Sunday PopUp Cycle-Way Tryout

ChiCycle are interested to hear what local cyclists and residents think of the Chichester PopUp Cycle Scheme. This Sunday 16th August evening at 5pm, we intend meeting up at Northgate car park near the Tennis Club. We advise anyone wishing to join us with a bicycle to wear a day-glow vest and a cycle helmet.

People may wish to try out the scheme for the first 20 to 30 minutes to develop initial impressions and so we can get some photos/video of people in the community using it. Please take a safety first approach and note it is not our intention for this to be a group ride where we all go around at once. It would be better if people try it out as individuals or in small family groups.

It would be helpful if some people could take photos and/or videos that they can share with us. It will be very helpful to have a media archive of people using the scheme for future ChiCycle publicity material.

At around 5:30 we hope to make some short video interviews to catch peoples first impressions of the PopUp cycle-way.

If you are a pedestrian or a motorist you will also be most welcome to tell us what you think. It will be best to bring a face mask and hand gel and please maintain a safe distance from others.

Sarah Sharp believes WSCC are doing the right thing relocating road space currently dedicated to motor-vehicles by changing its use for walking and cycling. She recommends viewing Mikael Colville Andersen’s work on arrogance of space available on the following videos and links.

copenhagenize.com The Arrogance of Space
The Arrogance of Space Mapping Tool

ChEmRoute Goes Dutch

In parallel to Chichester District Council (CDC), West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and Highways England (HE) announcing plans to remove cycle lanes from the A259 between Chichester to Emsworth to make bikes ride on the pavement, the Department for Transport (DfT) has introduced giudlines and policies that require higher standards of walking and cycling provision.

On the 27 July 2020 DfT published their policy paper for cycling and walking plan for England which sets out a vision for a travel revolution in England’s streets, towns and communities. It is also known as the Gear change: a bold vision for cycling and walking document. This documents states that only walking and cycling projects meeting DfT standards will receive funding!

Also published by the DfT on 27 July 2020 is Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 1/20), Guidance for local authorities on designing high-quality, safe cycle infrastructure. This is a rather lengthy but comprehensive PDF document, 15.9MB, 188 pages. Importantly it emphasises that cycleways should not be run on urban pavements.

Gear change: a bold vision for cycling and walking has announced that the DfT want to:

We will choose up to 12 willing local authority areas, to benefit from intensive investment in mini-Holland schemes.

ChEmRoute Goes Dutch working group is making its first zoom meeting on Tues 11th August. The intention is to work up some bold, aspirational and exciting concepts worthy of making ChEmRoute into one of the 12 DfT Mini Holland beacon schemes.

Please watch this space to find out what ideas and solutions we will bring forward as a vision for walking and cycling through the Harbour Villages.

Some notes for the meeting are available here ChEmRouteOptionNotes

Work Begins on Temporary Cycle-Ways in Chichester

At approximately 2PM Wednesday 29th July 2020 while cycling into town I spotted work men preparing counters for fitting into the Avenue De Chartres roadway. This was in readiness for the installation of temporary CycleWays!

The slide shows images below illustrate progress so far:

Looking at the cycle-way layouts led me to reflect just how difficult it is to design a coherent and direct bike route and I pondered over the many difficulties the installation team will need to overcome. It will be tricky to make the whole scheme work perfectly at the first attempt.

However, testing out ideas is highly recommend in current cycle-way design guidelines so we believe this is a highly worthwhile project. Hopefully we might keep sections that prove successful and revise our ideas in the places where problems are encountered. We need plenty of people to test these finished routes and give feedback on their experiences.

Dust off your bikes and make sure these new counters have plenty of bikes to count.

Highways England Chichester to Emsworth Cycle Route Concerns

The new scheme for the Chichester to Emsworth Cycle Route threatens to reduce the level of local provision for both pedestrians and cyclists alike. It will also encouraging faster and larger volumes of motor vehicle traffic along the A259.

There are a great many reasons why it is unsatisfactory for the cycle scheme to relocate cyclists onto the existing pavements through the harbour villages.

Removing the existing cycle lanes will encourage greater volumes of motor vehicle traffic that will also be likely to travel at higher speed. This will make the villages environments less pleasant for residents.

Putting cyclists on the pavements will threaten vulnerable pedestrians who will have to contend with high speed two way cycle traffic where they walk.

Cyclists will not be able to progress quickly along the route because of conflict with pedestrians and people exiting their properties unable to see cyclists approaching.

ChiCycle contacted the project manager Simon Elliott by post and by email on Monday 29 June 2020. Simon is overseeing the new Highways England Cycle Route scheme between Chichester to Emsworth.

