Bouncing Buggies

Look, I know that I have gone on about dropped kerbs before, but now that we are using a pushchair again they are literally in sharp relief.

This is a short post and actually more of a plea to my peers to get dropped kerbs right. Ten years ago, we were pushing our son around in his buggy and every time we crossed the road, the dropped kerbs were either high or no existent.

A dropped kerb done properly. No slowing down, no wheelies and
no baby being tipped up.

Going into the road, we developed the skill of pulling a wheelie and lowering the buggy on its rear wheels (where the kerb was high) and doing the same to get up the other side. 

Loaded down with shopping, it was a pain and hard work. Get it wrong and the front wheels would hit the opposite kerb and tip the buggy forward while you bounced it around trying to get out of the road.

Ten years later and with a new baby, things have improved (not everywhere of course). Round my way, we have plenty done well with a gentle ramp; and with a kerb flush to the road. It makes pushing that buggy really easy.  I have had a hand in this by pushing colleagues within the highways team to get them right and the correct way to do things is now in our standard drawings - if contractors do it wrong, out it comes! It also helps having a Clerk of the Works as obsessed with this detail as I am!

There are other ways to do it. Speed tables at the entry to a side road means the level of the road comes up to the level of the footway with little or no ramp to worry about; effort to cross is further reduced.

Flush kerbs are an issue for blind and partially-sighted people, hence the use of tactile paving. I know it is hated by urban designers and architects, but if you rely on being able to find the edge of the footway, it is quite important.

Bromell's Road, Clapham.

Of course, we can go one stage better and prioritise pedestrians across side roads by continuing the footway across. No ramps, no tactile paving and so meets the objectives of being accessible to all and looking good (although getting this right would be a post in itself).

Level access is helpful to me pushing the baby in her buggy - my normal mobility is reduced. Getting details like this is vital for people using wheelchairs, mobility scooters and walking aids, because even the slightest lip makes crossing difficult or impossible.

So, my message to all designers and people supervising footway works is simple - gentle gradients and flush kerbs. It costs no more to do it properly and actually, you have no excuse not to do it properly.

Babies, Blankets, Buggies, Buses & Bicycles

Life constantly changes and in my household change has been brought about by the birth of our third child, Poppy.

Of course, there is a highways/ transport angle with a new baby - this is a highways blog after all! Before I go on, an apology as I know that for some people babies are a complete turn off for a variety of reasons, but they are a part of the cycle of life I guess, so bear with me (see what I did there).

The run up to the birth was not easy and involved regular trips to our local hospital. The why is not important here, but the how is. Regular readers will know that I have a car (many people have more than one in outer-London as so we are considered a bit weird round our way!). Our car sits around most of the time gathering dust and this partly continued during the pregnancy, although it did more miles than usual recently.

My wife had a few stays in hospital and so the lunchtime routine was biking over to the hospital for a visit and then driving the kids over in the evening. I am fortunate to be able to bike to work and the regional hospital is close to work which enabled me to stick to two-wheels where possible (plus I have a very understanding boss).

The visits with the kids were by car because our (now middle) child is still on stabilisers and I didn't want to take them home late in the evening by bus. My wife had a few appointments which she did get the bus to and I met her by bike. The other factor to consider is the high cost of hospital parking - £18 over 12-hours, although discounts were available when the office was open (which it wasn't in the middle of the night!).

I wonder what Poppy's transport choices will be as
she grows up?

The day before Poppy was born, my wife took the other two kids with her by bus to the hospital for a routine checkup and I met them from work (by bike of course). The homeward journey was by bus with me racing them home (I easily won over the 4 mile distance!). That evening, we left the kids with relatives and went back by car. Within a few hours, she was born!

My first child was born at another hospital which was within easy walking distance, but ten years later, there has been substantial centralisation (and hospital land sell-offs) which puts the closest hospital at 4 miles for us. For many other people, our regional hospital is harder to get to and they have to take multiple buses, expensive taxis or drive and pay the charges. We also have the policy of "choice" in which health services we use, but for most people, there is no choice because of the lack easy non-car transport options - choice is limit to the closest service.

