Designers Response to RSA Stage 1/2
Item No / Problem Summary / Recommendation / Response2.1 / Constraint of Cyclists by “splitter island” a fundamental hazard risk / Comments noted. Scheme objective is to provide a splitter/buffer zone. Comments noted and reviewed in context of remaining RSA.
2.2 / Inadequate drainage would affect road users’ safety / Provide additional drainage and modify the existing drainage as necessary / Additional drainage and gullies have been provided including a ‘super gully’. All gullies provided are cycle friendly. Crossfalls were kept to a minimum to reduce skidding accidents – to below 1:20.
2.3 / Street trees are a potential collision hazard to cyclists / All low (under 3.00m) branches have been removed and trunks trimmed. Tree roots were removed and carriageways/kerbs and footways relevelled and reinstated.
2.4 / Cycle lane “splitter islands” a potential collision and overrun hazard / Carriageway kerb face maximised wherever possible. Carriageway crossfall precludes the opportunity for 100 to 125 mm face without making the cycle lane kerb face in excess of 150 mm.
Light contrasting materials could not be placed as indicating due to the site being in a Conservation area. Conservation Planners were consulted and the black surfacing with light kerb edges implemented to provide the best contrast.
Reflective bollards have been implemented were recommended.
2.5 / Excessive crossfalls would put pedestrians and cyclists at risk / Agreed and crossfalls have been reviewed and amended as recommended.
2.6 / Vulnerable users at risk when crossing road or accessing parked vehicles / Splitter islands have been reviewed and removed by loading bays and disabled bays. Scheme considered existing accessibility for vulnerable road users and the scheme has not worsened or lessened accessibility. In some instances it has been improved.
2.7 / Inappropriate kerbs or tactile paving could endanger pedestrians / Kerbs and tactile paving designed and implemented in accordance with current mobility and tactile paving guidance. Consultation comments considered as part of the design process.
2.8 / Clear and appropriate cycle route/lanes signing will be required / Cycle direction signing implemented according to the Traffic Signs Manual and General Directions. Road cycle markings implemented. Cycle signs included on the bollards at the start of each length of cycle lane.
2.9 / Cleansing of cycle lanes required to avoid risk to cyclists and pedestrians / Street Cleansing consulted and works undertaken, and now included as part of the regularmaintenance programme.
Location Specific Issues
2.10 / Risk of NMU/vehicle conflict form seafront cycle link and guardrail removal / Comments relate to confusion with respect to annotation on the plans. With respect to additional comments corduroy tactile paving and additional signing and lining has been implemented.
2.11 / ‘Pinch point’ in eastbound feeder lane may put cyclists at risk / Lane widths have been adjusted accordingly.
2.12 / No details provided of traffic signal alterations at Kingsway junction / A separate RSA will carried out specifically for this junction.
2.13 / Inappropriate bus stop details could put pedestrians and cyclists at risk / Bus stop detail redesigned – Flush kerbs provided. All three recommendations taken on board.
2.14 / Narrow “splitter islands” a collision hazard without bollards / Splitter island removed and substituted with road markings.
2.15 / No details provided of traffic signals at Church Road junction / Not applicable. No alterations to the junction are proposed.
2.16 / Central cycle parking stands may result in cyclist/motor vehicle conflicts / Some cycle parking has been removed from the centre of the road and placed at the side. Parking in the centre of the road follows examples used in other local authority schemes such as Kensington High Street. Centre parking also formalises the current practises with car parking in the centre of the carriageway. No accident data records show this to have been an issue.
2.17 / No details provided of traffic signal alterations at Eaton Road junction / See 2.15
2.18 / Narrow “splitter islands” a collision hazard without bollards / See 2.4
2.19 / Central road markings in Cromwell Road junction may cause conflicts / Noted. Scheme to be reviewed with comments from Road Safety Officer.
2.20 / No details provided of traffic signal alterations at Cromwell Road junction / See 2.15
2.21 / Narrow “splitter islands” a collision hazard without bollards / See 2.4
2.22 / Collision risk owing to VCB alongside constrained cycle track on bridge / Noted and agreed. Splitter island alongside VCB omitted and buffer strips substituted with road markings.
2.23 / Status of pedestrian crossing south of Wilbury Avenue is unclear. / Incorrectly shown on drawings and comment not relevant. Crossing to remain as existing.
2.24 / Narrow “splitter islands” a collision hazard without bollards / See 2.4
2.25 / Road markings at Puffin Crossing near The Upper Drive need modifying / Noted. Traffic Signals Team to be consulted and modificationsto road markings to be made.
2.26 / Northbound buses at risk of conflict when leaving bus stop / Noted. Parking bay shortened and splitter island amended.
2.27 / Recreational Ground access may confuse visually-impaired pedestrians / Noted. Design to be redesigned with consultation with Parks Department and Traffic Signals Team.
2.28 / Relocation of controller cabinet would reduce risk of footway obstruction / Noted. And cabinet relocated.