DOCSLIB.ORG

Response from Living Streets Is to Both of the Following Consultations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Response from Living Streets Is to Both of the Following Consultations North-South and East-West Cycle Superhighways This response from Living Streets is to both of the following consultations: - North-South Cycle Superhighway between Elephant & Castle and King's Cross - East-West Cycle Superhighway through central London Appendix A includes further comments on the Cycle Super Highway within the boundaries of the City of London. About Living Streets Living Streets is the national charity that stands up for pedestrians. With our supporters we work to create safe, attractive and enjoyable streets, where people want to walk. We work with professionals and politicians to make sure every community can enjoy vibrant streets and public spaces. As part of our work, we work closely with highway authorities, including Transport for London (TfL) and a number of London boroughs, to ensure that new cycle infrastructure not only creates safer routes to cycle but better places for people on foot. Comments - General Living Streets welcomes the ambition of the Mayor’s proposed North-South and East-West cycle superhighways but pedestrian safety and amenity must not be compromised. We support safer, more attractive routes for people cycling. Encouraging more people to travel by bicycle instead of by car will benefit all Londoners. It's good for our health, it's good for business and it's good for people using their cars (easing congestion). But if not designed well, cycle infrastructure can act in certain locations as a barrier to people walking. Many of our supporters, particularly older supporters or those with disabilities, are intimidated when cyclists and pedestrians are mixed in the same space. A measure of the Mayor's two flagship schemes will be their success in getting the design detail right so that pedestrian-cyclist conflict is avoided and the environment becomes more attractive to both cycle and walk in. A reduction in traffic lanes We strongly support the reduction in traffic lanes along most sections of the two routes and reallocation towards space for cycling. We believe this is the right approach to increase the number of people cycling and in response to the falling levels of motor traffic in central London. Reallocation of carriageway space in this manner will have a positive impact for pedestrians too. Crossings We welcome the 21 new signalised pedestrian crossings and ten crossings converted from staggered to straight ahead. We are however concerned about plans to increase pedestrian wait times at St George's Circus, Southwark Tube station, Ludgate Circus, Farringdon Street, Tower Hill, Parliament Square and Hyde Park Corner. In these instances, wait times for pedestrians are already excessive - well over 1½ minutes. In some locations, wait times are being increased by a further 24 seconds. Data provided by TfL shows that 38 crossings will have a wait time of more than 90 seconds along the East-West route in Westminster and the City alone. A TfL study into pedestrian behaviour found that 85 per cent of pedestrians waited no longer than 30 seconds before crossing the road, even if the signals were against them1. A reduction in wait times is needed rather than an increase, or at worst they should remain the same. In addition, a number of the pedestrian crossings are proposed to be the “stagger” type crossings, forcing the pedestrian to cross in two stages. The problem of stagger crossings and long wait times was highlighted in a recent City of London report2: "Officers consider that the existing stagger crossings at Ludgate Circus do not work effectively. At both crossing points, many pedestrians simply cross outside the crossing area and “green” man phase. They choose instead to cross in a straight line rather than use the narrow stagger islands. The current long pedestrian wait times also increases non-compliance with the pedestrian facilities provided thereby increasing road danger." 