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 1 & 2

February 2008

DDaavviidd FFiinnnneeyy CCEEnngg MMIIICCEE MMIIIHHTT

Highway & Traffic Engineering Advice & Investigation and Road Safety Audit

Project ref: B&H 041

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. ITEMS RESULTING FROM THIS STAGE 1 & 2 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 3

3. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT 15

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 combined Stage 1 and 2 (preliminary and detailed design) 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 proposals form 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 the City Council’s Environment Directorate by David Finney CEng MICE MIHT, a Highway, Traffic and Road Safety Engineering Consultant, and Bruce Woodhams BSc Hons MIHT, Principal Engineer, Waterman Aspen Ltd. The Audit Team has acted independently of the Design Team and, apart from undertaking a Stage 1 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 traffic flows, speeds, injury accident records or details of any proposed departures from standards were provided.

1.5 D Finney and B Woodhams inspected the site in daylight to dusk in the early evening of Wednesday 12th September 2007. The weather was fine and dry and visibility was clear for the inspection. D Finney inspected part of the route again in the early afternoon of Wednesday 28th November 2007 when the weather was raining and dull. Record photographs were taken on both occasions.

1.6 Grand Avenue and The Drive are part of the B2185 road that provides one of two main links between Hove seafront and town centre and the extensive residential areas north of the South Coast railway line. The route has a 30mph speed limit and a system of street lighting, and buses operate in both directions. There is kerbside parallel parking on both sides for most of the subject length and parallel central parking in Grand Avenue and in The Drive, south of its junction with Eaton Road. There are traffic signal-controlled junctions with A259 Kingsway, B2066 Church Road, Eaton Road, B2120 Cromwell Road and A270 Old Shoreham Road.

1.7 The proposals feature mandatory cycle lanes in both the north- and southbound directions. For most of the subject length these would be separated from the rest of the carriageway by narrow, kerbed, “splitter islands” with parallel on-carriageway parking alongside. Amongst the associated proposals are the substantial 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, and alterations to bus stops.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 1

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

1.8 The observations and recommendations arising from this combined Stages 1 and 2 audit are set out in Section 2, with those of scheme-wide relevance preceding location-specific issues, which are then presented in order from south to north with reference to the sheet numbers of the proposals plans. The scheme-wide concerns are arranged generally as per the order of topics as suggested in Annexes A and B of HD 19/03.

1.9 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.

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

1.11 “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.

1.12 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.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 2

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

2. ITEMS RESULTING FROM THIS STAGE 2 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

SCHEME-WIDE CONCERNS

2.1 Problem Summary: constraint of cyclists by “splitter islands” a fundamental hazard risk Many of the scheme-wide and specific hazards identified in the following items will be exacerbated by the constraining effect of the proposed kerbed “splitter islands”, which will remove or reduce the cyclist’s ability to take evasive action, etc, in the case of an obstruction, potential conflict or other emergency. In this regard the numerous breaks in the proposed splitter islands, e.g. at vehicular accesses, and the inevitable unfamiliarity with the layout of many visitors to the area in this tourist location will increase the risk of conflict. The gradients over much of the route provide another potential counter-argument to physical separation, as northbound cyclists may tend to ‘wander’ uphill whilst southbound cycling speeds may become excessive. Whilst, without the splitter island, cyclists have some room for manoeuvre under most traffic situations they may be more likely to hit an obstruction or strike the offside kerb, lose control and fall into the motor traffic lanes if islands are present.

Recommendation Assess the risks associated with providing physical separation in the form of the proposed splitter islands with reference to above overall concern and those identified more specifically in the remainder of this audit report.

2.2 Problem Summary: inadequate drainage would affect road users’ safety No details were provided of the existing or any proposed drainage measures. The introduction of the “splitter islands”, in some instances of substantial length, would affect drainage efficacy, 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, possibly where there are no existing gullies. Inadequate drainage provision could result in 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. Some existing gullies are also cycle ‘unfriendly’ and would present a hazard when cyclists are constrained between two kerblines.

