Top 10 Cycling wants in Redbridge

The process RCC used to produce its ‘Top 10 cycling wants’ is as follows. The group:

  • Pooled its knowledge of cycling in Redbridge (and other Boroughs). 
  • Looked at the Council’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP), Climate Change Action Plan and its plan for Low Emissions Neighbourhoods, to see what ambitions and commitments the Authority has made towards cycling .  
  • Looked at TfLs Strategic Cycle Network and the Authority’s Local cycle network
  • The Crashmap and Cycledat websites to identify accident blackspots.

We compiled a ‘long list’ which we grouped under the following sets of headings

  • Safety improvements
  • Connectivity
  • Promoting cycling for all
  • Quality of provision

We then selected our top ten.

The list is biased towards schemes that can be costed and, we think, fall within the scope of the Mayors Transport Strategy and so should be able to attract funding, rather than including broader aspirations that are difficult to cost and that will take some years to realise (we think that there are more than enough of these in the LIP, Climate Action Plan etc.)  

We gave priority to schemes that will make things safer for cyclists now.  Not all these schemes will promote wider policy ambitions but we think the first priority must be to reduce deaths and injuries: in two or three years time we would hope the Top 10 wants might look quite different.  

After the Top 10 Wants list there are some notes that set out our wider thoughts on how to increase cycling uptake in the Borough.  

If new cycle infrastructure is going to be used and give value for money it needs to be well designed: we think it is important that all schemes try to meet in full the guidance given in LTN 1/20 – our understanding is that only schemes that meet thee standards will be funded in future.

On a slightly separate note we know that there are road schemes, for example, road safety improvement schemes, whose primary purpose will not be to promote cycling but which might nonetheless be able to do just that and we would welcome the chance to share thoughts on these schemes.

Cyclists are not a homogeneous group: there are sports cyclists, commuters, families who like to ride in a park, and those who make local journeys by bike, for example, trips to rail and tube stations, shops or schools. There are also cyclists who use ‘non-standard’ bikes, for example, cargo bikes, trikes (people with mobility or balance difficulties often use these) or tandems  

Sports cyclists and those currently commuting by bike are likely to settle for quick routes through the Borough with protection at junctions and roundabouts where the majority of accidents happen. But lack of protected cycle tracks and/or segregation from motor traffic is known to put off potential cyclists.  If the Authority is to meet the ambitions it sets out in its Climate Change Action Plan and other documents it must make cycling safer for all.  

Potential cyclists need to be persuaded they will be safe (citation to be added to LTN1/20).  A complete borough network of separated cycle paths is impossible and it is inevitable that cyclists will share roads with motor traffic. Once the Authority has dealt with its accident blackspots it should focus its efforts on developing infrastructure that will support local trips by bike.  The idea of the twenty minute neighbourhood (https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/get-active/2020/in-your-community/what-is-a-20-minute-neighbourhood) is relevant here: with a bit of imagination Redbridge can be conceived of as a set of neighbourhoods with centres and services – shops, post offices, GPs, etc. and cycling infrastructure can be put in to provide safe pleasant cycling to and from the service centres.  

To maximise the safety of cyclists and so the numbers cycling the Authority has to be prepared to take steps to reduce the volume of motorised traffic and the speed at which it can move.  

The experience across London is that new cycling infrastructure is quickly used but, there is such a suppressed demand for travel by car that, in the short term, this may not lead to a reduction in the number of car journeys: as one person chooses to travel by bicycle and not by car, someone else may be ready to step in and take that vacated road space.  The strategy needs to be this: over the next two to three years, create a good quality network of connected safe cycle routes and then to introduce measures to reduce car journeys knowing that residents can choose to travel by bike because the routes are there and they are safe.

Some things we hope won’t get overlooked when designing schemes

Safety: Not only must cycle infrastructure be safe it must be perceived to be safe by potential users: an unsafe section, for example, a difficult junction that is left because it is difficult to sort out, may well mean that an otherwise good route is not used.  