1http://www.jctconsultancy.co.uk/Symposium/Symposium2011/PapersForDownload/Pedestrian%20Countdown%20Tim ers%20at%20Traffic%20Signals%20Tony%20Earl%20TfL.pdf 2 City of London (14 Oct, 2014) Cycle Superhighways - The City's interim response to the public consultation. We would like to see all pedestrian crossings in locations such as Ludgate Circus to be direct and single stage. Pedestrian crossings across cycle tracks also need careful consideration. Wherever possible, crossings should form a single stage over the track and carriageway (e.g. St George's Road adjacent to Garden Row) to avoid pedestrians having to cross in two or more stages (e.g. outside Embankment Tube station). Bus stop bypasses A number of our supporters are concerned over the design of bus stop bypasses. The bus stop bypass arrangement inevitably increases the interaction between pedestrians and cyclists and therefore requires careful design in order to mitigate potential conflict. Where bus stop bypasses are deemed necessary, and where there is the space to allow it, they must be designed to slow cyclists down and give priority to pedestrians accessing the bus stop (see Fig 1). The proposed designs will result in pedestrians having to cross wide (four metre) cycle tracks to access bus stops in places like Blackfriars Road and Embankment where cyclists will be travelling at significant speeds and in significant volumes. The width of cycle tracks coupled with the speed and volume of cyclists expected to be using them requires appropriate crossing facilities. The exact design of those crossing may vary depending on the context but any design should give pedestrians getting on and off the bus priority (through for example a zebra crossing markings) and seek to slow cyclists going behind bus stops down (through signage and physical deflections). We urge TfL to consult pedestrian and disability groups in the design detail of the bus stop bypasses. We would be happy to contribute to this process. Fig 1 - Bus stop bypass example from Sydney, Australia. A number of cues have been used to signal cyclists to slow down and give pedestrians priority including a 'slow' sign, a raised crossing, zebra crossing markings and greenery. Footway widths We recognise the overall increase of footway space being proposed as part of the two superhighway schemes (net footway gain of 5,076 sq m). However this increase in pedestrian space is largely gained through the introduction of median strips between cycle tracks and the carriageway or inaccessible traffic islands, not necessarily at locations where it is most needed. As the City of London report notes3, 'the proposal looks to reduce footway space, particularly outside areas where high pedestrian flows exist such as at the Tower of London, Trinity Square Gardens, Queen Street and Ludgate Circus'. 3 City of London (14 Oct, 2014) Cycle Superhighways - The City's interim response to the public consultation. The City is planning for and anticipating a significant increase in the number who work in and visit the City resulting in an uplift of between 25% and 50% in the number of pedestrians using key junctions. We share their concern that current proposals have not considered this increase. From Pedestrian Comfort Level data provided by TfL we know pedestrian space is already below acceptable levels in locations close to Tower Hill. This is without any growth in pedestrian levels being accounted for. We would like to see all footways along the length of the two routes meeting a minimum Pedestrian Comfort Level4of B+ factoring in predicted pedestrian growth of between 25-50% depending on location. Pedestrian crossing widths must also be wide enough for current and future numbers using them. Slower speeds Slower speeds reduce road danger for cyclists and pedestrians and help create more inviting, people centred places. We are supportive of plans to include a number of new raised tables and tighter corners at side roads (e.g. Trinity Square, Fish Street Hill etc.) that will result in slower vehicle speeds and make them easier to cross. We strongly urge the greater use of 20 mph speed limits along the length of the two superhighway routes. Both routes go through boroughs with or moving towards a borough-wide 20 mph speed limit including Southwark, The City and Camden. 20 mph speed limits are recognised as an important element to creating safer streets for walking and cycling in several recent TfL policy documents, including the draft London Cycling Design Standards and Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. TfL should work with the relevant boroughs to introduce 20 mph speed limits as part of both schemes. Public Realm We support the general decluttering and urban realm improvements (including new benches, trees, and lighting) in places like Blackfriars Road which will make them more pleasant places to walk and spend time. 4 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/pedestrian-comfort-guidance-technical-guide.pdf We are however hugely disappointed that Parliament Square will remain under current