Unless indicated otherwise, these are consultations from Camden council.
In September 2013, we started to post our consultations on CycleScape. Each consultation will be posted as a new ‘issue’ in the ‘Camden Cyclists’ group. The location is to be marked on the map associated with the issue and a summary of the proposal, the officers, the date it will close and a link to the consultation on Camden’s website.
Then a new public thread started for ‘discussion’ (not response as in the Cobden example), then another public thread for the response.
There is a page for each consultation. They contais a summary by the CCC committee member dealing with it, the council’s plan and text describing their proposals. Sometimes a link to the location on our interactive online-map. It is marked as PENDING until CCC’s response (based on members feedback) is sent to the council and added to the end of the page here. After that RESPONDED with date.
Some consultations show designs that are unsuitable for cyclists.
- Where follow ups take place, this is noted in the header of the consultation page and the details recorded at the end of the page.
Links to Documents on Cycle Facility Design
These links are for use by the team responding to consultations.
- The final London Cycle Design Standards
See Chapter 4 for cycle lanes, contraflow in Section 4.2.8. Drawings CC/B13-15 in Appendix C show the options, which include no lanes when 20 mph limit.
See Section 3.6 for gaps between islands and kerbs
DfT Cycling Infrastructure Design
Cycling Infrastructure Design Local Transport Note 2/08 October 2008
Compendium of International Best pratcice
Urban Movement Cycling in the City, a compendium of International Practice
Cycling England Design Checklist. See Section A.4 for a study of recommended gaps between traffic islands and kerbs.
- Cycling England on contraflow cycling in A.06.
“Two-way cycling should be the default option where it is proposed to introduce one-way working for general traffic. Any decision not to provide cyclists with this facility should only be taken after a thorough examination of the proposal has shown that such an arrangement could not be made to operate safely. Since many one-way streets were originally two-way working it is likely that most could be converted to rectify this omission.”
DfT Traffic Signs
DfT Traffic Advisory Leaflets
Local Traffic Note 01/04 (draft consultation) describes in detail a framework that the Government expects local authorities to use to achieve a better environment for walking and cycling. Includes planning and design requirements for routes; the need for a transport hierarchy prioritising (in decreasing importance): walking, cycling, public transport and motor vehicles; the need to design to meet the needs of different types of pedestrians and cyclists; hierarchy of provision; descriptions of infrastructure that is helpful. Also emphasises the need for removal of one-way restrictions and banned turns affecting cycling.
DfT on contraflow and false one way streets
An old TAL at:
this one shows diagrams for the entry to a contraflow facility but also mentions
false one way streets . The last diagram has just a bollard.
A similar paper is at:
- The pages on this site written by Paul Gasson
- A paper about ASLs written by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign. This is very relevant to consultations on junctions.
- TRL on Safety of Contraflow cycling:
CyclingEngland’s main reference on safety is the TRL publication
“Research by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), has found that properly designed contraflow schemes can function satisfactorily in a variety of conditions. Safety practitioners should note that this research found that in none of the cases studied had cyclists had been put in a position of serious conflict, and the behaviour of cyclists was not judged to have endangered pedestrians. A well-designed scheme should not, therefore, give rise to undue safety problems. Any specific concerns identified during a safety audit should be balanced against the likely hazards faced by cyclists forced to use alternative routes if contraflow cycling is not allowed. The audit should also take into account the fact that if no contraflow facility is provided a certain proportion of cyclists will travel in the contraflow direction illegally and, therefore, at increased risk due to the lack of formal provision.”
ASLs, Bus Lanes and Bendy Buses (an email exchange 23.08.07)
Jean to Meade
But, I feel some doubt regarding your comments on ASLs in the presence of bendy buses at Melton/Euston Road/Gordon Street. As far as I recall, no actual safety benefit has been proved from ASLs, but they’re definitely an advantage in helping cyclists to get away quickly at signals. Are you really suggesting that bendy bus and ASLs should not coexist because some cyclists stay at the kerb in ASLs?
My thinking is this:
– if a westbound Euston Road cyclist in the bus lane is approaching a red signal at this junction with nothing in front, they would be best advised to be occupying the lane, thus obliging any bus coming behind to wait behind when it comes up to the light, obviating the need for an ASL. If however, they are hugging the kerb, the bus will be tempted to overtake and then the cyclist will have to undertake to get to the front (ASL or not) which with bendy buses is not safe. The ASL provides no real benefit in the first instance and is potentially dangerous in the second. [However, I can see that if a cyclist gets to the stop line first, close to the kerb, then an ASL should encourage the driver to stay behind. But not always! I don’t think this outweighs the drawbacks] – if a westbound Euston Road cyclist in the bus lane is following a bus and the signal goes red they would be best advised to wait behind the bus, rather than trying to edge forward, either on the inside or the outside, to get to the front. Again, having an ASL would encourage moving forward, which is unsafe, esp with bendy buses.
The problem isn’t bendy buses and ASLs, it is bendy buses, BUS LANES and ASLs. With ordinary traffic, the kind of over/undertaking manoeuvres discussed above are ones cyclists can judge for themselves whether they are safe to attempt. Moreover, given that there will be no left-turning traffic at this junction, one of the main arguments in favour of ASLs doesn’t apply here