Consultation - changes to cycle route barriers in Oxford

April 2014

Craig,

Thanks for the information on the changes to these barriers, even if it rates as one of the biggest (bytewise) e mails to come from the council!).

Unfortunately, as no dimensions are provided, I have no idea if these barriers will comply with good guidance when modified. For guidance, I have looked at LTN 2-08, relevent paras at the end of this e mail.

In general, your proposals will make life easier (or less difficult), but please don't sum my reply up in just those words.

As a general point,

  • I believe is it (or used to be) that the City Council has a policy of all posts / bollards having a white band with black boarder round near the top to aid the visually impaired, I assume that will happen at these locations as this policy seems rather sparingly implemented
  • Some of these barriers to be honest could simply be removed. For example, I can understand a barrier at the west end of the parks route. Why do you need a barrier at the east end of the route? Between Marston and the Science area, why is a barrier here? Why not one at the bend 1/2 way across the park also, one half way along the long straight sections across the park where a cyclist could get a good head of speed?
  • In general, the worst type of barriers are the ones where a reasonable or better width facility is narrowed to one very narrow access pinch point for all and both ways sundry have to squeeze though (e.g. Dragon Lane, Queens Lane, Parks east and west to name a few). Some of these could have the side barriers narrowed or moved away from the track edges/walls to allow pedestrians to walk around the edges / ends of the barriers (but not cyclists), thus allowing more than one squeezed through the middle for all and sundry
  • Based on my regular (for work) used of Meadow Lane, wooden posts are hard to see at dusk and in the dark even when lit by street lights (illuminated there is little contrast, they look a similar shade to the illuminated ground surface). Thus wooden (and steel) posts need a clear white band/section for poor visibility use. Low mounted hard to prize off / vandlise reflectives would be good on posts / bollards too.
  • What is the accident rate at these locations? If no accident rates, then why were the barriers put in? If the barriers are to make like feel more safe/secure, can cyclists expect the same treatment on road facilities that feel insecure but have a low/no accident record? Was there a motor bike issue?, if not, why were the barriers put in (ref paras 8.14.1, 8.14.2 below).

Assuming you really are unable to remove barriers - I think there should be a requirement to justify NOT removing barriers, then my thoughts are as follows:

Meadow Lane.

Replacing the current barrier with bollards allow more of the track width to be used. Will 2 bollards as proposed allow the recommended 1.5m width between them? If not, then 1 bollard should do. Bollards need to be mostly white. What are the bollards intended to do? One bollard will stop vehicles. Will 2 bollards stop motor cycles? If 2 won't, then might as well have 1 bollard.

Queens Lane.

Glad this is to be improved. Current and proposed requires cycles to switch from tarmac to cobbled gutter and back again at a shallow angle. Due to poorly maintained/uneven cobble/tarmac boundary, and poorly maintained round man hole cover frame (mostly obscured by the while text in your photo) this is problematic on my standard 27" wheeled bike and by 20" wheel cargo bike (that surprisingly does fit through the gap when loaded!). Thus I think a narrower gate, while better is an unacceptable solution. One or 2 (white) bollards would be better here, to avoid a perfectly wide street being narrowed to unacceptably narrow funnelling. Obviously 1 or both bollards would need to be lowerable / lockable. Suggest they were where the current gate is, or a little further south, away from the blind bend. Slowing cycles down for the blind bend is a false argument, otherwise I'll ask why you are not calming cycles for the other 3 equally blind bend on this street. A vehicular barrier does need to be present. For a while a year or 2 back the gate was left open for a period (I don't know why), it didn't take long for word to get round the hire car drivers and large motor cyclists (that’s large motor bikes, not riders!) to start using this street as a cut through.

Parks route west

Always been a tight fit. Moving the central post as described will improve it. Removing the post adjacent to the fence (left side of your photograph) will allow an alternative route for pedestrians, so some form of 2 way function would work, rather than all being squeezed through the single central gap. Could also do with improved white paint / reflectives on the posts/barriers.

Parks route east

Currently and as proposed, not acceptable. West-bound cyclists have to cross the cattle grid while in effect still/just getting going (from squeezing slowly round the barriers. All these barrier posts need to be moved further from the cattle grid, there is no reason why this can't be done (no house entrances etc for a short distance. How ever, as I mentioned above...

"Why do you need a barrier at the east end of the route? Between Marston and the Science area, why is a barrier here? Why not one at the bend 1/2 way across the park also, one half way along the long straight sections across the park where a cyclist could get a good head of speed?" If you can justify barriers here, you can justify barriers at numerous other locations between Marston and South Parks Road. Thus, this barrier serves no purpose what so ever, so this barrier should be removed completely.

Headington / Green Rd Roundabout subways

Moving barrier(s) to leave a 2m gap would be helpful. I would also suggest shortening (or angling) the barriers so a gap at the edges was left, to allow pedestrians to walk round the edges/ends, thus providing an alternative to squeezing all users through the single middle opening.

What of the openings at the other ends of the 2 subways affected, do these have 2m gaps already, or do these need upgrading too? Unfortunately, Mr Google didn't drive on the footway, so street view offers me no help here for checking.

I hope the improvements to disabled buggy access avoids you getting too much stick for allowing more "cycling in the subway..".

