help me design a cycle facility

First thought: you're on to a loser -- forcing a left turn creates
a situation without a clean solution for bikes.

Second thought: well back from the junction create two on-road
advisory cycle lanes, one on the left and one on the right (up
against the centre line). Paint them red or whatever so they are
conspicuous. The one on the left should start earlier, and have
arrows indicating "left turn only", the one on the right should
have "straight ahead only" arrows and should continue past the
junction, a little clear of the stop line. The two cycle lanes may take
up >50% of the lane, but that's okay if they're advisory.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
[email hidden] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

Ian Smith said:

We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

I find myself trying to design a road junction, and the council is
amenable to incorporate special measures to accommodate cycles, but
it's actually proving a pain in the neck. Hence, I'm seeking
inspiration.

Consider a T-junction.

For various reasons, traffic proceeding across the top right-to-left
has now been stopped in one direction and must turn left down the
stem. This is easy, if we force all traffic to do it, but actually, I
could let bicycles go straight on.

However, I can't see a way to do so. Motor traffic, which is going to
be forced to turn left, will assume that all traffic will turn left,
and will not notice that bikes may go straight on - resulting in too
many clashes. Further, even if the cyclist avoids that, the stuff
coming up the stem, which must turn right, needs to be brought forward
to the middle of the road for visibility reasons, so there's a second
clash with the cyclist crossing through a stationary queue.

If you're having trouble visualising it, there's a sketch at
http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/TMsketch.pdf

What to do? I really want to let cycles go straight on, because
otherwise it's a miles long detour. However, my highways department
insists the stuff coming up the stem gets a stop line at what was the
middle of the road, and I can't see any way to avoid conflicts.

My best solution so far is to make the footway across the top a shared
use cycle path, so cycles going along that (which is what I expect
they will do) are at least decriminalised. However, I'll hate myself
forever for causing a shared-use-pavement to be brought into being....

Thoughts?

regards, Ian SMith

Assuming major engineering (such as underpasses) isn't on, I wonder
whether a mini roundabout (hateful though they are) would work. It would
need careful and perhaps complicated signage to ensure motorists did not
drive straight on when coming from the right but exited to the left and
to ensure motorists coming up the stem were made aware of the
possibility of cyclists coming from the right.

I don't like these roundabouts but offhand I can't think of another
solution to the problem.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

Brendan Halpin said:

First thought: you're on to a loser -- forcing a left turn creates
a situation without a clean solution for bikes.

I know, but we have to divert the motor traffic.

Quoted message said:

Second thought: well back from the junction create two on-road
advisory cycle lanes, one on the left and one on the right (up
against the centre line). Paint them red or whatever so they are
conspicuous. The one on the left should start earlier, and have
arrows indicating "left turn only", the one on the right should
have "straight ahead only" arrows and should continue past the
junction, a little clear of the stop line. The two cycle lanes may take
up >50% of the lane, but that's okay if they're advisory.

Thanks for the thoughts - I did consider a cycle lane for straight on
cycles on the right of the lane. The carriageway width is
insufficient for cycle lane + motor lane, and I think it's a bad idea
to have a cycle lane (even an advisory one) that motor vehicles are
physically incapable of staying out of. However, I'm scrabbling about
at least-worst option stage now, so maybe....

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Thoughts?

Put a cycle lane down the centre of the road from the right, and move the
stop line back 2m so that the cycle lane has free passage across the line of
stopped traffic.

Then sit back and let the nominations for cycle farcility of the month roll
in!

More seriously, make it a light controlled junction. The traffic coming up
the leg does not then need to be in the middle of the road and the lights
sequence can include a "cyclists only" straight on phase.

pk

Brendan Halpin said:

First thought: you're on to a loser -- forcing a left turn creates
a situation without a clean solution for bikes.

Second thought: well back from the junction create two on-road
advisory cycle lanes, one on the left and one on the right (up
against the centre line). Paint them red or whatever so they are
conspicuous. The one on the left should start earlier, and have
arrows indicating "left turn only", the one on the right should
have "straight ahead only" arrows and should continue past the
junction, a little clear of the stop line. The two cycle lanes may take
up >50% of the lane, but that's okay if they're advisory.

Cyclists would still have to cross the traffic coming the other way and
get into the centre cycle lane but it would make it easier to do a
right turn.

Maybe run the cycle lane around the corner a bit and put a toucan
crossing, but I doubt that would improve traffic flow and some cyclists
would prob still try and right turn anyway.

