The Amazing Electricity Trickery

Will electric vehicles solves our urban transport problems? Will they heck!

After reading a blog on Notes From A Transport Planner, I was inspired to rant a bit about our government's absolute desire to keep people in their cars by the promotion and subsidising of electric vehicles (EVs).

First, I do drive my 11 year old Ford Focus with 96,500 miles on the clock. It spends about 0.5% of a usual week being driven and the rest of the time parked off street. It is a fantastic tool if I am working very late, carrying my concrete mixer around or picking up timber for my latest DIY project. It is great for trips out of London where there is no public transport (or expensive trains) At those times, it is used more. A bit of hypocrisy? Possibly, but it is my blog, so there!

Mmmm, Tesla Roadster, not a milk float, does not get a subsidy

in the UK and just as good as my Focus at sitting in traffic.

Image from Tesla website.

I am not anti-car or anti-driver. I reckon I do more annual miles by cycle than car, I use the bus more than I drive for longer (but localish) trips and going into London, it is always a Travelcard - so aren't I a good boy then? I am more anti the effects of unrestrained provision of infrastructure for cars has had and continues to have on our urban environment and if that means sitting in traffic on the few occasions I drive any great distance, well so be it.

What has this to do with EVs? Well, I have no basic problem with EVs. In my mind, there are two main advantages to the urban environment;

1) No tailpipe emissions - this is infinitely preferable to the mess chugged out by petrol and more especially diesel engines and could reduce pollution in urban areas. Even if pollution continues at the power station, it is often away from large area of population. EVs are a more efficient way to use fuel for motion than vehicles with internal combustion engines and so they can make better use of dwindling non-renewable resources.

2) If powered by renewable energy, then they are a clean transport technology (I know it takes "stuff" and energy to build them, but I cannot see us living in mud huts and having dung for dinner any time soon)

Taken from the executive summary of the strategy this map
shows the mean annual concentrations of nitrogen dioxide.
Domestic and commercial use of gas for heating provides a
large contribution to the problem, but you can very easily pick
out lots of major roads such as the North Circular, M4, M40
M1, M25 and A13. You can also pick out the City and
Westminster and London town centres such as Croydon, 
Romford and Woolwich which have dual carriageways and 
gyratories. These pollutants can aggravate asthma and
other respiratory illnesses and long-term exposure can
contribute to lung and heart disease or even cancer.

In London, the Mayor's Air Quality Strategy cites that bad air could contribute to the deaths of 4000 people a year (based 2008 data). 

This is not all because of transport, but a significant amount is and there are clearly issues with the road network being "hot spots" for pollution as well as Heathrow Airport. 

The Mayor's policies for dealing with the problem are;

• Age limits for taxis
• Promoting low-emission vehicles (such as electric cars)
• Promoting eco-driving
• New standards for the Low Emission Zone
• Retrofitting older buses
• Targeted measures for areas where air quality is poor.
• Using the planning system to reduce emissions from new developments.
• Retrofitting homes and offices to make them more energy efficient.

I am not going into the detail of whether this is a good set of policies but words such as "promoting" are nicely vague and anything where people are invited to apply for grants or do anything will not appeal to the masses; and besides, the UK faces an EU fine if it doesn't get a grip.

My main problem with EVs is that they are seen by the government as a way of maintaining business as usual and their policy is geared to maintaining transport in its current form, but with less pollution and indeed there are grants available for people to switch to ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs, including EVs). The grants extend to commercial and private vehicles as well as subsidy for the provision of domestic and public charging points. It is all part of a £400 million budget to promote ultra-low emission driving which runs until 2015. There is even an Office for Low Emission Vehicles I kid you not! (Just imagine if there was a dedicated office for cycling with £400 million to spend, it could be called Cycling England, oh, wait).

There is of course all sorts of linkages between road transport pollution, congestion, road safety, the need to travel, lack of alternative transport and the way in which our streets and urban environment are arranged around private vehicles and plus their use by the people who can afford them. Indeed, the car market is falling over itself to come up with EVs and 2013 will see many manufacturers releasing models - given the influence big business has in this country, there is no way they would be developing EVs if the government was going to change its policies any time soon. Even the congestion charge in London is changing because of the uptake of low emission vehicles!

Congestion? More of it please! Image from DfT website with current
statistics for congestion!

So, even if we replaced all of our vehicles overnight with EVs (all powered by renewable energy), we will have solved the pollution issue, but we would still have the same congestion in towns and cities, a lack of public transport, the push for road widening, hard-shoulder running on the motorways (at the cost of several hundreds of millions of pounds), an abject lack of investment in walking and cycling, children being driven to school, communities still severed by urban trunk roads, obesity growing, parking everywhere and people getting killed and injured on our roads. Yes, the air will be cleaner, but the myriad of other deleterious issues will simply remain.

So, for those people in the market for a new EV car, they can get up to 25% towards the cost of their shiny new motor, up to the value of £5,000. So if you are in the market for a nice new Nissan Leaf from £23,490, you can get your £5,000 grant just leaving you to pay (or finance) the remaining £18,490 (other cars available). Compare this to the starting price of a Nissan Micra which is £9,750, it is seems to me that those able to afford or finance an EV and the tax payer are directly subsidising the car industry (£8,740 and £5,000) respectively (in my example). 

