COUNCIL TEXT
As part of Camdens’ policy to reduce the risk of accidents and to provide a safer environment, the Council is proposing measures to improve pedestrian crossing facilities at the junctions of Gray’s Inn Road and Theobald’s Road and Clerkenwell Road with Rosebery Avenue.
The above junctions have been identified for measures to be carried out due to the significant high volumes of pedestrians using the junction and to reduce the number of Personal Injury Accidents. Astudy of the junction has been carried out which has shown that in a three-year period, 30Personal Injury Accidents have occurred. This is considered high and measures have been proposed to improve safety for all road users.
The London Borough of Camden, as highway authority, has a duty to improve the public highway and to implement measures; this is a requirement under the Highway Act 1980.
Currently there are only controlled pedestrian crossing facilities across the Rosebery Avenue arm. Since the introduction of the Congestion Charging Scheme, traffic volume levels have been reduced allowing the opportunity to provide additional facilities.
This scheme includes improved pedestrian crossings at the above junctions through the introduction of controlled crossing facilities, red/green man, in conjunction with revised signal timings. All traffic islands will be upgraded and the footways improved around the junctions.
The scheme also includes enhanced safety facilities for cyclists. A plan can be seen in the centre pages of this leaflet.
CCC’s response
CCC (Camden Cycling Campaign) is pleased to see the proposed improvements at this set of junctions. However we are concerned that some of the ASLs proposed neither comply with legal requirements nor provide any real benefit for cyclists and note that nowhere else in the world are bike boxes implemented without lead-in lanes. We therefore discuss each one in detail in what follows. We include a plan to illustrate what is needed.
Cycle counts collected at Camden’s counter on Theobalds Road near to the junction of Jockey’s Fields show a daily average of more than 1400 eastbound cyclists this summer, confirming that cycle use is very heavy at this junction. With a 23% increase in cycling Londonwide in the last year combined with high quality facilities at this junction, cycle flows are likely to increase greatly. Therefore the needs of cyclists require very careful consideration.
This response is based on advice from Ralph Smyth of City Cyclists. CCC therefore would like to thank him for his extensive input and for preparing the plan.
In general terms, every ASL should have a mandatory feeder lane (where a nearside lane) of width 1.5 m and of length sufficient for cyclists to pass any traffic queue that may form at that location in accordance with DfT TAL 02/03. This will be particularly important as queues are likely to increase with the inclusion of a green pedestrian phase. CCC has already been assured that the proposed feeder lanes will indeed have a width of 1.5 m.
CCC is aware that implementing mandatory cycle lanes require Traffic Regulation Orders which could delay implementation of this much needed scheme. We would be content for the scheme to proceed with advisory lanes as long as there is a commitment to upgrade them as soon as practicable perhaps in conjunction with measures to improve Theobalds Road, i.e. removal of the islands that lead to cyclists being squeezed and replacement with slightly raised tables and extra zebra crossings.
The main suggestion CCC has is to offset the pedestrian islands from the centre of the road. This would enable proper ASL feeder lanes to be implemented while not reducing, in fact increasing junction capacity as excess space on the exits from junctions is unnecessary since only one lane of traffic can proceed on the roads beyond.
Theobalds Road/Grays Inn Road junction (western arm)
The feeder lane should be mandatory and of sufficient length to cater for the long queues of traffic at this location, starting where the bus lane ends.
Grays Inn Road / Theobalds Road (northern arm)
No feeder lane is shown. The ASL must have a 1.5 m mandatory feeder lane of adequate length. To allow cyclists to pass the queuing left-turning traffic, especially when there is a bus using the stop we suggest this should be between the two lanes. But in this case, the nearside general lane must be for left turns only to prevent conflict. See our plan for the details.
Another problem with this junction is that the pedestrian crossing is set some way back from the junction, away from the pedestrians’ desire line and meaning that the ASL is next to the mouth of the side road, an arrangement which is unlikely to work. It should be moved forward and a keep clear sign be used to keep the exit clear. (and enable one vehicle to stop between the entrance and the ASL). This will also help reduce the intergreen time.
Grays Inn Road (south)/ Theobalds Road (southern arm)
No feeder lane is shown. It is very difficult for cyclists to pass the queue here and the proposals do nothing to change this despite the fact the queues will become even longer. In the circumstances the proposed ASL is really just window dressing that will make no difference to cyclists in practice. The ASL must have a 1.5 m mandatory feeder lane of adequate length. It may be necessary to make the offside lane right-turn only due to the offsetting of the islands.
Clerkenwell Road/Grays Inn Road (eastern arm)
The kerb-side feeder lane should be extended as far as the new pedestrian crossing to the east of this junction so that there is a continuous facility permitting cycles to bypass queues. (See plan). There should not be a line in the middle of the ASL: while accepted Dutch practice this is not (yet) in the TSRGD. The offside cycle lane needs to have cycle symbols combined with a right turn arrow.
Clerkenwell Road/Rosebery Avenue
At least half of all cyclists here proceed along Clerkenwell Road and the suggested arrangement is dangerous, as cyclists wishing to do so would have to pull out of the proposed cycle lane just as drivers are turning left. Additionally the stump into the Clerkenwell ASL would be useless as explained earlier.
