Dear K W Leighton

Thank you for your letter dated 10 March 1998. Our comments follow:

Is the cross-section of recessed rail proposed for Merton Tramlink as bicycle-wheel friendly as its many European counterparts?

The Dutch design manual Sign up for the Bike states:

Tram rails do not only cause direct accidents (cyclists slipping on rails) but also indirect accidents:

• Cyclists sometimes need to pay so much attention to avoid falling (especially on following the rails at points and bends) that they do not see other hazards.
• Cyclists are not always able to choose a safe path, for example at sufficient distance to parked cars.
• Tram rails limit the freedom of movement for emergency manoeuvres.

• The crossing angle between bicycle wheel and tram rail to be as perpendicular as possible and certainly always more than 45 degrees.
• The kinetic envelope of a tram can vary in width from 2.35 to 2.65 metres (1.3 metres either side of the centre line). The Dutch recommend a clear metre or 'deterrent strip' from the tram before including space for the cyclist. Thus the nearside of the tram should be at least 2.2 metres from the pavement kerb (allowing for a 1.2 metre cycle route and a 1 metre 'deterrent strip'). Thus, to accommodate cyclists the centre line of the tram rails must be at least 3.5 metres from the kerb - this is considerably less than the Dutch requirements, where 3.5 metres is the minimum distance from the kerb to the nearside edge of the tramcar.
• Parked cars must not be allowed to force cyclists into crossing tram rails unless at a minimum angle of 45 degrees. Therefore parking and unloading restrictions are essential, with space specially allocated at least 2 metres away from the nearside of trams.
• The great speed differences between cyclists and motorised traffic and taking account of items raised above, in particular relation to trams, it is essential that tram speeds are severely regulated if any of the above recommendations are compromised. While in Holland planning standards are designed to allow for 8 year-old cyclists, the London Cycling Campaign recommended that a competent 12 year-old should be accommodated.
• There are no specific Dutch recommendations for tram rail groove width. Experience in Holland shows that at 36mm cycle wheels can get trapped; while 42mm allows the wheel to be removed. The fact that bicycle wheels on roads in London measure from less than 20mm to over 45mm wide demonstrates the importance of the crossing angle at which bikes are expected to cross tram lines.

• To avoid cyclists' being forced out into the road in order to get round a parked trams, the best solution would appear to be the Dutch one in which the cycle lane continues along the INSIDE of the stop. Embarking and alighting tram passengers cross the cycle lane to reach the pavement, a much less dangerous manoeuvre than cyclists having to swerve out around the tram into the mainstream of the traffic.

Finally the London Cycling Campaign follows the Highway Code which allows for the accommodation of all road users on the highway. The London Cycle Network offers the traffic management of popular routings but in no way diminishes the responsibility on all highway authorities to make road installations safe for cyclists.

1. It is assumed that all cyclist crossings already planned in association with established cycle networks will be accommodated with the necessary signalling.
2. It is assumed that all cyclist crossings associated with the Red Route Network will be accommodated with the necessary signalling.
3. It is assumed that controlled cyclist crossings or cyclist bypasses will be introduced at all places where cyclists are forced to cross tram lines at angles shallower than 45 degrees.
4. Cyclist bypasses must be introduced for all the left-hand tram platforms shown on the plans.
5. Cyclist bypasses must be introduced where the centre line of tram tracks is less than 3.5 metres from the left-hand kerb.
6. Proper allowance must be made for all signage associated with cyclist manoeuvres.

Option A contains cycle unfriendly tram rail wandering out of a traffic lane (southern edge of plan). This makes option B preferable.

Option B contains cycle unfriendly tram rails wandering across a traffic lane (northern edge of plan). This makes option A preferable.

Upper plan contains cycle unfriendly tram rails wandering across the lane on the corner outside the Public House no.336 Western Road.

This plan contains cycle unfriendly tram rails wandering across the path of cyclists south of Upper Green East.

Option A contains cycle unfriendly tram rails wandering across the path of cyclists travelling from Upper Green East to Commonside West.

Option B contains cycle unfriendly tram rails wandering across the path of cyclists travelling

From Commonside East to Commonside West. This option also combines hazards for cyclists by installing tram rails at a roundabout.

Of drawings 970125/MAN/105 & 6 above, option B looks a better contender to find space for a suitable cyclist bypass to the hazards described.

We applaud Merton Council and Maunsell Ltd for their approach to consultation and we support the introduction of trams as an additional public transport option, and as a useful alternative to the private car for some journeys in Merton.

However, the introduction of one valid alternative to the car must not be detrimental to cycling, an equally valid alternative to the private motor car, and supported by both national and local government as set out in the National Cycling Strategy and the Merton Cycling Strategy. Both these documents contain targets to double cycling by 2002 (baseline year 1996), targets which can only be achieved if cycling becomes safer, and is perceived by the general public to become a safe alternative mode of travel. The reappearance of trams on Merton's roads must not be at the expense of the safety of cyclists.

We would like to register our request that bikes be permitted to be conveyed on trams, and that consideration is given to this at the earliest stages of tramcar design.

1. Lessons must be learnt from Sheffield. The circumstances of all incidents should be understood, and lessons drawn. Results of coroner's enquiries and recommendations should be made available to Merton Councillors and traffic engineers. It is our understanding that the Transportation Policy Unit of Sheffield City Council has undertaken serious research, and prepared a report on Supertram and safety of cyclists.

Contact details are:

Transportation Unit, Sheffield City Council, Town Hall, Sheffield S1 2HH.

Head of TPU: Peter Stubbs Tel: 0114 273 5499.

Section Head of TPU: Nick Silvani Tel: 0114 273 5031. Fax: 0114 273 5002.

2. Please arrange for a sample length of tram track to be embedded into a local road as planned, so that we and Merton Councillors and officers may test-run the routes on our bikes and satisfy ourselves that the tracks will be safe for cyclists.
3. Please inform us of the maximum slot width and minimum nearside clearance between tram and kerb proposed for this route.
4. Consultation with other groups: the above comments are restricted to cycling matters. We suspect that access for pedestrians, and especially disabled pedestrians, may well be compromised by some aspects of the plans. May we recommend that you add the local group of the Pedestrians Association and local disabled rights groups to your consultation list.
5. We request that Merton Council and Maunsell Ltd consider the above points, and through the forum of our monthly liaison meetings with Merton Council raise any areas where discussion may be necessary.

I look forward to hearing from you

Yours Sincerely

Richard Evans

Cc:

Roger Casale MP

Siobhain McDonagh MP

Cllr Joyce Paton, Merton Traffic & Safety Forum

Cllr Philip Jones, Chair, LBM Planning Services

Romney Tansley, Croydon Cycling Campaign

John Sarsen, Chair, London Cycling Campaign Integrated Transport Group

David Bocking, Sheffield Cycling Campaign