I am happy that the taxpayer subsidies certain things and everyone has their own opinion on what should be subsidised, but this is a scheme for those who can afford a new (and relatively expensive) car in the first place, and will do nothing to alter travel behaviour or do anything to deal with the problems I have set out above.

I think EVs (and ULEVs) will be a great way of replacing some of our urban fleet such as buses, refuse trucks, highway maintenance vehicles, taxis and some delivery vehicles, but it is no solution to our urban transport nightmare.

The Ranty Highwayman's bike. Please do not mock, I like it.
Potholes are eaten for breakfast, it will cope with gravel and it has
got me through the London to Brighton, so there.

Now, my bike is a Carrera Subway hybrid which I got in the sale in January 2012 for less than £250. I am not even getting into a debate about the bike, I like it and I would have another. The current version is on Halford's website for £399. So, for the £5000 for a Nissan Leaf, the government could give 12 people a new Carrera. For the £400 million, they could give a million people a new Carrerra!

Or for £400 million, they could give grants to people to buy bikes and implement so much cycling infrastructure such as 1000km of quieter cycling routes in London which would be about £100 million invested and of use for many years to come. Sorry for being London-centric, but imagine what £400 million could fund here.

It is the job of government to use subsidies, taxes and other fiscal mechanisms to influence behaviour, the markets, research and development and so on, but I am worried that the EV scheme is little more than political greenwash and of interest to those who can afford a very expensive car, even with the subsidy. Certainly, my old Focus is here to stay and is not going to be replaced by an EV any time soon as my trusty Carrera at least solves a few transport problems for me. 

If the government really needs to invest in EVs, why not concentrate on buses and other public service vehicles which do need to be on the roads?

Footway Parking Fail

a heated argument in the office prompted this post. i do not like footway* parking for a number of reasons and it is another in a long list of symptoms of a wider car-centric society. 

Footway parking on the school run. Doesn't it make for a lovely
user environment? No wonder children have to be driven to school
walking is so dangerous and unpleasant!

I would have said "debate" but it did develop into an argument (Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment, is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?). Now, I will declare that I am in the "haters" group for footway parking, but this may be because I do walk a bit and I find cars parked on "my" footway a constant irritation. I do not want to be fenced in by cars and vans on one side and fences and walls on the other. I have also regularly witnessed cars bouncing up the footway outside our local primary school where my and other kids are walking along and I wonder if I should be lobbying for a drive-thru classroom!

So, it all started when a colleague lamented the random nature in which footway parking is agreed. He was annoyed that a lack of senior management or political leadership meant that decisions were being made on the basis of he who shouts loudest gets (local government at its best). Footway parking is an easy and cheap thing to install (in London at least) and so politicians love it as they are seen to be doing something.

Now, there were three of us in the room and my other colleague felt that if the road was too narrow for parking (often on both sides), then footway parking was a sensible way of letting people park and maintaining emergency vehicle access.

I gave my favourite example of a cul-de-sac which had footway parking on both sides. The remaining footway is just less than 1m. If people park within the marked bays, you can barely drive a car through, let alone a fire engine or a refuse vehicle.

Seriously, there is only space for one line of cars in this street. To
think otherwise is living in a state of denial. Sorry, you need to
reduce the amount of cars you have or park them somewhere more
sensible.

Here is a photo. The cars on both sides are parked out of bay which is parking-ticket land (in London at least), but being in the bays simply does not work as even cars will struggle to get past.

So, after a bout of parking tickets, the residents went loopy and "something had to be done". 

I proposed taking away parking on one side as it was the only way to get fire and refuse vehicles into the street. The residents went loopy again and councillors demanded a site meeting which I duly attended. 

I invited the local fire brigade officer and he explained to the massed experts that he could not get a fire engine into the street and so his fire-fighters would have to run hoses along the street (over some distance), rather than get close to the hydrant at the end (they carry some water in the fire engine, but pump water from the mains if they are fighting for a while).

The experts suggested the fire engine could drive over their gardens or bash the cars out of the way. The local fire officer said his engines were too heavy for the grass and the fibreglass cabs tended to smash in a collision; besides, with a house on fire, this was wasted minutes. Even when the pre-arranged (but not announced) fire engine turned up and could not get through, the residents decided their parking was more important than burning to death (my sarcasm).

The problems here are two-fold;

(1) The idiot(s) who "designed" and agreed the footway parking did not think it through in terms of space left for people to walk or fire/refuse access. Residents should have been told that finding parking was their problem from day one. I doubt the decision to proceed was taken formally, rather than a junior officer told to get it painted in.

(2) The residents were so wedded to their cars, so intent on parking as close as possible, none of them were bothered about what would happen if their house was on fire. This was fine for the noisy people at the meeting, but I knew some were privately worried, just scared to speak out against the noisy lot.

To this day, nothing has been resolved and there has not been a fire. Of course, finding parking is a daily issue for people; having their house on fire is not. The chances are, they will never be involved in a house fire. Was my idea of removing parking on one side therefore a gross over-reaction?

I think that the rot set in many decades ago and no government has dared to act. In London, footway parking is kind of regulated following the provisions under S15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974. This piece of legislation effectively bans parking on footways and verges in Greater London unless otherwise permitted (using signs and/or road markings). Of course, this has created a limited hoop to jump through in order to introduce footway parking, but at least in theory some thought has to go into the process. Interestingly, Exeter had its own Act which does pretty much the same thing (S30), but this is rare. The GLC acted 40 years ago to try and stem the problem and will probably take another 40 years to sort out the mess in the rest of the country!

