A2 Blackheath - road will be narrowed and a grass shared-use path put in

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:57:42 +0000, John Hearns <[email protected]>
wrote:

>2.
>> Reducing the speed of the motor traffic on the A2 across Blackheath is a
>> good idea.
>Yes, but narrowing the road and getting cyclists off the road isn't going
>to do this. Again sorry if this is being put strongly - but I really fail
>to see how this road narrowing will either cut the amount of motor traffic
>using the road, or slow it down.

Have a good look at the section of the road between Hyde Vale and
Charlton Road. It is hideous and the footway is ridiculosly wide and
unused. A remodelling of that section of the road can only improve
matters. It makes sense to remodel the entire length of the road
across Blackheath, certainly to the roundabout, at the same time. The
section from the roundabout to the traffic lights is much better, with
traffic islands splitting the two lanes in each direction. Cycling on
that section is easier, with motor traffic changing lane to pass.

Motor vehicles thunder along the road - never or rarely keeping to the
30mph speed limit unless jammed. 50mph would seem the norm when the
road is running freely. I feel uncomfortable cycling along it, but I
know that feeling uncomfortable is not necessarily the same as being
unsafe.

How would you like to see the road remodelled? I'm sure you'll agree
it is not ideal.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

 

[John Hearns]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:10:11 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:

>
> How would you like to see the road remodelled? I'm sure you'll agree it
> is not ideal.
Tom,
I will make a reply later. No time at the moment.
Can I suggest though that you get involved with Lewisham cyclists, as you
are a local? Lewisham are making an input to the CRISP process, to the
consulting engineers hired by TfL.
Your input to the process would be valued also.

In short, remodelling good. But we must not end up with an unsafe cycle
path on either side of the road which ends at each side road with a tiny
'give way' line.

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:57:42 +0000, John Hearns <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >2.
> >> Reducing the speed of the motor traffic on the A2 across Blackheath is a
> >> good idea.
> >Yes, but narrowing the road and getting cyclists off the road isn't going
> >to do this. Again sorry if this is being put strongly - but I really fail
> >to see how this road narrowing will either cut the amount of motor traffic
> >using the road, or slow it down.
>
> Have a good look at the section of the road between Hyde Vale and
> Charlton Road. It is hideous and the footway is ridiculosly wide and
> unused. A remodelling of that section of the road can only improve
> matters.

I ride that daily at around 1800 although I turn down Goffers Road
rather than Charlton Road. Traffic is usuall jammed so I squeeze out
from HV and then usually cycle down the hatched centre of the road.
When the traffic is free flowing it can be hard to join the A2 and it
is undoubtedly intimidating but the central hatching means that traffic
can usually overtake a cyclist occupying the lane sensibly. The
traffic island at General Wolfe road can be problematic as traffic
islands tend to be. A narrowed carriageway would tend to mean that
traffic would be unable to overtake a cyclist safely unless the
opposing lane was clear and a segregated path on teh North side would
make turing into Goffers Road a tricky manouvre

(map ref if anyone is interested:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=538788&Y=176672&A=Y&Z=1)

> It makes sense to remodel the entire length of the road
> across Blackheath, certainly to the roundabout, at the same time. The
> section from the roundabout to the traffic lights is much better, with
> traffic islands splitting the two lanes in each direction. Cycling on
> that section is easier, with motor traffic changing lane to pass.

I dont't think that dualing would be a good idea because of the
increase in traffic and traffic impact this would cause even if there
might be some benefits as you describe

> Motor vehicles thunder along the road - never or rarely keeping to the
> 30mph speed limit unless jammed. 50mph would seem the norm when the
> road is running freely. I feel uncomfortable cycling along it, but I
> know that feeling uncomfortable is not necessarily the same as being
> unsafe.
>
> How would you like to see the road remodelled? I'm sure you'll agree
> it is not ideal.

cut and cover tunnel for the A2 with minimal surface roads for local
traffic

best wishes
james

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> Have a good look at the section of the road between Hyde Vale and
> Charlton Road. It is hideous and the footway is ridiculosly wide and
> unused.

