Rush Job

OK, so last week's post was a bit whiney about the lack of action from the Government on traffic orders in the face of Coronavirus and so this week, I thought something a bit more positive and helpful was in order.

I'm going to mention things I have before, but it's probably useful to have things in one place. If you're an advocate, please direct your friendly local authority councillor, planner or engineer to this post because it might inspire them. 

In terms of governance, each highway authority will have processes for works to be signed off and so these should be followed. It is probably easier in a unitary authority as otherwise this will be a county council matter. For example, minor projects not requiring traffic orders may be delegated to a departmental head and larger projects may be with a cabinet member so it's worth checking out.

Designers also need to undertake proper risk assessments and keep proper notes setting out their design decisions - it's your design, not mine! We also must ensure we keep disabled people safe and there are ways we can assist such as stick down tactile paving.

The most powerful piece of legislation for making changes to highway layouts is held within Part V of the Highways Act 1980 - Improvement of Highways. In this part, there are all sorts of interesting powers given to highway authorities and I'll talk through some of the ones most useful in this current crisis. There's also other things which we can do which I'll pick up as I go along. This is the law in England and Wales and the rules are a little different in Scotland. Things are tougher in Northern Ireland because lots of things are done by order and I'm really not up on the mechanics of it - ask some questions please!

One point to make is that we cannot use these powers to close anything, so if general traffic is allowed on the street, this must continue to be accommodated, but that doesn't mean we have to allocate the same space it had before.

General Powers
S62 sets out the generality of the powers in Part V. Of interest here is the ability to;

• Vary the relative widths of carriageways and footways
• Construct cycle tracks,
• Install refuges, pillars, walls, barriers, rails, fences or posts for the use or protection of persons using a highway,
• Plant trees, shrubs and other vegetation,
• Install road humps,
• Install traffic calming.

The last two points are a little more complicated and require reference to other legislation.

Wider Footways

S66, paragraph 2 states;

"A highway authority may provide and maintain in a highway maintainable at the public expense by them which consists of or comprises a carriageway, such raised paving, pillars, walls, rails or fences as they think necessary for the purpose of safeguarding persons using the highway."

A footway is defined in S329 as;

"a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only"

It's a wide ranging power and the materials aren't specified, so we can use all sorts of temporary materials to build or widen footways such as;

• Water filled barriers
• Flexposts
• Crowd barrier
• Traffic cones
• Bales of straw
• Concrete blocks
• Planters - manhole rings and large tyres could be cheap options
• Benches
• Bollards
• Paint (as long as we aren't mimicking road markings)

Planters in Malmö

Frankly, anything you can get your hands on which is not going to create a safety risk (trips, falls etc) and will be reasonably conspicuous to drivers. We've the general power under S62 to vary the width of footways and carriageways, so don't worry about losing road space.

Car parking will of course be raised as a concern (this is the carcentric UK of course). If there's no parking controls, then crack on. In theory people will be able to park on the outside of the temporary scheme (because it's the edge of the footway), but a single solid white line along the edge of the temporary layout might help provide a "kerb". 

If the remaining carriageway is too narrow for two-way traffic then on the one hand that's no different to a narrow unrestricted street anyway. Obstructive parking can be enforced by the police and if it remains a problem, then things can be adjusted or followed up with a permanent traffic order. Each site will vary.

If there are already parking controls (waiting restrictions) then these apply to the width of the highway and so can be "floated" out to the new kerb line as can existing parking bays - the photograph below shows parking floated out for a painted cycle lane, but this can equally be the case for walking space.

One complication could be where authorities use map-based traffic orders with the bays "described" graphically as being against the kerb, but I'd go for it because I think people are more likely to whinge if the bay is removed rather than it being moved laterally. If we decide we can't move parking (or loading bays), then fine, widen what we can and leave the bays alone because we have created more space than we had.

