eftag.org.uk�@eftagroup

​

A104 Epping New Road

EFTAG Cycling

Context

Essex Cycling Strategy

“Continental standard cycling facilities”

​

Context

Epping Forest Management Plan

​

“Promoting and encouraging use of sustainable transport”

Creating a network

This road appears in the Epping Forest Cycling Action Plan (CAP) – it’s route 45 and Essex Highways policy is that this be part of a high-quality cycling network

Safety scheme draft proposals

Low resolution maps and a summary available via CoL/Epping Forest

Draft proposals are not yet adequate

• The draft proposals don’t meet important government guidance in a number of areas
• We welcome proposals for speed cameras and lower speed limits
• But overall this scheme is likely to decrease safety and increase the risk of accidents
• We have compliant proposals separately covering a southern section (below Lincoln’s Lane Car Park) and another section north of that point.
• First the problems we see…

Affordance for speed

• More separation from oncoming traffic gives an increased feeling of safety to motorists
• So central hatch markings may increase speeds rather than reduce them
• There’s evidence for this offered in LTN 1/20 (GOV.UK) but more on this in our ‘suggestions’ section…

Hatched markings

• The central hatch markings are the most concerning element of these proposals
• They act to discourage drivers from giving enough space to cyclists they are overtaking
• They cause conflict with vulnerable road users across the entire length of the road, not just at individual crossing points
• There’s no evidence they decrease speeds

Minimum lane widths

LTN 1/20 Table 7-2

​

• Minimum width for a lane at 40mph is 3.2m BUT
• Lane widths of between 3.2m and 3.9m are not acceptable for cycling in mixed traffic
• The guidance is therefore clear – hatched markings are not acceptable solutions where there is cycling traffic

Refuge crossings - what they do and don't do

• They're really useful for small groups of walkers
• If there's space for a separate cycle lane or a shared use footway (on both sides of the road) then they have our qualified support
• They're no good for horse riders: EFRA voiced concerns that they make crossing harder, as drivers don't realise both directions must still wait at the same time to allow for safe crossing
• If they're only just big enough, they require bike riders to maintain complete control. This is tricky for kids, so presents high risk for family cycling

Crossings - vulnerable road users

• Pinch points created by narrow crossings cause extremely dangerous conflicting cycle/car movements
• This comes from direct local experience – for example on Valley Hill, Loughton and on High Road, South Woodford
• If we followed trunk road standards, “a minimum width of 4.0 metres should be provided between physical islands where cycle demand indicates a need” (DMRB)
• But this not a trunk route, so the appropriate guidance is again LTN 1/20 – that minimum lane width of 3.9 metres applies at crossings, too!
• This guidance did not come out of nowhere, but exists because road narrowings are dangerous to vulnerable road users if not designed carefully

Our suggestions

Buckhurst Hill to Lincoln’s Lane Car Park

• This section of the A104 is an essential link for active travel between Buckhurst Hill, High Beach and the rest of the ancient Forest
• This section must be made more attractive for walking and cycling in order to achieve more sustainable access to the Forest from population centres around Woodford

Buckhurst Hill to Lincoln’s Lane Car Park

• Most of this section has a wider carriageway envelope
• Pedestrian volumes are relatively low, so a shared use path is appropriate
• This should be segregated where space allows
• Access to Fairmead Road should be made easier as this should be a recommended route going north/south

For some stretches there isn’t room for a footway on the opposite side to the shared use facility

Buckhurst Hill to Lincoln’s Lane Car Park

• Lincoln’s Lane Car Park is a popular but dangerous crossing point
• For this reason the 30mph speed limit should extend at least to a point north of the car park*
• There should be substantial effort to slow road users down at this crossing – a 30mph road must feel different

*we return to the topic of speed limits when considering the northern stretch towards Robin Hood and on to Wake Arms

Rangers Road

• The Rangers Road junction is an accident spot and yet there is no protection for vulnerable road users
• A traffic lights controlled crossing would be safest
• With a shared use footway on Epping New Road there should be a pedestrian+cycle phase
• Access to/from the shared use track without waiting at the lights should be available via drop kerbs

North of Lincoln’s Lane Car Park

LTN 1/20 Figure 4-1

• Only full separation is safe for cycling with a 40mph speed limit

North of Lincoln’s Lane Car Park

• This the historic gateway to Essex for cyclists from London, taking it out of use for cycling altogether is surely unacceptable

Above: Woodford 1890s e7-nowandthen.org �Right: Robin Hood c1890 EF District Museum

North of Lincoln’s Lane Car Park

​

If any of the scheme as proposed north of the Fairmead Road goes ahead, it’s essential to fix access to Fairmead Road by removing the gate, so that cyclists have an alternative route north/south

North of Lincoln’s Lane Car Park

​

In the space we have, there’s only one option compliant with government guidance for a cycle route

North of Lincoln’s Lane Car Park

LTN 1/20 suggestions / Table 7-2

• 2-way traffic lane (no centre line) between advisory cycle lanes
• Minimum width of overall general traffic lane 5.5m (2.25 each way) at these traffic volumes
• 2m advisory cycle lanes minimum (LTN 1/20 Table 5-2)

This works in the space we have, and follows the recommendations in LTN 1/20

LTN 1/20 s6.4.17

Removal of centre lines slows speed by 3mph

North of Lincoln’s Lane Car Park

• This layout on average decreases speeds by 3mph even without enforcement
• Motor vehicles (especially large ones) can and will have to use the bike lane, but crucially:
• It's clear to everyone who has priority, and how much room to give when overtaking

North of Lincoln’s Lane Car Park

• To be compliant with LTN 1/20, the speed limit ought to be reduced to 30mph
• One option is to try this layout between the end of any shared use footway in the south only as far as Robin Hood
• If it works, take the same approach further north, the cost is just some paint / surface treatment which does not demand a further major scheme

Better crossings

• The major issue is traffic speed
• Controlled crossings (traffic lights) would be safest
• But if the budget doesn't go that far then let's make changes that would allow for that in future…
• We already have examples in the Forest, on A roads, of improved crossings without central refuge islands – this is Rangers Road

Speed tables can be a height suitable for the specific road, speeds and traffic types, but noise impact and maintenance costs given traffic volumes may weigh against

​

Better crossings

• Anti-skid paint in advance of the crossing, not just at it
• Colours should be sympathetic but materials should be distinctive and robust to wear – high contrast here is for illustration purposes

Better crossings

• Crossings with refuge islands could be made more safe by providing shared use footways

• Many crossing points already have poorly maintained footpaths and these could be made much better rather than lost altogether

Thank you

eftag.org.uk�@eftagroup

​

• The current proposals do not meet the needs of many Forest users and are poor value for money
• EFTAG’s ideas are a starting point for real community engagement