West of Chichester Development Junction and Cycle-Path Geometry Concerns

The following planning application contains details of junctions on the development spine road. CC/20/01046/REM – Case Officer: Steve Harris. 50 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, informal open space and associated works (Phase 5, Parcel F, permission 14/04301/OUT).
A typical junction from this plan is shown in the image clipped from document CB_70_068_P5_F_000 (SITE LOCATION PLAN) is shown below.

Side road cross proposed cycleway at junction with spine road

Developers have proposed that the pavement shown to the north east side of the spine road could be designated as a shared use path carrying both pedestrians and two way cycle traffic.

Proposed Junctions do not Pass DfT Recommended Visibility Splay Analysis

DfT Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 2/08)  page 53 gives the following guidance on Visibility Splay Analysis

9.1 Visibility criteria at junctions and crossings

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.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

9.1.2 MfS normally recommends an X distance (of 2.4 metres) which allows one car driver at a time to check along the main alignment before exiting the minor arm.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

9.1.3 The circumstances are different at a cycle track junction–for one thing, the speeds involved are lower. In this case, longer X distances are preferred, as they can reduce cycling effort and may enhance safety. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Y distance is given from the table below from DfT Manual for Streets page 91.

22 metres is appropriate for Y as the DfT recommend a 20 mph Cycle-way Design Speed for routes intended predominantly for utility cycling. Cyclists commuting towards Chichester Station travelling South East, will be running on a significant down hill incline and will easily be able to achieve 20 mph.

DfT Manual for Streets page 93 gives an examples of Splay Analysis and an appropriate example is shown in the image below.

Chichester Cycle Forum visibility splay analysis of the proposed development plans highlight road safety issues. Images of analysis shown below.

Developers have Submitted Splay Analysis that Ignores Visibility of Cyclists

An example of the developers junction splay analysis can be seen by viewing document PRIMARY_ACCESS_ROAD_VISIBILITY_SPLAY_ANALYSIS_SHEET_4_OF_4__A1 that is part of planning application 18/01587/REM

A section of this drawing is shown below.


Notice that the splay lines do not include the cycleway that motorists will need to see clearly in order to give way to cyclists who are intended to have priority.

Part of the drawing key is shown below

Although it is usual to analyse viability splays that align with the main axis carriageway kerb, this will clearly not be appropriate in this case because cycle traffic has been diverted onto the pavement and motor vehicles are intended to give way to the cyclists at the side road junctions. It will not be possible for motor vehicles to give priority to cyclists unless it is made possible; for the cyclists to be within the drivers visibility spay.

The DfT Manual For Streets Page 92 explains.

7.7.3 The Y distance represents the distance that a driver who is about to exit from the minor arm can see to his left and right along the main alignment. For simplicity it is measured along the nearside kerb line of the main arm, although vehicles will normally be travelling a distance from the kerb line. The measurement is taken from the point where this line intersects the centreline of the minor arm (unless, as above, there is a splitter island in the minor arm).

However, DfT Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 2/08)  page 10 guidelines recommend against routing cyclists along the pavement.

1.3.2 The road network is the most basic (and important) cycling facility available , and the preferred way of providing for cyclists is to create conditions on the carriage way where cyclists are content to use it, particularly in urban areas. There is seldom the opportunity to provide an off ­carriage way route within the highway boundary that does not compromise pedestrian facilities or create potential hazards for cyclists, particularly at side roads. Measures that reduce the volume or speed of motor traffic benefit other road users by making the roads safer and more pleasant for them to use. New­ build situations provide good opportunities for creating attractive high­ quality infrastructure for cyclists, either in the form of quieter roads or direct cycle routes away from motor traffic.

DfT Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 2/08)  page 10 also shows a graphic reiterating that routing cycleways along pavements in urban areas is considered the least favoured of all options.

DfT Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 2/08)  page 53 guidance 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.

Clearly it is vital for everyone safety that there is adequate visibility provided at side road junctions so that cars do not pull out in front of the cyclists who have right of way.

