Minimum Road Widths

[mgarl10024]

Hi all,

I'm trying to challenge the local council (South Glos) on an issue to do with cycle facilites, and am being told that there is no room because the road lane widths are already near the minimum.

My question is how the widths of road lanes are determined?
Presumably there is a UK wide standard that says "road lanes must be at least x meters wide" to which I can refer? Or does it vary depending on the council as they all have their own standards? Ideally, I'd love to be able to say "the official spec, something-or-other, says lanes can be y meters wide, and yours are x, so aren't near the minimum...".

I'm also after the minimum width of a traffic island, with the hope that both answers will lie in the same document.

All help gratefully received,

MG

 

[marinyork]

I'm also after the minimum width of a traffic island, with the hope that both answers will lie in the same document.

What is the traffic island for? If it's for a contraflow cycle lane you may well be best waiting on that one...

 

[mgarl10024]

What is the traffic island for? If it's for a contraflow cycle lane you may well be best waiting on that one...

Hi Marinyork,

Thanks for your response.

My link

Have a look here.
Long story short, the track on either side of this junction (on the left and right) crosses this road and is very well used. In the morning, traffic builds up, usually on one lane. So, cyclists sometimes need to stop on the island in the middle. The island is about 1.2m wide which isn't enough for a bike, so you often see 3-4 bikes lined up there, with cars moving past at speed literally cms from their tyres. The council is basically saying that the problem is too expensive to fix and that widenning the island isn't feasible because of the road widths. So, I'm trying to find out what the minimum island width is, and what the minimum road widths are. The council are probably right, but it's just for what's left of my sanity.

 

[Archie_tect]

So, I'm trying to find out what the minimum island width is, and what the minimum road widths are. The council are probably right, but it's just for what's left of my sanity.

All County Highways Departments have their own standards, but in all the County guides I can remember it is standard to have a 1.2m wide pedestrian traffic island, protected by 'Keep left' bollards on either side and a street light, as shown in your link photo. However, the photo shows what appears to be separately controlled crossings to the 2 carriageways which means that a person cannot cross in one movement with the green man operating on both signals. In this case you could have an excessive number of people meeting in the centre which would be dangerous. If the crossing is a designated cycle crossing then it is definitely too narrow and should have a staggered crossing island with protective railings.

Problem is the road geometry would have to be significantly altered, including the approach traffic lanes and radius curves, to improve the central island's size as the road lane widths look to be reasonable at the moment, nothelped by the bus lane. . It may be impossible for the council to design and pay for the improvements in their budget.

You could ask the council to alter the timings on the crossing to allow longer for pedestrians [+their bikes] to cross both carriageways [in one go] safely, which wouldn't signifcantly extend vehicle waiting times. That's probably the best line to take as it's the simplest and cheapest solution which shouldn't disrupt or upset anybody else. Good luck!

 

[marinyork]

All County Highways Departments have their own standards, but in all the County guides I can remember it is standard to have a 1.2m wide pedestrian traffic island and a street light, protected by 'Keep left' on either side bollards as shown in your link photo. However, the photo shows what appears to be separately controlled crossings to the 2 carriageways which means that a person cannot cross in one movement with the green man operating on both signals. In this case you could have an excessive number of people meeting in the centre which would be dangerous. If the crossing is a designated cycle crossing then it is definitely too narrow and should have a staggered crossing island with protective railings.

Problem is the road geometry would have to be significantly altered, including the approach traffic lanes and radius curves, to improve the central island's size as the road lane widths look to be reasonable at the moment, nothelped by the bus lane. . It may be impossible for the council to design and pay for the improvements in their budget.

That's the point though, they've presumably converted it and done it on the cheap. I'm sure they don't have the money, but it was presumably not a toucan originally and they've messed it up. In a way it's their own fault they don't have the money if we're right. Usually on large greenways a bit of that is sacrificed (what presumably happened many years ago as I'm guessing it was a single lane 30 or 40 years ago as down the road is). Perfectly doable, seen similar schemes myself, it's just they have to move one of the uprights and rip up the tactile which spirals the cost with the resurfacing works as well.

 

[mgarl10024]

However, the photo shows what appears to be separately controlled crossings to the 2 carriageways which means that a person cannot cross in one movement with the green man operating on both signals. In this case you could have an excessive number of people meeting in the centre which would be dangerous.

The island is definitely part of a designated cycle route, however the island is about 1.2m wide. The crossing works in one movement - all crossing both sides of the road at the same time. The problem is that people get caught half way - sometimes through impatience, sometimes through crossing when one side is blocked with cars (so they can get half way). Some cyclists avoid the island altogether, crossing diagonally.
The council's line (which I suspect to be a bit of rear-covering) is that "if people used the crossing as designed, then there would be no issues", but I am trying to persuade them to be a little more pragmatic and just admit that people are not using the crossing as designed and therefore it is dangerous.
They've adjusted the timings to be quicker, but haven't told anyone, so it's had little impact and isn't solving the issue.

All County Highways Departments have their own standards

So if I contact the council, they'll be able to supply them? Would they charge? How would I know they were accurate?