A footbridge/flyover thing would solve the problem nicely but I think
it would bump up the price of the scheme!

Where will the new cycle lane go when it goes down the blocked off bit
of road? Is this half of the carriageway planned for parking? (if a
cycle lane is put along there it probably will end up being used as
parking!)

peter

In article <[email hidden]>, Brian G
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Assuming major engineering (such as underpasses) isn't on, I wonder
whether a mini roundabout (hateful though they are) would work.

It doesn't meet the stated criterion of having the stop/give way
markings on the old centre line, but does seem a very sensible solution,
although the changed priorities might also have an undesirable effect on
traffic flow.

Quoted message said:

It would
need careful and perhaps complicated signage to ensure motorists did not
drive straight on when coming from the right

I'd have thought a couple of bollards to make it too narrow for cars,
along with a couple of "no motor vehicles" or "cycles only" signs at the
junction, and "left turn only"/"no left turn" on the approach, would be
a pretty foolproof solution.

p.k. said:

Ian Smith said:

Thoughts?

Put a cycle lane down the centre of the road from the right, and move the
stop line back 2m so that the cycle lane has free passage across the line of
stopped traffic.

I can't move the stop line back due to visibility for traffic turning
right out of the stem looking for stuff approaching from the left.

Quoted message said:

Then sit back and let the nominations for cycle farcility of the month roll
in!

That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid.

Quoted message said:

More seriously, make it a light controlled junction.

Ah, should have mentioned - lights have a two year lead time
apparently (I have no idea why). I suggested putting a roadworks-type
system in, which I could hire from a number of sources this afternoon
if needs be. You could mount them on poles set in concrete-filled
oil-drums if you're worried about them going walkies, in which case
the system could be in place by the end of next week. Apparently this
is inconceivable.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

naked_draughtsman said:

Where will the new cycle lane go when it goes down the blocked off bit
of road? Is this half of the carriageway planned for parking? (if a
cycle lane is put along there it probably will end up being used as
parking!)

There's a big hole. However, it extends from the white line in the
middle of the road about half-way to the kerb, so there's a perfectly
serviceable width of carriageway about 1.5m wide from the kerb
outwards.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Rob Morley said:

I'd have thought a couple of bollards to make it too narrow for cars,
along with a couple of "no motor vehicles" or "cycles only" signs at the
junction, and "left turn only"/"no left turn" on the approach, would be
a pretty foolproof solution.

Fools are no problem. Car-drivers are something else.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Brian G
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Assuming major engineering (such as underpasses) isn't on, I wonder
whether a mini roundabout (hateful though they are) would work.

It doesn't meet the stated criterion of having the stop/give way
markings on the old centre line, but does seem a very sensible solution,
although the changed priorities might also have an undesirable effect on
traffic flow.

What about stop lines & signs on the stem and the road approaching from the
right plus some "warning, cyclists may approach from the right" signs on the
stem road? Is the road busy enough that traffic is often stationary?

--
Stephen Patterson :: [email hidden] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: B416F0DE :: Jabber: [email hidden]
"Don't be silly, Minnie. Who'd be walking round these cliffs with a gas oven?"

Ian Smith <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

Heheheh

Quoted message said:

What to do? I really want to let cycles go straight on, because
otherwise it's a miles long detour.

So it's OK to stop cyclists having longer journeys but OK to force car
drivers to do them? Not a very 'green' solution, especially in todays
political climate of trying to force people out of cars by making them
pay through the nose or try to make them use the car less anyway.

Is there a way for cycles to carry on going left, with the traffic, then
maybe a short while later use another junction/traffic light
system/mini-roundabout to come back and take the 'short-cut'? Without
knowing more of the road layout locally it's hard to judge what's
feasible.

Certainly at first glance it looks easiest to not allow any traffic go
straight on at the junction but allow cycles to use the
soon-to-be-shared-use-facility available .....

Quoted message said:

My best solution so far is to make the footway across the top a shared
use cycle path, so cycles going along that (which is what I expect
they will do) are at least decriminalised. However, I'll hate myself
forever for causing a shared-use-pavement to be brought into being....

If it's a reasonable and workable solution to an otherwise
insurmountable problem, what's the problem? Granted, many/most/nearly
all shared-use facilities are pretty [censored], but if it works well enough
and achieves your apparent main aim of reducing journey time for
cyclists then what's wrong with it?

Is this a 'permanent' or transient solution? Why is the straight on bit
being blocked?