Connectivity: 

“Cycle infrastructure must join together, or join other facilities together by taking a holistic, connected network approach which recognises the importance of nodes, links and areas that are good for cycling.”

(LTN 1/20 1.6.1)

No one would design a road from A to B with a section in the middle that is unsuitable for motor vehicles.  The same should apply to cycle routes: cycle infrastructure must create safe continuous cycle routes to places that residents will want to go.  Infrastructure that is isolated and which returns cyclists to hostile conditions is useless and will be a waste of money.  The Authority could introduce, where necessary, and where no better alternative can be found, shared-use paths.  At the moment there are signs across the borough that say ‘No cycling allowed’ where many cyclists will feel that there is no safe alternatives but to go on the pavement.

Promoting cycling for all: A design that might be suitable for a fit person on a solo bike may not be manageable for older riders, those using ‘non-standard’ bikes (which will include cyclists with disabilities, parents, and delivery riders).  It is also important to provide residents with ways to get started with cycling and to remove hurdles to them choosing cycling.

Quality and quantity: If schemes are designed to the standards set out in LTN 1/20 (probably necessary in the future ay to secure funding) then they will be of good quality and will be much more likely to be used and so contribute to the Authority and the Mayor meeting their targets and aspirations.

Safety: Introduce a Borough-wide 20mph speed limit

The most compelling reason for introducing a 20mph speed limit is that pedestrians and cyclists who are hit at 20mph are much less likely to suffer serious injury or be killed than if hit at 30 mph.  This ought to be enough reason but for many, it is not, so it is worth looking at the real impact on journey times by car at different speeds.  A 5 mile journey made at 20 mph will take 15 minutes, the same journey made at 30 mph will take 10 minutes, a saving of 5 minutes.  But anyone who uses Google or Waze will know that it is impossible to complete journeys in London at an average speed of 30 mph – even achieving an average of 20 mph is often impossible: stopping at traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and congestion all put paid to this.  And then there are the ‘fixed’ times associated with a journey completed at any speed: embarking and disembarking, finding a parking space at the destination and walking from the car to the shops or wherever.  In short, reducing the speed limit from 30 to 20 mph will make little real difference to motorists but will mean less cyclists and pedestrians are killed or seriously injured.  Cycling in 20mph zones not only is but feels, safer, so residents are more likely to choose cycling for local journeys.  Those who advocate 30 mph as the default speed limit are, in effect arguing that the greater risk to pedestrians and cyclists of death and serious injury is an acceptable cost for their freedom to travel – albeit briefly – at this speed.  This cannot be right.  

Supports

  • The Borough’s Climate Change Action Plan
  • The Borough’s Plans for Low Emission Neighbourhoods
  • Healthy Streets Scorecard

Safety: Dangerous Junctions and accident blackspots

The LCC has noted that, across London, too many schemes have been implemented that have left dangerous junctions in place or at best partially improved: one arm, one turning movement, one part of a junction, but not the whole thing.  But ss LTN 1/20 puts it 

‘Junctions and crossings are where most conflicts occur, and the actual and perceived hazards are greatest.  Junctions are often the most hazardous and intimidating parts of a journey for cyclists. A junction that does not provide safe facilities may prevent people from cycling through the junction, but may also be the reason that people will not use the remainder of a route’

In order to make junctions far safer, what is needed is to build junctions that separate those cycling and walking from turning drivers – drivers shouldn’t be turning left across cyclists going ahead, and pedestrians need green person signals on all arms to cross safely. On top of that, we need to give more time on signals to walking and cycling – we know those walking and cycling largely don’t wait for minutes at a junction before they move – so we need to cut wait times and ensure enough capacity for those modes. We also need to build junctions, including side road turnings, for calm interactions – the Dutch build roundabouts for slow movement and good sightlines, on ours we splay entry and exit arms so drivers can move on and off faster.

Steps to make junctions safer:

  • Bike boxes/Advanced stop lines at junctions across the Borough with the approach to lights separated from the main traffic
  • Introduce a separate Green Phase for cyclists at traffic lights.  

