For better, safer and more cycling in and around Cambridge Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007 www.camcycle.org.uk £1 - free to members Cambridge Cycling Campaign There is another way: County’s massive bid for funds could transform cycling conditions in Cambridge. More on page 3. Radical traffic restraint proposed page 3 Clay Farm: a sticky mess page 4 Rat and dead Parrot page 5 Windsor Road traffic calming page 5 A Manual for Streets page 6 Cambridgeshire Design Guide page 11 Milton Park and Ride page 13 Downing Street traffic lights page 14 Long Road disruption page 15 Highway Code update page 16 Cycling Videos page 18 Cycling to Cambourne page 22 Rogue cyclists page 23 Kings Hedges page 24 What value cycle parking? page 27 Your streets this month page 28
Transcript
F o r b e t t e r , s a f e r a n d m o r e c y c l i n g i n a n d a r o u n d C a m b r i d g e
There is another way:County’s massive bid for funds could transform cyclingconditions in Cambridge. More on page 3.
Radical trafficrestraint proposedpage 3
Clay Farm: a stickymesspage 4
Rat and dead Parrotpage 5
Windsor Road trafficcalmingpage 5
A Manual for Streetspage 6
CambridgeshireDesign Guidepage 11
Milton Park and Ridepage 13
Downing Street trafficlightspage 14
Long Road disruptionpage 15
Highway Code updatepage 16
Cycling Videospage 18
Cycling to Cambournepage 22
Rogue cyclistspage 23
Kings Hedgespage 24
What value cycleparking?page 27
Your streets thismonthpage 28
If you like what you see in this newsletter,add your voice to those of our 800members by joining the Campaign.
Membership costs are low:
£7.50 individual
£3.50 unwaged
£12 household.
For this, you get six newsletters a year,discounts at a large number of bikeshops, and you will be supporting ourwork.
Join now on-line atwww.camcycle.org.uk/membership.Please get in touch if you want to hearmore.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign was set upin 1995 to voice the concerns of cyclists.We are not a cycling club but anorganisation for lobbying andcampaigning for the rights of cyclists, andfor promoting cycling in and aroundCambridge.
Our occasional stall on Saturdaysoutside the Guildhall is the public face ofthe campaign; volunteers are alwayswelcome to help. And don’t forget ourmeetings, open to all, on the firstTuesday of each month, 7.30 for 8.00 pmat the Friends’ Meeting House, JesusLane, Cambridge.
Elected Officers 2006–2007Co-ordinator – Martin Lucas-Smith
Liaison Officer – Jim Chisholm
Membership Secretary – Dave Earl
Newsletter Editor – Mark Irving
Treasurer – Clare Macrae
Stall Officer – Paul Tonks ( 07774 017473
Press Officer – James Woodburn
Officers without portfolio – Mike Causer,Monica Frisch, James Gilbert, VanessaKelly, Simon Nuttall, Alasdair Poore andLisa Woodburn
Contacting the CampaignCambridge Cycling CampaignPO Box 204Cambridge CB4 3FN
Telephone and fax (01223) 690718Internet: www.camcycle.org.ukE-mail: [email protected]
This newsletter is printed on recycledpaper by Victoire Press, Bar Hill.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
2
Congestion charging aheadAt last, a big and long-awaitedannouncement has come out fromCambridgeshire County Council. This is foran area-wide scheme, so would not havethe down-sides that a smaller schemewould create, such as the effects on thesuburbs. But this announcement is not justabout congestion charging: it is aboutmajor sets of changes.
The cycling aspects of the proposals appearto represent a step-change in qualitystandards. For the first time, funding thatcan enable continental standards shouldbecome available. The proposals make realspace for cycling, rather than just fitting it inas an afterthought or putting cyclists ontopavements. Even things like compulsorypurchase – to make space for cycling – arepossibilities.
We have played our part in the CountyCouncil’s proposals. Schemes like theChisholm Trail, which we have long pushedfor, are included, and things like ‘hybridprovision’ are a direct result of oursuggestions and liaison with the consultants.
This could be the start of something big.Let’s hope it is not derailed.
Houses galoreThis year’s planning agenda in Cambridgeis, as expected, characterised by anexplosion of large housing developmentproposals, which will lead to the addition of50 000 new houses in the greaterCambridge area.
The Campaign naturally takes no view onthe societal desirability of such housing; thatis a matter left for individuals andorganisations, including conservationinterests, to debate. However, what is clearis that whatever does get built really mustbe done to the highest standards of cycle-friendliness. Without doing so, we face the
greatest threat to levels of cycling (with theobvious consequences of congestion andpollution that infers) and transport patternsmay be stuck for at least the next halfcentury.
Developers clearly have a lot of power in thisregard. They have the resources to plan andbuild large housing estates – many in theorder of several thousand houses – andknow how to play the system against localcouncils who are self-evidently struggling tocope, as the recent plight of South CambsDistrict Council (SCDC) amply demonstrates.
Without good development controlprocedures, poorly-conceived schemes willget put in place, and the taxpayer will be leftto pick up the pieces, as is now happeningon King’s Hedges Road as a result of thecycle-hostile changes made by the ArburyPark developers. These are problems whichwere not properly dealt with by the CountyCouncil, and the lack of democratic inputinto the Section 106 (developercontributions) system exacerbated theproblem further.
It is thus pleasing to see major newguidance being published, in the form ofthe new Manual For Streets. We review thison page 6. Locally, the new CambridgeshireDesign Guide for Streets and the PublicRealm is intended to dovetail with thenational guidance and has just beenpublished. A brief review is on page 11.
Highway Code twists and turnsThe last few months have seen a frenziedseries of developments concerning therevision of The Highway Code. For thosethat are not aware, there has been muchconcern amongst cycling groups that thenew wording would effectively compel –either legally or in the eyes of insurancecompanies – cyclists to use cycle facilitieswhere they exist. Anyone who has cycledpractically anywhere in the UK will knowthat substandard facilities are the normrather than the exception, with many beingdownright dangerous or totallyinconvenient, when compared to remainingon the road.
Much support has been given to our causeby our local MP, David Howarth, who raisedthe matter in Parliament through both anEarly Day Motion to force a debate on thenew wording, and in the form of a
(Continued on page 13)
Co-ordinator’s comment
Houses galore.
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
3
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
3
Radical traffic restraint proposedThis information became publicly available very late in the production of this Newsletter.At the time of writing we are uncertain how much detail of relevance to cycling will appear in other media.
As you’ll probably have seen in the press,Cambridgeshire County Council is to submita bid to the government for TransportInnovation Funding (TIF) for a scheme whichwill involve charging motorists to drive inCambridge in the morning peak hours.
This wouldn’t be a ‘cordon’ system whereyou are charged for entering a zone, but an‘area’ one with any significant trip withinthe area charged as well as those that crossthe boundary. The system of charging willbe a combination of tags read by beacons,which would probably attract some form ofdiscount, and number plate matchingsystems. Passing any beacon or camerawould attract the charge for that period.Just the anticipated 10% reduction oftraffic in Cambridge would vastly reducethe congestion and pollution in the city.
So a congestion charge is the stick, butwhat are the carrots, and when will thishappen? For carrots for cyclists and walkerssee below.
Proposals to improve bus services include‘smart card’ and on-street ticketing, hybridbuses to reduce pollution, and morededicated bus routes. But, before you say‘horror! does this mean the removal ofon-road cycles?’ read on. Of course we’vebeen told that improved ticketing will comenext year for some years now, but I gatherStagecoach are serious about this promise,and it should happen ‘soon.’
We will also see a doubling, at the least, ofspaces at Park and Ride sites in the ringaround Cambridge, and possibly extraspaces further afield.
North and north-westCambridgeNew links for buses, or guided buses, areproposed beside the railway from MiltonRoad to Newmarket Road, and from HistonRoad and Madingley Road to HuntingdonRoad. A link for car traffic across fromHuntingdon Road to Madingley Rd willpermit the section of Huntingdon Roadsouth from (closer to the city than) the NIABsite to carry buses and cycles in dedicatedlanes.
East CambridgeThe bus link from Milton Road via the newChesterton Parkway rail station and overthe river next to the rail bridge will enablebuses to access a dedicated bus lane on
Newmarket Road to the city centre. Otherchanges here are proposed but can waituntil the big ‘Cambridge East’ developmentwhich is still many years away. For instance,the question of some kind of publictransport route over Coldham’s Common isnot fundamental to the demandmanagement proposed.
Cambridge SouthPlanned changes, the first of them alreadyunder construction, for the guided buswayand the Addenbrooke’s Access Road meanfewer major infrastructure changes here,although a ‘bus bridge’ will probably beneeded over the M11 close to junction 11.
Rail improvementsThe Chesterton Parkway station has been inthe planning stage for some time, and willremove some car movements to the city,but to gain most benefit and enable moretrains to run to Ely or Newmarket andbeyond, the long-awaited island platform atCambridge station will be needed.
All this is serious stuff and involves seriousmoney: local authorities will be able to bidfor a minimum £1.2bn of TIF funding and itis anticipated that few will do so. TheTransport Innovation Fund money providedby Government should enable at least someof the major capital programmes to becompleted before any charging starts.
Of course we can’t be certain that thisscheme will be accepted by government,but on the evidence it seems likely that ascheme on these principles will be acceptedand implemented as part of the nationalpilot for Demand Management. A businesscase will be worked up by the CountyCouncil and submitted to government inthe autumn, with a decision in early spring(I’ve always been told to beware ofcompletion dates that mention seasons.)
I believe the ‘aspiration’ is to turn oncharging in 2011, but clearly this can’thappen until a significant number of thealternatives are in place, and of course someof the things that will benefit cyclists can’teasily be started until after other traffic isreduced by congestion charging.
Chisholm Trail is goOne important part of this proposedpackage is a step change in cycling (andwalking) provision, with a number of new
routes, major upgrades to others, ‘hybrid’provision on a number of main radial roads,and segregated “lanes (where cars areexcluded)” for both buses and cyclists onothers.
As no guided bus route is now proposedalong the rail corridor from NewmarketRoad to the railway station, this is nowproposed as a major cycle route, and webelieve discussions have already taken placewith Network Rail. Including the routesbeside the guided busway (underconstruction or proposed) a segregatedcycle route – our long-proposed ‘ChisholmTrail’ which we were pleased to see addedto the latest Local Plan – would then existfrom Histon and Milton in the north toAddenbrooke’s, Trumpington, and Shelfordin the south. This should be grade separatedat major road crossings, and achieve nearlyall of the proposals detailed in our 1998Newsletters!
See Newsletter 17 ‘The Chisholm Trail’ andrelated articles in Newsletters 18, 23, 32, 41and 42.
Hybrid cycle lanesHybrid cycle lanes, alongside main roads,but slightly raised and in contrasting colouror material, are proposed on a number ofroads including Cherry Hinton Road, HillsRoad, Milton Road, and Trumpington Road,with removal of bus lanes from some ofthese roads as part of the plan. This sort ofprovision is found on the continent, and is aproposal we have been directly pushing tothe County Council’s consultants for thisscheme. We are glad they have taken oursuggestions on board.
On those parts of Hills Road andHuntingdon Road closer to the city centrewhere normal motor traffic is excluded, it isproposed to provide these separatededicated on-road (but protected) lanes forcyclists.
A number of routes away from main roads,such as the Tins, Snakey Path and thoseacross Coldhams Common would receivenew bridges suitable for cycling as well asmajor upgrades, even if some of thisrequires compulsory purchase.
New routes of similar high standard areproposed from from ‘necklace’ villages.
Currently little detail exists for many ofthese cycle route proposals, although basic
Campaigning
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
4
Campaigning
The revised planning application for Clay Farm developments nearTrumpington and Addenbrooke’s Hospital has been submitted, andI’m attempting to review just the hundreds of pages of its TransportAssessment on less than one page. The Campaign has no officialposition on the principle of these fringe developments, but I’m sureI’d be even more critical of the Transport Assessment for anotherBar Hill or Car Bourne.
I’d rather hoped we’d seen the end of ‘Predict and Provide’, andthat modellers using SATURN, the computer program used forplanning road use, understood the concept of ‘Garbage In,Garbage Out’, but both these phrases come to my mind whenreading this report.
