Beverley Road & Cottingham Route LEP Schemes - feedback in full

Beverley Road Scheme

The purpose of this email is for detailed feedback on the scheme that would be cumbersome to supply via the Commonplace portal.

On the whole, there are glimpses of the very good but, as so often with these schemes in Hull, a lot of ‘close but no cigar’ / could’ve been great. Unfortunately, there is also some inherently dangerous in there too. I will deal with this first.

Shared bus and bike lanes are far from the ideal. However, as they are the first step in addressing Hull’s arterial routes it is understood why they have been implemented. Unfortunately in this scheme, the very good - off road segregated path with junction by pass - meets the dangerous - off road segregated path merging in to a shared bike and bus lane. The merging of the heaviest vehicles regularly on the road and the most vulnerable road users is a recipe for disaster. I will suggest how this can be addressed within the feedback.

Central Ward (Freetown Way to the Railway Bridge)

Overall points:

1) The biggest factor in non-compliance with cycle lanes / pavement cycling is convenience. Therefore, owing to the very limited amount of cycle crossing points, journeys originating on the west of Bev Rd but wanting to head south, or vice versa, will likely result in maintaining a certain level of pavement cycling. This could be addressed by converting existing Pelican crossings (between Norfolk & Trafalgar Sts; south of Leonard St; between Station Drive & Cave St; between Grove & Epworth Sts) to Toucan crossings (complete with directed off-road turning approaches - examples of which are already installed at Foster St / Stoneferry and Craven St North / Burleigh Street / Holderness Rd), as well as modifications to the proposals at Fountain Rd and Stepney Lane. Expecting cyclists to dismount and use the pelicans does not work (see again, convenience) and any form of required dismount is in conflict with a modern cycle network.

2) The off-road segregated lanes must be compliant in width with LTN 1/20, Table 5-2 (absolute min. of 1.5m, normal min. of 2m) for safety and comfort of all cycles (including cargo and trikes) and mobility aids (including mobility scooters); this includes allowing safe overtaking by all types of cycle / mobility aid.

Fountain Rd:

The inclusion of a junction bypass with off road fully segregated lane is a great feature and, as far as I am aware, a first in the Hull network. However, by removing the Bev Rd northbound ASL and implementing a cyclists right turn from the segregated lane, phased in with the Pelican crossings (in the same arrangement as at Station Drive), it could be considerably safer:

1) All cyclists remain on the segregated lane, those turning right are directed in to a waiting area / turning circle (Foster St, etc, examples) in vicinity of the front of property no. 145. Extra signals are provided here to call / display the ‘the green bike’ signal. Cyclists using this right turn could cycle directly in to Fountain Rd but this would require a separate phasing for pedestrian crossing of Fountain Rd. This is essentially turning the Pelican crossing to the north of the junction in to a Toucan crossing.

2) Alternatively, the corner of the junction on the northern side of Fountain Rd could be turned in to shared space. This fairly simple re-classification of space would have the following advantages:

- It would allow the crossing of Fountain Rd to be phased with the other crossings.

- It would prepare the junction for later upgrade to allow a fully protected junction for southbound cycle traffic.

- It would prepare the junction for what is a common sense future extension (approx. 175m) of the existing bi-directional off road segregated bike path at the eastern end of Fountain Rd. This would enable both east and westbound traffic to be kept off of Fountain Rd completely and turn north- or southbound fully protected.

Further to this, and as previously stated, the merging of the off road segregated lane in to the bus lane is not just far from ideal, it is dangerous. This is compounded by the merge being almost immediately in to a bus stop. With the Station Drive junction being only 135m further north from the merge point, it would make the most sense and be by far the safest to extend the off road segregated lane to the Station Drive junction.

Station Drive:

This junction could be modelled in the same way as the Fountain Rd junction, with an off road segregated junction bypass lane northbound. This would require the extension of the off road segregated lane from Fountain Rd (approx 135m) to the Stepney Lane junction, through it, and then emerging on to the carriageway immediately north of the current Pelican crossing, just south of Cave St. Any required width, and the build-out required to protect a safe merge on to the carriageway, could be found by realigning the kerb in to the proposed on-carriageway bike lane in that section; this proposal would allow retention of the parking bays outside properties 205 to 211. With the northbound ASL removed, all cyclists would again stay on the off road segregated cycle path, and a turning circle that ties in the the existing Stepney bike lane would be required. Otherwise, the Stepney Lane plan, as part of the Cottingham route scheme is acceptable; although a 20mph speed limit for Station Drive would improve this further.