We asked Simon for assurance that Highways England would reconsider removing the  existing cycle lanes along with the expectation that cyclists should thereafter cycle on the pavement. Highways England have not yet responded to our communication.

Roger Elkins has informed ChiCycle that he believes “it is best that Highways England respond to your concerns” and he will “note their response with interest”.

Andrew Frost, Director Planning and Environment Chichester District Council has explained:

The District Council’s remit does not extend to technical highways related matters and so we do not have officers specialised in this area. When the District Council requires input on technical highways related matters then we take advice from WSCC as the Local Highway Authority and occasionally through the employment of external contractors. The matters you raise are technical highway design issues and concerns around the application of highways related guidance. For the reasons outlined above, it is not appropriate therefore, for me to comment in any detail in respect of the concerns raised. Can I suggest that you send your concerns to both HE and WSCC as the ‘owner’ of the scheme and the Local Highway Authority respectively. Both have the appropriate in-house technical competency to consider the points that you raise.

ChiCycle advise local residents who have concerns over their pavements being converted into a cycle-tracks, to contact Highways England and Simon Elliott directly. Their contact details are as follows:

A27DesignatedFunds@highwaysengland.co.uk is an official email for concerns over the project and emails sent to this address are logged and recorded as part of the planning process.

Simon Elliott is the project manager for the NCN2 [A259] cycle route.
Simon Elliott
Simon Elliott. Programme Manager (Construction) – Regional Investment Programme South East Highways England | Bridge House | 1 Walnut Tree Close | Guildford | Surrey | GU1 4LZ
simon.elliott@highwaysengland.co.uk
Web: www.highwaysengland.co.uk Mobile : 07901 110659

 

 

No Cycle or Pedestrian Crossings shown on the West of Chichester Development Highway Adoption Plans

Plans for the West of Chichester Development Northern Spine Road 18/01587/REM were accepted on Wed 05 Dec 2018 but the plans did not show any pedestrian/zebra or cycle/toucan crossings of the spine road. However, council officers and developers previously shared a documented exchange where they decided these matters were best handled at a later date by the inclusion of a condition in the agreement.

On the 24th June 2018 Steven Shaw (WSCC County Highways) raised a question about pedestrian crossing facilities. Nick Billington’s (Principle Planner WYG) reply from 6th Sep 2018 is shown in red:

Pedestrian crossing facilities – The submitted plans include no detail of the proposed crossing facilities over the Spine Road. The Design & Access Statement states zebra crossings and traffic islands will be provided to enable safe and convenient crossings of the spine road. The applicant should provide details of these and a justification to support the proposed location and design of the crossing facilities.

We agree that crossing points, such as zebra crossings and traffic islands, will be necessary along the primary road to provide permeability and safe pedestrian access, particularly in the area of the local centre where higher numbers and more vulnerable people can be expected to congregate.

However in the absence of detailed designs for adjacent parcels, it is impossible to sensibly propose crossing point designs and locations now. We therefore propose that details of the proposed crossing points and their locations come forward as part of future Reserved Matters Applications in relation to phases adjacent to the primary access road. We suggest that such an could be controlled by a suitably worded condition such as the following:

Prior to the commencement of development to the adjacent phase, details of any pedestrian and cycle crossing points on the section of the primary access road adjacent to the submitted phase should be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The crossing points shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the adjacent phase

Indeed, the final 18/01587/REM agreement granting permission for the Northern Spine Road contained the following condition:

2) Prior to the spine road hereby permitted being first brought into use full details including a timetable for implementation shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with WSCC as the Local Highway Authority for the provision of pedestrian and/or cycle crossing facilities of the spine road. The pedestrian and/or cycle crossing facilities shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

On the 29 May 2020 the West of Chichester developers submitted application 20/01311/DOC Discharge of planning conditions 2 (spine road pedestrian/cycle crossing facilities) and 6 (Country Park cycle parking) from Reserved Matters approval CC/18/01587/REM.

The 20/01311/DOC plans purport to detail intended implementation of conditions 2 & 5 of CC/18/01587/REM:

The plans show the proposed crossing points across the extent of the intended adopted Spine Road.

The plans show the provision of 4  Sheffield stand cycle hoops on the two key entrances to the Country Park

However ChiCycle can identify neither zebra/toucan crossings across the primary spine road nor Sheffield stand cycle parking facilities in the dog walking SANG area in any of these plans!

Cllr Pauline Gaskin has attempted to clarify issues about road markings show on 20/01311/DOC drawings that differ from the original planing agreement for the primary spine road. These road markings indicate that cyclists would not have priority at side junctions as was agreed in the accepted Cycle Strategy for Phase 1 document.

