UK to get first Dutch-style roundabout in Cambridge

[Bryn666]

Sustrans are in danger of rendering themselves irrelevant by still thinking cycling is just what 7 year olds do on a Sunday.

[Berk]

Did you mean by promoting shared-use cycle paths?? Whilst I’m content to allow the things, they seem an unmitigated disaster - no-one in two wheels wants to use them.

Question for you: if we wanted to ‘go Dutch’ (i.e. have a surfaced cycle track, parallel to the road - possibly with barrier), how much width would be required?? Or in pure road terms, how much carriageway would be required, even if the road stays S2??

[Brigham]

For cycling to take its proper place in Urban transport, proper cycle infrastructure will be needed. A dotted line along an existing road may qualify for Government grants, but it doesn't qualify as safe, effective cycling provision.
ALL new road schemes need to incorporate safe and effective provision for cyclists. New 'clearway' schemes need to have separate cycle lanes incorporated before they can qualify as such. Existing clearways should be uprated within a fixed period or downgraded.
Urban junctions need to be re-modelled on the Dutch pattern. We don't even need to do the research; it's already been done.
THEN, once the new correctly-designed infrastructure is installed, PUT THE CYCLISTS ON IT.
NO BUTS.

[ChrisH]

Did you mean by promoting shared-use cycle paths?? Whilst I’m content to allow the things, they seem an unmitigated disaster - no-one in two wheels wants to use them.

Question for you: if we wanted to ‘go Dutch’ (i.e. have a surfaced cycle track, parallel to the road - possibly with barrier), how much width would be required?? Or in pure road terms, how much carriageway would be required, even if the road stays S2??

This is a helpful way of looking at the problem, because it brings discussions to a head quite quickly.

An S2 formation with 2m footways, 2m cycle lanes in each direction (including some segregation) and a 3.5m traffic lane in each direction would come to 15m between building lines, or 11m between kerbs. Note that a standard S2 road in the UK is 7.3m between kerbs. This is just for running lanes and doesn’t include any width needed at bus stops, loading/parking bays, turning lanes, central islands for traffic signals etc. etc.

Another way to look at this is to see what’s been done for real in different situations. In London, the schemes I’m familiar with include Victoria Embankment (18.8m between kerbs) and Blackfriars Road (16m between kerbs). Blackfriars Road is a decent example (if I say so myself!) of demonstrating what can be done in that width, which provides one traffic lane in each direction, plus appropriate turning and kerbside provision; a 4m bidirectional cycleway and footways as wide as they were previously. You could squeeze it a bit but you rapidly lose the utility of those different components. Kensington High Street is 15m wide, and that 1m difference from Blackfriars means that everything would be uncomfortably narrow.

[Berk]

It sounds broad, but like you say, pretty tight on the ground. We do need to consider whether some roadside property is useful - whether for business use, or housing, and whether the ‘road’ should be widened to allow for cycleway construction.

When you add up the amount of retail space we have, some of it is on ‘main roads’, like local parades of shops. We need to consider whether they still serve a useful purpose in that location, if they otherwise inhibit targeted road widening in this context.

Moving some of those shops back to the town centre could give that a new breath of life. And a win for cyclists too.

[Euan]

Did you mean by promoting shared-use cycle paths?? Whilst I’m content to allow the things, they seem an unmitigated disaster - no-one in two wheels wants to use them.

Question for you: if we wanted to ‘go Dutch’ (i.e. have a surfaced cycle track, parallel to the road - possibly with barrier), how much width would be required?? Or in pure road terms, how much carriageway would be required, even if the road stays S2??

This is a helpful way of looking at the problem, because it brings discussions to a head quite quickly.

An S2 formation with 2m footways, 2m cycle lanes in each direction (including some segregation) and a 3.5m traffic lane in each direction would come to 15m between building lines, or 11m between kerbs. Note that a standard S2 road in the UK is 7.3m between kerbs. This is just for running lanes and doesn’t include any width needed at bus stops, loading/parking bays, turning lanes, central islands for traffic signals etc. etc.

Another way to look at this is to see what’s been done for real in different situations. In London, the schemes I’m familiar with include Victoria Embankment (18.8m between kerbs) and Blackfriars Road (16m between kerbs). Blackfriars Road is a decent example (if I say so myself!) of demonstrating what can be done in that width, which provides one traffic lane in each direction, plus appropriate turning and kerbside provision; a 4m bidirectional cycleway and footways as wide as they were previously. You could squeeze it a bit but you rapidly lose the utility of those different components. Kensington High Street is 15m wide, and that 1m difference from Blackfriars means that everything would be uncomfortably narrow.

