D Finney Ceng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

Brighton & Hove

Regional Route 82: Hove to Hangleton Cycle Route A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road, Hove

Cycle Lanes in Grand Avenue & The Drive

Road Safety Audit: Stage 3

July 2008

DDaavviidd FFiinnnneeyy CCEEnngg MMIIICCEE MMIIIHHTT

Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation and Road Safety Audit

Project ref: B&H 053

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 3

3. ITEMS RESULTING FROM THIS STAGE 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 5

4. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT 17

APPENDIX A: LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXAMINED IN THE AUDIT

APPENDIX B: ANNOTATED SCHEME PLANS

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report presents the findings of a Stage 3 (completion of construction) road safety audit of a scheme to provide cycle lanes in Grand Avenue and The Drive, between the junctions with the A259 Kingsway and A270 Old Shoreham Road, Hove. The works are part of Regional Cycle Route 82 between Hove seafront and Hangleton.

1.2 The safety audit was carried out at the request of the Highway Engineering & Projects Section of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Environment Directorate (BHCC) by David Finney CEng MICE MIHT and Bruce Woodhams BSc Hons MIHT, Highway, Traffic and Road Safety Engineering Consultants. The Audit Team has acted independently of the Design Team and, apart from undertaking a combined Stage 1 and 2 road safety audit, has had no prior involvement in the project.

1.3 The terms of reference for the audit are as described in Highways Agency Standard HD 19/03. Only the road safety implications of the proposals have been considered and their compliance with other requirements and criteria has not been examined or verified.

1.4 The audit was based on site inspections and examination of the information provided to the Audit Team, as listed in Appendix A. No ‘as-constructed’ drawings or other scheme details, traffic flows, speeds, injury accident records or details of any departures from standards were provided.

1.5 Owing to BHCC’s expressed wish for urgency, it was agreed with the client in this instance that the Audit Team’s joint inspections should take place ahead of the police’s earliest availability to attend. D Finney and B Woodhams consequently inspected the site between 18.30 and 21.30 hours in daylight, and between 22.30 and 23.00 during the hours of darkness, on the evening of Monday 30th June 2008. D Finney inspected the site again in daylight between 10.00 and 12.45 hours on Wednesday 16th July 2008, accompanied by Mr Mark Dunn, Traffic Management Officer, Road Policing Department, Sussex Police. The weather was fine and dry and visibility was clear for all the inspections, to which highway maintenance representatives were also invited. Record photographs were taken during the daylight inspections.

1.6 Grand Avenue and The Drive are part of the B2185 route forming one of two main links between Hove seafront/town centre and residential areas to the north of the South Coast railway line. The route is also used by drivers who know the local road network as a secondary link via residential streets to the A27 trunk road at the Devils Dyke Road junction. The subject length of the route has a 30mph speed limit and a system of street lighting. Buses operate in Grand Avenue and in The Drive, north of its junction with Cromwell Road. There

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 1

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

are traffic signal-controlled junctions with the A259 Kingsway, B2066 Church Road, Eaton Road, B2120 Cromwell Road and A270 Old Shoreham Road.

1.7 Before the scheme’s introduction there was kerbside parallel parking on both sides for most of the subject length and two lines of central parallel parking in Grand Avenue and in The Drive, south of its junction with Eaton Road.

1.8 No ‘as-constructed’ drawings or other scheme details were provided for this audit, which has consequently been undertaken mainly with reference to the general arrangement plans listed in Appendix A (these are the same as those presented for the Stage 1 and 2 road safety audit in January 2008) and the evidence of the site inspections referred to above.