Supports

  1. The Borough’s Climate Change Action Plan
  2. TFL Strategic Cycle Network
  3. The Borough’s Plans for Low Emission Neighbourhoods
  4. Healthy Streets Scorecard

Safety: Create protected cycle lanes

Research [citation required] has found that those new to cycling are encouraged by protected cycle lanes.  In the first instance, these should be introduced on roads used by cyclists that are excepted from the 20mph speed limit.  

Supports

  • The Borough’s Climate Change Action Plan
  • TFL Strategic Cycle Network
  • The Borough’s Plans for Low Emission Neighbourhoods
  • Healthy Streets Scorecard

Safety: Stop parking in cycle lanes 

Cars parked in cycle lanes force cyclists to move into the carriageway and into traffic.  This is a dangerous manoeuvre.  The Authority could consider, wherever possible, introducing parking restrictions along roads with cycle lanes or providing protected cycle lanes.  

Supports

  • The Borough’s Climate Change Action Plan
  • TFL Strategic Cycle Network

Safety: Reduce traffic volumes

Residents are going to choose to make local journeys by bike if driving is a worse option and the Council must be prepared to make this happen by stopping rat-running across the Borough and reducing parking in neighbourhood centres, otherwise residents, whilst broadly being in favour of cycling, will find a reason why they should travel to a centre by car.  

Supports

  • The Borough’s Climate Change Action Plan
  • The Borough’s Plans for Low Emission Neighbourhoods
  • Healthy Streets Scorecard

Promoting cycling for all: Allow cycling in all parks and remove barriers at entries and exits to parks

This is a quick win.  Removing all cycling restrictions and barriers in the Borough’s Parks and Gardens will encourage beginners and family leisure cycling and some of these riders will go on to choose to cycle to the shop and so on.  It will also promote a healthy lifestyle.  And parks can connect up otherwise discrete pieces of cycle infrastructure – or at least shorten ‘missing links’.  Other Borough’s do it so why not Redbridge?

Supports

  • The Borough’s Climate Change Action Plan

Promoting Cycling for all: Continue to install cycle hangers in high-density housing areas

Bike storage is a real problem for flat dwellers.  Only the keenest will lug their bikes up and down buildings.  If not already the case, can installing cycle hangers be made a de facto requirement for new developments under the auspices of planning gain?

Supports

  • The Borough’s Climate Change Action Plan
  • The Borough’s Plans for Low Emission Neighbourhoods
  • Healthy Streets Scorecard

Specific schemes

Safety: Introduce a Borough-wide 20mph speed limit:

Decide on which roads should be exempted from a 20mph speed limit.  When these exempted roads are part of the strategic or local cycle routes through the Borough, introduce protected cycle tracks using KSI data to establish an order of priority.  On roads for which a 20mph speed limit is imposed install cameras to enforce the limit or make changes to the road (speed humps, chicanes, etc.) to make 20mph the safe maximum speed.  Work can be prioritised by first selecting those roads that are strategic or local cycling routes and then ordering these by KSI and similar data.  

Safety: Dangerous Junctions and accident blackspots need to cross-reference list with Borough cycle route network

The blackspots have been identified from the Bike Data page on the CycleStreets and Crashmap websites are:

  • A118 Ilford Hill 
  • A118 from Ilford High Road to Chadwell Heath (Strategic Cycle Network)
  • A1199 Holy bush Hill, Woodford High Road TFL (Strategic Cycle Network)
  • A104 High Road Woodford Green (Strategic cycle Network/LBR Local cycle network)
  • Ley Street LBR (Local cycle network)
  • Charlie Brown’s roundabout: in particular create useable high quality safe passages through the roundabout.  Cyclists using the present routes have to dismount and cross the roads as pedestrians and cycle on pavements.  

Safety: Install protected cycle lanes

  • Cranbrook Road from Gants Hill to Ilford
  • A118 from Ilford to Romford
  • Ley Street

Other streets?

