Abbey St. Quietway Ride Report (6.7.17)

Headline: this is a very challenging route which needs significant intervention for it work in any manner. Southwark Council say in their brief that part of the function of this route is to provide a quiet alternative to the CS4 - if the CS4 is anywhere near what we need it will be (and what is rumoured: a high quality segregated cycleway) then Abbey St. Quietway must provide a route of similar quality. Nevertheless, more routes mean  denser network of infrastructure, which can only be a good thing if they are well implemented..

Here is the route, in yellow (with some alternative alignments):

Section 1: Druid St.

Two alignments here, one going down Druid St. only, the other doing a detour down Maltby St. In short, it was agreed that going straight down Druid St. would be better as A) there is a market on Maltby St. on the weekend (Saturdays?) and B) better sort out the entire length of Druid St. as it may allow safe passage for cyclists coming from all directions, instead of only on this Quietway’s alignment.  

Tackling Druid St.

Context:

TFL proposed (and plan to go through with) the following arrangement for Tanner St. and Tower Bridge Rd.

Now Tanner St. will be one way, eastbound, whereas currently it goes in both directions. Also, motorists coming from Tanner St. (west - on the left here) can only turn left and now cut across Tower Bridge Rd. Motor traffic will still be able to cut through from Tower Bridge Rd, going south.

This brings a question: why can motor vehicles head left from Druid St. onto Tanner St., given it essentially will be access only? (see below) We ask for this left turn to be filtered to motor traffic to allow safe passage.

Simply, we ask for a two-way cycle track down the length of Druid St. on the east side. Parking is problematic down here and double yellow lines are parked on with impunity. One concern that was raised was concerning the turning circle of vehicles coming from the garages; however they all have no problem with doing so with vehicles parked illegally (which are all wider than 2 metres). The driving is too aggressive down here and the contraflow is little more than paint, a two-way track is needed (on the east side).

Section 2: Abbey St. to Old Jamaica Rd.

Abbey St. is too busy and needs to be segregated. Ideally the entire length of it as cyclists will seldom use the exact alignment of this Quietway. Infrastructure that appears and disappears is dangerous as it takes cyclists off of the road, only to put them back on it, meaning they are not visible to other road users and puts them on the road, often, at ‘unnatural’ angles.

One way or two way tracks

Unidirectional tracks (one way) on either side of Abbey St. would mean getting onto them would be easier from Druid St. and Old Jamaica Rd. and, even if the tracks were fleeting, other cyclists could use them if heading down Abbey St. However, the problem comes with trying to get cyclists to make a right turn onto either Druid St. or Old Jamaica Rd. With signals at the jct. with the A200 (Jamaica Rd - not to be confused) it’d be hard to signalise a right turn for cyclists coming from  Abbey st. and onto Old Jamaica Rd., with other traffic lights in such proximity. For cyclists turning right from Abbey St. down Druid St., perhaps a parallel crossing could be installed as there are few crossings on this stretch, the next one being the other side of the railway bridge (west of it).

 Bidirectional tracks (two way)  pose the problem: how to get on them safely and how to get off them in equal measure. If there are no tracks for the full length of Abbey St. then other cyclists will find it impossible to get on them, if they are on the side of the road where the tracks are not. If they are on the north side of Abbey St. how do we get cyclists to turn right onto Abbey St. and get onto them from Old Jamaica Rd.?

If they were on the south side of Abbey St. perhaps a parallel crossing could get cyclists from Druid St. onto the track. This would make for an easy turn onto Old Jamaica rd. (however, we must ask how cyclists get from this track onto Old Jamaica Rd. when they are, essentially, on the wrong side of the road). For this point, perhaps there could be a zebra crossing just beyond the raised table which would be also a parallel crossing, allowing cyclists heading down Old Jamaica Rd. to get on the right side of the road safely. This road has residential dwellings on it and there doesn’t seem to be a formal pedestrian crossing of any sort on it. In our visit we preferred a bi directional cycle track on the south side, hopefully this latter idea will add to the case for this being the best option (however, if not fully implemented on Abbey St. westbound cyclists miss out!).