plans an uninviting and intimidating place for pedestrians. We strongly urge that the design at this location is revisited and a new holistic design proposed that is truly fitting of a World Heritage Site. Cycle routes through parks The East–West route travels through St James Park, Green Park and Hyde Park. The detailed design of these routes is not yet available. However we would urge that any changes to pedestrian or cycle use in these parks should ensure that the primary use of parks remains recreational space and pedestrians and cyclists are not put into conflict with one another. We have agreed to contribute to a working group led by Royal Parks to look into the design detail of these routes. [email protected] London Manager Living Streets November 2014 City of London Appendix Please see below for more detailed comments on the proposed Cycle Superhighways in the City of London.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thames Path Walk Section 2 North Bank Albert Bridge to Tower Bridge
    Thames Path Walk With the Thames on the right, set off along the Chelsea Embankment past Section 2 north bank the plaque to Victorian engineer Sir Joseph Bazalgette, who also created the Victoria and Albert Embankments. His plan reclaimed land from the Albert Bridge to Tower Bridge river to accommodate a new road with sewers beneath - until then, sewage had drained straight into the Thames and disease was rife in the city. Carry on past the junction with Royal Hospital Road, to peek into the walled garden of the Chelsea Physic Garden. Version 1 : March 2011 The Chelsea Physic Garden was founded by the Worshipful Society of Start: Albert Bridge (TQ274776) Apothecaries in 1673 to promote the study of botany in relation to medicine, Station: Clippers from Cadogan Pier or bus known at the time as the "psychic" or healing arts. As the second-oldest stops along Chelsea Embankment botanic garden in England, it still fulfils its traditional function of scientific research and plant conservation and undertakes ‘to educate and inform’. Finish: Tower Bridge (TQ336801) Station: Clippers (St Katharine’s Pier), many bus stops, or Tower Hill or Tower Gateway tube Carry on along the embankment passed gracious riverside dwellings that line the route to reach Sir Christopher Wren’s magnificent Royal Hospital Distance: 6 miles (9.5 km) Chelsea with its famous Chelsea Pensioners in their red uniforms. Introduction: Discover central London’s most famous sights along this stretch of the River Thames. The Houses of Parliament, St Paul’s The Royal Hospital Chelsea was founded in 1682 by King Charles II for the Cathedral, Tate Modern and the Tower of London, the Thames Path links 'succour and relief of veterans broken by age and war'.
    [Show full text]
  • MODULE 2: INFRASTRUCTURE FAMILIARIZATION MODULE 2 TYPES of OFF-ROAD SIGNS Prohibitory Signs Warning Signs Prohibitory Signs Show Actions That Are Disallowed
    MODULE 2: INFRASTRUCTURE FAMILIARIZATION MODULE 2 TYPES OF OFF-ROAD SIGNS Prohibitory Signs Warning Signs Prohibitory Signs show actions that are disallowed. Disobeying Warning Signs are used to warn riders of possible dangers ahead. these signs is punishable by law. Riders should follow these signs for their own safety. “No Riding” Riding is not allowed in “Go Slow and Give Way To Pedestrians” this area. Areas where Slow down and give way to pedestrians. riding is prohibited include pedestrian overhead bridges “Watch Out For Vehicles” Slow down and look out for approaching vehicles. “Pedestrian or Cyclist Crossing Prohibition” Pedestrians and riders are “Slow” not allowed to cross at this Slow down and ride cautiously beyond location. Use the crossing the sign. ahead instead. “Caution – Low Headroom” Be cautious of the low headroom ahead. “Slope Ahead – Slow Down” Slow down and take caution on the slope ahead. MODULE 2 TYPES OF OFF-ROAD SIGNS Advisory Signs Information Signs/Markings/Signals Advisory Signs educate path users on proper shared path Information Signs help to inform you and direct you along the etiquette. Riders should follow these signs for a safer ride. cycling path to points of interest. “Stay on Track” “Cyclist Crossing” Segregated pedestrian and cycling paths are provided. Stay on your respective paths. “Bicycle Crossing with ‘Stop’ or ‘Look’ box” “Shared Track” Riders should use the bicycle The path is to be shared by both riders crossing provided. Riders are and pedestrians. Riders are to keep left to wait behind the solid yellow and give way to pedestrians when line when waiting for the lights riding.