1.9 The scheme as constructed to date features mandatory cycle lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions. For most of the subject length the cycle lanes are separated from the rest of the carriageway by narrow, kerbed, “splitter islands” with parallel on-carriageway parking alongside. The central parking and much of the former parallel kerbside parking capacity has been retained. The following proposals, as either shown on the general arrangement plans or referred to in the “Designers Response to RSA Stage 1/2” provided for this audit, have not yet been implemented and have not been given further detailed consideration in this report:

· alteration/renewal of traffic signals at A259 Kingsway junction (note: no details were provided for consideration in the Stage1-2 audit and the client has advised that these works are subject to a separate design stage audit and will be completed separately);

· provision of blister tactile paving on the east-west pedestrian desire lines at the Church Road junction (note: the client has advised that these works will now form part of a comprehensive review/revision of this signal-controlled junction);

· road markings between the Wilbury Avenue junction and the controlled pedestrian crossing to the north of the junction with The Upper Drive (note: the client has advised that they will be completed in the near future);

· modification of the Old Shoreham Road traffic signalised junction to provide a pedestrian stage for all four arms and cycle route continuity via a connection to Hove Recreation Ground (note: the client has advised that redesign, taking account of the concerns identified in the Stage 1-2 audit, is in hand and the works will be subject to separate Stage 3 audit on completion).

1.10 The previous Stage 1 and 2 road safety audit report dated February 2008 and associated designer’s responses have been reviewed as part of this audit and the results of the review are summarised in Section 2.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 2

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

1.11 The observations and recommendations arising from this Stage 3 audit are set out in Section 3 in the order of topics suggested in Annex C of HD 19/03. Those of general or scheme-wide relevance under each topic sub-heading precede any location-specific issues, which are then presented in order from south to north.

1.12 The heading “Problem” denotes an issue of definite concern as identified from the information presented, whilst the heading “Observation” may denote potential concerns and/or pre- emptive and advisory items, e.g. where insufficient information is available for the Audit Team to be reassured on an issue, or where there is an associated road safety issue not directly affected by the proposals as presented for audit. Recommendations are shown in bold type throughout and the site-specific recommendations cross-refer, by their paragraph numbers, to the annotated scheme plans in Appendix B.

1.13 All ‘Problems’ and ‘Observations’ are considered significant to road safety and to require further consideration by the scheme’s promoters and designers.

1.14 “ADDITIONAL COMMENTS” follow recommendations in some instances. They are included for clarification or to highlight associated factors of potential relevance and are not part of the recommendation.

1.15 This road safety audit report has been prepared in accordance with the instructions and for the specific use of Brighton & Hove City Council. The authors shall not be liable for the information contained in this report if used for any purpose other than that for which it was provided in connection with their appointment as Road Safety Auditors.

2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

2.1 The proposals were subject to a combined Stage 1 and 2 (preliminary and detailed design) road safety audit. The audit report, reference B&H\041\RSA2 dated February 2008, and BHCC’s associated designer’s responses have been reviewed as part of this audit.

2.2 The following matters raised in the Stage 1 & 2 audit are still considered to be of concern and are referred to again in Section 3 of this report. The relevant Stage 3 item references are given in the left hand column of the table below:

Stage 1-2 Audit Summary of Problem or Observation Stage 3 Audit References References 2.1 Constraint of cyclists by splitter islands a fundamental hazard 3.3 risk (see * below) 2.2 Inadequate drainage would affect road users’ safety 3.1 2.3 Street trees are a potential collision hazard to cyclists 3.2

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 3

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

2.4, 2.18, 2.21, Cycle lane splitter islands a potential collision and overrun 3.4 2.24 hazard 2.6 Vulnerable users at risk when crossing road or accessing parked 3.6 vehicles 2.7 Inappropriate kerbs or tactile paving could endanger pedestrians 3.7 2.8 clear and appropriate cycle route/lanes signing will be required 3.16, 3.17 2.13 Inappropriate bus stop details could put pedestrians & cyclists at 3.7 risk 2.16 Central cycle parking stands near Church Road junction may 3.15 result in cyclist/motor vehicle conflicts

* NB: Item 3.3 of this report concerns only the hazards associated with vehicular accesses; other potential hazards to which item 2.1 of the Stage 1-2 audit alluded are considered to be intrinsic to the scheme concept of physical separation of cycle lanes and the recommendations in the remaining items of this report can only be expected to mitigate the risks to different extents.