To be honest, I've never found it a problem at all. The footway may be
underused but surely that's because it's not a useful link for local
pedestrian traffic. Certainly, IME it's no worse cycling this section
than
any other and I wouldn't want to be off the road here.

> Motor vehicles thunder along the road - never or rarely keeping to the
> 30mph speed limit unless jammed. 50mph would seem the norm when the
> road is running freely.

Hmm. I very rarely drive it but when I have done I'd put the average
free-flow
speed about 35-40mph. Still above the limit, but comfortable enough on
a wide road with good visibility.

> I feel uncomfortable cycling along it, but I
> know that feeling uncomfortable is not necessarily the same as being
> unsafe.

I'm perfectly comfortable on the section I use, essentially from Duke
Humphrey Road/Charlton Road up and down Blackheath Hill. I might like
a bit less of a frenzy as motor traffic jockeys its way down from two
lanes
to one most of the way up the hill, but even that's never been a
problem.

The only part of the A2 I've really felt intimidated on recently is
outside
the scope of this discussion - late at night in Deptford, the couple of

hundred metres from the college towards the DLR can be a real
racetrack.
I'm sure a mobile GATSO here would pay dividends ...

> How would you like to see the road remodelled? I'm sure you'll agree
> it is not ideal.

The only priority I'd come up with, to be honest, is ensuring good
maintenance of the road surface, especially along the left-hand tyre
tracks
of heavy vehicles. I *really* don't have a problem with taking the lane
westbound from the tea hut towards General Wolfe Road but I'd rather
choose to do it than feel forced into doing it because of a poor
surface.

John

 

[Tom Crispin]

On 16 Mar 2006 06:07:06 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I ride that daily at around 1800 although I turn down Goffers Road
>rather than Charlton Road. Traffic is usuall jammed so I squeeze out
>from HV and then usually cycle down the hatched centre of the road.
>When the traffic is free flowing it can be hard to join the A2 and it
>is undoubtedly intimidating but the central hatching means that traffic
>can usually overtake a cyclist occupying the lane sensibly. The
>traffic island at General Wolfe road can be problematic as traffic
>islands tend to be. A narrowed carriageway would tend to mean that
>traffic would be unable to overtake a cyclist safely unless the
>opposing lane was clear and a segregated path on teh North side would
>make turing into Goffers Road a tricky manouvre
>
>(map ref if anyone is interested:
>http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=538788&Y=176672&A=Y&Z=1)

That map is about 10 year out of date: Long Pond Road and Duke
Humphrey Road are shared use paths, Whitfield Road has been grassed
over. The map below is slightly more up-to-date.

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=538950&Y=176500

I cycled that route daily 15 years ago, at about 10.30pm, while I was
manager of Bottoms Up! in Greenwich. Getting right into the hatched
area at that time of night could be very awkward. I agree that
getting into Goffers Road would be even harder from a segregated path.

>> It makes sense to remodel the entire length of the road
>> across Blackheath, certainly to the roundabout, at the same time. The
>> section from the roundabout to the traffic lights is much better, with
>> traffic islands splitting the two lanes in each direction. Cycling on
>> that section is easier, with motor traffic changing lane to pass.
>
>I dont't think that dualing would be a good idea because of the
>increase in traffic and traffic impact this would cause even if there
>might be some benefits as you describe

I agree. But it does highlight how bad the road is west of the
roundabout is when the dual carriageway east of the roundabout is
easier for cycling.

