HCC Scrutiny Committee Cycling Policy and Delivery October 2009 Presentation on behalf of CTC North Herts

Please note… This presentation is just a brief summary. The time allocated does not allow us to make a meaningful presentation of the issues in sufficient detail for members to understand. For a slightly more in-depth look at the problems facing anybody who wishes to cycle in North Herts, see the presentation prepared for the Joint Highways Panel in June and circulated to the Scrutiny committee.Joint Highways Panel For a detailed look at how engineers should cater for cycling see this presentation delivered to the Institution of Civil Engineers in January.Institution of Civil Engineers

The Key Problem

The Key Problem…  Is that staff dealing with the design and procurement of highways and cycling infrastructure do not value cycling or understand it.  Without tackling this issue we will never make meaningful progress.  This problem is highlighted in the Hertfordshire Cycling Strategy: “CS20 Staff dealing with planning, highways and education may have no experience or training in providing for cyclists (or even riding a bicycle), with the result that they have unrealistic ideas e.g. that cycling is dangerous and provide facilities which actually make conditions more difficult for existing cyclists and fail to attract new cyclists. CS31 Safety auditors should recognise the needs of all transport users. Since cycling is a ‘vulnerable’ transport mode, there is tendency for those undertaking safety audits to recommend measures that restrict or impede cycling, reducing its attractiveness by making it less convenient by introducing unnecessary delays or detours. CS32 It is the role of a cycle audit to balance the five core principles – facilities should be: convenient; accessible; safe; comfortable; and attractive – to see whether a proposed scheme will work for cyclists and in doing so encourage more cycling. The evidence that more cycling results in a safer road environment for all users, not just cyclists, is a convincing one and should guide everyone involved in the planning, design and implementation of all highway schemes.”

The Answer…  Education:  Teach designers how and why to design for cycling. We can provide that expertise.  Education:  Give designers practical experience in how people should cycle in traffic so that they can understand the issues, through cycle training. We can provide the expertise again.  Education:  Listen to the feedback from user groups. We can tell you what the guidance says, how it should be applied, and how that affects users. We have the expertise.

…and from that flows all the other problems

Value Cycling: LTP2 Table 5.2 Relationship to Shared Priorities Cycling ticks ALL the boxes... CongestionAccessibilitySafetyAir QualityQuality of Life    And more besides    PopularityHealthEnvironmentSpeed & Practicality National Glory

Value Cycling  Obesity costs Hertfordshire’s NHS trusts £12,25 Million per year.  “If the Government were to achieve its target of trebling cycling in the period … that might achieve more in the fight against obesity than any individual measure we recommend within this report.” House of Commons Health Select Committee

Invest and plan properly  Current annual in cycling investment is about 70p per person – the value of one chocolate bar every year.  To build the North Herts Cycle Network over 10 years would require an annual investment of only £6.50 per person – the cost of a single local train journey per year.  The Baldock Bypass cost £3,500 per head of Baldock’s population  £6.50 is not an unreasonable level of public expenditure and it creates solutions, not problems.

Stick to the Plan There is plenty of GOOD guidance available, paid for out of public money. Make sure that designer follow it.  Local Transport Plans (eg Hitchin 1998)  Cycle Network Plans (eg North Herts Network Plan)  Local Development Plans (eg Hitchin Town Centre Plan)  Hertfordshire Cycling Strategy  LTN 02/08 “Cycling Infrastructure Design”  Cycling England’s Engineering Checklist

Explicitly consider cycling in ALL highway schemes…  Cycling predominantly takes place on all purpose roads, not on “cycling infrastructure”.  Designers have much greater capacity to bring benefits or do harm when considering changes to the all purpose road network than when designing “cycling facilities”.

Key Principles:  Keep cycling in the carriageway as default.  Improve permeability by creating links between quiet roads to avoid busy ones.  Give users as much choice of routes as possible.  Address barriers – road closures, one way streets, busy roads and junctions.  To design “cycling facilities”, design as a road and then halve the dimensions.

Hertfordshire Cycling Strategy Key Recommendations  When the cycle review process leads to improvements to be made to cycle routes along roads, the presumption will be that cyclists will remain on carriageway and that the speed and volume of traffic will be reduced to improve cyclist, pedestrian and all traffic user safety, and by implication, the safety of all road users.  Retaining cyclists on-carriageway is acknowledged as generally the best solution  The hierarchy of provision needs to be applied rigorously and consistently. The common temptation to apply the hierarchy in reverse order, ignoring the first two solutions (which evidence suggests may also have the most impact on encouraging sustainable travel patterns) must be resisted.  WHY ARE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED ON ALL SCHEMES ?

Hertfordshire Cycling Strategy Key Recommendations the presumption will be that cyclists will remain on carriageway and that the speed and volume of traffic will be reduced Cycle tracks will not be created through the conversion of footways, without full consultation with all stakeholders Cyclists will be exempt from all traffic regulation orders banning turns or closing roads Advanced stop lines will be introduced at urban signalised junctions All one-way streets will include contra-flow cycling. Cycle tracks or road crossings will not have barriers, chicanes or other obstructions. Cyclists will not be excluded from vehicle restricted areas (including ‘pedestrianised areas’) All new developments should be permeable for cyclists.

 Consider first –Traffic reduction –Speed reduction –Junction treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic management –Redistribution of the carriageway (bus lanes, widened nearside lanes etc) –Cycle lanes, segregated cycle tracks constructed by reallocation of carriageway space, cycle tracks away from roads  Consider last –Conversion of footways/footpaths to shared- use cycle tracks alongside the carriageway Follow the Hierarchy of provision Hertfordshire Cycling Strategy, Manual for Streets, LTN 02/08, TAL 91/05

Don’t put cyclists on roadside footways “Cycle tracks will not be created through the conversion of footways, without a full assessment by reference to the hierarchy of solutions, a cycle audit and full consultation with all stakeholders.” Hertfordshire Cycling Strategy Weston Way, Baldock No visibility. Inappropriate choice, DANGEROUS Baldock Rd, Letchworth Too narrow Inappropriate choice, Badly designed Bedford Rd, Hitchin Too narrow Inappropriate choice. Roadside cycle tracks are usually only appropriate alongside busy rural roads with few side turnings and ample verge width

Get the basics right…  Permeability  Directness  Visibility  Bend radii  Width  Clearance to street furniture  Maintenance

Listen to User Groups  We are experts, you can learn a lot from us, but our comments have been systematically ignored:  Hitchin Station  Bedford Road Hitchin  Baldock Road, Letchworth  Church St, Baldock  Weston Road, Baldock  Burns Road, Royston