2.3 The above summary table does not include consideration of the works listed in Section 1 as not yet having been implemented or of previously audited proposals that it appears have not/will not be implemented, e.g. a longer eastbound cyclists’ feeder lane to the advanced stop lines at the Kingsway junction and revised central road markings at the Cromwell Road junction (Items 2.11 and 2.19 of the Stage 1-2 audit report referred).

2.4 The remaining road safety concerns identified in the Stage 1-2 audit report are considered either to have been addressed satisfactorily in so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so in the circumstances now prevailing or do not feature in the works as constructed to date.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 4

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

3. ITEMS RESULTING FROM THIS STAGE 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

Note: the following items include some issues that affect several locations, thereby indicating a fundamental and/or widespread concern; where examples are given in such cases the locations are not shown on the annotated scheme plans as it is assumed the issue concerned will be given scheme-wide consideration by the client and designer(s); only those items that deal with location-specific issues are identified by location on the annotated plans in Appendix B.

DRAINAGE

3.1 Observation Summary: inadequate drainage would affect road users’ safety The introduction of the “splitter islands”, in some instances of substantial length, will have reduced the pre-existing drainage efficacy in some areas, e.g. by preventing the surface water run-off from extensive carriageway areas from reaching existing gullies and discharging the water at the end of the island into the cycle lane. Inadequate drainage provision could result in motor vehicles or cyclists suffering skidding accidents and pedestrians slipping when crossing the road or accessing parked vehicles. The risks would be greater during icy weather if gritting operations did not cover the cycle lanes adequately. The effects could not be assessed practically during the inspection as the weather was dry, but examples of areas of potential concern were as follows:

· northbound outside Normandy House (Sheet 2)

· southbound between Cromwell Road junction and Philip Court (Sheet 4)

· northbound and southbound between Drive Bridge and Cromwell Road (Sheet 4)

Recommendations If found necessary on inspection during heavy rainfall, provide additional gullies, e.g. along the main carriageway side and at the downstream ends of long lengths of splitter island, and/or otherwise modify the existing drainage to ensure the carriageway and cycle lanes are drained effectively.

LANDSCAPING

3.2 Problem Summary: basal re-growth of street trees a collision hazard to cyclists Whilst many of the potential tree-related hazards to cyclists using the cycle tracks and lanes identified in the Stage 1-2 audit have been addressed, recent lateral re-growth at the bases and on the lower trunks of some trees obstructed the cycle tracks at the time of inspection,

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 5

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

examples being: outside No.7 The Drive, Normandy House, Nos.55 and 60 The Drive and White Lodge. Where splitter islands are present or nearby they will prevent cyclists from moving clear of the growth, which will constitute a collision hazard.

Recommendations Remove the lateral re-growth on the lower trunks of kerbside trees and treat the trees to prevent its recurrence within the routine tree maintenance cycle frequency, or increase the frequency of tree inspection and maintenance accordingly.

ACCESS

3.3 Problem Summary: multiple conflict points & poor visibility at frontage accesses The introduction of cycle lanes and splitter islands between the footways and parallel parking bays, together with the resulting reduction in the main carriageway widths to one through lane in each direction, has created multiple conflict points with inadequate inter-visibility between the various road users at the numerous frontage accesses. The problems, which are described accurately and in some detail in residents’ letters provided as part of the audit brief, include the following:

· lack of inter-visibility past parked vehicles between drivers, when turning left and, to a lesser extent, when turning right into their accesses, and cyclists using the cycle tracks;

· the consequent need, if the risk of collision is to be minimised, to slow to a crawl or stop before clearing the through lane, resulting in the risk of nose-tail shunt collisions with pursuing vehicles (which could also trigger collisions with cyclists or footway users);

· the need for drivers to start/stop/restart when emerging from their properties before entering the through traffic lanes, with the attendant risk of obstruction of and collisions with users of the cycle tracks;

