News

Cycle on with Cyclox- the Oxford Cycling Campaign [20.02.2004]

Cyclox objectives are to support those who wish to cycle in Oxford. You would hardly think it necessary in this City, but ask anyone who does cycle and they will tell you that for all the many personal benefits cycling offers, there are some obvious deficiencies. The most notable local one is the omission of 80 yds of cycle lane below Botley Road Railway Bridge, in a street with almost 2 miles of cycle route from the Deans Court and Fogwell Estates!

Councillor Robertson the County Council Executive, responsible for this lapse admitted on Radio Oxford last 5th December there was a problem with lane discipline below the bridge. Write and ask him to install a green coloured inbound lane please.

Cyclox cannot realistically encourage, or expect new cycle users to cycle into Oxford without a lane at this location - where 2 fatalities have occurred in recent years.

With continuous cycle lanes County motorists may even be encouraged to use Seacourt as a “Park & Cycle”, the benefit being a quicker return journey in cycle lanes that wiz past bus queues and traffic congestion. At Seacourt, the bike can be hung on the back of the car for a faster get-away from Oxford.

Cyclox will be acting locally and globally in April 2004, in a project to get old bikes back into use: for a fee Cyclox will safety check your bike, get the brakes working, reset the saddle and handlebar height, blow up tyres and invite owners back out for a gentle 5 mile Sunday afternoon bike ride. For more involved works, owners would be referred to Warlands a reputable local bike shop.

Alternatively, for the same £10 donation, Cyclox, working with the charity “Re-cycle” will ship the bike out to Africa, where mechanics are trained to repair the bike and pass them on onto doctors, farmers, religious leaders, midwives, teachers and long-distance students, who gain huge benefits from cycling, that walking alone cannot provide.

Cyclox welcomes new members; especially those who can write nice letters, wish to learn the bike mechanic skills referred to above, or enjoy the benefits of cycling. Cyclox encourages everyone to cycle: on the road (if it feels safe), with lights and using all gears properly.

In July Cyclox may again run cycle skills training at Curry’s car park, free to those who bring a parent along with their bike!

Recycle can be contacted at www.re-cycle.org

Cyclox's report on the £1m Cowley Rd Safety Improvement Scheme [19.02.2004]

The following spells out what we think should happen with the £1m being spent on the Cowley Rd Safety Improvement Scheme is met with broadapproval by Halcrow, the County Council's contractors on the scheme

At the meeting we’re going to concentrate on what traffic lanes there should be on Cowley Road. This may be different past the main shops, before that and after that. We also need to decide whether there should be an off-road Safe Route to School on parts of Cowley Road, on the north (Tesco) side.

A small team has discussed a number of basic ideas, and some specific details. We think these will be supported by most cyclists. We’ve therefore decided not to discuss them at this meeting. If you have any comments on these, please email those comments to cowleyroad@cyclox.org, and we’ll try to incorporate them.

Basic Ideas (comments to cowleyroad@cyclox.org)

·        Continuous route for cyclists on road

·        Lower general speeds (especially maximum speed)

·        All parking and (most) loading in bays

·        Provision for about the current observed level of parking/loading (so as not to create a situation where parking/loading obstructs the cycle lane)

Width Availability

It is expensive (and undesirable) to widen the road, except for very short stretches. This places a practical maximum on the amount of road width available for through traffic (ie excluding parked vehicles). Some of this width can be used for widening the pavement instead, of course.

Plain to Princes St – 7.8m. Current width varies between 8-10m. If parking is provided intermittently in the wider parts, then available width is about 7.8m

Princes St to Union St – 7.85m. Current width is 9.85m. If parking accommodated then available width is 7.85m. Might be call for a Safe Route to School on edge of north-side pavement (which would take up about 1.5m), though this could partly be achieved by narrowing pavement.

Union St to East Ave – 8m. Current width is 9.9m to 10.4m. Location of principal shops. Many pedestrians crossing. Lots of cycle parking demand. Probably impossible to meet parking demand, and simplest may be to restrict to loading-only. Excluding these, available width is 8m.