Barracks Lane south

I recall (as CTC rep) getting a pedestrian complaint about (one) fast cyclist at this location. Moving barriers to allow a 2m gap will improve access as it is a bit tight to say the least. However, a potentially dangerous design fault needs sorting. The parapet barrier (not the blocking/calming barrier) on the right side of you photo is off the edge (i.e. beyond the edge) of the tarmac - normally not an issue. Here through the gap between the edge of the tarmac and the bridge parapet barrier is a 2m(?) drop to the stream below. Cycling round the barriers - remembering that a cyclist will be leaning away from the barrier they go round a tight curve, so the front wheel may get very close to the edge without the handle bars fouling the barrier - means the front wheel gets very close to the gap. Even a modest speeds, my front wheel goes pretty close to this gap. If a front wheel were to slip down into this gap, the ride would be thrown off their bike, possibly over the barrier into the stream below. Thus, the side barrier on the right of your photo needs moving in by 30cm (?) or so the gap is no longer on the path side of the barrier. The other barrier on the left may thus need moving over by a similar amount.

Barracks Lane - Bartlemas Close end

I believe on a previous visit you saw Kevin Hickman maneuvering (for want of a better word....) his tandem round the exiting barriers... Moving the front (as in photo) barrier towards Bartlemas Close will help access through this barrier. But, this is a Sustrans route, and thus cycle groups/family groups will end up waiting on the road for their turn to get through - this happens currently when local CTC groups use this route to head out of town. Again, this is a reasonable width route narrowed down to one pinch point for all users. I would suggest removing the 2 horizontal steel bars attached to the wooden post (with Sustrans sign on it), so there is another side route for pedestrians (but too narrow for cyclists) to get through - the alignment of the RH front barrier might need to be altered slightly to allow this.

Folly Bridge

I agree the barrier photographed should be done away with.

How ever, the barrier at the eastern end of this footbridge (abutting the Abingdon Rd footway) would remain. That barrier will continue to be a serious obstruction to non-standard bikes and disabled buggies, as well as reducing the track to a narrow pinch point. This barrier will also need sorting, otherwise the proposed barrier removal at the west end of the foot bridge nets no gain. If you really feel the need for a barrier just before the Abingdon Rd, I would suggest replacing the remaining barrier with something similar to the one on the tow path adjacent to Hartford College's building on the opposite side of the Abingdon Rd, matching the minimum footway width or allowing the minimum to be wider.

Little Clarendon St

Yes, white lining at the Woodstock Rd end needs completing. As most people see this as a 1 way street (with contraflow cycle lane*), where the cycle lane emerges at the Woodstock Rd end, I would suggest an obvious white (contraflow) arrow in the cycle lane to alert entering vehicles that there might be cyclists going the "wrong" way. (*As an aside, I assume that technically Little Clarendon St is a 2 way street with no entry at one end, rather than an actual 1 way street per se).

Dragon Lane

The main issue here is a wide track narrowed down to a pinch point by a locked vehicle access barrier. Getting rid of the tatty little barrier at the side and replacing it with a bollard is not the solution. Also, this is quite a dull shaded spot (even in the day,must be worse in the dark, so a bollard in the middle of the gap set back - probably in the shadow of street lights - is not a clever solution.

The lockable gate needs to go. If you want to no vehicle access except occasionally, a white lockable / lowerable bollard in the middle would keep vehicles out, while allowing a generous space each side for pedestrians and cyclists. If you are worried about cyclists emerging into the road, a stop/give way paint on the track would be a reminder. It might be an opportune time to tidy up the rough/tatty tarmac on the left side of you photo, especially if you expect all users to use that side of the track.

I'm glad that some effort has gone into addressing barriers on the cycle network. Hopefully some of the suggestions above will make you proposals even better, although of course, the best proposal would be withdraw your proposals - along with fully removing all the barriers.

Yours sincerely,

James Dawton

8.14.1

Barriers at cycle route access points are commonly provided to prevent entry by cars and vans etc. They become more of a problem for cyclists when designed to exclude motorcycles. Motorcycle barriers should only be introduced after a definite need has been established, because measures that reliably exclude motorcycles invariably exclude some cyclists, including users of tricycles, cycle trailers and hand-cranked cycles. Wheelchairs and mobility scooters will also be excluded. Dismounting to man oeuvre a cycle with an occupied child seat through barriers can be hazardous.

8.14.2

Measures to control motorcycles are only as good as the weakest point in the route boundary – if fencing can be breached, access barriers will have little or no effect. If potential misuse by motorcyclists is raised as an issue during the consultation stage of a new project, it might be better to set capital funds aside to cover the cost of barriers, should they prove necessary, and monitor the scheme in operation. If concerns are found to be justified, funds will therefore be available to address them.

8.14.4

Bollards are the preferred method of access control for larger vehicles, spaced a minimum of 1.2 metres apart, preferably 1.5 metres… Bollards should ideally be placed at least 5 metres from any bend or junction, so that riders can approach them straight on. Bollards can be hazardous on unlit routes and at sites where forward visibility is restricted by the layout or by other users.

8.14.8

Where access controls are next to a carriageway they need to be set back far enough to accommodate likely users. For example, a family group waiting for others to pass through the controls could require a space 5m long to ensure all are clear of the carriageway

8.15.5

If staggered (chicane) barriers are used, the arrangement should be designed to slow cyclists rather than force them to dismount (see Figure 8.10). Chicane layouts should provide gaps of at least 1.5 metres between barriers and walls, and at least the same distance between barriers. Tandems, tricycles and child trailers require at least 2 metres between consecutive barriers.

Page 1 of 5