· the need for those residents who cannot turn their vehicles within their off-road parking areas, so as to enter and leave in a forward gear, to reverse over the cycle track (and the footway, which is also a pre-existing problem);

· the consequently increased likelihood that such drivers will use the footway, at risk of pedestrian conflict, to drive forwards to the next downstream access crossing in order to avoid having to reverse wholly out into the main traffic lanes. The provision of the cycle tracks may give some cyclists unrealistic expectations of route quality, encouraging them to believe they have priority in all circumstances, reducing their awareness of the possibility of conflicts, and hence lowering their levels of vigilance. They may consequently cycle at inappropriate speeds with reduced tolerance of other road users’ difficulties and actions. Those cycling downhill and children, who are more difficult to see past parked cars than adults, will be at the greatest risk.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 6

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

Recommendation Remove sufficient of the parallel parking alongside the cycle tracks and splitter islands to provide appropriate unobstructed inter-visibility between drivers and cyclists, including children and riders of prone cycles, and taking account of potential cycling speeds, particularly southbound. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: if this were to result in an unacceptable reduction in on-street parking capacity it would appear necessary to remove the cycle tracks and splitter islands and make alternative provision for cyclists if required; in such circumstances on-carriageway cycle facilities would avoid or reduce potential obstruction and congestion of the single southbound and northbound traffic lanes caused by the present layout, to which resident’s letters also refer.

LOCAL ALIGNMENT

3.4 Problem Summary: cycle lane splitter islands a potential collision and overrun hazard The splitter islands that separate the cycle tracks from the parking bays and running carriageways have a low kerb face and little visual contrast from the carriageway in many instances. Whilst bollards have been provided at the leading ends of the first of series of splitter islands, the extent of reflective material provided is small and subsequent islands generally have no bollards. Minimal protection is consequently provided against accidental collision or overrunning by motor vehicles and the deliberate mounting of the kerbs for parking, as is becoming a widespread practise nationally. Cyclists are also at risk of colliding with the ends of the splitter islands where they are not conspicuous.

Recommendations Provide reflective bollards on the leading ends of all splitter islands and at regular intervals along the longer lengths in cases where the island widths permit. Elsewhere, either widen the splitter islands sufficiently to accommodate bollards or remove the islands and substitute buffer strips, e.g. using road markings and coloured surfacing. Increase the area of reflective material on the bollards and ensure it is securely and permanently fixed.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: a slim, ‘rebound’, type of bollard or delineator post may be appropriate for all except the first on a series of splitter islands.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 7

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

3.5 Problem Summary: poor northbound approach alignment to Cromwell Road junction The splitter island and parking on the northbound approach to Cromwell Road extend so close to the traffic signals stop-line that the natural driving line feeds the right turn lane, whist the, presumably predominant, ahead and left turning traffic has little time to enter the nearside lane intended for that manoeuvre. The road markings between the nearside and offside lanes also extend back toward the splitter island/parking such that there is no clear vehicle entry path to the nearside lane. Owing to the negligible capacity of the nearside lane the right turn lane may be used, both inadvertently and deliberately, for ‘ahead’ movements and lane violations and side-impact conflicts appear likely. Additionally, northbound cyclists wishing to turn right at the junction have little opportunity beyond the end of the splitter island to move across in a gap in the northbound traffic stream so as to occupy an appropriate position in the right turning lane, thereby putting them at increased risk of conflict with ‘ahead’ and left-turning traffic.

Recommendation Remove the northernmost length of splitter island and adjacent parallel parking on the northbound approach to the junction and revise the lane markings so as to provide a viable alignment into the nearside lane, an orderly transition from one approach to two entry lanes at the junction and an opportunity for right-turning cyclists to manoeuvre into an appropriate position.

