The F...... phone box has gone!

 

IT’S GONE!  The  F……  phone box has gone.

Vanished! 

A couple of weeks after this blog told the world about the phone box on the cycle lane on Portsmouth Road,  Kingston upon Thames, which forced pedestrians to step around it and into the path of cyclists, the offending box had disappeared into thin air.

A bit like Dr Who’s Tardis.

                                                                    Now you see it.....

                                               ...now  you don't...phone box gone

But of course, knowing how long it can take for councils to process decisions, the removal of the offending hardware might have been in “planning” for months and it's disappearance nothing whatsoever to do with this blog.

But we can’t know that. So we shall claim the Freedom-cycle blog did it, as a result of engineer John Meudell’s critical appraisal which shamed the council into action.

Well done.

If you have a phone box you want moving, or any offending furniture on cycle lanes, you know where to come. 

Sam's Tour success lifts spirits

 

IRELAND’S latest Tour de France hero Sam Bennett, the  winner of the green points jersey and the coveted final stage into Paris, got the front page story, a big inside spread and the editorial in the Irish Independent on Monday.

     “SAM BENNETT’S HEROIC DEEDS BOOST THE NATIONAL MORALE”

              So ran the headline. Followed by the sub heading which spoke for us all:

 “The tonic that is sport has become even more precious”.

This of course was referring to the positive distraction sport has provided us from the Covid 19 Pandemic. And in particular, the successful completion of the Tour de France against a backcloth of rising infection in France and across Europe and now in the UK.

The big story of Slovenia’s Pogacar’s brilliant overall victory barely got a mention in the Irish paper, which was all about Bennett, with due reference to the two Irish heroes of the past.

For Bennett is only the second Irishman to win the green after Kelly did so four times in the 1980s, the last time in 1989,  while Stephen Roche won the Tour outright in 1987.

 

There is a lovely quote in the story which perfectly captures an Irish figure of speech as Bennett describes the build up to his successful sprint win: “…I was feeling the legs a little bit and I thought, ‘Oh, I’m after messing this up a bit, I’m after using up too much of my legs'.”

It was expression “I’m after”. I could hear the Irish accent coming across there.

 Irish Independent’s reporter Gerard Cromwell tells of massive home-support in Bennett's native Carrick-on-Suir (coincidentally, Kelly’s home town, too). Throughout the Tour the town was bedecked in bunting and flags carrying Sam’s name.

Says Cromwell. “There is already a sports centre and a town square in Carrick named after his predecessor Sean Kelly.

“Unlike Kelly, Bennett now has stage wins in all three Grand Tours of Spain, Italy and France. It may be time to build a new monument.”

The celebrations for Bennett gave me pause to reflect Kelly’s achievements in the green jersey, which I witnessed first-hand.

I cast my mind back to 1982 and the stage to Pau when Kelly won the stage to take the green for the first time.

Thirty years on and now it’s Bennett’s time.  Ireland has a new cycling star.

 

 

 

 

The Phone Box - How the F..k did THAT get there?!

 

 

The image of the Kingston’s telephone box blocking the footpath forcing pedestrians to step into the path of cyclists is symbolic for all that is wrong with the shit fest that is cycle planning in the UK.  

Hopefully, Manchester’s Bee Lines will be an exception to the rule, if the excellent Cyclops junction introduced recently is anything to go by. 

But by and large, there are far too many crap cycling lanes built in the UK. All manner of roadside furniture and hazards including trees are left in place on cycle lanes around the country.

Kingston's £32m cycle scheme, with its telephone box and, worst of all, the dangerous “bus stop cycle lanes”, could be a microcosm of what we could end up with if ever the government does fund a national cycling policy.

I wonder if Cycling UK, those guardians of cyclists’ rights, have challenged the misfits in Kingston, and looked into any of this?

I’ve had no response to my telephone calls and emails to their campaign department and their magazine. This could be because staff  are working from home due to the pandemic. But if anything has been written about these issues I’ve not seen it.

John Meudell’s report below concludes the sorry Kingston tale.

 

 …………………………………..

As highlighted previously, the choice of cycle infrastructure configuration in Kingston has made it difficult to design junctions, bus stops, loading bays, etc., writes Meudell.

