Springing Back To Brighton Part 1: Kermit & The Bikes

With a day off work and sunny weather forecast, I availed myself of a train ticket and headed to the coast for a long overdue trip to the City of Brighton & Hove. Of course, I was a bit more interested in infrastructure than the beach!

Back in the summer of 2014, I visited the city with the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain (my posts here and here) and yet again, Mark Strong of Transport Initiatives gave up his time to show me around. It was doubly nice to see him in person after a couple of years of the Pandemic putting a bit of hold on such things. It also made a great change from reporting from London and so I'm looking forward to getting a bit further afield more often.

I had fancied trying the city's bike share, BTN Bikeshare, as well as looking at a couple of bits of cycling infrastructure and so after arriving at Brighton Station, I found myself a hire dock and set about retrieving a cycle, having pre-registered for the "Easy Rider" option with the system's app. 

The Easy Rider option charges £1 to unlock a bike and then 3p per minute in use, so if you do two separate trips in a day, you'll be charged the £1 unlocking fee for each trip plus use. For regular users there's annual option which includes 30 minutes of riding per day and so even if you do a little more than that, it's still a competitive price.

There are two models of cycle in use. The newer version (above) is a bit of a tank, but living at the seaside means they have to be fairly robust and if I'm honest, they don't seem as well maintained as the London scheme that I am more used to. But with 8 gears, the ride was pretty good, although the front basket was a bit small and being handlebar-mounted, you'd have to watch the weight anyway, despite it being dampened.

There are a few ways to hire and unlock. For the first bike I used, I keyed in my account number and pin via the keypad (below) on the back of the bike and for the second, I used the app where you hire from the dock and you are allocated the bike number to unlock.

The technology used is a combination of an "active" bike with on-board GPS and keypad, and a "passive" dock which is essentially a row of big steel plates with a holes at the top. The bikes have their own U-locks which is a U-shaped bar which goes into two holes on the side of the bike and the hole on the plate on the dock (above). When hired, you pop the U-bar into the holder on the side (below). 

There is a facility whereby you can lock the bike up using the U-bar on any cycle stand or post and keep the bike hired (although you do still pay per minute). This could be useful if you are running errands. When you have finished your ride, you stop at the dock and lock up the bike with the U-bar and the hire ends (I assume the docks are geofenced). You also have the option of parking up and ending the hire anywhere within the scheme area (i.e. not at a dock), but you are charged a £2 restocking fee. If you pick up a bike away from a dock, you get a £1 credit which is a nifty way of getting a few back to the docks.

The photograph above is the older model of bike which I actually preferred as it was a little lighter and the seating position was slightly more upright. The really cool thing about this system is keeping the technology on the bikes because having passive docks makes their installation cheaper, simpler and more flexible to roll out and expand than those with technology at the dock. 

For the latter (as used on the London scheme), you need a power connection and TfL suggests you need at least 27 bikes per dock to make the site viable (p229). The TfL system is more flexible in terms of being able to hire a bike at a dock terminal with a payment card for ad-hoc hires. Of course, both systems require staff to maintain and restock which is a key economic consideration of any bike share. However, I really liked Brighton & Hove's scheme for its simplicity.

Having acquired a bike, I was able to go and take in the infrastructure sights. I was quite interested in looking at the Valley Gardens scheme, although I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it has truly built a linear park in the heart of the city as well as reconnecting Valley Gardens with the city centre by converting the old A23 dual carriageway which dominated the area into a single carriageway A23 and a mainly bus and servicing corridor.

That alone is a huge transformation. For walking and cycling, a new cycle track along the A23 is great as it provides separate space, but all of the crossings are shared at toucans. The cycle track is also set behind the footway with a planted buffer which makes the cycle track the nicer place to walk. The correct way to do this would be to have the buffer between the carriageway and cycle track and then the footway beyond to give walking the most offset from general traffic. On the city side, everything is shared use which is even more disappointing given the space that was up for grabs.

