east-west cycle superhighway technical note tn04 may 2015 ... · ewcs associated with the royal...

East-West Cycle Superhighway Technical Note TN04 May 2015 Review of revised EWCS scheme on behalf of Westminster City Council THE ROYAL PARKS Cycle Superhighway Number 3 (East West Cycle Superhighway): Comments on revised proposals supplied by Transport for London in relation to The Royal Parks (TN04)

This document sets out comments and concerns, which need to be addressed following an evaluation of the proposals as summarised in this document.

1 Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this technical note is to provide a briefing on the revised TfL scheme design and modelling for the East West Cycle Superhighway in relation to The Royal Parks.

1.2 Following consultation in September 2014, the TfL Board at its meeting on 4 February 2015 agreed that the Tower Hill – Paddington section of the East-West Cycle Superhighway should progress to construction, although with some changes to the proposals set out for consultation. These include:

• Changes to reduce the journey time impacts of the proposals, which retain the proposed segregated route for cyclists, but also provide two westbound traffic lanes between Tower Hill and Northumberland Avenue. Space is created in various ways, including some reductions in footways, cycle track and traffic island widths;

• Lifting some of the previously-proposed traffic restrictions at Fish Street Hill, Horse Guards Road and Storey’s Gate, with potentially a new signalised junction at Horse Guards Road / Storey’s Gate (subject to further consultation);

• New banned turns at Northumberland Avenue and Storey’s Gate (subject to further consultation);

• More loading, disabled and motorcycle parking on Victoria Embankment and more time allowed for loading (subject to local consultation)

• New design at Lancaster Gate with a more direct route for southbound cyclists that avoids Stanhope Terrace and Brook Street (subject to further consultation);

• Revised design at the junction of Victoria Embankment/ Westminster Bridge that runs vehicular traffic together with non-conflicting cyclists, which has less of an impact on traffic capacity than the initial scheme;

• Revised design at the junction of Parliament Street/ Parliament Square that removes the proposal for a segregated cycle facility in favour of a simpler advanced cycle stopline (ASL), which has less of an impact on traffic capacity than the initial scheme.

1.3 Westminster City Council (WCC) and their consultants, FM Conway Limited, WSP and Jacobs, were provided with a brief opportunity in mid-January 2015 to comment on design changes for Victoria Embankment/ Northumberland Avenue and Lancaster Gate ahead of the further consultation carried out February-March 2015, and also provided comments on consultation material for The Royal Parks, and reviewed arrangements for Savoy Hill/ Savoy Street. However, traffic signal method of control and traffic modelling information was not included in the draft consultation material, and so a detailed review was not possible at that time.

East-West Cycle Superhighway Technical Note TN04 May 2015 Review of revised EWCS scheme on behalf of Westminster City Council THE ROYAL PARKS 1.4 This note sets out a review of the revised proposals and traffic modelling for elements of the

EWCS associated with The Royal Parks, including Hyde Park, Hyde Park Corner/ Constitution Hill and St James’s Park (Great George Street/ Horse Guards Road/ Storey’s Gate).

East-West Cycle Superhighway Technical Note TN04 May 2015 Review of revised EWCS scheme on behalf of Westminster City Council THE ROYAL PARKS

2 Westminster City Council Data Request

2.1 WCC requested additional material to assist with the review of the proposed revisions to the EWCSH scheme. Although TfL was not in a position to issue the full range of material provided for the September consultation, TfL has provided:

• Output diagrams from the ONE strategic traffic model, indicating the expected changes in traffic flows as a consequence of the revised scheme against Base conditions, and also the expected changes when compared to the initial scheme proposals;

• Technical Note responding to specific data requests (see Appendix A - TfL Operational Modelling and Visualisation report issued to Jacobs on 19th March 2015) regarding:

o Revised modelling methodology; o Revised general journey time change across Westminster o Revised bus journey time changes on Borough routes o Assessment of impact of prohibiting turns between Westminster Bridge and

Victoria Embankment. • Opportunity to view the VISSIM micro-simulation models for the EWCSH route through

Westminster, and a series of VISSIM model screenshots indicating queue lengths towards the end of the modelled peak;

• LinSig junction traffic models for Lancaster Gate, Parliament Square and Victoria Embankment;

3 ONE model peak hour traffic flow differences

3.1 TfL has provided peak period traffic flow difference plots in City of Westminster, based on the ONE EWCSH Final Model outputs. Figures 1 and 2 show the revised scheme traffic forecast scenarios versus the base traffic scenarios in the AM and PM peaks. Figures 3 and 4 show the revised scheme traffic forecast scenarios versus the previous scheme forecast scenarios in the AM and PM peaks. Blue bars indicate a reduction in traffic flow, red bars show where there is expected to be an increase.


Figure 1: ONE Model revised scheme traffic forecast versus the base traffic scenario – AM Peak

Figure 2: ONE Model revised scheme traffic forecast versus the base traffic scenario – PM Peak

East-West Cycle Superhighway Technical Note TN04 May 2015 Review of revised EWCS scheme on behalf of Westminster City Council THE ROYAL PARKS 3.2 The analysis shows that the EWCS scheme will require/ will result in considerable traffic flow

reductions across the City of Westminster. For junctions and road links associated with The Royal Parks scheme elements, traffic flow will be reduced on:

• Park Lane • Grosvenor Place • Bayswater Road • Birdcage Walk and Great George Street • Constitution Hill • Knightsbridge • West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive

Figure 3: ONE Model revised scheme traffic forecast versus previous scheme – AM Peak


Figure 4: ONE Model revised scheme traffic forecast versus previous scheme – PM Peak

3.3 TfL forecasts that, when compared to the initial (September 2014) scheme design, the revised scheme would result in slightly more traffic using The Royal Parks related roads in the AM peak, but broadly unchanged impact during the PM peak.

4 VISSIM modelling results

4.1 The EWCSH has been assessed by TfL using a series of VISSIM micro-simulation models for the entire route. WCC consultants were invited to observe the models running at TfL offices on 11th March 2015. Due to time constraints only the AM peak models were viewed, however this is reported to be the worst case and is sufficient to observe likely operational issues. It should be noted that the detailed VISSIM modelling is constrained to the EWCS corridor, and no modelling has been carried out on the wider London road network.

4.2 Key issues noted are:

• Long southbound queues on Park Lane, stretching beyond the extent of the model at Stanhope Gate, however it is reported that this could be managed further away from the Hyde Park Corner junction using wider traffic management;

• Lancaster Gate gyratory operating within capacity, yet the proposed 2 lane to 1 lane merges on Bayswater Road both eastbound and westbound show congestion at the merge points – these will only operate successfully with significant traffic demand reductions.


• No significant operational issues at other locations associated with The Royal Parks.

4.3 Generally, the VISSIM models show all junctions along the EWCS corridor operating within or at capacity, with only a few locations showing large queues and delays. This has been achieved through widescale traffic demand reduction and management elsewhere on the central London network (not modelled in the detailed VISSIM). A statement from TfL regarding the strategy is set out below:

“Alongside the implementation of the East-West Cycle Superhighway, TfL will be implementing a traffic management strategy which takes advantage of recent and on-going investment in London’s sophisticated traffic signal system. The strategy will manage traffic around the 21 major road schemes planned to be delivered by December 2016 in central and inner London including the East-West Cycle Superhighway. The objective of this strategy will be to protect the bus network, prevent the blocking of exits at junctions and ensure that key intersections do not become gridlocked. The approach will be flexible and we will need to respond to the daily demands of traffic on London’s road network. Signal timings at certain key junctions will be adjusted to manage the flow of traffic into and around central London to ensure traffic keeps moving and we will actively manage traffic flows away from and around locations where construction is taking place.”

5 Design issues – Hyde Park

5.1 The City Council has not received detailed drawings of the proposals for Hyde Park. The review is based upon the TfL Consultation drawings (February/March 2015).

5.2 The proposals for North Carriage Drive/ West Carriage Drive are shown on Figure 5. Locations of potential issues are highlighted.


Figure 5: EWCS Hyde Park – Section B North Carriage Drive

5.3 There may be a considerable volume of cyclists wishing to cross at the location highlighted (1), without formal control. Cyclists would also share the space with pedestrians. It should be demonstrated that this crossing arrangement is viable in terms of capacity on the central island for the expected volume of pedestrians and cyclists at peak times, and also in terms of safety for all road users – particularly with the ‘courtesy’ crossing arrangement. There is a risk that vehicle queues could extend back to Bayswater Road and affect the operation and safety of the junction.

5.4 The proposals for West Carriage Drive are shown on Figure 6. Locations of potential issues are highlighted.


Figure 6: EWCS Hyde Park – Section D South Carriage Drive

5.5 The design drawing does not indicate the traffic signal method of control and TfL has not provided traffic modelling analysis results as part of the consultation. WCC seek assurance that the proposed operation of the junction is appropriately safe, will not give rise to traffic capacity issues, and that expected traffic queues would not block back to upstream junctions on Kensington Gore. This junction is currently the subject of local concern due to the long queues of traffic on West Carriage Drive. The reduction to a single lane southbound will reduce capacity and so this is likely to exacerbate the problem.

5.6 The design shows southbound cyclists entering an ASL on the approach to the junction (2). Although their entry to the ASL is protected by the footway buildout, this will not protect cyclists entering the ASL when the traffic signal is green for traffic, and there is risk of a left-turn hook accident. Cyclists may feel that they have a degree of protection from the buildout, and this could exacerbate the risk.

5.7 It is not clear whether or not the shared pedestrian/ cyclist TOUCAN crossing facilities (3) will be retained. If they are to be retained, then there is opportunity to address the lack of coherent links between the proposed cycle tracks, shared footway areas and points where cyclists are expected to leave/ join the carriageway. The footway widening shown on South Carriage Drive might be used effectively as a protected lead-in for cyclists joining the carriageway.