The designs adopted conspiring to create conflicts that otherwise wouldn’t exist.

 

And don’t talk to me about lines-of-sight, which, as far as the highways engineers and designers involved are concerned, don’t exist. 

 

Let’s talk about that phone box outside the University…..

Think about a pedestrian walking towards the phone box, effectively blocking sight lines around it?  And what happens if a pedestrian inadvertently pushes a baby buggy into the cycle lane without looking?  It just takes a moments inattention on the part of both pedestrian and cyclist.

 

And real irony?  Look closely and you’ll see the phone box isn’t connected to anything…….

 

But the real question is…how did cyclists and pedestrians end up with a (disconnected) phone box blocking the footpath?  And, given its been there for more than a year now, why is it still there?

 

Bear in mind that the cycle infrastructure in Kingston has its genesis in the award of £32m from Transport for London in 2014 to improve safety and convenience for cyclists.  In the years immediately following award, detail was added to routes planned under the Go Cycle programme strap line.

 

Furthermore, Kingston University has a major re-development under way adjacent to the phone box (the new Town House and frontage) planning of which took place in approximately the same time frame. 

 

Developments such as these have implications for utilities such as BT, a statutory undertaker, all of whom would have been consulted in the early stages.  And the phone box has been in that location for many years, well before both developments were proposed.

                                  The phone box in pre-cycle lane days

 

So, it’s not as if any of the major players in the phone box fiasco, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, British Telecom and Kingston University didn’t have or were given plenty of notice and had time to consider the implications. 

 

All the major players have been involved or consulted and/or interacted with at various stages in the planning and development of these projects, both in general and in detail, and arrangements for relocation of the phone box could easily have been concluded well before work commenced.

 

So, it’s not as if this is a communication problem.

 

 

Kingston have at least £32m to spend on the Go Cycle programme and the University has spent around £50m on development of the new Town House building and re-development of the frontage of adjacent university buildings where the phone box is located.

 

So, it’s not as if this is a money problem.

 

Even worse, local politicians have (unhelpfully) got in on the action, using what is a planning, design and engineering process issue, to score political points rather than solve problems.

 

https://www.kingstonconservatives.com/kingstons-32million-cycle-lanes-being-mis-managed-by-libdems-%EF%BB%BF/

 

And it’s most definitely not a political problem.

 

 

Most large organizations I have been associated with have clear processes for development, design and construction of capital projects, usually with decision “gates” to minimise (if not eliminate) risks, be it financial, schedule and/or physical.  Physical risks will not only include those to their own staff but also construction workers, project users and the public at large.

 

Not to do so would run not only the risks identified above, but also consequential reputational risks that could seriously damage the future health, if not existence, of the organization. 

 

 

Design input for the Kingston infrastructure projects would, or should, have included information gleaned from safety audits at each stage of the process, part of statutory obligations on highways authorities aimed at ensuring (and, dare I say it, improving) the safety of those using the highway.

 

So why is it none of the safety risks of the scheme; including junctions, bus stops, loading bays and the phone box, were ever recognised, whether by the designers or, perhaps more importantly, by safety auditors?

 

And, even if they were recognised, why is it nobody could be bothered to do anything about them?

  

The case of the phone box, as with all the newly created hazards, demonstrates the failure of processes and the people and organizations participating in them.

 

Given the amount of money that has been spent on these projects, are any of these people and organizations involved going to voluntarily admit that they cocked-up, let alone do anything meaningful to eliminate the hazards…….?

 

Without a national regulator overseeing and informing and assuring design and engineering processes and people, accountability (or lack of) is a major, major, contributing factor. 

 

 

So, will anything change, system-wise?

 

In my experience that’s highly unlikely in Kingston, or the rest of the UK, even if somebody (dare I say it) gets killed or seriously injured as result of crap infrastructure.

 

………something that’s definitely not the case in the Netherlands!

 

 

What if Kingston had gone real Dutch?

 

Engineers and planners who concocted the potentially lethal "bus stop cycle lanes" in Kingston upon Thames' £multi-million cycling scheme shambles have appealed for help to make them safe. 

Only joking. 

But they only have to ask.

