Railton Revisited

Just over a two years ago, I paid a visit to the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood, to the southeast of Brixton town centre in south London. I revisited because I had seen photos on social media of the project being made permanent and I wanted to have a look myself.

Functionally, the project is the same as it was on my last visit with restricted motor vehicle access to Atlantic Road from Coldharbour Lane at the northwestern end (below), with that first section essentially creating a cul-de-sac just beyond. At the southeastern end, a bus gate has been retained near Herne Place which means there is a low traffic link from Brixton to Herne Hill station. 

Crucially, Shakespeare Road remains closed to motor traffic at Mayall Road and so with pretty small scale work, an entire area has been freed from being a cut through for motors while maintaining full access to buses, emergency vehicles and service vehicles.

So on that basis, this post is actually quite short because the previous one went into a bit more of that detail. The key thing is how the London Borough of Lambeth has made the project permanent and so let's look at the Atlantic Road end a bit more closely. The first 35 metres (from Coldharbour Lane) is only for buses and loading permit holders, and it is dominated by new planting (above).

In theory the only way in for loading permit holders would be from the opposite arm of Atlantic Road given the banned turns from both arms of Coldharbour Lane and so only those in the know would go that way. Other deliveries can be made by accessing Atlantic Road via other routes. Because this first section restricts motor traffic, additional footway space has been provided along with seating (above) and cycle parking.

The modal filter just south of Marcus Garvey Way has also been upgraded (above) so it is more obvious that people shouldn't be driving through southbound. Northbound is allowed due to the way the local traffic circulation plan has been arranged. This is a bit of a theme and while needing to allow buses through, the road layout has been changed to help reinforce the prohibition of general traffic intention of the design.

One issue I have is with the signage which in common with the entrance from Coldharbour Lane uses the written "BUS GATE" marking with the no motor vehicles traffic sign (above). I'm afraid that this is not an approved combination and Lambeth needs to either remove the markings or swap the signs to one of the 953 series (one for the sign geeks) within which exemptions to the traffic regulation order can be made for "authorised vehicles" but not permit holders.

Other main change has been at Shakespeare Road where a short section of street has been essentially pedestrianised with the temporary materials giving way to permanent materials which work to explain to drivers they shouldn't be here (above). To the north of the railway, Shakespeare Road is now a quiet cycle route up to Loughborough Junction station.

The street layout in the wider area is a bit awkward due to the railway cutting through, and so from an emergency access point of view, the pedestrianised section of street has space for vehicles to pass through with CCTV enforcement. The layout is such that there isn't a clear view of the route ahead which is another design reinforcement to drivers that they are not permitted to pass. The seating and planting work to block this view through while allowing a route that standard fire engines can tackle.

The photograph above is from the north looking south and again, the winding nature of the emergency route can be seen with the planting providing the visual break. Below is a closer look at the planting here which are all rain gardens with a square of granite blocks providing a bit of water energy dissipation before the planting.

There are also poems from local poets within the area as part of a local heritage trail (below).

So, while the project hasn't functionally changed from my last visit, the permanent materials and planting don't just look good, they help reinforce the layout to make it a bit more self-explaining to drivers which I think is a good thing. Even though people driving should understand traffic signs, making it easy to understand counters the often claimed confusion argument. So, I shall leave you with a quick video of the project and I wonder if you'll see the little surprise (just before the 3 minute mark)?

Battersea Bridge: What Can Be Done Quickly

Bridges are often contested spaces simply because they very rarely contribute to dense street networks and as a result, they funnel users to specific points which might be off their general desire lines into situations where trying to manage different users with different energy is a challenge.

It is against such a backdrop that this week, a woman cycling lost her life on Battersea Bridge in London after being hit by a lorry driver. It has been a notorious crossing of the Thames for many years with a terrible safety record. The London Cycling Campaign sets out the litany of failure in its blog.

As is the general case in many UK cities, the layout and classification of the road network has somewhat evolved and in many cases, those designated as A-roads come as a result of that evolution. Battersea Bridge is the A3220, although in a London context, it is not classed as part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). The specific classification is somewhat moot given the bridge carries some 25,000 motor vehicles a day - sitting here today it is a busy motor traffic route and it is important for bus traffic too. Around 8% of vehicles are either buses or HGVs and this scales to nearly 26,000 if we convert to passenger car units (PCU).