6 Design issues – Hyde Park Corner/ Constitution Hill

6.1 The City Council has received detailed drawings of the proposals for Hyde Park Corner (ODE-ST-PJ327-ID-C-HPC-CH-01), an extract is shown on Figure 7. Locations of potential issues are highlighted.

Figure 7: Hyde Park Corner/ Constitution Hill

6.2 The City Council does not consider the pedestrian guard rails (1) proposed on the central pedestrian refuge to be necessary. It is understood that the reverse stagger arrangement is not desirable, and that PGR may overcome potential issues of pedestrians continuing to cross in a straight line, rather than following the route through the pedestrian pen. However, the PGR will reduce the capacity of the pedestrian pen and create unnecessary visual intrusion.

6.3 The City Council would prefer that tactile paving is provided without the tails (2), and is consistent throughout the junction. Tails to tactile paving are not shown for the crossing over Hyde Park Corner on the Wellington Arch, and this is preferable.

6.4 The proposed scheme design retains the shared pedestrian/ footway area on the northeast corner of the junction. The area is to be made larger, which is welcomed, however the behaviour of cyclists and pedestrians at this location, particularly if the volume of cyclists


increases greatly, must be monitored to ensure that the arrangement provides a safe environment for all road users.

6.5 The intended route for cyclists leaving the EWCS to join the southbound circulating carriageway around Hyde Park Corner is not evident.

6.6 The proposed scheme design reduces the number of traffic lanes to two on the Constitution Hill westbound approach to Hyde Park Corner. This will inevitably have traffic capacity reduction implications. The City Council recognises that the design accommodates the forecast traffic volume at the junction, which is expected to reduce as a consequence of the traffic reduction effects of the area-wide Active Traffic Management and demand management strategy being adopted by TfL. This will require monitoring to ensure that traffic congestion is avoided.

7 Design issues – St James’s Park (Birdcage Walk/ Great George Street/ Horse Guards Road/ Storey’s Gate)

7.1 The City Council has received detailed drawings of the proposals for St James’s Park (ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-HGR-001 – Option 1 and ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-016). Extracts are shown on Figures 8 and 9 respectively. Potential issues are highlighted.

Figure 8: Birdcage Walk/ Great George Street/ Horse Guards Road/ Storey’s Gate junction


Figure 9: Great George Street

7.2 The proposed traffic signal method of control (1) highlights a number of concerns:

• The proposed method of control operates 5 stages, and may require a long cycle time (if all stages are demanded) in order to operate efficiently. This will create significantly greater delay to traffic, cyclists and pedestrians compared to current conditions and may result in injudicious behaviour, particularly from pedestrians and cyclists. It is possible that cyclists will experience less delay if they use the general traffic carriageway, yet this is proposed to be reduced in width (7) from 10m wide to 6m wide on Great George Street and so is inherently more hazardous than the current arrangement. The proposed method of control will inevitably have traffic capacity reduction implications. The City Council recognises that the design accommodates the forecast traffic volume at the junction, which is expected to reduce as a consequence of the traffic reduction effects of the area-wide Active Traffic Management and demand management strategy being adopted by TfL. This will require monitoring to ensure that traffic congestion is avoided.

• Stage 1 – Westbound cyclists are shown a green signal from the EWCS, but receive a red signal at the crossing over Birdcage Walk, despite pedestrians receiving a red man. Cyclists are unlikely to stop as instructed, and will conflict with pedestrians crossing informally, presenting a risk to both pedestrians and cyclists. Westbound cyclists are shown a green signal, yet left-turning cyclists are opposed by westbound traffic. This is a serious risk of conflict, as it is not a usual or desirable arrangement.


• Stage 2 – Both eastbound and westbound cyclists on EWCS receive a green signal, yet the westbound cyclists are already on a green signal from Stage 1, resulting in an early-start for right-turning (opposing) cyclists. This is likely to cause unusual conflict within the junction. Early starts for vehicle traffic are not adopted in London for perceived safety reasons, and so this design is not orthodox. There is no indication to westbound right-turning cyclists that they will, at some point in the signal cycle, become opposed by eastbound cyclists. This is a potential safety risk.

• Stage 3 – This provides an effective scramble crossing for cyclists, and there is the potential for confusion within the junction as different movements conflict with each other. Right-turning cyclists from Horse Guards Road immediately turn onto a red signal at the pedestrian crossing over Birdcage Walk. If demand is significant, the queue of cyclists will still be present when vehicular traffic turns out behind them, with the risk of conflict.

• Stage 4 – This presents a split-phase arrangement at the pedestrian crossing over Birdcage Walk, where westbound traffic is presented with a green signal, yet eastbound traffic and cyclists in both directions are on a red signal. There is a risk that this will create confusion for pedestrians, who will cross in stages and spill onto the EWCS cycle track. As pedestrians are not receiving a green man, it is also unlikely that cyclists will obey the red signal. This presents a safety risk to pedestrians and cyclists.

• Stage 5 – Westbound traffic is released, yet cyclists from Horse Guards Road remain on a red signal (because of the chance that the stream may contain ahead and right-turning cyclists). It is likely that left-turning and ahead cyclists from Horse Guards Road will enter the junction, due to the potential degree of delay if they wait for the cycle green signal.

7.3 The proposed segregated and separately controlled cycle lane on Horse Guards Road (2) will receive a short green signal within a potentially long cycle time. There is a risk that cyclists will gain an advantage by leaving the cycle lane and joining the general traffic lane, with a potential weaving conflict. This presents a safety risk to cyclists.

7.4 The proposed left turn ban from Birdcage Walk to Horse Guards Road (3) is not prevented using physical intervention (because the turn might need to be made on special occasions). There is a risk that drivers disobey the banned turn, presenting significant risk to westbound cyclists receiving a green signal from the EWCS at the same time. Traffic wishing to make the turn would route through Parliament Square and Whitehall, adding traffic to a junction that requires considerable traffic reduction in order to operate efficiently.

7.5 The pedestrian refuge at the crossings over Birdcage Walk and Horse Guards Road (4) are only 1.5m wide. On Birdcage Walk, this is a considerable reduction from the current width of the informal island (some 4m wide). 1.5m is a minimum width, and TfL normally stipulates a refuge width of 2.0m to accommodate a pedestrian with a pram or wheelchair to wait safely (SQA-0643). As a consequence of the traffic signal staging and the opportunities for pedestrians to cross informally in separate phases, it is likely that the islands will be used by high numbers of pedestrians. The 1.5m island width is unlikely to be sufficient, and this


presents a risk to pedestrian safety, and the likelihood that pedestrians will spill into the cycle track with risk to cyclist safety.

7.6 Although there is currently no pedestrian refuge within the junction (5), pedestrians use the hatched area to cross Great George Street informally. The additional delay to pedestrians as a consequence of the signal controlled crossing may result in greater volumes of pedestrians choosing to cross uncontrolled within the junction, presenting a risk to pedestrian safety.

7.7 The City Council wishes to receive confirmation that servicing requirements for premises on Storey’s Gate (6) and Great George Street (8) have been considered adequately, due to the proposal to make Storey’s Gate one way southbound and restrict access to the area. The City Council understands that analysis has been carried out regarding the volume of traffic likely to be affected by the proposal, and that this is a low volume. However, this traffic will be diverted to Parliament Square, adding traffic to a junction that requires considerable traffic reduction in order to operate efficiently.

7.8 The width of the EWCS two way cycle track on Great George Street is only 3.0m at key pinch points (7). This may not be sufficient to accommodate the volume of cyclists expected in a safe manner. This width cannot be increased, and so it is possible that cyclists will choose to use the carriageway, which presents safety risks.

7.9 The carriageway on Great George Street (8) is proposed to be reduced in width from 10m to 6m (3m wide lanes in each direction). This is a minimum width for two opposing lanes and large vehicles may have difficulty passing. There is an increased risk to powered two-wheeler safety, who may attempt to pass along the outside of the traffic queues that will form in each direction along the route. Cyclists choosing to avoid the cycle track will also be at risk. Taxis may stop to set-down and pick-up from the kerbside, and this will cause all following vehicles to have to wait, creating the risk that queues will block back to Parliament Square and affect the safety and operation of the junction. Alternatively, following drivers may attempt to pass a stationary taxi, which could be hazardous due to oncoming and opposing traffic in the narrow street.

8 Road Safety Audits

8.1 The City Council received the following TfL Road Safety Audits on 9 April 2015 (included at Appendix B):

• Ref 2021.07 - Audit Report (Central Dwg 1 to 15) • Ref 2021.16 - Audit Report Hyde Park 1 • Ref 2021.18 - Audit Report Hyde Park 2 • Ref 2021.19 - Audit Report SJP • Ref 2021 19 - Audit Report (St James's Park) - April 2015 FINAL

8.2 A PROBLEM is identified at South Carriage Drive/ West Carriage Drive with potential for head on conflicts between southbound vehicles and northbound right turn vehicles due to the


alignment through the junction. This skewed alignment exists currently, yet there are road markings to mitigate the problem. The Road Safety Audit considers the risk to be exacerbated by the proposals and recommends measures to guide vehicles through the junction. These measures, however, are likely to create a pinch point on the north east corner of South Carriage Drive, placing cyclists at risk of a side swipe collision. The design shows a cycle logo within the carriageway to try to minimise this problem, yet this may be ineffective.

8.3 WCC considers that the road safety issues set out in Section 7 should be reviewed at the next design stage.


APPENDIX A

TfL Operational and Visualisation Report March 19 2015

Transport for London Operational Modelling & Visualisation

Page 1 of 15

1. Introduction

The Operational Modelling and Visualisation Team were asked to provide additional ONE Model analysis for the East – West Cycle Superhighways consultation. Specific data requests were made by Westminster City Council and their traffic consultants Jacobs. The following Technical Note responds to data requests for the following items:

1. General journey time changes across the Borough (to compare to results in previous consultation note);

2. Bus journey time changes on the routes identified in the previous consultation note; and

3. Flow Bundle information from the Base model for identified turns.

The above requests complement a previous model data enquiry which included the following, and was issued on 11th March 2015:

1. Select link analysis for the existing left-turn and right-turn between Westminster Bridge and Victoria Embankment, so that we could identify what traffic could be maintained under a revised design.