John Meudell, an experienced engineer and long time resident in the Netherlands, critically examined this scheme in previous instalments. 

Now he presents the case for Kingston to adopt the Dutch approach to cycle planning.

 

Had Kingston not adopted its current approach, writes Meudell, there are a range of Dutch solutions that would have prevented creation of the bus stop problem.  Here’s a couple.

 

 

Nieboerweg is in the western outskirts of The Hague.  It’s mostly residential but can be quite busy with cars, buses and cyclists going to the beaches between The Hague and Hoek van Holland. 

 

In this instance we’re looking at a bus route on the fringes of the city, with similar traffic patterns to Portsmouth Road.  Traffic densities at the Dutch location (pictured below) permit on-carriageway cycle lanes, about 1.5m wide, on both sides with running lanes around 3.5m.  Footpaths are at least 1.5m wide.  Overall, there is a similar spatial availability to Portsmouth Road. 

 

 

Note the treatment of the bus stop which has its own passenger island with the cycle lane taken around the back of the island.  Note also the position of the bus shelter, down flow of the island; bus passengers walking towards the bus island facing oncoming cyclists and traffic….so no line of sight issues. 

 

So let’s consider a Nieboerweg solution, particularly the impact at the Portsmouth Road bus stop (below).

 

 

The Dutch solution would have provided at-grade with-flow cycle lanes on both sides of the road using the original kerb line. 

 

At the bus stop kerbs would be extended into the cycle lane with cyclists exiting the carriageway at normal speed to continue around the rear of the bus stop.  The loop can be either partially or fully raised to footpath level or remain at grade (as per the Netherlands).

 

If more space is required at the above location in Portsmouth Road there is also the possibility of moving the wall behind the bus stop towards the river to accommodate the cycle path.

 

So, rather than moving kerbs and re-aligning and raising the surfaces along the entire stretch of road, in this example that would only need to be done at bus stops, reducing costs whilst still improving safety for cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers.

 

Space availability is such that the same approach could have been applied at other bus stops on this stretch of road.

 

 

 

In the case of Penrhyn Road traffic patterns are much different from Portsmouth Road, with higher traffic densities and a mix of traffic which includes more commercial and public transport vehicles.

 

 

Wandelweg, in Wormerveer, is a similar situation and might have provided valid options for Penrhyn Road (above).

Wandelweg is a provincial highway, the Dutch equivalent of our “A” road, and runs through the centre of the small town of Wormerveer (below) towards nearby Amsterdam.  Space availability is similar to Portsmouth Road and Penrhyn Road and also Nieboerweg, but traffic mix and volume required a grade separated solution.

 

Here, carriageway running lanes have been narrowed (see above photo), to about 2.5-3.0m, consistent with research which suggests that narrowing running lanes encourages reduced traffic speeds. 

 

Cycle and footpaths are grade separated from the main carriageway.  The with-flow cycle paths are 1.5m and colour differentiated, with the rest of the space availability given over to pedestrians.  Bus stop configurations are split between well marked bays on carriageway and bays cut into the foot/cycle paths.

 

Where bus passengers have to cross cycle paths to board buses the shelters are positioned downstream of the corresponding bay, otherwise they are immediately adjacent (RH side).  Where pedestrians would be waiting to cross the carriageway, at lights-controlled crossings, clear space is maintained between carriageway and cycle path.

 

Whilst there seems to be no statutory requirement to actually cycle with-flow, most cyclists follow that norm in those sections.

 

Throughout the length of the road through Wormerveer there are sections where some cycle paths are bi-directional.  These tend to be adjacent to major junctions/destinations (e.g. the local station, retail developments, etc.) or at the edge-of-town transition.

Also highly relevant are the speed limits.  

It should be noted that speed limits in both Dutch cases are similar to those on Portsmouth Road and Penrhyn Road, that is 50kph, or 30mph.

 The above are just a couple from a range of solutions that might have been deployed successfully in Kingston, with less disruption and cost.  But engineers, designers and decision makers didn’t seem aware of them and, if they did, they weren’t going to choose them (even if they knew how to build them).

 

 The point is that Kingston, in adopting a two-way grade-separated solution, created problems that could and should have been anticipated by the designers and engineers, but weren’t. 