Steven Shaw (WSCC County Highways) wrote to Cllr Pauline Gaskin on the 2nd July 2020 stating:

Chichester District Council is currently determining application CC/20/01311/DOC which seeks to discharge the detail of the proposed pedestrian/cycle crossing facilities of the side roads relating to Reserved Matters application CC/18/01587/REM

ChiCycle are now mystified by the way condition 2 of CC/18/01587/REM has morphed from being a committent to provide pedestrian and cycle crossings across the primary spine road, into modifications to the original agreement that seems likely to remove priority from the cycle way as it crosses side road junctions.

We have a prize of £50.00 of bicycle accessories, parts or repairs from the Bognor Bike Hub. for the first person to find the Sheffield stand cycle parking facilities in the dog walking SANG area! The plans can be downloaded by searching for documents on the following link to CDC planning archive. Search for planning application  CC/20/01311/DOC. See if you can find the bike stands!

Mark Record (on behalf of ChiCycle)

Open Letter to Highways England regarding the Chichester to Emsworth Cycle-way

We have now received the following reply from highways England:


Subject: FW: ChiCycle Chichester-Emsworth A27 Designated Funds
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 15:51:48 +0000
From: Elliott, Simon <Simon.Elliott@highwaysengland.co.uk>

Dear Mr Record
Thank you for your email regarding the Chichester to Emsworth Non-Motorised User (NMU) route.
Firstly, may I apologise for the length of time it has taken to respond to your letter.
As you are aware, we are currently in the process of procuring a design partner to progress the recommendations of the WSP feasibility study for a shared path on the northern side of the A259 between Chichester and the border with Hampshire. We currently hope to have them on board for a start to their commission in September.
As you will appreciate, the layouts detailed in the feasibility study are high level. The next stage will involve working these up in further detail and considering both localised constraints and compliance with the specified design standards (both our own DMRB and the West Sussex cycle design guide). Any design outputs will be subject to safety audits and technical reviews during the course of the design lifecycle.
We will be providing our designers with a copy of all comments received on the feasibility study from stakeholders to ensure they take on both local knowledge and any technical concerns raised. We will also be working with West Sussex County Council throughout the design process to ensure the design meets their needs as both local highway authority and asset owner.
Finally, with regards to your comments on town planning, I note your points but will decline commenting on these as they are local matters for the local authorities and I note you have written to them separately with your list of concerns.
Kind Regards
Simon Elliott
Simon Elliott BEng(Hons) CEng FCIHT DMS NEC3&4 ECC Accredited PM
Programme Manager (Construction) – Regional Investment Programme South East
Highways England | Bridge House | 1 Walnut Tree Close | Guildford | Surrey | GU1 4LZ
Web: www.highwaysengland.co.uk Mobile : 07901 110659


Dear Highways England A27 designated funds team,

ChiCycle are delighted that funds and planning efforts are being invested into walking and cycling infrastructure between Chichester and Emsworth.

However, we are reluctant to support the designs within the feasibility study because they involve relocating cyclists onto the pavement in built up areas. This will result in a significant reduction in provision for both cyclists and pedestrians alike.

Please find  a detailed list of our concerns, observations and recommendations at the end of this correspondence, that we hope will be considered during the further development of this scheme.

ChiCycle would welcome an assurance from you, that plans to put fast two way cycle traffic onto the pavement, in built up areas, with the cycle-way running on a single side of the road, will be thoroughly reconsidered.

Please let us know how you intend to review and revise the existing designs.  Ideally we would like a statement that you are happy for us to share by publishing on our website.

Thank you in advance for sharing your intentions,

Mark Record (on behalf of ChiCycle)


ChiCycle Concerns, Observations and Recommendations regarding the Highways England Designated Funds A27 Link Improvement Package Feasibility Study Plans

30 kph Commuter/Utility Cycle Traffic on Shared Use Pavements will Threaten Vulnerable Residents

 DMRB CD195 Designing for cycle traffic (page 17) recommends a cycle-way design speed of 30 kph. It indicates an absolute minimum design speed of 20 kph. However, the standards states this minimum speed can only be applied over a short distance:

E/3.17 Absolute minimum values for cycle track design speed shall only be used for distances up to 100 metres.
E/3.17.1 Where absolute minimum design speed values are used for cycle tracks, ‘SLOW’ markings should be included.

30 kph will be an intimidating speed of traffic  for vulnerable residents sharing the pavement. Parents may be discouraged from walking young children to school, choosing to make these journey by car instead. This may force a car-dependent lifestyle on the very youngest members of our community. Frail elderly residents may also lose the confidence to go shopping locally when fast moving cycles are relocated onto the pavement. This could prevent elderly people living independently. People with sensory impairment may feel particularly at risk.