Recommendations Provide additional drainage and/or modify the existing drainage as necessary to ensure the carriageway and cycle lanes are drained quickly and effectively.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 3

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

2.3 Problem Summary: street trees are a potential collision hazard to cyclists Existing kerbside trees will present a potential collision hazard where the splitter islands constrain cyclists’ ability to ride well clear of the kerb. Trees have also caused surface heave in some locations, and this could present a stability hazard to cyclists if it were not rectified or if it recurred following the scheme’s implementation.

Recommendations Remove any trees and/or branches that would otherwise encroach into the lateral clearance and headroom zones required by cyclists for safe operation. If any tree trunks that cause such a hazard cannot, e.g. for environmental reasons, be removed provide visible warning, such as reflective hazard markers and/or road markings and/or provide a gap in the splitter island. Remove tree roots that have caused surface heave and reinstate the affected surfaces. Introduce an appropriately robust inspection and maintenance regime to prevent the recurrence of the defects and hazards identified in this item.

2.4 Problem Summary: cycle lane “splitter islands” a potential collision and overrun hazard It is understood that the “splitter islands” separating the cycle lanes from the parking bays and running carriageways will have a minimum kerb face of 50mm and will be finished in ‘blacktop’ having little visual contrast from the carriageway. This will provide scant protection against accidental collision or overrunning by motor vehicles, or deliberate mounting of the kerbs when parking, as is becoming a widespread practise nationally. Cyclist may also be at risk of colliding with the ends of the splitter islands if they are not made conspicuous.

Recommendations Provide a conventional kerb face, e.g. 100mm to 125mm, on the carriageway side of the cycle lane splitter islands. Provide a light, contrasting, and self-cleaning surface finish, e.g. paving slabs or blocks, on the splitter islands. Provide reflective bollards on the ends, and at regular intervals along the longer lengths, of the splitter islands.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 4

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

2.5 Problem Summary: excessive crossfalls would put pedestrian & cyclists at risk The attainment of crossfalls of the 1 in 20 (5%) specified maximum for the splitter islands, cycle lanes and, where relevant, bus boarding ‘islands’ appears difficult to achieve. For example, with reference to the cross section provided for the Grand Avenue southbound bus stop, if allowance is made for the minimum specified 25mm kerb face at the footway edge (cf. the implied minimum of 50mm recommended in LTN 02/04) the resulting cross-fall over the width of the splitter island and cycle lane would be some 14%. As the existing carriageway cross-fall at the proposed bus build-out is 5% there appears to be no scope to ‘lose’ height there, so extensive footway adjustment appears necessary. Whilst this appears feasible in that instance (as the footway abuts green space at the rear) it may not be so straightforward where property boundaries abut the footway. In such cases back-falls, which will require the provision of additional drainage measures, may be necessary. Whilst, with reference to the DfT Inclusive Mobility guidance, 5% is an appropriate maximum gradient for short ramps to pedestrian crossing points, etc, it would be excessive as a cross-fall on the general footway (where a maximum of 2.5% is recommended) and may cause steering or stability problems for people in wheelchairs or users of other aids to mobility. A 5% cross-fall on the splitter islands may also make it difficult for people with reduced mobility to get in and out of parked vehicles (see also next item). Lines of cobbles or setts, in some locations forming a distinctly U-shaped trough, are a feature of the existing channels in Grand Avenue and the southern end of The Drive. These could destabilise an unwary cyclist, especially as the proposed 5% maximum cross-fall may encourage ‘drift’ towards the channels.

Recommendation Review the proposals in detail to ensure that appropriate kerb faces, crossfalls, gradients and surface quality can be provided throughout the scheme.

2.6 Problem Summary: vulnerable users at risk when crossing road or accessing parked vehicles The splitter islands will 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. Although some breaks in the splitter islands are shown, e.g. at vehicle accesses, these appear rarely to coincide on both sides of the road, and pedestrians will have to cross diagonally or proceed in the running lanes, alongside parked vehicles, in order to complete their crossing movement. Pedestrian falls and conflicts with vehicles may result.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 5

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

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 would be an obstruction to and at risk of conflict with cycles.

Recommendation Review the splitter island proposals in detail to ensure that appropriate means are available for people with reduced mobility or impaired sight to cross the road or get to and from parked vehicles.