East Ave – Magdalen Road – 7m or 8.5m. Current width is 10.1m to 10.7m. If parking accommodated then available width is about 8.5m (assuming only allowed on one side). Might be call for a Safe Route to School on edge of north-side pavement (which would take up about 1.5m). Available width is then about 7m.

Details (comments to cowleyroad@cyclox.org)

·        Cycle parking adjacent to road

·        More informal pedestrian crossing facilities (1.5m islands or Zebras)

·        Fewer Pelican crossings

·        Continuous pavements across side roads

·        Pavements built out at junctions, with tight radii on corner (1m)

·        Lots of extra pavement around Tescos

·        Loading bays to be 2m deep (pref 2.5m), on pavement level with different surface (cobbles?)

·        Parking bays to be 2m deep, square-ended and on road level

·        No bus bays, to avoid buses pulling out on a cyclist overtaking

·        Preferably facility for cyclists to pass at bus stops

·        Trees

Layout Options (for discussion at meeting)

Safe Route to School (for discussion at meeting)

There could usefully be a Safe Route to School between Princes St and Union St, and between East Avenue and Bartlemas Close. This connects the back streets on that side of Cowley Road to the school (behind Tescos), without crossing Cowley Road. Since the school traffic would be largely tidal, and the cycle lane on the road should cater for most people heading towards Cowley, the route could be narrow (1m). We’ve suggested that 1.5m should be allowed for the route, to segregate the cycle lane from the road (as on Donnington Bridge), or to segregate from the pedestrians (depending how you look at it).

What Next?

A small design team will try to put together the Basic Ideas, Details, and your views on the Layout Options and the “Safe Route to School” into a reasonably detailed proposal. This will be fed into the County’s consultation as the Cyclox contribution.

Layout Options Discussion – Pros & Cons

Botley Road

Pro – No encroachment on cyclists
Con – cycle lane too narrow
Pro – straight
Pro – fast
Pro – traffic doesn’t obstruct opposite direction
Con – too fast (except rush hour!)

Utrecht

Pro – discourage cars
Con – squeezed by buses – dangerous
Con – discourage cyclists
Con – drivers may not know where to drive
Con – slower buses
Pro – shorted pedestrian crossing distance
Pro – very slow (& safe)

Neu Beckum

Pro – buses know they have to overtake you
Pro – wider cycle lane – extra protection from parking
Pro – cyclists can overtake one another
Con – too fast
Con – don’t like Pelicans
Con – danger at junctions & pedestrians crossing
Pro – visual narrowing (but lots of green paint)
Con – cars might park in cycle lane

Hennef

Pro – good for pedestrians
Con – so many cyclists on Cowley Road that buses would have to crawl
Pro – greenery on islands (?)
Con – buses would tailgate and cut up cyclist
Con – would require driver education (but would be good if that happened)
Con – buses will cut in
Con – motorcyclists would zip in and out
Con – unpredictability gives increased stress

Abingdon Road

Pro – clear run
Pro – not really squeezed by buses
Con – will it work with side junctions & parking (unlike Abingdon Road)
Con – not very slow / still quite fast
Con – maybe not enough room for required parking
Con – doubtful whether it can cope with lots of turning moves
Pro – good for pedestrians
Pro – potential for central parking strip (but might be difficult & no ready examples to copy, though would have some advantages..)

Cyclox 1997

Con – Get squeezed at sideways shifts (need to design with care) - ? rumble strip
Pro – Irregularity could slow traffic – but can’t overdo it
Con – harder to turn due to lack of median strip / closeness of refuges to junctions
Pro – cyclists not overly squeezed

The conclusion was that the broad majority of the group wished to support the “Cyclox 1997” option, but with wider cycle lanes (1.3m). The key feature of this solution was 2.5m traffic lanes. These were thought to squeeze buses enough so that they would slow down, but give them a route to follow that didn’t encroach on the cycle lane. The refuges provided lots of places to cross the road, and there ought to be enough off-line parking/loading to give cyclists a clear path.

Implementation