This illusion of choice shows the huge political disconnect between all sorts of public services and transport. Be it kids travelling (or being driven) across town to their school of choice or people having to spend half the day on buses getting to a regional hospital for treatment. Choice is easy when you can drive everywhere.

To be fair to our local NHS trust, they have a very busy travel champion who has tirelessly lobbied for more bus routes going into the hospital and has increased and improved cycle parking at the regional hospital (for staff and visitors). But, the local roads are congested and cycling feels far from safe, so travel planning needs to go far beyond the grounds. The hospital will be building new car parking soon to cope with the extra services being centralised.

As far as this blog goes, cycling will of course remain a large part of my thinking, but expect other things to creep in such as access to public transport and difficulties for pedestrians as our mobility changes with journeys being made with a push chair - it is amazing how more difficult travelling life becomes with a baby (if you try to avoid the car that is) and I will post some of the experiences. I have often said that anyone designing highway schemes needs experience life from a user point of view, although I am not suggesting that babies should be compulsory for engineers! Perhaps my posts will get you thinking.

ALARM Rises At Lack Of Road Maintenance

short post this week to moan once again about the woeful lack of funding going into highway maintenance.

The Asphalt Industry Alliance's (AIA) 2014 Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance (ALARM) survey has a headline grabbing figure of the road maintenance backlog in England, London & Wales rising from £10.5 billion last year to £12 billion this year. I should state that the AIA is an industry group which exists to promote the use of asphalt (and of course lobby government at all levels), but the survey has a high level of response from local authority maintenance people and it is well respected in the industry.

Being London-based, I was interested to learn that one of the survey's key findings was that on average each authority would need a one off investment of £36 million just to bring things up to a reasonable standard. Wales is "better" at £20 million per authority, but England (excluding London) is a staggering £90 million per authority.

For roads being resurfaced, you need to wait 68 years in England and Wales, but "just" 36 years in London. Of course, this is average - for a main 'A' class roads, resurfacing might be every 7 to 10 years and so on average it means that the local road network is suffering even more. For schemes like the London Quietways project (forgetting for a minute if it will be any good or even delivered) does this mean that walking and cycling will be confined to pot-hole ridden moonscapes?

The survey deals with carriageways (roads) and so the impact on footways, cycle tracks and the like must be even worse. The highway network is the biggest asset we have in the UK, but we have neglected it for decades which is a national scandal. So, a jump in the backlog of 15% in a single year is staggering - perhaps the politicians might realise that "things" need to be maintained and perhaps "we" public need to realise that we might actually need to pay for it?

So, as the Government embarks on the biggest road building programme since the 1970s, I wonder if we will be able to afford to maintain all of this tarmac. If only there were easier and cheaper ways to manage our road space to make travelling easier, cheaper, more active and safer.

The full survey can be downloaded here.

Clutter Buster

Brace yourselves, I agree with eric pickles on something. yes both you and I are now feeling sick. actually, we agree on a very narrow area of life and that is street clutter.

Blue paint, unnecessary pedestrian guardrail and an advert board.
Three bits of clutter. Not sure the lights hanging above the road do
much for the street scene either.

It has taken us decades in many cases, but we have managed to stuff our streets are full of clutter. It is a combination of "official" stuff such as signs, guard rails, bins, bollards, road markings and dare I state it, blue paint (at least in London). This could also include advertising boards and hoardings where planning permission was granted. Then we have the unofficial stuff like the shop advertising boards, bin bags left on the footway or cars parked everywhere (Eric and I probably part ways at that point).

Of course (and as usual), Pickles was out to criticise local authorities. It is his hobby and I doubt he has ever taken the time to try and understand why some of the things get put in our our streets. If we are really going back to the basics, then we could do a lot worse than always asking ourselves the following question when planning elements of a scheme or reviewing an existing layout:

"does it perform a useful job?"