Thanks,

 

[summerdays]

The island is definitely part of a designated cycle route, however the island is about 1.2m wide. The crossing works in one movement - all crossing both sides of the road at the same time. The problem is that people get caught half way - sometimes through impatience, sometimes through crossing when one side is blocked with cars (so they can get half way). Some cyclists avoid the island altogether, crossing diagonally.
The council's line (which I suspect to be a bit of rear-covering) is that "if people used the crossing as designed, then there would be no issues", but I am trying to persuade them to be a little more pragmatic and just admit that people are not using the crossing as designed and therefore it is dangerous.
They've adjusted the timings to be quicker, but haven't told anyone, so it's had little impact and isn't solving the issue.


So if I contact the council, they'll be able to supply them? Would they charge? How would I know they were accurate?

Thanks,

Mr Summerdays has problems with this point on his commute ... I can't remember the exact problem but something to do with cars going through on red or queuing across the crossing.

Given the number of cyclists I've met when I've used it outside commuting times I wouldn't like to be trying to use it at those peak times. Part of the problem I think is the amount of space on the pavements either side whilst waiting to cross as well.

 

[mgarl10024]

Given the number of cyclists I've met when I've used it outside commuting times I wouldn't like to be trying to use it at those peak times. Part of the problem I think is the amount of space on the pavements either side whilst waiting to cross as well.

You're right. The space on each side, especially on the west side doesn't help, nor does the crossing control forcing you to do a right angle turn. Cyclists coming from the south also make this awkward.
I get very concerned when at peak times I see 4 cyclists lined up on the island, tyres jutting out, with cars nipping past at often over the 30mph limit. It only takes one of them to get clipped...

Mr Summerdays has problems with this point on his commute ...

I've been trying with the Parish Council and the Council and don't feel as if I am getting anywhere. My last effort will be to collect all of the information up that I have and to send it to the council and others who may be interested. It's for this reason that I'm doing my best to verify all the facts, including lane and island widths, etc.
Do you think that Mr. Summerdays would be interested in reviewing an electronic copy? (it'll likely take me a few weeks to get everything together).

Thanks,

 

[Archie_tect]

Had a quick look on South Glos Council's website - can't find the Highway Design Standards in a search, the road may be a trunk road which the Highways Agency controls but the Highway Engineers would be able to tell you straightaway. I did find this...


"Pedestrian crossings
If you think there is a strong case for a pedestrian crossing in your street, you should contact your parish council or local councillor.
Each area committee in South Gloucestershire has funding for local traffic schemes. Every year, a list of potential traffic management schemes is drawn up for each area. Once a year, local councillors decide which schemes to carry out. "

Contact your local ward councillor for the area about the dangers which they should take very seriously in order to prevent an accident. Unfortunately Road Traffic Accident statistics are too often used to prioritise upgrades so this improvement is something you'll need to argue is urgently needed to prevent a serious injury or worse. Point out to them that a
crossing point which people can't or won't use safely, or which is in the wrong place, is a waste of time - presumably why people are crossing diagonally which is even more dangerous.
It may well be that the junction has been cobbled together as MinY suggests [certainly the bus lane left turn is a complication too many] so that some improvements could be made to improve the crossing point. Ironically the other side of the junction [south side] has a wider grass verge, is narrower and doesn't have the bus lane so that would be the better place to have the cycle crossing but it may be the wrong side of the junction for the direct desire line which people will take regardless.

 

[summerdays]

I had a look on Bristol Streets and there is a comment saying that the lights heading towards the roundabout are set way back so that once a car crosses line they have no idea if the lights have changed:



There could be quite a few cars between the crossing and the traffic lights (where the silver car is) even if they were obeying the hatched box.

And looking further back in time there is another comment that the central island isn't big enough.

 

[mgarl10024]

I had a look on Bristol Streets
<snip>
And looking further back in time there is another comment that the central island isn't big enough.

Excellent find Summerdays - thanks!
Is there a way to get in touch with the people who have left comments? Would have loved their input as to problems with the junction.

Thanks,

 

[summerdays]

No idea ... through the site owner perhaps... but would an easier way be to put a notice on the traffic lamp posts asking for feedback about the junction? Not sure how you would collect the information though ... cyclists don't tend to carry pen and paper handy at a junction.

 

[Mr Celine]

Absolute minimum lane width is 2.7m. But there are other constraints there, such as the junction and the need to leave room for turning traffic.

If you complain hard enough they might agree its dangerous, but it could be cheaper to remove the island altogether and mount the signal heads on a cantilevered gantry.....

 

[ohnovino]

Cycle Facility of the Month has had a bit of success in embarrassing councils into fixing problems. There are two pictures on there of roads I use regularly, and both problems where fixed within a few weeks of appearing online.

It might be worth taking a picture of a group of cyclists stuck on the island and sending it in to them.

BTW, I think the easiest fix would be to shift the start of the "2+ Lane" 20 yards up the road (instead of starting in the middle of the junction), opening up a couple of metres more room for the island.

 

[mgarl10024]

Absolute minimum lane width is 2.7m.

Where did you get this from? Can I reference it somehow?

But there are other constraints there, such as the junction and the need to leave room for turning traffic.

The junction has lots of issues unfortunately. They do say that widening the island for cyclist/pedestrain safety would hinder the traffic on the roads - so this strikes me that they value impeding a car driver over the safety of a cyclist. However, they do make the point that noone has yet been injured - I hope to convince them that something should be done before that needs to happen.

If you complain hard enough they might agree its dangerous, but it could be cheaper to remove the island altogether and mount the signal heads on a cantilevered gantry.....

I've been on at them for some time. Removing the island is one of the suggestions I have but it's my least preferred tbh - that would basically mean that pedestrains/cyclists were hindered by the recent lane widening.