Handleys Chase, Basildon. Typical of a new estate which is built
some distance away from shops and services and in a town which
is heavily reliant on the car to function. People own multiple cars
and so the footways are the natural place to park for them.
Image from Google Streetview.

Elsewhere, footway parking is effectively "tolerated" and enforcement only tends to come into play when the police decide to act because the offending vehicle has caused an obstruction or if there is a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in place banning footway parking which would allow a council to enforce where parking has been decriminalised. In Scotland, there are attempts to sort the situation out, but this is yet to make it into law.

The definition of "obstruction" is very woolly. Even if part of the footway is removed from use for pedestrians, it is only really an obstruction where people are effectively forced into the road. Of course, enforcement is highly variable where the police is concerned and there is no one piece of law they use, although they have several to choose from (and there are others);

• S22Road Traffic Act 1988 - leaving vehicles in dangerous positions.
• S137Highways Act 1980 wilful obstruction of the free passage along a highway.
• S72 Highways Act 1835 - driving on any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers.

Of course, this is criminal law and so the driver is being prosecuted and so might be considered a bit harsh and of course, will the police really bother with mounting a criminal case against somebody parked like a fool? You should read Carlton Reid's excellent post on footway parking which has lots of background to the legal issues with a funny video from "The Young Ones" which is one of my favourite asides from the show!

In February 2011, the Minster, Norman Baker MP, wrote to councils asking them to "use their powers to prevent parking on the pavement where it is a problem and causing an obstruction." So, rather than deal with the problem, those in a position to give leadership basically abdicate the responsibility to local councils who are the last people to want to upset those who want to park everywhere. Still, this current lot do believe in saddling local authorities for everything!

Why do people park on the footway and what are the problems it causes? The reasons for parking on the footway are manifold and everyone has their reasons. Aside from people who are naturally lazy, I would list the following as reasons I have heard, read or had relayed to me. This is in no order and not scientific!

• I have nowhere else to park my car,
• If I park in the road, my car/ wing mirrors will get hit,
• I am doing traffic a favour - if I park in the road, I will block traffic,
• I need to drop the kids off at school,
• I work shifts and always get woken up by the refuse truck/ delivery trucks who want to get past, so I park on the footway to get out of their way,
• Well, many families have more than one car and they have to park somewhere.

My reasons against are;

Reede Road in Dagenham. This road is a bus route, so footway
parking is allowed to help buses get through, but the road is also
traffic calmed - madness! Image from Google Streetview.

• If we carry on allowing drivers to park where they like and without regard for other highway users, then the conditions for walking and indeed cycling will get worse as driver behaviour essentially becomes ingrained that "their" convenience comes first in all cases,
• Footways are rarely constructed to a "carriageway" standard and constant use by vehicles will lead to a steady deterioration in the condition of the footways. This will mean that further pressure is put on limited road maintenance and indeed road safety budgets.
• People have choices and freedoms, but this must be accompanied with responsibility and consideration. If you park on the footway to "do traffic a favour" by not blocking others, why is it acceptable to block pedestrians? Perhaps you are parking in the wrong place. 
• You have chosen to have a car, why have you not thought about where you are going to park it? You wouldn't buy a new sofa and expect the tax-payer to build you a room to house it in now would you?
• If you have footway parking in your street, traffic speed will increase and you will then want traffic calming to deal with the speeding traffic.
• How can utility companies get at their kit that you have parked over - it will be brought home to you at 3am when sewage is running into your garden, but the water company cannot get at the manhole which needs clearing!

Now, I know I am being controversial, as I know full well that running a car is the only option for many people against a backdrop of poor public transport, poor cycle infrastructure (see, got cycling in!) and hostile pedestrian environments. I do run a car and have somewhere off street to park it; so it is easy for me to preach to others. However, this is part of a wider self-fulfilling problem;

"I drive because there is no alternative or the alternative is costly, inconvenient or dangerous."

So, while people rely on their car, there will be no alternatives or what is available will be costly, inconvenient or dangerous and they will continue to park their cars where they like as in many cases, there is not enough space to park cars on both sides of the road without using the footway.

Activists can lobby the police for enforcement, but it is hard work, it might be better to lobby your council to put in a TRO to stop footway parking. In London or other places with a general ban, ask for a copy of their footway parking design guide or policy and if the situation you are concerned about does not meet the criteria, ask for it to be reviewed. If there is no policy or guide, then how can they objectively design a footway parking scheme?

The trouble is, there are some terrible examples of footway parking "improvements" installed by local authorities such as Cann Hall Road, near Stratford. Thiswas the subject of a post by Crap Walking & Cycling in Waltham Forest a while back and Google is not up to date. I cycled this road last year by mistake (I got lost coming back from the City when I was on a training cycle) and yes, it is a mess for pedestrians and cyclists!

I fully expect there to be a legal challenge to a council in the near future in terms of the impact footway parking has on disabled people. Councils are transport authorities and they have duties under the Equality Act 2010 to consider how decisions impact on certain groups and in terms of making their transport infrastructure accessible. Sadly, it often takes a case such as this to show how wrong things are before things improve.

There are no easy answers; footway parking is a symptom of the unrelenting lack of political leadership in the UK when it comes to all aspects of transport.