2. ONE model flow difference diagrams covering the network (as before) for: a. Base vs 2016 Sensitivity (revised scheme) b. 2016 Sensitivity (previous scheme) vs 2016 (revised scheme)

2. Modelling Assumptions

The analysis of scheme impacts presented in this note should be understood taking note of the following modelling assumptions and inputs.

2.1. Strategic Models

The Operational Network Evaluator (ONE) Model is a strategic highway assignment model built in the VISUM software environment. The model is built as a simplified representation of the real world at a particular moment in time. The model has been built and calibrated to average November 2012 traffic count and journey time data. The scope and scale of the model is in line with WebTAG guidance, which states:

“Within the Area of Detailed Modelling, a relatively high level of detail will generally be appropriate. Guidelines for Developing Urban Transport Strategies (Institution of Highways and Transportation 1996) suggests that “all roads that carry significant volumes of traffic” should be included and more generally that networks “should be of sufficient extent to include all realistic choices of route available to drivers”.”

Due to the nature of assignment modelling and the assumption that users of the network have perfect information when deciding on a route, the inclusion of too many smaller roads will most likely results in an unrealistic amount of rat-running. For this reason only key strategic roads and through routes are included in a strategic model, as outlined in WebTAG.

Scheme / Project: East – West CSH Modelling Data Requests

Client: Peter Hewitt / Jacobs & WCC

Modelling Platform: ONE EWCSH Final Models (Dec ’14/ Jan ’15)

Authored: MF 16/03/2015

Checked: TD 19/03/2015

Approved: PH 24/03/2015


Page 2 of 15

2.2. Fixed Demand and Zoning

The demand contained in the ONE Model is fixed, with the same number of trips assigned to the network in the Base and Proposed models. Over time, individuals may decide to reduce their mobility or use alternative modes – effects which are not represented in the ONE Model.

The demand in the ONE Model is based on estimates provided by Group Planning and the London Transport Study (LTS) model. Whilst in reality demand origins and destinations can be anywhere on the highway network, this behaviour is too complex to represent in a strategic model. Consequently trips are grouped into zones and load onto or exit from the network at designated locations. The point at which trips are loaded onto the network influences the routes vehicles take through the network and every effort is made to locate these points in logical locations. However it is possible that when changes are made to the network, some unrealistic local trips might be observed.

2.3. Equilibrium Assignment

The ONE Model utilises an equilibrium assignment methodology wherein it assigns trips between all origins and destinations to their least cost path and assumes that drivers have perfect network knowledge when selecting routes.

At the outset the traffic model the algorithm assesses, for each origin trip, all the possible route permutations to every destination, it then selects the lowest cost route and assigns trips through the network. This infers that the trip has perfect knowledge of the delays and congestion along the each and every route and therein makes decisions about the lowest cost route before departing. Routing decisions will differ between the Base and Proposed scenarios as a result of the changes made and the point at which a new route is chosen can be some distance from the changes themselves. Consequently the impacts of reassignment can be dispersed over a large area, and evidence of ‘model noise’ might be observed.

The results presented are therefore more representative of network conditions sometime after the changes have been implemented, when individuals have learned of alternative routes and chosen the one best suited to them, rather than the local (and potentially greater) effects that may occur on the first day after the changes are implemented.

2.4. Bus Journey Times from the ONE Model

Bus routes in the ONE Model do not currently have calibrated bus stop dwell times based on observed data; therefore it is not possible to extract meaningful, absolute, modelled bus route journey times comparable with that on-street. However, potential changes to average bus route journey times can be inferred if the following assumptions are made:

1. The amount of time that a bus dwells at bus stops is unchanged by proposed schemes.

2. No additional delay is experienced by a bus when it is protected by a bus lane e.g. a bus route’s journey time will remain the same between scenarios over the part of a route when the bus is travelling in a bus lane.

3. When a bus is travelling in the main carriageway with general traffic (e.g. there is no bus lane), the bus experiences the same travel times and levels of delay as the general traffic.

4. The ONE Model is not a micro-simulation model and therefore specific random vehicle interactions at the micro-level, such as the effects of on-street parking and blocked access to and from bus stops are not taken into account.


Page 3 of 15

The ONE Model covers, in detail, the area of the London network shown below in red. Only data for bus routes within that area can be extracted. A number of bus routes have not been included in the data set and are therefore not included within the dataset.

An additional 89 routes partially covered in the model have also been removed from the dataset. This is because it was felt that those routes are not represented significantly enough to enable us to be confident that the reported journey time changes would be representative of the impact on the whole route. In general, these are routes with less than approximately 7 KMs of the total route contained within the detailed model area (although some exceptions to this do exist based on case by case judgement). Many of the remaining routes reported are still not covered entirely by the detailed model area. However, based on case by case judgement, these results are included as only a small % of the route is not covered and it is felt that the results do represent the average potential impacts on the route as a whole. These routes are marked by an * in the accompanying results tables.

3. General journey time change across the Borough

General journey time changes were measured in the original consultation documentation through three indicators:

1. The change in level of delay per vehicle kilometre travelled on the Borough network; 2. The average change in journey time per vehicle kilometre; and 3. The average speed through the Boroughs road network.

Table 1 – Westminster Borough Level of Delay Delay per KM Previous Scheme Revised Scheme

AM +24% +22% PM +32% +32%

Table 2 – Westminster Borough Average Journey Times Average JT per KM Previous Scheme Revised Scheme

AM +12% +11% PM +17% +17%

Table 3 – Westminster Borough Average Speed

Delay per KM (Secs) Previous Scheme Revised Scheme

Before After Before After AM 16.7 15.0 16.7 15.1 PM 15.6 13.3 15.6 13.4


Page 4 of 15

4. Bus journey time changes on Borough routes

The consultation documentation presented the impact on bus journey times for 148 bus routes which travel through the Westminster jurisdiction, the bus routes were categorised according to the magnitude of impact the scheme was modelled to have on end-to-end journey times. Journey time impacts for the same 148 bus routes have been extracted and categorised for the revised scheme modelling.

Table 4 – ‘AM’ Peak Period Bus Route Impacts High Impact Medium Impact Low Impact No/Negligible Impact 188 WB 12 SB* 16 SB* 1 EB 10 EB 13 NB* 171 SB* 10 WB 11 EB 185 SB* 18 WB* 137 SB* 11 WB 19 NB* 24 NB* 14 SB 12 NB* 242 WB* 24 SB* 159 SB* 13 SB* 243 NB* 26 NB 16 NB* 137 NB* 25 EB 3 SB* 170 WB* 139 NB* 360 EB 44 NB* 188 EB 139 SB* 360 WB 52 NB* 2 SB* 14 NB 38 NB* 521 EB 205 EB 148 EB 388 WB 521 WB 22 SB 148 WB 390 NB* 53 EB* 23 EB 15 EB 4 NB* 55 EB* 30 EB 15 WB 414 NB 6 NB* 31 SB 159 NB* 436 NB 73 SB* 36 SB* 168 NB* 46 EB* 87 SB 414 SB 168 SB* 6 SB* 9 WB 436 SB 170 EB* 70 NB* 44 SB* 171 NB* 8 WB 452 NB* 55 WB* RV1 WB 59 SB* 172 SB* 7 EB* 176 SB* 73 NB* 18 EB* 74 SB 185 NB* 88 SB 1 WB 91 NB* 19 SB* 98 NB* 2 NB* C1 WB 205 WB C2 NB* 211 EB RV1 EB 211 WB 22 NB 23 WB 242 EB* 243 SB* 25 WB 27 EB* 27 WB* 274 EB 274 WB 28 NB* 28 SB* 26 SB 30 WB 31 NB 341 NB 341 SB 453 NB


Page 5 of 15

High Impact Medium Impact Low Impact No/Negligible Impact 36 NB* 38 SB* 388 EB 390 SB* 4 SB* 176 NB* 452 SB* 172 NB* 453 SB 46 WB* 3 NB* 507 EB 507 WB 52 SB* 53 WB* 59 NB* 68 NB* 68 SB* 70 SB* 74 NB 76 NB* 76 SB* 7WB 8 EB 87 NB 88 NB 9 EB 91 SB* 94 EB* 94 WB* 98 SB* C1 EB C10 EB C10 WB C2 SB*

Table 5 – ‘PM’ Peak Period Bus Route Impacts High Impact Medium Impact Low Impact No Impact 1 EB 10 EB 14 NB 137 NB* 1 WB 14 SB 16 SB* 137 SB* 10 WB 16 NB* 170 EB* 159 SB* 11 EB 185 SB* 170 WB* 205 EB 11 WB 188 EB 18 WB* 28 SB* 12 NB* 19 NB* 22 NB 3 SB* 12 SB* 2 NB* 27 EB* 30 EB 13 NB* 2 SB* 27 WB* 31 SB 13 SB* 22 SB 30 WB 36 SB* 139 NB* 23 EB 388 WB 44 SB* 139 SB* 24 NB* 414 SB 46 EB* 148 EB 24 SB* 436 SB 7 EB* 148 WB 243 NB* 44 NB* 73 NB* 15 EB 274 EB 74 NB 73 SB* 15 WB 28 NB* 98 NB* 74 SB 159 NB* 390 NB* C1 WB 8 WB 168 NB* 4 NB* C2 NB* 88 NB


Page 6 of 15

High Impact Medium Impact Low Impact No Impact 168 SB* 414 NB 91 NB* 171 NB* 52 SB* 171 SB* 7WB 172 NB* 88 SB 172 SB* C2 SB* 176 NB* 176 SB* 18 EB* 185 NB* 188 WB 19 SB* 205 WB 211 EB 211 WB 23 WB 242 EB* 242 WB* 243 SB* 25 EB 25 WB 26 NB 26 SB 274 WB 3 NB* 31 NB 341 NB 341 SB 36 NB* 360 EB 360 WB 38 NB* 38 SB* 388 EB 390 SB* 4 SB* 436 NB 452 NB* 452 SB* 453 NB 453 SB 46 WB* 507 EB 507 WB 52 NB* 521 EB 521 WB 53 EB* 53 WB* 55 EB* 55 WB* 59 NB* 59 SB* 6 NB* 6 SB* 68 NB* 68 SB*


Page 7 of 15

High Impact Medium Impact Low Impact No Impact 70 NB* 70 SB* 76 NB* 76 SB* 8 EB 87 NB 87 SB 9 EB 9 WB 91 SB* 94 EB* 94 WB* 98 SB* C1 EB C10 EB C10 WB RV1 EB RV1 WB

5. Flow bundle analysis

Flow bundle analysis was previously requested, from the revised scheme model, for two turns at the junction of Victoria Embankment and Westminster Bridge, the turns were:

Left turn from Victoria Embankment to Westminster Bridge; and Right turn from Westminster Bridge to Victoria Embankment.