DfT LTN 1/12 Shared Use Routes for Pedestrians and Cyclists (page 6) discusses  related issues:

The Equality Act
1.13 Shared use schemes are often implemented to improve conditions for cyclists, but it is essential that they are designed to take into account the needs of everyone expected to use the facility. Poorly designed schemes, and schemes where the available width is insufficient to comfortably accommodate the expected flows of pedestrians and cyclists, are likely to reduce the amenity value of the route.
1.14 Disabled people and older people can be particularly affected by shared use routes. Ultimately, however, it will depend on the quality of the design. Consideration of their various needs is an important part of the design of shared use, and the duties under the Equality Act 2010 are particularly relevant.

ChiCycle are concerned that removing existing cycle lanes from the carriageway  and re-locating fast cycle traffic onto existing pavements will represent a significant reduction in the quality of provision for both pedestrians and cyclists alike.

Our recommendation is to preserve the existing pavements/footways for pedestrian use only.

Feasibility Study Incorrectly Relies on CD195 Specifications for Shared Use Pavements/Foot-ways

Feasibility Study 5.1.4.  (Page 65) States:

To determine the required widths of proposed cycle infrastructure, based upon peak hour cycle flow, reference has been made to Table E/3.1 of the Highways England guidance. Table E/3.1 has been re-produced below in Figure 5-3.

However,  DMRB CD195 Designing for cycle traffic does not contain any specification for shared use pavements/footways!

The Introduction of CD195 makes the following statement:

This document refers to the provision for cycle traffic only which allows for a higher design speed when separated from pedestrian and equestrian traffic.

Chapter 1 of CD195 clarifies that the scope of the document excludes shared use paths.

1. Scope (Aspects covered)
1.1 This document shall be used for the design of routes and assets used by cycle traffic.
NOTE This document does not cover the design of shared use facilities for pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.

ChiCycle observe that CD195 recommendations have been inappropriately applied and therefore falsely indicate a shared use pavement might be an appropriate solution in built up areas. This mistake casts doubts over the conclusions of the entire study. We recommend the proposal of reallocating pavement space for shared use is reconsidered.

Side Road Junctions do not follow CD195 Standard

DMRB CD195 Designing for cycle traffic (page 27) identifies only two methods where a cycle track can cross a side road while maintaining priority.

E/4.7 Cycle tracks which intersect the minor road at priority junctions shall cross the minor road in one of two ways – either bent-out or bent-in crossings.

The “bent in” method is not appropriate for use with two way cycle tracks.

E/4.16 Cycle tracks at bent-in crossings shall be one-way.

ChiCycle doubt there is adequate space in the built the up areas to “bent out” the cycle track by a minimum of 5 metres at all access roads and minor junctions .

E/4.15 At bent-out crossings, where cycle tracks cross minor private access roads carrying less than 2000 AADT, there shall be a minimum set-back distance of 5 metres.

ChiCycle recommend stepped cycle tracks as a more appropriate solution. CD195 indicates stepped cycle tracks are acceptable as long as a speed limit of no more than 30 Mph is applied where they are employed.

Table shows a stepped cycle track is a suitable solution even with the high 15697 AADT traffic flow of the A259.

LCDS Recommends Against Running Two-Way Cycle Tracks Across the Mouths of Side Road Junctions

LCDS Ch5 Junctions and crossings (Page 25 – Priority junctions) gives design advice on side road junctions for two way cycle tracks that is similar to that given in CD195.

For two-way tracks crossing two-way side roads, ‘bending-out’ by 5 metres is the recommended option. Where island separation is wide, this can be achieved with little or no deviation of the cycle track. Continuing a two-way track through a priority junction without deviation is possible, but brings with it various risks, related to the visibility of cyclists to turning motorised traffic. It is not recommended unless traffic speeds and volumes are very low and other measures can be put in place to enhance visibility of cyclists – even then, it should be subject to a site- specific risk assessment. Closing side streets to motorised traffic is likely to be the only reliable way of dealing with these risks.

LCDS recommend that if a two way cycle track can not be “bent out” at junctions the only reliable way of making the arrangement safe is to close the side streets to motorised traffic!

The Feasibility Study may have considered the use of two way cycle tracks parallel to the road due to the misconception that this arrangement requires the least highway space to accommodate it. However CD195 and LCDS both include bending out the cycleway by 5 metres where cycle tracks cross minor roads or access-ways. ChiCycle consider the proposed two-way cycle track an inefficient use of available space due to the requirement of bending out the cycle way at each junction/access-way.

For these reasons ChiCycle recommend that in built up areas, either stepped cycle tracks should be provided on both sides of the road or alternatively traffic volumes and speeds should be reduced to levels where cyclists can safely share the carriageway with motorists.