I’ve some serious concerns:
· Firstly we have the underlying assumption that no pedestrianwill walk more than 2 km and no cyclist will cycle more than5 km. Although such errors may not distort results for othercities with lower levels of walking and cycling, I’m sure it willhave a measurable effect in Cambridge. When I first saw a drafttraffic model for north-west Cambridge some time ago Ithought we had a ‘units’ problem and they meant ‘miles’, butno, it is kilometres.
· Then we are told that the trip generation (not modal split) isderived from Bar Hill. This work is done by Atkins and althoughsome ‘fudge factors’ are applied, we still finish up with under14% of trips by bike and over 53% by car. The Clay Farm areais supposed to be having some 40% ‘affordable’ housing. How
does that compare with Bar Hill, and won’t such differencescause changes in trip generation and modal split?
I don’t think we should provide for that number of extra vehicletrips, especially with some form of demand management justaround the next corner and fuel prices at one pound per litre andrising!
Of course, designing for such flows of motor vehicle tends to be aself-fulfilling prophecy, as junctions with two traffic lanes areneeded, hence deterring all but the most confident of cyclists orreducing us to pedestrians at junctions.
Reading deeper, I become even more disillusioned as it appears only1500 cyclists will make trips that leave the proposed Clay Farm andAddenbrooke’s developments, the other 3000 being ‘internal’. Iwould hope that none of the 15 000 motor vehicle trips are‘internal’ to the developments!
I’ve long, long been concerned that not sufficient data has beencollected to enable even the pattern of existing cycle trips to bedetermined. The recent set of surveys only questioned motoristsand ignored cyclists: why? Please let us have some enlightenedtraffic planning in this area that encourages cycling and discouragescar trips, and don’t confuse simulations with reality, until you’ve gotthe parameters right.
Jim Chisholm
costing will provide part of the autumnsubmission to government. If all this goesahead, a design team will need to beassembled, but we hope that the routes canbe joined up long before any charging takesplace.
Major changes are also proposed at a largenumber of road junctions, and we will beasking that, as part of this work,experiments should be conducted with suchthings as separate lights for cyclists thatchange to green several seconds before themain lights.
The scheme also offers the potential forwidespread new cycle parking provisionacross Cambridge, something we havepushed for over many years.
We will be working with the consultantswho have been drawing up the wholescheme to get more detail into the cyclingproposals as they develop and to ensurethey retain a focus on quality. We havealready attended presentations anddiscussions on the cycling aspects and havefound the consultants genuinely willing toengage with, and incorporate, our ideas.
What about ‘soft’ measures?Firstly what are ‘soft’ measures? These arethe ones not involving civil engineering:Travel Plans, incentives to use a moresustainable mode such as free bus tickets, orvouchers to spend in cycle shops. These willcome forward as part of new developments,but the Campaign will be very keen to seeother issues that will be of great benefit tocyclists included as part of these plans andwe mention a couple below.
Elimination of car parking in selectedlocations (such as Lensfield Road) has alwaysbeen high on our menu of ‘quick wins’ andwith reduced traffic entering the area andless dependence on income from on-streetparking, this should be achievable. We hopethat this reduction in car parking will appearin the detailed plans when they are drawnup.
We are also very keen to see some of theextra provisions in the Traffic ManagementAct 2004 enabled. These would extend theroles of the civilian parking attendants, toallow them to issue penalty charging noticesfor infringements of cycle lanes, including
moving vehicle offences, using fixedcameras. With more cycle lanes it willbecome even more important to remove therole of enforcement from the police, whoselimited manpower has to be devoted first toother priorities, and move it to a moremotivated agency.
In conclusionWe’ve seen this coming, and severalcommittee members have been consulted atvarious stages, as part of involvement in theCycling Liaison Group and other specific‘workshops’. We'd hoped it would beradical, but were concerned that it might getdiluted. We think it is radical, and althoughwe expect to find things to criticise,especially in the details not yet designed, itshould result in a huge step forward incycling provision long before 2020.
Let us all work to ensure this isn’t a miragethat disappears as we get closer.
Jim Chisholm
Clay Farm: a sticky mess with few cyclists
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
5
Rat and dead ParrotReaders with a long memory may remember that when the Januaryestate agents office in Downing Street was converted to a pub (theRat and Parrot) a planning condition was imposed that no deliverieswere permitted after 7.30 am. Of course, the contraflowmandatory cycle lane means no loading or unloading is permittedat any time directly in front of the premises. Cambridge CyclingCampaign had a number of exchanges with both the police and the
city planners, and after an enforcement notice was served byCambridge City Council, far fewer infringements occurred.
Now a Revolution has occurred, or rather the pub has changedhands, and changed name (to the Revolution). During the refitmuch trouble has occurred with delivery vehicles and buildersstopping illegally, often obstructing both the footway and the cyclelane. I’ve not seen any police action here.
The pub has reopened, and I’d hoped that the planning restrictionsmight limit such infringements. As a regular user of that cycle lane,I’ve complained, and complained, both to delivery drivers and thecity planners. I’ve been told that the new owners and managerswere unaware of the restrictions and are clearly ignorant of TheHighway Code, but that they have been visited by the city planningenforcement team. At least initially this had some limited effect.One morning at nine, when I complained about a large deliverylorry obstructing both the footway and cycle lane, I was met with astream of abuse. I asked to speak to the Manager, and was told, ‘Iam the f***ing manager!’
The City enforcement team say that they need to ‘catch them in theact’, and I’ve asked why the CCTV team cannot alert them wheninfringements occur?
If you see a delivery or service vehicle obstructing this cycle lane,please contact (01223) 457162 or (01223) 457163 if after 7.30 am,or 0845 456 456 4 and ask for the delivery and waiting regulationsto be enforced.
Jim Chisholm
Campaigning
Delivery vehicles force cyclists to commit an offence onDowning Street. The manager of the bar, who is breakingplanning restrictions, responded only with abuse.
The Campaign twice objected to the design of this new trafficcalming when it was proposed. Our objection was ignored by thedesigner of the scheme, and by some Councillors on the Area JointCommittee, with only the Labour councillors agreeing with thepoints we made in the objection.
The eventual scheme is as cycle-hostile as we expected, as thepictures, kindly submitted by a member of the public to our on-linePhotomap, show.
The problem we outlined is the way that cyclists are likely to beforced into conflict with oncoming vehicles. This design flouts theguidance in too many official publications to list here, and will leadto thoughtless drivers placing cyclists at risk by not giving way, andto cyclists appearing to be deliberately getting in the way ofmotorists.
Traffic calming is of course entirely appropriate for an area like this,particularly when it shuts off a rat run, with the highly desirableresult of reducing traffic. However, the design could have beenmodified to provide a cycle bypass as we proposed, either in thecentre of the road, with a very visible cycle lane provided, or at theedge of the road.
The scheme designers were clearly aware of this problem, as theyinitially proposed a means for cyclists to ‘hop onto the pavements’either side of the pinch point. We objected to this, as this is exactlythe sort of mixed messages that result in illegal pavement use, andsuch cycle bypasses are not a correct response to a fundamentallydangerous design in the first place.
Should a collision with a cyclist occur, lawyers acting for a cyclist willbe very welcome to contact us or to read our letters of objectionavailable on our website.
A separate small improvement nearby is the removal of the bollardscreating pinch points on the alleyway between Windsor Road andWarwick Road.
The photographs and our letters are online atwww.camcycle.org.uk/map/gallery/14/.
Martin Lucas-Smith
Cycle hostile traffic calming: a cycle bypass would havebeen so easy.
Windsor Road traffic calming
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
6
A Manual for StreetsManual for Streets (MfS) could be the most influential document onurban design in 50 years. It is intended to bring about atransformation in the way streets are designed in order to givepriority to environmental quality and to promote sustainable andtruly mixed user communities. It is a replacement for theGovernment’s old Design Bulletin 32 (DB32) and Places, Streets andMovement, which have now been withdrawn.
The MfS will be of key importance forthe future of our towns and cities,not least Cambridge, where 50 000houses will be built in the comingdecade.
MfS focuses on lightly-trafficked residential streets, though itsprinciples may apply to other types of streets such as high streets.It explicitly does not apply to trunk roads, whose designrequirements are set out in the Design Manual for Roads andBridges.
The document, released in March, was produced to schedule, andhas not been heavily watered down since the extremely promisingdraft released in 2006 for comment. The finalised version differstextually from the draft in that it has been condensed down, whichin many respects is positive (given the many pressures on LocalAuthority development control staff around the country) andreorganised. The key principles and focus remain in place.
Urban design focusThe new guidance is written very much from a strong urban designperspective which tries to encourage human-scale interaction withthe surrounding ‘place’, thus designing streets as ‘social spaces’. Itargues that many new developments are lacking identity, and asense of place, undermining the aims of the sustainablecommunities agenda.
It heavily discourages so-called ‘DB32-style layouts’, which cangenerally be characterised as having busy distributor roads that linkrelatively small cells of housing, leading to cul-de-sac styledevelopments which are generally rather unconnected and whichare rather meandering and impermeable to cyclists. As such,
walking and cycling in such areas has naturally become theexception, because the car is simply the most efficient way to getabout.
‘For too long the focus has been on the movement functionof residential streets. The result has often been places thatare dominated by motor vehicles to the extent that they failto make a positive contribution to the quality of life. MfSdemonstrates the benefits that flow from good design andassigns a higher priority to pedestrians and cyclists, settingout an approach to residential streets that recognises theirrole in creating places that work for all members of thecommunity. MfS refocuses on the place function ofresidential streets, giving clear guidance on how to achievewell-designed streets and spaces that serve the communityin a range of ways.’
In many respects, the document argues for a return to rather moretraditional urban design forms which ‘are easier to assimilate intoexisting built-up areas and which have been proven to stand thetest of time in many ways.’ The sort of terraced housing seen inareas of Cambridge like Romsey or Petersfield, and which remainpopular amongst house buyers, as well as relatively successful froma sustainability perspective, would be much in favour according toprinciples in the MfS.
Cycling?The Manual for Streets is explicitly not a cycling design guide – butinstead a document focusing on housing developments of the sortthat genuinely makes walking and cycling the natural, attractiveoption.
Cycling is mentioned often in the document but there is only limitedreference to cycle facilities. Many would argue that this is how itshould be, for the emphasis is on developing street environmentswhich are inherently suitable for cycling without the need forbolt-on extras. Indeed, the main thrust of the document is aboutrecreating communities, quality environments and ‘streetscapes.’Cycling is but a means (although an important one) towards thisend rather than something to be accommodated in the abstract.
The document sets out a clearhierarchy of users, putting cyclistswell above motorists.
Hierarchy of usersKey goals are providing for movement choices and encouragingappropriate driver behaviour. A hierarchy of users is promoted, withpeople on foot and with disabilities first, cyclists second, then publictransport, cars and other motorised vehicles:
The principles of urban design· Character – a place with its own identity.
· Continuity and enclosure – a place where public andprivate spaces are clearly distinguished.
· Quality of the public realm – a place with attractive andsuccessful outdoor areas.
· Ease of movement – a place that is easy to get to and movethrough.
· Legibility – a place that has a clear image and is easy tounderstand.
· Adaptability – a place that can change easily.
· Diversity – a place with variety and choice.
Consider first Pedestrians
Cyclists
Public transport users
Specialist service vehicles (e.g. emergency services,waste, etc.)
Consider last Other motor traffic
Feature
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
7
This hierarchy will be familiar to anyone who has read Cycle-FriendlyInfrastructure, another piece of guidance which is due to beupdated soon.
It will also be recognised by those of us familiar withCambridgeshire County Council’s Local Transport Plan. However, itwould be hard to argue that the County have done anything exceptignore that hierarchy in the vast majority of cases, with pedestrianand cycle provision fitted in only after the road design for cars,pedestrians given little time at crossings, or motor vehicles givenpriority at side road junctions, for instance. Perhaps having thishierarchy at last stated in a formal piece of government guidancewill encourage decision-makers to take it more seriously.