The scheme proposes to ban these turns therefore the flow bundles showed how many vehicles where using Parliament Square as a means of u-turning. The additional request was made to understand how many vehicles undertake the left- and right-turns in the Base model; further analysis from the model enables the reassignment of these trips between the Base Model and the Revised Scheme models to be investigated.

Flow bundles are carried out to gain a more detailed understanding of the reassignment patterns. This process involved firstly producing a flow bundle on the movement of interest, in the base model, then selecting the section of the demand matrix involving only the origins and destinations identified using the flow bundle. These trips could then be viewed in the Base situation to obtain a plot of all trips between those origins and destinations selected in the flow bundle. Trips between these same origins and destinations could also be highlighted in the revised scheme model, helping to identify where trips have reassigned to.

Figure 1i to Figure 4iii below step through the flow reassignment process for the AM and PM Peak periods.


Page 8 of 15

Figure 1i – AM Peak: Base Model Left Turn (Victoria Embankment to Westminster Bridge) Base Model flow bundle for the left turn from Victoria Embankment to Westminster Bridge.

Figure 1ii – AM Peak: Base Model all trips between flow bundle origin and destination pairs All trips between the flow bundle origin and destination pairs; it highlights trips using alternative routes, i.e. Waterloo Bridge.


Page 9 of 15

Figure 1iii – AM Peak: Revised Scheme model reassignment of Base Model flow bundle trips The Base Model flow bundle origin and destination trips assigned to the revised scheme routes, highlights how trips reassign once the turns are closed.


Page 10 of 15

Figure 2i – AM Peak: Base Model Right Turn (Westminster Bridge to Victoria Embankment) Base Model flow bundle for the right turn from Westminster Bridge to Victoria Embankment.

Figure 2ii – AM Peak: Base Model all trips between flow bundle O-D pairs All trips between the flow bundle origin and destination pairs; it highlights trips using alternative routes, i.e. Waterloo Bridge.


Page 11 of 15

Figure 2iii – AM Peak: Revised Scheme model reassignment of Base Model flow bundle trips The Base Model flow bundle origin and destination trips assigned to the revised scheme routes, highlights how trips reassign once the turns are closed.


Page 12 of 15

Figure 3i – PM Peak: Base Model Left Turn (Victoria Embankment to Westminster Bridge) Base Model flow bundle for the left turn from Victoria Embankment to Westminster Bridge.

Figure 3ii – PM Peak: Base Model all trips between flow bundle origin and destination pairs All trips between the flow bundle origin and destination pairs; it highlights trips using alternative routes, i.e. Parliament Square.


Page 13 of 15

Figure 3iii – PM Peak: Revised Scheme model reassignment of Base Model flow bundle trips The Base Model flow bundle origin and destination trips assigned to the revised scheme routes, highlights how trips reassign once the turns are closed.


Page 14 of 15

Figure 4i – PM Peak: Base Model Right Turn (Westminster Bridge to Victoria Embankment) Base Model flow bundle for the right turn from Westminster Bridge to Victoria Embankment.

Figure 4ii – PM Peak: Base Model all trips between flow bundle O-D pairs All trips between the flow bundle origin and destination pairs; it highlights trips using alternative routes, i.e. Parliament Square.


Page 15 of 15

Figure 4iii – PM Peak: Revised Scheme model reassignment of Base Model flow bundle trips The Base Model flow bundle origin and destination trips assigned to the revised scheme routes, highlights how trips reassign once the turns are closed.


APPENDIX B

TfL Road Safety Audits – The Royal Parks

Cycle Superhighways East-West Route

Central Section (Sheets 1 to 15) Proposals

Stage 1 Road Safety Audit

Ref: 2021.07/001/VAR/TLRN/2014

Prepared for:

Cycle Superhighways Team

By:

Road Safety Audit, TfL Asset Management Directorate

Prepared by: Andrew Coventry, Audit Team Leader

Checked by: Anya Bownes, Audit Team Member

Approved by: Shane Martin

Version Status Date

A Audit report issued to Client 25/07/2014

Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Central Section (Sheets 1 to 15) Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report

Audit Ref: 2021.07/001/VAR/TLRN/2014 Date: 25/07/2014 2 Version: A

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Commission

1.1.1 This report results from a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit carried out on the Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Central Section (Sheets 1 to 15) proposals.

1.1.2 The Audit was undertaken by TfL Road Safety Audit in accordance with the Audit Brief issued by the Client Organisation on 23rd July 2014. It took place at the Palestra offices of TfL on 24th July 2014 and comprised an examination of the documents provided as listed in Appendix A, plus a visit to the site of the proposed scheme.

1.1.3 The visit to the site of the proposed scheme was made on 24th July 2014. During the site visit the weather was sunny and the existing road surface was dry.

1.2 Terms of Reference

1.2.1 The Terms of Reference of this Audit are as described in TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014. The Audit Team has examined and reported only on the road safety implications of the scheme as presented and how it impacts on all road users and has not examined or verified the compliance of the designs to any other criteria. However, to clearly explain a safety problem or the recommendation to resolve a problem the Audit Team may, on occasion, have referred to a design standard without touching on technical audit. An absence of comment relating to specific road users / modes in Section 3 of this report does not imply that they have not been considered; instead the Audit Team feels they are not adversely affected by the proposed changes.

1.2.2 This Safety Audit is not intended to identify pre-existing hazards which remain unchanged due to the proposals; hence they will not be raised in Section 3 of this report as they fall outside the remit of Road Safety Audit in general as specified in the procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014. Safety issues identified during the Audit and site visit that are considered to be outside the Terms of Reference, but which the Audit Team wishes to draw to the attention of the Client Organisation, are set out in Section 4 of this report.

1.2.3 Nothing in this Audit should be regarded as a direct instruction to include or remove a measure from within the scheme. Responsibility for designing the scheme lies with the Designer and as such the Audit Team accepts no design responsibility for any changes made to the scheme as a result of this Audit.

1.2.4 In accordance with TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014, this Audit has a maximum shelf life of 2 years. If the scheme does not progress to the next stage in its development within this period, then the scheme should be re-audited.

1.2.5 Unless general to the scheme, all comments and recommendations are referenced to the detailed design drawings and the locations have been indicated on the plan located in Appendix B.

1.2.6 It is the responsibility of the Design Organisation to complete the Designer’s response section of this Audit report. Where applicable and necessary it is the responsibility of the Client Organisation to complete the Client comment section of this Audit report. Signatures from both the Design Organisation and Client Organisation must be added within Section 5 of this Audit report. A copy of which must be returned to the Audit Team.



1.3 Main Parties to the Audit

1.3.1 Client Organisation

Client contact details: Sarah Turnbull, Road Space Management Directorate

1.3.2 Design Organisation

Design contact details : Gillian Norburn, Road Space Management Directorate

1.3.3 Audit Team

Audit Team Leader: Andrew Coventry – TfL Road Safety Audit

Audit Team Members: Anya Bownes – TfL Road Safety Audit Shane Martin – TfL Road Safety Audit

Audit Team Observer: None present

1.3.4 Other Specialist Advisors

Specialist Advisor Details: None present

1.4 Purpose of the Scheme

1.4.1 The purpose of the scheme is to provide a Cycle Superhighways route across the Central Section (part) of the East-West cycle route (Sheets 1 to 15).

1.5 Special Considerations

1.5.1 The Audit Team has no special considerations to raise.



2.0 ITEMS RAISED IN PREVIOUS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS

The Audit Team is not aware of any other Audits having been carried out on the proposals.



3.0 ITEMS RAISED AT THIS STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

This section should be read in conjunction with Paragraphs 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 of this report.

3.1 CYCLE FACILITIES

3.1.1 PROBLEM

Location: General to scheme, multiple locations Summary: Vertical alignment of segregated facility may promote non-compliance

with the pedestrian crossing facilities. The Audit Team is concerned that the vertical alignment of the segregated facility may encourage cyclists to ignore or fail to appreciate pedestrian crossing facilities, particularly at stand alone installations with no conflicting vehicle movements. The vertical alignment through the crossing facility is at a similar level, therefore no measures are provided to encourage cyclists to curtail their speed. Hence cyclists may fail to appreciate the necessity to stop at these locations either accidentally or deliberately. A potential for conflict with pedestrians may exist as a result.

RECOMMENDATION Provide measures to assist with compliance by cyclists. This may require the provision of a raised crossing facility at locations where cyclists are required to stop or give-way to pedestrians. Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected

Client Organisation Comments

3.1.2 PROBLEM

Location: General to scheme, multiple locations Summary: Commencing bollards within the carriageway may not be visible and

may pose a hazard. The Audit Team is concerned that the first bollard to demarcate the cycle lane, when not preceded by an island, may not be immediately visible to approaching motorists. Drivers may fail to appreciate the presence of a solid feature within the carriageway, with a potential for conflict with the bollard as a result.