Proposed Plans Require Properties Adjacent to the Cycle Track to Limit Boundary Heights to 600mm for Visibility Splay Compliance

DfT LTN 02/08 Section 9.1 (page 53) explains visibility requirements at junctions and crossings of cycle tracks. It states:

9.1.1 Where a cycle track meets a road, visibility splays are required to ensure cyclists can see and be seen by approaching motorists. Splays are defined by their X and Y distances, and Figure 9.1 shows the
basic layout. Figure 7.18 in the Manual for Streets (DfT/CLG, 2007) (MfS) shows how splays are measured on curved alignments.

Boundaries of properties immediately adjacent to the cycle track will need to be free from visual obstructions. This is so motor-vehicles at junctions or vehicles emerging from driveways can see and give way to cyclists before pulling out into approaching cycle traffic. A 31 metre SSD is recommended for 30 kph design speed cycle tracks which will be the Y distance a motorist would need to see oncoming cyclists in advance of pulling out across the cycle way. Maintaining adequate visibility will require boundary planting, fencing and walls on private properties, being brought down and maintained at below the DfT recommended height of 600mm.

ChiCycle are concerned residents may be reluctant to comply with requests to modify their front gardens and that future policing of these visibility requirement may prove difficult to enforce.

All Current UK Highway Standards Recommend Against Converting Pavements to Shared Use for Two-Way Long Distance Commuter/Utility Cycle Routes running through Built Up Areas

LCDS Ch4 Cycle lanes and tracks (Page 79) –  makes the following statement about shared use footways:

4.6.3 – Partially separated and shared use footways are not generally recommended alongside the carriageway where there are better ways of providing for cyclists. They suffer from many of the drawbacks outlined for equivalent off-road facilities in section 4.5 above, with regard to compliance, compromising pedestrian comfort and deterring use by many people who find sharing with cyclists intimidating, including people with mobility or visual impairments. They also represent a low level of service for cyclists.

DfT LTN 02/08 (page 10) Table 1.2 Outlines a hierarchy of provision intended to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable road users are fully considered in all highway schemes.

hierarchy-of-provision
hierarchy-of-provision from LTN02/08

DfT LTN 1/12 Shared Use Routes for Pedestrians and Cyclists (page 22) explores some of the disadvantages of relocating two way cycle traffic onto a shared pavement/footway.

6.12 A common reason for taking cyclists off the carriageway is the perception that it will improve safety. However, it is important to understand that a shared use route will not necessarily be safer than an on-carriageway alternative. In particular, careful consideration is needed where a cycle track running alongside a road crosses side a road – see Figure 6.1. At these locations, there is significant potential for conflict, which can sometimes negate the safety benefits of segregating cyclists from motor vehicles. Section 10.3 of LTN 2/08 discusses this in greater detail.
6.13 Where cycle tracks alongside roads accommodate two-way flow, the potential for conflict can increase significantly. It is probable that drivers are less likely to expect cyclists to come from both directions because, intuitively, they might assume cyclists would be travelling in the same directions as traffic in the adjacent part of the carriageway – see Figures 6.1 and 6.2.

The now obsolete Sustrans Design Manual Handbook for cycle-friendly design
April 2014, Chapter 4 – Streets and roads (page 14) explains the manuals philosophy towards reallocation of road space:

Reallocation of road space. A fundamental aspect of the provision of cycling facilities is the reallocation of carriageway from motor vehicles to cycling. This can be seen in the majority of figures within this document. The provision of cycle tracks in urban areas at the expense of the footway is not encouraged (it tends to be unpopular with pedestrians and cyclists)

Routeing the South Coast National Cycleway along pavements, through built up areas, will prove counter productive to road safety. Motorists often show aggression  towards cyclists who choose not to use poor quality cycle provision. This aggression is frequently accompanied by dangerous driving endangering cyclists. West Sussex already contains many examples of unsuitable cycle schemes that cyclists normally bypass by riding in the roadway.

If national cycle design standards are ignored, the Designated Funds A27 Link Improvement Package risks becoming a waste of public money. It may then produce unusable and useless infrastructure that the community do not want to see constructed.

ChiCycle advise that the A27 Designated Funds should only be spent on high quality, national standards compliant (preferably CD195) infrastructure. This will enable the uptake of safe, convenient and confident cycling along the South Coast National Cycle-route.

Plans Confuse Actual Widths Measured between Vertical Features with Recommended Usable Effective Widths Prescribed by National Cycle Standards

ChiCycle have surveyed sections of the A259 pavement and concluded that there has been a misinterpretation of national cycle design guidelines regarding usable track widths. Widths shown in the Feasibility Study appear not to make allowance for the vertical features adjacent to the path such as boundary walls and hedges.