Hierarchy of solutionsThis, too, says the right things.
‘In the past, road design hierarchies have been based almostexclusively on the importance attributed to vehicularmovement. This has led to the marginalisation ofpedestrians and cyclists in the upper tiers where vehicularcapacity requirements predominate.’
The positive solution against this traditional approach, is thenexpressed through the hierarchy of solutions, again familiar toreaders of Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure:
* Adjacent-use routes are those where the cyclists are segregatedfrom pedestrians.
‘If road safety problems for pedestrians or cyclists areidentified, conditions should be reviewed to see if they canbe addressed, rather than segregating these users frommotorised traffic.’
In keeping with a minimal facility approach to cycle planning, theauthors stress the value of ‘invisible infrastructure’ such as 20 mphzones and bus lanes, which are both popular with cyclists and goodfor safety, as well as naturally permeable street designs rather thanones which require excessive deviation.
Naturally-permeable street designThe MfS promotes the notion of a ‘walkable neighbourhood’ wherefacilities are locally-based (under 800 m away): mixed-useneighbourhoods, having interconnected street patterns.
‘Internal permeability is important but the area also needsto be properly connected with adjacent street networks. Adevelopment with poor links to the surrounding area creates
an enclave which encourages movement to and from it bycar rather than by other modes’
There is also discussion about the way that surrounding roadsshould not act as a barrier to the development, which is exactly theproblem that has happened at Arbury Park and King’s Hedges Road.
Sharing space with vehicles, not segregated fromthemIt also argues against segregated areas, again with a focus onpermeable infrastructure:
‘Pedestrians and cyclists should generally share streets withmotor vehicles. There will be situations where it isappropriate to include routes for pedestrians and cyclistssegregated from motor traffic, but they should be short, welloverlooked and relatively wide to avoid any sense ofconfinement.’
Provision of direct at-gradecrossings, improvedpedestrian routes on existingdesire lines
Cycle tracks away from roads
Considerlast
New pedestrian alignmentor grade separation
Conversion offootways/footpaths toadjacent-* or shared-useroutes for pedestrians andcyclists
Feature
ü
û
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
8
‘Pedestrians and cyclists should generally be accommodatedon streets rather than routes segregated from motor traffic.Being seen by drivers, residents and other users affords agreater sense of security. However, short pedestrian andcycle-only links are generally acceptable if designed well.Regardless of length, all such routes in built-up areas, awayfrom the carriageway, should be barrier-free and overlookedby buildings.’
‘Conflict among various user groups can be minimised oravoided by reducing the speed and flow of motor vehicles.Ideally, designers should aim to create streets that controlvehicle speeds naturally rather than having to rely onunsympathetic traffic-calming measures. In general,providing a separate pedestrian and/or cycle route awayfrom motor traffic should only be considered as a last resort(see the hierarchy of provision).’
One-way streets are also discouraged on the grounds ofpermeability, something which our councillors should bear in mindfor areas of Cambridge like Newtown or Romsey.
The Manual for Streets clearly statesthat ‘cyclists should generally beaccommodated on the carriageway’and that off-road facilities should notbe required for new developmentsbecause the road environment itselfshould be safe and low-speed.
Risk and innovationThe document recognises a key potential problem faced by manystreet practitioners, namely that of risk of being sued in the eventof a collision.
Firstly, it reminds the reader that the vast majority of claims are formaintenance defects, rather than design faults. It goes on to outlinehow the existence of procedures that encourage rational decision-making and the use of a more rounded ‘quality audit’ approach,lead to a robust defence against negligence claims. This, it argues,should enable practitioners to move towards more innovativedesigns, away from an over-cautious, excessively standards-basedapproach.
‘The design speed [should] be20 mph or less in residential areas’
Design issuesHaving dealt in the first half of the book with many of the principlesdiscussed above with regard to urban design and permeableinfrastructure, the latter half covers actual design issues in detail.
Needs of people walking taken seriouslyThis commences with excellent and extensive coverage on theneeds of pedestrians (section 6.3). Key recommendations are:
· that streets should be designed in a way which makes vehiclespeeds naturally below 20 mph;
· that the pedestrian desire line be strongly adhered to whenlaying out roads and pavements;
· for an environment which is unimpeded by street furniture,footway parking and other obstructions/barriers;
· the need for ‘legible’ permeable design so that wayfinding iseasy and direct;
· that footbridges and subways should be avoided in favour ofsurface-level crossings;
· that the corner radius of turns into sideroads be tight to forcecars to slow down at a turning, so that people can walk in astraight line and so that vehicles do not swerve into the path ofcyclists;
· the use of raised tables at junction crossing points;
· that paths are kept level rather than undulating when vehiclesneed to cross over
· that a minimum 2 m pavement space should be provided
Cyclists on the carriagewayThe section on cyclists (section 6.4) starts with a clear, headlinerecommendation, that ‘cyclists should generally be accommodatedon the carriageway.’ This is highly sensible advice given the focuson residential streets which, if well-designed, should automaticallypromote lower-speeds and natural interaction with (minimalamounts of) traffic. This theme is echoed through the entire Manualfor Streets, which is why the section specifically on cycling is only afew pages.
MfS acknowledges that there is occasionally a need for specificinfrastructure for specific groups, for instance a safe cycling routeto school. However, it makes clear that such infrastructure wouldusually be inappropriate for commuters and so such provisionshould merely be an additional alternative which does not affecton-road cyclists; thus there is a recognition of different types ofcyclists.
Many aspects of MfS describe how design affects behaviour:
‘The design of junctions affects the way motorists interactwith cyclists. It is recommended that junctions are designedto promote slow motor-vehicle speeds. This may includeshort corner radii as well as vertical deflections’
Feature
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
9
And in many places elsewhere the document reminds us that ‘thedesign speed [should] be 20 mph or less in residential areas,’ whichagain would naturally foster increased levels of cycling.
Roundabouts are considered ‘not generally appropriate forresidential developments … they can have a negative impact onvulnerable road users.’
For those of a more technical bent, new guidance on ‘visibilitysplays’ is also given.
Cycle parking and car parkingAnother area where MfS raises the profile of cycling relates to cycleparking. Indeed, residential cycle parking is treated first (before carparking), in keeping with the manual’s hierarchy of users.
However, the section on parking is overall arguably the leastsuccessful section of the Manual for Streets, as its conclusions aresomewhat vague and do not really give a good steer in areas whereconflict over the levels of car parking are likely to arise. For instance,it shies away from the debate over whether lower amounts ofparking provision result in lower ownership or just vehicles parkedhaphazardly wherever space can be found.
There is also a notable absence of best-practice examples of cycleparking, which would have inspired developers rather than makingthem approach cycle parking as a problem to be overcome oravoided. For instance, the sort of on-street covered cycle parkingcommon on the continent would have been an idealaccompaniment to text which effectively naturally argues for this.
The text on cycle parking, contains many sensible principles. Itargues that:
· in residential developments, ‘designers should aim to makeaccess to cycle storage at least as convenient as access to carparking’;
· outdoor cycle parking should be covered, preferably usingbespoke storage;
· Sheffield stands are simple and effective and should be the norm;
· 1 m is the preferred spacing between stands, with 0.8 m beingthe absolute minimum, and 0.55 m clear space between the endof a stand and any wall; a clear diagram is provided to enhancethese points
· cycle parking should be installed in places having good, naturalsurveillance;
· garages are not normally designed for cycle parking and thatgarage provision is declining anyway.
· cycle parking is recommended at bus stops that have ‘significantcatchment areas’.
On car parking, it argues that:
· car parking design should be design-led and ‘well-integratedwith a high-quality public realm’
· failure properly to consider how cars are parked will affect‘visual quality, street activity, interaction between residents, andsafety’;
· inappropriate parking will result in ‘poor and unsafe conditionsfor pedestrians’ which will therefore hinder natural interaction;
· car clubs can be an effective way to reduce car ownership;
· footway parking should be designed out (especially given thatthere is no adequate legislation outside London which dealswith this menace).
· shared surface designs, as sometimes used in Home Zones, canbe effective but that car parking may need different materialsto mark out such spaces.
The sort of on-street covered cycle parking common on thecontinent and occasionally found here, as at UEA inNorwich above, would be ideal.
Pavements at the same heights as the road often lead tounregulated pavement parking, of the sort that leads tovisual domination of the urban scene by vehicles ratherthan social use of the space by people.
Feature
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
10
Car parkingThe MfS fails adequately to recognise the problems facedcontinually in places like Cambridge (e.g. East Road or LensfieldRoad to take two key examples), that on-street parking has theeffect of forcing cyclists to make dangerous manoeuvres in and outof the traffic flow and narrows the carriageway.
Many of the photographic examples of good car parking givenimply the creation of specific parking bays, outside but adjacent tothe main carriageway, but designed in such a way that pavementdesire lines remain straight. One solution is the use of trees to formperiodic breaks between groups of parking bays.
It also recognises the success of basement or undercroft carparking. This has the effect of preserving the street frontage, as wellas presumably dissuading people from making short car-borne trips.
In general, the message about car parking is that car parking shouldnot result in the domination of urban space. Rustat Avenue showshow things can go wrong in this regard.
Reducing clutterThis section provides a clear steer away from heavy levels of signage:
‘Designers should start from a position of having no signs,and introduce them only where they serve a clear function.… Street layouts, geometries and networks should aim tomake the environment self-explanatory to all users.’
‘Most unsignalised junctions are designed assuming adominant flow, with priority indicated by give-way signs andmarkings. There is, however, no statutory requirement forjunction priority to be specified.’
Amongst the recommendations for ‘quality places’ is an argumentagainst signs, bollards and other street furniture, which it is arguedclutter the streetscape, and cause problems for those withdisabilities. We all know, however, that walkers and cyclists face thesame problems, too.
Centre-line removal is very much on the agenda too. In fact,virtually all of the photographic examples of new developmentsgiven throughout the document feature no road markings andlittle, if any signage.
‘The use of centre lines is not an absolute requirement. …Centre lines are often introduced to reduce risk but, onresidential roads, there is little evidence to suggest they offerany safety benefits. … There is some evidence that, inappropriate circumstances, the absence of white lines canencourage lower speeds.’
Indeed, the Manual goes on to outline an example in Norfolk wherecentre lines were removed, and together with complementarymeasures such as different surfacing colour, the result was lowerspeeds. A Safety Audit ironically then resulted in reinstatement ofthe lines with an increase in speeds!
It should be considered mandatoryreading for all Councillors onplanning committees.
Guard railing, curse of pedestrians and cyclists alike, and often acounter-productive intrusion into the civic environment, ispresumed against:
‘Guard railing should not be provided unless a clear need forit has been identified (…). Introducing measures to reducetraffic flows and speeds may be helpful in removing theneed for guard railing. In most cases, on residential streetswithin the scope of MfS, it is unlikely that guard railing willbe required. A Local Transport Note giving further guidanceon guard railing is currently in preparation.’
Many aspects of the Manual describehow design affects behaviour, forinstance at junctions.
SummaryIf the document gains widespread acceptance, it will herald a newdawn for human-centred urban design, one which would be muchfavoured by people walking and cycling. The document isabsolutely full of sensible advice which Cambridge CyclingCampaign strongly endorses.
It should be considered mandatory reading for all Councillors onplanning and transport committees, and will be of relevance toanyone with an interest in the future of our towns and cities, notleast Cambridge, where 50 000 houses will be built in the comingdecade.
The document is highly readable, heavily illustrated, and at 136pages of mixed text/images can be covered in an hour or two. It canbe purchased as a book or downloaded free from the internet atwww.manualforstreets.org.uk .
Cambridgeshire Design GuideCambridgeshire Design Guide is another major document ofrelevance to housing developments, but this time locally forCambridgeshire. Much of it echoes the Manual For Streets (seepage 6), but it provides more locally-based examples and guidance.
The Guide has just been published as a draft for comment by thepublic and relevant committees across the various councils.
The book is only around 30 pages of text, with plenty ofillustrations, so not difficult to work through. Its 64 pages in totalare divided into 15 chapters, covering areas like the Hierarchy ofPlaces & Streets, issues for pedestrian provision, cycling, parking,street lighting, and other non-transport themes such as drainage.