A continuous cycle lane should run from the junction of Grays Inn Road to feed into the middle of the ASL. (See photo of an example of this from York). Left-turning cycles would proceed as at present in free-flowing traffic and would still be able to use the central feeder lane to overtake queuing motor traffic to reach the left side of the ASL. Drivers wishing to turn left would have to give way to cyclists in the cycle lane going straight on and the presence of a green cycle lane would highlight the conflict point and the priority of vulnerable road users at it. This is the only safe way of dealing with the conflicting movements.
The photo shows a junction in York that is constructed as described.
The eastbound traffic along Clerkenwell Road should be reduced to a single lane: two lanes are unnecessary as there is insufficient space for motor traffic to proceed in two queues beyond this.
Clerkenwell Road (east of Rosebery Avenue)
The stump lane will not let cyclists bypass queuing traffic: similar comments apply to the southern arm of the main junction. (see plan) Either the pedestrian island should be offset slightly towards Rosebery Avenue or better still one general traffic lane marked. This will not affect capacity as the second lane is simply there as queue storage and would assist cyclists wishing to turn right into Gray’s Inn Road.
Centre of the Grays Inn/Theobalds Road/Clerkenwell Road junction
This is a very wide junction for cyclists to cross with traffic behind them. CCC therefore requests that advisory lanes (marked with diagram 1004 if possible or just frequent cycle symbols on green surfacing: a cycle strip) should cross the junction as extensions of the feeder lanes at each of the four arms. (See our plan). This would give cyclists proceeding straight on priority over left-turning traffic, just as at an unsignalled junction pedestrians or cyclists proceeding along the main road have priority over vehicles turning into a side road.
Question:
Do you agree with the proposals to provide controlled crossing facilities at the junctions of Grays Inn Road/Theobalds Road and Rosebery Avenue/Clerkenwell Road Yes
Follow up
From Mariaa Georgiou18th Nov 2004. Please see attached a pdf copy of the draft plan of the detailed design for the above junction.
The plan is not complete but includes the final layout
of cycling facilities (excluding cycle logos in lanes).
I did send a copy of this plan earlier this week to our LCN+ team and they recommend that we replace the first set of carriageway arrows in Clerkenwell
Road to place names, i.e. “F’SBRY” and “OLD ST” for traffic lane entering Rosebery Avenue and straight on lanes continuing along Clerkenwell Rd respectively.
They also recommend ghost green surfacing only if used for a much shorter feeder lane if required at all on the eastbound Clerkenwell Road lane by
Rosebery Ave as the use of colour surfacing across this entry (into Rosebery Ave) may increase conflict as cycle users will be encouraged to be in the
inside lane when they should be taking their road position in the centre to carry straight on along Clerkenwell Rd.
Their last suggestion is to use cycle lanes across Grays Inn Rd both east
and west bound to highlight a cycle route to all left turning traffic.
I have discussed these issues with Dave Stewart. He has asked me to provide
you with the plan and LCN+ suggestions. Could we please have your comments.
Reply from Jaen Dollimore to Maria Georgiou. 18 Nov 2004
Thank you for letting me have your new draft plan for the Grays Inn Road Safety Scheme.
I am very pleased to see that you have managed to incorporate adequate feeder lanes for Theobalds Road (west of the junction) and Grays Inn Road (south of the junction) and even the specially long extended feeder lane in Clerkenwell Road (east of the junction).
Concerning the comments from the LCN+ team:
- I agree that the place names on the lanes fro Rosebery Avenue and Clerkenwell Road would be helpful
- I am disappointed that they don’t like our suggestion for a continuous cycle lane from the junction of Grays Inn Road (across the entry to Rosebery Avenue). In fact I can’t really understand the logic of what you quote here:
They also recommend ghost green surfacing only if used for a much shorter
feeder lane if required at all on the eastbound Clerkenwell Road lane by
Rosebery Ave as the use of colour surfacing across this entry (into Rosebery
Ave) may increase conflict as cycle users will be encouraged to be in the
inside lane when they should be taking their road position in the centre to
carry straight on along Clerkenwell Rd.
I think that part of the problem here is that you are still showing two forward vehicle lanes into Clerkenwell Road eastbound. It would be better to have only one forward lane (the other being for left turns) into Rosebery Avenue.
The advantage of the continuous cycle lane is that it shows the path that cyclists should take to access the ASL Clerkenwell Road. That is, it discourages them from staying in the left side part way into Rosebery Avenue and then trying to get out. (You forgot to colour in that ASL).
Their last suggestion is to use cycle lanes across Grays Inn Rd both east
and west bound to highlight a cycle route to all left turning traffic.
Well that agrees with our request to take the cycle lanes across the junction. But we thought they should join across in all four directions.
I’m disappointed to se that you have not been able to resite the pedestrian crossing in Grays Inn Road (north) to put it on the pedestrian desire line (as we suggested).
Thank you
Jean
Spring 2005
Subsequently we heard that the scheme had been shelved pending the Route 38 Bus Initiative.
Autumn 2005
The design for this junction under Route 38 Bus is far inferior to the above.
