Cycling Strategy Consultation - Comments from CADRA 14.3.08

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Reading Cycling Strategy consultation document. 

CADRA (Caversham and District Residents Association) welcome a cycling strategy, which is over-due.  Most parts of Reading including Caversham are in easy cycling distance of the town centre.  The main problem as identified in most cycling studies is the fear of and problems with traffic, both issues that can be ameliorated. 

Reading has a number of riverside routes and a largely traffic-free town centre which together can facilitate the basis for a cycle-friendly town.  This will give people more choice in their transport mode and thereby reduce road traffic and congestion.

Most of the Draft Cycling Strategy document appears to be acceptable, but we consider that it needs to be bolstered up somewhat and have the following comments:

Cycle use and targets

We agree that “there is great potential to increase cycling” in Reading (Ref 1.1.2).   We note that the level of cycling in Reading is low (1%), and whilst increasing in some areas, the targets set are well below the national targets for cycling.  A target for cycling modal share of all (or town centre) trips of at least 5% should be included as part of a 2020 strategy.

Stand alone cycle schemes are important

We disagree with the statement that “few cycle infrastructure schemes can be implemented as independently funded stand alone schemes” (Ref 3.2.5).  It is the numerous small improvements and changes that can make cycling more acceptable and practical.  Where possible cycle benefits should be integrated into larger highway schemes, but the majority of opportunities to benefit cycling will be lost unless individual cycle schemes are implemented.  An ongoing and comprehensive list of possible cycling improvements should be maintained by the Council, both routes and individual schemes.  This will enable cycling to be incorporated in some major schemes, as part of local area access schemes, and as stand alone schemes suitable for Section 106 or cycle budget funding.  A list of suggested cycle improvements relevant to Caversham is attached as an appendix.

Shared-use for cyclists and pedestrians

Shared-use paths for cyclists and pedestrians should be a last resort option, after carriageway use and segregated cycling has been considered (Ref 2.3.1 and 3.2.6).  Shared-use would be acceptable for low usage routes and to provide links that could not otherwise be achieved.  Either formal or informal segregation should be considered where possible if flows of cyclists and pedestrians are higher.

The segregated (parallel) signal controlled crossings at Vastern Road and elsewhere may be preferable to Toucan (shared) crossings for both cyclists and pedestrians.  Converting these crossings would be a backward step and a waste of resources.

Town Centre

Routes through, as well as into, the town centre are required (Ref 2.4.2 and 3.1.1).  Locations such as the Civic Centre, station and hospital should be targeted.  The area by the Civic Centre is shown as cycle route on the plans, but no (or unclear) signing exists.

Routes

The plans clearly show the lack of existing cycle routes.  Even some of those shown are poor, and the “quiet” routes shown are not necessarily quiet.

The present poor cycling conditions on radial routes is not adequately high-lighted  (ie. Caversham Road).  These tend to be more problematic than the IDR crossings which are mainly of reasonable standard, e.g both ends of Vastern Road, Great Knolly’s Street at Caversham Road, by Drews on Caversham Road, Oxford Road, London Street, Watlington Street etc.  Identification of the substandard IDR crossing locations and links would be more beneficial than the general statement used (Ref 4.3 and Table 1).

Cycle corridor studies from all parts of Reading into the town centre should be considered not just a flagship route on the A4.

20mph limits and/or traffic calming may be beneficial where on-carriageway cycling is the only option

Cross boundary routes should be strongly encouraged (Ref 6.7.1).  Utility routes into South Oxfordshire, such as the Henley Road towards Sonning, the Woodcote Road, and a route to Sonning Common should be negotiated.

Advanced Stop Lines for cyclists at traffic signals should be considered at all signal controlled junctions unless there is a clear reason not to provide them.

The reduction of traffic congestion by UTC etc could worsen the conditions for cycling by speeding motor traffic (Ref Table 1).

Cycle Access

Opportunities to improve cyclists’ access when other vehicles are barred should be sought.  This includes:

• The consideration of cyclists’ use of existing and proposed one-way streets. 
• At steps the provision of ramps should be considered and provided where possible, this is also useful for DDA considerations.  In other locations wheeling ramps at the side of steps may be appropriate (as at the south end of Balmore Walk.
• Dropped kerbs in appropriate locations.

Road and Path surfacing

Good road surfaces are more important for cycling.  Policies for prioritising the repair or improvement to the surfacing of cycle routes should be prioritised.  Wolsey Road and the path on the north of the Thames are examples of bad surfaces.

Road widths

Road widths for new developments should be made suitable widths for cyclists use (Ref 6.5).  This may be either less than 6m for low traffic flow routes (to restrict speeding traffic), or at least 9m for higher traffic flows so that cycle lanes can be incorporated, or at least there is width for motor vehicles to safely pass cyclists.  For very highly trafficked roads then off-carriageway cycle tracks or shared/segregated paths may be suitable. 

Existing roads should be reviewed to see if more effective use can be made of carriageways and footways.

Cycle Parking

Cycle parking is required at all locations where cycles are likely or wanted to be left.  This is local shops etc, not just local centres (Ref 2.4.3).

Safety

It would be useful to add the current accident figures to this section and to put them into perspective with other figures (Ref 2.4).  Note – Reading is a town not city (Ref 2.4.1).

List of possible cycle schemes in and adjacent to Caversham

(In addition to those listed in Strategy)

List of possible cycle links into and through the town centre

(In addition to those listed in Strategy)