The Guide has been written by consultants working forCambridgeshire Horizons, the local councils’ quango dealing withhousing issues and the growth agenda. We were invited to anearlier stakeholder consultation at New Hall last year, and the signsback then were promising. It is therefore with some relief that thishas been carried through to the draft now before us.
In general, the contents of the Guide seempositive, although a few areas needstrengthening as far as cycling is concerned.
The general approach to street designinvolves well-connected, permeableinfrastructure, as outlined in Manual ForStreets, and the need for routes for walkingand cycling being ‘clear and direct’ isacknowledged. The hierarchy of users –pedestrians first, cyclists, then buses, deliveryvehicles and lastly private cars – is outlined.
For pedestrians, the need for catering fornatural desire lines, particularly at crossingpoints, are outlined. Footway widths shouldbe at least 1.5 m but 2 m normally inresidential streets.
For cycling, the Guide reminds developersthat Cambridge itself has 25% of journeys towork by bike (according to the 2001 census data) and that theprovision of good cycle routes in new developments will promotecycling in the county.
Cycle routes are required to be ‘direct’ and on-road provision isassumed:
‘Shared use of the carriageway with vehicles is appropriatewhere traffic levels and vehicle speeds are relatively low. Thisis likely to be the case for most streets in residential areas.’
There is good advice on junction priority, too, though more clarityof its meaning would be useful:
‘Controlled junctions that allow cyclists to proceed whenother traffic is halted will reinforce cycle priority.’
SpeedsHowever, the guidance needs improvement where speeds areconcerned:
‘Where vehicle speeds are likely to be in excess of 30 mphconsider locating cyclists off the carriageway.’
It is our strong view that new developments should be designed for20 mph speeds, and that 30 mph should be the exception. Eventhen, the sort of hybrid provision that we have successfully pushedfor as part of the demand management announcement (see page3) should be used instead of off-road facilities, so that cyclists
maintain the directness that they need. (Thatdoes not, of course, rule out the desirabilityof specific walking/cycling routes that aremore direct than road routes.)
Cycle parkingCycle parking advice is practically non-existent – a major omission that must becorrected. As in Manual For Streets, it shoulddirectly precede the car parking advice, tomake clear where developers’ prioritiesshould lie.
Car parking levels are outlined, but are effectively delegated downto district council requirements.
Other aspectsAreas like tighter corner turns, again mirroring the advice in ManualFor Streets, are proposed, which will help reduce speeds and assistcyclists at junctions.
Home Zones are mentioned briefly, but there is no heavy pushtowards their use, as we would hope. That said, the general adviceabout street designs, which mirrors that of Manual For Streets, canbe said to incorporate many of the principles.
‘Soft measures’ like on-street bus ticketing, real time businformation, individualised travel marketing etc., do not seem to bementioned. These should be added.
Martin Lucas-Smith
The draft is on-line atwww.camcycle.org.uk/jumpto/nl73cdg
Changes we think should be made to the draft· Cycle parking information needs to be added
· Section on speeds should assume 20 mph design speed
· Cycle paths alongside roads should be of the ‘hybrid’ typeand not placed away from the road
· Home Zones and ‘soft’ measures should be actively promoted
· The diagram of the hierarchy of road users should be clearer
The general approachto street designinvolves well-connected, permeableinfrastructure, asoutlined in ManualFor Streets, and theneed for routes forwalking and cyclingbeing ‘clear and direct’is acknowledged.
News
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
12
If flying is a sin, what is cycling?This article is reprinted by kind permission of London Cyclist, the members' magazine of London Cycling Campaign.
What informs our personal decisions whenthey have to be made on the basis ofbalancing our selfish and altruistic instincts?Sadly, evolution has led to the formergenerally winning out. However, someconsolation can be drawn from evidencethroughout history that communal survivalhas entailed sublimating the gut response,‘when the chips are down’, of self-interest.
We face a cataclysmic future from climatechange unless the amount of fossil fuelsbeing used is decimated. The attractions offurther and faster travel have led to a hugeincrease in our mileage by car, train andespecially, aeroplane, and to governmentattempts to add to the infrastructure toaccommodate it. We urgently need toreverse this policy direction as it isincompatible with protection of the globalenvironment. Growth can be decoupledfrom fossil fuel use but by no means to theextent required now. It is essential that westop deluding ourselves that sufficientchange can come about throughtechnological development or voluntarily -through better information and exhortationas to why we must do so.
This means that government must make itmandatory that we all share responsibilityfor limiting greenhouse gas emissions fromour energy-intensive lifestyles. This will onlybe possible through the medium of carbonrationing, that is an annual personalallowance for everyone. It is highlyencouraging that July’s Energy Reviewincludes reference to the virtues of thisapproach. Opposition from vested interestsin some obvious sectors of business, such asinternational tourism and air traveloperators, cannot be allowed to stand inthe way of a speedy political consensusbeing reached on this. The future conditionof the planet is too crucial to be treated asa party political issue.
With rationing, all aspects of our fossilfuel-dependent activity will come underscrutiny casting the future of transport andpolicy on it in altogether a different light.The inevitable consequence will be anaccelerating decline in the demand fortravel. Just consider: the average UKperson’s annual carbon dioxide emissionsfor transport by car and public transportalone (or just one passenger’s round flightfrom London to New York) are about threetimes the amount that can be allowed fortheir use of fossil fuel for a year if we are to
prevent serious destabilisation of the globalclimate.
So where does this leave cycling? Just lookat transport policy and you will see thatcycling’s supremely well-qualified role inrelation to climate change is largelyconcealed because policy makers judgepublic transport to be the panacea for mostof our transport ills, including the ecologicalones. And so the case continues to be madefor higher levels of investment to improvethe quality of its services. Instead of usingcars, faith continues to be placed in theview that if only the travelling public can bepersuaded to use buses or, where available,the underground, for more of their urbanjourneys and the train for their inter-urbanjourneys, the problem will be resolved. But,taking proper account of average vehicle
occupancies, carbon dioxide emissions perpassenger mile by public transport are notmuch lower than those of car users.
Personal carbon allowances will stronglymotivate people to cycle – and to stopflying! (It certainly does not help to wearblinkers when reading the London Cyclist,unless one wishes to ignore the ironyimplicit in articles and ads in recent issuespromoting flying when a bicycle is used tothe airport or at the destination!).
As the allowance of emissions will have tobe ratcheted down year-on-year from thecurrent annual average of 10 tonnes to justover one tonne, people will wish to make anincreasing proportion of their journeys bycycle - to work, school, leisure destinationsand the shops (with home deliveriesbecoming commonplace). Locationaldecisions, including where to live, will betaken from the perspective of whetherjourneys can be made by cycle. Apply thesimple r2 equation, and it becomes obviousthat, within any time-slot available fortravel, cycling provides a catchment ofpotential destinations over 12 times asnumerous as does walking.
No longer will the cycling lobby have toinvest so much of its energies in thepromotion of cycling and of local authorityprovision for it. Cycling will necessarilybecome the primary means of travel andtransport investment will logically bedirected to improving conditions for it.Roads will become safer and less pollutedas, to minimise fuel use, traffic volumes andspeed will decline. At the same time, theregular exercise entailed in cycling will leadto a marked improvement in the health ofthe nation, thereby leading to a reduction inthe burden on the NHS from treating ill-health.
From a position of moral rectitude, cyclistsshould justifiably see themselves as being inthe vanguard of championingenvironmental causes, particularly this keyone of climate change.
Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus,Policy Studies Institute
‘Instead of usingcars, faith continuesto be placed in theview that if only thetravelling public canbe persuaded to usebuses … theproblem will beresolved.’
Personal carbonallowances willstrongly motivatepeople to cycle – andto stop flying!
Feature
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
13
Milton Park and Ride
Planning permission was granted on 9 May 2007 for the CowleyRoad Park and Ride to be moved to a new Green Belt site, north ofthe A14 and west of the A10 at Milton. Cambridge CyclingCampaign objected vigorously to many aspects of the new location,but with Cambridgeshire County Council as the applicant, ourprotests were never going to be properly heard.
Here are the main issues Oliver Merrington from the Campaignoutlined at the Development Control Meeting in May, and theCounty Council’s replies:
The footbridge over the A10, with its low parapets and steepinclines, is substandard. Despite ‘Cyclists Dismount’ signs, thelength of the bridge means most cyclists choose to ride their bikesacross.
The County’s position was that the first Safety Audit found no realaccess problems, the Local Highways Authority (the County) madeno request for an upgrade and, in any case, the Planning Authority(the County) would approve the final engineering design work, tobe followed by a second Safety Audit.
The difficult access will reduce the numbers of cyclists andpark-and-cycle users; improvements would actively encouragenearby Milton village residents to walk and cycle to the new site.
But the County did not anticipate an increase in numbers, so itwasn’t prepared to fund the very improvements which would makeconditions less hostile and so encourage a growth in numbers.
The crossings at the Butt Lane entrance and exit of the new siteare uncontrolled and do not have priority (unlike the crossingswithin the Park and Ride). In the morning rush hour, vulnerableroad users will have to negotiate heavy traffic, including HGVs,entering the site from both directions in Butt Lane (all city-bound
traffic from Butt Lane will now be diverted through the Park andRide).
The County argued that, without these crossings, eastboundcyclists heading for the footbridge would stay on the road (wherethere’s no provision for them) and, at the last moment, turn rightat the Park and Ride entrance. This may well be the case, but theproposed crossings at the mouth of the access roads are potentialdanger spots in themselves. The County has recommended awaiting point, further back on the north side of Butt Lane, whichwould enable safer crossing to the south-side shared-use path. Thispath will be upgraded to a 3 m width, but the County was notprepared to say how far it would extend along Butt Lane – possiblyto the Waste Recycling Centre, but no further: it was not‘reasonable or relevant to impose planning conditions whichrequire measures outside the planning application site.’ But surelythe increased traffic from the Park and Ride and impaired safety ofcyclists is ‘relevant’? It seems that Butt Lane with its ‘variety ofwidths and configurations of path along its full length’ (an officerof Cambridgeshire County Council) will remain as cycle-unfriendlyas ever.
As a mitigation exercise, the County presented a plan for safe cycleroutes through Milton village. Whilst this is welcome, the proposedroutes are along quiet suburban streets where a few signs and flushkerbs can be added. Not exactly a radical display of the County’scommitment to more sustainable modes of transport!
The County has agreed to monitor the demand for cycle parking (aninitial 50 covered stands will be provided) and to reconsiderupgrading the footbridge if usage is higher than predicted.
Vanessa Kelly
CCN/CTC Conferencecoming to CambridgeWe have agreed to host the CCN/CTC conference in Spring2008. Help needed!
These conferences are a combined event between the CCN(Cycle Campaigns Network) of which the Campaign is anaffiliated group, and the CTC (Cyclists’ Touring Club). Two areheld each year.
The conference covers a range of topics of interest tocampaigners. The November 2006 conference included asession on online cycle mapping, at which Simon Nuttall andMartin Lucas-Smith, developers of Cambridge Cycle Campaign’ssystem, gave a presentation.
We will be in need of help to organise the conference. If youhave skills in conference organisation, please do get in touch.More details about the Conference will be published in comingmonths. Volunteers for accommodation would be particularlyappreciated - please contact us if you think you might be likelyto be able to help with this.
Co-ordinator’s comment(Continued from page 2)
Parliamentary Petition which, with our assistance, obtained 1190signatures on paper in just two days.
Such has been the level of concern. We are grateful for his inputand for the thousands of people who have contributed in any wayto this important campaign.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has caved in to some degree,and agreed to some rewording. But as Ian McKee outlines in thisissue of the Newsletter, the new wording remains unsatisfactory.We will continue to see what can be done at Parliamentary level.
Martin Lucas-Smith, Co-ordinator
News
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
14
Downing Street traffic lightsWith the work on the Grand Arcade shopping centre reaching itsfinal stages, plans are now available for the revised layout andsignal details for the junction of Downing Street and St Andrew’sStreet.