>> Motor vehicles thunder along the road - never or rarely keeping to the
>> 30mph speed limit unless jammed. 50mph would seem the norm when the
>> road is running freely. I feel uncomfortable cycling along it, but I
>> know that feeling uncomfortable is not necessarily the same as being
>> unsafe.
>>
>> How would you like to see the road remodelled? I'm sure you'll agree
>> it is not ideal.
>
>cut and cover tunnel for the A2 with minimal surface roads for local
>traffic

I think that proposal was rulled out 10 years ago. From an
engineering point of view due to unstable chalk soil requiring fairly
shallow banking, and from an asthetic point of view with the need for
ventalation towers.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

 

[John]

"John Hearns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:27:41 +0000, John wrote:
>
>>>
>> I must admit it has been years since I cycled along this road, as opposed
>> to across, but I'm not convinced it is as bad as you make out.
>>
>> Most serious cyclist can ride with the traffic as it is flat, lesser
>> cyclist will already be detered going east by Blackheath hill, which is a
>> b#tch.
>>
>> So is it really worth worrying about?
> Yes. The proposal is to narrow the carriageway to the width where two
> buses or lorries can pass each other, something like 7.2 metres wide,
> down from the current 9 metres.

I had a look this morning the lane is already narrow. Has the narrowing
already been done or are they planning to take the central hatching away.

Of the three cyclists I saw this morning two seemed to be overtaking the
traffic without any difficulty and a more patient one was riding in the
middle of road with the flow of the traffic at I guess 15-20 mph.

Maybe it is different outside the rush hour but I don't understand why you
see it as such a problem. No parked cars and superb visibility.

 

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:00:08 +0000, John Hearns <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:27:41 +0000, John wrote:
>
>>>
>> I must admit it has been years since I cycled along this road, as opposed
>> to across, but I'm not convinced it is as bad as you make out.
>>
>> Most serious cyclist can ride with the traffic as it is flat, lesser
>> cyclist will already be detered going east by Blackheath hill, which is a
>> b#tch.
>>
>> So is it really worth worrying about?
>Yes. The proposal is to narrow the carriageway to the width where two
>buses or lorries can pass each other, something like 7.2 metres wide,
>down from the current 9 metres.

Why is this a bad thing - there's currently cycle lanes, with all
their attendant and well documented problems - why is removing them
isn't going to harm cyclists at all, or are you actually saying that
these cycle lanes are good for cyclists?

(the shared use cycle path beside the road is irrelevant for cyclists
who can simply choose the road if they want to, but it's positive for
those people who want to be away from the traffic)

Jim.

 

[John Hearns]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:30:54 +0000, John Hearns wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:10:11 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>
>> How would you like to see the road remodelled? I'm sure you'll agree it
>> is not ideal.
> Tom,
> I will make a reply later. No time at the moment.

For the record, at the Lewisham cyclists meeting the following input was
agreed to the CRISP study.
In order of preference:

the road to be widened, to include a 1.5 metre wide mandatory cycle lane
on either side

the road to be narrowed, with a 1.5 metre tarmac cycle path on either side,
separated by the 'bund'. This is separate from the footway.
All junctions to be squared off, so there is on high-speed merge from
slant roads. Cyclists given priority at side roads by setting givve way
lines back before cycle lane


Do nothing - road left in the current width

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:00:08 +0000, John Hearns <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:27:41 +0000, John wrote:
>
>>>
>> I must admit it has been years since I cycled along this road, as opposed
>> to across, but I'm not convinced it is as bad as you make out.
>>
>> Most serious cyclist can ride with the traffic as it is flat, lesser
>> cyclist will already be detered going east by Blackheath hill, which is a
>> b#tch.
>>
>> So is it really worth worrying about?
>Yes. The proposal is to narrow the carriageway to the width where two
>buses or lorries can pass each other, something like 7.2 metres wide,
>down from the current 9 metres.

John and James, and anyone interested,

I've have spoken with David Walker, the proponent of the 2-way
segregated cycle lane. He believed that he had consulted with both
Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists, and they were all in agreement that a
narrowing of the A2, from the 'Tea Hut' to the top of Blackheath Hill,
with a 3.5m 2-way segregated shared use path on the north of the A2
would be a good thing. (Remember, pedsetrian traffic will be very
light.) This proposal had been agreed by the three Blackheath
councillors, including Gavin Moore, the Deputy Mayor of Lewisham.