2.7 Observation Summary: inappropriate kerbs or tactile paving could endanger pedestrians No details were provided of existing or proposed levels, kerb face heights, footway and tactile paving ramp gradients at pedestrian crossing points. Pedestrians, particularly people with impaired vision and mobility, including wheelchair users, could be impeded or confused by inappropriate construction details at designated crossings or nearby vehicular accesses, and thereby at risk of falling or vehicle conflict.

Recommendations Provide flush kerbs, blister tactile paving of the appropriate colour and maximum 5% footway approach ramp gradients at pedestrian crossing points in accordance with the current DfT Mobility Unit and ‘Inclusive Mobility’ guidance, as appropriate, or any locally agreed variations arising from consultations with appropriate representative groups. Check that other dropped kerbs, e.g. at nearby vehicle access crossings, have kerb upstands of at least 25mm to provide tactile warning to pedestrians and to distinguish them from pedestrian crossing points.

2.8 Observation Summary: clear and appropriate cycle route/lanes signing will be required No details were provided of the proposed traffic signs for the cycle route or cycle lanes. Confusion on the part of cyclists or other road users as to the route or layout may cause distraction and indecision, which could result in traffic conflicts.

Recommendation Provide appropriate signs for the cycle route in general and the cycle facilities in particular.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: the separation of the cycle lanes from the carriageway by splitter islands appears likely to affect their legal status as cycle lanes, and they would probably need to be regarded as cycle tracks for the purposes of signing and road markings.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 6

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

2.9 Observation Summary: cleansing of cycle lanes required to avoid risk to cyclists & pedestrians Although an operational matter, of primary relevance to the CDM Regulations, the introduction of the separate cycle lanes would complicate street cleansing and winter maintenance operations, as the normal mechanical sweepers and winter maintenance vehicles will not be able to access the lanes. Ice or snow, or any significant accumulation of detritus in the cycle lanes would put cyclists and pedestrian at risk of skids, slips, trips and falls, and the preponderance of large trees along the route will exacerbate any problems in this regard.

Recommendation Before the scheme is committed review the street cleansing and winter maintenance methods in order to ensure that adequate appropriate additional measures can and would be implemented.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ISSUES: ‘PROPOSALS’ SHEET 1

2.10 Problem Summary: risk of NMU/vehicle conflict from seafront cycle link & guardrail removal The provision of a, presumably green-surfaced, cycle lane across Kingsway and the removal of an 8m length of existing pedestrian guardrail will give rise to the risk of pedestrian/vehicle conflict within the traffic signal-controlled junction of Kingsway and Grand Avenue. The provision of “dropped kerbs” will exacerbate the risks for people with impaired sight. The arrangement also appears likely to encourage northbound cycle movements via the link, in potential conflict with both east/west A259 traffic and opposing, turning, traffic from Grand Avenue.

Recommendations Delete the proposed southbound cycle link and guardrail gap from the scheme and instead provide Toucan crossing link(s) to the lateral South Coast Cycle Route. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: if the above recommendation were to be considered impracticable:

· provide as a minimum an additional arrangement of guardrails to form a chicane that will allow southbound cyclists to access the lateral South Coast Cycle Route whilst discouraging cyclists and pedestrians from proceeding directly from the cycle track and seafront footpath link towards the kerb;

· provide a minimum kerb upstand of 25mm or, if that is considered unacceptable for cyclists’ use, a slightly smaller kerb upstand in conjunction with corduroy tactile hazard warning surface;

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 7

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

· provide appropriate signs to discourage northbound non motorised user crossing movements. NB: the provision of the above additional comments does not imply endorsement or support for the proposal as presented.

2.11 Problem Summary: ‘pinch point’ in eastbound feeder lane may put cyclists at risk The relevant A4 details show that, having started 1.5m wide, the eastbound feeder lane approaching the Kingsway junction would narrow quickly to 1.2m before widening again to 1.5m beyond the exit from King’s Gardens. As this occurs where drivers’ attention may be concentrated on the impending traffic signals and turning manoeuvre, vehicle lane discipline may be poor and cyclists could be at risk of conflict.