2m seems quite generous for footways on each side of the road - many pavements (especially older ones) are barely 1m wide in places, although this is a bit too narrow. Practically a width of about 1.5m metres would be doable in most situations, although you could get by with even less if a one-way system could be set up on the footways somehow. Even though 2m does seem a bit wide for one-way cyclist traffic, it does provide plenty of width to cycle at a fast speed fairly safely. Even better, it is wide enough for cyclists to overtake each other without having to use much if any of the car lane at all.

[FosseWay]

2 metres is necessary for a one-way cycle path to allow overtaking, but apart from overtaking, a single line of cyclists doesn't need that much space as a general rule. Therefore there are savings to be had by trying to fit both directions onto one side of the motor road - say a total width of 3 m - because cyclists can then overtake using the oncoming lane, oncoming traffic permitting.

Sweden is mostly better than the UK at this sort of thing, but this piece of worthless detritus is evidence that even countries that apparently know what they are doing can have bad days. Each side of the road has its own cycle path crammed between the roadway and the line of trees. It's barely wide enough for one bike, and overtaking is completely impossible without (illegally) using the twice-as-wide footway to the right. This "facility" is not old; it was built 3-4 years ago.

As it happens there is a two-way cycle path parallel to this, along the waterfront (alongside the floating carpark in this view - it is older than the GSV image). I don't think the distance from the solid line separating the cycle path from the footway to the centre line of the two-way cycle path is any greater than the width of the one-way cycle path above, but it is perfectly easy to overtake slower cyclists there.

[steveway]

Just read the full thread and surprised no-one has mentioned the 'mini-holland' schemes in Enfield and Walthamstow. I'm not familar with the Walthamstow scheme, but the Enfield one is extensive and now fully complete on the A105 from the A406 to the A110, with the construction well advanced on the A1010. The A1010 scheme also includes a 'shared space' junction that is proving baffling to many drivers - details here

I think it's a good scheme, although there are some vociferous residents who continue to protest about it...

It suffers from the issues mentioned above, cars blocking the cycle lane despite 'Give Way' markings (see streetview ) and cyclists being in the blind spot of drivers turning left (the junction in street view demonstrates this).

[Jim606]

I wondered about starting a new thread but, in the end I've opted for resurrecting this old one. Unfortunately there has been another recent death at the Battersea Queen's Circus roundabout. This time involving a young woman on a electric scooter https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48968912. In 2018 a cyclist was also killed at the same location https://road.cc/content/news/245299-lon ... ritics-had Now, this recent tragedy throws up lots of issues. Critics of the roundabout stated that the whole thing was too complicated re; this quote from the above Road CC article;

But when the London Borough of Wandsworth revealed the design of the roundabout in August 2014, critics said it failed to meet Dutch standards for infrastructure.

> Cool reception for "hugely complicated" London segregated roundabout plan

The council was also criticised for prioritising motor vehicles rather than cyclists, and for putting traffic lights on the roundabout, which also uses kerbs and traffic islands to provide segregation. At the time, the London Cycling Campaign said: "Currently cyclists make up about a third of the morning peak hour flow on the roundabout. Often there are so many that they fill a whole traffic lane and cars give them space. "The new design gives less space to cyclists with added delay… That can only lead to congestion and risk taking behaviour." It added: "While the proposals at Battersea provide segregation from motor traffic at the busiest points it is at the cost of a confusing set of signals which are likely to increase the number of times cyclists have to stop and increase the waiting time, especially for those coming out of town in the evening peak." Stop Killing Cyclists co-founder Donnachadh McCarthy also hit out at the plans when they were announced, saying: "The design at present is quite confusing, which makes it more dangerous.” He added that the design of the roundabout “requires the cyclists to stop at lights, whereas in Dutch designs, the cyclists would have right of way.”

The warnings from the above article seem to have come true. Queen's Circus does seem rather confusing, the cycle lanes are a mix of protected and advisory, plus the junctions seem to be badly thought out (left hook dangers), plus there appears to be no connecting network of cycleways attached to the roundabout.

[roadtester]

Update on the Dutch-style roundabout in Cambridge - costs escalating, apparently.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... um=custom7

[jervi]

https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.1 ... -15.09p,1z
After seeing this, please try to keep calm. After pointing it out to the council as a direct violation of guidance in the TSM, they said they are going to remove it soon as they are planning on renewing the white lines there anyway soon.

[Debaser]

https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.1 ... -15.09p,1z
After seeing this, please try to keep calm. After pointing it out to the council as a direct violation of guidance in the TSM, they said they are going to remove it soon as they are planning on renewing the white lines there anyway soon.

That's like York's 'Magic Roundabout'. I thought that had been taken out and guidance was DO NOT USE, as the original was found to be dangerous?

[jervi]

That's like York's 'Magic Roundabout'. I thought that had been taken out and guidance was DO NOT USE, as the original was found to be dangerous?