Also, this is the same section giving powers to put in pedestrian guardrail - and to take it out again. Now would be a perfect opportunity to see if it's really needed because it steals 0.5m (generally) from its set back from the kerb and perhaps a little more because you can't walk right next to it usually. 

Cycle Tracks

S65 gives powers to build cycle tracks as follows in paragraph 1;

"...a highway authority may, in or by the side of a highway maintainable at the public expense by them which consists of or comprises a made-up carriageway, construct a cycle track as part of the highway; and they may light any cycle track constructed by them under this section."

A cycle track is defined under S329 as;

"a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles... ...with or without a right of way on foot"

In other words just for cycling or shared. In general, we're not going to be worried about people walking or jogging in a cycle track, temporary or otherwise. 

Again, we have a range of materials at our disposal as above and the same issues on parking should be considered, although having parking encroaching into a cycle track isn't going to work. For my mind, a row of wands and some cycle symbols might be enough to get us going.

Flexposts used to create a cycle track in Leicester

with the parking controls floated out

Planting
S96 gives the powers to plant stuff on the highway and this extends to fences, guards or other things to maintain or protect them (so that's planters formally covered).

Traffic Calming
I'm going to rule out road humps because they are rather more permanent that what I'm trying to help with in this post, but other forms of traffic calming will be useful and can be built with temporary materials. S90G contains the powers to to construct traffic calming and S90H states that the nature of traffic calming will be prescribed by the Secretary of State.

The prescription is contained in The Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999 and includes;

• build-outs, 
• chicanes, 
• gateways, 
• islands, 
• overrun areas, 
• pinch-points, 
• rumble devices,
• any combination of such works,
• Associated traffic signs.

We are also free to use planting, pillars, bollards, paving, railings etc. This is distinct from the footway widening and cycle track construction I have covered above because we are dealing with clearly defined installations.

Unlike the matters earlier, traffic calming does require consultation. The minimum requirements are to consult with the local chief of police (it's a formal thing) and "consult such persons or organisations representing persons who use the highway or who are otherwise likely to be affected by the traffic calming work as the highway authority thinks fit."

This might take longer because of decision-making process in the highway authority, but there are no traffic orders required and consultation does not mean agreeing with the feedback. With the traffic order process, the list of organisations to consult with is very prescriptive, whereas here it is a little less so. 

Highway authorities will generally maintain a list of organisations they regularly consult with (probably the same as with traffic orders to make it easy), but there is judgement here with the scale of the works (not forgetting residents and businesses).

The photograph above shows some trees planted in the carriageway as traffic calming pinch point. It is not a requirement to provide signage to give any precedence of one traffic direction over the other, but each site will be different.

Junctions
The discussion above lends itself to linear changes, but we can make all of the same alterations to junctions to make them smaller, to take footways and cycle tracks across them, install refuges and so on.

The photograph above is from NACTO's Twitter feed and shows a junction narrowing using temporary materials. Other than the zebra crossings, we can copy this using our Highways Act powers. The zebra crossings do require a notice to be published under S23 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Controlled Pedestrian Crossings
The only actual legal consultation for a zebra crossing is the chief of police, but public comments will be considered by the highway authority as it sees fit.

A temporary zebra crossing will need tactile paving (could be stick down), dropped kerbs, zig-zags and Belisha beacons, but there are now battery-powered portable beacons and solar beacons so we have another options.

We can also provide signalised crossings in the same way. We have to use S23 because we're not putting them in as part of road works. This might be getting beyond a temporary layout, but it's a tool to consider. Again, we need dropped kerbs, tactile paving and zig-zags.

Mandatory Cycle Lanes

New mandatory cycle lanes (solid white line) do not need traffic orders and in theory can just be painted. Again, there will need to be some governance around decision-making. The main issue is the loophole in the rules highlighted by Cycling UK which means one cannot park in a mandatory cycle lane, but since the need for an order was removed in 2016 people can park in post-2016 lanes.

So, the best place to add a mandatory lane in my view is where there are already parking controls - double yellow lines would be best. 