    [Show full text]
  • At the Zebra Crossing: Modelling Complex Decision Processes with Variable-Drift Diffusion Models
    This paper was presented at CogSci 2019; the final proceedings version is available here: http://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2019/papers/0083/index.html Please cite as: Giles, O., Markkula, G., Pekkanen, J., Yokota, N., Matsunaga, N., Merat, N., & Daimon, T. (2019). At the Zebra Crossing: Modelling Complex Decision Processes with Variable-Drift Diffusion Models. In Goel, A., Seifert, C., Freksa, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 366-372). At the Zebra Crossing: Modelling Complex Decision Processes with Variable-Drift Diffusion Models Oscar Giles ([email protected]) Institute for Transport Studies and School of Psychology, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, Leeds, United Kingdom Gustav Markkula ([email protected]) Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, Leeds, United Kingdom Jami Pekkanen ([email protected]) School of Psychology and Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, Leeds, United Kingdom Naoki Yokota ([email protected]) Faculty of Science and Technology, Keio University, Yokohama 223-8522, Japan Naoto Matsunaga ([email protected]) Faculty of Science and Technology, Keio University, Yokohama 223-8522, Japan Natasha Merat ([email protected]) Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, Leeds, United Kingdom Tatsuru Daimon ([email protected]) Faculty of Science and Technology, Keio University, Yokohama 223-8522, Japan Abstract choices and reaction times. In particular, drift diffusion models (DDMs) and various related models, which describe Drift diffusion (or evidence accumulation) models have found widespread use in the modelling of simple decision tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian Crossings
    Pedestrian crossings Roads and Traffic Authority The information in this brochure is intended as a guide only and is subject to change at any time without notice. It does not replace the relevant legislation. For further enquiries www.rta.nsw.gov.au | 13 22 13 April 2008 RTA/Pub. 08.110 Cat No. 45094455 Every year, pedestrians make up approximately 20 per cent of all people killed on NSW roads. Pedestrian crossings are used to reduce crashes and to help both pedestrians and drivers use the road safely. Pedestrian crossing road rules When you are a pedestrian • Never cross the road within 20 metres of a Whether you are walking or driving you must obey road pedestrian crossing (except at the actual crossing). rules to make sure pedestrian crossings are safe. Penalties • Cross directly across the road and don’t stay on the apply for both drivers and pedestrians who break the law. road any longer than necessary. When you are driving • Avoid walking on the road; choose the footpath or nature strip. If the road is the only alternative, face • Give way to pedestrians if there is any danger of the oncoming traffic and stay as far to the side of the colliding with them. road as possible. • Drive at a speed at which you can stop safely before • Remember that drivers take longer than usual to the crossing. stop in wet and slippery conditions. • Give way to a pedestrian already on the road when turning left or right or making a U-turn. TIPS • Always obey NO STOPPING signs.
    [Show full text]
  • The UK Standards for Roundabouts and Mini Roundabouts
    THE UK STANDARDS FOR ROUNDABOUTS AND MINI-ROUNDABOUTS Janet V Kennedy Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) Crowthorne House Nine Mile Ride Wokingham Berkshire RG40 3GA United Kingdom Tel +44 (0) 1344 770953 Email [email protected] ABSTRACT The modern priority rule for roundabouts was first introduced in the UK during the 1960s and has been in widespread use ever since, gradually being adopted around the world. Roundabouts are recognised as a safe and efficient form of junction, particularly where side road flows are high. Extensive research led to predictive models for both safety and capacity and modern design is based on these relationships. The idea of mini-roundabouts was conceived during the 1970s. They are used in the UK in urban areas where a roundabout would be the first choice of junction if space permitted. They usually replace existing priority junctions. Like conventional roundabouts, they are seen as a safe and efficient form of junction. Both capacity and accident predictive relationships have been developed specifically for mini-roundabouts. The new standards for the geometric design of roundabouts and mini-roundabouts were published in 2007. Details of both standards are given in the paper. BACKGROUND The modern priority rule for roundabouts was first introduced in the UK during the 1960s and has been in widespread use ever since, gradually being adopted around the world. Roundabouts are recognised as a safe and efficient form of junction, particularly where side road flows are high. Extensive research led to predictive models for both safety and capacity and modern design is based on these relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Young Children in Traffic
    112 Injury Prevention 1995; 1: 112-115 INJURY CLASSIC Inj Prev: first published as 10.1136/ip.1.2.112 on 1 June 1995. Downloaded from Young children in traffic Stina Sandels Thispaper is the second in Traffic accident statistics in various countries Only the main investigation (b) will be dealt a series ofInjury Classic. show that young children are one of the age with here. In a high rise and low rise housing Ourgoal is to reprint one such paper in each issue to groups which are most affected, both as pedes- area in the suburbs of Stockholm, 13 similar initiate newcomers to the trians and as cyclists. In Sweden, when observation points were selected. These were field ofthese old, often accidents involving children are discussed it is distributed among playgrounds, park areas, quoted, and important contributions. As many are often said that these accidents are caused by areas ofhigh traffic density, streets, and shopp- difficult tofind, it should children's carelessness, incautiousness, and ing centres. During a period of three weeks in help all ofus to have a copy rashness. Such points of view are put forward May and June, 1960, these points were visited at hand. Your suggestions aboutfuture articles are in verdicts in traffic cases in which children once every hour between 8 am and 6 pm by one welcome. Write to the have been involved. It would seem that young of the institute's workers. Notes were made of editor with details ofyour children are regarded in approximately the how many children there were from each area favourite, most quoted same way as ordinary adults, and held responsi- who were at the point when the research worker paper.