 

Coupled with a culture that, even if it does anticipate these problems, seems to take a denial/fatalistic approach…."we can’t or don’t know what to do about it so we’ll just do it anyway".  The net result is creation of the problems you see in Kingston.

 

 

 

 

In the Next Episode

 

The Phone Box - How the Fuck did That get There?!

 

HOW ABOUT WE CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE KINGSTON SCHEME?

 

This is an opportunity for critical examination of the hazards and compare and contrast with similar situations in the Netherlands.

 

 

John Meudell, an experienced engineer, designer, former CTC director and long-time resident of the Netherlands, revisited Kingston upon Thames last week. He reckons that PR played a big part in the decision to install two-way cycle paths running straight through bus stops!

 

One of these sits on Portsmouth Road which runs alongside the River Thames and it is likely that provision of a pretty, traffic free, cycle path was the aim, with little thought given to practicalities and safety implications of the design. 

 

This despite the availability of a perfectly nice leisure cycle route along the opposite bank of the river.

 

The idea people might want a convenient, quick and safe utility cycle route to get people into and out of Kingston seem not to figure in their thinking.

 

Unaware of the danger created at the bus stops, in Portsmouth Road engineers have now had to botch a new “installation” in an attempt to warn cyclists of a potential conflict the designers created, pictured below.

 

 

Meudell reports that two short bright yellow poles have been inserted into the kerb where the cycle lane borders the road. And on the cycle lane surface itself the following message has appeared in bright white lettering - “Slow down”.

 

Clearly this is intended as a warning to cyclists because the two posts are at either end of the area where buses stop to disgorge passengers - straight into the path of riders.

 

Whereas the original was a bit like opening a door and stepping straight onto the M25, this is the addition of “smart” lanes where you’re not really sure what they are for until the accident happens.

 

“Unfortunately their effectiveness is likely to be marginal,” says Meudell, who goes on to say “they will only add to the confusion caused by Kingston positioning the bus stop at the entrance to the segregated section, right in the manoeuvring area for cyclists entering and leaving the shared use section.”

 

  “If you look at all four bus stops it’s as if the designers and engineers have just thrown up their hands and said ‘we don’t know how to do this so we’ll just do a selection of ideas and you’ll just have to work it out for yourself’.” 

 

“The fact that these bus stops got through independent safety audits, presumably without any questions being raised, suggests a system that is not interested in the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers.”

 

 “After many years of high profile committees on cycling, if someone has an explanation as to why highways engineers are still poking around in the dark in this way……!?

 

 

Given the government’s recent announcement that sub-standard cycle lanes will no longer be tolerated, it will be interesting to see what Transport Secretary Grant Schapps has to say about the Kingston cock up.

 

“The problem, says Meudell, is that, in the UK, it’s a question of the political vs the professional approach.” 

 

The political solution is to decide the answer that suits you, politically and PR wise, and then force it through. 

 

The professional approach is to consider and consult on all the issues, then screen a range of solutions before determining the most effective and cost-effective solution that improves safety and convenience for everyone. 

 

The British don’t do it that way…the Dutch do.

 

 

 

 

 

In the Next Episode

 

What if Kingston had gone real Dutch?

 

Bus stops on cycle lanes pose threat to life and limb in Kingston upon Thames

THIS week’s blog features engineer John Meudell who explains  why he is highly critical of the attitudes of the planning and highways engineers building cycle lanes in England. 

His accompanying photographs of recently constructed cycle lanes in Kingston upon Thames illustrate the dangerous short comings we have become familiar with over the years. 

Do Kingston's cycle lanes even comply with government guidelines which call for a minimum of 3 metres width for a two-way cycle lane?  These two-way lanes look very narrow in the photographs, with  barely enough room for approaching riders to pass in safety. 
And that's before we add bus stops into the equation!

John Meudell,  loaded and ready for another big tour.

Unlike in The Netherlands where whole junctions get ripped apart and rebuilt from scratch in order to accommodate all modes, cycling infrastructure in the few places it does exist in the UK  has been  tacked on to existing roads and pavements and safety and convenience  compromised. The smart signage and distinctive black surface with the symbol of a cycle  provides a false sense of security.