Visibility Compliance Relies on Miniature Front Garden Architecture

It is also of concern that developers splay analysis states compliance with DfT visibility criteria will rely on peoples front gardens having fencing, shrubs and hedges that must remain under 600mm (24 inches) in height.

Landscaping & any External Works Fencing (i.e. Picket Fencing within property curtilage) to be kept below 600mm in height where located within visibility splays.

A brief survey around the Chichester area should quickly confirm that most residents choose taller planting and landscaping in their front gardens. Very few popular hedges or shrubs will be happy to be pruned down to 600mm (24 inches) in height!

The Cycleway Width will be Constrained at Junctions.

At the mouth of the junctions is a traffic calming feature. Its start and finish has inclines leading to a level “table” section in its middle part. Because the level “table” section is offset from the pathway, cyclists will have to hug the side of the pavement furthest from the kerb when transitioning onto the table to cross the side roads. It is presumed the transition between pavement and the inclined sections of the traffic calming will not be flush. This issue is illustrated in the image below..

The cycleway width is shown to be severely restricted at junction by uneven kerb area

Minimum Path Width Should be 3.45 Metres because Path is Bounded by Shrubs, Hedges and a Kerb

The Department for Transport (DfT) publish a national guideline document about creating the infrastructure to encourage cycling, Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 2/08).

On page 42 it gives the following guidance on path widths for off-road cycleways.

8.5 Width requirements

8.5.1 The minimum widths given in this section relate to what is physically required for the convenient passage of a small number of users. They do not take into account the need for increased width to accommodate larger user flows. Wherever it is possible, widths larger than the minimum should be used. Practitioners should not regard minimum widths as design targets.

On page 43 the guidance on path widths continues.

8.5.3 Where there is no segregation between pedestrians and cyclists, a route width of 3 metres should generally be regarded as the minimum acceptable, although in areas with few cyclists or pedestrians a narrower route might suffice. In all cases where a cycle track or foot way is bounded by a vertical feature such as a wall, railings or kerb, an additional allowance should be made, as the very edge of the path cannot be used. Table 8.2 provides the recommended width additions for various vertical features.

The shrubs and hedges that border the path at the junction are vertical features and should be taken into account as requiring additional path width. The same apples to the up stand kerb. The DfT guidelines suggest a minimum path width of 3.45 meters, whereas the usable width shown on the plans narrows to only two metres wide at side junctions (approximately).

Pedestrians have Insufficient Visibility of Oncoming Cyclists

Siting Properties with Shrubs and Hedges Immediately Bordering Cycleway Path Boundary gives Pedestrians Insufficient Visibility of Oncoming Cyclists. This issue is compounded by cyclists having to swerve into the mouth of side junctions to cross the traffic calming table. It is important to remember many footpath users may not be tall enough to sight approaching cycles over the tops of shrubs and hedges. The issue is illustrated in the graphic below.

Path of cyclists swerve into pedestrians at mouth of junction

Visibility of Home Owners Emerging from Houses and Junctions Appears Inadequate for DfT Recommended 20 mph Cycle-way Design Speed

DfT Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 2/08)  page 41 gives the following guidance on design speeds for off-road cycle-ways

8.2 Design speed

8.2.1 On commuter routes, cyclists usually want to be able to travel at speeds of between 12mph and 20mph, 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.
8.2.2 A design speed of 20mph is preferred for off-­road routes intended predominantly for utility cycling. This provides a margin of safety for most cyclists. The average speed of cyclists on a level surface is around 12mph.

It may be practical for a property entrance to be on a pavement but is it really a realistic proposal to have a property entrance on a cycleway with a design speed of 20mph? As discusses earlier, the cycles will often have to ride away from the kerbside and closes to house entrances to have a continuous flush surface for the wheels to run on. Chichester Cycle Forum members feel this arrangement may make both homeowners and cyclists feel uncomfortable.