Safety: Stop parking in cycle lanes

Roads such as Fencepiece Road

Promoting Cycling for all: Allow cycling in all parks

Claybury

Clayhall Park: remove barriers that prevent solo bikes with panniers, tandems, and family cargo bikes from accessing the cycle route

Other specific parks?

Connectivity: Ensure that cycle infrastructure is introduced to create continuous cycle routes 

  • Allow shared usage along Eastern Avenue from Gants Hill towards Newbury Park
  • Allow shared usage on the footpath between High Road Woodford and Grove Road
  • Create a safe route through the mini-roundabouts at the junction of Aldersbrook Road, Lakehouse Road, Blake Hall Road and Centre Road to connect the new protected cycle lanes along these roads.
  • Ensure advanced stop lines or continuous cycle lanes at the Blake Hall Road, Bush Road, Overton drive junction.

We welcome input and feedback on these proposed 10 items from our members and cycling community. Please send us a message or email to let us know what you think.

Official Response to Our Streets – Oakdale proposals

Written by Andrew Seager, Co-ordinator of Redbridge Cycling Campaign of behalf of Redbridge Cycling Campaign

The current position

I and another member of Redbridge Cycling Campaign (RCC) rode around the Oakdale area during the rush hour and school run on 8th September 2021. We saw very few cyclists, but a lot of through traffic, mostly cars with just one occupant. It was not a nice environment for cycling and, I think, many potential cyclists would see the area’s roads as hostile and choose not to make journey’s by cycle.


The effective width of the carriageways (once the space occupied by parked cars had been discounted) were sometimes less than 2m and most often were no more than 3m. We were subject to close overtaking and, where the carriageway was around 2m in width, cars tailgated us, impatient to push past.


Many of the roads are one way with clear lines of sight. Save for a few speed pillows (on Mulberry Road) that motorists could drive over with a wheel either side and which therefore wre doing little to reduce speed (but which did leave cyclists vulnerable to being hit or forced into the kerb by swerving cars) there was nothing by way of road design to deter rat running motorists from seeing 30mph as a target speed.


Where the speed limit was 20mph there was no enforcement nor had these carriageways been redesigned to make 20mph the safe speed limit or to indicate that the highway was for cars, cyclists and pedestrians. There are no speed humps, speed tables, road blocks, modal filters or chicanes.


We saw that Oakdale Road was, in effect, a drivethru for parents in cars dropping off their children. This forced all the other parents- off which there were many – who had walked their children to school onto the narrow pavements. This is an inequitable arrangement that sacrificed the amenity of the many for the convenience of the few (those driving their children to school).

The proposal

The Our Streets scheme in Oakdale aims to address the traffic issues in Oakdale, by ‘reducing through traffic and creating safer, quieter, and more attractive streets’.


The Sustrans website describes a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) as: ‘a scheme where motor vehicle traffic in residential streets is greatly reduced. This is done by minimising the amount of traffic that comes from vehicles using the streets to get to another destination. This is often referred to as ‘through-traffic’ or ‘rat-running’.

So the desired outcomes of the Oakdale scheme are pretty much the same as those for a Low Traffic Neighbourhood. There are many examples of successful LTNs in London that the London Borough of Redbridge (LBR) could learn from, but this scheme does not seem to model itself on them. Although the scheme has a number of the ingredients of an LTN they have not been combined in a way that will achieve the hoped for results and will not encourage more active travel. And several key features were missing.

Comments applying to the scheme as a whole

If the aim of the scheme is to reduce traffic and create safer quieter and more attractive streets then the scheme must prevent through motor traffic whilst enabling residents to drive into and out from the area in which they live. This can be achieved by entry/exit restrictions to and from the boundary roads, one-way streets that return traffic back to the area’s boundary roads – so that the one-way streets do not go anywhere but simply provide resident access. The proposals for Oakdale do not achieve this. This is a pity because a scheme that eliminates through traffic and which makes most streets calm and quiet would see cycling journeys increase and would help George Lane be a thriving destination and local shopping centre.