Advisory Cycle Lanes

Possibly a little easier than mandatory lanes, we can just put in advisory ones. Again, check the governance, but we can add them to existing situations or make current ones wider. It's not going to be perfect, but this is about showing the space. Normally I would say advisory lanes are a waste of time (they mainly are) but as part of a wider temporary scheme they have value I think.

If we also use them in conjunction with centre line removal, we might well have a bit of effect on driver speed as found by Transport for London. The Dutch do have some streets with this arrangement and a single width traffic lane for two-way traffic. In a UK context, I'd keep away from that, but a 5.5m general traffic space might be appropriate in many situations. We should also be painting them 150mm wide - too many authorities use 100m. There's a quick mock up of a before and after below.

Conclusion

the main conclusion here is to be clear of the decision making and governance processes in the highway authority and once that's known, there is lots we can toll out quickly.

Be careful to record design decisions and undertake risk assessments, but don't worry about perfection. If it looks right then it is right to a greater extent and we can make adjustments as we go. This is all very tactical and so keep an eye on the strategy as while this kind of work is rolled out, we can work permanent and experimental traffic order schemes which can add to or improve our tactical work.

In the longer term, we'll have some useful layouts in using temporary materials that we can gradually replace and given that the layouts have been installed with powers (and built on with items based on orders), we also have a set of shovel ready schemes.

Next Steps
This post is not aimed at individuals or groups doing their own thing, but you might be able to assist your local council in making things happen. The most important thing (other than getting stuff done) is to tell those stories and so when things get built, get out on social media and publicise what has been done and how it was done.

By getting the stories out, we'll give people the confidence that they can also pick up the ideas and run with them. As my post last week showed, we are not getting any leadership from the Government and so it is up to us to make things happen using the powers we have.

Resources
Here's a couple of resources for inspirations. First, NACTO gives a bit of free advice on it's website on interim design strategies. or you might get some inspiration from the Tactical Urbanist's Guide.

Shameless Plug
I don't usually do this through the blog, but if you are a local authority person and need some proper help with this, get in contact and we can discuss a commission. My day job commands a significant staff resource with plenty of clever people who can advise from a design and safety point of view.

It's The Least They Could Do

At least in my part of the transport world, there is a solid consensus that in the light of the Coronavirus, we should be doing more to help people safely exercise and make essential local trips.

It was therefore great to see that Brighton & Hove City Council will be making Madeira Drive a place for walking and cycling by temporarily banning motor traffic from Monday between 8am and 8pm; there will be stewarded access for businesses from the east. The street is right along the seafront at beach level which makes it a great place for the scheme. Madeira Drive doesn't go anywhere - the parallel A259 Marine Parade is for through traffic and so when the crisis is over, I really hope the city looks at repurposing more of the space on a permanent basis because at the moment, it's mainly turned over to car and coach parking. 

The change has come in no small part to the efforts of Mark Strong, the managing consultant of Transport Initiatives and long time resident of the city. Mark has been pushing for some safe space to enable people to exercise and his note setting out why and how local authorities can take action has been a fantastic resource for people to understand the subject - it has also now been published as a CIHT blog post.

When cities across the world are well ahead of the UK on this matter (as always seems to be the case) a story like this really is newsworthy and there's a good write up by Carlton Reid in his piece for Forbes. Reid makes reference a "loosening" of the rules around traffic orders by the Department for Transport with reference to guidance published this week. While there is a positive that the DfT has provided guidance in the face of the crisis, the cynic in me sees it as the least that they could do. Why am I cynical?

The advice note makes reference to two pieces of legislation;

The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992

Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996

The first relates to England, Wales and Scotland and essentially sets out the process how temporary traffic orders are dealt with. The latter of course relates to England and Wales with the Scottish equivalent being The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 which apparently has been missed in the DfT guidance. Northern Ireland has a different process which makes orders for all changes and again, not covered by the DfT.