Lamp Posts will be set in the middle of the Cycle-Way

18/01587/REM document MLR/E4517/058 STREET LIGHTING LAYOUT SHEET 4 OF 4 (A1) shows a street light layout and a diagram of how the lampposts will be positioned almost in the centre of the cycleway, less than 2 meters from the curb. The lamp-post positioning positioning diagram from the drawing is shown below.
Diagram of lampost position in cycle-way

DfT Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 2/08)  page 16 offers the following guidance on Critical distances to fixed objects

2.2 Dynamic envelope

2.2.1 At low speeds, cyclists are prone to wobble and deviate from a straight line. For most cyclists, a speed of 7 mph (11km/h) or more is required to ride comfortably in a straight line without a conscious effort to maintain balance. Above 7mph, the amount of deviation, i.e. the additional width needed when moving, is 0.2 metres. Below this, deviation increases–at 3mph deviation is typically 0.8 metres (seeFigure2.1). Hazards such as uneven gully gratings may cause cyclists to deviate from their chosen line. Additional width for cyclists is recommended where such hazards exist. 2.2.2 For simplicity, the dynamic width (actual width plus deviation) of a cyclist on the road may be taken as 1 metre.

2.3 Critical distances to fixed objects

2.3.1 The following minimum clearances (Table2.1) are recommended and should be increased where possible. They are measured between the wheel and the object
Clearances required for cycles

The Chichester Cycle Forum interpret this as a single cycle requires 1 meter “wobble room” and an additional 750 mm clearance on one side to pass a lamp-post, plus an additional 250 mm clearance on the other side from the kerb edge.

This indicates that according to the DfT guidelines, there will not be enough clearance for cyclists to ride along the cycleway even in a single direction or without sharing the space with pedestrians.  There will not be enough room either side of the lamp-posts for them to safely ride on the pavement.

An illustration of the proposed lamp-post position in the cycleway is illustrated below.

ChEmRoute Monthly Bike Rides

Chicycle intend holding monthly community bicycle rides along the cycle route between Emsworth and Chichester. This is hoped to raise the profile of our campaign for safe cycling provision along the A259.

Please join us for a bike ride this February on the Sunday of the 23rd. We will be meeting at 1.45pm at Fishbourne Palace Car Park. Ride will start at 2.00pm and go to Bosham as before.

January Bike Ride at Bosham

All dates for this years additional ChEmRoute rides are listed below.

Feb 23rd
March 15th
April 19th
May 17th
June 21st
July 19th
August 23rd
September 20th
October 18th
November 22nd
December 20th
 

Hope you can join us,

Mark Record (on behalf of ChiCycle)

Help plan our campaign for Safe Cycling 9th February Sunday at 6:00 pm Woolpack

We all want safe cycling in our community, especially along the dangerous A259 where improvements for cyclists have been promised for decades.

There are frequently recounted tales of a significant tranche of money set aside during the construction of the A27 bypass. 

We need your help to uncover the location of this treasure trove. Maybe you can help us fashion a key to liberate this money for it’s intended purpose?

Hidden Treasure

Join us on the 9th February Sunday at 6:00 pm at the Woolpack Inn Fishbourne to build a brighter future for safe, healthy, clean, sustainable transport.

Inclusive Cycling in Chichester with Cycall from Worthing

Rob and Martine Walters are the driving force behind Cycall in Worthing.

Cycall provide adapted cycles for disabled adults and children or anyone with a health issue which prevents them from accessing cycling. They have a track at Brooklands Park which runs for a third of a mile and they often provide rides along Worthing sea front.

On Saturday 25th Jan 2020 Bill and Sarah Sharp and Mark Record met up with Rob to explore the potential for inclusive cycling in Chichester.

We cycled from Chichester to West Dean on Centurion Way and found that despite there being bollards at Lavant, there is a way of unlocking an alternative route suitable for trikes and wider pedal powered vehicles.

Rob seemed impresses with the good surface and enjoyable ride that is provided by Centurion Way. The biggest problem appears to be negotiating the steps at the West Dean end of the path. We will contact local land owners to ask if it is possible to have a key that will allow an alternative route for path users who cannot easily use the steps.