Update 25th February 2013
Well, I just got back from the walking school run and yet again, they are bouncing up onto the footway (legally into the marked bays) within a whisker of the kids - we had to move across to let them get up. Another fruitless letter to the council's parking department coming up!

*I have referred to "footway" parking as being the legally correct term. It is often referred to pavement parking, but as an engineer, the word "pavement" describes the structural layers of roads. So there!

We can rethink the little things to improve walking and cycling

We don't need to accept road layouts which prioritise traffic over people just because that is the way it has always been done. The rules governing UK highway design are actually very flexible and don't let people tell you otherwise.

I was going to include some more examples of unusual, but completely legal highway layouts in my post on Risk, Liability & Designers, but it was getting a bit long and so I thought it would be better to have a post dedicated to a few simple and low cost measures which can help prioritise pedestrians and cycle users over traffic.

Anyhoo, to kick off, this diagram is something I have being playing with for a while after seeing a picture of how they do the junctions of main roads with residential streets in Holland - I am sure someone in Bloggerland has a good photo - I can't remember where I saw it! Please excuse the quality, I have no clever software, just MS Paint!

We have four drawings here of a basic priority junction (a side road going into a main road or a 'T-junction'). The first layout is very familiar and can be found anywhere in the country - here is a link to a random example in the back streets of Ilford, East-London.

The good thing about the layout is that the corner radii are tight which can slow traffic down a bit, but that is about it - drivers know they can easily take priority and at a speed greater than walking pace. If you are using a wheelchair, a stick, a pushchair or you have reduced vision, then the kerbs will be more difficult to cope with, if they are even dropped to meet the road.

The second layout now has dropped kerbs and tactile paving. The kerbs are dropped to meet the road at a flush level and the tactile paving is there to assist people with reduced vision. Now, tactile paving will have urban designers shaking with incandescence as they don't think it is very pretty. But, it was developed as a compromise. 

Basically, people using wheelchairs (and increasingly mobility scooters) can find it difficult bouncing up kerbs which are not dropped flat with the road surface. When kerbs are dropped flat, blind and partially-sighted people struggle to find the edge of the road which is rather important. Hence, tactile paving was invented. There are loads of types (too many) often poorly detailed and poorly understood and very often poorly installed by contractors - I might write a geeky post on it one day.

So, we have a layout which pedestrians of all abilities can physically negotiate. The third layout shows a "junction entry table" or a "side entry table" or an "entry treatment". Basically a big speed hump which is flat on top is built in the junction to make a more level surface for pedestrians to use. It still has tactile paving where the crossing point is flush with the road surface, but the layout starts to give pedestrians a bit more "presumed" priority over traffic - people will feel more confident asserting their priority (and drivers will have to slow down a bit). On the areas which are not flush, there should still be a small kerb upstand to help people with reduced vision to find the edge.

The fourth layout is weird (for the UK). The footway (pavement if you must) is continued across the junction and vehicles have to drive over it to get between the side road and the main road. I haven't bothered with road markings as there is no legal requirement to provide any. This layout has not got tactile paving as pedestrians have full priority and the footway area extends into the side road (as vehicles need to be able to get up onto the flat area so they don't ground - perhaps 5m/ 6m long). I would also be very tempted to pave the area to properly contrast with the road and make this a continuous colour several metres along the footway in each direction on the main road. But, is it a legal layout? I reckon it is, because if you can pave Exhibition Road as a single surface, why not a little junction?

S66 (1) of the Highways Act, 1980 states;

It is the duty of a highway authority to provide in or by the side of a highway maintainable at the public expense by them which consists of or comprises a made-up carriageway, a proper and sufficient footway as part of the highway in any case where they consider the provision of a footway as necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of pedestrians; and they may light any footway provided by them under this subsection.

In or by the side of? Well, my layout does both. But (I hear you scream) isn't this a hump for the purposes of the Highways (Road Hump) Regulations 1999? Well, I would argue that this is the footway and not the road and so not subject to the H(RH)R1999, but even if it was, then don't make the "raised" area higher than 100mm, make sure the "hump" is at least 900mm long and it is square to the direction of travel (it would be anyway) - there is no regulation on the gradient of the ramps, but we need to be sensible about cycle users and motorcyclists using it.

If it is a hump, then triangular hump markings are needed unless the hump is in a 20mph Zone and for an entry treatment, you wouldn't need to provide traffic signs unless absolutely necessary. So, why don't we use the fourth layout and is it any different to countless private accesses across the country? 

Now, I am not suggesting that this layout is appropriate in all cases, but it would tell drivers leaving the main road that they are entering an area where perhaps they may not be king and as they turn in, they absolutely need to make sure that nobody is walking along the footway over which they wish to pass. On approaching the main road, drivers would have to check for pedestrians first and perhaps it might make them think before then pulling out onto the main road.

It is not used, because in the main, money is not often spent on treating this type of junction. If the footway is being relaid, then you might get the second layout (in fact, I think the Equalities Act compels a basic upgrade like this when footways are being relaid - again, another story). If the junction is the entry to a residential area which is to be made a 20mph Zone, then the third layout is often used. Beyond that, I am not sure there are many people thinking about such radical (for the UK) changes and certainly, many designers would not want to make a change from conventional thinking. 