In the case of the two areas of legislation (and the Scottish version of the second reference), these are Regulations which spawn from the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The RTRA1984 sets out the powers that traffic authorities have to manage traffic and are broadly covered by temporary traffic orders and permanent traffic orders. There are also experimental orders, but in essence, they end up with a permanent order in the end (if made permanent). The Regulations specify the processes traffic authorities must go through. In short, Act = powers to do stuff, Regulations = how stuff should be done.

So with the RT(TR)PR1992 (yes lots of short hand), this specifically refers to S14(1) of the RTRA1984 which reads as follows;

(1) If the traffic authority for a road are satisfied that traffic on the road should be restricted or prohibited—

(a) because works are being or are proposed to be executed on or near the road; or

(b) because of the likelihood of danger to the public, or of serious damage to the road, which is not attributable to such works; or

(c) for the purpose of enabling the duty imposed by section 89(1)(a) or (2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter clearing and cleaning) to be discharged,the authority may by order restrict or prohibit temporarily the use of that road, or of any part of it, by vehicles, or vehicles of any class, or by pedestrians, to such extent and subject to such conditions or exceptions as they may consider necessary.

It's therefore about managing works on the highway, dealing with danger or street cleansing and not intended to be for some sort of temporary traffic management layout to test things out or to give people space as with the virus. Danger from traffic to people exercising is not a legitimate use, this would be about a road collapse, dangerous building etc.

For permanent traffic orders, the process is set out in the LATO(P)(E&W)R1996 as they are with the Scottish equivalent and this includes the experimental traffic order process.

In both cases, the "relaxations" from DfT relate to the following;

• Advertising traffic orders in local newspapers
• Placing notices on site
• Making documents available to the public

The requirements do vary a little depending on what we are doing, but I won't bother with the detail here. With the first point if an advert in the local paper is needed and the paper has gone digital, the DfT is saying advertising in it won't reach everyone because not everyone has internet access and so the traffic authority should put in some extra effort to make sure everyone is informed. In the case where the local paper has closed, then the advice is also do more, but be able to demonstrate the fact. 

Where a site notice is required, the advice is that it is still required and so traffic authorities should put procedures in place for the safety of staff in terms of the virus, but if they decide not to use site notices, then weigh up the risk (which I assume is from a challenge to the order which may well be low in the current circumstances).

With making documents available, traffic authorities are meant to make them available for the public to inspect during normal office hours at the principal place of business. Clearly, many offices are closed and we don;t want people travelling to see traffic orders. The advice is to therefore perhaps place on the council's website or display outside their offices, both with telephone numbers or email address for more help. The latter means notice boards are required and people would still need to travel and this is not a legitimate reason to travel under the Coronavirus laws anyway.

In my view, the advice doesn't remove any requirements from the traffic authorities responsibilities under the law, it merely gives some suggestions about complying as best as possible under the current situation. So what, you might ask. Indeed, perhaps it's only people like me that worry about stuff like this and in fact, many traffic authorities go way beyond the Regulations in any case because stuff is routinely on websites anyway and there are often letter or leaflet drops taking place. Even placing site notices by staff can be safely managed with a safe system of work.

I think the reason I take an interest is because even under crisis conditions, we simply get no practical help from the Government. Other than literally doing nothing and leaving traffic authorities to it, the DfT advice is the minimum help. Something more progressive would have actually changed the regulations to make it easier to introduce temporary layouts. 

For example, a real help would have been to use Coronavirus legislation to amend the RTRA1984 to allow things to happen in order to provide people with more space and have this reflected in the Regulations. For example, they could have added another reason for a temporary order under S14(1);

d) for the purpose of providing additional public space for walking and cycling in order to enable people to safely exercise or make essential trips for the duration of Coronavirus legislation being in force.

OK, I'm not a lawyer, but you get my drift! Going back to the start of this post, I mentioned Mark Strong's note. My takeaway from it is that the best way forward would be for traffic authorities (from things which require traffic orders) is to go ahead using experimental orders to make changes and doing several things with the same order for efficiency. 

