Before I get started there is the Cycle Bath Meeting in the Griffin Pub tonight, Sunday the 17th of April, at 7pm https://www.facebook.com/events/457486597774318/
The London Road on-road cycle lane has been implemented using something called an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order. This is a simpler way for the council to experiment with road design. This ETRO has been in place for almost 6 months and is coming up for review.
YOU need to write to firstname.lastname@example.org or it will be removed.
IT IS REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO THIS.
The London Road situation is as follows.
Taken from an email discussion with the council:
1. On road mandatory cycle lane. This is currently subject to an “experimental traffic regulation Order”. This provides for the cycle lane to be implemented, operated and enforced as such while its effectiveness is being monitored. The experimental Order lasts for 18 months maximum, and is normally subject to review at the 6 month mark. This mechanism allows for objections to be submitted during the first 6 months, which must be taken into account during the review. The review will then recommend whether the arrangement should be made permanent or withdrawn. In this case, the experimental Order was brought in to effect from 10th December 2015 and will be subject to review on 18th June 2016. I can inform you that a large number of objections have already been received. As part of the review, we will prepare a report and this will be sent to the Cabinet Member for Transport at the appropriate time to consider.
2. Parking restrictions, including the loading bays. These were advertised some time ago and certain objections were received. In the light of those, some adjustments to the scheme have been proposed. It was considered prudent to advertise again using a new experimental Order, as above. Of particular note, this experimental Order includes that the two loading bays on the south side of London Road will include a prohibition of loading/ unloading during peak traffic hours, to allow cyclists unobstructed passage through the two bays. It is proposed to advertise this experimental Order in early April, with the Order coming into force seven days later. As above, objections will be invited during the first 6 months of the trial operation.
3. Shared footway/cycleway along southern footway. This is in effect to give cyclists legal right to cycle along the pedestrian footway beside the road, and involves the delegated officer signing a form to say that this process, under Sections 66(4) and 65(1) of the Highways Act 1990, has been actioned formally. I understand that the shared footway/cycleway was in existence prior to the London Road scheme commencing, and the appropriate lines and signs are there on site already. Completing this form will formalise the legal arrangements and complete our records. This will be done as soon as practicable, probably in early April.
My response within the email thread:
Part 2 & 3 I think are what we expected and this sounds good.Part 1 is a surprise as I believed (incorrectly) the on-road scheme was a permanent solution. However I think it is important to enable cycling groups as well as regular users of the cycleway to have input into this report.I would also like to draw you to the recent set of Metro Strava data that CycleBath have been able to provide to Bath Hacked which demonstrate how critical a cycling corridor London Road is http://www.bathhacked.org/category/projects/bath-cycling/In particular looking at this analysis http://www.bathhacked.org/projects/bath-cycling/strava-metro-mapping-cyclist-activities/and in particularly this image:We can see that that section of London Road is a key cycling funnel point for Bath.I am also concerned that the objections you had where made during the period the contractors funnelled the drivers into the build out. A build out that should have been the last thing to be built during the construction phase. It is key that objections to the scheme are only considered after the completion of the scheme and that any objections to the scheme before the completion also be considered in context of the incompetence of the contractors delivering the scheme.I also note that a there has been significant anger at lack of parking and re-establishment of the original loading bays. I would ask that these types of objection be placed in context of the council failing to deliver part 2 as part of the scheme due to a extraordinarily long parking review that prevented implementation of part 2 at the same time as part 1.This part delivery of the scheme has caused significant anger within the community and rightly so. However it has probably created more objections due to the way the scheme was implemented.What I am asking is that once part 2 is implemented, that we finally have a finalised scheme as per the original design, and that we should allow Part 1 to extend for another 6 months and both Part 1 and part 2 should be reviewed as a whole in October/November 2016.This delay in execution works within the experimental TRO’s timelines.Of note, I still think there are big issues with the scheme, in particular the street furniture (road signs) that force pedestrians into the path of cyclists on the raised cycleway. This creates significant conflict between the user groups. This could be solved by changing the sign support.
Subject: PEV10487/AC London Road, Bath (Cycle Lane) Experimental Order
I am writing in support of the above Experimental Order for the on-road Mandatory and Advisory Cycle lane being made permanent. The Getting Around Bath Transport Strategy London Road has as its main aim (Overarching Policy) reducing the impact of vehicles by supporting alternatives particularly walking and cycling. So to remove this Mandatory Cycle Lane would be in direct conflict with that key element of the strategy.
It is essential that:
The Mandatory and Advisory cycle lanes are made permanent.
That these on-road cycle lanes extend westwards, as currently marked on the road, to connect to the pavement level cycle path leading to Cleveland Place without a break.
That the protective build out is maintained at Snow Hill to protect cyclists or alternatively be replaced with “Armadillo” or similar dividers to prevent unlawful ingress by motorists into the cycle lane.