Recommendation Provide a uniform cycle lane width of 1.5m if possible, e.g. by adjusting the kerb-line of the separation island.

2.12 Observation Summary: no details provided of traffic signal alterations at Kingsway junction Although no details were provided, it is assumed that the nearside eastbound traffic signal, guardrail, tactile paving and associated equipment will be modified to accommodate the proposed carriageway widening. Recommendation Provide appropriate details for supplementary Stage 2 audit purposes.

2.13 Problem Summary: inappropriate bus stop details could put pedestrians & cyclists at risk The bus stop details shown on Proposals Sheet 1 are inconsistent with the respective A4 plans, e.g. in respect of tactile paving and road markings. Blister tactile paving is implied where pedestrians cross the cycle lane to the bus stop, which would appear inappropriate. The ‘road hump’ markings shown on Proposals Sheet 1 imply the cycle lanes are intended for two-way use. It is understood that raised tables are proposed for the cycle lanes past the bus boarder build-outs, but their means of delineation e.g. kerb upstands, is not clear. Inappropriate details may confuse and mislead users and cause pedestrian/cycle conflicts.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 8

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

Recommendations Provide flush kerbs and corduroy tactile warning surfaces where pedestrians cross the cycle lanes and make it obvious that the area is for shared use, assuming that is the intention. Provide at least a 25mm upstand elsewhere. Assuming raised tables are proposed, provide on- and off-ramps to constrain cycle speeds with the ‘road ‘hump’ triangular marking on the on-ramp only, and provide the appropriate tactile warning surface to advise cyclists they are crossing a shared use surface.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ISSUES: ‘PROPOSALS’ SHEET 2

2.14 Problem Summary: narrow “splitter islands” a collision hazard without bollards Short lengths of splitter island, only 350mm or 600mm wide, are proposed near the Church Road junction. This width would be insufficient to accommodate reflective bollards with suitable traffic clearance, and the islands would consequently present a collision hazard.

Recommendations Widen the splitter islands sufficiently to accommodate bollards or substitute widened buffer strips of road markings.

2.15 Observation Summary: no details provided of traffic signals at Church Road junction As no details of the existing layout or any proposed changes were provided, it is not clear whether the Church Road junction traffic signals will require modification. Recommendation If the junction layout or traffic signal installation is to be altered provide appropriate details for supplementary Stage 2 audit purposes.

2.16 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 would require 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. The risks of conflict are most serious in the case of the area north of the junction, where a flower bed would restrict access to the cycle stands from the adjacent turning gap and

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 9

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

where the central refuge is in any event very narrow for cycle parking purposes. The northern battery of cycle stands on the south arm of the junction is also at particular risk owing to its close proximity to the junction. More generally, having parked their cycles, cyclists become pedestrians and any such central cycle parking would encourage hazardous pedestrian access movements across the carriageways in the ‘shadow’ of the nearby controlled pedestrian crossings, giving rise to further risk of conflict with motor vehicles.

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

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ISSUES: ‘PROPOSALS’ SHEET 3

2.17 Observation Summary: no details provided of traffic signal alterations at Eaton Road junction As no details of the existing layout or any proposed changes were provided, it is not clear whether the traffic signals at the Eaton Road junction will require modification. Recommendation If the junction layout or traffic signal installation is to be altered provide appropriate details for supplementary Stage 2 audit purposes.

2.18 Problem Summary: narrow “splitter islands” a collision hazard without bollards Short lengths of “splitter island”, only 600mm wide, are shown to the north of the Eaton Road junction. This width would be insufficient to accommodate reflective bollards with suitable traffic clearance, and the islands would consequently present a collision hazard.

Recommendations Increase the splitter islands sufficiently to accommodate bollards or substitute buffer strips in road markings.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ISSUES: ‘PROPOSALS’ SHEET 4

2.19 Problem Summary: central road markings in Cromwell Road junction may cause conflicts In the absence of specific provision for cyclists to turn right from The Drive, the proposed widening and hatching of the non-hooking right turn road markings may restrict the turning paths of cyclists and motor vehicles, possibly making cyclists more vulnerable to conflict.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 10

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

The existing junction layout also features central road markings for non-hooking right turns from the Cromwell Road arms, and these do not appear to be retained. Unless the traffic signal staging has been/is being altered accordingly this would appear to present the risk of conflict between opposing right turning vehicles.