During the works the area here has been very constricted, but asthe construction work comes to an end, not only will DowningStreet be widened, but the ‘Core Stage 4’ restrictions should meanfar less motor traffic, at least in St Andrew’s Street northbound(towards the city centre). There will be cycle approach lanes andadvanced stop boxes as well as widening for buses making the leftturn, and a pedestrian phase in the lights. It is hoped that thewidening on the corner adjacent to the new John Lewis shop willvastly reduce the number of buses that cross into the cycleapproach lane.
Of course in an ideal world we’d have a ‘left turn filter’ for cyclistsentering Downing Street from St Andrew’s Street, but Departmentfor Transport rules forbid such things. Regular users will know thatthe green light for cyclists to turn left is just the time whenpedestrians cross the mouth of Downing Street, and this hasresulted in the hospitalisation of at least one cyclist.
Two members of the Campaign met an officer fromCambridgeshire County Council, on site, to review the plans. Weasked that the order of the phases be changed so that the‘pedestrian phase’ immediately precedes the phase that permitscyclists to turn left into Downing Street as we hope that will reduceconflicts. We also asked for the contraflow lane in Downing Streetto be prominently marked, and suggested some changes to thelayout of lanes in St Andrew’s Street southbound.
Road space to allow these changes should become available inSeptember, when the temporary transformer sub-station on thiscorner is to be removed.
Jim Chisholm
Plans are now available for the revised layout and signaldetails for the junction of Downing Street and St Andrew’sStreet.
As you’ll probably be aware by now, Long Road is closed for somesix weeks until early September. When this ‘blitz’ total closure wasproposed it was not clear whether pedestrians would be able topass. A route is now being provided as part of the gantry requiredto carry services. At the time of writing it is uncertain if cycling willbe permitted or if ‘cyclists dismount’ signs will be displayed: thismay depend on the route width and the approaches. AlthoughCambridge Cycling Campaign might in other cases object to suchlimiting provision, we would do well to remember that despitemuch in the press about this disruption being for theCambridgeshire Guided Busway, in fact the main use for this newunderpass will be for a new cycle route from Trumpington to the
rail station. (It’s also theservice road for the bus track.)The guided buses themselveswill use the existing disusedrail bridge.
Next year, Hills RoadNext year there will be a muchlonger disruption at Hills Roadbridge as this will be closed intwo halves whilst the newroute under the bridge for theguided bus and cycleway isconstructed. I’ve been toldthat the plans include atemporary bridge forpedestrians and cyclists onthe ‘closed’ half of the road.As the volumes ofpedestrians and cyclists willbe much greater here, and the time will be far longer, we willdiscuss with the County Council how this can be arranged tominimise disruption for cyclists and pedestrians.
Jim ChisholmLong Road is closed for some sixweeks until early September
Next year there will be a muchlonger disruption at Hills Roadbridge
Long Road disruption
News
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
15
In June, we received notification that Cambridge Cycling Campaignhad been nominated for the Press Relief Community Awards 2007,in the Environmental Award category, ‘created to honour the mostoutstanding project being run to improve the environment in whichwe live.’
Jim Chisholm, Lisa Woodburn and I attended the Awards Ceremonyat Homerton College on 18 June.
In the end, Cambridge Carbon Footprint won the award for thiscategory, but the Campaign and Cambridge Sustainable City wereawarded certificates as runners-up. We feel this is recognition ofthe hard work of all our volunteers and the sometimes successfulresults our campaigning has achieved.
Martin Lucas-Smith, Co-ordinator
Campaign runner-up in Community Awards
Jim and Lisa join in with the awards dinner
Sheeps Green bridgeAs reported in the Cambridge Evening News on 12 January2007, Cambridgeshire County Council figures show that 1000people cross this bridge every day, 600 of them cyclists. Proof, ifit were needed, that they should have sorted the span out aswell as improving the ramps, as we said.
1,000 people cross Sheeps Green bridge every day.
News
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
16
Highway Code updateWe went round the block again in June,with the Department for Transportannouncing a second short consultation ona new revision of The Highway Code’s ruleson cycle facilities and cycle lanes – andsquare one is starting to look awfullyfamiliar. If it was a computer program, wemight call it Square 1.1 beta and hope itdidn’t cause too many crashes.
Just to recap, between February and May2006, the DfT held a public consultation ona draft revision of the Code, in which theold rule 47 on cycle routes became (ouremphasis for the new wording):
58. Use cycle routes whenpracticable and cycle facilities suchas advanced stop lines, cycleboxes and toucan crossingswhere they are provided, as theycan make your journeys safer.
The proposed new rule provoked 2612comments, including those1 fromCambridge Cycling Campaign and 31 othercycling organisations. Primary concernswere 1) that the weight of publishedevidence was against the given safetyadvice, 2) that in the event of an on-roadcrash resulting in a cyclist seeking damages,reference to the rule could give rise tounjust claims of contributory negligence,and 3) that the rule might be used to justifysome motorists’ inconsiderate or belligerentbehaviour towards cyclists choosing to usethe road.
On 28 March this year, a new draft revisedCode was laid before parliament. The DfThad evidently rejected cyclists’ concerns andhad rewritten the rule:
61. Use cycle routes and cyclefacilities such as advanced stop lines,cycle boxes and toucan crossingswhenever possible, as they can makeyour journey safer.
The complete lack of movement on theissues raised provoked a new storm ofprotest. Some were also worried that thewords ‘whenever possible’ were morerestrictive of a cyclists leeway for judgementthan the previous ‘when practicable,’though in similar contexts courts haveinterpreted ‘practicable’ to mean ‘able to beused or traversed’2, so the new wordingwas arguably a clarification and at leastbetter than ‘where they are provided’3.
Meanwhile, Cambridge Cycling Campaignand others were busy fostering contactswith MPs sympathetic on cycling issues. Thisled to a flurry of parliamentary activity.Menzies Campbell's Early Day Motion of 9May, proposing that ‘the alterations in theprovisions of The Highway Code … be notmade’ enjoyed cross-party support, with 49signatures. With the help of the Campaign,Cambridge MP David Howarth was able togather 1190 signatures in just two days, insupport of a petition to Parliament urgingthe DfT to reconsider the proposed revisionsto The Highway Code. It is a feature of theNegative Resolution Procedure thatParliament may reject revisions to the Codebut cannot impose a particular form ofwords on the Secretary of State. Support forsuch motions and petitions does notnecessarily mean that the signatories findthe current form of words satisfactory.
The House of Lords debated the new rulesfor cyclists on 17 May. Then a WestminsterHall debate on cycling facilities (23 May)was introduced by Willie Rennie(Dunfermline & Fife West), who got to thenub: ‘I seek the Minister's assurance thatthe wording that is eventually adopted willnot be based on the assumption that it isnormally safer to use cycle facilities, becausethat assumption is contrary to all theevidence; indeed, the opposite is true inmany situations. Not making thatassumption will give cyclists the necessarydiscretion to make reasonable decisions notto use such facilities where appropriate.’The Minister did not respond directly to thisrequest, but, in answer to a question fromAndrew Pelling (Croydon Central), repliedthat ‘the Department is confident that in thevery near future we will arrive at a form ofwords that is less unacceptable to cyclinginterests than the current draft. However,we will not move from the principle that the
highway code will continue to be advisoryto cyclists on this matter.’
On 31 May, ‘following informal discussionswith the CTC’, the DfT announced that itsaw ‘merit in amending rules 61 and 63, soas to remove any possible doubt about theirmeaning.’ It announced a short‘stakeholder’ consultation on a new form ofwords, while warning that any further delayin issuing the Code would delay ‘thebenefits of applying all the improved advicefor all road users that it contains.’
The amended rules read:
61. Cycle Facilities. Use cycle routes,advanced stop lines, cycle boxes andtoucan crossings unless at the timeit is unsafe to do so. Use of thesefacilities is not compulsory and willdepend on your experience andskills, but they can make yourjourney safer.
63. Cycle Lanes. These are markedby a white line (which may bebroken) along the carriageway.When using a cycle lane, keep withinthe lane when practicable. Whenleaving a cycle lane check beforepulling out that it is safe to do so andsignal your intention clearly to otherroad users. Use of these facilities isnot compulsory and will depend onyour experience and skills, but theycan make your journey safer.
At this point, some campaigners may havereasoned: if this wording is the best we arelikely to get, we had better call it a victory.The CTC promptly announced that TheHighway Code had been ‘cracked’, saying‘we had intensive negotiations, but theDepartment for Transport has listened toCTC.’ Others were less convinced. Thewording ‘unless at the time it is unsafe to doso’ is an improvement on ‘when practicable’or ‘whenever possible,’ creating anexception for facilities which are traversablebut unsafe to use at the time. However, inpractice, the cyclist needs to weigh therelative risk of road and facility: ‘Is using thefacility manifestly unsafe?’ is a differentquestion from ‘Is using the facility probablyless safe than using the road?’ The rule stillassumes that the facility is the defaultposition for the prudent cyclist.
‘Use of the facilities is not compulsory’perhaps clarifies the current legal positionfor any belligerent but Code-readingmotorist and is to be welcomed, but this hasnever been a question of compulsion but of
Highway code changes: square one isstarting to look awfully familiar
News
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
17
bad advice. To quote the new Code,‘Although failure to comply with the otherrules of the Code will not, in itself, cause aperson to be prosecuted, The HighwayCode may be used in evidence in any courtproceedings under the Traffic Acts toestablish liability. This includes rules whichuse advisory wording.’ As the responsibleMinister, Stephen Ladyman, explained in his‘web chat’ of 6 June, ‘Cycle lanes can makeyour journey safer but whether you usethem is up to you – if you don’t then beaware of the needs of other road users andthe extra risks you may be taking.’
The wording ‘and will depend on yourexperience and skills’ is an assumption, butdoes not modify the advice. The phrase‘they can make your journey safer’ is likelyto be read as an assertion and, as such, ismisleading, according to the weight ofevidence. And, just as the consultation wasdrawing to a close, that weight of evidencewas bolstered by a new report4 out ofCopenhagen detailing one of the mostcomprehensive before-and-after studies ofthe effects of introducing in-town cyclefacilities.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign submitted aformal response5 to the consultation,welcoming the clarification but repeating itsconcerns over the basic advice. Others,including the Cycle Campaign Networkwere refreshingly trenchant in theircriticisms6. The DfT, however, rejected allsuch criticisms and suggestions and, havingmade insubstantial changes, on 15 June itlaid before Parliament:
61. Cycle Routes and Other Facilities.Use cycle routes, advanced stoplines, cycle boxes and toucan
crossings unless at the time it isunsafe to do so. Use of thesefacilities is not compulsory and willdepend on your experience andskills, but they can make yourjourney safer.
63. Cycle Lanes. These are markedby a white line (which may bebroken) along the carriageway.When using a cycle lane, keep withinthe lane when practicable. Whenleaving a cycle lane check beforepulling out that it is safe to do so andsignal your intention clearly to otherroad users. Use of cycle lanes is notcompulsory and will depend on yourexperience and skills, but they canmake your journey safer.
The documents accompanying the DfT’sresponse to consultation provided noevidence that the question of contributorynegligence had been taken into account.Under the heading ‘Evidence that cycleroutes, cycle lanes and cycle facilitiesimprove cyclists’ safety’, the DfT were ableto point to evidence on the relative safety ofadvanced stop lines, but with regard tocycle routes could only muster the‘evidence’ that local authorities promotethem as a safer alternative route, and withregard to cycle lanes could only reassert thatthey ‘can’ be safer than the alternative.
Meanwhile, Campaign member DanielDignam’s e-petition asking the PM to ‘listento cyclists and not approve the revisedhighway code’ had gathered an impressive29 870 signatures. On 9 July, theGovernment responded7, citing the abovechanges to the rules and repeating itswarning about any further delays.