    [Show full text]
  • SAFETY of PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITIES PUBLICATION 1974-2E Safety of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities
    SAFETY OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITIES PUBLICATION 1974-2E safety of pedestrian crossing facilities An international comparative research on the effect of variously composed sets of pedestrian crossing facilities (zebra crossings, Signal controlled crossings, grade separated crossings) on pedestrian safety in towns --...........2':'':'-............... ••..... ····0•• •• .....F... ..·· •• INSTITUTE FOR ROAD SAFETy RESEARCH SWOV P.O. BOX 7 I DEERNSSTRAAT I VOORBURG 2119 THE NETHERLANDS Contents Introduction 7 Summary 9 l. Statement of the problem 11 2. Research method 12 3. Collection of the material 15 4. Evaluation of the materia I 16 5. Results 18 5.l. The Netherlands 18 5.2. United Kingdom 24 5.3. United States 29 5.4. Denmark and Sweden 32 5.5. Spain 36 5.6. Germany (and Vienna) 40 6. Discussion 44 7. Literature 48 Appendices I -Ill 49 Introduction Within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) there are a number of groups engaged on road safety. One of them concentrates on pedes­ trian safety. In 1970, this group published a literature study (Biehl, 1970), which reviews all the important aspects directly or indirectly affecting the safety of the pedes­ trian. In the section 'Future Research', the above mentioned OECD report states in paragraph 3.2.3.1. (p.51), that supplementary research is required on the subject of ' a comparison of the use and safety of various crossing places, including pedestrian over­ passes and underpasses'. In this context, the Netherlands have undertaken to conduct a comparative statistical survey. In order to ensure maximum co-operation from other countries, a design was chosen in which the only requirement was the supply of statistical materia I which, in the opinion of the researchers, could be collected comparatively easily and quickly.
    [Show full text]
  • PEDESTRIAN CROSSING GUIDELINES for TEXAS December 2000 6
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-01/2136-2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date PEDESTRIAN CROSSING GUIDELINES FOR TEXAS December 2000 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Shawn M. Turner and Paul J. Carlson Product 2136-2 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 0-2136 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Product: Construction Division October 1999 - August 2000 Research and Technology Transfer Section 14. Sponsoring Agency Code P. O. Box 5080 Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Research Project Title: Revising the Pedestrian Warrant for the Installation of a Traffic Signal 16. Abstract The purpose of this document is to recommend guidance and criteria on the provision of safe and effective pedestrian crossings. The guidelines should be useful to engineers and planners responsible for planning, designing, operating, and maintaining pedestrian facilities in Texas. The guidelines are intended to outline the numerous alternatives that are available to address pedestrian safety problems or public concerns at roadway
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Innovative Pedestrian Signs at Unsignalized Locations: a Tale of Three Treatments
    The Effects of Innovative Pedestrian Signs at Unsignalized Locations: A Tale of Three Treatments REPORT NO. FHWA-RD-00-098 August 2000 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Research and Development Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 FOREWORD The FHWA’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program’s overall goal is to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. From better crosswalks, sidewalks and pedestrian technologies to growing educational and safety programs, the FHWA’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program strives to pave the way for a more walkable future. Crosswalks are among the treatments used to help pedestrians cross streets safely, but sometimes merely marking a crosswalk is not enough. This study examined the effects of three innovative signs used in conjunction with marked crosswalks. This study was part of a larger Federal Highway Administration research study investigating the effectiveness of innovative engineering treatments on pedestrian safety. It is hoped that readers also will review the reports documenting the results of the related pedestrian safety studies. The results of this research will be useful to transportation engineers, planners, and safety professionals who are involved in improving pedestrian safety and mobility. Michael F. Trentacoste, Director Office of Safety Research and Development NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content of use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufactures.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Zebra Crossing Study
