COMPLIANCE ISSUES
All new active Travel Schemes are required to be designed in accordance with Cycle Infrastructure Design, Local Transport Note 1/20. The existing physical space along London Road, especially in places where highway width is very limited, is a major problem. Currently presented drawings display that the design objectives for scaling of cycle path and carriageway widths, taken from the above guidance, have been based on the use of “absolute minima” along the entire length, rather than the published best practice “desirable minima”.
The first stage of Surrey CC’s revision asserted that carriageway width would be increased from 6 metres to 6.5 metres. Surrey CC now publish detailed drawings with dimensions and show on their websites that they meet this target in all but 365 metres of the Burpham stretch (29%). It is unfortunate that beside these narrower sections there is insufficient space for segregated cycle and pedestrian tracks.
It was inevitable, due to the space limitations, that full compliance would not be possible and the fall-back position stated in the guidance is that: “In rare cases, where it is absolutely unavoidable, a short stretch of less good provision rather than jettison an entire route which is otherwise good will be appropriate. But in most instances it is not absolutely unavoidable and exceptions will be rare.”
In monitoring the frequency of application of this clause LRAG has noted that more than 45% of the cycle path between Boxgrove and Aldi has to be shared with pedestrians, and there are 13 locations where transitions from segregated cycle paths, potentially used by faster-moving cyclists, converge into joint pedestrian usage. Hopefully, these concerns will be picked up by the Safety Audit Team.
All new active Travel Schemes are required to be designed in accordance with Cycle Infrastructure Design, Local Transport Note 1/20. The existing physical space along London Road, especially in places where highway width is very limited, is a major problem. Currently presented drawings display that the design objectives for scaling of cycle path and carriageway widths, taken from the above guidance, have been based on the use of “absolute minima” along the entire length, rather than the published best practice “desirable minima”.
The first stage of Surrey CC’s revision asserted that carriageway width would be increased from 6 metres to 6.5 metres. Surrey CC now publish detailed drawings with dimensions and show on their websites that they meet this target in all but 365 metres of the Burpham stretch (29%). It is unfortunate that beside these narrower sections there is insufficient space for segregated cycle and pedestrian tracks.
It was inevitable, due to the space limitations, that full compliance would not be possible and the fall-back position stated in the guidance is that: “In rare cases, where it is absolutely unavoidable, a short stretch of less good provision rather than jettison an entire route which is otherwise good will be appropriate. But in most instances it is not absolutely unavoidable and exceptions will be rare.”
In monitoring the frequency of application of this clause LRAG has noted that more than 45% of the cycle path between Boxgrove and Aldi has to be shared with pedestrians, and there are 13 locations where transitions from segregated cycle paths, potentially used by faster-moving cyclists, converge into joint pedestrian usage. Hopefully, these concerns will be picked up by the Safety Audit Team.