Southwark Cyclists QW 83 Excursion (19.5.17)

Preface

On the 19th of May 2017 a party of cyclists set off to explore the possibilities of a the Southwark section of a new route: Quietway 83 (Q83).

What are Quietways?

“Quietways are continuous routes following quieter streets, parks and waterways across inner and outer London.” they are routes that will help “overcome barriers to cycling by providing improved junctions and an alternative to riding on busy roads. Where they have to cross or use busy roads for short sections, they will be segregated from motor traffic.” (Sustrans)

To our mind, Quietways should provide a route with a purpose (going to places people want to go - shops, etc.) whilst maintaining a strict standard of safety (able to be used by cyclists of all ages and abilities), without relying on dual provision (infrastructure that often splits cyclists into those who are  confident/ quick [who will use the direct route, often the carriageway] and those who are less confident/ slower [who will often use a less direct, and wiggly, infrastructure])

In short: cycle infrastructure should enable cyclists of all ages and abilities to explore London (and beyond) in equal measure and in equal safety, with equal or greater priority in relation to the other roads it meets on its journey.

Q83 - Route Overview

Now, as you may or may not know, Q83 will follow, for the most part, a previously delved route, that of London Cycle Network route 22 (LCN22); however much of LCN22 leaves a lot to be desired, and we hope it can be improved. The alignment proposed by Southwark is detailed below (for an interactive map follow this link), in yellow (the other colours represent other routing options):

Section 1

1 - Cyclists to use current shared pavement area with re-aligned ‘mouth’ heading to and from Oxley Close (other plans were to remove parking, on the south side (pictured), in favour of light segregation; however Southwark have deemed only some parking can be removed, so not enough for this option)

Dual Provision: currently not many use this shared path; will these changes lead to more doing so? Or will there still be a two-tier cycling provision here?

Issue arising: coming from Rolls Rd. and turning into Cooper’s Rd. (from shared use cycle path) cyclists are in an unnatural position for drivers coming from Cooper’s Rd. (pictured below) and are obscured by parked cars on Cooper’s rd. - likewise drivers turning left into Cooper’s (from Rolls rd.) may not expect a cyclists (essentially) to be crossing half of the road and turning right.

Solution: currently Cooper’s Rd. (a residential street) is used as a shortcut from the A2. onto Rolls Rd., filtering this shortcut would make this turn a lot less hazardous (given the alternatives available). The removal of parking from the approach of Cooper’s Rd onto Rolls Rd. is also an option to improve sight lines.  

Another issue: Traffic on Rolls Rd. seems to move very fast and the current raised table (Oxley cl. to Rolls rd.) does little to deter such speed - we need to know nature of this traffic to assess what can be done (speed / volume).

2 & 3 - Cyclists are to go down Cooper’s rd. and turn right onto Mawbey Pl..

Issues and suggestions arising: Cooper’s rd. is patently too busy and too narrow so a suggestion was made to send the cycleway through Fortune Pl. (seen above in green and pictured below), so cutting out some of the unpleasantries. One of our attendees did a test ride and said it was a good route. But whose land is this? We are not sure as it may be private, which may lead to complications.

This alignment would also negate some of the blind corners and possible head-on collisions one has when turning in and out of Mawbey pl. and Cooper’s rd - this partially caused vehicles parked on the single yellow lines or on corners - these lines should be made double yellow in any case.

Section 2

1 - Mawbey Rd. is to be filtered (pictured below) at the jct. with the New Kent Road (A2) - so a lot of the traffic we experienced down there will be there no longer. This consultation went through last year (TFL), so I am not sure if it actually classes as being part of the Quietway design or not (though it shall use it). Going north, we understand cyclists will at least get an early release, if not separation from left and right turning traffic

The work was supposed to start in the spring 2017 but due to some sort of access issues it could not and we await news.

2 - Open Street Map currently has QW 83  heading down Glengall Terrace (as can be seen above where the blue line heads) ; however the current alignment is through the Canal Path and across to Trafalgar Av. Apparently, Southwark Council are investigating if it is possible to send it down the former alignment. In any case, once it reaches Trafalgar Av. there will be two way (bidirectional), 2.4m, track on the west side, protecting cyclists on a busy road.  The alignment along Glengall Terrace allows for a 24/7 route and was preferred by all in attendance.  

Issues and discussion: We agreed that Glengall rd. is too busy and that the advantage of turning down Glengall Terrace would be to get off of this road with high speeds and speed cushion dodging as quickly as possible. If possible it should be filtered given that Peckham Hill st. and Trafalgar av. both provide ample north-south routes and are, essentially, parallel.

To make things easier, the signalling for southbound cyclists could include a pedestrian phase after the cycle one (remember, from a filtered rd.) so cyclists could make it to the right turning before the A2 phase. Even this, though, does not provide much solace if we set our sights on providing cycle provision for all ages and abilities.  

Further reflections on Glengall Rd.: calming needed in the form of sinusoidal humps to replace the cushions but potentially more could be done to alter the feel of the character of the road such introducing build-outs with trees on them at the end of the residential parking bays  - which are usually occupied and so people who are cycling would be moving out to pass the parked cars anyway.