I would like to try the layout (I might get the chance in work,who knows). I would record the reasons why I am doing it, I would record a simple designer's risk assessment and do some before and after monitoring. The risk will be that someone gets hit by a car or a car slowing to turn in gets shunted by the idiot driving too close behind. I don't think the risk is particularly different from the entry treatment. I think it is highly unlikely I or my employer would get sued if the design decision was sensibly recorded. I would argue that the driver suddenly has an awful lot of liability in deciding to cross the footway, of course, I can imagine the objections from the army of experts out there (who drive everywhere and have no concept of risk!)

This design could also be easily adapted for a cycle track and suddenly, I think any vestige of an argument about whether there is a hump or not disappears. It is absolutely clear that cars do not have priority here. A cycle track can be built using S65 of the Highways Act 1980, which states;

Without prejudice to section 24 above, a highway authority may, in or by the side of a highway maintainable at the public expense by them which consists of or comprises a made-up carriageway, construct a cycle track as part of the highway; and they may light any cycle track constructed by them under this section. 

This layout suddenly looks rather Dutch. You will notice the grey strip above the green - this is a space between the track and the road - if it is made a sensible width, then all of a sudden, you have a space in which to stick lamp columns and traffic signs. Now one other point. The little quarter circle kerbs are properly known as "quadrants" and informally known as "cheeses" (a hint at Edam?). They are available at 305mm and 455mm as standard kerbs in the UK. trying to ramp from the road to the footway/ track level over such a short distance would be a pain for drivers and certainly cycle users and motorcyclists, so a natural stone version could be used (say 1000mm) which would be bullet-proof (or even a 1m radius kerbs - a ramp would then be more acceptable.

A few years ago (when I didn't cycle, other than on tracks in the forest), I was not particularly a fan of closing roads - the traffic had to go somewhere and why shouldn't all roads take their fair share? My view has changed. I have grown up with the "predict and provide" of road building (I vaguely remember the A12 being dualled out in the far east of London as a kid) and what we have now is not only heavily congested trunk roads in London, but many residential streets are just as bad with people trying to get through at any cost. So, despite spending untold billions building wide and fast trunk roads to deal with traffic, local roads are really horrible.

The widespread use of road closures has the potential to civilise local streets by forcing traffic back onto main roads. Yes, main roads will get busier, bus routes will suffer and the emergency services will be impacted, but unless we are radical, nothing will change. Eventually, a walking and cycling alternative will emerge so people don't need to drive everywhere and congestion on the main roads will drop back.

Road closures are simple to design and build, but need a Traffic Regulation Order (which is subject to consultation) to make them lawful. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 deals with the matter under S1 and S6 (for London) - it is well worth campaigners reading the first few clauses to see just what is possible, but in essence, we can control and prohibit traffic, but still permit cycling.

Here we have another four layouts. The first is a gate put in to close the road. It is cheap and nasty and no use to cycle users. Gates are often put in to "help the emergency services" in case they want to get through. In my experience of consulting with the emergency services, they really don't want the hassle of stopping and opening gates, they will come in from the other end. In fact, it is only the fire brigade which bothers to carry keys as such gates are locked with universal keys. These keys are great as those in the know get a set themselves and use the gate! Some layouts just use a few bollards which is cheap, but they can be knocked out and fold-down ones are also abused. Here is one in Chadwell Heath (with a traffic signal for cycles!).

The second layout sticks a big pedestrian refuge in the junction and it operates like any other junction, but only cycle users can pass through. Motorcyclists might try it on and so it is an enforcement issue, but actually, I doubt most people would be too bothered - the TRO could even permit motorcycles. Bollards can be used to stop cars as well (4x4s will attempt it!).

The third layout is like the footway crossing I explained above and so the square in the middle would legally be a little shared-use cycle track to allow cycle users to pass through and should be declared as such using S65 of the Highways Act 1980 (I have used a corduroy style tactile paving to demarcate the area and to warn people with reduced vision that they are entering an area which might have a hazard - it is not a legal requirement, just a judgement).

The fourth layout is like a little junction for cycle users on a road hump (subject to the H(RH)R1999), and gives a bit of space for a tree to disuade drivers. There are all sorts of combinations and it will often depend on the relative flows of cycle users to pedestrians, but the point is, cars cannot use the route, but cycle users can.

One issue with road closures is refuse collection and deliveries being prevented from turning round. Areas where such vehicles could loop around will be fine or if there is a junction near the closure, then it can be used as a turning area. The problem comes where refuse/ delivery vehicles are expected to reverse long distances which itself can create a safety issue. 

It is possible to have limited access junctions where people can get out of an area in a vehicle, but cannot get in (and vice versa - it depends) - this will solve the refuse/ delivery issue. Such an arrangement would offer no advantage to rat-running traffic as it would be dropped back on the main road before the point where it left. 

This layout shows a residential area between two main roads. The two junctions with the top road can only be used by cycle users. The bottom left junction can be used by all. The bottom right junction can be used in both directions by cycle users but traffic can only go in - to leave, they will need to use the bottom left junction. The bottom road is congested running left to right and so there is no advantage to traffic using the estate to overtake congestion. 

Of course, the bottom right junction may get people attempting to run the wrong way to get past, so this would need to be laid out to make it difficult or feel uncomfortable to do so and may need some enforcement. This is the kind of thing meant when people talk about "filtered permeability".

This layout shows a very basic way of achieving a limited access junction. The layout would have a TRO in place to allow cyclists to leave the area, but make it an offence for traffic to to the same (reinforced by signage). 

Here is another example from Chadwell Heath which stops traffic leaving the often congested A12, although why anyone would want to cycle on this road is beyond me! 

