Royal College Street Northern Extension - Comments

Principle looks good but need to address some details like:
- Road markings to emphasise segregation where there is no parking
- Good signage especially to prevent motorists heading south down cycle track

Awesome! I wish Islington Council had the same level of ambition. Q: Are there sufficient loading facilities to prevent delivery vans from stopping in the tracks?

Alex poses a good question - the easy answer is that it is an enforcement issue and therefore not our problem! The long stretch from Kentish Town Road to College Gardens has no loading areas; Camden certainly have considered the issue and must think it is OK. After that there are loading facilities; in fact the SB cycle track is a bit compromised by one just north of Camden Road which we'd have to live with I think..

But we'll need to make sure that the plans don't get diluted after consultation.

Two issues:
a. The semi-protected track seems to disappear over the canal. The pavement needs to be narrowed there.

b. St Pancras way, by College Gardens; the cycle lane is outside the car-parking strip; should be inside (between pavement and parked cars).

Good points by Andrea.

Regarding the area over the canal, this is already built as part of phase 1. I think the complication is due to the zebra crossing and DfT regs regarding zig-zag lines but we'll flag it up. There are similar situations near Georgiana and Pratt Streets.

St Pancras Way is not part of this consultation and I think that Camden will be unwilling to consult on the relocation of all the parking but we'll add it to our response.

I think this is generally good and I'm delighted to see that Camden is proposing a 'green for cyclists only' phase at the intersection with Camden Road. Can't wait to see this in action!

Mark Treasure has started another thread on this at http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/node/3305 . We would prefer all in one place.

One valid point from Mark Treasure refers to RCS just north of Camden Road. First there should be armadillos on approach to Camden Road. Second the loading bay would be better outside the cycle track. I recall that this was discussed but we could raise the matter again. Jean

This looks awful. Light segregation with armadillos provides very little protection even mixed with planters they are knocked off or broken. So do we really want there use to spread when they are not fit for purpose?

On top of this segregation ends to far away from junctions leaving cyclists exposed. We are going to end up with lots of left hooks.

Then we get to the really awful stuff:

On Royal College st there is a loading bay on the inside of the cycling lane. We also have a huge zone of conflict with a bus stop just before a loading bay. People using this lane will have to deal with conflict with bus users and then immediately will find them self dealing with a door zone lane with conflict with people loading and unloading.

At the junction with St Pancras way a dangerous merge is designed into the scheme. On St Pancras Way we have a door zone lane.

Where the lane is inside the parking its going to be in the doorzone as there is no buffer to stop people parking right against the armadillos.

Also are we really going to kid our selves that enforcement will prevent these tracks being routinely blocked? Enforcement has not worked up to now for existing mandatory cycle lanes and I dont see that chaining just because some rubber bumps have been added.

The one good thing is the cycle light phase at the junction.

Overall this scheme why would anyone support this? There is far too much wrong with it. Far to much conflict and danger for its potential users it need to go back to the drawing board.

Actually wherever the lane is alongside parking it put cycling in the door zone.

What am I missing? Why are we being encouraged to support this when there is so much wrong with it?

@sean. You ask 'am I missing something?' The answer is that you seem to have missed most of what is said about the segregation methods I Camden's document. I.e.:

The proposed cycle lanes would be physically segregated from traffic to provide a safe and attractive environment for cycling. There are different types of segregation proposed:

Adjacent to parking – Parked vehicles would provide a form of protection for cyclists. In these areas small rubber blocks or “armadillos” would also be installed (similar to those used south of Baynes Street on Royal College Street). There would also be a safe area between the cycle lane and the parked vehicles.

Not adjacent to parking – small rubber blocks or “armadillos” would be installed (similar to those used south of Baynes Street on Royal College Street).

There is not enough space on the street to provide kerb segregation throughout. The proposed segregation with “armadillos” would be significantly cheaper and quicker to install than kerbs. In addition, the “armadillos” would provide more flexibility for cyclists and less of a barrier to pedestrians crossing the street.

BTW, we do not normally engage with anonymous comments and will not do so further with yours unless you identify yourself.

@George I have updated my profile hopefully it now has enough details for me not to be considered anonymous. If you would like me to add more details please let me know how I am new to this system. Not sure what more identification you want? My name is Sean Howes, Live in Wandsworth when I am in London, and I work both in London and Vancouver (Various locations in both).

I have seen the armadillos on both the existing Royal College street and on there trial in Salford and in both cases have been very unimpressed with them. They dont provide real protection to cyclists and have a high failure rate. In Salford where armadillos were not mixed with planters they were even less effective than the RCS setup with a very high failure rate from vehicle impact. RCS, in my experience, often suffers from the lane being blocked by parked vehicles as did the trail in Salford.