TfL's Centre for Cycling Excellence has suggested an extension of the
Long Pond Road shared use path, segregated and on the south side of
the A2 to the top of Blackheath Hill for west-bound cycle traffic and
a 2m wide on-road manatory cycle lane on the north side for east-bound
cycle traffic.

David would be very interested in hearing from cyclists who use the
road regularly - that's you James. Personally, I think that TfL's
proposal sounds near perfect, provided the Long Pond Road cycle path
junction with Goffer's Road is properly constructed. A "blanket"
crossing (a 2m wide ramp) may be appropriate to suggest cyclist
priority, and would be in keeping with the speed ramps already on
Goffers Road.

I have David's phone number, my email address is valid and easy to
unmunge - but here it is with spaces between each character:

k i j e @ f r e e u k . c o m
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:39:05 +0000, John Hearns <[email protected]>
wrote:

>For the record, at the Lewisham cyclists meeting the following input was
>agreed to the CRISP study.
>In order of preference:
>
>the road to be widened, to include a 1.5 metre wide mandatory cycle lane
>on either side
>
>the road to be narrowed, with a 1.5 metre tarmac cycle path on either side,
>separated by the 'bund'. This is separate from the footway.
>All junctions to be squared off, so there is on high-speed merge from
>slant roads. Cyclists given priority at side roads by setting givve way
>lines back before cycle lane
>
>
>Do nothing - road left in the current width

I still prefer TfL's proposal. It meets the needs of both leisure and
commuter cyclists, with the westbound lane segregated by 'the bund',
and the eastbound lane on the road. I like the idea of squaring off
the junctions. I don't think that setting back give way lines would
work as effectively as a blanket crossing.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

 

[John Hearns]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:02:34 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:

> John and James, and anyone interested,
>
> I've have spoken with David Walker, the proponent of the 2-way segregated
> cycle lane. He believed that he had consulted with both Lewisham and
> Greenwich Cyclists, and they were all in agreement that a narrowing of the
> A2, from the 'Tea Hut' to the top of Blackheath Hill, with a 3.5m 2-way
> segregated shared use path on the north of the A2 would be a good thing.

On the one hand, media rants about pavement cyclists and 'lycra louts'.
On the other hand new shared use paths, ie. cyclists being told to ride on
the pavement. Sigh.

 

[Chris Eilbeck]

Tim Binns <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:30:09 +0000, John Hearns <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:05:34 +0000, Simon Bennett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What kind of idiot would design a grass-covered cycle path? It'd be a
>>> mudbath following the first rainfall!
>>
>>
>>It has been discussed as part of the CRISP process.
>>A pedesrian/cycleway composed of submerged pre-cast concrete hard standing
>>blocks.
>>
>>
>>BTW, if anyone wants to have some input into this, it is on the agenda at
>>the Lewisham Cyclist meeting tonight.
>>http://www.lewishamcyclists.net/images/Gallery/Monthly Meetings/MarMM.html
>
> Are these the things that have soil-filled through holes in 'em to
> allow grass to grow within, such as:
>
> http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/4921/highwaylayby1jpg4lo.jpg
>
> If so, it's an utterly shite idea. I've ridden on such blocks - the
> vibration is appalling. Proposing these things as a surface for
> utility cycling is an act of weapons-grade idiocy.

Grasscrete? It's horrendous! Possibly the only worse surface I've
ridden on was the bark chippings laid across the racecourse in
Worcester.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

 

[Mike Causer]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:38:34 +0000, Chris Eilbeck wrote:


> Grasscrete? It's horrendous! Possibly the only worse surface I've ridden
> on was the bark chippings laid across the racecourse in Worcester.

Have you tried the "polytrack" used for all-weather gee-gee racing tracks?
There's a stretch of it that I have to cross on one route into Newmarket,
and I get off the bike and push, kicking the stuff off my shoes at the
other side.....


Mike

 

[Danny Colyer]

Chris Eilbeck wrote:
> Grasscrete? It's horrendous!