Traffic signals are another area where cycle users can be helped. The best thing (from the cycle user point of view) is not having to stop at them! Here is a layout (stylised I know) which can take a cycle lane behind a traffic signal and so a red traffic signal doesn't apply; they are also protected from traffic turning right out of the side road. Of course, this layout does not address cycle users running left to right and does not deal with pedestrians at all, but gives a flavour of what can be done. Of course, a similar layout can be used to bypass quite a few things such as roundabouts and bus stops. The Alternative Department for Transport has recently shown some examples.

Finally (and I am getting beyond simple and a bit past legal I think) is what I would call advanced cycle bypass and cycle signals combo.

The cycle track at the bottom would allow running right to left all of the time, although pedestrians lose a bit of priority having to cross the cycle track. I reckon the left arm cycle track and top arm cycle track could get a green signal at the same time, although those going from top to left and left to right would have a conflict. Pedestrians would get their own green and traffic would need two phases (main road running together and side road on its own (cycles could go from left to up though). Cycles going from top to left would also have to aim for the gap. Cycles turning right could wait at the gap (probably with another signal) to run with cycles elsewhere - probably a single stage for cycles who would have to use a bit of sense to avoid each other.

The thing which would help with this junction would be for the Department for Transport to permit the use of mini-signals which would be at cycle user eye height, otherwise we are stuck with the full size signals which are confusing at our old friend, the Bow Interchange (photo from London Cycling Campaign).

OK, so another long post and it all got a bit complicated at the end (I was trying to look at a couple of simple ideas), but the point is that things can be done. 

Engineers can certainly design the layouts we need but guess what? Yes, we need the politicians to agree for us to make these changes and if they tweaked a few of the regulations, we could try a few more things. But, if we properly set out what we want to do and why we designed something, we should try it. With a bit of logic, the risk of being sued is tiny and if enough people do something, common practice does become some of the argument if you end up in court (which you won't unless you have been really reckless).

Risk, Liability and Designers

why is it so difficult to get anyone to try something radical on the roads?

It is the job of an engineer to take ideas or concepts and to come up with ways to make them work. It is also the job of an engineer to be able to balance the risks created by the options they generate. So, this being the case, why is it so hard to get something new tried out?

In my post about not blaming engineers all the time, I explained a bit about the training and experience needed to become a professional engineer and perhaps more importantly, how to stay on top of the game. The problem is that all too often we end up reverting to type and hitting the books - engineers do like to See Where It Is Written. So, what it out there to guide and inform us?

It all starts with The Law. For roads, highways, streets etc, there are a few pieces of legislation that engineers should be aware of; indeed campaigners and activists would do well in researching some of this as it will be quoted when they are told something cannot be done or must be done a certain way. I would warn you that some of it is exceedingly boring, but nobody becomes a lawyer for fun! 

There is primary legislation (Acts) such as the Highways Act 1980 which essentially sets out the powers and duties of highway authorities. Powers are things they might wish to do and duties are things they have to do (there is more, but it is oh so dull!). This act essentially allows the highway authority to adopt, improve and a control a highway, but makes it responsible to maintain. For those wanting to try a bit of clever engineering, there are powers to build cycle tracks, footways, humps, traffic calming, traffic signs - the list goes on.

There is also the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which allows highway authorities to regulate and control traffic (often using Traffic Regulation Orders - TROs). It gives powers to restrict traffic from using a road, sets speed limits, allows pedestrian crossings to be built, install bollards, install traffic signs etc.

The Traffic Light Tree which used to be on the
Isle of Dogs in East-London - probably not in
compliance with the TSRGD2002!

Then there is secondary legislation (Regulations) which set out how things should be done. So, while the RTRA1984 allows highway authorities to install traffic signs, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 sets out what signs should look like and how they are to be used. For example, traffic signals will be red, amber and green and placed in the right order - no going off and having pink traffic signals you know! We also have the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Regulations and General Directions 1997 which sets out how such crossings should be laid out and gives pedestrians priority over traffic where they are being used.

I should also mention the Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999 which define what traffic calming works are, how consultation should take place for their implementation and confirmation that they cannot be used to prevent passage by vehicles which could otherwise be lawfully using that road - such a restriction would be enacted with a TRO. The legislation is often flexible, it is just that some people blindly follow it without understanding it. For example, did you know that a pedestrian refuge or traffic island in the middle of the road does not need to have a keep left bollard? Well, it is true. the HTCR1999 leaves it up to the designer if such things are needed. 

Look Ma, No bollards or signs!

There are more Acts and Regulations, but the point I am making is that they alone set out the regulatory framework on how highways are managed, improved or operated and so as long as a design complies with the law, it is lawful (it might not be very good, or it might be crazy-weird!). 

Next, we have Guidance. This will be a document which sets out a suggested way of doing something. These are not a legal requirement, more a measure of best practice. The Department for Transport produces a series of "Traffic Advisory Leaflets" which contain guidance from government on how highway schemes could be designed or operated. The "Innovatory cycle scheme Manchester - Mancunian Way signalled cycle crossing" leaflet from 1989 is one such example. It basically describes a scheme where we have a busy junction operated by traffic signals where there is a significant ahead movement by cycle users, but a heavy left turn demand from traffic. So, the layout keeps cycle users to the left in a little kerbed "jug handle" where they wait for left turning traffic to stop. They can then move across and back into the ahead movement in a protected stop line are. They then move ahead with the traffic again.