Section 3: Old Jamaica Rd./ St. James’ Rd and alternative

Old Jamaica Rd. is a cut through for drivers coming from St. James’ Rd. and perhaps others. It needs a modal filter and one has already been proposed on Spa Rd., where it meets Thurland - we weren’t sure if it should be here or on Thurland where it meets Spa Rd. Thurland Rd. is a very nice stretch where the pavement is flush with the carriage way; however the driving down it was terrifying, with vehicles of all sorts ‘mounting’ the pavement and speeding down. If Spa Rd was filtered where it meets Thurland drivers might be diverted down Dockley Rd., where our Quietway also goes. Perhaps multiple filters would be needed and even a one way system to manage the intense rat running that takes place here. A filter on Thurland would stop rat running on Old Jamaica Rd. but intensify it on Enid St.

St. James’Rd.

This is where our route has difficulties: essentially St. James’ Rd is extremely dangerous (high accident rate) and there is no the space for segregated cycling (there is no other option but protected cycling here). Honestly this is a critical fail for the route and a road like St. James’ rd would need to be addressed fully for real solutions to be really well thought-through and implemented. Obviously this is not within the scope of this Quietway.

However, an alternative was tabled:

Lucey Way

Cons to sending it through this alignment: it is very wiggly; it is through an estate (bordering Network Rail land) which may be hard to acquire.

Pros: it would allow crossing to St. James’ road to be a straight across affair (signalised); there are some amazing possibilities for doing up some of the tall railway arches, which currently are dark and dingy; it also would be very safe (road safety-wise). Essentially: it would create a route which is not really possible at current. It would also use a nice shared cycleway down Marine St. We also said Rouel Rd. could be given priority over Spa Rd.

Section 4: Webster Rd.; Clement Rd.; Southwark Park Rd.

Issues: Clements Rd. is a cut-through for drivers from St. James’ rd., to a number of roads in the east. There is nothing to stop Webster Rd. from being used in this manner (well, it is less direct, but nevertheless). In fact, the bigger problem might be drivers turning off of Drummond Rd. and onto Clements Rd. (they cannot turn right on the A200 at the north end of Drummond Rd. so try to get onto Southwark Park Rd. to do so). We saw some truly terrible parking and driving down Clements Rd., between Drummond Rd. Southwark Park Rd. Parking needs to be addressed on Clements Rd., considering the estate has its own integrated parking.

Back to Webster Rd.: on the corner of it the way it has been engineered encourages road users to the cut said corner. One proposal would be to make this section one way and to have protected cycling on the contraflow side. I imagine this contraflow to be going north and then west, but I am not sure why. The contraflow could be similar to what has been done on Nicholson St. (Q14 - see second image). There is a school here, so other considerations must be made.

Clements St./ Southwark Park Rd. - Another Buffer

As suggested, parking should be removed from this stretch for the benefit of all road users. Essentially this road needs a filter; however it was said this would not be popular with residents.

The transport ecology of this area seems complex and a review is needed. The right turn onto Southwark Park Rd. could be helped if the current zebra crossing were moved further north - so where the traffic islands are in the below image, nearest to the camera. This would enable a parallel crossing and safer passage.

An issue:  by allowing cycles to use this crossing it would put them on the left of right-turning vehicles and liable to be cut up. They need to be able to be in primary position.

An alternative

From a personal perspective, Southwark Park Rd. is not fit for a Quietway - ‘would you take your child on this road?’

should be the question we are asking. No, of course not, it is not fit for this purpose. It is not really wide enough for segregation, either. I didn’t see this route on the ride, but here is another way:

The area next to the paving slab is estate land and therefore difficult to acquire; however even shared use might be useful here if we are to find a safe way through this section (we did discuss this on the ride). A protected and designated lane would be preferred. From here cyclists could cross Clements Rd. on a parallel crossing down this pathway (which could be redone). Again this is estate land.

The result of this would be to lead cyclists parallel down Southwark Park Rd. and allow them to cross it in a straight line, instead of doing a dog leg (again, this crossing would be signalised).

Pros: this would create a new and safe route for cyclists to access the park

Cons: estate land would be difficult to acquire or change (however, I think it is worth the effort)

Section 5: Southwark Park and Gomm Road

Issues: road through park would need resurfacing; park gates close after dark; Gomm Rd. gates.

In terms of the latter point, it seems that Southwark Park seem to be interested in opening one of the gates coming from Gomm Rd. - this would reduce pedestrian and cycle conflict. Perhaps some calming would be needed at this newly opened gate (planters, bollards?) ; however we stressed that this must not overly impede cycle travel, especially in terms of tricycles and cargo bikes. The current obstructive barriers would need to be amended to allow wheelchair and mobility scooter access.