Queens Rd / Sculcoates Lane junction:

With relatively little effort, but trading convenience for safety, this junction could be given the same treatment as the Leads Rd / Sutton Rd junction. However, it would require controlled crossings on the north arm of the junction across Bev Rd and the east arm of the junction across Sculcoates lane, and all of these crossings to be upgraded to Toucan crossings. While shared space is never ideal, making all four corners of the junction shared space would allow cyclists to be directed off the junction completely to manoeuvre in the shared space and cross the junction by controlled crossings separated by phase from car traffic. This would eliminate the need for widening the junction heading northbound and remove the bike lane from the carriageway, so left turning car traffic would not cross left or straight on cycle traffic.

Beverley and Newland Ward (Railway Bridge to city boundary)

Overall points:

1) The same applies to the controlled crossings in this part of the scheme (just south of De Grey St; between Washington St & Suffolk St; just south of Ash Grove; just south of Beresford Ave; Inglemire Lane; just north of Riversdale Rd, just south of Emmott Rd, just north of Mizzen Rd) to allow safe and convenient change of direction for cyclists.

2) Same comment as above about segregated lane width.

Bev Rd / Cott Rd junction:

The same applies here as does to Queens Rd / Sculcoates Lane junction, but on a larger scale; not least because the phased crossings are split between crossing north, south, east and west bound motor traffic lanes separately. However, the same principles apply. To achieve this the details would be as follows:

1) Cyclists are brought off the carriageway in to shared space at all corners of the junction before reaching the junction from all directions.

2) The carriageway is not widened at the Haworth or Lidl corners. The on carriageway bike lanes are removed in all directions approaching and across the junctions. The Haworth corner is actually built-out to where the bike lane would have been on the northbound carriageway. This build-out could bypass / tie-in to the Toucan crossing at Haworth St and merge from the build-out in to the shared bus / bike lane (right of way to cyclists as they already 'have the lane'; the safest way to merge).

3) Southbound, the cycle lane merges in to shared space immediately after Beresford Ave, bypassing / tie-in to the Toucan crossing and avoiding parking bays.

4) South of the junction, the south bound shared space should merge in to the bus lane after the bus stop / at the start of the bus lane. There should be give way markings on the road to signify buses must let cyclists merge.

5) The width achieved by removing the on junction bike lanes should be used to widen the mid-carriageway refuges, and the 'cranked crossing path' removed from the refuges. The crossings should be upgraded to Toucan crossings. This will mean the crossing paths of pedestrians and cycles would be straight, thus avoiding awkward manoeuvring but still with enough room to be clear of traffic while waiting. Therefore, there would be no motor vehicle traffic turning across cyclists, or vice versa, and the phasing of the lights would not have to change.

Inglemire Lane junction:

1) Prevent right turn in to and right turn out of Desmond Ave with a physical island. Northbound traffic on Bev Rd could still access Desmond Ave via the first intersection north of the junction. Traffic wanting to go northbound from Desmond Ave will either have to go via Inglemire Lane or out of Beresford Ave.

2) Bypass the junction southbound by creating an off road segregated lane for a short section between Desmond Ave and Wellesley Ave. This will also allow tie-in to the Toucan crossing. This may initially work better as shared space but will need decluttering of the current pavement in regards to 'street furniture'. This is a definite pinch-point on the network, and LTN 1/20 allows use of shared space in this if absolutely necessary.

3) Northbound cyclists to be directed on to the pavement, reclassified as shared space, immediately north of Inglemire Lane, with shared space priority granted over the two accesses to the 'Waters Edge' site. The shared space ends as the dual-carriageway starts and cyclists are reintroduced to the carriageway.

4) Eventually, an extension to the bridge over Barmston Drain should be constructed immediately to the west of the existing road bridge. This extension would accommodate the northbound cycle lane and western side footpath. The existing western side footpath would then be incorporated in to the carriageway, allowing the proposed southbound shared space to be split in to segregated bike lane and footpath all while maintaining bus and car lanes. However, this is beyond the scope of this scheme, but should be considered as part of future sorting out of this problem pinch-point junction!

Inglemire to Endike Lanes, northbound:

1) With no side roads, only accesses, along this section of single lane dual-carriageway, this is the perfect place to trial 'floating' parking. It would negate the need to spend on wands, is the one instance where spending on paint as infrastructure is effective, and is exponentially more safe than the proposed solution. It is concerning that there is resistance to trial this anywhere, as the council's own document, the LCWIP, identifies this method as being the solution for this type of road in the future. Any concerns about 'dooring' of cyclists are at best misplaced, and at worst disingenuous; the fact is, if you are going to be doored, it happening and you falling in to the curb is much preferred to falling in to traffic, which is the current situation. Furthermore, with average car occupancy at 1.3 people, it is more likely than not that passenger side doors will not be opened, thus reducing the likelihood of any instance of dooring. Finally, if something does go wrong on the carriageway, floating parking is inherently more safe for cyclists as the incident would involve parked cars rather than cyclists; insured property damage is ALWAYS preferable to serious injury or death!