PEDESTRIANS

3.6 Problem Summary: vulnerable users at risk when crossing road or accessing parked vehicles Apart from at a very few disabled parking bays the splitter islands present a formidable obstruction to wheelchair users and other people with reduced mobility or impaired sight when crossing the road or trying to get to or from parked vehicles. Where there are substantial unbroken lengths of splitter island, e.g. in Grand Avenue, north of Cromwell Road pedestrians who cannot negotiate kerb upstands will be faced with long detours or will cross diagonally or occupy the main traffic lanes, alongside parked vehicles, in order to cross the carriageway. Pedestrian falls and conflicts with vehicles may result. People with reduced mobility who wish to get to and from parked vehicles will either have to negotiate two kerb-lines each time or proceed along the cycle lane to/from a gap in the splitter island, in which case they will obstruct and be at risk of conflict with cyclists.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 8

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

Recommendation If or where splitter islands are retained, modify them as necessary to provide appropriate means for people with reduced mobility or impaired sight to cross the road or get to and from parked vehicles.

3.7 Problem Summary: inappropriate kerb or tactile paving details could endanger pedestrians In many locations there is no, or insufficient, kerb upstand to provide tactile warning of the edge of the footway and/or the likelihood of pedestrian/vehicle conflict in the absence of tactile paving. Examples are as follows:

· the southbound and northbound ‘island’ bus stops in Grand Avenue, where the extent of flush kerbs provided on either side of the cycle tracks exceeds the lengths of blister tactile paving;

· outside Coombe Lea in Grand Avenue ;

· outside Nos.14-16 and Normandy House, The Drive

· outside No.30 The Drive In all such cases the risk of conflict is increased by the reduced audible warning due to the relatively quiet approach of cycles compared with other traffic.

Recommendation Subject to any locally agreed variations arising from consultations with appropriate representative groups, provide a minimum kerb upstand of 25mm except where tactile paving is provided of an appropriate type with reference to the current DfT Mobility Unit and ‘Inclusive Mobility’ guidance.

3.8 Problem Summary: pedestrian hazards at Kingsway junction due to footway gradients etc Excessive footway crossfalls and gradients, together with the unnecessary use of a dished channel, have created a serious hazard for pedestrians and wheelchair users on the north west corner of the Kingsway junction with Grand Avenue.

Recommendation Replace the dished channel with flush rectangular channel blocks and reconstruct the footway in this area to gradients and crossfalls within the maxima recommended in the current DfT Inclusive Mobility and tactile paving guidance.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 9

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

3.9 Problem Summary: footway depressions at proposed signal pole sites are a trip hazard Depressions in the footway around sockets provided for future traffic signal poles at the Kingsway junction presently cause subtle tripping and falling hazards to pedestrians.

Recommendations Provide temporary coning and/or barriers to discourage pedestrians from walking over the areas surrounding the sockets pending installation of the proposed traffic signal poles. Review the extent of the remaining hazard to pedestrians following installation of the poles, if necessary amending the levels so as to minimise the risks.

3.10 Problem Summary: inspection covers in tactile paving areas at Kingsway junction A number of, apparently newly installed, tactile paving areas have inspection covers within or directly adjoining them, which could confuse pedestrians with impaired vision and increase the risk of pedestrian/vehicle conflict.

Recommendation Revise the layout or construction details so as to rectify these clashes.

3.11 Problem Summary: pedestrian hazard from incomplete road markings at Church Road Worn/incomplete “Look Right” and “Look Left” road markings for pedestrians crossing the Church Road south arm could confuse pedestrians and result in vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.

Recommendation Pending the planned review of this junction, renew and complete these road markings for the guidance of pedestrians.

3.12 Observation Summary: excessive footway gradient at Wilbury Avenue junction crossing point Although not part of the audited works, it was noted that the excessive pre-existing gradient on the tactile paving at the south side of the junction remained, whilst a commendable improvement has been made at the north side.

