Cycle Superhighways – Route 2 (Aldgate to Ilford) Final CHIP Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cycle Superhighways – Route 2 (Aldgate to Ilford) Final CHIP Report April 2010 DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET BPP 04 F8 Client: Transport for London Project: Cycle Superhighway – Route 2 Job No: JC0029A0 Document Title: Final CHIP Report Originator Checked by Reviewed by Approved by ORIGINAL NAME NAME NAME NAME Caroline Field Mehran Bakhtiari Marius le Roux Ali Ataie DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE 1 April 2010 CF MB MLR AA Document Status: Issued REVISION 1 NAME NAME NAME NAME Caroline Field Colin Aarons Marius le Roux Ali Ataie DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE CF Document Status: Issued REVISION 2 NAME NAME NAME NAME DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE Document Status: This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Consultancy UK Ltd (“Jacobs Consultancy”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs Consultancy’s contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs Consultancy. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs Consultancy. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs Consultancy at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs Consultancy has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs Consultancy for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs Consultancy will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document. This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs Consultancy, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs Consultancy may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs Consultancy’s written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs Consultancy and Jacobs Consultancy, accordingly, assumes no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs Consultancy accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs Consultancy’s interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party. Cycle Superhighway – Route 2, Final CHIP Report, Version 2, April 2010 CONTENTS 1 BASE INFORMATION 1-7 1.1 Introduction 1-7 1.2 Strategic Context and Objectives 1-10 1.3 Overview Plans of Cycle Superhighway Route 2 1-12 1.4 List of CRIM Stakeholders 1-12 2 SUMMARY OF DATA AND INFORMATION GATHERED 2-15 2.1 Section and Link descriptions 2-15 2.2 Key Trip Generators 2-27 2.3 Cycle Flow Data and Significant Movements 2-29 2.4 Existing Conditions for Cyclists 2-31 2.5 Cycle Collision Data 2-36 2.6 Motor Traffic Flow Data 2-37 2.7 Motor Traffic Speed Data 2-39 2.8 Cycle Superhighway Route junction capacity issues 2-40 2.9 Pedestrian Amenity Issues 2-41 2.10 Historic Report, Studies and Consultations 2-42 2.11 Current and Proposed Schemes 2-48 2.12 Motor traffic and cycling enforcement issues 2-50 3 DRAWINGS 3-51 3.1 Existing situation and Recommendations 3-51 4 CONSIDERATION AND SUMMARY OF OPTIONS 4-52 4.1 Cycle Superhighway Route 2 – Data Sheets 4-52 4.2 Summary of Scheme Options in Data Sheets 4-139 4.3 Category Breakdown of Scheme Options in the Data Sheets 4-155 APPENDIX A PRE-CRIM BRIEFING PACKS APPENDIX B RECORD OF CRIM APPENDIX C OVERVIEW PLANS OF THE ROUTE APPENDIX D CYCLE COLLISION DRAWINGS APPENDIX E EXISTING SITUATION APPENDIX F ROUTE DRAWINGS - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX G CURRENT PROPOSED SCHEMES Cycle Superhighway – Route 2, Final CHIP Report, Version 2, April 2010 Table 1 Summary of Roads along Cycle Superhighway Route 2 1-9 th Table 2 List of CRIM attendees, Day 1 – 26 January 2010 1-13 th Table 3 List of CRIM attendees, Day 2 – 27 January 2010 1-14 Table 4 Existing Characteristics of Sections and Elements 2-15 Table 5 Tube and Rail Stations 2-27 Table 6 Educational Establishments 2-27 Table 7 Major Employers 2-28 Table 8 Major Retail Centres 2-29 Table 9 Details of Traffic Surveys provided by TfL 2-29 Table 10 Summary of Cycle Flows from traffic survey data 2-30 Table 11 Summary of Existing Cycle Conditions 2-31 Table 12 Summary of Casualty Data – 01 Jan 06 to 31 Jul 09 2-36 Table 13 PCU Conversion Factors 2-37 Table 14 Peak Hour Vehicular Traffic Flows 2-38 Table 15 Summary of Bus Frequencies 2-39 Table 16 Summary of Pedestrian Amenity Issues 2-41 Table 17 Summary of Recommendations from previous CRISP