Fountains Roundabout Response 14.7.16

Summary

  • We oppose these proposals including conversion of the roundabout to a crossroads as we can only support this as and if fundamental improvements are made
  • Too much shared space; need separation of bikes and pedestrians avoiding conflict
  • Need Simultaneous Green signals for pedestrians and cyclists for all arms of the junction
  • Need more space on East side of junction to avoid conflict
  • Need segregated approaches and exits for cyclists on all arms of the junction

General

KCC welcomes the opportunity to review proposals for the Fountain Roundabout. The current junction is dominated by motor vehicle traffic and provides very poor service to both pedestrians and cyclists, which has a strong negative impact on local residents, shops and amenities.

These problems with the current proposals mean that, without improvements, they fail to meet the needs of current and future local cyclists and pedestrians. Most people will either continue to avoid cycling in the area or avoid using the proposed infrastructure entirely.

Although we believe a substantial redesign is required, we are providing detailed comments on the current proposals. Even if all of the following points are fixed, the proposal will still fall short of what is required. Significant improvements to the proposals are recommended to bring this junction up to the same quality of infrastructure as described by the LCDS standards and currently found elsewhere in London.

From a cycling point of view this is, in our view, a very poor scheme. It will make no, or best a negligible, contribution to enable people who do not cycle to do so. It is like schemes proposed 15 years ago before mini Hollands or the Mayor’s Outer London Cycling Fund were envisaged; with “expert” cyclists riding in heavy, multi lane traffic and “novice” cyclists allowed to ride on the pavement for short sections. Provision of this type will do nothing to shift journeys from cars to bikes and to ease congestion.

If this scheme reaches the bar for funding from the Mayor’s Outer London Cycling Fund then it is hard to see what proposal with “white paint” or permitted pavement cycling would not reach that standard. We cannot, and do not, support this scheme unless it is subject to more fundamental change than simple improvement of the existing proposals.

It seems to us the proposals are not a cycling scheme at all but a public realm and motor traffic management proposal with some old fashioned pavement cycling provision tacked on.

LCDS Standards

Extensive use has been made of the current London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) published by TfL. These standards can be found at

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/streets-toolkit

We have scored these proposals using the Cycling Level of Service (CLOS) tool at 35/100 with 2 critical fails and using the Junction Assessment Tool (JAT) at 6/24 also with 2 critical fails.

Detailed comments on improving existing proposals

  1. Crossings
  • The proposal includes four shared (“toucan”) crossings. Given that these will have a high flow of pedestrians to the local shops, parallel signal-controlled

pedestrian/cycle crossings are needed.

  1. Shared Footways
  • The proposal contains large areas of shared footways. Shared footways promote conflict between pedestrians and cyclists in busy areas. There is plenty of space at this junction so shared footways are unnecessary and should be removed
  • The Kingston Road eastbound on-pavement lane should be extended through to the junction
  • The Kingston Road westbound on-pavement lane should start from beside the junction and be continuous across the building access roads
  • The shared-use pavement outside the Watchman is too narrow and will cause conflicts
  • The shared-use pavement outside the Fountain is too narrow and will cause conflicts
  1. Legibility
  • The legibility of the proposed junction is poor
  • It is unclear how cyclists are supposed to make right turns
  • It is unclear how cyclists should traverse the shared footways without coming into conflict with pedestrians
  • The Kingston Road westbound on-pavement lane passes behind a bus-stop. This should be designed to current bus-stop bypass standards, to make it clear to both pedestrians and cyclists how to avoid conflicts
  1. Joining the Junction
  • There is no indication of how cyclists are to join the pavement from the High Street southbound
  • There is no transition allowing cyclists to join the pavement from Burlington Road westbound
  • The joining of the pavement from Kingston Road needs redesigning. Cyclist should cross the kerb at 90 degrees
  • The proposed join lies behind the exit of Charnwood Close / bus waiting lay-by, making it impossible to join safely, especially when traffic is waiting to exit

The joining of the pavement from Malden Road is not indicated. We can guess that cyclists will join the pavement from the end of the cycle lane, but this is low quality. The cyclists will approach the kerb from a narrow angle and a crosscamber rise to pavement level. The kerb and gradient transitions should be at right angles.

  • The joining of the pavement from Malden Road also has no on-pavement indications for cyclists. This will mean that pedestrians don’t expect cyclists on the pavement and cyclists don’t know which way to go to approach the crossings
  1. Leaving the Junction
  • There is no facility for cyclists to rejoin the carriageway heading eastbound on Burlington Road
  • There is no facility for cyclists to rejoin the carriageway heading southbound on Malden Road
  • There is no facility for cyclists to rejoin the carriageway heading northbound on High Street
  • The rejoining of the carriageway westbound on Kingston Road is dangerous. Either the cycle lane must continue over Balgowan Close and rejoin the carriageway further on, or it must fully rejoin before the junction
  • It should be ensured in all cases that cyclists can rejoin onto carriageway cycle lanes in protected manner and without having to stop and give way to traffic
  • It should be ensured in all cases that cyclists can rejoining onto carriageway cycle lanes without being blocked by stationary traffic
  1. Links to existing facilities
  • There is an existing on-pavement cycle lane on Malden Road southbound. This proposal should link to the existing facility. This could be achieved with a bus-stop bypass or other methods
  • There is an existing lane northbound on Malden Road approaching the junction. This existing facility should link to the proposal. This could be achieved with a bus stop bypass or other methods
  1. Corner Radii
  • The radius of each of the corners is too high. Unnecessarily large corner radii can encourage higher speeds by motorists and should be reduced where feasible
  • The corner radii should be reduced to 2-6 metres since the junction is for 30mph traffic, and the corners in and out of the High Street should be reduced to 0-3 metre radii since it is 20mph
  1. Multiple traffic lanes turning right
  • The proposal includes multiple lanes of traffic turning right from Kingston Road,yet there is only one lane on exiting the junction southbound on Malden Road
  • This design promotes conflict between lanes of traffic exiting the junction
  • This is also a problem due to buses waiting at the bus stop on Malden Road
  • This is a danger for cyclists rejoining the carriageway at the point that multiple lanes of traffic merge
  • This is a danger for cyclists who are turning right on-carriageway
  • The second lane of right-turning traffic must be removed
  1. Scramble phase
  • It is believed that pedestrians and cyclists will cross on a scramble phase. If so, diagonal routes should be signalled and marked to reduce conflict
  • Delays waiting for a scramble phase delay cyclists and will lead to the facilities being avoided
  1. Banned Right Turn
  • It is unclear whether cyclists and buses (route 265) are also banned from turning from Malden Road into Burlington Road
  • There should be a option for cyclists turning making this turn that avoids delays

One thought on “Fountains Roundabout Response 14.7.16

Comments are closed.