Recommendations If possible, replicate the north side improvement in conditions for pedestrians at the south side of the Wilbury Avenue junction.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 10

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

CYCLISTS

3.13 Problem Summary: risk of cyclist/left turning vehicle conflicts at signal-controlled junctions The provision of advanced cycle stop-lines assists cyclists only when traffic is stopped at a red signal. At other times cyclists going ahead are at risk of collision with left turning vehicles, the drivers of which may not expect to be overtaken on the inside. Whilst this hazard is associated with all on-carriageway cycle lanes, the provision of extensive physical segregation of cycle tracks/lanes by splitter islands and the provision of mandatory cycle lanes up to the junction entries may encourage in cyclists a perception of precedence and invulnerability that may exacerbate the risks, the injury consequences of which are likely to be serious. Owing to the downhill approach and the long, unbroken, splitter island, which extends very close to the traffic signals, the southbound approach to Cromwell Road appears especially hazardous in this respect.

Recommendations Revise the approach layouts and road markings and provide appropriate means of warning road users of the potential conflicts.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: curtailing splitter islands earlier and substituting advisory, for mandatory, cycle lane markings on the traffic signal junction approaches may assist; it is acknowledged that warning signs may require special authorisation.

3.14 Observation Summary: potential confusion for cyclists using Route 82 from Kingsway junction It is understood that a Toucan crossing is proposed on the west arm of the Kingsway junction with Grand Avenue and, whilst this is outside the scope of this audit, some potentially anomalous features were noted on site. A ‘Route 82’ cyclists’ advance direction sign to Hove Station on the westbound approach to the junction points right (northwards) some distance ahead of the point where cyclists should turn right to use the proposed Toucan. Following the removal of guardrails on the south side of the road and the provision of a cyclists’ carriageway crossing, intended for southbound movements from Grand Avenue only, the sign may encourage users of the adjacent route on the seaward side to assume they should cross via this southbound link. Also, the provision of an advanced stop-line for cyclists in the right turning lane appears to duplicate, and obfuscate the purpose of, the proposed Toucan crossing as far as northbound crossing movements are concerned.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 11

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

Recommendation Review the facilities for cyclists before implementing the Toucan and completing the other associated works at this junction.

3.15 Problem Summary: central cycle parking stands may result in cyclist/motor vehicle conflicts The provision of cycle stands on the central islands at the Church Road junction requires cyclists to turn from and into the offside of the right turning lane entry and through-traffic exit lanes, respectively, of the signal-controlled junction. This could cause confusion on the part of right-turning drivers, obstruction of the traffic lanes and a consequent collision hazard. Whilst it is acknowledged that the numbers of cycle stands provided on the central islands to date are less than previously proposed, the risk of conflict appears to remain. Those on the south arm of the junction are of particular concern owing to their close proximity to the junction whilst those north of the junction cannot be accessed from the nearby turning gap owing to an intervening a flower bed and the central refuge is very narrow for cycle parking purposes. More generally, having parked their cycles, cyclists become pedestrians and any such central cycle parking could encourage hazardous pedestrian access movements across the carriageways in the ‘shadow’ of the traffic signals.

Recommendation Remove the cycle stands from the central refuges on either side of the Church road junction and provide alternative nearside cycle parking facilities if required.

TRAFFIC SIGNS & ROAD MARKINGS

3.16 Problem Summary: lack of warning of cycle track crossing side roads may cause conflicts No signs to warn other road users of the presence of the cycle route as they approach from side roads appear to have been provided. This could result in the risk of conflict at and near junctions, especially where many drivers turn left under priority control, when their attention may be directed primarily towards finding a gap in the major road motor vehicle traffic. Collisions with cyclists or the ends of cycle track splitter islands may ensue. Particular examples are at the junctions with The Upper Drive and southbound beyond the Cromwell Road junction.

Recommendation Provide appropriate means of warning other road users of cycle lanes and the possible presence of cyclists on side road approaches.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 12

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: measures might, depending on individual circumstances, include providing some of the following: warning/informatory signs on the side roads; Diagram 1009 (edge-of-carriageway/start of cycle lane) road markings and/or coloured surfacing at the start of lengths of cycle lanes and where they resume after crossing side roads; continuing advisory cycle lane markings and coloured surfacing across side road junctions.

