December 1999

Dear John Lee / Pete Thomas

Our comments on the report are offered below. These are divided into:

A comment aimed at the Council, which is almost an LCC/MCC supplement to the report, often making use of the statistics in the report to emphasise. We think the analysis of statistics in the report itself fails short of expectations.

A short comment aimed at the authors of the report. We would say the report is flawed because they have not included distances.

Thirdly below are the punch points,

New Malden /Colliers Wood

1. Routes are not routes with inadequate signage. This one has a 50% shortfall

2. For Local Authorities to plan and negotiate the LCN round vehicular pinch points such as railway crossings, is worthwhile, but can take time. Cycle route safety can be compromised until resolved. Two such, that have now been resolved in Merton, must now be implemented.

3. Potentially safe routes can become unsafe as motor vehicle parking becomes slovenly. The Council must intervene. This is a safety matter.

The Wandle Trail (Merton Section)

1. What Trail? NO SIGNS

2. What Trail? Two busy road crossings to be implemented.

3. What Trail? Does the LCN need a sign saying: "No Daylight No LCN?"

We hope these comments are useful, and look forward to discussing the issues and remedies with you.

Yours sincerely

Richard Evans

=============================================

Comment prepared for the Merton Cycling Campaign by Hugh Morgan, Architect, on the content of the LCN Quality Monitoring Report (QMR) covering New Malden to Colliers Wood Cycle Route and the Wandle Cycle Route (Merton Section)

In terms of the London Cycle Network this QMR deals with the two backbones of the Network, a predominantly 'street' cycleway and an 'off-road' cycleway.

Local Authorities were first encouraged to make a package submission for a 'London Cycle Network' in July 1994. The main method of economic justification is on road safety benefits. At that time the cycle route procurement figure for London quoted was taken from Merton's 1991 programme to introduce 41 kms of cycle route at £27,000 per km (1991 prices) this was compared with the average cost of a personal injury road traffic accident at £36,432 and the conclusion was that if a 1 km section of cycle route can save just one personal injury accident in the first year, the scheme would show an economic rate of return of greater than 100%.

The early work done in 1991 in Merton set standards for surveying, planning and bidding for cycle funding that were borrowed from for the setting up of the LCN. In 1991, in Merton, the Officer in charge of cycle network implementation prior to his job in the Council had been the Scientific Officer at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory with responsibility for bicycles and was the co-author of 'Bicycle Planning-Policy and Practice' published by the Architectural Press. Under his guidance the Council employed JMP consultants who placed a former Merton Traffic Engineer in charge of their feasibility study. The reports that resulted were textbook studies of cycle network planning based on first hand knowledge of the area.

Has the implementation process delivered safe cycling?

The prime East West route that could offer the most in terms of payback and was the backbone of the 1991 network for early implementation was the New Malden to Colliers Wood Cycle Route and the first subject of this QMR.

=============================================

The report divides the route into the key junctions and the routes between them (numbered 1-17). These components are judged on 4 criteria given up to 5 points each and also a signage judgement is given.

Signage

The QMR judges there to be 57 potential signage requirements of which they find 26 missing. They also recommend double-sided signs for cyclists joining the route from different directions.

The route has only half the signs necessary to make it properly accessible.

Directness, Attractiveness, Safety and Comfort

These are given up to 5 points each. In the QMR route section references 1-17, section 1 and section 6 both attain maximum points at 20. (This is more than anywhere on the 'off- road' Wandle Trail).

Given values 5-4-3-2-1 anything of value 3 can be seen as perhaps average anything below value 3 can be seen as sub-standard i.e. poor investment - weaknesses that can affect the quality of the whole route and that should be brought up to standard if the route is to meet the aspirations of the London Cycle Network.

Of the four categories the one that should never be compromised to substandard (below value 3) is safety. Safe cycling is the prime aspiration of the LCN. The label LCN should give expectation of certain safety standards.

Safety

There are 3 occasions where facilities are substandard for safety.

• The junction between route sections M (Coombe Lane/Worple Road)
• Route section 5 (Kingston Road-western section)
• The junction between route sections 8 & 9 (Kingston Road/Rutlish Road)

The 2 junctions are of particular interest in that they are compromises over the 1991 consultants' proposals as a result of railway crossings.

The QMR recommends improvement of the Coombe Lane/Worple Road junction by using the arch by Raynes Park Station (The Cattle arch). Negotiations over the use of this arch were started late in terms of the 1991 proposals. It is understood that relevant parties are now agreeable in which case the QMR highlights that this should be given priority. The 1991 scheme drawing is attached.

The QMR also recommends an alternative route for the dangerous Kingston Road/Rutlish Road right turn. The present Kingston Road route was introduced so that the level crossing could be used to cross the railway. The 1991 proposals had a crossing further south involving a ramped bridge. This investment was seen as unnecessary as Tramlink was to be introduced. Tramlink is now up and running and a suitable crossing is in place south of Kingston Road.

The QMR recommends a right turn Kingston Road/Dorset Road to reach the crossing. MCC strongly rejects this proposal.