Having spent their 40 days beforeparliament, the altered provisions of TheHighway Code were referred to a DelegatedLegislation Committee. Meeting on 26June, committee members were advised byMinister Stephen Ladyman that they wereunable to debate rules 61 and 63, whichwere to be the subject of a separate order.Even so, the committee seemed to spendmuch of its time debating them. It isperhaps disappointing that sympatheticmembers of the committee appear to havebeen misinformed as to cyclists’ preciseconcerns about the relevant rules, leadingto muddled statements such as ‘the concernwas that a cyclist who followed theprocedures would have been in some waycontributorily negligent.’ The Ministerpromised that ‘the CTC … will be involvedclosely in developing any changes that maybe made to the next version’, but was highlycritical of the CTC’s lobbying strategy. Hiscomments were prompted by a committeemember reading into the record an emailfrom the CTC accusing DfT officials ofrefusing to meet with it.
A few days later, Stephen Ladyman wasreplaced as Minister of State by RosieWinterton, the new Secretary of State forTransport being Ruth Kelly. We can onlyhope that the new brooms at the DfT willsweep in a new era of cycle-friendly policiesand evidence-based advice.
Campaigners are currently left with the taskof getting clear and coherent messagesacross to MPs, with particular regard to theconsideration of rules 61 and 63 by theDelegated Legislation Committee.Assuming Parliament does not reject thenew rules, there remains the deep-pocketsalternative of Judicial Review, where achallenge on logical principles might besuccessful – or we wait for the contributorynegligence cases and rely on the CyclistsDefence Fund.
Otherwise, as a wise man (Al Murray) oncesaid,
‘Those are the rules.Where would we be without rules,eh? France.And where would we be with toomany rules? Germany.And where would we be with rulesfavouring cyclists? Holland!’
Ian McKee
The rule still assumes that the facility is the default position for the prudentcyclist. This assumption is dangerously wrong, as we have been trying to explainfor six months.
Three Cambridge Cycling Campaign representatives met theCambridgeshire County Council Road Safety team in May.
Campaign member Paul Jones has been routinely recording hiscycling journeys around Cambridge using a handlebar-mountedcamera. This was inspired by the videos made by another memberas reported in Newsletter 69. Paul has uploaded around fortyincidents he has recorded to the video-sharing website YouTube.Many of Paul’s videos last around half a minute and show theforward view from the handlebars of some of the typical conditionscyclists face daily.
In one of the videos1, Paul is riding southbound on Hills Roadtowards its junction with Brooklands Avenue. The video shows abus overtaking Paul and then cutting in to the left. The bus cutsacross so far that Paul is forced against the pavement and has tobrake sharply to avoid being thrown off his bike. Paul then ridespast the bus, which has stopped at traffic lights, to remonstratewith the driver.
When Paul published this video on YouTube it created a lot ofmedia interest and was featured on Anglia News. A member ofCambridgeshire County Council’s Road Safety team responded tothe video during an interview on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire. Theresponse given by the Road Safety officer can be summed up brieflyby the following three points:
· Wear safety equipment
· Use cycle lanes
· Better facilities are put in as part of new developments.
I had listened to this interview live as it went out, and I realised justhow irrelevant and blunt this advice was in light of the incident withthe bus. If Road Safety were not going to challenge clearlydangerous driving then where did that leave us?
The representations I made led to a meeting between the head ofCambridgeshire Road Safety, three of her officers and with myselfand two other members of the campaign’s committee.
I started the meeting with a presentation of some of Paul’s videos.We discussed the incident with the bus. Paul already routinelywears a helmet, high visibility clothing and even reflective armbands and so the ‘wear safety equipment’ message was irrelevant.This type of incident is one of the most common complaints madeby both members and the wider public contacting the campaign foradvice. The advice that came from the National Forum of CyclingInstructors was that Paul could reduce close overtaking by ridingfurther out in the traffic stream, and by ‘taking the lane’ at thetraffic lights.
In the second video2 we showed, Paul is cut up by a car on aroundabout. Paul approaches the roundabout in the narrow cyclelane on Mowbray Road and wants to go straight on towardsAddenbrooke’s Hospital. A car overtakes him and turns left on theroundabout, causing Paul to have to swerve and stop abruptly. Thisvideo makes very clear the danger of placing too much trust in cyclelanes. By keeping left as he joins the roundabout, Paul’s positioncould indicate to other road users that he’s leaving at the next exit.For going straight on, Paul should consider checking behind (whichof course does not show up in such videos) and leaving the cyclelane in advance of the roundabout. At the roundabout he couldremain in the middle of the traffic stream. This makes his positionand intention clearer to other road users. This issue is hot at themoment because the current draft of the Highway Code would putus in the cycle lane ‘wherever possible’ – in direct conflict with thebest advice in Cycle Training. I think what happens to Paul in thisvideo is similar to what happened to the cyclist who was killed atGirton Corner.
Further videos we showed consolidated the point that if you don’tknow the limitations of cycle lanes they can be the most dangerousplace in the road to ride.
The final video showed how new developments do not alwaysintroduce better or safer cycling facilities. Buildouts have beenadded to Kings Hedges Road which are at a dangerous width andin violation of the advice given by the safety audits.
The videos and the context in which they were presented did havea profound effect on the Road Safety Team. We felt it added totheir knowledge of some of the real conditions cyclists have to dealwith on the roads.
Needless to say this was a potentially difficult meeting. As Iprepared for it I was aware of the long history of trying to developeffective promotional messages for cycling, and the differences of
Feature
Cycling Videos: meeting with CambridgeshireRoad Safety
Paul Jones is cut up by a car on aroundabout caught on video
The Road Safety team should bedirectly challenging clearlydangerous driving, not telling cycliststo use cycle lanes.
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
19
opinion that the Campaign has had with Road Safety over theseissues.
We again discussed the images of cyclists that are used inpromotional materials. The County Council has long insisted that allcyclists must be shown wearing helmets. This position has comethrough in a series of partnership meetings called Think Cycling – apartnership that ultimately failed to achieve much largely becauseof this intransigent position. During the meeting we presented the‘Cycling Campaign’s view on cyclists in publicity material’ – (anunpublished two-page document which might one day form partof a wider Policy Paper). It argues that all legal cyclists have a rightto be represented in images – whether helmeted or not. Theirargument was that because they are Road Safety they will alwaysuse helmeted cyclists, but that in other materials published by thecounty council this is not a requirement. They no longer overtly do‘wear helmet’ campaigns, because research suggests this putspeople off cycling. Cambridge it seems already has one of thehighest helmet wearing rates in the country at 45%.
We also debated the government's new Bikeability scheme. Abouthalf the country has already taken up the scheme, but it hasn’thappened in Cambridgeshire, yet. One of the main reasons for thisis that Cambridgeshire has an extensive programme of child cycletraining in place, which already reaches 54% of 10-year-olds, andhas laudably been training young riders on-road for very manyyears. In its first phase Bikeability has effectively reached out to theplaces in Britain which have the worst cycling levels. But it alsorequires that the trainers are regular cyclists themselves. So thesituation in Cambridgeshire is that an effective and low-costscheme run by volunteers can’t win the Bikeability Badge becauseit doesn’t meet the standards of a new professional and expensive-to-run scheme.
We had a very useful and fairly wide ranging discussion taking intoaccount cycle and driver training, enforcement and safetymessages. We learnt of yet another new partnership structurewithin Cambridgeshire and Peterborough through which safety andenforcement messages are channelled.
By the end of the meeting, we'd had an informative exchange ofviews, and there is no doubt about how effective the videos hadbeen in making our case. We were able to make the very clearpoints that:
1. Cyclists have the right to be on the road.
2. Burdening cyclists with well-intentioned advice can undermineour safety by removing a legal defence from those who choose notto wear ‘safety equipment’ or ride in cycle lanes ‘wherever possible.’
3. Cycle lanes have dangerous limitations.
We have agreed to work together on developing the vocabulary ofcycling safety messages, particularly for cycle lanes. This will be intime for October when a new intake of students comes to the city.Beyond that there were no specific measures, but I think we allfound the discussion useful, and a follow-up meeting was arrangedfor November.
Simon Nuttall1 www.camcycle.org.uk/jumpto/nl73clip12 www.camcycle.org.uk/jumpto/nl73clip2
The County Council would not publish a picture like this. Ithas long insisted that all cyclists must be shown wearinghelmets.
An increasing amount of Cambridge Cycling Campaign’s strategicplanning and business is conducted by subgroups. These work ona specific task or subject.
Here’s a quick run-down of recent activity, in the hope ofencouraging members to join our subgroup e-mail lists. You can doso via our website at www.camcycle.org.uk/lists . Subgroupssometimes also meet in person, and reports are usually given tomonthly meetings.
Addenbrooke’s subgroupThis is a new group, which has been set up in response to requestsfrom members working in the area. Initial discussion has been onthe designs for the Addenbrooke’s Access Road.
Arbury Park subgroupThis subgroup has been continuing to raise the problems caused bythe reworking of King’s Hedges Road. Highly effective media workby subgroup members earlier this year forced the County Councilinto a commitment to correct some of the very worst problems withthe road, especially dealing with the pinch points whose designproblems raised in a key Safety Audit were ignored. As we reportedin Newsletter 70, action on these is forthcoming, and the subgrouphas been trying to push things forward.
Core Scheme subgroupThis subgroup was set up to consider each stage of the CountyCouncil’s ‘Core Scheme’ proposals. This is the scheme which hasseen considerable reductions in through traffic in the city centre,resulting in a more civilised, cycle-friendly atmosphere around thecity centre. Earlier stages of the Core Scheme have seen thebollard-enforced closures in Bridge Street, Emmanuel Street andSilver Street.
There has been much discussion on the Stage 5 proposals, namelychanges on Maid’s Causeway, where a zebra crossing and a lorryban are to be introduced. These fairly small changes seem to bepositive for cyclists.
The new bollards in St Andrew’s Street, part of the Core SchemeStage 4 proposals, are likely to be the next subject for discussion inthis subgroup when they come into operation later in 2007.
Crossings subgroupThis busy subgroup has been instrumental in forcing the CountyCouncil’s u-turn on the Gonville Place crossing, which was thesubject of our 500+ signature petition. On behalf of the Campaign,it recently objected to the totally unnecessary reinstatement of the
turning ban – a matter which surely destroys any claim by thecounty council of progressive pedestrian- and cycle-friendly policies– while still welcoming the overall replacement of the new crossingback to its original design.
The Signals Team at the County Council seem to have been busyrecently, resulting in a lot of discussion amongst the subgroup onall the proposals coming forward. A proposal to add pedestrianfences at the Jesus Lock crossing was objected to by the Campaignand has been defeated (the County Council have now withdrawnthis plan). A new crossing on the other end of Chesterton Road wasaccompanied by proposals for 1.2 m cycle lanes on a road 11 mwide, resulting in a clear objection.
Cycle Parking subgroupThe Cycle Parking subgroup is our longest-running Subgroup, andhas kept an undercurrent of discussion or comment on cycleparking issues. The Lion Yard development, Parking Policy Review,the lack of cycle parking in areas like Romsey/Petersfield, the GrandArcade cycle park, removal of cycle parking at Bradwell’s Court andthe removal of cycle parking in Fisher Square have been recenttopics.
Guided Bus subgroupThe junctions and lighting issues have been amongst the relativelylight levels of discussion on this group.
Highway Code subgroupMembers of the Highway Code subgroup have been responsible forthe Campaign’s activity in recent months on this issue, reportedelsewhere in this Newsletter. The range of knowledge of legal andother issues, as well as political contacts, have proven very useful.
Milton Road subgroupOccasional discussion has focussed on a few sets of relatively smallproposed changes in this area of the city.
Newsletter subgroupThe Newsletter subgroup is a functional subgroup which isresponsible for assembling this Newsletter every other month! Helpis always needed – writing articles, proofreading, taking photos,stuffing envelopes, delivering, website conversion. Please get intouch if you can help or would like more information.
Park & Ride subgroupThis subgroup assembled the Campaign’s objection to the newMilton Park and Ride site (which will replace the one at CowleyRoad) and pushed for improvements to be made during the designprocess.
Station subgroupThe Subgroup has been continuing to monitor the ‘CB1’ proposalby Ashwell Property Group PLC in this area. Revised plans are nowresurfacing, and much liaison work will need to be done to see howcycle-friendly these are.