From a walking, wheeling and cycling point of view, the bridge has a pair of fairly narrow footways and a carriageway width of about 7.5 metres (at least from Google maps) or a running lane width of about 3.75 metres which puts it in the "sweet" spot of widths which should be avoided for mixing cycle traffic with general traffic (7.2.5 in LTN 1/20 for those interested). It's a width which some drivers think they can still squeeze past someone riding, especially if they are in the gutter and on Battersea Bridge, there are containment kerbs (with barriers behind) protecting what I assume is a weak parapet from vehicle incursion which is not a nice feature to be near on a cycle.

The bridge also carries 3,800 cycle movements a day and so the combination of lane width and volume of buses/ HGVs does immediately create the conditions where people cycling are exposed to risk and at least in terms of absolute numbers, around 25% of collisions involve someone cycling on the bridge. If you throw in the junctions at each end, then this rises to around 28% and in terms of collision risk per daily trip, (and very crudely) a person cycling is about 5 times more likely to be hurt than a motor vehicle occupant (excluding motorcycles). 

It is worth noting that using casualty numbers can be volatile, especially the more serious collisions as the numbers for a section of road are usually low and can drastically change year on year, but we do have a situation which I think is reasonable to conclude that this is a place which is both subjectively and objectively riskier to cycle than it is to drive (or be driven) and not even the prevailing 20mph speed limit is enough to mitigate this.

If we return to LTN 1/20, Figure 4.1 suggests that even at 20mph, we need below 2,000 PCU/ 24hrs and so with 26,000 PCU/ 24hrs we need physical protection. With the width available and keeping two-way motor traffic (which buses at least require) means we have some hard decisions. In the short and medium term, I cannot see there is an infrastructure solution which is going to be politically easy to deliver on Battersea Bridge. "Just ban cars" really isn't a solution here.

400 metres east of Battersea Bridge is Albert Bridge (above). It is quieter at around 10,000 vehicles a day, although that's from estimated flows, but allowing for data quality, it is still going to be way over what most people would feel happy cycling with. However, with a carriageway of maybe just wider than 8 metres, it does give a little more overtaking space, although there are plenty of collisions involving people cycling here. 

My actual interest in this bridge is an historical quirk and that's the fact the bridge is currently subject to a 3 tonne structural weight limit. This is physically enforced by a 6'-6" (2 metres) width restriction, and that's after a strengthening project over a decade ago. My suggestion is that Albert Bridge be made a walking and cycling bridge and potentially (subject to structural engineering input) left accessible for ambulances. Yes, this means motor traffic displacement to Battersea Bridge in the short term, but it's far quicker to roll out than a new walking and cycling bridge or anything clever and radical at Battersea Bridge.

Of course, it's not just about a safe crossing, it's about the network and so such a plan to repurpose Albert Bridge needs to consider the local cycling networks either side. For example, to the south, some filtering could create some quiet routes to the bridge and to the north, maybe a two-way cycle track on Chelsea Embankment on the river-side would provide a really handy way of plugging into the bridge. 

If the network design were clever in how cycle traffic is dealt with through traffic signals on both sides of the river, the loss of time for some trips diverting to Albert Bridge could be offset with priority measures to keep people moving and essentially unravelling the motoring and cycling networks locally.

However, the main problem with all of this (as is usually the case) is political. To the north and owning Albert Bridge, we have the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea which I think it is fair to say has an administration which is actively hostile to cycling. Transport for London owns Battersea Bridge which connects to TfL-managed roads, RBKC streets and to the south, streets managed by the London Borough of Wandsworth which traditionally hasn't been too bothered about cycling (it might be changing slowly).

This means that there are three organisations are intimately connected with varying levels of political backing for cycling which is why the response to collisions on Battersea Bridge has been so stop-start over the years.

For what it's worth, I have had a quick look at trying to design a little bit of a network around Albert Bridge which you can look at here, but essentially we have the following;

• Filtering the area between Battersea Bridge Road, Prince of Wales Drive and Battersea Park.
• Albert Bride becomes walking and cycling only.
• South side of Chelsea Embankment becomes a two-way cycle track.
• The southern end of Oakley Street (maybe 100 metres) becomes one way for general traffic south with a pair of one-way cycle tracks which crosses Chelsea Embankment to connect to the two-way cycle track and bridge.

Of course, that doesn't deal with the wider network, but it is a start and longer distance routes would converge on the quieter version of Albert Bridge Road which could become a cycle street to reinforce its priority as a key cycle route. Just my thoughts, but I do think this is the kind of thinking we need.