Bev Rd / Sutton Rd junction:

As per Bev Rd / Cott Rd, segregate the junction using shared space and Toucan crossings. Especially effective here with the off road bi-directional path already installed along the south side of Sutton Rd / Greenwood Ave (as such, northern arm of the junction could remain as Pelican crossing).

Bev Rd, southbound (from boundary):

1) With the segregated track from Raich Carter Way extending down the East Riding section of Bev Rd to within 225m of the city boundary, it seems ludicrous that the off road segregated path would not start at the city boundary, and a deal done with ERYCC to cover this 225m section on what is a wide verge / path already. With the filling in of the Evergreen slip road, there is no shortage of space and a priority path / cycle lane crossing of Evergreen would not be hard to achieve. This would then tie-in to off road segregated lane shown in the current plans.

2) At Hall Rd junction, rather than having a cycle lane slip on to the road and ASL, the same set up here could be applied for right-turning traffic, as has been used at Fountain Rd and Station Drive. This would effectively make the informal crossing immediately south of the junction in to a Toucan crossing, although phasing with the current lights should not be an issue. This will tie-in to future proposed cycle infrastructure on Hall Rd and should be addressed along with protecting north bound cyclists at the junction.

3) With the width of verge available, the off road segregated lane should continue all the way down to Wheelhouse Court. This would require a priority footpath and cycle lane crossing at the top of Emmott Rd, however, this is not difficult to achieve. It would have the advantages of tie-in to the Toucan crossing south of Emmott Rd and bypass another bus stop. A build-out after the bus stop but before Wheelhouse Court would make for the safest transition to on carriageway.

4) The transition to the cut through to Welwyn Park Ave could do with being improved (surface, widening; less sharp turn-in, particularly for cargo bikes, trikes, etc).

Bev Rd, northbound (to boundary from Sutton Rd):

1) At Hall Rd junction - To invest in off road segregated paths, only to bring cyclists on to the carriageway at a junction is madness; cyclists are at the most danger at junctions and other changes of direction. By installing a Toucan crossing across the Hall Rd arm of the junction, cyclists could remain fully protected across the junction AND pedestrians will definitely be thankful for the controlled crossing as well. Direct all cyclists this way and remove the ASL.

2) While opposite, the Evergreen entrance has been narrowed, it seems illogical that Downfield Ave (with presumably, a similar low level of mainly residential-only traffic) has not been given the same treatment. This would allow the continuation of the off road segregated lane, with priority across Downfiled Ave, to the city boundary, bypassing one final bus stop.

Cottingham Route Scheme

This scheme is the best and most coherent scheme yet proposed, focusing on making an existing route better by addressing missing connections (controlled crossings, etc). I will again review the scheme by combined section / ward.

Central Ward (Freetown Way to Bev Rd)

Nothing to add to this part of the scheme other than reiterating that the new bi-directional segregated cycle paths should as much as possible be the LTN 1/20, Table 5-2 stipulated absolute min. width of 2m only where absolutely necessary, and be at least the desired min. width of 3m throughout.

A point of note at Fountain Rd: there currently exists approx. 55m of bi-directional segregated cycle path at the eastern end of Fountain Rd, north side of the carriageway, that ties-in to this route, linking it to the southern car park entrance of the Endeavour Centre. It would only require a further 175m to extend this path to meet the Bev Rd scheme, linking the two. There is plenty of space in a relatively uncluttered verge for most of the 175m distance. The electric sub-station, that could cause a pinch-point at the western end of Fountain Rd, could be passed by using shared space, particularly if this ties in with the use of shared space on the northern corner of Fountain Rd's junction with Bev Rd, as per suggestions for the Bev Rd scheme.

Fountain Rd lies tantalising just out of scope of both the Bev Rd scheme and this scheme. However, it could prove a substantially important link between each; if implemented, it could effectively remove the need for cycle traffic to use the carriageway of Fountain Rd or the western portion of Bridlington Ave. Therefore, it would be worth pursuing either as part of this scheme, the Beverley Rd scheme, or at the ward level. Additionally, with the impending relocation of Hull Trinity House Academy to the Endeavour site, the inclusion of this path extension could be made a term of the planning permission or other condition of the move. Such a small stretch of path would also have a disproportionately large positive impact on Hull Trinity House Academy's active travel options for both staff and students - it would be reachable by cycle path or lane from all directions across the city, particularly important as the school doesn't admit via conventional 'catchment areas'.