So, we soon left the A23 because the design concepts were old fashioned on not worth a longer stay. We headed to Madeira Drive to look at a pop-up Pandemic scheme which is still going strong (above). Using just road markings, plastic wands, a few traffic signs and lashings of methyl methacrylate (MMA) paint, a whole strip of carriageway has been turned over to cycle traffic with a wide two-way cycle track.

The road which runs along the seafront to the east of the Palace Pier was a two-way road stuffed full of car parking and a cycle route which was part advisory lanes, part floating parking-protected and part on the footway as a marked lane. The liberal use of Fresh Kermit (a term coined in the USA) has reimagined cycling along 1.2km of the street. There is still plenty of car parking, but the road is now one-way eastbound which has freed up space.

There's also a win for walking. There was always a cycle route along Madeira Drive but part of it was marked out on the wide promenade. With the pop-up scheme, this space has been given back to walking which you can see with the lighter coloured asphalt strip above.

At the eastern end of the scheme, a new set of traffic signals is being installed at the junction with Duke's Mound (for a wider regeneration scheme). People cycling east on the two-way cycle track have to give way to the one-way traffic coming from behind them and then awkwardly swing across the road to an advisory with-flow cycle lane (above, looking west).

People cycling east are then given an advanced stop line (ASL) and there significant risk of being left hooked by drivers turning left to use Duke's Mound to get up the cliff to the A259 Marine Parade. Madeira Drive is a no through road for general traffic beyond this point and so most drivers will be turning left up Duke's Mound. The advisory cycle lanes soon end to the east of the junction, but that's fine as it's low traffic.

For people cycling west (above, looking west), cycle traffic gets another ASL in case people wish to turn right up Duke's Mound and just beyond there is a very wide right turn pocket for all traffic (below, looking west) and an advisory cycle lane which connects to the two-way cycle track (below, looking west).

The issue with this arrangement is the no through road section of Maderia Drive includes coach parking and with the right turn to go up Duke's Mound being a 180° turn, I worry about the conflict between coaches and cycle traffic. You can see in the photograph above the carriageway widens to the left - this is to give coaches space to turn; they swing left to turn right. While some people cycling might want to turn right here too, a far better design would have protected westbound cycle traffic from motor traffic. The layout is show below, although the eastern side of the junction predates the current one-way for general traffic.

In the sketch below, I have shown what I think would be a better layout which would have eastbound cycle traffic making the transition to with-flow within the junction and under its own green. Westbound cycle traffic could run on its own continuous green, with a red coming in only if there was a pedestrian crossing demand.

There is also the potential to add a pedestrian crossing on the western side of the junction with a mini-zebra crossing over the cycle track for maximum flexibility for walking.

Anyway, I shall leave you this week with a video of Madeira Drive.

Crash

Now, I have covered passive safety previously, but this week, the subject was brought back into my mind as I happened across the aftermath of a crash as I was out on my regular pootle.

I obviously don't know the circumstances, but I saw a car sat on the verge next to a 50mph section of the A12 in east of London. That's not always a rarity given how often I see people parked in places like this, but it was a section with no houses and so looked out of place.

As I approached, it became clear from the tyre marks in the verge that the vehicle had been driven off the road and it had been stopped by a tree.

It's a stark scene which shows how immovable even a smallish tree is as well as the apparent crash-worthiness of a modern car. It's hard to see, but as well as driver and passenger air bags, side air bags had also been deployed. As I say, I don't know the circumstances of the crash, but it is a reasonable assumption that the occupants will have walked away from it.

From a sustainable safety point of view, we are interested in protecting people, even if they have poor judgement or make mistakes and so regardless of the actual cause here, the presence of trees so close to the carriageway is a risk whereas the crash-protection measures within the vehicle compensates.

This is a high-speed road built decades ago and frontage activity varies greatly. By modern standards, large trees close to a carriageway is something which would be avoided, or there would be sections of crash barrier protecting drivers from denser groups of trees. A process of risk management would be used to decide whether or trees in positions like this should be removed. The problem here is many sections of this road doesn't have large verges and in many cases, people outside of the motor vehicles are walking and cycling right next to the carriageway.