Recommendation Omit the hatching and retain the existing non-hooking guidance line markings or restrict their enhancement to the strengthening of the existing single lines. See also next item regarding the right turns from Cromwell Road

2.20 Observation Summary: no details provided of traffic signal alterations at Cromwell Road junction As no details of the existing layout or any proposed changes were provided, it is not clear whether the traffic signals at the Eaton Road junction will require modification. In view of the proposed removal of the existing guidance road markings for the non-hooking right turns from Cromwell Road it appears that this may be the case. Recommendation If the junction layout or traffic signal installation is to be altered provide appropriate details for supplementary Stage 2 audit purposes.

2.21 Problem Summary: narrow splitter island a collision hazard without bollards A substantial length of splitter island, only 350mm wide, is shown on the southbound side of The Drive over the railway bridge and approaching the Cromwell Road junction. This width would be insufficient to accommodate reflective bollards with suitable traffic clearance, and the island would consequently present a collision hazard. Southbound buses would also have to pull out sharply from the bus stop to clear the end of the splitter island, which, given the crest vertical alignment, may put them at risk of conflict with northbound traffic.

Recommendation Increase the splitter island sufficiently to accommodate bollards, in which case increase the clearance from the southbound bus stop, or substitute a buffer strip using road markings. See also next item.

2.22 Problem Summary: collision risk owing to VCB alongside constrained cycle track on bridge The provision of cycle tracks with offside kerbs alongside the existing vertical concrete barriers (VCB) may, owing to the effects of kerb shyness and the active promotion of cycling

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 11

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

on the route, increase the risk of cyclists colliding with either side restraint. If this occurred a cyclist would have little opportunity to correct the error by swerving and may topple into the motor traffic lane.

Recommendation Omit the narrow splitter islands alongside the VCB and substitute buffer strips using road markings, or relocate the VCB further out and route the cycle tracks behind it.

2.23 Observation Summary: status of pedestrian crossing south of Wilbury Avenue is unclear Stop-lines and studs are shown on the proposals plan, implying that the existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing will become signal controlled.

Recommendations Clarify the intended form of control, if any, and show appropriate details for construction purposes. If signal control is proposed provide appropriate details for supplementary Stage 2 audit purposes.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ISSUES: ‘PROPOSALS’ SHEET 5

2.24 Problem Summary: narrow “splitter islands” a collision hazard without bollards Several short lengths of “splitter island”, only 350mm wide, are shown between the Wilbury Avenue and Old Shoreham Road junctions. This width would be insufficient to accommodate reflective bollards with suitable traffic clearance, and the islands would consequently present a collision hazard.

Recommendation Increase the splitter islands sufficiently to accommodate bollards or substitute buffer strips in road markings.

2.25 Observation Summary: road markings at puffin crossing near The Upper Drive need modifying The zigzag road markings at the existing puffin crossing, which are not shown on the proposals plan, will need modifying to accommodate the cycle lanes. The mandatory cycle lane line will also have to be curtailed to either side of the zigzags.

Recommendation Remark the nearside zigzag road markings and provide coloured surfacing on the cycle lanes in substitution for the lane lines.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 12

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

2.26 Problem Summary: northbound buses at risk of conflict when leaving bus stop Northbound buses using the bus stop outside Homedrive House would have to pull out sharply and negotiate a lateral shift of 4.2m to clear the end of the splitter island and parking bay ahead, which may put them at risk of conflict with southbound traffic.

Recommendation Relocate the south end of the splitter island and parking bay further north so as to ease the re-entry manoeuvre for buses.

2.27 Observation Summary: Recreation Ground access may confuse visually-impaired pedestrians The proposed layout and surface treatment of the area around the entrance to Hove Recreation Ground are not clear, e.g. in respect of the means by which blind and partially sighted pedestrian will be warned of the cycle track crossing or of the risk of entering the carriageway via the “Dropped kerb” indicated on the traffic signals general layout plan. Inappropriate layout, kerbing or surface detailing, including tactile warning surfaces, could put vulnerable pedestrians at risk of cycle or motor vehicle conflict or create trip hazards for such users.