3.17 Problem Summary: contra-flow cycling may cause collisions with other road users Several cyclists were seen to use the cycle tracks/lanes in the wrong direction during the site inspections. This could result in collisions with pedestrians crossing the lanes, motor vehicles at access and junctions or other cyclists near junctions, none of whom will expect, and may not therefore look out for conflicting movements in that direction. The most vulnerable classes of pedestrians are at particular risk of injury in this regard.

Recommendations Provide frequent additional ‘cycle’ symbol and direction arrow road markings in the cycle tracks and lanes throughout the scheme.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: the southbound cycle track/lane between Eaton Road and Church Road was particularly deficient of cycle lane markings.

3.18 Problem Summary: risk of confusion for southbound cyclists at junction with Kingsway The means by which southbound cyclists entering the junction with Kingsway are intended to continue westwards or reach the cycle track on the south side to go east are unclear, and potentially confusing. The central feeder lane to the advanced cycle stop-line aligns directly with the end of the junction splitter island, and a cyclist who waits there will be at risk of vehicle conflict on moving diagonally forwards to one side or the other when the signals change to green. No directional information is provided for cyclists on the entry side of the junction and, owing to the road camber in Kingsway and the subtlety of the arrow markings on the cycle track on the south side of the junction, it is difficult to see from the advanced cycle stop-line where one is supposed to go.

Recommendations Provide appropriate direction sign(s) for cyclists to indicate the available routes and intended means of accessing them. Provide additional road markings in the area of the advanced stop-line to discourage cyclists from waiting behind the splitter island.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 13

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: the provision of a map-type advance direction sign for cyclists may be worth considering; see also under ‘CYCLISTS’ for corresponding scheme-wide item concerning cycle/motor vehicle left turn conflicts.

3.19 Problem Summary: confusing road markings affecting northbound left turn from Kingsway A segment-shaped area of hatched road markings in the northbound exit from the Kingsway junction could confuse and distract drivers turning left from Kingsway and thereby increase the risk of conflict with cyclists or other road users. The marking appears to serve no obvious purpose, as it is of little or no relevance to the right turn movement into Grand Avenue from Kingsway.

Recommendations Review the purpose of the hatched area of road markings with the view to its removal, if appropriate.

3.20 Problem Summary: confusing road layout south of Eaton Road junction may result in conflicts The layout, as defined by road markings, to the south of the junction with Eaton Road is unclear and confusing to road users. This may result in northbound, right-turning drivers moving further right in potential conflict with southbound traffic and/or other inappropriate manoeuvres such as U-turning, stopping and parking on the central area.

Recommendations Provide hatching and other appropriate road markings to clearly delineate the intended road layout.

3.21 Problem Summary: risk of collisions with splitter island to north of Eaton Road junction The mandatory cycle lane line on the northbound approach to the start of the splitter island north of the Eaton Road junction tends to draw drivers’ attention left of the intended alignment and may increase the risk of collisions with the splitter island.

Recommendation Provide hatching alongside the cycle lane line on the approach to the splitter island.

3.22 Problem Summary: start of cycle lane/splitter island south of Cromwell Road poorly defined The start of the southbound cycle lane and onset of the splitter island south of Cromwell Road is poorly defined, particularly for drivers turning left into The Drive, who have negligible

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 14

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

visibility of the layout on approach. Confusion, resulting in late avoiding action or collisions may ensue.

Recommendations Provide additional road markings between the junction and the splitter island to indicate the start of the cycle lane and guide drivers outwards, around the obstruction. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: the treatments at the Church Road junction and the northbound exit from this junction appear more effective in this regard; as suggested in connection with a previous item, coloured surfacing may also assist.

3.23 Problem Summary: redundant road markings at Cromwell Road approach may confuse The old road markings on the southbound approach to the traffic signals at Cromwell Road junction have not been removed effectively and present a confusing appearance, which his likely to appear more so in wet weather, especially at night time. Lane violation conflicts may result.

Recommendation Resurface the affected area and re-apply the appropriate road markings if the old ones cannot be removed more effectively.