In Kingston there is real possibility of collisions between cyclists and bus passengers where bus stops are positioned on the cycle lanes.  

Kingston even admits to the dodgy construct on their website, where the cycle lane passes under the noses of alighting passengers. Kingston simply advise cyclists, bus passengers and bus drivers to be aware at these locations! 

Would they expect passengers to step off a bus onto a  main road?  At least they did get the cycle lane design right at one bus stop!

Meudell ponders how it is that dangerous facilities such as these get signed off as safe to use? Why are they built that way in the first place?

Yet this has been the trend in the UK for decades.

It begs the question, if the government were ever to fulfil our wishes to rebuild the highways to make them “safer” for cyclists are planners and highway engineers up to the task?

Personally, as a professional engineer, writes John MeudelI, I find the concept of pop-up cycle lanes highly concerning.  Given the safety critical nature of highways and the poor quality of current cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, even when developed (if not consulted) over a number of years the idea that, by someone sticking down a bunch of coloured traffic cones almost at random, the activity suddenly becomes safer and more convenient is bizarre!

I was horrified when I first heard the excuse “there haven’t been enough cyclists/pedestrians killed” when asked about road improvements for cyclists.  That was in the early 2000’s, albeit the guy who said it, a highways engineer, was being ironic at the time.  But, since then, the attitude has only got worse and the myopia systemized.

Coming from my background; i.e. munitions, hot and heavy steel; domestic gas, aviation, power and oil and gas engineering; industries where safety is of critical importance (and not only human life but financial safety as well) I find the general attitude of the highways industry, and its administrators, totally abhorrent. 

If anything the recent screw up over “Smart (duh!) Motorways” has reinforced that view, HE blindly pushing a capacity agenda with little grounded thought for the safety implications or their decisions.

(The introduction of smart motorways has led to an increase in serious accidents on some stretches, official research has revealed. An analysis of reports published by Highways England, the body that maintains motorways and major A-roads in England, showed that severe accident rates worsened after the hard shoulder was removed.)

Over the years I have had many conversations with the officials charged with transport planning and highways engineering.  Their attitude, combined with the complete lack of accountability of their profession, has convinced me that they will never “heal themselves” and it will require an outside intervention and change agent to achieve this.  Hence my long held view those things will only change with the creation of an independent Inspectorate of Roads, or similar organization, with full powers of sanction, to hold the highways establishment to account.

What is also concerning is the lack of any “sound of opposition” from pedestrian and cycling organizations on the subject of infrastructure safety. 

Recent Kingston schemes for cyclists have  been a shambles. Here are four different bus stop treatments within a kilometre of one another. Near the junction of Surbiton Road and Penrhyn Road. 

 We have this gem  with a little blue circular
sign on a post indicating

                      shared use beyond, into the bus stop zone! 

The telephone box! To get round it, pedestrians simply step  into the cycle path .

At least Kingston got this right, a sensibly configured arrangement.  

This cycle lane is an accident waiting to happen, every time a bus stops and disgorges passengers onto the cycle lane. Last year I was on a bus which pulled up here. The driver opened the doors and a young woman stepped out - straight into the path of two kids doing about 15kph. Fortunately, they reacted instantly and missed her completely. But the kids' mother on her bike, had to swerve and brake hard and nearly fell.
All but one of these bus stops rely exclusively on the reactions of pedestrians, cyclists and bus drivers to  keep each other safe from conflicts created by the  highways engineers and the safety inspectors responsible.
........................................

John Meudel C.Eng MIMechE,  is a professional engineer and former deputy chairman of the CTC. (Cyclists’ Touring Club, now rebranded as Cycling UK).

Trained  initially  as  an  engineer  he has  extensive  international experience,  in  both  private  and  public sectors, holding senior positions within the DTI, in London, and Royal Dutch Shell in Malaysia, UK, the Netherlands, Brunei and Sarawak. His early career included spells with Rolls Royce, British Steel and Royal Ordnance plus, over the years, extensive work with voluntary organisations.

Since leaving industry and moving into research his focus has increasingly turned to transport planning, integration and development, along with aspects of community involvement, most specifically in relation to non-motorised user issues.