Also, some cyclists leaving the park may be expected to ride straight out into the junction without calling up and waiting for the signals, which could present drivers with a difficult situation to cope with. Such an occurrence could have serious or fatal consequences. The effect of any chicane or similar arrangement, if provided to lead cyclists to the stop line and the push button, would presumably be limited as the exit from the junction would have to be clear and may be used to bypass the signals by cyclists leaving the recreation ground. As the cyclists’ push button would call up an all red stage for the four conventional arms of the junction joggers and runners leaving the recreation ground may also use the facility to cross the junction diagonally, which could create problems in terms of overall traffic delay.

Recommendation Omit the dedicated cycle link to the Recreation Ground and instead provide crossing and access facilities via Toucan crossings on the A270 arms, as appears to be recommended in the Cycle Audit. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: if the above recommendation were to be considered impracticable:

· review the proposed layout of the cycle access to the Recreation Ground with reference to current DfT Mobility Unit and other relevant guidance, and in consultations with appropriate representative groups

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 13

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

· revise the layout as necessary to ensure it is understandable by and suitable for all road users, including providing means of addressing the concerns about cyclists and runners leaving the recreation ground, as identified in the observation of this item. NB: the provision of the above additional comments does not imply endorsement or support for the proposal as presented.

2.28 Observation Summary: relocation of controller cabinet would reduce risk of footway obstruction Locating the new traffic signal controller cabinet in the existing position, as proposed, would not reduce the potential risk of footway obstruction at the pedestrian crossing point.

Recommendations If possible, relocate the controller cabinet round the corner, onto the Old Shoreham Road south footway, which is wider and where east-west pedestrian flows are presumably lower.

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 14

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

3. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT

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

(signed) ...... (date) 4th February 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 Principal Engineer Waterman Aspen Limited Dippen Hall Blindley Heath Lingfield Surrey RH7 6JX

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008 15

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: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008

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

APPENDIX A - INFORMATION EXAMINED IN THE AUDIT

DRAWINGS

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

In the event of discrepancies it is assumed for audit purposes that the above “Proposals” drawings are superseded by the following:

NNSTS017/1 C Old Shoreham Road / The Drive A2 plan of stated scale 1:200 Provision for Cyclists and Pedestrians Proposed Traffic Signals General Layout

None Kingsway Eastbound Feeder Lane A4 plan of stated scale 1:500

None Grand Avenue/Kingsway Eastbound A4 plan of stated scale 1:200

None Grand Avenue/Kingsway Eastbound (sic) A4 plan of stated scale 1:200 “Eastbound” is assumed to mean “Westbound”

None Grand Avenue, Hove Sketch of existing cross section Cross Section – East Side by Bus Stop

/Appendix A (continued)

Brighton & Hove City Council Ref: DF-LSA\B&H\041\RSA2.doc A259 Kingsway to A270 Old Shoreham Road - Cycle Lanes Road Safety Audit Stage 1 & 2, February 2008

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

Appendix A (continued)

Drawing No Rev Title Description / Remarks

None Centre Island A4 plan of stated scale 1:200 Assumed to relate to south-bound entry to Kingsway from Grand Avenue

None Bus Stop Details – Grand Avenue Southbound A4 plan of stated scale 1:200

None Bus Stop Details – Grand Avenue Northbound A4 plan of stated scale 1:200

None Cycle Stands – Church Road Junction A4 plan of stated scale 1:500

None Cycle Parking – Eaton Road/The Drive A4 plan of stated scale 1:200

None Alternative Option 2 (No Footway Cut Back) A4 plan of stated scale 1:200 Relates to northbound entry at Eaton Road junction

None Alternative Option 2 (No Footway Cut Back) A4 plan of stated scale 1:200 Relates to southbound entry at Eaton Road junction

None None A4 plan of stated scale 1:200 Relates to central hatched road markings for non-hooking right turns at Cromwell Road junction

None None A4 plan of stated scale 1:250 Assumed to refer to southbound bus stop south of Wilbury Avenue, opposite ‘West View’ flats