If the answer is no, then you probably need to remove it. Let's think about some examples. Pedestrian guard rail (PGR) is the obvious one. Nominally installed to keep pedestrians safe, PGR has covered our streets and may things more dangerous in many cases. If people are safely penned in, then they cannot wander into the path of traffic. On the flip side, drivers get used to pedestrians not crossing the road and so begin to ignore the fact that they are there.

OK, see through PGR has been provided, but I
wonder if it was really needed at all?

PGR can be useful in some limited circumstances. I have used it right outside school gates on busy roads not to keep the kids from running into the road (is there any actual evidence of this lemmingesque behaviour?), but to stop people accidentally stepping into the road during the crowding one can get at the school gate. Of course, this use of PGR does not deal with the busy road or the lack of capacity on the footway but we sometimes we do have to just deal with the symptom. I am not happy about it, but it is life - especially in skint local government.

I have covered desire lines before and really that should be the starting point which means PGR is not needed. Where people crossing a road are made to come off their line, PGR might be useful within a high speed environment, although if people can easily walk round it then it is a waste of time. The problem is that it can also be a trap for people on bikes. Oh and it is not designed to prevent vehicle impacts despite the amount of times I am ask to put it in to protect someone's garden wall.

Traffic signs (and I include road markings) are over designed and over used. Much of the problem is the complexity of the rules governing their use which leads to over specification as many designers do not understand how it all works. There are some signs we do need such as for speed limits, parking controls, banned turns, no entries and the like - actually signs which regulate are required because they give effect to Traffic Regulation Orders (Traffic Management Orders in London). I would also add that signs are relatively cheap and nobody likes a sign more than a local councillor who wants to see to be doing something!

Chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual - what a read!

Warning signs are so overused I wonder if they have much effect any more. Some are useful such as "traffic signals ahead" on a high speed road where visibility is not quite perfect and indeed at traffic speeds above 50mph they are (almost) mandatory (the guidance states they should be used rather than must be used). In a normal 30mph urban situation they really do not need to be used.

The "zebra crossing ahead" sign seems to be put in as a matter of routine by many people without any reference to guidance. Again, it should only be used when there is a specific visibility issue - possibly the crossing is over a hill. Of course is this a sensible place for the crossing? It might be on the desire line and to improve visibility by moving it might mean people don't use it. The other thing is that the sign does not look like a zebra crossing and many people are not actually sure what it means.

On the entrance to a side road, speed limit signs don't need to be lit.

Sometimes traffic signs need to be lit. Normally, if the road is an A-road and is lit, the signs will be lit to help them stand out from the generally levels of illumination (if that make sense). Apart from some regulatory signs in most other situations, signs don't need to be lit but some designers just specify lighting without checking. Speed limit signs are a good example. If the limit changes part way along a lit road, then the speed limit signs need to be lit. If the speed limit changes at the entrance to a side road, they don't need to be lit, but it is amazing how often side road signs are lit.

Apart from the energy and maintenance costs associated with signs which don't need lighting, there is the extra clutter created by the lighting units and the wide-based posts which take the power supply - simply not needed.

My point with signs and indeed road markings is to always start with nothing and only put in what is needed. If this was the approach, streets would look so much better. The big problem with all of this is managing parking. The UK takes the approach that one may park where one likes unless there is a restriction and to restrict parking, we need more traffic signs and road markings, only we don't.

The Traffic Signs (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations and General Directions 2011 made some changes which can help reduce sign and line clutter in both town centres and residential areas.

Although around for a while with permission from the Department for Transport on a case by case basis, we are now fully able to use Restricted Parking Zones. Done properly, the entry points to the zone has a sign giving the restrictions and repeater signs replace the yellow lines. 

Parking or loading bays can be "marked" with paving designs or bollards, although the parking bay signs are still required. The large sign on the left is an image of a RPZ entry sign which basically tells drivers that parking and loading is banned in all places except in signed bays. The yellow sign is the repeater sign which replaces the double yellow lines and kerb blips for the loading ban. 