RECOMMENDATION Provide measures to increase the visibility of the bollards. This may require the provision of an island in front of the commencing bollard. Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected


End of list of problems identified and recommendations offered in this Stage 1 Road Safety Audit



4.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Safety issues identified during the audit and site inspection that are considered to be outside the Terms of Reference, but which the Audit Team wishes to draw to the attention of the Client Organisation, are set out in this section. It is to be understood that, in raising these issues, the Audit Team in no way warrants that a full review of the highway environment has been undertaken beyond that necessary to undertake the Audit as commissioned.

4.1 ISSUE

Location: General to scheme, multiple locations.

Reason considered to be outside the Terms of Reference: Not safety related

The Audit Team notes the omission of tactile ‘tails’ at the controlled crossing points. The absence of tactile ‘tails’ may be an inconvenience for those with a visual impairment, who may find it difficult to identify a location to cross. It is recommended that the tactile ‘tails’ are provided to assist pedestrians with visual impairments.

Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected


4.2 ISSUE

Location: General to scheme, multiple locations.

Reason considered to be outside the Terms of Reference: Detailed design issue

The Audit Team notes the intention to provide central islands for the controlled and uncontrolled pedestrian crossing facilities along Birdcage Walk. It is not clear at this preliminary design stage what the traffic signal layout will be and whether a traffic signal will be located within these central islands (controlled crossings only). To maximise the conspicuity of the islands it may be beneficial to provide a vertical illuminated feature together with hatch markings on both approaches to the pedestrian islands.



4.3 ISSUE

Location: 1 – Duke of Wellington Place junction with Constitution Hill




The Audit Team notes the intention to provide a flush surface at the revised crossing point. There is a concern that left turning vehicles may over-run the footway at this location when turning. It is not clear at this preliminary design stage what the signal arrangement will be, and whether a signal pole will be located in proximity to deter encroachment. If no pole is proposed it may be beneficial to consider a feature on the radius to deter vehicles over-running the footway.



4.4 ISSUE

Location: 2 – Constitution Hill, Spur Road and The Mall


The Audit Team notes the intention to continue the segregated facility outside Buckingham Palace, representatives from which are inputting heavily on the design of the measures outside the Palace.

Currently the carriageway layout adopts a minimalist approach with few road markings and all street furniture black in colour. In the revised arrangement it may be beneficial to provide measures more consistent with the surrounding network, such as:

- A reflective strip around the top of the bollards;

- Retro-reflective traffic signs on the islands within the carriageway;

- Centre-line markings where multiple lanes exist; and

- Lane allocation and direction road markings to identify lane destinations.





5.0 SIGNATURES AND SIGN-OFF

5.1 AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT

We certify that we have examined the drawings and documents listed in Appendix A. to this Safety Audit report. The Road Safety Audit has been carried out in accordance with TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014, with the sole purpose of identifying any feature that could be removed or modified in order to improve the safety of the measures. The problems identified have been noted in this report together with associated suggestions for safety improvements that we recommend should be studied for implementation.

No one on the Audit Team has been involved with the design of the measures.

AUDIT TEAM LEADER:

Name: Andrew Coventry Signed: BEng (Hons), CMILT, MCIHT MSoRSA

Position: Principal Road Safety Auditor Date: 25/07/2014

Organisation: Transport for London, Road Safety Audit Asset Management Directorate

Address: 4th Floor Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ

Contact: [email protected] (020 3054 2237)

AUDIT TEAM MEMBER:

Name: Anya Bownes BA (Hons) MCIHT MSoRSA Signed:





Name: Shane Martin MCIHT, MSoRSA Signed:







5.2 DESIGN TEAM STATEMENT

In accordance with SQA-0170 dated May 2014, I certify that I have reviewed the items raised in this Stage 1 Safety Audit report. I have given due consideration to each issue raised and have stated my proposed course of action for each in this report. I seek the Client Organisations endorsement of my proposals.

Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:

5.3 CLIENT ORGANISATION STATEMENT

I accept these proposals by the Design Organisation.

Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:

5.4 SECONDARY CLIENT ORGANISATION STATEMENT (where appropriate)


Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:



APPENDIX A

Documents Forming the Audit Brief DRAWING NUMBER DRAWING TITLE

ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-001 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 01 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-002 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 02 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-003 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 03 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-004 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 04 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-005 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 05 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-006 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 06 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-007 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 07 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-008 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 08 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-009 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 09 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-010 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 10 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-011 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 11 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-012 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 12 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-013 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 13 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-014 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 14 of 43 ODE-ST-PJ327-CSEW-ID-C-015 Preliminary Design Drawing Sheet 15 of 43 DOCUMENTS DETAILS (where appropriate)

Safety Audit Brief Site Location Plan Traffic signal details TfL signal safety checklist Departures from standard Previous Road Safety Audits Previous Designer Responses Collision data Collision plot Traffic flow / modelling data Pedestrian flow / modelling data Speed survey data Other documents



APPENDIX B

Problem Locations


St James’s Park Proposals


Ref: 2021.19/001/VAR/TLRN/2015

Prepared for:


By:




Approved by: Chris Gooch

Version Status Date


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Commission

1.1.1 This report results from a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit carried out on the Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park proposals.

1.1.2 The Audit was undertaken by TfL Road Safety Audit in accordance with the Audit Brief issued by the Client Organisation on 7th January 2015. It took place at the Palestra offices of TfL on 15th January 2015 and comprised an examination of the documents provided as listed in Appendix A, plus a visit to the site of the proposed scheme.

1.1.3 The visit to the site of the proposed scheme was made on 15th January 2015. During the site visit the weather was overcast and the existing road surface was wet.









Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 1.3 Main Parties to the Audit


Client contact details: Sarah Turnbull – TfL Road Space Management Directorate


Design contact details: Gillian Norburn – TfL Road Space Management Directorate

1.3.3 Audit Team


Audit Team Member: Anya Bownes – TfL Road Safety Audit





1.4.1 The purpose of the scheme is to provide a Cycle Superhighway route through St James’s Park*.

* Taken directly from Audit Brief.




Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 2.0 ITEMS RAISED IN PREVIOUS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS

The wider Cycle Superhighways East-West proposals have been subject to number of Stage 1 Road Safety Audits carried out in during Spring and Summer 2014 by TfL Road Safety Audit. The Audit reports can be summarised as follows:

2021.01 East Section

2021.02 Central Section (Part)

2021.03 Right Turn into Arthur Street

2021.04 Westbourne Street Loading Bay Options

2021.05 West Section (Part)

2021.06 Westminster Bridge

2021.07 Central Section Sheets 1 to 15

2021.08 West Section Sheets 1 to 3

2021.09 Parliament Square

2021.10 Water Lane

2021.11 Shorter Street

2021.12 Cleopatra’s Needle

2021.13 Westbourne Terrace


2021.16 Hyde Park (part)

This Audit covers the proposals to introduce cycling facilities through St James’s Park. These measures have not been subject to previous Audit.


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 3.0 ITEMS RAISED AT THIS STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT


3.1 PEDESTRIANS

3.1.1 PROBLEM

Location: General to scheme, multiple locations

Summary: Shared use footway may pose a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists

It is proposed to guide the Cycle Superhighway route through the existing shared use footway adjacent to Spur Road and Constitution Hill. This area is known to experience extremely high numbers of pedestrians, with a disproportionate number of tourists. Pedestrians in this area are highly unlikely to anticipate cyclists sharing the same footway, particularly when taking photos. Pedestrians may inadvertently step into the path of passing cyclists, with an exacerbated potential for conflict as a result.

It is appreciated that this is an existing cycle provision, however, the introduction of Cycle Superhighways measures is likely to guide significantly more cyclists through the area, exacerbating the potential for conflict at this location.

RECOMMENDATION Provide measures to restrict pedestrian and cycle interaction, this may require the provision of physical deterrents to deter pedestrian incursion into the cycle facility. If this cannot be achieved it may be preferable to consider an alternative routing for the cycle facility.


The Preliminary Design Team were instructed to route cyclists though this area. The design team recognise the high pedestrian volumes in the area and the potential for conflict.

The provision of a segregated cycle track through the area was considered during design, but for the following reasons was not progressed:

• It was believed that pedestrian compliance with the segregation would be low – guidance suggests that where pedestrians walk in groups they are more likely to ignore segregation unless widths are adequate. The area is heavily used by large numbers of tourists and observations suggest there are a large number of groups and while the path is wide the number of pedestrians is also high. If compliance with the segregation is low, and pedestrians use the cycle area, conflict may result if cyclists believe they have right of way – segregated routes can encourage territorial behaviour.

• Reserving an area for cyclists may encourage higher cycle speeds as they believe they have priority – this could lead to conflict if pedestrians strayed into the cycle area. Evidence shows that cyclists travel faster on segregated shared use route while more considerate behaviour is observed on unsegregated routes.

• The area is a location of international heritage significance – the signing, lining and physical infrastructure required for a segregated facility could be considered inappropriate for the area.

• The layout of the area is such that if the segregated cycle path were placed adjacent to the wall of the Queen Victoria Memorial Gardens, cyclists leaving


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report

the segregated tracks at each end must cross the path of pedestrians – a particular risk at the western end of the area where there is a very busy pedestrian crossing. Placing the segregated cycle path on the outside and the pedestrians on the nearside, adjacent to the wall of the Queen Victoria Memorial Gardens, would require all pedestrians to cross the track to access and egress Green Park. Neither option was considered satisfactory.

• A review was undertaken of relevant literature. After examining the evidence (in particular the Sustrans documents ‘The Merits of Segregated and Non-segregated Traffic Free Cycle Paths – A literature-Based review. 2011 - Table 4’ and Segregation of Shared Use Routes (Technical Information Note No. 19) it was concluded that a non-segregated facility would be more appropriate at this location.

