Dear Musood

Please find attached modified diagrams relating to the proposed works to A1306, Link 92, Rainham Village and erry Lane Junction.

1) Proposed ‘Mini-Roundabout’ at Junction of Ferry Lane, Wennington Road and Broadway.

There doesn’t appear to be any logic to the current design proposal.  Common Sense dictates that, when installing a Roundabout in a limited space, it is desirable to maximise use of the space available.  Your design does the opposite, and reduces the available width, thereby limiting the diameter of the resulting Roundabout.  This can cause unnecessary difficulties for larger vehicles obliged to use the facility.

The build-out on the Footway shown on the South-West flank of the proposed Roundabout is completely unnecessary, and seems to serve no useful purpose.  Moreover, it provides a potential collision hazard between Pedestrians and Cyclists.  When passenger Trains arrive at Rainham in the evening peak, there can be several hundred people crowded on to the Footway on the left of Ferry Lane.  Quite naturally, some wish to walk quicker than others, and are using the Cycle-element of the build-out to overtake.  If this should happen at the precise moment when a Cycle-rider encroaches on to that part of the build-out, there is risk of an unfortunate collision and injury.

Pedestrians also use the Cycle-element of the build-out on the northern flank of the Roundabout, especially when wishing to cross Wennington Road or Ferry Lane/Broadway.  The risks of accident are exacerbated because there is insufficient demarcation between the Cycle and Pedestrian elements of the scheme.

For several years, I have been advising Officers that, whenever a Cycle-path is installed immediately adjacent to a Footpath, the Cycle-path element should always be set at a lower level than the adjoining Footpath.  The reason is to create a resemblance to the relationship between the normal urban Footway and the main Carriageway: this enhances the demarcation between the Cycle and Pedestrian elements of the facility.  If colour differentiation can be used also, this can enhance the effect.  As I have illustrated, failure to follow this procedure leads to Pedestrians straying on to Cycle-facilities, and vice-versa [See Photos.]

I’m pleased to note that your Consulting Engineers, Messrs Faber Maunsell, have also adopted this principle in their Report on the A1306.  Nevertheless, in this instance, for some reason you have chosen to employ virtually no demarcation at all. 

What is the rationale behind your Design?

The diagram I have supplied reflects the layout that I recommended to you in a drawing several years ago, when the problems at this junction were first identified.

2) Advisory Cycle-Lanes through Rainham Village/Broadway

Although your annotations have not displayed, you have informed us that the proposed width of the widened advisory Lanes would be 1.5m.  As you are aware, this is the minimum recommended dimension for advisory Cycle-Lanes.  In using the minimum figure, you are repeating the same mistake as in previous instances, treating it as the regular dimension.  The desired width is 2.0m, and that is the figure that should be used in such a busy thoroughfare.  The residual width of Carriageway is irrelevant, as Vehicles are permitted to encroach into the Lanes when no Cycle-user is present.

The poor standard of alignment of the original Lanes must be eliminated [see diagram.]  The Lane(s) should follow the Carriageway alignment and obviate the silly and unnecessary kinks by the War Memorial that have been allowed to persist since their installation [see pic.]  The way that the north side Lane follows the kerb by the Bell PH, then breaks away toward the War Memorial is hazardous for Cycle-users.  I have experienced several near-misses at this point myself.

Additional comments relating to the rest of the proposals shall follow.

Yours sincerely,

David S Garfield

(Local Representative: CTC ‘Right to Ride’ Network)