The experimental process is powerful because we can try things for size and adjust them. The first 6-month of a scheme is the public consultation and so we can cut right back on the detail of information going out because the layout will be on site for all to see. But we are still stuck with publishing the order 7 days in advance of it coming into force and having the issue of documents being made available to the public. 

The London Cycling Campaign and others have written to the transport minister, Chris Heaton-Harris MP, asking for the Government to encourage local authorities to roll out schemes to give people more space. I think we should be going further to streamline the process and to give some other options depending on the specific circumstances. What is clear at the moment is that few councils in the UK are planning anything and the Government isn't exactly helping.

The coalition government of 2010-2015 did try to streamline things in England before with one of the key things being making advertising in local papers optional because of the costs. The newspapers' were up in arms over the proposal because of the loss of advertising revenue with the local authorities as captive customers. The plans were shelved.

Kerb Your Enthusiasm: Forgiveness

It's nice when we happen on something useful without searching for it and over the weekend, it turned out that the UK has deployed a 30° splayed kerb.

Why is this important you ask? Well, in the kerbnerd world, this type of profile is somewhat a holy grail type of artefact - often discussed, sometimes found, but always lost once more (unless you happen to be Dutch).

The photograph above shows a typical Dutch cycle track running next to the footway and crucially, the kerb between the two has a splay of around 30°; that is the sloped face is at 30° to the horizontal. The kerb type is known as rijwielpadbanden or "cycle track kerb". This creates two important conditions. 

First, it enables people cycling to make full use of the cycle track compared with "kerb shyness" created by a vertical kerb. In designing a cycle track, a vertical kerb sterilises width. The Dutch CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic suggests that square edge of less than 50mm will create the need for a 200mm clearance and higher than 50mm will be 500mm (Figure 3.3 on p49 of the English 2017 for those following in detail). Losing up to half a metre is quite a bite out of a cycle track's width.

The reason for the clearance is simply in that where kerb heights are vertical, they create a risk of catching one's wheel and throwing one off - where the kerb height (upstand) is over 50mm, we have the same risk and the added potential to catch a pedal on the kerb.

Second, a sloping kerb means that people can more easily join or leave the cycle track mid-block, perhaps to access shops, premises or parking. This is good for most people, but vital for those who cannot dismount and who would otherwise have to try and find somewhere to leave/ join - a significant issue for some disabled cyclists. Here's a quick video of me cycling up and down a sloping kerb (a bit shallower than 30°) demonstrating why this profile is also known as a "forgiving" kerb.

One issue which isn't resolved in the UK is that of 50mm kerb heights and the use of 30° splay kerbs in terms of detectability for visually impaired people. The only study I'm aware of was under laboratory conditions which seemed to indicate 60mm was detectable by all participants with a 50mm not detected by one person in the test group. But the trial was also fairly limited and didn't consider splay kerbs. We really need to get some decent real-world research undertaken on this issue or some Dutch experience of how this all works.

So, where has the kerb been used in the UK and who manufactures it? My thanks go to Engineer Like a Girl and Toby Wells for the detective work that got us a scheme in Bristol which has used the kerbs manufactured by Aggregate Industries through their Charcon brand. I don't have the full details at the moment, but I'll speak to Charcon next week to get some more information, but the units are based on standard dimensions so they fit with conventional kerb types. Here's the scheme in Google Streetview on the A4044 in Bristol.

With the announcement of the access kerb (also by Charcon) a few months back, we now have two more elements for our design toolbox which takes us very close to being able to copy Dutch layouts. We still have traffic signal differences, but we can run them to protect people cycling and so the challenge is now there to transform a street with all of these tools used at once!

Go With The Flow

I'm still adjusting to the new normal, but I've now at least got a routine of sorts in place. I'm also pushing myself a bit to do some learning and ensure that my CPD* is being kept up to date.

What has been heartening is how my industry and academia has rallied round to put on training and events - most of it free or at least free to institution members. Mind you, Digital WorldBike 2020 stole the march on everyone because it was planned before the Coronavirus hit!