As already discussed  DMRB CD195 Designing for cycle traffic does not contain any specification for shared use pavements/footways. However, even if pedestrians could be removed from the pavement to make way for a dedicated cycle-way, then the standards for track widths have still been misapplied.

DMRB CD195 Designing for cycle traffic (page 12) states:

E/3.2 Additional width shall be added to cycle tracks to make allowance for fixed objects adjacent to or within the cycle track in accordance with Table E/3.2.

E/3.2 Additional width
E/3.2 Additional widths
E/3.2 Additional width diagram
E/3.2 Additional width diagram

DfT LTN 02/08 (page 43) Table 8.2 Additional width required for footways and cycle tracks gives similar guidance:

Although DfT LTN 1/12 Shared Use Routes for Pedestrians and Cyclists indicates a shared pavement is an inappropriate solution for carrying the National South Coast Cycle Route, it is the current specification to follow for designing shared use paths in situations where shared use is advisable. It gives the following specifications in LTN 1/12 Table 7.5 & 7.5 (Page 43 – 44):

ChiCycle are unable to replicate LCDS Cycle Level of Service (CLoS) analysis figures shown in Feasibility Study report

Details of the studies LCDS CLoS scoring for existing infrastructure was given in Appendix A, but the report omits detailed scoring analysis of Option-1 and Option-2. ChiCycle performed their own CLoS analysis for  link number 4 for Option-1 (Southbourne to Farm Lane) but have been unable to replicate similar score to that reported in the feasibility study.

The Feasibility Study awards Option-1 link number 4, an extremely high CLoS score of 85%. Several legitimate concerns resulted in the existing infrastructure on the same section, being awarded a low score of only 24%. There are a number of scoring issues we are unable to follow:

    • The existing traffic arrangement is marked as a critical fail due to “Heavy streams of turning traffic cut across main cycling stream”. However, it is not clear how moving cyclists onto the pavement will resolved this issue.
    • Another critical fail identified in the existing arrangement is “Cycle Lanes <1.5m alongside parking loading with no buffer. This raises the issue of conflict with “Kerbside activity or risk of collision with door”. Because CD195 requires two way cycle tracks to be divided into opposing direction lanes, Option-1 presumably will have a lane less than 1.5 meters wide, adjacent to the kerb where “collision with door” are to be expected. It is also difficult to see how a cyclists riding on a pavement might be isolated from kerb side activity?
    • Option-1 fails to provide the convenience or directness of a route absent from frequent road crossing or free from obstruction from other road users, so it is difficult to understand how a CLoS scoring of 85% has been calculated. DfT LTN 02/08 states that:

      8.2.1 On commuter routes, cyclists usually want to be able to travel at speeds of between 12 mph and 20 mph, preferably without having to lose momentum. Frequent road crossings, tight corner radii, the presence of other users and restricted width or forward visibility all affect the speed with which cyclists can travel and the effort required. Cyclists tend not to favour cycle routes that frequently require them to adjust their speed or stop.

ChiCycle recommend future CLoS assessments are conducted with input from the community of cycle users in the area. A full cycle audit and review should also be conducted with the input of local cycling groups following the recommendations of  DfT LTN 02/08 1.7 (page 15).

Scope of the Cycle-way Improvement Scheme may be too Narrow and Ignores Wider Aspects of Town Planning.

There are a significant number of housing developments under construction in the South East of England with significant pressure from National Government to build even more. Fishbourne, Nutbourne, Bosham and Southbourne are small village high streets that could become appealing local centres. However for the street scene of these villages to remain appealing as local centres, something needs to be done about the increasing volume of traffic travelling on the A259.

The expansion of housing will bring an associated rise in local population. This seems likely to increase motor vehicle use still further unless steps are taken to mitigate against it. With the A259 being the main conduit for local traffic between Chichester and Emsworth it is difficult to imagine the small villages retaining an appealing sense of place with increasing traffic flow along the A259. Perhaps solving this problem requires stepping back from the narrow details of cycle track specification and considering wider issues from the alternative perspective of town planning.

ChiCycle have the following town planning recommendations for the A259 corridor between Chichester and Emsworth.

  1. Provide employment, shops, schools and other local amenities to reduce the need for motor vehicle journeys.
  2. Improve the convenience of public transport by providing more train stations, more frequent trains or a parallel tram service. This will provide viable alternatives to journeys by car.
  3. Expand and improve the cycle network in the region to provide further alternatives to motor vehicle dependency.
  4. Provide local roads with new access connections onto the A27 to relieve village centres from heavy traffic. If there must be an increase in motor vehicle use then infrastructure will be needed to divert this traffic away from the National South Coast Cycle Route and the villages/communities it connects together.
  5. If it is not possible to reduce traffic volumes on the A259, an alternative, direct and high quality cycle route should be constructed parallel to the railway line.