The 1991 proposals had a route avoiding any such right turn using the full length of Sheridan Road which would almost certainly get a better rating. In the QMR categories of Safety and Comfort for Kingston Road itself (Section 8) together only attain a total value of 4 points.

The 1991 scheme drawing junction Kingston Road/Merton Hall Road is attached.

[Richard Evans adds] Merton Cycling Campaign has since 1991 agreed an alternative route here with Merton Cycling Officer Pete Thomas - that is (going eastwards) to use Henfield Road then turn right at the end (minor re-surfacing work required) and cross Kingston Road at the existing Pelican crossing (possible upgrade to Toucan?). From that point, the route would use Church Lane, and turn left into Sheridan Road.

Another alternative would be to use Mostyn Road, then Sheridan Road.

We strongly reject the above QMR proposal to use the Kingston Road/Dorset Road junction.

In the QMR Route section 5 is unique in having the lowest possible rating for Safety. The nature of the facility is criticised for its bad surface and gulleys for which improvements are recommended. The facility is also misused by 'commercial vehicles loading from the carriageway' and is 'obstructed by parking'. The QMR recommends ' Control loading Obstruction'.

Conclusion

Areas of sub-standard safety on the LCN should be taken very seriously. It would appear that at both unsafe junctions the Council now has the way open for early improvement. On the unsafe stretch of Kingston Road unloading restrictions using double yellow lines require consideration with other measures. Engineering works to Improve the surface, while introducing cycle friendly gulleys also requires early Implementation.

=============================================

This 'off-road' route is longer than the above route and being off-road it would be expected that particular care would be needed for signing. Sections 14a to 39 are listed separated by 25 junctions.

Signage

The QMR judges there to be 82 potential signage requirements. There are in fact only 9 signs 2 of which are recommended for improvement in the OMR.

Directness, Attractiveness, Safety and Comfort.

Seen together values average out at 17 points per section out of the total 20.

Safety

There are 4 places where the route is substandard in terms of safety:

• The crossing of Bishopsford Road
• The 2 places involved in the crossing of Morden Road
• The state of the Section between Plough Lane and Wandsworth (Section 38)

If an off-road route of this sort is to be successful as a contribution to the LCN then road crossings must be incorporated. The QMR under item 3.5.1 makes the point that the perception of personal safety on this off-road route is reduced by low use. Low use is inevitable if key highway crossings are unmanageable. Personal safety must also be a factor in after dark riding. Does the QMR suggest that because the rights of cyclists through Ravensbury Park and Morden Hall Park are in question, lighting has not been mentioned? It is mentioned for Section 38 into Wandsworth where the surface also is recommended for improvement.

An alternative after dark route is offered as an idea.

There is no doubt that the aspirations of the LCN are to provide a facility usable for journeys when people generally choose to travel. This inevitably calls for riding after dark. For the Wandle Trail where both pedestrians and cyclists can enjoy the facility, lighting must surely be put high on priorities.

Conclusions

• Areas of substandard safety on the LCN should be taken very seriously.
• Priority should be given to crossing Bishopsford Road and Morden Road
• The section North of Plough Lane needs attention
• The extreme lack of signage is a deterrent to use. The Trail appears not to exist.

=============================================

New Malden to Colliers Wood Cycle Route

Wandle Cycle Route (Merton Section)

This Quality Monitoring Report is a valuable and important contribution to the implementation procedures of the LCN the comments below are in no way meant to be negative but essentially to improve the impact of the work

1. The date of the report is a little surprising December 98 with the survey done in August 98. Could some of the recommendations be out of date?
2. This is assumed to be a 'User' Survey commissioned by the LCN Project Manager through the lead Borough. The terms of reference are not clear, Atwell Associates do not explain their expertise. They refer to statutory signs by number (for which they could have a reference page perhaps) but they do not refer to codes of practice associated with traffic mechanisms. So it is assumed they are not traffic engineers. For the sake of accountability, validity and government audit at least the Commissioning Authority should be declared.
3. In terms of data presentation it is unfortunate that the mileage column has not been filled in. There is good reason for comparing the distances. It would also be helpful if the photographs were given Plate numbers for reference. (Having the photographer's bicycle unsuitably parked in the photograph is not ideal. e.g. Summerlea Street)
4. Width of cycle lane is noted in some cases. There is a tendency in London to accept the narrowest cycle lane because it's good to have one at all. But lowering standards when squeezed should not encourage lowered standards everywhere. Councils should be made more aware where lanes should be wider. Thus a Quality Monitoring Report might include more measuring. After all in Holland their preferred lane allows for two cyclists side by side in the same direction.
5. The column G,B,D Good, Bad, Dangerous in the Route Details usually has Bad coinciding with a rating of 2 or less for Safety. It is not however clear why Section-16 (High Path) of the New Malden/Colliers Wood route is down as Dangerous. Is it because of item 2.2.2 because this is not clear in the route detail ratings?
6. Finally, this is the only QMR that I have seen and it is clearly Borough oriented. I assume that all QMRs are in the same format. Are they on a useful programme like Excel for the route details (because QMRs for a route continuing in the next Borough require to be assessed for the route as a whole)? I saw no reference numbers that might give clue to such a useful facility. Such a database would allow updating QMR route details locally between Council and Cycling Groups.