From the renderings showing the scheme that Camden has provided does not show anything like enough of a buffer (if any unless the car is perfectly parked) between the lane and parking and the lanes are only to be 1.5-2m this is going to lead to a small safe zone of usable space. Once a cyclists is clear from the kerb and the risk of car doors. How wide do you feel the safe zone will be? and how will a novice cyclists be able to identify the safe zone? After all is the goal of improved infrastructure not to encourage those who do not currently cycle to feel confident enough to do so? The cyclist in the rendering would be in the door zone have the plans been updated to include a buff or hatching showing cyclists where they are at risk? I can also not see anything indicating a buffer or where is safe in the top down schematics.

While Camden my be keen on this form of segregation on the grounds it cheep and quick I am not convinced that is a good reason to install large amounts of it. While its cheep and quick to install its also very ineffective at providing protection. Why have they decided not opt not to mix in planters on this section as they at least discourage motorists slightly more?

I am also confused by your statement about not being enough space for kerb separation. It would take longer but building a raised track with a kerb , as is popular in the Netherlands and Denmark, would require no more space than you proposed solution. Though would provide a higher level of protection. Do you have more detailed schematics with full measurements of the existing road and pavement widths?

@sean I am also no fan of armadillos, an animal species unknown in all
countries with high cycle usage.

Just a correction: most of the raised Danish tracks have no kerb.

Regards

Andrea Casalotti
077 2788 3475

@Andrea no worries corrections always welcome. You are quite right too that danish have no kerb restricting usable width. Raised tracks was what I was trying to communicate just a very poor choice of words on my part. Last thing we need is to build anything new like Torrington Pl even if it was one way its just such a wast of usable space due to the kerb & gutters.

Thanks for the comments, Sean and Andrea. We'll take up your points about the loading zone and the relationship to the bus stop.

Regarding vehicles blocking the tracks, this does not seem to have been a major problem in the first phase, with the exception of an occasional post-office van at the sorting office. It is true that the planters have been badly damaged but as far as I know, none of the armadillos have been broken, though a couple have come loose. With the exception of the planters, the level of attrition is not dissimilar to what we see on other roads with signs, bollards etc. (poles have been installed to see if this will protect the planters).

By implication, Sean claims that a half-height raised track would give more protection, would be less likely to be blocked and would also afford better protection from dooring - I do not follow his logic here as I would have thought that it is just as easy to park on and would give no more, possibly less, space between the track and parked and/or moving vehicles. In any case, the parking will be marked at a distance away from the armadillos and this has generally worked in the southern part. There is also a cost/environmental aspect to laying the large amount of tarmac that would be needed, though this should not be a consideration if we think that safety is really compromised.

Note also that all the parking (though not all the loading) is on the east side of the road, facing the contraflow cycle lane. This is by design; it means that vehicle occupants face oncoming cyclists, which enhances mutual visibility.

The planters were a good idea but due to the frequency of damage are not planned for the extension. But I think that something similar, i.e. a hard/taller element of some kind, would be a useful addition especially when there is a long run or an access point.

It's also worth mentioning that there is an ongoing post-installation review of phase 1 which will help steer the details of the extension.

A couple of other suggestions have been made off-list - I will summarise them here:

- Set the armadillos at an angle as in some parts of Barcelona. This provides a buffer zone and sounds like a good idea; we will ask for this.

- Provide islands for bus boarding. We think that the current scheme works adequately given the infrequent buses and low foot-fall. There are major technical issues with providing space for boarders and it is not clear that they would actually reduce pedestrian/cycle conflict.

- Right turns from Camden Road. Though desirable, this would be very difficult. We will ask to see if a two-stage turn could be facilitated from Camden Road eastbound to RCS southbound.

Sean, thanks for identifying yourself. The only extra thing it would be nice to know i s which local LCC group you are working with.

Anyway, welcome to Cyclescape!

About your most recent post, please note that the text about the scheme in my post was
Quoted from Camden's consultation and not mine! We (Camden Cycling Campaign) are using Cyclescape as a means to gather constructive comments for inclusion in our response to the consultation.

Concerning the use of armadilloes, while we don't think they would be appropriate in many heavily trafficked situations, that isnt thecase here - the road is being reduced to a single 20 mph motor lane plus parking and the remaining space beteeen kerbs is allocated to the cycle tracks. In the text I quoted from their consultation Camden have made certain commitments, e.g. to provide a buffer. We have no reason to disbelieve them - they kept their word on the first phase of RCS and on other schemes.
One concern I have is that armadilloes alone may not be as effecfive in preventing illicit parking as the armadillos plus planters in threxisting scheme.