The UK has many legacy roads likes this where towns and cities grew next to key routes. Because we have decided at a policy level to maintain road transport as the priority, many of this roads were dualled over time and so we have the uncomfortable problem of important traffic corridors passing through communities. Maintaining traffic flow on old roads to modern trunk road standards are incompatible with people needing to traverse them.

This crash is a legacy of this. Although on the face of it, the high speed traffic is isolated from both oncoming traffic and those outside of the motor vehicles, it's just an illusion. Most of these roads cannot easily be rebuilt to modern standards of geometry and crash-worthiness and there aren't any ways of bypassing them (unless we destroy the neighbourhoods they sever).

It's a hard one to deal with because these are roads designed for speed and in the absence of enforced speed limits, they are to laid out in geometries within which many people will be happy to put their foot down. About the only options we have is to maybe narrow the lanes a touch and drop the speed limits and perhaps more realistically, enforce those lower speed limits with average speed cameras which in themselves is a longer term liability in terms of cost if compliance is good. Hopefully one day the existing speed limiters in new cars will be on all the time.

Sausage Time!

Getting punctures is a right pain when you're trying to get somewhere and they are even worse if you can't repair them. Not everyone is willing or able to tackle the job themselves, but I think it's worth sharing a little bit of knowledge.

It's important to recognise that not everyone can or wants to repair a puncture and some people simply cannot because of their own physicality or mobility. It's why having access to cycle shops, mobile mechanics and sometimes the kindness of strangers can be really important, although sadly this can be very patchy.

For those who are able to tackle a puncture repair, there are are a few things I want to share from the point of view as a rider of a Dutch bike and a Danish trike (one wheel at the back, two on the front) where in both cases, getting the rear wheel off requires skills and competence that I don't posses and which I am not that bothered about obtaining. 

Even Marathon Plus tyres are not invincible.

I am not a mechanical person and I have very little interest in the subject so I am quite happy to pay a mechanic to do most things. However, as a occasional picker upper of punctures, I am able to do enough to get moving again. My tips will be frowned upon by some, sneered at by a few, but I'm not to bothered about that - it doesn't matter, you can tackle as much or as little as you like.

First is the choice of tyre. On the two cycles I mentioned above and on my folding bike, I have Schwalbe Marathon Plus tyres (above and below). Their design is pretty good at resisting punctures in the first place, but shards of glass, screws and thorns can find their way through them and so it's good to check the treads every so often for foreign bodies working their way in. 

I've learned how to fix a tube without having to take the wheel off.

The big disadvantage with these tyres is they can be very hard to get off and back on the wheels. I actually don't struggle because I have developed a knack, but this could be an immediate barrier for some. It's worth watching on-line videos to get an idea of what to do and especially when getting the tyre back on, some people swear by special tools to assist - I haven't used them myself, so it's worth speaking with those who have.

My own technique makes used of a couple of plastic tyre levers to get a tyre off the wheel and my fortunate knack of getting the tyres back on! If you're up for repairing punctures, then it is also worth learning to do them without taking your wheels off. My Dutch and Danish cycles have rear hub gears which I just don't want to tackle and so getting the tyre off without a wheel removal is a boon.

My basic puncture repair kit. Tyre levels and Skabs.

For patching, I use "Slime Skabs". Because of the tyres I use, the punctures have always been little holes and so these little patches are ideal. You rough up the surface of the repair area with the little cheesegrater thing you can see in the photograph above, then you peel the back off one of the green stickers and stick over the hole in the inner tube which is very slightly inflated. 

I press down with my thumb on the sticker for a couple of minutes to make sure it is warm to help it stick and then you're good to go (above). There are plenty of people who look down on Skabs, but I have some on my folding bike which have been there for years. If you want to faff around with rubber patches and a tube of glue at the side of the road in winter, then be my guest!

My tyre levers and a packet of Skabs live in a little zip up bag in one of panniers so they are always together and easy to find amongst the other clutter in there. I also carry a compact pump (above) which has a little pressure gauge which is useful to help know when the tyre is inflated enough to get you out of trouble. When extended (below), there's a nice little handle to help inflate. 