I made a mistake, its from the DMRB, not the TSM.
DMRB CP195 E/5.5
"Cycle lanes shall not be provided on the perimeter of the circulatory carriageway of a roundabout.
Cycle lanes on the perimeter of the circulatory carriageway of a roundabout encourage cyclists to take up a nearside position where they are vulnerable to being hit by vehicles exiting the roundabout."
In some situations, a cycle lane on the outer side of a roundabout may be okay, especially on larger gyratories where it is clearly marked that the cyclist gives way to exiting traffic.
Such as here https://www.instantstreetview.com/@50.8 ... .55p,0.68z
But of course, faster cyclists are always going to favor taking up a primary position on the actual roundabout so they don't have to give way and lose their momentum.

[B1040]

It looks terrifying for cyclists (wouldn't trust all vehicles to give way) and annoying for motorists (an unreasonable number of give ways, combined with unpredictable cyclists). Glad I don't cycle in that bit of Cambridge.

[Bryn666]

Update on the Dutch-style roundabout in Cambridge - costs escalating, apparently.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... um=custom7

Local authority and statutory undertakers failing to properly communicate in advance of detailed design seems to be the issue here as a few trial pits would identify any surprise stats that the absolutely shocking PDF plans the utilities make available don't show.

There are also problems with private driveways which render the final layout less than perfect.

It is very annoying that this project keeps hitting trouble because the concept is fine and something we should be doing more of along with the Cyclops type junction that Manchester unveiled this week and is working well.

[Jim606]

Manchester has just completed its first 'Cyclops' junction which I think has been mentioned in planning stage earlier in this thread. This style is quite revolutionary for the UK. However, I can't help thinking it is bit like UK engineers trying to reinvent the wheel. The Dutch know how to do these things better than most, but in the UK we have to go thru' a process of coming up with a 'slightly oval type wheel' just to see if it works better than a 'round one'! The cyclops junctions have pedestrians on the inside which is unusual, there is limited use of chamfered or forgiving kerbs to demarcate the cycleway, the surfacing is green - no adherence to any national standards (because UK doesn't have any and each council can do what it wants), use of 'out of date' advanced stop lines etc. etc. etc. Video-Manchester-council-unveils-CYCLOPS-cycle-way Image c/o About Manchester website

[Bryn666]

The reason a "simple Dutch" design wasn't used is because British traffic law is incompatible with it - you'd create conflicts between movements that would likely kill cyclists using the junction. Likewise, the inside out layout was also felt to be better for pedestrians, as they're not forced to look for two streams of traffic doing wildly different speeds as happens in Amsterdam.

The ASL is because of the vehicular cyclist mentality in Manchester (e.g. the leader of the council is one), the ones that refuse to be diverted onto a track and insist on riding with flow - this was done as a sop to those, not the inexperienced and timid riders that would use the designated facilities.

Your David Hembrow types will poo-poo anything done in the UK because they forget you can't just change road traffic law, if we were to wait for Dutch style traffic law we'd be 40 years down the line and cyclists would still be getting killed at junctions.

[FleetlinePhil]

That's like York's 'Magic Roundabout'. I thought that had been taken out and guidance was DO NOT USE, as the original was found to be dangerous?

I made a mistake, its from the DMRB, not the TSM.
DMRB CP195 E/5.5
"Cycle lanes shall not be provided on the perimeter of the circulatory carriageway of a roundabout.
Cycle lanes on the perimeter of the circulatory carriageway of a roundabout encourage cyclists to take up a nearside position where they are vulnerable to being hit by vehicles exiting the roundabout."

Clearly that message didn't get through to Trafford MBC. I have a feeling that the car parking bays on the roundabout were once the site of the bus stop visible on the road ahead - but not to worry, we still have a bus stop (on a traffic island) on the other side of the roundabout .

[jervi]

I made a mistake, its from the DMRB, not the TSM.
DMRB CP195 E/5.5
"Cycle lanes shall not be provided on the perimeter of the circulatory carriageway of a roundabout.
Cycle lanes on the perimeter of the circulatory carriageway of a roundabout encourage cyclists to take up a nearside position where they are vulnerable to being hit by vehicles exiting the roundabout."

Clearly that message didn't get through to Trafford MBC. I have a feeling that the car parking bays on the roundabout were once the site of the bus stop visible on the road ahead - but not to worry, we still have a bus stop (on a traffic island) on the other side of the roundabout .

Oh my, that does looks rather sketchy. It looks like they have just botched in the cycle lanes and a badly positioned bus stop.

[ManomayLR]

Bryn, I don't at all get how this Dutch-style roundabout is to work - considering you worked on the design you may be best placed to explain it...