‘Highly successful media work bysubgroup members earlier this yearforced the County Council into acommitment to correct some of thevery worst problems with theroad…’
Campaigning
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
21
We’re continuing our regular cycle ofspeakers and other special events atmonthly meetings, generally with a speakeror presentation for the first half, thenCampaign items for discussion anddecisions afterwards.
Councillors and other decision-makers, andof course Cambridge Cycling Campaignmembers and non-members who areinterested, are most welcome to attend thepresentation section of the meeting. Openmeetings are held every month. The diarysection of this Newsletter and our websitehave the dates of forthcoming meetings,which are normally on the first Tuesday ofeach month at 7.30 pm for 8 pm at theFriends’ Meeting House, Jesus Lane. Teaand coffee are served from around 7.30 pm.
Reports of recent meetingsAt our June meeting, Terence Bendixson,President of Living Streets (formerly thePedestrians’ Assocation), gave a thought-provoking talk on issues relating to thepossibility of a Congestion Charge, warningthat such a Charge could have unintendedconsequences for the suburbs and thefuture patterns of housing provision, andwhich could be counter-productive. Wethank Terence for his time to visit us andprepare his talk.
In July, our own Membership Secretary,Dave Earl, gave a talk and demonstration onhis work with OpenStreetMap.org, anorganisation which aims to survey andproduce a map which anyone, ourselvesincluded, may use and publish withoutcharge. The talk generated a lot of interestand questions to Dave.
Cycle video activism andCongestion charge discussion –Tuesday 7 August 2007Some of our members have recently takento installing handlebar-mounted videocameras on their bikes, in order todemonstrate dramatically the problems ofpoor driving standards, as well asthoughtless provision, which cyclistsencounter daily on the roads.
A recent Newsletter mentioned how onevideo, which shows a bus overtaking – thenpulling in front of – the cyclist, resulted inregional media coverage.
On another front, our campaigning on thenewly dangerous state of King’s HedgesRoad, as a result of buildouts which ignorekey safety recommendations, was helpedhugely by videos (available on our website)which show how some motorists try toovertake through gaps that are simply toonarrow. The Council have since promised towiden the gaps to reduce the scale of theproblem.
The cyclists will be speaking about theirexperiences and demonstrating the kit, andtaking your questions and ideas.
The second half of the meeting will be anhour-long opportunity for discussion on theDemand Management proposals, includingthe congestion charge.
Designing for Cyclists – Tuesday4 September 2007Alasdair Massie is a member of theCampaign, the CTC's North Hertfordshirerep, and a chartered engineer with muchtechnical knowledge of cycle planning
policy, guidance and issues. He has alsobeen much involved in the work of theCrossings Subgroup and other subgroups.Alasdair will be giving a talk entitled‘Designing For Cyclists’. This will cover thenitty-gritty of a range of design issues of thesort which we as a Campaign continuallyhave to raise in our dealings with councillorsand engineers at the councils.
Cycling 2020 launch tomembers – Tuesday 2 October2007Our Cycling 2020 document is nearingcompletion, and we expect to launch itaround the start of October. Cycling 2020 isto be our visionary document for cycling inthe city over the next 15 years. Thebrochure will contain a series of achievablebut challenging plans for the delivery of anattractive cycling infrastructure, and act as afocus for campaigning. Come along and seeour presentation of the document.
Annual General Meeting –Tuesday 6 November 2007Advance notice of our AGM. Put the date inyour diary now! More details next issue.
Campaign open meetingswww.camcycle.org.uk/events
Campaigning
Photomap this month:editor’s pick#10998: Obstructing both the pavement andmandatory contraflow cycle lane in BatemanStreet, this builder thought they formed aperfectly acceptable long stay car park.For more cycling-related photos of Cambridge, or to add yourown, visit www.camcycle.org.uk/map.
Cycling 2020 is to be avisionary documentfor cycling in the cityover the next 15 years.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
22
Feature
Since my employers moved from Fulbourn to Cambourne almosttwo years ago, things have changed significantly for cycliststravelling between this new town development and Cambridge. Formost of that time, major roadworks for upgrading the A428 to dualcarriageway between Hardwick and Caxton Gibbet have made theride interesting, but slow and at times downright inconvenient.
However, all that changed dramatically at the end of May when thedual carriageway opened. The old road, where once only the verybrave or foolhardy dared to pedal, has suddenly become quitepleasant to ride on. Gone is the constant stream of 40-tonne trucksand impatient commuters. No longer do cyclists feel the need tocower on the footpath and creep across boulder-strewn worksentrances. Instead we can pedal smoothly along a near empty road.
Going towards Cambridge, there is a lovely glide down the slope ofthe flyover at Childerley Gate, across the roundabout and on downto Hardwick. It’s easy to maintain 20+ mph on this section, evenmore with a tail wind. This will make a huge difference in thewinter, when previously a bumpy path and dazzling headlightsserved to make progress slow and uncomfortable. All in all Itypically save up to ten minutes on my previous journey time, oftenfor somewhat less effort than before.
There are still a few problems. At the time of writing, there are twosets of roadworks, with single alternate lane traffic. The timing ofthe traffic lights rarely allows a cyclist to get through the worksbefore traffic starts coming the other way. Fortunately there isusually a way round either on the path or just inside the line ofcones, provided there isn’t a JCB swinging about in there.
Also, the small amount of remaining motor traffic can be very fast,as the road is mostly straight and wide. Technically there is still a40 mph limit because of the present roadworks, but this is widelyignored away from the works themselves, and in any case thenational 60 mph limit is due to be reinstated once the works havebeen cleared. The majority of motorists leave plenty of room, butthere is always the pig-headed ‘it’s only a cyclist’ brigade who whizpast a couple of feet away even when the road is empty.
Entry into Cambourne can be a bit exciting. If I wanted to use theabsurd cycle path over the A428 junction, with its four sets ofbarriers and two push-button crossings, I would find it difficult toactually join the path as there is no obvious access which avoids theroundabout. As it is I stay on the road to cross the junction. Onleaving the second roundabout, I need to make an immediate rightturn on to the cycle path which leads to the business park. In effectthis is a right turn from the ‘fast’ lane of a dual carriageway on tothe central reservation, but it’s not as scary as it sounds because theroundabout is quite small and traffic is forced to slow significantly.Choosing the right position on the road stops anything trying tocross my path. Some motorists are a little surprised by mymanoeuvre, but I’m usually gone by the time they’ve realised whatI’m doing.
We may not always like it when millions of pounds are spent on afew miles of dual carriageway, especially when you think how manymiles of decent Dutch-quality cycle paths might have been providedfor that money. But if roads are going to be built, it’s good whenthere are beneficial spin-offs for cycling.
Stefan Kaye
Cycling to Cambourne – the joy of the open road
Where has all the traffic gone?
‘…a lovely glide down the slope of the new flyover atChilderley Gate’
If I wanted to use the absurd cycle path over the A428junction, with its four sets of barriers and two push-buttoncrossings, I would find it difficult to actually join the path.
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
23
Even cyclists on pavements are dong their bit for the carbonfootprint and are not contributing to congestion and
pollution
In Newsletter 71 we published an article ‘Examining legality’ whichlooked at some of the causes of illegal cycling and what might bedone about them. Here I want to put illegal cycling into some sortof perspective.
First of all, can we get rid of the term ‘lycra lout’? Most lycra-cladcyclists are serious, experienced cyclists. They generally wear ahelmet and cycle on the road to get from A to B fast and efficiently.Cycling illegally or even legally on the pavement would beanathema to most of them.
Secondly, remember that every person cycling is not in a car. Evencyclists illegally on pavements are doing their bit for the carbonfootprint and are not contributing to congestion and pollution.
According to popular belief it would seem that the two cardinal sinsthat cyclists commit are cycling on pavement where cycling is notpermitted and jumping red lights. Of course cyclists should obey thelaw and should cycle with due regard for others. Of course it canbe unnerving and occasionally even physically harmful for walkersto have a cyclist career by on a pavement or path – particularly ifthe pedestrian is frail, hard of hearing or partially sighted. But arethese rogues serious sinners compared to others on the highways?Statistics tell a different story.
Figures covering the years 2001–2005 provided to the CTC(Cyclists’ Touring Club) by Transport for London show that inLondon there were on the pavement 2197 reported pedestrianinjuries arising from collisions with motor vehicles, including 17fatalities. These injuries outnumbered those involving cycles by afactor of 42 to 1. The total number of reported pedestrian injuriesin London due to collisions with cyclists on pavements was just 65in the year 2001 and 69 in 2005. In the meantime, the figure wentdown, up and back down again, showing no clear overall trend.This was despite a 72% increase in cycle use over the period.
Transport for London also released some data about fatalities inLondon arising from red light jumping in the same five years. Theseshow that, during that period, two cyclists were killed in Londonwhile jumping red lights. However, during the same time:
7 motorbikers died jumping red lights (one of these collisions alsokilled a car driver)3 cyclists were killed by drivers jumping red lights7 pedestrians were killed by drivers jumping red lights.
National figures from the Department for Transport show that in2001–2005, 236 pedestrians were killed in collisions involvingmotor vehicles on the footway or verge as compared to just oneinvolving a cyclist.
I’m not condoning bad behaviour by cyclists. Cyclists shouldcertainly obey the law and be considerate to other highway users. Idon’t want to see pedestrians injured or alarmed, but I do think thatpedestrians would be better served by campaigns to control vehiclespeeds and other infringements of the law by drivers, rather thanemphasising the relatively harmless misdemeanours of a minority ofcyclists.
Lisa WoodburnFigures in this article are extracted from articles by Doug Briggs inthe Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign newsletter ‘Pothole’.
Rogue cyclists
Feature
Park Street Cycle Park LeafletYou should have found a leaflet about park Street Cycle Park inside this edition of theNewsletter. Please would you put it on display in a prominent position at your work placeor anywhere it will be noticed which will help this valuable cycling facility to be more fullyutilised.
See www.cambridge.gov.uk/cyclepark.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
24
Kings HedgesUnfairly maligned, usually by people who'venever been there and often by those whostill think it is "The Arbury" despite a namechange of "North Arbury" to "KingsHedges" some 20 years ago, the KingsHedges estate is actually a very interestingpart of the city. It is the result of havinglearnt from the 1950s housing blocks.
It was designed to put people first, not cars.It has a progressive design, in the Europeanstyle, with a lot of open green spaces. It hashousing which fronts onto the park and thebike/footpath instead of onto a road.
It's a model of how further housingdevelopments in Cambridge should havebeen designed, but sadly it's been ignoredby more recent developers keen to cram asmany houses as possible onto the smallestpossible scrap of land. Kings Hedges wasdesigned to be a good place to live. Istrongly recommend a walk or cyclethrough the estate.
It's not perfect. The paths are often notwide enough and have a few blind cornersand barriers. However, together they arestill the most helpful off road cycle facilitybuilt anywhere in Cambridge to date. Theyare genuinely pervasive and useful ratherthan seeming like afterthoughts. How sadthat we're now so far behind the 1970s,and how sad that what was achieved inKings Hedges is so rarely recognised forwhat it is.
This is the path past St. Lawrence's schooltowards Kings Hedges:
We can ride from this position to theScience Park hardly having to touch anyroads at all. At this point, the path has anewer housing development on the right,which presents a fence against the pathinstead of including equally good cycling orwalking provision.
This is a rare place in Cambridge where thepath has proper lighting, so it's useful afterdark as well as in the daytime.
Old vs. new. This photo shows housingwhich fronts onto the park (unfortunatelythere is a blind corner which effectivelynarrows the path:
This photo shows what is nearly a small"gated community" of privately ownedapartments built just a few years ago in themiddle of the estate:
These have a fence between themselvesand the park meaning there is no easy wayfor the people living in these apartments touse the park and that they are cut off fromthe rest of the local people. Instead, theirentrances are on the other side in the carpark.
This is not an example of the ‘permeable’and well-linked infrastructure so highlyregarded in the Manual For Streets (seearticle on page 6).
Photos 5 to 7 show the underpass ofNorthfield Avenue. This provides easy accessto Kings Hedges Primary School:
It's rather a shame that it is marred bybarriers as these especially make usedifficult for children and for those who arecarrying shopping.