If you know anyone who would like to get involved with inclusive cycling in Worthing, drop Martine Walters a line.

Martine Walters
Director (Voluntary)
www.facebook.com/groups/cycall
www.asouth4all.co.uk/cycall
www.twitter.com/cycall3
www.instagram.com/cycallworthing

Martine-contact
Cycall Contact details

Last Respects for Gina McWilliam

Gina McWilliam’s funeral took place on Monday 30th December. She was killed while cycling along the A259 in Fishbourne.

Gillian Turnbull has placed a small shrine for Gina McWilliam at the roadside in Fishbourne on behalf of everyone at ChiCycle.

It bears the message;
Gina, we at ChiCycle will change our road systems, in your honour, fight the battle that you would have fought to save cyclists and pedestrians.

WSCC Position regarding Gina McWilliam’s death

Email from Andy Ekinsmyth of WSCC regarding Gina McWilliam’s death. Share by Jeremy Gould:

Thank you for your email message. I am deeply saddened by this terrible event and my thoughts are with the family, friends and all of those affected.

The tragic accident on the A259 at Salthill Road is currently subject to a police investigation. I am sure you will appreciate that that these matters are both complex and sensitive and that it would be wrong to try to draw any conclusions until such time as the police investigation is complete and the matter has been concluded either in a criminal court or following a Coroner’s inquest. While the police investigation is ongoing I am unable to comment specifically with regard to the recent accident as it is essential the police inquiry remains open and transparent and that nothing enters the public domain which could prejudice the outcome of that investigation. This is of course true for all such investigations.

I would like to assure you that WSCC takes road safety extremely seriously. WSCC has an established group that specifically considers each and every road death or potential road death with a view to reduce the likelihood of a similar incident from reoccurring. The group consists of staff experienced in all aspects of road safety, and highways and traffic engineering. Sussex Police also have a representative who acts as a conduit between the police and highway authority investigations. As part of the WSCC investigation traffic officers from one of the local highways team attend and inspect the scene within 72 working hours following notification of an incident, initially to establish if there are any immediate safety issues which need an immediate fix. This inspection took place on the 25th November 2019.

I can confirm that the Chichester to Emsworth route achieved a high score using Sustrans’ RATE tool, and as such is the second highest ranking inter-community utility route featured in the West Sussex Walking and Cycling Strategy 2016-2026. The Strategy prioritises schemes for feasibility investigation, with feasible schemes progressing to the design stage with a view to identifying funding to enable future delivery.

In light of this, and with the advent of the LCWIPs (local cycling and walking infrastructure plans) in 2017 along with the awarding of 60 days technical support from the Department for Transport via their consultants WSP. Chichester to Emsworth is one of 6 inter-community utility routes that will feature in the ‘Draft West Sussex LCWIP’, which is due to be submitted to the Department for Transport in mid-December. The LCWIP process involves: auditing routes, recommending feasible improvements in line with best practice guidance, highlighting challenges/proposing alternative options and a high level costing. I am yet to see the draft final report which I expect will be made more widely available once it has been approved.

The LCWIP is not in itself a delivery mechanism – it is a document that can help to make the case for directing investment and securing external funding where this may be required. It can also help secure improvements through local development sites where these are proposed. This is vital because, due to their long-distance nature, improvements to routes featured in the West Sussex LCWIP are likely to cost many millions of pounds, and so external funding contributions will be required in order to deliver them. To put this in context, our annual budget for all local transport improvements (the Integrated Transport Block allocation from the government) is £3.7m. To provide one kilometre of 3m wide shared path adjacent to the highway costs approximately £550,000.

In addition, we have asked Highways England to complete a feasibility study for the Chichester to Emsworth route through its Designated Fund programme (Cycling Safety and Integration). A study was commissioned during 2018/19 but work on this route was paused alongside other similar projects due to funding concerns. Highways England have been reviewing the programme of projects and we await their decision.