Conclusion

The transport sector is now the UK’s greatest contributor of CO2 emissions. It is generally accepted that unless global CO2 emissions are halted by 2030, there will be a bleak future for humanity. ChiCycle also believe getting around by bike is more health and fun than a sedentary lifestyle with hours spent stuck inside stuffy motor-vehicles. Considering the urgency of Climate Crisis, ChiCycle hope the Designated Funds A27 Link Improvement Package plans can be reconsidered to include something more aspirational and appealing than cyclists riding on existing pavements. At this time of Climate Crisis it is vital we move away from unsustainable motor vehicle dependency and embrace sustainable modes of transport.

I hope this provides a constructive input to the Designated Funds A27 Link Improvement Package scheme,

Mark Record (on behalf of ChiCycle)

A copy of this email has now been sent to (Simon Elliott Programme Manager Regional Investment Programme South East Highways England)

 

 

Cycling Without Age and BrightRide

A new Chichester community cycling website https://www.brightride.org.uk/  has appeared and their objectives overlap with many similar aims held by ChiCycle. We are excited about working with them but remain slightly jealous because their website looks considerably more professional than ours.

Richard Turnbull has politely contacted us for support with the BrightRide Cycling Without Age Project and we are really pleased to hear that someone is working towards such a wonderful idea for inclusive cycling.

The project is to make a community trishaw available, and to organise volunteer pilots take elderly and isolated members of the community out for bike rides to get fresh air.

Age no limit to fresh air

Anyone who supports this project idea might wish to pledge towards their spacehive community fund.

You can also volunteer to do some of the pedalling on this link

We have included a page in our menu bar about the project which is also shown below.

Chichester Cycling Without Age

Chichester to Emsworth Cycle Route (please share your opinions)

The Chichester District Cycle Forum made a freedom of information request to government to publish the National Highways fund feasibility study plans for the Chichester to Emsworth Cycle Route. As a result the document has been publicly released. A few sensitive commercial details have been blanked out from the report but all the information likely to be of interest to the community has been disclosed.

The full report is available on this link. It can also be reached from the www.gov.uk website (expires 10th July) by entering the following text into the search facility “Chichester to Emsworth cycle route”.

The plans show the existing cycle lanes will be removed from the roadway and cyclists travelling in both directions will be relocated onto one pavement that is also to be shared with pedestrians. According to the feasibility study plans, cyclists will no longer have priority where many side roads join the A259 and will have to stop and give way at many of these junctions (for safety).

Some ChiCycle members have had difficulty viewing the very large PDF format document so we are making some of the text and plans available in alternative formats. (available soon)

Please feel free to share your views on these plans but please be patient because it may take time for us to moderate your comments.

The ChiCycle team found it difficult to match the plans with the broader surrounding area so we hope this rough guide showing the approximate relationship with OS maps is a help.

Overview from Warblington to Southborne
Plans 1of10, 2of10, 3of10 cover Warblington to Southbourne. Pages 189 to 191 in feasibility study
Overview from Southborne to Bosham
Plans 4of10, 5of10, 6of10 cover Southborne to Bosham. Pages 192 to 194 in feasibility study
Bosham to Chichester
Plans 7of10, 8of10, 9of10 and 10of10 cover Bosham to Chichester. Pages 195 to 199 in feasibility study

Images of the plans taken from the feasibility study are available as follows

Plan 1of10 South of Emsworth is shown below but a higher resolution images is available here.

1of10
West of Emsworth plan 1of10

Plan 2of10 Emsworth, is shown below but a higher resolution images is available here.

Emsworth Plans 2 of 10
Route diverts into Emsworth town Centre Plan 20f10

Plan 3of10 between Emsworth and Southbourne is shown below but higher resolution image available here.

plan 3 of 10 between Emsworth and Southbourne
plan 3 of 10 between Emsworth and Southbourne

Plan 4of10 showing plans for Southbourne are shown below. A higher resolution image is available here.

plan 4of10 Nutborne
plan 4of10 Southbourne

Plan 5of10 showing plans in Nutborne  are shown below. A higher resolution image is available here.

Plan 5of10 showing plans between Nutborne and Bosham
Plan 5of10 showing plans between Nutborne

Plan 6of10 plan between Nutborne and Bosham shown below. Higher resolution image available here.

6 of 10 between Nutborne and Bosham
6 of 10 between Nutborne and Bosham

Plans for the area around the Bosham roundabout are shown below. Higher resolution images are available here.

Bosham roundabout plans
Bosham roundabout plans

Plans 8of10 between Bosham and Fishbourne are shown below. A higher resolution image is available here.

Between Bosham and Chichester
Plans Between Bosham and Chichester 8of10

Plans 9of10 through Fishbourne are shown below and a higher resolution image image is available here.