Whilst the scheme will see an increase in the number of one-way streets it does not eliminate through traffic. One-way streets in residential areas where the road network allows through traffic signal to motorists the prioritisation of the car and through traffic: it becomes a scheme to manage through traffic rather than to remove it. Any short term success such a scheme might have will, within months, be lost as released suppressed demand leads to an increase in through traffic volumes – essentially the same phenomena as that describe in the consultation Q&A.

In the absence of cameras or road designs that make travelling at more than 20 mph feel too fast, motorists, because they do not have to worry about cars coming the other way, will drive faster. Rat running motorists do not have the connection with the residents of the roads they are using as a through route – they have a disconnect with the area, they do not think ‘that pedestrian /cyclist lives two doors down from me’ and so feel little compunction to reduce their speed below the allowed maximum which instead they will see as a target speed.

As previously mentioned the effective carriageway widths of these roads make them hostile to cyclists. The scheme does not change this. This would matter less if thought had been given to providing a number of safe cycle routes through the area so that short journeys, for example to Oakdale School or the shops on George Lane, could be made by bike.

Finally, provision for pedestrians has not been improved by, for example, the introduction of speed tables at junctions.

Specific Comments

Restricted vehicle access Pultney Road

We can understand the thinking behind the proposal and can see that the introduction of a one-way barrier coupled with the closure of Cowslip Lane might well reduce through traffic moving north to south and south to north. Whether residents of the lower part of the Oakdale triangle will feel confident to cycle is another matter. Most short trips will involve entering George Lane and Oakdale’s one-way system. This is not a cycle friendly system and will deter potential cyclists. The proposal is likely to fail in its aim to encourage residents to choose cycling for short trips.

One way system on Granville Road and Albert Road

Local Transport Note 1/20 (LTN1/20) states

6.4.23 Contraflow cycle lanes should normally be mandatory, although an advisory lane may be considered where the speed limit is 20mph and the motor traffic flow is 1,000 PCU per day or less. The entrance to the street for cyclists in the contraflow direction should always be protected by an island to give protection against turning vehicles (see Figure 6.25) where traffic speed and flow is higher (p64)

And


‘Not only must cycle infrastructure be safe, it should also be perceived to be safe so that more people feel able to cycle’ (p8).

The proposals for Granville Road and Albert Road do not appear to comply with this guidance and will not feel safe to cyclist. If this is the case and there is an accident then LBR will be in a position that it would find hard to defend.

One-way system on George Lane and Victoria Road

The aim of this proposal seems to be to reduce congestion and traffic volumes. But it is very hard to see how this will happen: anything that is good for buses (other than their own lanes) will be good for cars. . George Lane, Daisy Lane and Victoria Road provide a through route east/west through Oakdale. If there is already congestion it is because motorists are using
this route. Even if the proposed measures improved things in the short term they will not in the medium and long term. Supressed demand coupled with car navigation systems that can immediately identify a reduction in congestion and re-route accordingly will quickly see new journeys being made through Oakdale: congestion will return and traffic volumes will
increase.

Overall, this is a scheme that tries to have its cake and eat it to: to continue to allow through traffic whilst hoping to achieve the benefits of an LTN. It cannot be done.

Things to consider if the scheme is re-though

Schemes that have successfully reduced traffic volumes typically have restrictions on the road entrances to and exits from the area, road blocks/closures, modal filters, and, to reduce speed and make things safer for pedestrians and cyclists, full width sinusoidal speed humps and speed tables at junctions used by pedestrians. These could all be used in the Oakdale area.

Create cycle routes that are safe and are perceived to be safe through Oakdale, so that residents can make the sort trips to the shops in George Lane and Oakdale School. For example officers might want to consider creating a cycle route along Pultney Road (which may need further filters to fully restrict its use to its residents thereby achieving traffic levels that will make residents feel confident to cycle) with a suitable crossing of George Lane into Cowslip Road, then along Station Passage and then, with another suitable crossing and by installing lightly segregated cycles lanes along the Viaduct on to the shops on the northern
section of George Lane.