studies 2-44 Figure 1 Cycle Superhighway Routes 1-8 Cycle Superhighway – Route 2, Final CHIP Report, Version 2, April 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Cycle Superhighway Infrastructure Plan (CHIP) has been funded by Transport for London (TfL). The purpose of the CHIP is to carry out a systematic review of the general environment and specific infrastructure available to cyclists for a designated route, then, in consultation with primary stakeholders, form a list of recommendations to improve the route and remove barriers to cycling for existing cyclists and to encourage more cyclists to use the route. The core characteristics of a Cycle Superhighway are: • Safety – safety and perception of safety addressed through specific measures; • Directness – direct and reliable routes into central London; • Continuity – clear and uninterrupted marking of the route; • Visibility – an easily recognisable identity with clear signage; • Comfort – a smooth, uninterrupted road surface; • Information – clear information on and about the route; and • Value for Money – engineering to be pragmatic and simple. Route Alignment Cycle Superhighway Route 2 will provide a continuous cycle route between Aldgate and Ilford in east London. The route runs along the A11 Whitechapel Road, Mile End Road, Bow Road and High Street (Stratford) and then along the A118 Romford Road up to the junction of Ilford Hill and Chapel Road. Major Barriers and Proposed Actions There are some major barriers for cyclists along this route which include fast moving traffic and lack of cycle and pedestrian facilities at key locations. Although cycle facilities do exist along this route some have been provided as a minimum, potentially putting cyclists at risk by ‘inviting’ them to use it. The table overleaf shows the most common barriers along Cycle Superhighway Route 2 with proposed actions as a mitigation measure. Cycle Superhighway – Route 2, Final CHIP Report, Version 2, April 2010 Major Barriers Proposed Actions No cycle (and pedestrian) facilities. Provide adequate facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. The whole of the carriageway is allocated to two Investigate through traffic modelling if or more traffic lanes in a direction, especially at carriageway allocation to motorised traffic can be junctions. amended to incorporate cycle lanes. Available carriageway width is too narrow to Investigate if the carriageway can be widened incorporate cycle lanes. and if any statutory diversions are required. Traffic islands or pedestrian refuge islands create Remove islands or widen the carriageway to pinch points for cyclists. remove the pinch point for cyclists. Lack of continuity of cycle routes. Provision of facilities need to provide a link to attractions / link with existing routes. Lack of signage (way-finding) of route and Provision of clearly marked and adequate destinations. signage / information on routes destination and links to existing routes and attractions. Unresolved Matters of Contention The High Street 2012 (HS2012) project is currently underway on site at Stratford High Street, but there are a number of other proposals relating to HS2012 in the area which Cycle Superhighway Route 2 will seek to integrate with, to maximise opportunities for cycle facilities. The works carried out by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and Olympic Route Network (ORN) need to be reviewed to identify requirements and elements that have to be incorporated in the Cycle Superhighway Route 2 works, along with opportunities for Cycle Superhighway Route 2 to contribute. Ilford Station is planned to be redeveloped in 2016/17 which may have an impact on design decisions. Ilford Town Centre continuing development needs to be reviewed to ensure links to Cycle Superhighway Route 2 are provided. In addition to the above, there are a number of schemes at various design stages along the route currently under development. These schemes have been or will be reviewed by the Cycle Superhighway Route 2 designers in order to ensure the Cycle Superhighway concept is incorporated. Further details are described in Section 2.11 of this report. .Total Broad Implementation Cost Estimates At this stage it is very challenging to assign implementation cost estimates to the options or recommendations.