My final tip is the choice of innertube. A few years ago I discovered the "sausage" or Gaadi tube (below). Rather than resembling the donut of a traditional tube, the Gaadi tube looks like a long sausage or maybe a modelling balloon. The great thing about these is you can completely remove the tube from the tyre and put a new one straight in, or, you can go and find somewhere comfortable and warm to to the repair as opposed to be crouching by your cycle.

For my Dutch bike, I have a Gaadi on the rear which I'm be happy to repair in the field and for the Danish trike, I carry a spare to swap out because there's a little storage box in the cargo box on the front. The swap over is pretty simple, but when you put them back in, you need to inflate the tube a little to help position it. You also need to watch to make sure both ends properly meet and push against each other. 

Gaadi tubes are more expensive than traditional tubes and the last ones I bought were from France because stupid Brexit was making them quite expensive in UK retail. The other thing to watch out for is if the tyre isn't inflated to usual pressures, you can sometimes feel a bit of a flat spot where the two ends meet. If that becomes an issue for you, then treat them as a "get you home" technique if you're happy to carry one with you all the time. I have a track pump at home which makes it easy to get the tyre pressures back up to normal.

As I was writing this post, I was also made aware of Tannus Inserts by Harrie Langton-Spencer who likes them as they reduce puncture risk even further than the Marathon Plus tyres as well as providing a "run flat" ability to help you get home to a bike shop for repair. Tannus also manufacture an "airless" tyre which might be of interest (although I have no experience of them).

Trees

In terms of streets, there are two things which get people het up in local communities - car parking and trees. I've talked a lot about the former in the past and so this week, I'm going to have a crack at the latter.

I guarantee that this post will raise all sort disagreement because it often turns into a very emotive subject - the fact of the matter is that people love trees and anyone taking a different view is looked upon with suspicion. 

From the outset, I admit that I am not an expert in trees themselves and so I will be coming at the subject from more of a highway engineer's point of view and so there will be people with expert views from other angles. What I will say is I like trees, but this doesn't necessarily mean I always like the placing, species and management of them in our streets, so bear with me.

Street trees planted with a vision for the future.

From a walking and cycling point of view, trees definitely add something to the street if appropriately deployed. For walking, one could say they add "shade and shelter" plus "things to see and do" if we come at it from the Healthy Streets Approach and they make the environment attractive from a cycling point of view if we are looking at the "Five Principles".

On a dull morning in winter, the trees are adding something to the skyline.

My main controversial opinion is, however, that trees should take their place as a component in the kit of parts which we use and that extends to them having a "design life" like paving, lighting and the other "kit" we install, as well as sometimes being in the way. That's probably quite a dispassionate take, but people are often surprised that trees grow, they shed leaves (plus twigs, fruit etc), sprout side growth plus their roots can cause damage to paving and utilities. 

A shared-use path next to a 50mph dual carriageway.

This is the state of annual growth from the base of a line of trees and bushes.

Today's small tree will become the next generation's perfectly proportioned street tree, but maybe the generation after that's maintenance nightmare. That's an important lesson really; we should be providing the right tree in the right place with the right management regime. Some trees will take much longer than the lifespan of a person to reach their full glory and so for any scheme involving removing or planting trees, getting advice from experts is a must if we are to leave the right legacy for those following us.

A lack of care means a poorly growing tree and potential utility damage.

A local example for me is the London Plane, a species I dislike for two reasons. First, they set off my hayfever and second (and maybe more significantly), they can become huge at over 30 metres in height which is around 9 storeys (if we take a standard 3.2 metres for a storey) and the size of their trunks and canopies can be significant. 

The London Plane is an import and they were a popular tree in the 18th Century, which means some venerable specimens can be found today. The problem that pops up with the London Plane when we try and reconfigure our streets is they are often in the way and immediately, they become a focus of campaigns to stop whatever is being proposed. Of course, this could apply to any tree, in any street!

Temporary C9 scheme. The now removed tree (I think) is highlighted in red.

