designer. I was not happy with cushion on the approach to the existing bollards at Royston Avenue. I felt that the cyclist was being forced to ride in the kerb and then get squeezed by the driver. Once again the scheme was apparently constructed to the draft plans displayed at the consultation instead of the amended plans taking into account feedback.
Hamlet Court Road. Oh Dear.
We were told at the last cycle group that following a meeting with Cycling England the council had decided to focus on painting ASLs. I don't like these but we'll leave my prejudices out of here for now.
Approaching from the north. No room for a feeder lane? Doesn't matter. Just paint the lane where the drivers will occupy it.
Approaching from the west. No room for a feeder lane? Doesn't matter. Just paint the lane where the drivers will occupy it. (I cut this junction out of my commute years ago because I got fed up with the obstruction.)
Approaching from the East. Dedicated left turn lane. All cyclists going straight ahead have ridden between these lanes for years. So what do the council do? Paint the lane to the left of the turn left lane!!!!
At the initial meetings it was explained that the schemes would be generally based on-road, now the interest I've noted around town seems to be for dedicated infrastructure.
The original cycling strategy is shown in section 3.2.1 of Appendix A
hereThe summary as explained to us was “fast roads will be considered for dedicated paths, busy distributor roads will be considered for cycle lanes, but in general we'll try to manage all routes by soft measures and have cycling safe anywhere on the carriageway. In areas such as Pall Mall in Leigh I have no objection to the speed cushions that have appeared, but I'm struggling to think of anywhere else that shared space for cyclists has appeared. Homezones were to be created so that the traffic flowed slower and cycling was safer. I have not seen any.
The new Victoria Gateway project, turning the Victoria Circus roundabout into “shared Space” still includes cycle lanes to keep us out of the traffic flow. Fortunately this was a scheme that was brought to the cycle group, and we spotted lots of planned examples of
, which now seem to have been removed from the latest plans. Although now unobstructed the cycle lanes remain though.
The Progress Road junction has plans for being improved. (
linkNote how the cycle path now has three signalised crossings instead of one. Again at the cycle forum the first we knew about this and complained was after the plans were published in the local press.
It's interesting to look at the massive planned schemes for “Congestion Busting” in the area.
Transport and Roads :: Southend-on-Sea Borough Council The
FAQ comments that thanks to the Southend Cycle Town funding cycle routes can be incorporated into these schemes. The cynic in me wonders how much of the cycle funding is being diverted towards getting the traffic flowing again? I have also heard a rumour that the reason no cycle routes have been created on the quiet roads is that the council intend that rat running traffic will reduce the congestion during these works.
Finally, I have heard rumour that the path alongside the Royal Artillery Way was constructed at 2m wide. I fully support a path here, but have now heard that the council are widening it to 3m. The rumour goes that they are simply spending the funding in order to not lose it.
So, why am I posting? What's the way forward?
I need your help and thoughts. What have you seen on the ground that I have missed? What are we going to do here, and how are we going to improve cycling in Southend?