Avenues Ward (Bev Rd to Chants Ave)

The issue of directing (expected high?) volumes of cycle traffic along Victoria Ave is problematic; although not fully an unfortunate through-route like the avenues to the south, similar to the others it has to carry two-way traffic in one traffic lane, owing to parking either side, and through-traffic does exist from Salisbury Street.

As an experienced cyclist this is not a pleasant experience! In trying to achieve the goal of encouraging the undecided / new / novice / inexperienced / young / old / disabled to cycle by making them safe, this would be an abject failure. The link to Chants Ave could be made considerably safer:

1) In the short term, if budget requires, a short-medium term solution could involve the current arrangement as designed at the eastern end of Victoria Ave, but as the route emerges on to Victoria Ave, cyclists are immediately directed in to the tenfoot to the north. This would then be followed round to Salisbury St, where cyclists would again be directed north, on to Ella St, and then west towards St Ninian's Walk. The whole of length of St Ninian's walk would then be improved as shared space, as per the current plans.

2) If budget allows, or in the medium-long term, a bi-directional segregated cycle lane should be installed on the east side of Princes Ave, heading north, immediately as the shared space reaches Princes Ave from the park. This should link to Princes Ave's northernmost Zebra crossing, which would be upgraded to a parallel crossing. The bi-directional segregated cycle lane would then continue north to the corner of Queens Rd, then follow Queens Rd in the verge and continue along next to the Victoria Ave tenfoot to Salisbury St. The remainder of the route to Chants Ave would be the same as above. This option has the advantage of allowing a significant amount of cycle traffic to avoid the Avenues almost completely, and provides a link to proposed future Queens Rd / Newland Ave bike infrastructure.

Avenues & Bricknell Ward (St Ninian's Walk to Chants Ave roundabout)

1) It is not clear from the plans if the section of off road segregated path from Chants Ave roundabout to St Ninian's Walk is bi-directional; it would be best if it was. However, the cycle symbology at the Rainhill Rd access would suggest not, as would the ability to achieve a suitable width (3m) along the majority of its length while still maintaining suitable pavement width.

- Could confirmation please be supplied as to whether this section is intended to be uni- or bi-directional?

2) There is a safer and more elegant solution than a short length of shared space at the northern most bus stop on the eastern side of Chants Ave - the cycle and footpaths should be swapped at this point, with the cycle path moving adjacent to the property, the footpath moving closest to the carriageway, and the bus stop positioned most appropriately on the footpath section. The bus stop-containing section of carriageway-adjacent footpath is then linked by priority crossings of the cycle path as it deviates away from and back towards the carriageway.

3) Footpath priority as well as cycle path priority should be granted across the access to Rainhill Rd.

4) This section of Chants Ave is potentially the most dangerous section of painted advisory bike lane in the city. Specifically this is northbound under the railway bridge where the road narrows and descends as the adjacent pavement remains level, creating a wall on the nearside of the bike lane at the narrowest point of the carriageway. If the proposed path is bi-directional, this issue could be addressed, as well as allowing for safe transition of northbound cyclists on Chants Ave to St Ninian's Walk. Assuming that widening the footpath where the road descends, to allow for shared space (not ideal) or the addition of an off road segregated bike path, will be both prohibitively expensive and result in unacceptable carriageway width then, northbound cyclists could be transitioned across to the bi-directional path by way of a new parallel crossing. This new crossing would be positioned approx. 45m south of St Ninian's walk - with added benefit of narrowing the exit of the petrol station - and require the bi-directional path to be extended to this point. Transition to the carriageway for southbound cyclists would occur immediately south of this new crossing. The advisory northbound cycle lane, north of the new crossing to the roundabout, could then be removed.

5) If modified as per above, this scheme allows for the opportunity, at a later point, to install a bi-directional off road segregated cycle path on the western side of Chants Ave, from Chants Ave roundabout down to Murrayfield Rd (approx. 90m). This would tie-in with a future proposed route from Murrayfield Rd, via an off road path along Setting Dike, to County Rd and Priory Drive footbridge.

Bricknell Ward (Chants Ave roundabout to city boundary)

This section is exciting in that it takes the first step to upgrading all of Hull's roundabouts to a safe and convenient standard, as described by CycHull here. However, this is marred by the remainder of Bricknell Ave being more of the same - ineffective paint with a few wands, parking drivers crossing cyclists, and cyclists left to their fate at the junction with National Ave / Fairfax Ave.

1) The section of Bev Rd between Inglemire and Endike Lanes is a far more appropriate place to trial floating parking.