It's rideable on a Muni, but freemounting is a challenge. Especially
with a weekend's supply of beer for me in one hand and fish & chips for
6 in the other.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Colin McKenzie]

John wrote:
> "John Hearns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:27:41 +0000, John wrote:
>>>I must admit it has been years since I cycled along this road, as opposed
>>>to across, but I'm not convinced it is as bad as you make out.
>>>
>>>Most serious cyclist can ride with the traffic as it is flat, lesser
>>>cyclist will already be detered going east by Blackheath hill, which is a
>>>b#tch.
>>>
>>>So is it really worth worrying about?
>>
>>Yes. The proposal is to narrow the carriageway to the width where two
>>buses or lorries can pass each other, something like 7.2 metres wide,
>>down from the current 9 metres.
>
> I had a look this morning the lane is already narrow. Has the narrowing
> already been done or are they planning to take the central hatching away.
>
> Of the three cyclists I saw this morning two seemed to be overtaking the
> traffic without any difficulty and a more patient one was riding in the
> middle of road with the flow of the traffic at I guess 15-20 mph.
>
> Maybe it is different outside the rush hour but I don't understand why you
> see it as such a problem. No parked cars and superb visibility.

Because whenever traffic is free-flowing, drivers will want to do at
least 30mph. Few cyclists will be able to sustain this speed. If the
road is so narrow that there are few safe overtaking opportunities,
drivers will overtake unsafely and/or try to intimidate cyclists out
of their way. These effects will be worse if there's an adjacent
cyclepath which drivers will expect cyclists to use.

I would be surprised if the cyclepath could allow 15-20mph to be
sustained safely, including at junctions.

And it is the 15-20mph cyclists who are getting where they're going
quicker than they can drive.

Colin McKenzie

 

[John]

"Colin McKenzie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Maybe it is different outside the rush hour but I don't understand why
>> you see it as such a problem. No parked cars and superb visibility.
>
> Because whenever traffic is free-flowing, drivers will want to do at least
> 30mph. Few cyclists will be able to sustain this speed. If the road is so
> narrow that there are few safe overtaking opportunities, drivers will
> overtake unsafely and/or try to intimidate cyclists out of their way.
> These effects will be worse if there's an adjacent cyclepath which drivers
> will expect cyclists to use.
>
> I would be surprised if the cyclepath could allow 15-20mph to be sustained
> safely, including at junctions.
>
> And it is the 15-20mph cyclists who are getting where they're going
> quicker than they can drive.
>

Yes I understand in general terms why it is good to have wide carriageways.
But this is a specific case.

For myself I know how I would ride it.

No trouble doing 30mph going into London if clear.

Coming out of London after getting to the top of Blackheath Hill (a nasty
road and a nasty hill) I would happily recover in a cycle lane for a 100
meters before going along the top of Greenwich Park (Charlton Way) or across
the Heath while I waited for my heartrate to come back to something
sustainable.

Applying general rules to specific cases is one of the major things wrong
with a lot of cycle facilaties.

If I was involved in the planning. I would want to see a 20 mph limit but
that would be to make it safer for kids on the Heath not for cyclists.

 

[Tim Hall]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:11:06 +0000, Mike Causer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:38:34 +0000, Chris Eilbeck wrote:
>
>
>> Grasscrete? It's horrendous! Possibly the only worse surface I've ridden
>> on was the bark chippings laid across the racecourse in Worcester.
>
>Have you tried the "polytrack" used for all-weather gee-gee racing tracks?

Shortly after the all-weather surface was laid at Lingfield race
course, racing was called off.







It was foggy.



Ob cycling: There's a nice tea shop in Lingfield, as used by the
Tandem club.


Tim

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, John Hearns
([email protected]) wrote:

> On the one hand, media rants about pavement cyclists and 'lycra louts'.
> On the other hand new shared use paths, ie. cyclists being told to ride on
> the pavement. Sigh.

Indeed, but MagicPaint(tm) will solve all your woes and turn a dangerous
activity into a perfectly safe one.

MagicPaint(tm) - available in white and, er, white.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
And then there was light and He thought it was good, so He threw the
receipt away.