Introduce an are wide 20mph speed limit coupled with physical measures to ensure motorists stick to this limit. At present Oakdale’s roads have speed limits of either 20mph or 30mph but, given its residential character, all the roads should have a 20mph speed limit. However given the problem of speeding this will mean making changes to the carriageways
and perhaps installing cameras.

Consider a ‘bus gate’ on George Lane to retain bus access with a camera to stop motorists using it as a through route.

Do something about the junction of Daisy Road, Cowslip Road and Victoria Road. This is very busy but is used by pedestrians on their way to and from Oakdale School. Perhaps the closure of Cowslip Road will reduce traffic volumes but we observed many vehicles driving down Daisy Road and into Victoria Road – which will still be possible. At the same time it seems that for many parents and pupils, this junction is on their route to school. Could the scheme not include a speed table or similar to make things easier for pedestrians?

Implement the school street proposal.

RCC at Wanstead Festival for Car Free Day 12th September!

Wanstead High Street was closed to car traffic from Christchurch Green down to Gail’s with a selection of farmers’ market stalls and other festival particpants on the road and on the green itself. The fine weather encouraged good attendance.

An Essex cycle charity running cycle events at the festival

It was fantastic to see many people cycling to and around the area, with lots of children getting involved on many different types of bikes having fun safely on a traffic-free section of the High Street. Tandem and penny-farthing bikes were witnessed in the area – maybe a new trend in Redbridge! A number of organised bike rides provided opportunity to get involved such as by TrailNet.

TfL had a stall and were publicising the upcoming extension to the ULEZ.

Mark from RCC had a chat to one of the TFL representatives, Jasvir, who was very knowledgeable about cycle routes in East London with many recommendations. Useful information about ULEZ and how to prepare for it was avaible and hopefully will encourage more people to cycle for some of the journeys!

Dr Bike had a stall with two mechanics – perfect opportunity for a free bike check and fix! Unsurprisingly they were busy as usual. One of the mechanics works for Cycle Confident – great way to get free classes in Redbridge for those new to cylcing or wanting to gain more confidence on their bikes!

Dr Bike Wendy with an LCC apron!

Redbridge Cycling Campaign final response to the consultations on the proposed cycling and road safety improvements to Aldersbrook, Centre, Lakehouse, Blake Hall and Woodford New Roads.

We welcome Redbridge’s proposals – probably the most ambitious proposals the Authority has put forward to date.  We hope it will come to be the first of many and look forward to working with the Authority on future schemes. 

At the heart of the proposals are the establishment of a set of lightly segregated cycle tracks.  Cycle tracks and lanes can enhance the safety of cyclists, ensure a fair allocation of road space and can encourage people to choose cycling as a means of transport.  Department for Transport Guidance on cycle infrastructure design is set out in Local Transport Note 1/20 (LTN 1/20).  Guidance means that those designing cycle infrastructure should follow what is set out unless they have a good, defensible, reason not to.  Where we think we the proposals do not follow the guidance we have said so. 

We appreciate the honesty of the Authority in presenting these proposals as ‘preliminary measures and it is hoped that funding may be secured for future interventions such as improvements to assist pedestrians and cyclists at junctions in the area’ and very much hope that Authority is successful in securing the funding to deal with junctions at the beginnings and ends of the tracks.  As LTN 1/20 puts it

‘Junctions and crossings are where most conflicts occur, and the actual and perceived hazards are greatest.  Junctions are often the most hazardous and intimidating parts of a journey for cyclists. A junction that does not provide safe facilities may prevent people from cycling through the junction, but may also be the reason that people will not use the remainder of a route’

The comments below inevitably focus on th difficulties we can see with the proposals but do need to read in the context of a broad welcome for a significant cycle infrastructure project. 

Comments that apply to all the proposals

If the rationale for introducing segregated cycle lanes -the main feature of these schemes – is because they represent cycling and road safety improvements then they need to be continuous and extend over as much of the distance between junctions as possible.  The gaps and the beginnings and ends of these lanes appear to be determined by the meeting needs of motor vehicles, for example where a traffic island means that the carriageway width is insufficient to accommodate a motor vehicles and a cycle.  Each time a section of segregated lane ends a cyclist will face a motor vehicle cutting in front of them from their right.  Most local cyclists have experienced near misses of this kind.  So the potential safety benefits of these schemes will be reduced. 