2) This section of Bricknell Ave suffers from the same issues as the Bev Rd scheme in the lack of safe options for cyclists to cross the road or change direction, and this inconvenience being an underlying cause in a lot of examples of pavement cycling - what do cyclists coming from the north of Bricknell Ave who want to head west do, or vice versa? As with the Bev Rd scheme, this could be addressed by upgrading the existing Pelican crossing (in vicinity of Bricknell Primary School) to a Toucan crossing, all the existing zebra crossings to parallel crossings (all crossings would require accompanying turning circle / waiting areas), and making the Bricknell Ave / National Ave / Fairfax Ave a fully protected junction.

3) With Hotham Rd North forming part of the informal but important Hessle / Anlaby to Cottingham Rd route, upgrading the zebra crossing just north of the junction with Bricknell Ave to a parallel crossing would be the most useful of those suggested above. If treatment of Hotham Rd North at the junction with Bricknell Ave, both north and south sides, could direct traffic off the carriageway towards the crossing / onto the carriageway after the crossing, this would be a useful addition to the scheme.

4) Converting the Bricknell Ave / Fairfax Ave junction to a protected junction would require a detailed analysis and probably have to include the County Rd North junction as well, making it beyond the scope of this scheme. However, both motor vehicle traffic and cycle traffic on the County Rd North-National Ave-Fairfax Ave section of the 'inner ring road' will need addressing in short-order; I will submit suggestions on this separately.

Bricknell / Fairfax / National Ave junction follow-up

Following my previous email relating to the proposed Cottingham Route scheme, I have given considerable thought to the issue of Bricknell / Fairfax / National Ave junction. Unfortunately, owing to the scope of the scheme (and therefore, the budget) only covering east-west improvements, and the lack of existing infrastructure for north-south journeys along County Road / National Ave / Fairfax Ave (not to mention the general state of that section of road), I cannot put forward any serious proposals to improve this area of the scheme as is.

However, I do have a two suggestions disguised as questions:

What is the logic behind maintaining a left turn in to National Ave for west bound traffic along Bricknell Ave when there is the County Road North extension that serves this purpose?

- With the scheme design as is, any queuing southbound traffic across the Fairfax-National Ave junction would only have to stop 2-3 left-turning cars before westbound cyclists and motorists on Bricknell Ave are blocked from making any progress. Is the niche use of this left turn - ~3x parking spaces outside the shops on National Ave, direct access to Hayburn Ave - essential?

- Removing this left turn, and the subsequent right turn from National Ave in to Hayburn Ave (and vice-versa), both north-south and east-west traffic flow would be vastly improved for little consequence; Hayburn Ave could still be accessed via Burniston Road or Langdale Ave and the shops could still be accessed.

In a similar vein, what purpose does the intersection immediately east of the Bricknell / Fairfax / National Ave junction serve; what journeys is it facilitating that the other intersections do not?

By removing both the left turn and this intersection, there would be very little impact on journeys, while improving traffic flow AND massively increasing cyclist safety at the junction, as it would remove two sources of uncertainty about the direction cars could come from with respect to a cyclist approaching the junction. This is particularly pertinent to any cyclist looking to cross the traffic lane to turn right.

In general, Fairfax Ave to County Road flyover is a nightmare to cycle along, and in response to this a proposal / suggestion for how to improve things will be published on our website soon. This will take in to account a fully protected north-south and east-west junction. I will let you know when this has been completed.

My final note is to implore you to consider making all crossings of Bricknell Ave cycle-permissive (Toucan or parallel Zebra), for the reasons stated in my previous email. The current scheme drawings show that the road narrowing at at least one crossing is to be reduced, in order to allow a carriageway bike lane through the crossing alongside the vehicle lane; I would strongly advise against this:

- The narrowing of vehicle lanes is the single most effective road engineering method to reduce vehicle speeds; this should be used in the vicinity of all crossings. Rather than removing it from the identified crossing, apply it to all the crossings on the road.

- The increased width of pavement that this creates adjacent to each of the crossings could and should, then, be used to allow bike lane bypass of the crossing / a turning circle to approach the crossing. This could be achieved with the use of shared space (with pedestrian priority) like elsewhere at the controlled crossings on the scheme.

It should be noted that use of shared space in this way, particularly at crossings / changes of direction, is far from ideal. However, in building v1.0 of Hull's cycle network, it is preferable to cyclists being left unprotected (bike-pedestrian interactions at junctions are much less dangerous and much easier to navigate); hence why it has not been commented on in wider scheme feedback. Costlier, more complicated segregation in these areas can come in the future as increased foot / cycle traffic numbers demand.