Now, this layout does nothing for the multi-lane, on-road conditions for cycle users, but looks to be quite a clever arrangement to deal with the issue of a busy left turning slip road (I haven't used it myself, so cannot comment in detail) and as far as I can tell from Google, it must be still there. This layout will not be found set out in the legislation, but is an example of various things coming together for a scheme which must have been pretty innovative nearly 25 years ago.

Parliament Square - too much movement and not enough place? 

The industry also produces guidance. The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT) published a guide called "Manual for Streets 2" in 2010 which builds on an earlier government and industry guide (not surprisingly called Manual for Streets). Now, I cannot reproduce MfS2 information because of copyright, but in essence, it is looks at the relationship between movement and place and how designs can be tailored for the circumstances - at one extreme, a motorway is for movement (of traffic) and at the other, a quiet cul-de-sac is more of a place (for people) of course, a busy high street can be both!

The problem with guidance is knowing if it is still relevant and not out of date. I think the 25-year old Mancunian Way leaflet is still relevant and be give an idea to someone wrestling with giving cycle users priority in a busy junction. MfS and MfS2 are also still relevant. But, some guidance is definitely not! Take "High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes" which, published in 2006. The idea of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes (HOV lanes) is simply that vehicles with more than 1 person in them get to whizz past all of the single occupancy vehicles stuck in the traffic jam. Very few schemes have been implemented and many are basically bus lanes which some cars can use as bus lanes on their own were not justified where bus services were less frequent. 

Leeds HOV - cycles are kept to the edge as they only carry one
person.

In my view, HOVs are a bit rubbish and do nothing to provide an alternative to sitting in traffic - their uptake by commuters relies on car-sharing which is fine if you are able to find someone in your area who is working near you. Still, Leeds City Council thinks their one is a good idea, but I am not sure how they measure "success".

Another interesting piece of guidance is the Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces. This is a bit old and there is a debate raging in the industry (well polite disagreement, we are not all ranty!) about whether or not it should be used. Basically, tactile paving is a compromise between people with affected mobility and people with affected vision. For example, people using wheelchair can find it really difficult to bounce up a kerb when crossing the road. By contrast, blind/ partially-sighted people find kerbs really useful in telling them where the roads are. The compromise is that ramps are provided at road crossing points which meet the road surface flush to assist wheelchair users, people who walk with sticks, people with pushchairs etc and tactile paving is provided so blind/ partially-sighted people can find the crossing point rather than being left to walk into traffic. 

Here is some tactile paving at Gants Hill. It allows people with
reduced mobility to cross and tells blind/ partially-sighted people
where the edge of the road is.

Urban designers, architects and "place making" experts have a dim view of tactile paving as they think it is ugly and not in keeping with their grandiose plans to pave city centres in Chinese granite. On the other hand there are engineers who have no idea what they are doing and make a right hash of it. As with the reasons for its use in the first place, there is a compromise. Actually, I think the 7 kinds of tactile paving could be reduced, but if you know what you are doing, I cannot see any major problem. In my view, it is more important that all people are given the opportunity to move around our streets than it is to help an architect win an award for a paving scheme. Interesting, the London Borough of Newham has recently had its corporate butt kicked by a judge for not following tried and tested guidance, although the judge was careful not to make the guidance law!

Then we have Standards. These generally prescribe how to do something, often in quite a lot of detail. Again, they are not backed up by law, but are often used to control how things are built. for example, depending on the amount of traffic expected for a new road and how soft the ground is on which it will be built, then the road construction will need to be of a certain thickness, made of certain materials and surfaced to specific tolerances - many such things are contained in British or European Standards and set out to make sure things conform - so tarmac has to have certain types of stone sizes in it, a shade of red paint will always be the same and so on. In many cases, Standards are used to measure the quality of something. They are also used for safety reasons; for example on motorways, slip roads are laid out in a certain way so that people leaving and joining the motorway can expect a consistent road layout.

In London, TfL has its "London Cycle Design Standards" which were published in 2005. In fact, these are not standards, they are guidance and so don't be fooled by what those publishing something call it. Again, they are not legally enforceable.

So, engineers have things they must comply with, things which advise them and things which they can measure things by. With all of this information, why aren't people being more radical in designing things on the road network? The problem is that many engineers worry about risk and liability. Risk is the likelihood of harm being caused to someone because of a design and liability is effectively the risk being sued or prosecuted for something that has been designed (whether an individual or an organisation). So this ends up with engineers looking things up in the legislation, guidance or standards and then starting to design, whereas they might be better of designing first and then checking the design against the legislation, guidance and standards.

This means that nothing changes and even if there are poor things set out in guidance, they are perpetuated by practitioners who feel safer going by the book. Of course, if an engineer is in the unfortunate position of being in court defending themselves or their employer, then heavy reference will be made to legislation, guidance and standards, but you can only break the law if you haven't followed legislation.

Highway Risk and Liability Claims is an interesting guide into what claims are made against highway authorities and how the authority can become liable. We are all familiar with the "no win, no fee" merchants who help you sue the local authority because you tripped on a broken paving slab, but what about making a claim because the design of the highway layout was poor? Actually it is trips and vehicle damage (pot-holes) which constitute the majority of claims either settled out of court or where damages are awarded. Criminal prosecutions are very rare because of the need to prove negligence beyond all reasonable doubt.

