Bicycle Advocacy Group had warned that Kappara Junction does not satisfy safety criteria

The Bicycle Advocacy Group had raised serious concerns that the Kappara Junction project did not satisfy safety criteria for cyclists.

Hours after the death of a cyclist, the group said on its Facebook page that it had warned the architects responsible that the cycling infrastructure for Kappara that "the main priority (of the planners) was the car traffic flow rather than the safety and convenience for more vulnerable road users".

It could be fatal, the group had said.

This is what the group had told the project planners on the Kappara Junction project:

"We're sorry to inform you that in our view the cycle track being proposed for Regional road is not acceptable. In this email I'll justify our decision and I hope you understand that this decision was taken in the interest of safety.

It is generally agreed that cycling infrastructure should satisfy the following criteria:

Safety and comfort

Directness

Coherence

Attractiveness

Adaptability

Unfortunately, the cycle track being proposed does not satisfy these criteria.

1. Safety and comfort
The track being proposed runs along a route that is frequently used by pedestrians and I don't see that changing. It is and will remain the most direct route to the Skatepark area from Kappara and I don't believe that people will go through two subways zigzaging from one side of Regional Road to the other and back to get to their destination. It's only logical that they will pick the most direct route as they were doing before works started.

So whether it is prohibited or not is irrelevant, because pedestrians will still be there and cyclists will need to pass safely, without putting themselves in danger. For this reason, more space is required. The proposed width obviously doesn't cater for this need, not to mention the possibility for cyclists overtaking one another.

The ability for cyclists to overtake one another is an important feature that can't be ignored, because if it is ignored then faster cyclists will simply ignore the infrastructure altogether, and that is not what we want. This can't be compared to cars overtaking each other where they shouldn't, because cycling speed depends largely on the ability of the rider and it can differ greatly from one to another. By faster I'm referring to a speed that does not exceed the imposed speed limit.

Moreover, this is not something we've simply made up. This point is also stressed in the London Cycling Design Standards, because the aim is to encourage cyclists to use the infrastructure rather than to give them reasons not to use it.

As a general rule, TM needs to start looking at the needs of cyclists and pedestrians when designing their respective infrastructure, rather than looking mainly at the needs of the car driver. If there's no added benefit provided by the infrastructure, it's bound to be ignored, as is already happening in other places where the main priority was the car traffic flow rather than the safety and convenience for more vulnerable road users.

Furthermore, contrary to what was said at the meeting, according to the Greater Manchester Cycle Design Guide, 1.5m is not the absolute minimum in the case of cycle tracks alongside 3.25m wide car lanes. 2m is the absolute minimum for such a road.

The 1.5m absolute minimum width is referred to in the Guide in relation to a traffic lane of not more than 3m. This would obviously translate in slower car traffic and lower risk for cyclists.

Likewise, the London Cycling Design Standards don't recommend anything narrower than 2m for lanes and tracks alongside roads with high speed traffic and HGVs.

In other words, you can't go for the desirable minimum for the car lane and the absolute minimum for the cycle facility. Whichever you pick, everything's got to match!

Needless to say, on such a busy road with such a speed limit, it's not only not ideal to stick to the bare minimum, it can be fatal. Giving a false impression that it's safe when it isn't is not a good idea.

2. Directness

The track doesn't seem to go anywhere in particular and the plans for its extension are still hypothetical. There's no concrete plan showing that it will be part of a more extensive route network yet. During the meeting it was said that the route would eventually be linked up to other places, but this is not how it should be done. There needs to be a plan in advance as to what this track will link up to in the future. Playing it by the ear doesn't work and the evidence is to be seen all around us.

3. Coherence

Since the route is only one-way, it's not very intuitive how one would manage to come back. At the time of writing, it's not even possible to access university through the National Sports Complex when coming from Gżira because of the one-way system.

As was mentioned during the meeting, we've also got some reservations on one-way infrastructure because of the possible legal repercussions, which will be better explained in a letter by Mr Jim Wightman that you can find attached to this email.

It's also not recommended to require cyclists to change between types of infrastructure or lack of thereof on the same section of road, which means that ideally a track should go all the way from the beginning (skatepark area) of the road all the way to the end (Kappara roundabout), not start half way through. Once you're on the road you might as well stay on the road. Predictibilty is the key.

4. Attractiveness

Cycling alongside a road with traffic travelling at 60km/h (where overspeeding is also the norm) is not a very pleasant experience at all, especially when there is no separation in between. For there to be physical separation, the space required would be even wider, which means that given the space available this is not possible to be achieved.

5. Adaptability

The track is not adaptable for future needs. It can't even cater for cargo bikes and tandem bikes that already exist in Malta, let alone for tomorrow's cycling volumes, which are bound to keep on increasing. It's not advisable to invest in a new project that doesn't even satisfy the minimum requirements.

Having said that, we would like to take this opportunity to propose alternatives which shouldn't be that difficult or expensive to implement, which will link up Kappara, San Ġwann and Gżira better to university through safer routes:
A contraflow on Triq Edgar Bernard in Gżira, at least for the short section between Triq Willie Arena and the back entrance of the Tal-Qroqq Sports Complex. Triq Edgar Bernard, Triq Nazju Ellul and Triq l-Università desperately need some new asphalt, but that would benefit all road users, not only cyclists.

Triq San Ġwann tal-Għorgħar suffers from severe flooding at its lowest point. The source of water is the valley itself, because it doesn't seem to have any ducting underneath, together with water cascading down from San Ġwann. This would not only make a great cycling route to university all year round if this problem had to be fixed, but also for pedestrians who tend to have a harder time crossing this river which can reach up to your knees.

A contraflow on Triq Birkirkara (between Mater Dei and Downtown Bar, San Ġwann). This street has the lowest gradient of all streets leading up to San Ġwann, therefore, it's a shame that it's one-way downhill only (actually the upper part is two-way but there's no way of getting to it from Mater Dei). Why make cyclists go up steeper hills when a street with a lower gradient exists?

Redesign the section between where Triq Tas-Sliema ends and Triq Bellavista starts in San Ġwann. That area has no zebra crossings and the flow of traffic is not very predictable. It's also pretty dangerous to come out of Triq it-Trunċiera towards San Ġwann and vice versa. It's a bit of a mess, so to speak.

Allow cycling on the road at the back of Mater Dei, the one that is restricted for ambulances only. I've been informed that the reason why this road is closed for motor traffic, other than ambulances, is because the air intake for the hospital is on that side and it wouldn't be a good idea to have cars emitting exhaust close to it. However, bicycles don't emit any exhaust and should therefore not cause any problems. The management at Mater Dei does not seem to be particularly against it, so it should be possible to provide a safe link between the San Ġwann Industrial Estate and university through a much needed quiet road, obviously giving way to ambulances at all times as is the case on every other road anyway.

Needless to say, such routes should be accompanied with proper signage directing cyclists to the shortest, flattest and safest route possible to important places like the university, schools, town centres, etc...

from The Malta Independent https://ift.tt/2kEqbgv
via IFTTT