As you are aware the ‘Chichester District Council LCWIP’ looks at routes within the city boundary. In terms of Chichester to Emsworth this means from the A27 underpass at Fishbourne Road East. In addition, I can advise that improvements to Westgate will be provided as part of the Whitehouse Farm development.

With regard to collision data, I note that Sarah has forwarded the link to the casualty data on our website, however you can also request a more specific data study by contacting the data team at accident.data@westsussex.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Andy Ekinsmyth

 

One of many responses to this email shared on facebook- this from Rupert Emerson:

It is worth just reading this statement carefully. Note for example “recommending feasible improvements in line with best practice guidance”. I see no best practise anywhere in Sussex. There might be something in London I think but it is as rare as hen’s teeth. The Department for Transport guidance is quite good having said that, but somehow it never happens that way. On another point, money. There is money already being spent by WSCC but it is being wasted on pots of paint. I wish they would stop doing that. Instead save it up and build 100 metres of a cycle route properly, say for example out from The Cross. Then when funds allow internally or externally build another piece. One of the beauties of the Chemroute design is that it can be done this way. However when you hit something like a roundabout you have to be decisive in changing the infrastructure but what I think will happen is that bits and bobs will be done and difficult bits left, which is worse than doing nothing. Now we come to the really worrying bit. Shared path. Is the idea to create a shared path alongside the road? If so £550,000 for one kilometre is a hell of a waste of money. Don’t do it. A separated cycle path is what is required. I hope you are not saying cyclists share with pedestrians, please! Of course the whole decision making process and the plans are kept so secret. Not once has WSCC thought to bother to write and tell me what they have in mind, or tell me of something in the public domain that I could look at. Having been one of the UK’s leading transport researchers I find this very disappointing. Talk of high priority, reports etc. therefore strike me as a smokescreen for inaction as summed up by Dick Pratt. If you think I am being unfair Andy Ekinsmyth then send me your current plans and ask me to comment.

We need 100 New Members to Promote Safe Happy Cycling

We need you, your friends and family to join us so we can make safe, happy cycling a reality in Chichester. ChiCycle is now ten years old and we are celebrating  by running a recruitment drive to expand membership. See if you can spot any of our one-hundred recruitment postcards that we are discretely displaying and distributing in public spaces. Each postcard displays a stylish and classic bicycle and bears a unique hand written message inviting the reader to get join ChiCycle.

If you haven’t found one of these beautiful postcards yet, please use the contact details below to join!

This card above has the following text;

Dear Friend,
To celebrate ten years of Chichester’s cycle campaign, we need 100 new members. For safe, happy cycling to be a reality in Chichester for everyone and to prevent another tragic death, get on board.
(contact)
Email:- getintogear@chicycle.co.uk
Phone:- 07833525190
Post :- 2 Ormonde Avenue – Chichester – PO19 7UX

Please get in touch, drop us a line

If you find one of our classic bicycle post cards, please pass it on or leave it positioned in a public space where it may invite others to join.

Looking forward to meeting new members and making Chichester a haven for Cycling, 

Mark Record (on behalf of ChiCycle)

Cyclist Killed in Fishbourne

A 45-year-old local woman, who has not been officially named yet, has been tragically killed on the A259 (reported here in the Chichester Post). She was pronounced dead at the scene of the indecent. It is incredibly sad that a woman taking a responsible decision to adopt sustainable transport, has paid such a great price. She regularly cycled to work between Fishborne and Bosham which ought to be a simple, safe and sensible cycle ride between two adjacent harbour villages. Our thoughts are with her family in this difficult time of their loss.

For decades local highway planning has prioritised motor vehicle use above all else! Vastly expensive projects have been undertaken like the A27 dual carriageway built between Portsmouth and Chichester in parallel to the already existing A259 and B2146 roads. Money from this project was supposed to have been put aside for a cycleway but this funding has apparently vanished into smoke. There is now an agreed plan to expand the A27 yet again with a huge stretch of dual carriageway ruining ancient woodlands in order to bypass Arundel. The A27 around Chichester is also in line for developments which appears entirely focused towards motor vehicle users.