--
Paul - [censored]

p.k. said:

More seriously, make it a light controlled junction. The traffic coming up
the leg does not then need to be in the middle of the road and the lights
sequence can include a "cyclists only" straight on phase.

....and have a push-button on the side of the road operated by cyclists wishing
to proceed R-L across the top of the tee? Much like those push-buttons for
equestrian crossings which are 7 ft off the ground which benefit horsey riders
but are impossible for mere mortals to use.

Oh, and include a rail so cyclists won't have to unclip when coming to a
standstill?

Make the light switch automatic by detecting vehicles 10-200 kg, combined with a
camera which detects the absence of a left arm sticking straight out?

Ian Smith said:

We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

I find myself trying to design a road junction, and the council is
amenable to incorporate special measures to accommodate cycles, but
it's actually proving a pain in the neck. Hence, I'm seeking
inspiration.

Consider a T-junction.

For various reasons, traffic proceeding across the top right-to-left
has now been stopped in one direction and must turn left down the
stem. This is easy, if we force all traffic to do it, but actually, I
could let bicycles go straight on.

However, I can't see a way to do so. Motor traffic, which is going to
be forced to turn left, will assume that all traffic will turn left,
and will not notice that bikes may go straight on - resulting in too
many clashes. Further, even if the cyclist avoids that, the stuff
coming up the stem, which must turn right, needs to be brought forward
to the middle of the road for visibility reasons, so there's a second
clash with the cyclist crossing through a stationary queue.

If you're having trouble visualising it, there's a sketch athttp://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/TMsketch.pdf

What to do? I really want to let cycles go straight on, because
otherwise it's a miles long detour. However, my highways department
insists the stuff coming up the stem gets a stop line at what was the
middle of the road, and I can't see any way to avoid conflicts.

My best solution so far is to make the footway across the top a shared
use cycle path, so cycles going along that (which is what I expect
they will do) are at least decriminalised. However, I'll hate myself
forever for causing a shared-use-pavement to be brought into being....

Thoughts?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Tricky one, first I though about putting a cycle lane down the middle
of the road to allow cyclists to go straight on. But at what stage
should cyclists have to switch from the left hand side to the middle
and if you move the stop point for right turning traffic back by 2m
your now asking drivers to look left for all vehicles, but to look
right only for cyclists. I would think that most drivers coming up to
turn right would assume that all traffic to their right is going to
turn left and would only be concerned with traffic coming from the
left.

I'm trying to think how I'd ride such a junction, it's sort of like a
left hand bend in the road with a smaller (straight on) road at the
apex. At that sort of junction the main flow of vehicles would flow
around the corner and there'd be giveway sign for traffic coming from
the left. If riding such a corner I'd take a central lane position as I
approach the bend, ending up in the middle of the road, on the white
line, indicating to turn right (to go straight), watching for traffic
coming up to take the right hand bend and possibly holding up traffic
from behind. I don't know about the traffic levels you have there or
the speed limits, but could some sort island be built to allow cyclists
a haven to check left (traffic coming up on your map) before proceding
straight on. This does means though that a cyclist would require a
certain level of confidence to be able to pass across the main flow of
traffic to position themselves in the middle of the road, but on an
island.

[censored] no, I guess that traffic flowing from the left will also be able
to turn right, joining the the traffic going down. So any island in the
centre would block their passage.

You mentioned a footpath to the north of the road, is there no ped
traffic to the south? I guess any sort of bridge or underpass is out of
the question?

I guess you have to build things for all levels of cyclists and so that
may leave you with a shared ped/bike path to the north. I wouldn't use
it, instead attempting to pass straight on through the queue at the
stop line. Which will lead to drivers asking me why the f&%k aren't I
using the nice new shared path to the north.

Best of luck.

marz

Ian Smith <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/TMsketch.pdf

1. Advisory cycle lanes when approaching from right, marked:
|| B | |
|| | |
----<|===+ |
| ^ | |
<+ | | | |
| B | |
-+ B | |
| | ^ | |
| | | | |
| | B | |
Yes, cars will have to drive on them, but it discourages cyclists
going ahead hugging the left and getting hooked as shown by your
lines.

2. Put a give-way line before the stop line with a bicycle symbol
between the two.

3. Put a small centre island/bollard to discourage cars trying to
go ahead.

An alternative may be to put some U-turn-friendly facility down the
T and then let cyclists filter left into the no-motor-vehicles arm.

I think that arrangement is crying out for a continental
roundabout, but there's no chance if they're already imposing
such tight constraints and won't rethink the motor vehicles plan.