9of10 Fishbourne plans
9of10 Fishbourne plans

Plans 10of10 into Chichester are shown below and a higher resolution image is available here.

Plan 10of10 into Chichester
Plan 10of10 into Chichester

West of Chichester Spine Road Cycle Provision is being Significantly Downgraded!

ChiCycle recently raised safety issues over the West of Chichester Development’s proposed continuous cycle-way that was to run parallel with the Northern Spine Road. Our concerns appear to have initiated changes in planning.

Developers promised a continuous cycle-way with pedestrians and cyclists  having priority at crossings. Unfortunately the developers designs failed to meet DFT safety standards.

A new WSCC highways adoption agreement has solved some safety issues by removing the traffic priority for pedestrians and cyclists!

ChiCycle members have mixed feelings about this new planning decision! Cyclists will now have to stop at each of the many side road junctions. The cycle way will meet at least 9 side roads in only 650 metres of spine road. This is certainly not a viable continuous commuter cycle route people could use to ride to work. However, that is exactly what the developers had originally promised to provide.

Below is an annotated image from the latest WSCC highways adoption application 20/01311/DOC. It highlights that cyclists will not have priority! The splay lines would have to start approximately 4 meters further back into the mouth of junctions and include visibility for approaching cyclists, if motor vehicles on the side roads are expected to give way to cyclists. Original document available here.

New Priority at Spine Road Junctions
The clip above is from 20/01311/DOC – Discharge of planning conditions 2 (spine road pedestrian/cycle crossing facilities) and 6 (Country Park cycle parking) from Reserved Matters approval CC/18/01587/REM – Application Received  Fri 29 May 2020.

The previous and approved 18/01587/REM agreement had a different arrangement which is shown in the annotated image below. Original document available here.

The clip above is from plans agreed on wed 05 Dec 2018 – 18/01587/REM – Approval of reserved matters in respect of Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale following outline planning permission CC/14/04301/OUT – Consent sought for Primary Road

The West of Chichester Strategic Housing Development Cycle Strategy for Phase 1 made the following promises…

Along the Primary Access Road,the northern pavement is designated as a shared cycle/pedestrian way of  three metres in width. To further improve its utility for cyclists (and pedestrians), the crossings will be raised tables for vehicles and at grade with the footway/cycleway and will provide priority for pedestrians and cyclists. These features follow the principles outlined in page 21 of the Sustrans Handbook for Cycle Friendly Design (2014) and section 3.5.3 of the London Cycling Design Standards.

However the developers plans for the cycleway bore no resemblance to their promised design principles

Neither Sustrans nor London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) look anything like the developers proposed designs. Chapter 3-Section 3.5.3 (page 41) of the London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) recommendation for a one way cycle-way with priority at side roads is shown below.

LCDS recommend that two way cycleways are not set across the mouths of junctions unless they are set back 5 meters from the main axis roadway. Chapter 3 of the standard guides road planners to Chapter 5 LCDS to find the details shown below in section 5.3.4 Segregated lanes and tracks at priority junctions (Page 25).

Following the LCDS guidelines for a two way cycleway parallel to the Northern Spine Road would require a solution as illustrated by ChiCycle shown below.

Northern spine plan modified to accept LCDS recommended layout for a two way cycleway

London Cycling Design Standards Chapter1 (Page 3) recommends against designs forcing cyclists to give way at side junctions

London Cycling Design Standards Chapter1 (Page 6) recommend against designs that force cyclists to share space with pedestrians at crossings.

Cyclists and pedestrians should not share the same space at crossings and junctions. Clearly-delineated separate and/or parallel routes should be provided for cyclists and pedestrians. Typical bad cycle design deals with junctions by making cyclists pretend to be pedestrians, bringing them on to the pavement and having them cross the road, often in several stages, on toucan crossings

Sustrans Handbook for Cycle Friendly Design Page 21 is titled “Cycle tracks alongside carriageway”. It includes the following guidance that WoC development has failed to follow despite promising to adhere to it’s principles.

Sustrans key design requirements for this type of cycle track: (Cycle forum comments in italics)

  • Crossing of side roads or busy private access set back 4m to 8m (CC/19/02819/REM plan crossings are not set back)
  • minimise number of side road crossings (a track alongside carriageway solution is a unsuitable for a spine road with frequent side road crossings)
  • cycle track continuity to avoid crossing and recrossing road (this is not achieved in the plans. The track is not continuous and will eventualy cross the spine road )
  • aim to provide cycle tracks on both sides of the road (this is not provided)
  • Min 0.5m margin separation from carriageway (there is zero separation distance from the carriageway in the plans)
Sustrans track alongside carriadgway
Sustrans track alongside carriageway