The event was a virtual cycle conference and as you would expect, it had different pavilions to visit - some trade (including sponsors) and some giving a variety of talks around sport, technology and mobility. For me, the main interest was in the technology and mobility talks and if you register, they are available until the end of April.

The first mobility talk from Marco te Brömmelstroet of the Urban Cycling Institute in Amsterdam was especially interesting with discussion on how much of surface transport is framed in language from the point of view of traffic-centric design. It was also interesting to hear his comments on how Dutch design means that cycling allows for person to person interaction with people making small adjustments to speed and direction to move around each other - enabled by infrastructure and the use of upright cycles. Someone cycling is 85% person and 15% technology whereas this is reversed for someone driving!

The discussion got onto the concept of "flow" which is the state of where one can cycle optimally and in such a way that time becomes irrelevant (or one doesn't notice its passing); that the challenge of moving around is matched by one's skill - in other words, when everything is working well, one can be lost in the moment continually - the psychology of happiness. He quotes a book by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on the subject which at least tempts me to learn more!

It's a funny thing, because this idea of "flow" also came up in a discussion between George Liu and Lior Steinberg in the Urban Cycling Institute's series on the CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. This discussion was around Chapter 5 (the road in section) and as with the rest of the series, free to watch either as a regular livestream or a recording on YouTube. The idea of flow from a technical point of view is where the five pillars of design come together where cycling is direct, feels safe, is comfortable, coherent and attractive.

It's something which I've thought about while cycling around for my exercise/ parcel deliveries this week. The one big thing to have happened on our streets and roads of course is the removal of huge traffic volumes. I cycled along a section of the A12 Eastern Avenue today for my daily exercise and parcel drop off - being a sunny Sunday morning obviously helped!

Remember, the only thing which has actually changed is the removal of traffic. The path is still a little narrow and needs some repairs. There is also buffer next to the road and side road interaction is occasional. The road usually takes 46,000 vehicles a day and so I wouldn't normally use it because it is noisy and polluted, but it was a traffic-free alternative to the route I'd usually take which is also quiet, but where I'm mixing with speeding drivers.

With just a handful of people driving, the place is completely different. The level of coherence hasn't changed - there isn't a decent local network and in fact, this path isn't strictly designated as a cycle route; plus the directness to where I was going hadn't changed. My perception of safety had improved because the roar of the traffic had gone (mostly tyre noise) - I didn't feel as exposed (despite being separated in the same way as business as usual would be). The fact that I couldn't smell pollution, that I could hear birdsong and that I had a clear view of the greenery on both sides of the road certainly enhanced it's attractiveness.

Feel safer and having a more attractive experience improved the levels of comfort too - it just felt better to cycle in the peaceful sunshine. The uneven parts of the path felt less of an issue because I wasn't focusing on them - I was looking around. It's not a route of choice for me because of the noise and pollution; I've only used it before when it was a direct choice to get to/ from somewhere. Today, I could have been cycling along a country road with on a cycle path, the difference was that stark. 

Crossing the odd side road was easier because nobody was coming out of them and I could easily hear that there was no traffic behind me turning in. At one large junction, there are no signals for those not in cars and usually it's about finding a gap and trying to cross in several bites. Today, I just meandered around the traffic islands and took the direct route crossing the side road to the right on the photograph below (taken from a nearby footbridge).

I wonder if I was grasping at the edges of this concept of "flow" - it was certainly a very pleasant place to ride and was reminiscent of my experiences of pootling along the roads of South Zeeland in the Netherlands. Perhaps I'm just grasping at positives, but that's no bad thing at the moment.

The other thing I have done this week is enroll on the Dutch Cycling Institute's MOOC - Unraveling The Cycling City. Unless you are going to complete the assignment (I am), the five week course is free. I'll be looking out for hints on how I can design for flow as I progress! Stay safe everyone.

*Continuing Professional Development