For example, trees were removed as part of the scheme to make the C9 cycleway permanent in Chiswick, West London. This act certainly got ripples of disapproval from those against the cycle scheme as well as those simply mourning the tree's loss. We can debate the detail because the removal allowed reinstatement of a traffic lane lost to the temporary scheme, but ultimately decisions were taken to try and deal with issues as they are today. Yes, replacements will be planted, but there is a community loss to street.

The A38 Bristol Road cycleway in Birmingham (above) has a section which runs on an old tramway route (above) with trees flanking it. A quirk of history where trees were planted clear of the tram route and so no need to remove them leaves us with an instantly attractive section of route.

Sometimes it's easy to work with what we already have, but sometimes what we have forces a compromise. The cycle track in the photograph below is on Main Road, Romford. It would be far better with the trees and track swapped in terms of the feeling of protection, but politically, the wholesale removal of trees (even thought they would be replaced) was a step too far.

Sometimes we might use trees as part of a filtering scheme. On the one hand, it is nice to add trees to space reclaimed from motors and on the other (and don't say this too loud), trees might attract more future resistance to removal in the future than a couple of bollards such is the emotions they generate. The photograph below probably takes this to its conclusion as part of this filter in Leicester!

So look. Trees have an important place in the street, but they can be a burden, they can be an opportunity and they can lead to compromise. We really need to be honest and realistic about this and also recognise the emotion behind the subject. Speaking of which, even national politics gets on on the act. 

The Westminster government has talked extensively about pushing the planting of street trees in new and existing developments, although the actual planning reforms that keep being promised seem to change week by week. Frankly, politicians wanting to plant lots of trees is as routine as saying they'll deal with potholes - it's an easy thing to say.

The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission covers this in its Living With Beauty report. Personally, I find some of this report a bit pompous and preachy (there's a whole separate discussion around what constitutes "beauty"), but it does recognise the decline of trees being planted which has links to the inability of local authorities to afford long term maintenance. 

A development with landscaping which remains privately maintained.

The report also talks about the need for better placemaking education and skills as well as calling for a longer term plan to bring trees back to our streets with proper investment. It recognises that the coordination of trees and utilities can be poor and yes, some highway authority engineers are risk adverse to adding street trees. Personally, I think that's a actually a proxy for the lack of maintenance budgets, lack of knowledge around how trees can be added and probably a good measure of being under pressure more generally.

From a practical point of view, many developments provide the bare minimum of space for decent landscaping. This is partly driven by the reluctance of local authorities to adopt landscaping and developers wanting to maximise building footprint. However, much older developments share a common problem and that's where can trees be planted within limited highway space.

It is often the case that trees are planted on the kerbside of footways and in some cases, the preparation work is incredibly basic which doesn't give a great chance for the trees to have a long life. Beyond that though, useable footway space is impacted which works against us trying to make places attractive to walk.

The sketch above shows a footway with trees planted on the kerbside. The pinkish area is the width of the footway sterilised by the trees and the buff is the area available for walking. The footway is 2 metres wide (plus the kerb width) and the trees are about 0.5 metres back from the kerb which keeps trunks and branches back from wing mirrors and handlebars (it's also worth noting that with steeper cambers and larger vehicles, this offset keeps vehicle bodies and the trees apart).

Inclusive Mobility talks about having a basic footway width of 2 metres as "the minimum that should be provided, as this allows enough space for two wheelchair users to pass" (1.8m is often used as a legacy of 6 feet being used in the pre-metric days). It's not just having an ability for people to pass, walking is sociable, and so 2 metres is a good basic width for people to walk side by side.

The photograph above shows people walking side by side and the red line shows a 2 metre width as it's hard to visualise the space. Where there is a building or a wall to the back of a footway, people tend to move out from it so they don't catch their arm or hand and on the traffic side, they tend to keep away from the kerb (known as "kerb shyness"). Inclusive Mobility gives 1.5 metres as the minimum width for a footway, but it is squeezing people.