    Shared Zebra Crossing Study by S Greenshields, D Allen, I York and R Paradise 3HUPR/T/035/06 Clients Project Reference Number TfL1618 UNPUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT TRL Limited UNPUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT UPR/T/035/06 SHARED ZEBRA CROSSING STUDY Version: Final by Stuart Greenshields, David Allen, Iain York and Ross Paradise Prepared for: TfL Client: Cycling Centre of Excellence Copyright TRL Limited (August) 2006 This report has been prepared for Transport for London is unpublished and should not be referred to in any other document or publication without the permission of Transport for London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of Transport for London. Approvals Project Manager Quality Reviewed This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of a Contract placed by Transport for London. Any views expressed are not necessarily those of Transport for London. TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post- consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process. CIRCULATION LIST This report has been classified as having a limited circulation. It should not be copied or shown to any other parties without the permission of Transport for London. Initially copies have been sent to: 1. John Lee TRL Limited UPR/T/035/06 CONTENTS Executive summary 4Hi 1 Introduction 5H1 2 Methodology 6H2 2.1 Introduction 7H2 2.2 Literature
    [Show full text]
  • Priority Order List Mayor's Question Time Wednesday 18 December 2013
    Agenda Item 5 PriorityOrderList Mayor'sQuestionTime Wednesday18December2013 ReportNo:5 Subject: QuestionstotheMayor Reportof: ExecutiveDirectorofSecretariat QuestionsnotaskedduringMayor’sQuestionTimewillbegivenawritten responsebyMonday23December2013. "Fitforthefuture"programme QuestionNo:2013/4865 ValerieShawcross Isthe"fitforthefuture"programmeofstaffingcutstostationsaffectedbythisyear'sfare decision? Olympic TransportLegacy QuestionNo:2013/4711 RichardTracey WhatprogresshasbeenmadeinmakingtheJavelintrainservice,whichwassosuccessful duringtheOlympics,availabletoLondonersusingtravelcardsandOystercards,as recommendedbytherecentHouseofLordsSelectCommitteereport? Tackling excesswinterdeathsandfuelpoverty QuestionNo:2013/4637 JennyJones WhatimpactwilltheGovernment'sdecisiontoscalebacktheEnergyCompanyObligation haveonyourplanstotackleLondon'senergyinefficientandhardtotreathomes? Making CyclingSaferinLondon QuestionNo:2013/5263 CarolinePidgeon WhatactionareyounowtakingtomakecyclingsaferinLondon? Page 1 Juniorneighbourhoodwardens' scheme QuestionNo:2013/4709 RogerEvans SouthamptonCouncilhasajuniorneighbourhoodwardensscheme,wherebyyoungpeople agedseventotwelvehelplookafterthehousingestatesonwhichtheylive.Wouldyou considerpilotingasimilarschemetoencourageyoungpeopletoshareintheresponsibility fortheirneighbourhoods,throughactivitiessuchaslitter-picking,gardeningandpainting? Risingfuelbills QuestionNo:2013/4866 MuradQureshi WhatwouldLondonersbenefitfrommost,cutstogreenleviesthatfundthewaronfuel povertyora20-monthenergypricefreeze?
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Facilities at Traffic Signals
    Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Facilities at Traffic Signals Network Operations Directorate Printed copies are uncontrolled unless marked D19#532308 otherwise. Refer to iRoads for current version. September 2020 GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITIES AT TRAFFIC SIGNALS - September 2020 Page intentionally left blank. Document No: D19#532308 Page 2 of 39 GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITIES AT TRAFFIC SIGNALS - September 2020 Contents 1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 6 2 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................. 6 3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITES ......................................................................................... 6 4 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 6 5 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................ 7 5.1 LOCATION ................................................................................................................... 7 5.2 VISIBILITY .................................................................................................................... 7 5.3 SPEED ......................................................................................................................... 7 5.4 CRASH RECORD ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]