The gradient here is greater than almostanywhere else in Cambridge. It makes itdifficult to get up the slope from a standingstart and I've seen a primary school kidcollide with the barriers at the bottom of theslope at quite a considerable speed.
Despite these rather unfortunate barriers,this route, which goes through one of thehousing areas, acts as an alternative toriding along Arbury Road. There are largegreen areas between each building.KH8
Bollards prevent cars from entering thisarea. Also the old style bike route sign.These have mostly been replaced, but itlooks like Kings Hedges was overlooked!
Location 2
Location 1 Location 4
Location 3
Location 6: From Cameron Road toNun's Way Rec—a great traffic freeroute for children.
Location 5
Location 7
Feature
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
25
As you'll have seen, this is a rather unusualhousing estate for the UK. It's a verypleasant design, with a lot of green spacesand favouring people over cars. It providestraffic free routes which are more direct andquicker to use than the roads. It provides forchildren, pedestrians and adult cyclists to amuch higher than usual standard.Developments like these are still builtsuccessfully in other countries. For instance,Houten is an entire city built on these lines.Or Meerhoven near Eindhoven. Both ofthese places are in the Netherlands - acountry where cycling provision is alwaysbetter than the UK.
It doesn't have to be so, of course, andKings Hedges is as close as we get in thisarea to showing that we too can build goodquality housing estates.
If only new developments in Cambridgewere built to the same standard we'd bemuch better off. Sadly, Arbury Park, a newdevelopment being built just north of KingsHedges on the opposite side of KingsHedges Road is a ‘normal’ car orienteddevelopment. This appears to be the style inwhich all the new developments are beingbuilt. However ‘pervasive’ and ‘cyclefriendly’ the proposals claim them to be,none get close to matching Kings Hedges.
Sadly, not only do newer developments notmatch Kings Hedges, they often seem to trytheir hardest to defeat what was achieved.For instance, look at the distance you haveto travel between Hopkins Close and theCarlton Way shops. They are only about200 m apart, and there is space for a
cut-through by foot or by car, but the roadshave been designed apparently in order tochange the journey of a few hundredmetres by foot into a mile by car. Oncepeople hop in their car for this they are aslikely to end up driving to the out of townsupermarket, aiding the demise of localshops. The layout of modern housingestates has a lot to answer for:
We're seeing similarly indirect cycling andwalking routes provided from other newestates, ‘The Quills’ and ‘Arbury Park’included. New developments should berequired to co-operate with existing cyclingand walking infrastructure, not reactagainst it.
There are many beautiful buildings in thecentre of Cambridge. People come from allaround the world to see them, andCambridge would not be the same placewithout them. However, for people wholive here what is needed is housing which isdesigned for people. The design of KingsHedges has excellent architecture and thebest planning in Cambridge. We should beseeing more of this.
David Hembrow
Note: Photo locations shown on map.
Map by OpenStreetMap, CC-by-SA - somerights reserved.
Location 9: Pleasant paths connect upthe housing areas
Feature
Location 8
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
26
Campaign diary
August 2007Fri 3 8.30 am review and planning for 74, over breakfast at Tatties café, 40 Hills Road.
Fri 3 12.30 pm Weather permitting, leaving from the Stourbridge Common side of Green Dragon Bridge, a lunchtime ride of varying speed andlength, probably involving a stop at a pub. Open and to all who like to ride and talk about bicycles. Join the ride at your own risk.
Tue 7 7.30 pm Monthly general meeting, Friends’ Meeting House, Jesus Lane, at the Park Street junction. (Tea and coffee, a chance to chat, and forus to introduce ourselves to new members for the first half-hour. The meeting proper starts at 8 pm.). Cycle video activism. A numberof our members have recently taken to installing a handlebar-mounted video camera on their bikes, in order to demonstrate theproblems of poor driving standards, as well as thoughtless provision, which cyclists encounter daily on the roads. The cyclists will bespeaking about their experiences, demonstrating the kit, and taking your questions and ideas.
Fri 10 12.30 pm A lunchtime ride. For details see 3 August.
Fri 17 12.30 pm A lunchtime ride. For details see 3 August.
Mon 20 7 pm Join us for a social gathering at CB2 café, 5-7 Norfolk Street.
Fri 24 12.30 pm A lunchtime ride. For details see 3 August.
Fri 31 12.30 pm A lunchtime ride. For details see 3 August.
SeptemberTue 4 7.30 pm Monthly general meeting, Friends’ Meeting House, Jesus Lane. For details see 7 August. Designing for Cyclists, a talk by Campaign
member Alasdair Massie.
Thu 6 7.30 pm Cambridge East Area Committee council meeting. Such meetings often cover walking, cycling and planning issues and the publicmay attend. It can be useful and even interesting for Campaign members. Cherry Trees Day Centre, St Matthews Street.
Sat 8 Deadline for articles written for .
Thu 27 7.30 pm envelope stuffing at the Baby Milk Action office, 34 Trumpington Street. Help very much welcomed.
Sun 30 Oxford to Cambridge Cycle Ride in aid of the British Heart Foundation. 85 miles. Details from www.bhf.org.uk/oxcamride or 0800389 9750.
OctoberTue 2 7.30 pm Monthly general meeting, Friends’ Meeting House, Jesus Lane. For details see 7 August. Official launch of our
visionary document for cycling in the city over the next 15 years.
Fri 5 8.30 am review and planning for 75, over breakfast at Tatties café, 40 Hills Road.
Sat 6/Sun 7 A meeting to draft our communications to councillors of the Traffic Management Area Joint Committee (AJC) this weekend. Timeand place to be decided.
Mon 15 Traffic Management Area Joint Committee meeting. Campaign members may be interested to attend AJC meetings, which coverwalking, cycling and planning issues in some depth.
Mon 15 7 pm Join us for a social gathering at CB2 café, 5-7 Norfolk Street.
Sun 28 1 am British Summer Time ends. Set your clocks back and get out your bike lights.
Small adsFor sale (July/August 2007)Dawes Super Galaxy 49 cm to top, 55 cm top tube, 531 frame and forks, new Schwalbe Marathon 700 x 28 tyres. £200 daytime( (01223) 555170
Collectors items: Gents 23" Sunbeam 1955 green roadster, Little Oilbath chain case, BSA 3spd with the BSA patented QR hub gearsystem (rear wheel detaches and leaves the drive sprocket attached to frame), original pedals, hub dynamo, new tyre, Middlemooressaddle. Fair condition £80. Gents 23" 3-speed (SA hub gears) Humber roadster 1955 (approx), black (resprayed). Roller lever brakes,original chainset, new chain and BB axle and bearings, new tyres, mudguards. Fair condition. Good commuter £35. Can deliverCambridge City. Phil Russell( (01223) 841724, Great Shelford.
Diary
Newsletter 73 • August–September 2007
27
What value cycleparking?
The following is based on a contribution to the Cycle ParkingSubgroup’s e-mail list a few months ago, during a debate on howreasonable it is for us as a Campaign to insist on enough qualitycycle parking provision.
We must be able to distinguish between reality and the prejudicesthat are repeatedly rolled out to justify giving cyclists a raw deal yetagain in favour of drivers. We should not forget that to squeeze onemore car space onto a site forces about ten cyclists to try and finda railing to hang off.
It is not a valid argument to suggest that cycle parking isn’t neededbecause people can just fly park. A bike chained to a lamp postdoesn't create the same problems as a car on a pavement, but itisn’t something you want to encourage either. And what of theuser? A bike chained to a post is vulnerable to theft, vandalism orcursory removal by the police or local authority.
Have a look around the centre of Cambridge. There is an acuteshortage of cycle parking – railings have threatening notices fixedto them; shop windows have notices requesting people not to leantheir cycles against them and bikes are left everywhere a space canbe found. It is a problem, and it is not being properly catered for,precisely because of the attitude that cycle parking is anunreasonable imposition on building owners and developers. Weare worried, though, that the developers are trying to make cyclistspay to park at the majority of spaces.
Developers will always fight for more car parking, but they havelittle interest in the more general long-term health of a city.Restricting availability of car parking space is one of the feweffective deterrents to traffic growth that a local authority canapply. If we want Cambridge to have clean air and quiet roads, thenresisting the demand for ever more car parking and supporting callsfor more cycle parking are essential.
Alasdair Massie
News
A bike leaning against a post is vulnerable to theft,vandalism or cursory removal by the police or localauthority.
Your streets this month(Continued from page 28)
Newmarket Road and Maid’s CausewayAt the Cambridge Environment and Traffic Management AreaJoint Committee (AJC) on 16 July 2007, Core Stage 5 proposalsfor the length of road between the East Road roundabout andthe Four Lamps roundabout were discussed. The officersrecommended that the Committee agree to the installation of apedestrian crossing by the Zebra pub and that the limit for theweight of lorries allowed along the road should be 7.5 tonnes.Officers suggested that consideration of a 20 mph speed limitshould be deferred until the County Council’s Speed Limit Policyhad been determined. The AJC agreed the officers’recommendations.
Gonville Place crossingThere is still no news about when work will begin to return theGresham Road/Parker’s Piece crossing to its previous layout. Weare still trying to get the right turn out of Gresham Road and theleft turn from Parker’s Piece allowed.
National Cycle Network path near ElyOn 22 June, a goods train derailed on the bridge over the RiverOuse near Ely on the Ely–Soham– Newmarket line. At first it wasfeared that this would close the NCN route for the whole of thesummer. However, we have received a message from Sustransthat they are hopeful that the path can be re-opened quite soon,once the trucks and the damaged railway bridge have beenremoved. If you are planning a ride that way, contact theCampaign and we will let you know if we have any news.
Windsor RoadThe traffic calming here is now in place. Our members havewarned us that cycling along this road should be done with careas you are likely to come into conflict with oncoming vehicles(see Page 5)
Grand Arcade cycle parkWe have heard that this new cycle park will open at the end ofSeptember, the same time as the Annexe car park, the CornExchange Street contraflow cycle lane (which was agreed aftermuch hard work by the Campaign) and the high level walkway.The planning condition for the Grand Arcade specified that thecycle park was to be opened no later than the car park. Therethus appears to have been a breach of planning conditions, assome of the car parking is already in use.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign
28
Cowley Road junctionWorks are now complete at the junction of Cowley Road and theScience Park. However, the result seems to be most unsatisfactoryfor cyclists. One user (Robert Frisk) expressed very well his opinionof the changes:
The two new junctions on the cycle route are accidentswaiting to happen as excessive periods of apparent inactivityof traffic lead to cyclists crossing when they have no idea ofthe status of the traffic signals for the carriageways. Thesignalling for a cyclist/pedestrian on the crossings appearsminimal; there are no detection loops on the cycleapproaches, in the relatively short space it is now incumbenton a cyclist/pedestrian to cross seven carriageways withtraffic coming from a wide variety of angles. Before thejunction upgrade the cycle route was almost uninterrupted,now all equality with other road users has been lost. As aresident of Milton it is most disappointing that thatincreased safety born from the cycle bridge/new path hasnow been completely negated by once again having to crosstwo major junctions.
New Bit pathNew Bit is the grass common area opposite the Botanic Garden andbetween the two paths which run from Trumpington Road towardsNewnham. Proposals put before the AJC recommend that thesouthernmost path which forms part of the National Cycle NetworkRoute 11 should be widened, including the cattle grids at theTrumpington Road end, and the provision of LED studs to providewaymarking at night time. The Campaign has welcomed theseimprovements to this important cycle route. The AJC agreed toproceed to consult on these proposals.
RiversideAs reported in Newsletter 72, Riverside is closed to motor traffic.We have received a number of complaints about the inadequateprovision for pedestrians and cyclists and of an abandoned carblocking the way through. On a happier note, the timetable tells usthat the steel structure of the bridge will be constructed frommid-July, so a detour in that direction to see the bridge taking shapemay well soon be worthwhile.
(Continued on page 26)
YOUR STREETS THIS MONTH
New Bit: improved path. Map by OpenStreetMap, CC-by-SA - some rights reserved.
Pedestrians and cyclists can still get through Riverside whileit is closed for construction of the new cycle bridge, but the