3 - According to the current alignment the awkward gate will be changed and a larger bell-mouth will be installed (see below) - along with an easier arrangement for the pedestrian/ cycle crossing. Even if the alignment changed to Glengall Terrace we are hopeful that this work would take place and an easier crossing to Burgess Park would be installed, as the cycleway will mean work must be done on the toucan crossing. The two way  cycle track would be on the right of this photo.

Section 3

1 - As mentioned above there is the possibility of a 2.4m bidiectional cycleway on the west side of Trafalgar av. (the bus stop would be moved round the corner, onto Willowbrook rd.). Some of the cycle track (near the crossing to Surrey Canal path) was mooted to be some sort of shared use stretch; however this is only one option.The cycleway would benefit cyclists hugely, as it would cut out a very difficult right turn (heading south).

At the junction where it enters Sumner rd. the current primitive bit of cycleway would be expanded (currently, if one were to go south this track goes directly into parked cars - some of which were over solid mandatory lines). We were told some parking would be removed.

An issue arising: southbound cyclists must leave the cycle track to join the carriageway on Sumner rd. and brave turning traffic from Trafalgar av. which may not be expecting them - especially the left-turning vehicles may be an issue as it is basically a blind corner. Likewise traffic coming from Sumner rd. could also pose a hazard for cyclists as they may not expect them to come from such an unnatural angle.

Solution: sacrificing some parking and allowing cyclists to travel at least a bit down Sumner before having to go onto the carriageway - this will get them away from the junction.  

Other development: a young tree would have to be sacrificed to expand the track.

2 - sinusoidal (cycle-friendly) humps to be added.

Alterations suggested: as well as replacing the cushions with sinusoidal humps and the option of filtering the road, more is needed to change its character. There is threat from all of the side roads with vehicles approaching Sumner Rd aggressively – these are often hard to see. Double yellow lines are needed for a minimum of 5 metres either side of each side road. There would be merit in raised tables on each side road entrance to reduce vehicle speeds on approach. With all of the new home building going on and large numbers of new residents there is a real need to support pedestrians better on this road and Southwark should consider Copenhagen crossings throughout the length of the road.

3 - the offset junction of Sumner and Commercial Way - currently no proposals. A very busy crossroads to traverse as traffic rushes down Commercial Way and Sumner loses priority. Not suitable for a Quietway.

A recommendation: filter Sumner rd. at this point and signalise the junction just as Dunton rd. was signalised on Q1 - or Webb St./ Rothsay (see both below - it could even be a push-button signal/ proximity activated).

Willowbrook Rd./ Peckham Hill St. provides an ample alternative for reaching Commercial Way and doesn’t involve rushing down a residential street (there’s a care home and a nursery on Sumner rd., as well). The reason one would cut through here is to avoid the traffic lights, where Peckham Hill St. meets Commercial Way. If cycle traffic is to be moved from the Surrey Canal Pth. to Q83 (as is desired by many parties) then it is essential that Sumner Rd. becomes as appealing a route. Please see examples such as Kelly Av. and Chandler Way (below) for similar concepts in play which make the roads mentioned quiet and suitable for pedestrians and cyclists alike. If motor traffic were allowed down either of these stretches, they’d become hot spots for rat running and unsuitable for walking or cycling.

Another option: if filtering is not possible, installing a parallel crossing alongside the current zebra crossing which goes across Commercial Way at this junction. Perhaps cyclists could use a small shared space area to access the crossing. It could also be signalised to assist this process (though would pedestrians lose priority this way? - a button would be required to operate it). Below is an point on Q1 where a parallel crossing has been installed across two offset roads.

Section 4

1 - currently alignment shows Q83 go through the area by the library from Jocelyn St.

Issues arising: we do not know about the timing of plans to remove the arch and and also no information about the crossing over the A202 which we understand has not been designed yet. The current curved cycle lane which heads onto Rye Lane will be sculpted to ‘desire lines’; however, we believe this is on hold until the building plans are considered by TFL planners.

A smaller issue: coming out of Jocelyn St, onto the Canal Path doesn’t give one great visibility - to other cyclists or pedestrians. Same goes for cyclists heading south on the Canal Path and those emerging from Jocelyn St.

2 - Should Q83 actually go through the Library area at all?

Following the red alignment on the map, Southwark Cyclists want it to down Melon Rd. and then down Bellenden Rd and onto Rye Lane; however TFL have refused to fund a crossing there as:

 A) there a a number of crossings in a short stretch

and B) Rye lane is seen as a destination people want to go to.

Our response to this is that given Bellenden Rd. has an unsignalised crossing from Melon Rd, and is not cycle-friendly, how can you expect cyclists to use it, when Rye Lane is clearly the safer option at the moment? Yes Rye Lane may be desirable; however it is already manageable in its current form and the crossing from Melon Rd. to Bellenden is not - plus Rye Lane is easily accessed from multiple points along Bellenden Rd. Melon Rd. also offers a 24hr route, which the Canal Path does not. In terms of objection A) : our proposal is to amalgamate the current pedestrian crossing over the A202 with a parallel cycle crossing and not add another in.