Although the signs are needed, the visual impact of the road markings is removed totally. The image (from Google) is Chester City centre which has a RPZ in force which has indeed done away with road markings. At the end of the zone, a "zone ends" sign is needed, but that can go on the back of the entry sign.

For self-contained areas operating permits, we can get rid of all of the parking bay markings. The two signs on the right of the above image are the entrance/ exit signs which are used. Again repeater signs are used in the permit area (they would have been needed for the bays anyway) and if there are places where no parking is allowed, then sections of double yellow lines are needed. I have been involved with one scheme like this which restricted 4 roads which were accessed from a single point. So easy.

The bus flag did not need planning permission, but
when combined with the shelter and lamp column, it
is all rather crap for pedestrians and bike riders on
this shared-use track

OK, what about non-local authority clutter? On-street advertising is something I really detest. Whether it is an advert board (A-board) put out on the footway by a shop (often without permission or licence) or a permanent advert stuck in the middle of a shopping centre, they not only create visual clutter, they block the free flow of people walking. Many adverts require planning consent and this is one area Mr Pickles does have oversight with.

There is guidance available and I suggest campaigners read it and challenge their local councils on their enforcement and licencing policies. Briefly (and subject to various rules) there are things which don't need planning consent such as bus stop timetables, for sale signs and A-boards on private forecourts for example; everything else does.

A strange middle ground exists with some poster sites known as "4-sheet" which is the size of bus shelter adverts (which you see on the end panel). They mustn't be lit and mustn't be larger than 2.16 square metres. They must be on a purpose designed structure for the poster panel and have permission from the highway authority (S115E of the Highways Act 1980). Of course once the poster is lit, then it requires consent.

OK, my ramblings are a little cluttered, but I think you get the gist - things need to earn their place on the streets and I haven't even commented on how rows of parked vehicles create clutter! I will leave you with a story on how a traffic sign did solve a clutter problem.

As a vestige of privatisation, British Telecom has a "Universal Service Obligation" to provide telephone call boxes for social and community reasons. The other telecoms operators are not saddled with this (apart from Kingston Communications by a historical quirk) and so poor old BT lose money on the call boxes because of falling demand, cost of maintenance etc.

Before - the old phone box

So, to offset the cost of providing call boxes, they have been working with advertising companies to sell the space available on them. With a normal call box, a non-illuminated post of less than 2.16 square metres can of course be put up without planning consent.

But this is not big enough for the advertisers and so BT is working with the advertising industry to provide large, lit poster panels which have a telephone attached. The argument is that the structure does not need planning permission as it is for the telephone and as BT has powers to install a call box, it does need highways permission to install it. They only need planning consent for the lit advert.

After - the advert panel aimed at drivers
(the phone is on the other side)

There has been debate in planning and legal circles whether this is within the law, but I don't know if it has been challenged - if you know, please do let me know. 

In my example, we had a call box which was replaced with one of these poster-phone combinations. The problem was that not only did is substantially reduce the footway width it ruined the visibility at a T-junction just behind it. Pulling out of the side road, one had no view of traffic on the main road.

I met the advertiser to explain the concern and it was like water off a duck's back on the basis that there was nothing we could do - you have to understand, planning permission for the poster itself was very hard to refuse - technically it was the structure that was the issue and that was lawfully installed using BT's powers.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I dealt with numerous resident and councillor complaints which just sucked in time. The planning and legal departments ummed and aahed and so eventually I concocted a plan. The advert panel is hinged at the top and so opens up for the advert to be changed. What I did was to arrange a traffic sign to warn people on the main road that there was a side road ahead and to replace the obscured cycle route warning sign.

Using highway authority powers, the sign was installed right in front of the advertising panel so that it couldn't be opened to change adverts and coincidentally, the sign completely blocked the view of the advert. The advertiser was not happy and threatened us with action. My answer was that as highway authority, we had the power to install the sign and we only did so because of the junction visibility being blocked. Eventually the advert was removed and we took out the sign. Sadly, there is no call box at all now, but the point was made - I do question the conscience of advertisers placing things to attract driver's attention, but that is a post for another day.