Of course, such a reservation needs to be adequate in size. The crossing shown above, in a residential area in Assen by the local shops, allows two cyclists travelling in each direction to pass each other, and is long enough for a bicycle with trailer to stop safely in the middle. it also has a completely separate crossing for pedestrians, and of course both the cycle and pedestrian paths on both sides of the street. The speed limit for cars is 50 km/h (30 mph).
Here is another view of the crossing:
Grotere kaart weergeven
This is an example of a crossing which works extremely well for cyclists, but it is not in any way an unusual or unique design. This is normal. There are so many crossings like this in Assen that I couldn't possibly count them. You need look no more than a hundred metres to the South from this one to find three more which are similar (see them here on Google Maps).
Note five features on and around this crossing which make motorists slow down. Firstly, the shape of the crossing requires that motorists must decelerate and change course to go around it. Secondly, the width of the lanes either side of the central reservation is narrow which makes maneuvering difficult at speed. Thirdly, the road is narrow and there is no central white line. This makes motorists less sure of their position on the road and further reduces speed. Fourthly, the speed limit is 50 km/h (30 mph) on this street, which provides access, and 30 km/h (18 mph) on surrounding streets. Fifthly, there is also a pedestrian zebra crossing here for which motorists must stop if a pedestrian is crossing (cyclists don't have priority in this case, but often receive it anyway as you can see from videos showing the same crossing in use)
The requirement that motorists have to swerve could be dangerous to cyclists if they were on the street, but because there are parallel cycle-paths on both sides of the street there is no danger at all.
This can be seen as something which is easily "lost in translation" when implemented elsewhere because while the same concept might appear elsewhere, the implementation is completely different. For example, here's the same concept as implemented in Cambridge, UK:
This reservation is much too small. Only one cyclist can use it at a time because the path on it is too narrow, and it doesn't provide nearly enough space for towing a trailer. It also doesn't feel safe because there is not much separation from high speed traffic. While the example in Assen is on a relatively minor street with a slow speed limit, and that is where such a crossing if built to a high enough standard, can work well, this one is on a major arterial road, which is is one of the busiest in Cambridge. The lanes on either side of this central reservation are much too wide, and they are shared with cyclists heading along the road who are provided with the narrowest of on-road cycle-lane.
What's more, the speed limit here is more than double that of the Assen example, at 40 mph (64 km/h).
When we crossed at this point with our children it was difficult to accompany them and cross the road safely. What's more, when I pulled a child trailer across this junction it didn't fit, so I had to make the crossing in one step.
It's an example of something extremely inadequate being installed in completely the wrong situation.
View Larger Map
If your only reference to good infrastructure design comes from books, websites and looking at Google Maps, then it is very easy to misinterpret what is seen on the ground in the Netherlands. This is why it is important that planners from English speaking countries should see for themselves what good infrastructure actually looks like, and see it in the country which has the best standards. Referring only to what is in, for example, the UK can only result in copying from bad examples. It is to try to help to prevent this problem that we organise study tours.
See other examples of ideas "lost in translation", enabling of crossing the road, and perhaps most important, examples of what works in the Netherlands.
Posts
10 comments:
A little inconsistency in your article: above the streetview image you say that the speed limit is 50, below it is 30.
Thank you Arjen. I've fixed the inconsistency in the article.
Excellent post David. You could also add a fifth design feature that makes motorists slow down - the presence of a zebra crossing, which gives pedestrians priority.
aseasyasridingabike: You're right, that helps too. I've added the fifth design feature to the description.
if only your study tours were compulsory training for everyone at the DfT, local councils, traffic engineers and transport planners the UK might just get somewhere. as an ex-resident of Amsterdam i really miss the amazing cycling provision all over the Netherlands.
Rob, to want to come on the tour requires a people to question what they have and actually want things to change for the better. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of your representatives, planners, DfT officials, we can even go further and include most campaigners in Britain, are simply not interested in doing this.
None of the people you suggest have ever shown the slightest interest so far save for one planner and a couple of cycling officers who came of their own accord. More would be very welcome, of course.
However, this should perhaps not be too surprising given that we recently found out that even the Chief Executive of the CTC for 14 years didn't think it worth his while to visit the Netherlands until two weeks ago when he'd already left that job to take up running the ECF instead.
Can any real progress be made when jobs such as this are filled by people with so little desire for improvement ?
Interesting take on how median waiting areas for pedestrians and cyclists should be designed. I would have never considered that there should be room for a bicycle plus a trailer that typically would be pulling children. Los Angeles is scheduled to start working on cycling infrastructure for residential streets, which the city will call bicycle friendly streets. These central reservation waiting areas are something that the traffic engineers are considering, along with installing traffic signals to make it easier for pedestrians and cyclists to cross busier streets.
Here's some interesting graphics posted on Time magazines website that puts the condition of transportation infrastructure in the U.S. into perspective. An improvement would seem to be to simply use some of the money that goes to the military towards improving the condition of the transportation infrastructure. But, currently, if the military spending was cut dramatically, the Republican Party would want to send that money back to the taxpayer and not spend it on anything else. The congressional house Republicans are currently trying to eliminate most federal funding for pedestrians and bicycling from the transportation bill. Most Democrat Party members and Senators do not agree with this and so there is a stalemate.
I notice that in the British situation children would be totally obscured by the enormous arrow signs on the reservation. Indeed, not cycle friendly.
The issue with the Cambridge example seems to be that while it might have been built under the presumption that cyclists could use it, it obviously has the dimensions of a standard pedestrian island, ignoring the increased size of a bicycle compared with a standing pedestrian.
This would be like constructing a perfectly adequate taxi rank for four taxis, changing it to a bus stop, and wondering why only one bus could fit in the bay and any others were waiting in the main traffic lane blocking everyone else. Or even worse, like an architect building a passenger lift to access an underground car park when a larger car lift with a greater weight capacity is necessary...
A sixth feature could be the integrated speed bump at the point of the central reservation, something that is seen quite often in the Netherlands.
Post a Comment