Bus boarders feature in all the schemes.  The boarder needs to feature a 0.5m buffer for pedestrians to alight onto and the cycle lane needs to remain at 1.5m (not be pinched to, for example 1m).  It is not clear from the documents provided in the consultation whether this will be the case. 

We note the Borough’s intention to install cycle lane delineators in the form of mini-orcas and orcas-with-wands, that these will be alternating at 4m intervals.  Where applicable, will this gap be sufficient to allow motorists to park between orcas/wands?  It has happened in other Boroughs. 

The cycle lanes bring cyclists into the mini roundabouts at the top of Aldersbrook Road or into the junction of Blake Hall Road, Bush Road and Overton Drive.  The consultation does not explain the method used to decide how close to the junctions the start/finish of the lanes should be but in some cases they seem to be further away than they need to be.  If the reason is for the convenience of motor traffic that would be a poor reason: motor vehicle convenience should not be a reason to sacrifice cyclists’ safety. 

The junctions at the end of these schemes remain far too hostile to enable people other than those who already deal with them to take to these roads safely and with confidence. 

In Department for Transport Circular 01/2013, Setting Local Speed Limits, the DfT write

‘84) Based on this positive effect on road safety, and a generally favourable reception from local residents, traffic authorities are able to use their power to introduce 20mph speed limits or zones on:

major streets where there are – or could be – significant numbers of journeys on foot, and/or where pedal cycle movements are an important consideration, and this outweighs the disadvantage of longer journey times for motorised traffic’.

Given that the purpose of these proposals is to improve cycling and road safety we would ask the Authority to set a 20mph speed limit on all the roads affected by the proposals: it is the combination of segregated lanes and lower speed limits that maximises the number of people choosing to cycle.  In all likelihood this would need to include the roads on the Alderbrook and Lakehouse Estates which otherwise, given that the majority of these roads have 30mph speed limits, will get selected by navigation systems as fastest routes leading to an unintended increase in rat running – this has happened in other Boroughs. 

Aldersbrook Road

  1. The decision to retain the traffic islands for pedestrian crossings and speed cameras and to end the segregated cycle lanes at these islands returning cyclists to the carriageway creates a number of pinch points.  LTN 1/20 states

7.2.4 Close overtaking can be intimidating and hazardous to cyclists in free-flowing traffic. Only at speeds lower than 30mph might a minimum clearance of 1.0m be acceptable. No values are given for speed limits greater than 30mph because cyclists should be provided with protected space away from motor traffic (see Figure 4.1).p74

7.2.9 ,,,  pinch-points should be designed in such a way that cyclists are neither squeezed nor intimidated by motor vehicles trying to overtake. The preferred option is to provide a bypass or alternatively sufficient lane width (more than 3.9m) so that the cyclist can remain in the secondary position and be overtaken safely.    When width is insufficient for a bypass, the carriageway width is restricted to prevent overtaking.  This will not be desirable over long lengths unless motor traffic volumes are also very low, as cyclists will feel intimidated by vehicles waiting to overtake.  Gaps between kerbs (or kerb and solid white centre line) should be a maximum of 3.2m. As noted above, widths between 3.2m and 3.9m may encourage close overtaking by motor traffic at pinch points and should not be used. P77

Using the measurement app on an iPhone we found the at the pinch point n with junction of Empress Avenue to be 3.3m.  We imagine the other pinch points are about the same width.  Therefore the minimum clearance for cyclists of 1m for speeds less than 30mph cannot be met.  In fact the width of the carriageway, falls within the range pinch points should nit be used.  (para 7.2.9). 

