Cycling and Walking Invest. Strategy (CWIS) in England.

[Steady rider]

Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) in England.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... rategy.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... t-strategy
http://www.jmp.co.uk/forward-thinking/u ... investment

25
Through the first Road Investment Strategy, £100 million has been made available between 2015 and 2021 to improve the conditions for cycling alongside and crossing the Strategic Road Network many of which will also benefit pedestrians. We will look to build on this in preparing the next Road Investment Strategy.

16
Supporting the ambition will be a number of objectives to be achieved over the period of this and future CWISs. As with the ambition we will work with partners to develop objectives for the first CWIS ready for public consultation in spring 2016. Although the detailed objectives are still to be developed, underpinning our ambition are the commitments set out in the Government's pre-election manifesto:
• To double cycling activity, and
• To invest over £200 million to make cycling safer so we reduce the number of cyclists and other road users killed or injured on our roads every year.

One of the CTC AGM motions for 2016 viewtopic.php?f=45&t=102411

The CTC to promote a European Union climate change policy of national governments funding cycling infrastructure, with a 3% minimum investment of transport spending on cycling infrastructure (built to CROW standards) or investment in relationship to the modal share of cycling.

(trying to ensure that reasonable levels of funding are available to provide cycling infrastructure in all EU countries, see viewtopic.php?f=6&t=102233)

Is it better to have a percentage share for funding cycling? p.s. 3% of £27 billion transport budget is £810 million.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/depa ... eview-2015
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown

It appears the funding needs to be more targeted and proportional with more precise details, A roads, B roads, on road provisions, off road provisions, extra passing places for narrow roads etc.

Scotland spends 1.9% of funding, about half way on link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 1-car-sick

edit added
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... nt_web.pdf

3.6 Highways England is responsible for delivering £11 billion of improvements to England’s motorways and major A roads by 2020. We will continue to work with Highways England and monitor its delivery against the Road Investment Strategy,30 which includes a ring-fenced fund of £250 million for Cycling, Safety and Integration. Of this around £105 million will be spent on additional measures to boost safety that extend beyond the high safety measures already in place.

In the last five years from 2011/12 to 2015/16, DfT has increased its spend on cycling
in England from £1 per head to £3 per head. Local authorities also spend significant amounts on cycling and, over the same period, total spend on cycling in England has increased from £2 per head to £6 per head. Spend is over £10 per head in the eight Cycle Ambition Cities33 and in London. DfT will publish a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy in 2016 which will set out our plans for investment in safer
cycling and walking infrastructure.

Clear figures for cycling infrastructure, cycle training, and in proportion to other spending, rail, air and roads could be helpful.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/depa ... eview-2015

This settlement also commits more than £300 million to cycling investment between 2015-16 and 2020-21. This includes delivering in full the £114 million Cycle Ambition City scheme, with construction of segregated cycle lanes including 115 kilometres in Birmingham and 56 kilometres in Manchester.

Highways England will deliver 112 major roads schemes worth over £15 billion to 2020-21

The £250/105 millions compared with £11/15 billion is approximately between 1% to 1.6%.
The Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) fails to detail the measures needed, length of roads, costs of path, and relate funding to needs over a time scale. see page 188 ( 17. Costs and Sources of Funding )
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/defaul ... s%5B1%5D(1).pdf https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q= ... of+Funding

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... n-2013.pdf e.g.
Segregated path with minor junctions £116.5k-233.5k (2007 prices), say an average of £200k per km in 2016 prices, 28k miles of A roads - say 40k km, cost £8 billion/over say 10 years, £800k per year is required. £800k from the £28 billion on roads is 2.8%.
The investment strategy is inadequate by not relating to needs.

[gaz]

Funding to improve facilities alongside the strategic road network. Perhaps fixing things like this:-

When it was declined in 2013 the HA placed it on something they referred to as the "Watchman Database" or as I like to think of it, the "list of accidents waiting to happen".

I just thought it might be worth giving them a nudge in April 2015 when new budgets were announced. Highways England then indicated that the HA had not recorded the fault, i.e. Watchman Database = Wastepaper bin . However they would investigate and look to design a solution.

In May 2015, Highways England replied as follows:-

With regard this particular junction, the geometry of the access complies with design standard for a major/minor priority junction at a ‘design speed’ appropriate to the national speed limit. As such, the kerb aligns at an acute angle to the ends of the cycletrack. Ideally, the cycletrack and footway should deviate away from the edge of the main carriageway by at least one metre for a satisfactory crossing detail, however at this location the road is not wide enough to accommodate this without the acquisition of additional land.

A dropped kerb across the full width of the cycle track would need to commence prior to the tangent points of the junction mouth. The kerb’s primary function is to guide vehicles and protect the fabric of the surface beside the carriageway. If dropped at the junction mouth, this protection is diminished carrying a risk of being overrun by turning vehicles, and potholes on the cycle track.

It has been noted that for the protection of all, the crossing should be protected by temporary “cyclists dismount” signs and temporary, low level signs to divert cyclists towards the crossing. This has been requested by the Route Manager.

So far they've not even managed to implement their temporary solution .

Edit: Still no sign of "cyclists dismount".

[Steady rider]

Do you think that the pedestrian part should be on the outside? i.e road, ped, cycle etc

[Pete Owens]

Funding to improve facilities alongside the strategic road network. Perhaps fixing things like this:-

I would imagine it will involve installing more things like that.

[Steady rider]

http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/Ma ... ycling.pdf
page 9
6.

People like level surfaces
– a route with constantly varying heights requires more effort to ride on and is less comfortable. At driveways and junctions the cycleway should not change height.