This will be the subject of a separate email as this is complete fail on this route.

Another point to mention, the Soutwark Spine (see picture below) route (yet to be implemented) could link nicely with this alignment as one could use Bellenden Rd. or Highshore to link the two, easily.  

3 - proposals are unclear. Yes, tidy up the contra-flow (see picture below) - however it has been discussed as bi-directional (at carriageway level - as pointed out by the designers vehicles would overtake buses in this space - could it be stepped?) and also as a wider bus lane so northbound cyclist can overtake buses easier.

Our objections with the latter are

A) this widening of a carriageway takes away pedestrian space, where they dominate, and

B) encouraging cyclists to overtake buses with a mere 1m extension which is not entirely useable, due to kerbs on one side and a bus (which they will be overtaking) on the other (this reduces the actual cyclable width, which would be a lot less than 1m in such a scenario, which will occur frequently). Cyclists need to overtake buses with a much wider arc than this to be visible to bus drivers and others. You need to be in the mirrors to be seen. Cyclists currently use the contraflow to overtake, northbound; it is stepped so it is just about OK as buses don’t regularly encroach, just adding carriageway won’t do.

3 - sinusoidal humps to be added. Non-bus/ waste/ delivery traffic ( i.e. car drivers cutting through) were not seen as much of a problem. We think this is not the case and the rat run through Rye Lane is an major issue for cyclists and pedestrians alike.

We have a query on the Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) along this stretch. We believed cars were banned., However here is an Freedom Of Information (FOI) call for the TMOs down Rye Lane - does there need to be a new one (TMO and or FOI)?

Section 5

1 - Cyclists come from Rye Lane to come onto a protected cycleway which goes past Tesco, bypassing the bus stops, before joining a bidirectional track (shown in dashed purple).

Issues arising: although this sounds great, pedestrians will stand in the lane, which goes southbound.

Solution suggested: there is a huge and very underused and unattractive traffic island here which few people use, plus lots of pavement space which is not much used on this side - whilst pedestrians, waiting for buses and going to and from shops, are squeezed onto the pavement opposite.

The road needs to be realigned so that much of this dead island space is ‘given’ to the Tesco side (as it were). There are indications that the island has been expanded a few times in the past (clearly seen in the photo above). This way not only do pedestrians have more space to breathe but the cycleway will work much better and cause less conflict. The realignment of this area seems a real possibility.

Comparison: on the A105 (Green Lanes) - here we can see how a section has been transformed as part of the MiniHolland scheme, something similar can be done here (before left - after right):

2 - northbound cyclists will go along a new bidirectional track before going left to cross on a parallel crossing, to go across the central island, before another parallel crossing to get onto the carriageway. This looks good and safe - giving cyclists priority at the crossings, whereas at the moment one gives way when joining the gyratory. Also, the current mandatory lane will become stepped. Nigel rd. will be realigned to cater for this. 

Another possibility is to have a bidirectional track all the way on the ‘Tesco’ side; however, our opinion having the cycle track crossing over the island means cyclists emerging from the other side of Peckham Rye and Nigel Road will have some protection approaching Rye Lane or Copeland Road.  

A suggestion: instead of the cycle track going (currently) northbound over the island being one-way, the actual island section might be better as two way (I have indicated this on the map), as it will allow cyclists  from Nigel Rd. and beyond join southbound cyclists on this cycleway, instead of using the carriageway and being unable access the cycleway easily.

3 - once onto Peckham Rye (southbound) a bi-directional track should  take cyclists where all of those parked cars are and over Nunhead Lane and up the rest of the way to Stuart Rd. (traffic islands will removed). This will be parkside.

Issues: there was a question of not having the track down the part of the road before Nunhead Lane (going south); however cycling through there  beyond the junction will not be easy and might involve going diagonally across a box junction on a dedicated cycle phase although there is a confusion about how this can be the case if cyclists are part of the general carriageway traffic? A small protected feeder lane would be needed to do this.

Also, how do northbound cyclists get onto the bidirectional track when they are a part of general traffic? It requires cutting across turning traffic here. I also feel that having a discontinuous cycle facility will mean few would use it. The proposal with a two way track crosses over using a parallel crossing, which would not be possible without a protected lane.  (In the below photo we believe a parallel crossing would be somewhere here )

Section 6

Our cycle was interrupted by quite a storm; however we did discuss one last section of Q83 (without visiting it):

Where St. Norbert Rd. meets Brockley Way and also Brenchley Gardens. This is a rat run with cars swinging themselves right and then left.

The proposals are to tighten up St. Norbert Rd. and Turnham Rd. which is good and would be helped by relocating all parking all around this stretch of road. There is much space along Brockley Way to relocate it all - currently it just makes things busy and obscures road users’ sight lines plus makes issues for buses (343, 484).

Options are to segregate this stretch; however this would increase the risk of left hooks and right hooks more likely as it moves cyclists out of “primary position” and would be rather short. Another option is to to signalise the junction but we do not necessarily support this option.