  • We have noted the Borough’s comments regarding speed cushions and that ‘motorists will find it difficult to avoid the speed cushions when travelling in Aldersbrook Road as they are proposed alongside segregated cycle lanes with delineators, or in conjunction with pedestrian islands’  However we are not persuaded.  It is the view of the London Cycling Campaign and, we understand, recognised best practice, to instal full width sinusoidal speed humps or tables.  Light segregation in the form of cycle lane delineators coupled with speed cushions have been installed on Forest Road between Manor Park Station and Capel Road.  It is not very effective in reducing traffic speeds as most vehicles can drive over the cushions a wheel on either side. 
  • We note the Borough’s intention not to allocate any mini-orcas or orcas-with-wands, at junctions to leave an adequate distance for cyclists to manoeuvre out of/into the cycle lane in a safe and timely manner.  In deciding where to a break the line of  orcas and wands the Authority needs to bear in mind he range of cycles that exist.  LTN q1/20 para 5.4.1 says

‘It is important that infrastructure can accommodate the full range of cycles to ensure routes are accessible to all cyclists’

Turning right from Aldersbrook Road into one of the estate roads is a manoeuvre that will need to be executed with confidence and at a reasonable speed.  Experienced cyclists on solo bikes will manage this but less experienced cyclists, children and some cyclists with disabilities and adapted bikes may well not.  It is not acceptable if cyclists other than those who are experienced are forced to dismount and cross as pedestrians

  • Finally we think that the segregated lane may send a signal to motorists that this is where cyclists should be and so they will not be expecting a right turn manoeuvre – making things worse than they are now. 
  • We do not understand why there are no segregated lanes between Brading Crescent and Harpenden Road. 

Centre Road

Light segregation in the form of cycle lane delineators seems a good solution to the issues this road poses for cyclists.  We have only one comments

  1. Why does the lane going north from Forest Gate towards Wanstead not start where the houses on Woodgrange Road end? 
  2. Looking at the proposals from a pedestrian point of view is a raised speed table with a speed limit of 30mph more or less safe than an island with a 40mph speed limit? Table

In answer to a query regarding the proposed raised speed table an officer told us that the proposed reduction of the speed limit from “40mph” to “30mph” in Centre Road, paired with the kerb-to-kerb speed hump on the approach to the crossing point, narrowing of the lane width available to vehicles and warning signs/ road markings will assist in reducing the speed that vehicles travel in Centre Road and thus, improve road safety for all road users and of those crossing at this particular point.  Does the s peed hump on the approach efer to the table as no speed hump is shown in the drawings provided for the consultation. The drawings show a carriageway wide at the crossing that is wide enough for two way traffic which will be approaching at 30mph.  will this be safe?

Lakehouse Road

Light segregation in the form of cycle lane delineators seems a good solution to the issues this road poses for cyclists.  We can see no specific issues. 

Blake Hall Road

We cannot see why the segregated cycle lane in the direction towards Wanstead cannot start at the mini roundabout. 

The northbound lane delivers cyclists into the mouth of the left filter lane into Bush Road.  Cyclists wanting to proceed towards Wanstead will need to enter the filter lane and get into the straight ahead lane.  This lane has no space for cyclists so at some point cyclists must merge into the traffic.  A cyclist confident enough to execute this manoeuvre would not need a segregated cycle lane.  Conversely a cyclist who would only cycle if able to use a segregated lane is unlikely to be confident enough to safely execute the required manoeuvre and if they is likely to be put in harm’s way. 

The timing of the lights at the crossing between Woodlands Road and Belgrave Road should be changed – pedestrians and cyclists have to wait too long for the light to change. 

It would be worth considering installing a toucan/parallel crossing where the cycle track that runs parallel to the A12 and under the Green Man roundabout meets Blake Hall Road (just before Blake Hall Road crosses the A12).  This would create a useful link. 

Woodford New Road

Light segregation in the form of cycle lane delineators seems a good solution to separate cyclist and motorists on what is a very busy road.

.  LTN 1/20 states

‘Cyclists must be physically separated and protected from high volume motor traffic, both at junctions and on the stretches of road between them’ One traffic island has been narrowed to accommodate cycle lanes whilst one, at Bunces Road, has not and the cycle lane stops.  This does not comply with LTN1/20 the guidance.