3.24 Problem Summary: misleading signs on southbound approach to island beyond Drive Bridge The existing “Get in Lane” advance direction sign located north of Drive Bridge (the railway bridge) could cause southbound drivers wishing to turn left or continue southwards (presumably the great majority) to move prematurely leftward for the nearside lane, which does not start until after a long splitter island, and collide with the leading end of the splitter island, which is hidden over a crest.

Recommendations Review the content and location of the advance direction sign and revise the existing and/or provide additional road markings to clarify the road layout on the southbound approach to the cycle track/splitter island that starts beyond Drive Bridge.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The provision of an edge-of-carriageway or lane line and hatching between the cycle and southbound main traffic lanes may assist. Although not part of the audited works, a second advance direction sign, located behind the cycle track/splitter island on this approach to the junction with Cromwell Road, was hidden behind trees/foliage at the time of inspection and it is recommended that the sign is made readily visible.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 15

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

3.25 Problem Summary: high friction surfacing area near The Upper Drive junction needs revising The road layout changes near the junction with The Upper Drive have caused the existing high friction surfacing area on the northbound approach to the controlled pedestrian crossing to be inconsistent. Differential braking performance could result in loss-of-control or other related incidents.

Recommendations Revise/renew the high friction surfacing as appropriate for the new layout.

3.26 Problem Summary: inconspicuous ‘keep left’ bollards at junction with The Upper Drive The newly installed, unlit, ‘keep left’ bollard on the western end of the central refuge island in the junction with The Upper Drive may be difficult to see from vehicles turning eastbound from The Drive.

Recommendations Provide additional amber reflective material on the sides of the new unlit ‘keep left’ bollard.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: it is understood that the two internally illuminated bollards that were on the eastern end of the refuge at the time of inspection are also to be replaced by an unlit one, in which case the above recommend will again apply.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 16

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

4. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT

I certify that this audit has been carried out in accordance with HD 19/03.

(signed) ...... (date) 18th July 2008 AUDIT TEAM LEADER David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highways, Traffic and Road Safety Engineering Consultant 75 Willingdon Road Eastbourne BN21 1TR

Tel: 01323 720 924 Mob: 07914 063 496 [email protected]

AUDIT TEAM MEMBER: Bruce Woodhams BSc (Hons) MIHT Bruce Woodhams Associates Ltd 73 Bridger Way Crowborough East Sussex TN6 2XD

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008 17

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

Appendix A

Information examined in the Audit

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: B&H\053\RSA3 Report A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 3, July 2008

David Finney CEng MICE MIHT Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation ∙ Road Safety Audit

APPENDIX A - INFORMATION EXAMINED IN THE AUDIT

DRAWINGS PROVIDED FOR THIS AUDIT

Drawing No Rev Title Description / Remarks

C161 - 501 E Regional Route 82 A1 plan of stated scale 1:500 Hove to Hangleton Cycle Route See Appendix B for reduced size A259 Kingsway to A27 Brighton Bypass NTS annotated copy Proposals - Sheet 1 of 16

C161 - 502 E Regional Route 82 A1 plan of stated scale 1:500 Hove to Hangleton Cycle Route See Appendix B for reduced size A259 Kingsway to A27 Brighton Bypass NTS annotated copy Proposals - Sheet 2 of 16

C161 – 503 E Regional Route 82 A1 plan of stated scale 1:500 Hove to Hangleton Cycle Route See Appendix B for reduced size A259 Kingsway to A27 Brighton Bypass NTS annotated copy Proposals - Sheet 3 of 16

C161 – 504 E Regional Route 82 A1 plan of stated scale 1:500 Hove to Hangleton Cycle Route See Appendix B for reduced size A259 Kingsway to A27 Brighton Bypass NTS annotated copy Proposals - Sheet 4 of 16

C161 - 505 E Regional Route 82 A1 plan of stated scale 1:500 Hove to Hangleton Cycle Route See Appendix B for reduced size A259 Kingsway to A27 Brighton Bypass NTS annotated copy Proposals - Sheet 5 of 16