ChiCycle has hosted the ChEmRoute action group webpages for almost a year. The ChEmRoute pages outline the proposals for  provision of a safe, direct high quality cycleway between Emsworth and Chichester. Although there is already a designated cycle route along the A259, the existing cycle way provision is piecemeal, poorly integrated, indirect (often leading away from a desired direct route), virtually impossible to follow and in places dangerous. The ChEmRoute action group has long highlighted the neglect for the safety of cyclists along the A259. ChiCycle members also strongly challenge the indifference shown towards cyclists (and pedestrians) by local planing authorities. We believe it should be quick, easy and safe for everyone to make local journeys without resorting to driving a motor vehicle. More needless deaths like this cannot be tolerated.

Mark Record (on behalf of ChiCycle)

Playing Out on South Street on International Car Free Day 22nd September

To help celebrate and recognise International Car Free Day, ChiCycle is financing the costs of the Chichester Car Free Day Campaign who are holding a Playing Out event on South Street. Transition Chichester are also giving the event significant administrative support. Chichester Lions, Priory Rotary Club and  Chichester Rotary Club are all advising about management of traffic and offering help on the day.

The Playing out event will run from 12:30 to 15:30. It should be a lot of fun and the organisers will warmly welcome any help people are able to offer with staffing the event on the day. Please get in touch with the organisers if you can commit to giving help on the day by emailing volenteers@carfreechi.org.uk.

An example of a playing out event is shown below.
Playing Out in The Rain

A recent survey shows Just how popular the event is with local businesses.
Chart Showing Support

Chichester’s Cycle Routes will be Dead and Buried if Poor Development Plans are Implemented

The Chichester Observer has published a photo and video documentary and a news article about the event and the Chichester Post has also written a story on it.

Setting up for protest on 18th May 2019
Setting up for protest on 18th May 2019

Many thanks to Louise Curry of Earth to Heaven Specialists in Handmade, Natural Willow Coffins for the loan of the coffin. It was beautifully, tastefully but simply crafted from natural materials.

We sent the following text to the local press to explain our objectives and motivations-

Campaigners met on Saturday to raise awareness of planning decisions that will affect the future quality and safety of cycle-ways in our city. Residents are aware that some planning for cycle routes is ongoing due to all the new developments coming to the City.  Cyclists are keen to get across the message that provision must be of the highest quality to enable more people to leave their cars at home. Local campaigners were lent the coffin by Louise Curry of Earth to Heaven Eco Friendly Coffins. The Coffin represents the campaigners’ grief at the prospect of losing much loved cycle provision through a series of poor planning decisions.

Michael Neville, a resident of Bosham who cycles into the City for work, explained that he was particularly anxious about the proposed plans for Westgate. Michael said, “The plans incorporated into the S106 agreements show poor cycle provision. I use the A259 every day and at every stage of my commute, poor planning of new development is destined to make cycling increasingly impractical and unpleasant. There has to be an acknowledgement of a climate emergency.  Every stage of planning must not simply consider, but prioritise opportunities to get people out of cars and moving around on foot or by bicycle”.

Mark Record added, “I fear that the car-centred design of the mini-roundabout at the junction of Sherborne Road and Westgate will prevent future cycle ways joining when the new access road from WHF gets put in. This locks in poor design on a key part of National Cycle Route 2”.

John Grimshaw, the original architect of Centurion Way and founder of Sustrans, contacted the campaigners expressing his disappointment with slow progress. “What a long struggle! One despairs that planning for walking and cycling provision is not being prioritised. Of course they should be taking a continuous and good quality route suitable for all through to the City Centre. Please let me know how best I can provide support“.

Sarah Sharp, Former Chair of ChiCycle, “I have come down to find out about the event today and to speak to campaigners about their concerns. I hope that the new Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure plan that the councils are working on will give us a much needed new chance to put together higher quality plans for the future – not only for the people in White House Farm but also for around the City with all the new developments going in.”