Good luck!
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

Following on from Ian Smith's message. . .

Quoted message said:

We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

I find myself trying to design a road junction, and the council is
amenable to incorporate special measures to accommodate cycles, but
it's actually proving a pain in the neck. Hence, I'm seeking
inspiration.

Consider a T-junction.

No. Consider a bend with a minor road (top left bit of T) joining at
the corner. That is in effect what you will have. If that
configuration puts the willies up the highways dept for being a junction
on a corner then that should be ringing alarm bells all over county
hall. To make this (or the original left-only T scheme) work will
*require* realignment to (WRT traffic forced to turn left) bulge the
carriage way right a bit before sweeping left. For this you'll need
to mark out the road with 'chalk' lines and video an articulated lorry
going through the junction a few times to see how it swings out right
before turning left. [Good way to squash cyclists eh?] Notice that
apart from artics squashing them, cyclists haven't been mentioned.

I can assure you that 'must turn left/right junctions' don't work and
take years to undo because the county surveyor's ego matters more than
the people killed. We had exactly that situation in Hatfield Peverel in
Essex and the death toll probably went into double figures. There is an
example in Ipswich, Suffolk (should turn right) which people eventually
learned to use because it was a very local road.

The 'real least worst' answer (subject to adequate approach distances)
is to flip the 'bend with a side road on the apex' concept so that the
major road sweeps top left to bottom while traffic approaching from the
right has to give way. This has the effect of calming the R-L traffic
and puts a central pedestrian bollard for a crossing at the give way
line (in the right branch). Pedestrians have a relatively simple way to
get across and cyclists can stay as part of the normal traffic as they
approach (from the right) what is now a T-junction. If there isn't much
bottom to right traffic then this will work fine but if there's lots
then there will never be an opportunity to get across the road for right
turning and a mini-roundabout or lights are required.

The whole thing sounds like a dog's dinner.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the statuette business went bust
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

Ian Smith said:

Thoughts?

How about a cheap almost 'do nothing' solution:

http://www.lufbra21.f2s.com/cyclelane.gif cycle movement in blue.

Cyclists do a normal right turn at the bend, and wait in the hatched
out area between the traffic lanes. A small island at either end (in
red) should help keep cars out and as long as the hatched area is big
enough it should provide a good enough refuge.
The hatched out area could have a small chevron sign in it to direct
the cars around the bend, but with a decent gap to let cyclists get
behind it.

peter

Marc Brett said:

p.k. said:

More seriously, make it a light controlled junction. The traffic coming up
the leg does not then need to be in the middle of the road and the lights
sequence can include a "cyclists only" straight on phase.

...and have a push-button on the side of the road operated by cyclists wishing
to proceed R-L across the top of the tee?

I've always fancied putting in a pelican which is permanently green
man, and a button for motorists to press if tehy want to go
through....

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Marz said:

[censored] no, I guess that traffic flowing from the left will also be
able to turn right, joining the the traffic going down. So any
island in the centre would block their passage.

Exactly. Very few places where we can put new islands.

40 tonners turning left down the stem need to swing a long way right
and then their back wheels go up the pavement to avoid the islands
that are there already.

Quoted message said:

I guess any sort of bridge or underpass is out of the question?

Absolutely - even if the budgets were available underpass clashes with
the hole which is the reason for the scheme, and a bridge clashes with
a number of seriously big TPO trees (in a conservation area)
(stunning big plane trees, as it happens - it would be at least as
criminal to upset them as the cyclists).

But budgets blows it completely - the council is anticipating some
paint and some signs, not new structures.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Paul - censored said:

Ian Smith <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

Heheheh

Quoted message said:

What to do? I really want to let cycles go straight on, because
otherwise it's a miles long detour.

So it's OK to stop cyclists having longer journeys but OK to force car
drivers to do them?

It is physically impossible for cars to traverse the obstacle (unless
they are chitty-chitty-bang-bang) but there's no physical reason to
stop cycles.

The choices are stop all traffic, or stop all motor traffic.

Quoted message said:

If it's a reasonable and workable solution to an otherwise
insurmountable problem, what's the problem?

Shared use are [censored].

Shared use are dangerous.

This shared use would make the cyclist cross the road twice.

Quoted message said:

Is this a 'permanent' or transient solution?

Semi-permanent. Lifetime measured in years.

Quoted message said:

Why is the straight on bit being blocked?

Big hole.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|