Is this poor design, or poor installation?

Aside from the general state of the highway, design claims tend to be where a road user is drawn into a trap. For example, at a sharp right hand bend, a sharp left bend chevron sign is confusing and could lead a motorist into a trap. Of course, the design would be at fault if this was shown on the scheme drawings and then only if someone missed the problem during the installation stage.

A great deal of the balance in judgements is whether or not the user was at fault or partly at fault and following the famous Gorringe vs Calderdale case, it has been held that the road user must be responsible for their own actions - "taking the road as they find" (unless there was a clear design fault of course). The essence of this case is that Mrs Gorringe drove too fast towards the crest of a hill she didn't know was ahead and then braked sharply hitting a bus. She contended that Calderdale Metropolitan Council was at fault not not painting a "SLOW" sign on the road. The case went all the way to the House of Lords where Calderdale were judged not at fault and Mrs Gorringe had a responsibility for her own actions.

How does this apply to innovation? Well, many highway authorities successfully defend claims for trips and pot holes because they can show that they have robust inspection regimes in place. For designers, there is a parallel whereby the designer(s) who follow a robust design regime will be able to foresee the implications of their design, balance the risks, show that they have engaged with end users and reach a decision based on sound judgement - in other words, they can "show their working".

Highway Risk & Liability Claims has a whole section devoted to design, but the most important part I think is the concept of the "golden thread" (yes I know it is management-speak) and I reproduce the text below;


Golden Thread – the aim is to align the design and the decisions made with national policy, the strategy and objectives of the council, and needs and wants of stakeholders.

Vision – both Manual for Streets, LTN 01/08 and Design Streets stress the importance of
having an overall vision. This will often be about regeneration and job creation, improving
health or inclusion, and sustainability. But the vision and the objectives and design that flow out of it will also be informed by an understanding of the character the place and its purpose:

Policy review – this is about being aware of the policies that affect an area, in their
full breadth, including the council’s corporate and community plans.

Context – this is about the setting of the site in question; how the area functions in
terms of movement and place; how and why has the area has developed? How the
place is used now and the basis of the economy. What makes an area distinctive,
including local materials or styles, and landscape? Where/what are the key
buildings, open spaces, destinations etc? Who uses it and how, who doesn’t use it
and why?

Consultation – the vision of members of a community as to how they would like to see their area develop can be valuable contribution, and there will be instances where continued involvement of the community will be important.

Objectives and purpose – the objectives and purpose describes precisely what effect the
scheme is required to produce in contributing towards the overall vision. In new
development this can be included in the Design and Access statement.

Design / Decisions – this is where the flair of the professionals involved come to the fore. It
is they who are in command of the full information about the site, and it is they who should
make decisions rather than subordinating their judgement to guidance which inevitably will not have been prepared with that particular site in mind. Designs should be worked up
where possible using simple 3D illustrations to help people visualise what is being
entertained.

Quality Audit – there are a number of different types of audit that can be undertaken. The most important at the design stage is to assess whether the design is true to the vision and has fulfilled the objectives and purpose. Where safety audits are undertaken they are one consideration that go to making a balanced decision. It is important not to become bogged down in a bureaucracy of self-justification. These steps should be kept as concise and productive as possible.


I am not suggesting for a minute that all schemes will need all the detail and I would also think that monitoring is a vital step - did the scheme work, did it achieve its objectives? The key is being structured in the design process and showing how decisions were made. The fear that something might go wrong is not a reason not to try, as long as things are dealt with logically, the designer will have the proverbial get out of jail card.

Proposed CS2 bus stop bypass.

Of course, I am interested in designing for walking and cycling and so how does this fit in with innovation in these areas? I have covered the proposed extension to Cycle Superhighway 2 before and I assure you that I have no scheme insider knowledge. But, how would the golden thread work here and what are the potential risks and liabilities?

Well, the vision will be to create a real change in provision for cycle users which is actually and subjectively safer. The policy review would link to the Mayor of London's aim to increase cycle journeys by this week's target by whichever year (OK, a bit of sarcasm). The context will be unashamed movement (of cycle users) with thought given to how other users might be impacted (such as pedestrians at bus stops). Consultation will aim to engage with all road users, but especially cycle users and perhaps more importantly, potential cycle users. Access groups will also be important here.

Objectives and purpose would be along the lines of provided a high quality, protected and continuous cycle track from A to B. Design / decisions will be the professional people foreseeing how the scheme will work, who will be impacted, how issues and risks can be mitigated and possibly an acceptance that motorised traffic will lose capacity (as a lane is being lost to traffic). There will be debate about cycle user/ pedestrian interaction at the bus stops. Quality audit will then look at things such as road safety and how the scheme has met it's objectives. If this type of process is not followed and designers rely on following guidance, then we end up with the rest of CS2 which can be lifted out of the 8-year old LCDS, but with added blue paint. 

What I have tried to explain in this post is that while we have to meet legislation, everything is up for debate and needs to be questioned, not only by designers, but by users. Of course, if CS2 goes ahead, there will be drivers who complain that the scheme has adversely affected them and they haven't been considered. Assuming a logical process has been followed, the answer should be, "well, we did consider you, but the objective was to prioritise cycle traffic and so I am afraid that you have been placed at a lower priority to cycle users". I guess it comes back to politics again as this is the type of statement which needs to come from the mouth of a politician as, yes, they are the ones who make the decisions...