An extreme example of trees blocking a footway from @Hackneycyclist

For many existing situations we might take the view that squeezing people to 1.5 metres every so often is OK if we can get trees in (although trunks do get larger over time - see above), but once actual flows of people increase in both directions, the space becomes eroded too much and we need to look to the carriageway.

Once we get into the carriageway, we have to consider the risk of someone driving into a tree given the quality of driving skills that some people have, although the risk in my view is often overstated.

The photograph above is of a street in Salford. The area is a low traffic, low speed situation and the tree on the right is actually in a little build out keeping the footway completely clear. The large tree and the build out provides a little bit of a contribution to a message that this is a street to drive slowly along.

New developments give an opportunity to integrate trees into the street. The photograph below is Barking Riverside where trees break up a line of parked cars with a completely clear footway. The tree pits are perhaps small, but in this case the road surface is permeable which allows water and air to access the tree roots which is important for tree health.

We can also retrofit existing streets in this way. The photograph below is from Cardiff where a sustainable drainage scheme includes additional tree planting. The trees in the centre were existing historic and in an odd central reserve in the residential street, but the trees in the build outs on both sides of the street are in what used to be carriageway.

I'd argue that we can go with something very simple in low traffic and low speed situations - 20mph Zones and the rules around traffic calming really work together to make planting trees in carriageways attractive. The sketch below shows a possible arrangement with the trees being protected by bollards. Once they reach a certain size, they are going to be quite resistant to low speed impacts anyway.

If we pushed on this kind of idea as part of an overall traffic reduction plan, we could gradually infill the space with more landscaping, drainage features, cycle parking (below) and so on. Yes, planting in the carriageway will be more expensive up front as a greater depth of road construction needs removing compared with footways, plus we need to take care with the positions of drains and sewers, but it could be a great investment.

Trees in the carriageway with cycle parking in Lambeth.

I have mentioned it in passing, but the other practical consideration is the presence and impacts from utilities (both above and below ground). The image below is an extract from "guidelines on the positioning and colour coding of underground apparatus" (pdf), which sets out the recommended position and depth of utilities in a "standard" 2 metre footway. The adherence to this is more likely on newer streets, but it at least demonstrates the space challenges we have in finding a gap within which to plant trees in footways. For new build schemes, there is definitely the need to coordinate trees with utilities.

Tree roots can damage utility pipes and chambers and so care should be taken in placing trees anywhere in the highway. I would say it's good practice for local authorities to get a planting strategy together with includes discussion with utility owners. It also needs to be recognised that people excavating in the highway need to be trained and supervised by a qualified and competent person.

Above ground, we have street lighting and utility poles/ cables. Street lighting placed next to trees creates shadows and this is often ignored when planting new trees and it is a challenge where lighting is being fitted into existing streets. Telecommunications and power cables can be found in streets and so trees can catch wires and cables as they grow causing damage.

A tree planted with a section of footway surface removed. The black pipe is for early years irrigation to the roots as well as providing a pathway for oxygen to get to the roots.

Trees in streets is a wonderful concept, but it is far more complex than breaking out a bit of asphalt and plonking in a tree. They are living organisms which have needs to be considered and designed in. The photograph above is a very basic installation which in the long term, may not work very well with surrounding soil potentially unsuitable and certainly compacted.

Here is a paper by Thomas O. Perry on tree roots as recommended by Prosocial Place. This includes some interesting discussion on how roots seek out oxygen through cracks and crevices which is an issue when you consider how little permeable surface is left over many urban trees. There are tree pit solutions available which give better outcomes in establishing trees, but the overall design needs to take into consideration the local soil, its compaction (often heavily compacted in urban areas), how the tree is to be watered in its early life and where roots will end up in both support terms and to minimise the risk to the highway and adjacent property.

A new development in Cambridge. The trees are probably a little close together, but at least there is a some space for them to grow as well as taking in water and oxygen through the unpaved area.

This all goes back to the point I made earlier. Adding trees to our streets requires the input from several disciplines and they very much need "designing" in terms of species, position, treatment and maintenance. Providing street trees is a technical process which perhaps lacks the romance that many people associate trees with. Of course, you can go and find that in a forest or woodland!