White line segregation was primarily considered, but for the reasons above was rejected. Other physical deterrents, such as a kerb, barrier or verge were considered but not progressed. Given the nature of the area it was not believed that measures such as kerbs and verges would deter pedestrians. They may also cause trip hazards for pedestrians, limit cycle movements if their way is obstructed and create maintenance problems. Barriers, such as fences or bollards, could impact on; cycle movements, cycle level of service, would be visually intrusive and may restrict the available pedestrian area at times of high demand. The design team were also advised that the full width of the footway was required during events (for Outside Broadcast vehicles and parking for Royal Garden Parties) and such measures would therefore have to be removable (with the associated costs and risks to maintenance staff).

The proposed design does include measures where the cycle track leaves a segregated area to slow cyclists considerably to highlight they are entering an area where care should taken and where low speeds are appropriate.


Agree with designer.

The alignment of the East-West route via the existing shared use area adjacent to Constitution Hill/ Spur Road was requested by the highway authority, The Royal Parks.

It is felt to be inappropriate to use physical deterrents to deter pedestrian incursion into the cycle facility for the reasons set out by the Designer, however, mitigation measures to encourage appropriate behaviour and speed have been proposed.



Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 4.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT THAT

ARE OUTSIDE THE TERMS OF REFERENCE


4.1 ISSUE



The Audit Team notes the use of the ‘Westminster Standard’ layout for tactile paving which omits the tactile tail. The omission of the tactile tail may make it difficult for pedestrians with visual impairments to identify the crossing point making negotiating the crossing inconvenient for these users. It is therefore recommended that tactile tails are provided to assist visually impaired users to identify the location of the controlled crossing point.


The Design Team sought to replicate the existing provision. The Royal Parks Design Guide ‘Maintaining the Historic Landscape’ (2010) states that signs and road markings should be kept to a minimum and used only when they convey essential information and that the least number of signs/road markings permissible should be used. No tactile tails are used at existing crossings in the Parks. The Preliminary Design Team replicated this approach when introducing new crossings or modifying existing facilities.


Agree with designer; the design is consistent with The Royal Parks Design Guidance - who are the highway authority and have agreed to the approach used.

4.2 ISSUE



The Audit Team notes the omission of a vertical illuminated feature on the leading edge of the segregated splitter islands. Whilst it is a detailed design issue, the absence of a vertical illuminated feature may reduce the conspicuousness of the island, exacerbating a potential for conflict with the feature as a result. It is appreciated that this is likely to be resolved through the detailed design process.


As the Detailed Design Team is undertaking signing for the route this Issue should be passed to them for reply.




Agree with designer. This will be considered in detailed design and reviewed as part of the Stage 2 Road Safety Audit if appropriate.

4.3 ISSUE


Reason considered to be outside the Terms of Reference: Existing problem

The Audit Team noted detritus from the trees along the Service Road which appear to drop small round seed pods along the length of the route. The presence of the seed pods and leaves may pose a skidding hazard for cyclists, particularly those braking for pedestrians or vehicles. It is recommended that a regular maintenance regime is adopted to ensure the build up of detritus is kept to a minimum.


The Preliminary Design Team were instructed to route cyclists along this link. It is an existing cycle route and it may be appropriate to discuss with Royal Parks to determine if this issue has been previously reported.

This Issue should be discussed with Royal Parks and an appropriate cleaning regime agreed. The width of the service road is generous enough for the deployment of a mechanical road sweeper if necessary.


Agree with designer. Whilst the risk on this existing cycle route is considered to be low, the operational requirements for maintaining the route will be agreed with The Royal Parks.

4.4 ISSUE

Location: Service Road, adjacent to The Mall

Reason considered to be outside the Terms of Reference: Design Anomaly

The Audit Team notes the proposed design indicated eastbound cyclists on the Service Road are to be guided towards the rising barrier, presumably retained to prevent vehicular access along the road. It is assumed that this is a design anomaly and cyclists are intended to utilise the existing arrangement between the bollards adjacent to the rising barrier.

It is further noted that the existing bollards are closely spaced, although currently form part of an indicated cycle route. It may be preferable as part of the measures to consider increasing the space between the bollards for cyclists.


The first Issue raised above is accepted and the preliminary design will be modified to reflect the appropriate location of the rising barrier.

It is acknowledged that the bollards are closely spaced. As the Issue above highlights this is part of an existing cycle route, which appears to operate satisfactorily. This Issue should be discussed with Royal Parks to determine if this issue has been previously reported.



If the Royal Parks agree the bollard spacing should be reviewed as part of the next design stage.


Agree with designer. This issue will be discussed with The Royal Parks and considered as part of future design changes.

4.5 ISSUE

Location: Cycle track adjacent to Constitution Hill


The Audit Team notes the intention to provide bollards where the cycle track ends in the immediate vicinity to the pedestrian crossing by Buckingham Palace. The presence of bollards at this location may be beneficial to slow eastbound cyclists prior to joining the shared surface, however, the layout as indicated may encourage cyclists to cycle into each other should eastbound and westbound cyclists both attempt to negotiate the central bollard to the right concurrently. It is recommended that a more complementary bollard arrangement for cyclists is adopted.


The bollards have been arranged to slow cyclists as much as possible when leaving the segregated track to minimise the potential for conflict with the very large numbers of pedestrians using the crossing on Constitution Hill. Eastbound cyclists at this point will be leaving a 4m wide segregated cycle track, which runs downhill from Hyde Park Corner. They may be travelling at speed and may not appreciate that they are about to enter a shared area with large volumes of pedestrians. While it is acknowledged that there is the potential for cycle / cycle conflict, adopting a more complementary bollard arrangement for cyclists may lead to increased cycle speeds and an increase in the potential for, and severity of, cycle / pedestrian conflicts. On balance, given the nature of the area, the design team felt it was more appropriate to slow cyclists as much as possible and emphasise the change to a different environment.

The bollards should have a reflective strip to ensure they are visible to cyclists and visually impaired pedestrians. It may also be appropriate to add a ‘SLOW’ marking on the cycle track to alert eastbound cyclists to their presence.

This arrangement of bollards is detailed in the Sustrans guide ‘A Guide to Controlling Access on Paths’ (Jan 2012). The Guide states that the arrangement will require cyclists to reduce their speed. While the Guide advises that it can be confusing for the blind or partially sighted and pose a slight inconvenience for people using wheelchairs or mobility scooters these groups should not be using the cycle track.

The layout detailed in the drawings submitted for Audit does not fully comply with the Sustrans Guide and will be amended.



The use of bollards is felt to be an suitable measure to encourage appropriate speed and behaviour when cyclists leave the cycle track and enter the shared use area. The design will be amended to comply with Sustrans Guidance as part of the future



design changes.

4.6 ISSUE

Location: Pedestrian and cycle crossings over Constitution Hill


The Audit Team notes the intention to provide a separate cycle crossing over Constitution Hill adjacent to the existing pedestrian crossing facility. The existing facility is known to be over-saturated by pedestrians who have been observed to spill out into the carriageway when crossing. It is highly likely that the cycle facility will be utilised as a second pedestrian crossing point, reducing the viability of the facility for cyclists. It is recommended that measures are considered to deter pedestrian use of the facility. If this cannot be achieved it may be preferable to consider an alternative location for the cycle facility.


The design team acknowledge this as a risk given the high volumes of pedestrians in the area and the high proportion of visitors. To minimise the risk the following measures were taken:

• The cycle crossing has been located over 20m to the west of the existing pedestrian crossing to provide a level of separation;

• No pedestrian heads or call buttons have been provided the cycle crossing, it will automatically be called at the same time as the pedestrian crossing;

• It is understood that cycle aspects will be used at the cycle crossing; • No tactile paving has been provided at the cycle crossing; • Fencing has been provided on the northern footway between the pedestrian

and cycle crossing in an attempt to separate cyclists and pedestrians.

No alternative location could be found to the east of this site and the design team believed that a standalone cycle only crossing to the west would be more likely to be used by pedestrians wishing to access Green Park as they saw a crossing point on the link between two existing crossing points (over 500m apart). Pedestrians using the cycle crossing would then be constrained within the cycle track on the north side of Constitution Hill. Although it is acknowledged that pedestrian flows are likely to be lower than at the proposed site.



A cycle crossing has been provided so cyclists on the carriageway can safely access/ egress the East-West route on Constitution Hill.

A range of options have been considered by the Designer and it is felt this is the most suitable proposal at this location.

If a crossing was not provided, cyclists would need to dismount and use the existing pedestrian crossing. This could encourage some cyclists to cycle across the pedestrian crossing or to stay in the carriageway, and not use the segregated track on Constitution Hill.


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 5.0 SIGNATURES AND SIGN-OFF




AUDIT TEAM LEADER:

Name: Andrew Coventry Signed: BEng (Hons), MCIHT MSoRSA

Position: Road Safety Audit Manager Date: 21/01/2015




AUDIT TEAM MEMBER:







mailto:[email protected]


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 5.2 DESIGN TEAM STATEMENT

In accordance with SQA-0170 dated May 2014, I certify that I have reviewed the items raised in this Stage 1 Safety Audit report. I have given due consideration to each issue raised and have stated my proposed course of action for each in this report. I seek the Client Organisation’s endorsement of my proposals.

Name: Gillian Norburn

Position: Lead Design Engineer – Outcomes Design Engineering

Organisation: TfL

Signed: Dated: 16th April 2015



Name: Dave McCaffrey

Position: Scheme Sponsor

Organisation: TfL

Signed: Dated: 17 April 2015



Name: Sarah Turnbull

Position: Portfolio Sponsor

Organisation: TfL

Signed: Dated: 17 April 2015



APPENDIX A


ODE-ST-P-CSEW-ID-HGR-001 Option 1 – Cover Sheet ODE-ST-P-CSEW-ID-THE MALL-SPUR ROAD-005

Option 7 (sheet 5 of 15)

ODE-ST-P-CSEW-ID-THE MALL-SPUR ROAD-008










DOCUMENTS DETAILS (where appropriate)




APPENDIX B

Problem Locations



St James’s Park Proposals


Ref: 2021.19/001/VAR/TLRN/2015

Prepared for:


By:





Version Status Date


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Commission

1.1.1 This report results from a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit carried out on the Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park proposals.











Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 1.3 Main Parties to the Audit





1.3.3 Audit Team







1.4.1 The purpose of the scheme is to provide a Cycle Superhighway route through St James’s Park*.





Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 2.0 ITEMS RAISED IN PREVIOUS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS











2021.10 Water Lane






This Audit covers the proposals to introduce cycling facilities through St James’s Park. These measures have not been subject to previous Audit.


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 3.0 ITEMS RAISED AT THIS STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT


3.1 PEDESTRIANS

3.1.1 PROBLEM


Summary: Shared use footway may pose a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists

It is proposed to guide the Cycle Superhighway route through the existing shared use footway adjacent to Spur Road and Constitution Hill. This area is known to experience extremely high numbers of pedestrians, with a disproportionate number of tourists. Pedestrians in this area are highly unlikely to anticipate cyclists sharing the same footway, particularly when taking photos. Pedestrians may inadvertently step into the path of passing cyclists, with an exacerbated potential for conflict as a result.

It is appreciated that this is an existing cycle provision, however, the introduction of Cycle Superhighways measures is likely to guide significantly more cyclists through the area, exacerbating the potential for conflict at this location.

RECOMMENDATION Provide measures to restrict pedestrian and cycle interaction, this may require the provision of physical deterrents to deter pedestrian incursion into the cycle facility. If this cannot be achieved it may be preferable to consider an alternative routing for the cycle facility.


[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]


[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]



Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 4.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT THAT



4.1 ISSUE



The Audit Team notes the use of the ‘Westminster Standard’ layout for tactile paving which omits the tactile tail. The omission of the tactile tail may make it difficult for pedestrians with visual impairments to identify the crossing point making negotiating the crossing inconvenient for these users. It is therefore recommended that tactile tails are provided to assist visually impaired users to identify the location of the controlled crossing point.





4.2 ISSUE



The Audit Team notes the omission of a vertical illuminated feature on the leading edge of the segregated splitter islands. Whilst it is a detailed design issue, the absence of a vertical illuminated feature may reduce the conspicuousness of the island, exacerbating a potential for conflict with the feature as a result. It is appreciated that this is likely to be resolved through the detailed design process.






Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 4.3 ISSUE



The Audit Team noted detritus from the trees along the Service Road which appear to drop small round seed pods along the length of the route. The presence of the seed pods and leaves may pose a skidding hazard for cyclists, particularly those braking for pedestrians or vehicles. It is recommended that a regular maintenance regime is adopted to ensure the build up of detritus is kept to a minimum.





4.4 ISSUE

Location: Service Road, adjacent to The Mall

Reason considered to be outside the Terms of Reference: Design Anomaly

The Audit Team notes the proposed design indicated eastbound cyclists on the Service Road are to be guided towards the rising barrier, presumably retained to prevent vehicular access along the road. It is assumed that this is a design anomaly and cyclists are intended to utilise the existing arrangement between the bollards adjacent to the rising barrier.

It is further noted that the existing bollards are closely spaced, although currently form part of an indicated cycle route. It may be preferable as part of the measures to consider increasing the space between the bollards for cyclists.






Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 4.5 ISSUE

Location: Cycle track adjacent to Constitution Hill


The Audit Team notes the intention to provide bollards where the cycle track ends in the immediate vicinity to the pedestrian crossing by Buckingham Palace. The presence of bollards at this location may be beneficial to slow eastbound cyclists prior to joining the shared surface, however, the layout as indicated may encourage cyclists to cycle into each other should eastbound and westbound cyclists both attempt to negotiate the central bollard to the right concurrently. It is recommended that a more complementary bollard arrangement for cyclists is adopted.





4.6 ISSUE

Location: Pedestrian and cycle crossings over Constitution Hill


The Audit Team notes the intention to provide a separate cycle crossing over Constitution Hill adjacent to the existing pedestrian crossing facility. The existing facility is known to be over-saturated by pedestrians who have been observed to spill out into the carriageway when crossing. It is highly likely that the cycle facility will be utilised as a second pedestrian crossing point, reducing the viability of the facility for cyclists. It is recommended that measures are considered to deter pedestrian use of the facility. If this cannot be achieved it may be preferable to consider an alternative location for the cycle facility.






Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 5.0 SIGNATURES AND SIGN-OFF




AUDIT TEAM LEADER:






AUDIT TEAM MEMBER:









Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, St James’s Park Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 5.2 DESIGN TEAM STATEMENT


Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:



Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:



Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:



APPENDIX A


ODE-ST-P-CSEW-ID-HGR-001 Option 1 – Cover Sheet ODE-ST-P-CSEW-ID-THE MALL-SPUR ROAD-005












DOCUMENTS DETAILS (where appropriate)




APPENDIX B

Problem Locations



North Carriageway Drive Proposals


Ref: 2021.18/001/UNC/TLRN/2015

Prepared for:


By:





Version Status Date


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, North Carriageway Drive Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Commission

1.1.1 This report results from a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit carried out on the Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, North Carriageway Drive proposals.










Audit Ref: 2021.18/001/UNC/TLRN/2015 Date: 16/01/2015 2 Version: A

Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, North Carriageway Drive Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 1.3 Main Parties to the Audit





1.3.3 Audit Team







1.4.1 The purpose of the scheme is to provide a Cycle Superhighways route through Hyde Park*.

This Audit covers the proposals along North Carriageway Drive.



1.5.1 The Audit Team have no special considerations to raise.


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, North Carriageway Drive Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 2.0 ITEMS RAISED IN PREVIOUS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS











2021.10 Water Lane






This Audit covers the proposals along North Carriageway Drive only.


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, North Carriageway Drive Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 3.0 ITEMS RAISED AT THIS STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT


The Audit Team has not identified any features of the scheme that could be removed or modified in order to improve the road safety of the measures.



Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, North Carriageway Drive Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 4.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT THAT



4.1 ISSUE



The Audit Team noted detritus and sand from the horse tracks being transferred into the carriageway, particularly at the crossing points. In the proposed arrangement these areas will form the cycle track. The presence of the sand and detritus may pose a skid hazard to cyclists, particularly those braking for pedestrians on the approach to the crossing points. It is recommended that a regular maintenance regime is adopted to ensure the build up of detritus is kept to a minimum.






Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, North Carriageway Drive Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 5.0 SIGNATURES AND SIGN-OFF




AUDIT TEAM LEADER:






AUDIT TEAM MEMBER:









Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, North Carriageway Drive Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 5.2 DESIGN TEAM STATEMENT


Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:



Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:



Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, North Carriageway Drive Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report

APPENDIX A


ODE-ST-P-CSEW-ID-HP-20-24 Drawings 20 to 24 DOCUMENTS DETAILS (where appropriate)



Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, North Carriageway Drive Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report

APPENDIX B

Problem Locations


No problem locations identified


Hyde Park (Part) Proposals


Ref: 2021.16/001/UNC/TLRN/2014

Prepared for:


By:



Checked by: Shane Martin, Audit Team Member

Approved by: Anya Bownes

Version Status Date


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Hyde Park (Part) Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Commission

1.1.1 This report results from a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit carried out on the Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Hyde Park (Part) proposals.

1.1.2 The Audit was undertaken by TfL Safety & Design Services in accordance with the Audit Brief issued by the Client Organisation on 16th October 2014. It took place at the Palestra offices of TfL on 16th October 2014 and comprised an examination of the documents provided as listed in Appendix A, plus a visit to the site of the proposed scheme.

1.1.3 The visit to the site of the proposed scheme was made on 16th October 2014. During the site visit the weather was overcast and the existing road surface was dry.









Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Hyde Park (Part) Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 1.3 Main Parties to the Audit


Client contact details: Sarah Turnbull - Road Space Management Directorate


Design contact details : Gillian Norburn - Asset Management Directorate

1.3.3 Audit Team


Audit Team Member: Shane Martin – TfL Road Safety Audit





1.4.1 The purpose of the scheme is to provide a Cycle Superhighways route (Central Section) linking Castle Baynard Street and Parliament Square*.

This Audit covers the proposals along West Carriageway Drive and South Carriageway Drive.


1.5.1 The Audit Team have no special considerations to raise.


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Hyde Park (Part) Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 2.0 ITEMS RAISED IN PREVIOUS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS

The scheme has been subject to number of Stage 1 Road Safety Audits carried out in during Spring and Summer 2014 by TfL Road Safety Audit. The Audit reports can be summarised as follows:










2021.10 Water Lane





No Road Safety Audits have been previously undertaken on these particular elements.


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Hyde Park (Part) Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 3.0 ITEMS RAISED AT THIS STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT


3.1 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

3.1.1 PROBLEM


Summary: Reduction in provision may pose a hazard to visually impaired pedestrians

The Audit Team is concerned that the currently controlled pedestrian crossings are being converted to uncontrolled, requiring pedestrians to determine a safe opportunity to cross. This represents a reduction in pedestrian provision which may increase the potential for conflict with pedestrians, particularly those with visual impairments.

It is to be noted that the Audit Team does not consider the layout to be unsafe given the nature and location of the road. The proposals represent a reduction in provision, hence why the problem is being raised. Had no controlled pedestrian provision been present previously, no problem would have been raised at this location.

RECOMMENDATION Ensure the crossing provision is suitable for pedestrians of all abilities including those with visual impairments. Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected





Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Hyde Park (Part) Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 3.2 GENERAL

3.2.1 PROBLEM


Summary: Gaps in central islands for turning may not be sufficient in size to prevent overhanging or waiting within the cycle lane or traffic lane.

It is proposed to provide gaps within the segregation island to facilitate access and egress from the side road accesses. The Audit Team is concerned that the width of the gap within the segregation island may not accommodate a single cyclist or a single vehicle. As a result, cyclists or vehicles attempting to turn may be forced to wait across the cycleway or within the carriageway impeding progress for cyclists and/or motorists.

Vehicles or cyclists obstructing the cycleway may pose a hazard to cyclists who may fail to appreciate a vehicle stopping in their path. Furthermore, vehicles stopping and waiting within the carriageway may exacerbate a potential for ‘shunt’ type conflicts.