Extra land in some cases may be required. Motorways, airports, rail all require extra land at times, cycling is similar.

page 17 shows another approach, on-road

Option 2: Hybrid cycle lanes: on-road, with an off-road feeling
An alternative option is hybrid cycle lanes. These are found in Denmark and Sweden, and now feature in DfT guidance. They are on-road cycle lanes that have some kind of physical demarcation to provide the feeling of protection that less confident cyclists want. Cobbles or another kind of informal segregation is needed.

These 2.5 metre (2.1m minimum) cycle lanes are smooth, and raised slightly above the level of the main road surface. Red tarmac should be used. Footpaths to the side should be a separate construction and raised slightly above the level of the cycle lane.

[gaz]

Do you think that the pedestrian part should be on the outside? i.e road, ped, cycle etc

No. I think it should have been built properly in the first place, like the one about 100 yards further west: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.39754 ... 312!8i6656

As for space, there really is no need for two westbound motor vehicle lanes at this point.

[Steady rider]

I am thinking the design could be changed, no white line, no tactile surface. In stead pedestrian/ cycle sign on the surface.
A sat nav for people who have problems seeing, telling them when a junction is ahead. A lower cost of path to build and maintain. If usage is high, providing the above design would probably be better.

[mjr]

Do you think that the pedestrian part should be on the outside? i.e road, ped, cycle etc

Almost never. People usually walk as far away from the noisy scary motorists as they can, regardless of whether that's marked for cycling or not, and legally they are permitted to do that, whereas cycles could not legally then use the vacant footway to pass them. It should normally be carriageway-cycleway-footway to accommodate that usual behaviour, plus make it easier for cycling to expand onto the carriageway if (very desirable) congestion occurs.

[Steady rider]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.62885 ... 6656?hl=en and
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.62825 ... !1sQg8x-GF
Shows a typical set up in the Netherlands.

The UK example shown, red part, grey section, white line, tactile, kerbing to cross and the end result is probably less cycle friendly. Apart from the extra expense the UK approach may not be as safe, cyclist may ride off the kerb into the road, joining the cycle path with a kerb at an angle results in extra falls, possible less space to overtake another cyclist. The approach does not seem sound.

[MikeF]

In May 2015, Highways England replied as follows:-

....
It has been noted that for the protection of all, the crossing should be protected by temporary “cyclists dismount” signs and temporary, low level signs to divert cyclists towards the crossing. This has been requested by the Route Manager.

"Cyclists Dismount" Don't they read the guidelines that say this sign should be replaced by "Cyclists Rejoin the Carriageway"?

"Cyclists Dismount" sign is used as though it's a command sign. It's actually a sign displaying that there is a major design fault and the sooner CCs and HA are made to acknowledge this the better. Why should this sign even exist???

[karlt]

Funding to improve facilities alongside the strategic road network. Perhaps fixing things like this:-

I would imagine it will involve installing more things like that.

Hey, around here they also put that ribbed surface you can see on the pedestrian side on the cycle side. With the lines parallel to the direction of travel. Lovely, especially when wet..

[RickH]

Hey, around here they also put that ribbed surface you can see on the pedestrian side on the cycle side. With the lines parallel to the direction of travel.

That's how it is supposed to be installed, so that partially sighted pedestrians know which is the cycling side (cane users can feel them, others may be able to tell by standing on them, I don't know if guide dogs can be trained to know the difference).

Lovely, especially when wet..

I've not found them to be a problem.

Rick.

[PRL]

Hey, around here they also put that ribbed surface you can see on the pedestrian side on the cycle side. With the lines parallel to the direction of travel.

That's how it is supposed to be installed, so that partially sighted pedestrians know which is the cycling side (cane users can feel them, others may be able to tell by standing on them, I don't know if guide dogs can be trained to know the difference).

Lovely, especially when wet..

I've not found them to be a problem.

Rick.

It depends on the precise dimensions of the grooves and of your tyres. Definitely makes my bike unstable sometimes ; easier when ,as not infrequently, the council gets it the wrong way round.

[karlt]

Hey, around here they also put that ribbed surface you can see on the pedestrian side on the cycle side. With the lines parallel to the direction of travel.

That's how it is supposed to be installed, so that partially sighted pedestrians know which is the cycling side (cane users can feel them, others may be able to tell by standing on them, I don't know if guide dogs can be trained to know the difference).

Lovely, especially when wet..

I've not found them to be a problem.

Rick.

Well lucky old you. I've nearly come off on them. Perhaps your tyres are wider than mine?

[mjr]

It depends on the precise dimensions of the grooves and of your tyres. Definitely makes my bike unstable sometimes ; easier when ,as not infrequently, the council gets it the wrong way round.

Yes, and it's worse when they install them too close to a tight corner, so they encourage you to skid into a fence, wall, kerb or lamppost, or put unnecessary buckling forces on the rear wheel by turning while stuck in the grooves.

There's also a variant which I think has flat tops which is frequently used when it shouldn't be - or is that the correct one and the round-top one which is incorrect? And they're usually installed or settle to a different height to the surrounding tarmac - I think I remember one stretch of cycle track with correctly-installed tiles. The ones I rode over recently next to Coventry's Kenilworth Road weren't, trying to send you skidding off into the verge or over high kerbs sprawling out into side-road/driveway crossings.

The difference between cycleway and footway should be indicated by the crossways or bubble tiles being present on the footway side and the cycleway side being flat, not by installing these evil skid hazards on the cycleway, especially when the vast majority seem to be installed hazardously.