RECOMMENDATION Ensure sufficient space is provided for all vehicles likely to use the route to turn without encroaching into the cycleway or adjacent carriageway.





3.2.2 PROBLEM

Location: A – South Carriageway Drive junction with West Carriageway Drive

Summary: Carriageway alignment may exacerbate a potential for head on conflicts

The Audit Team is concerned that the carriageway alignment for southbound vehicles, guides motorists into the right turn lane for northbound vehicles. The alignment of the carriageway at this location may encourage southbound vehicles to travel the wrong way down West Carriageway Drive, with an exacerbated potential for conflict with opposing vehicles as a result.

RECOMMENDATION Provide measures to guide southbound vehicles through the junction and the correct side of the splitter island. This may require carriageway realignment together with additional road markings.







Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Hyde Park (Part) Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report


Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Hyde Park (Part) Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 4.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT THAT



4.1 ISSUE

Location: West Carriageway Drive, car park exit (Sheet 5)


The Audit Team notes the intention to provide the cycle track across the exit to the car park. It may be beneficial to provide additional road markings to indicate to vehicles to progress ahead from the car park, together with left turn and right turn arrows within the central reservation to discourage vehicles inadvertently using the cycle track.





4.2 ISSUE

Location: West Carriageway Drive, proposed crossing point (Sheet 6)


The Audit Team notes the intention to provide a new uncontrolled crossing across West Carriageway Drive. The location is situated between two prominent bends restricting forward visibility to and for pedestrians. It may be beneficial to consider locating the crossing point centrally to the bends to maximise visibility at this location.






Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Hyde Park (Part) Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 5.0 SIGNATURES AND SIGN-OFF




AUDIT TEAM LEADER:






AUDIT TEAM MEMBER:

Name: Shane Martin MCIHT, MSoRSA Signed:








Cycle Superhighways East-West Route, Hyde Park (Part) Proposals Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report 5.2 DESIGN TEAM STATEMENT

In accordance with SQA-0170 dated May 2014, I certify that I have reviewed the items raised in this Stage 1 Safety Audit report. I have given due consideration to each issue raised and have stated my proposed course of action for each in this report. I seek the Client Organisations endorsement of my proposals.

Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:



Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:



Name:

Position:

Organisation:

Signed: Dated:



APPENDIX A


ODE-ST-P-CSEW-ID-HP-01-19 Drawings 1 to 19 DOCUMENTS DETAILS (where appropriate)




APPENDIX B

Problem Locations


Technical Note

Sinclair Knight Merz (Europe) Limited (Jacobs) Jacobs® is a trademark of Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

Filename: EWCS Royal Parks Design Review Response WCC 1

Date 23 January 2015

Project No B1731300

Subject East-West Cycle Superhighway - Royal Parks Consultation Response on behalf of Westminster City Council

This Technical Note sets out our response, on behalf of Westminster City Council (WCC), to the East West Cycle Superhighway designs for the Royal Parks (Green Park – Spur Road Sections A-F and Hyde Park – North Carriage Drive – South Carriage Drive Sections A-F). As we have not been provided with electronic copies of the scheme design drawings, references have been shown on extracts from PDF versions, with accompanying text in the tables below.

East-West Cycle Superhighway Section A – Green Park

Reference Comment

1 Cycle track markings on the northern footway indicate that northbound cyclists from the cyclist crossing will need to give priority to cyclists travelling east-west through Green Park. During busy periods, this may result in northbound cyclists queueing within the carriageway of Constitution Hill as they wait for appropriate gaps, which is a safety concern. It is recommended that give way markings are removed, or that priority is switched to the East-West Cycle Superhighway route.

2 If westbound cyclist flow is high, there may be insufficient space to accommodate queueing cyclists within the footway area, and the queue may extend into the carriageway, which is a safety concern. Mitigating options are limited, although it may be possible to relocate the cyclist crossing further to the west along Constitution Hill, where more footway space is available.

1

2

Technical Note


East-West Cycle Superhighway Section C – The Mall and Horse Guards Road

Reference Comment

3 The design drawings do not indicate the method of control and TfL has not provided traffic modelling analysis results as part of the consultation. WCC seek assurance that the proposed operation of the junction is appropriately safe, will not give rise to traffic capacity issues, and that expected traffic queues would not block back to Trafalgar Square.

3

Technical Note


East-West Cycle Superhighway Section E – Horse Guards Road and Birdcage Walk

Reference Comment

4 The design drawings do not indicate the method of control and TfL has not provided traffic modelling analysis results as part of the consultation. WCC seek assurance that the proposed operation of the junction is appropriately safe, will not give rise to traffic capacity issues, and that expected traffic queues would not block back to Parliament Square.

5 The independent control of traffic and cyclists on Horse Guards Road and Birdcage Walk require ‘split-phasing’, which may create confusion for pedestrians waiting to cross, and other road users. For example, pedestrians will see a traffic phase ending and may start to cross just as the cyclist phase receives a green signal, yet drivers and cyclists might also experience this confusion. This is a safety concern and so WCC seeks assurance that the proposed split phase method of control will not create unsafe conditions for pedestrians and other road users.

6 The carriageway markings around the corner between Horse Guards Road and Great George Street guide left-turning vehicles from Horse Guards Road around the proposed cycle track. However, the markings may also unintentionally guide westbound cyclists onto the southbound carriageway of Horse Guards Road. It is recommended that this marking is reviewed and if is considered necessary.

7 A similar issue with split phasing as described in (5) above.

4, 5 & 6

7

8

Technical Note


East-West Cycle Superhighway Section E – Horse Guards Road and Birdcage Walk

8 A narrow pinchpoint is created at the crossing for cyclists on the track in order to provide a pedestrian refuge. We have been advised that this is to be a minimum of 3.0m, which might be suitable for the expected cycle demand, yet this is not known. WCC is concerned that pedestrians choosing to cross at this location will have insufficient width on the pedestrian refuge to wait safely. A single crossing over the entire width of Birdcage Walk might be more suitable.

East-West Cycle Superhighway Section F – Spur Road Gyratory

Reference Comment

9 A similar issue with split phasing as described in (5) above.

10 The design drawings do not indicate the method of control and TfL has not provided traffic modelling analysis results as part of the consultation. WCC seek assurance that the proposed operation of the junction is appropriately safe, will not give rise to traffic capacity issues, and that expected traffic queues would not block back upstream junctions. The linking of the pedestrian crossing to the east of Spur Road will be a critical element.

11 There are no traffic islands on the Birdcage Walk approach to Buckingham Gate to the west side of the pedestrian crossing. It is understood that this is due to vehicle swept path constraints, yet these would normally house No Entry (Except Cyclists) and Keep Left signs to advise drivers and cyclists of permitted moves from Buckingham Gate. WCC seeks assurance that suitable signs can be provided to ensure the safety of all road users.

9, 10

11 12, 13

Technical Note


East-West Cycle Superhighway Section F – Spur Road Gyratory

12 The Birdcage Walk eastbound cycle track shows a left-turn arrow, which should be removed. The carriageway markings around the corner between Spur Road and Birdcage Walk (both to the left and to the right) have the unintended potential to guide eastbound and westbound cyclists on Birdcage Walk into Spur Road. It is recommended that these markings should be reviewed.

13 Drivers of vehicles turning left from Spur Road onto Birdcage Walk need to be advised that it is safe to proceed through the crossing, as there might be confusion due to the variety of infrastructure at the crossing. Traffic signals may be required and perhaps an additional stopline should be added for the eastbound traffic movement (similar to the stopline shown for cyclists). WCC seek assurance that the method of control is appropriate and safe.

East-West Cycle Superhighway Section A – North Carriage Drive

Reference Comment

14 The single lane eastbound carriageway along North Carriage Drive is sufficient for a single vehicle only and would not permit passing of a stationary vehicle. It appears that the carriageway would might be a level surface with surface dressing, which would mitigate this issue. WCC seek clarification on the surface treatment along North Carriage Drive.

14

Technical Note


East-West Cycle Superhighway Section B – North Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive

Reference Comment

15 There may be a considerable volume of cyclists wishing to cross at this location, without formal control. Cyclists would also share the space with pedestrians. It should be demonstrated that this crossing arrangement is viable in terms of capacity on the central island for the expected volume of pedestrians and cyclists at peak times, and also in terms of safety for all road users.

15

Technical Note


East-West Cycle Superhighway Section C – West Carriage Drive

Reference Comment

16 It should be demonstrated that the width of the pedestrian refuge provided between the proposed cycle track and the carriageway should be adequate to accommodate expected volumes of pedestrians at the crossing points. The infrastructure would also seem to inconvenience pedestrians wishing to walk on the east side of West Carriage Drive.

16

Technical Note


East-West Cycle Superhighway Section D – West Carriage Drive

Reference Comment

17 The design drawings do not indicate the method of control and TfL has not provided traffic modelling analysis results as part of the consultation. WCC seek assurance that the proposed operation of the junction is appropriately safe, will not give rise to traffic capacity issues, and that expected traffic queues would not block back upstream junctions. This junction is currently the subject of local concern due to the long queues of traffic on West Carriage Drive. The reduction to a single lane southbound will reduce capacity and so this is likely to exacerbate the problem.

17

Technical Note


East-West Cycle Superhighway Section C – West Carriage Drive

Reference Comment

18 It should be demonstrated that the width of the pedestrian refuge provided between the proposed cycle track and the carriageway should be adequate to accommodate expected volumes of pedestrians at the crossing points. The infrastructure would also seem to inconvenience pedestrians wishing to walk on the north side of South Carriage Drive.

18

Technical Note


East-West Cycle Superhighway Section F – West Carriage Drive

Reference Comment

19 It is unclear how cyclists are expected to behave at this location, and if they are expected to join Park Lane. WCC seek clarification on this proposed arrangement.

K Firth Techical Director 0117 917 0822 [email protected]

19