Cyclists do not need to be segregated from traffic in a low speed / low traffic volume environment. A station forecourt that has high traffic speeds and volumes is one that has been very poorly designed. Even the current, very poor arrangement, is not what you would consider to be dangerous for cyclists. People demonstrate this by quite happily cycling against the traffic flow rather than going the long way around.

What cyclists NEED from the station forecourt is:

b Safe, quick, direct, convenient and conflict free (but not necessarily traffic free) access both to and FROM the cycle parking. The current cycle lane is unsafe, it is invariably blocked by taxis or cars, and there is no sensible route from the cycle parking to the exit.

b Safe, quick, direct, convenient and conflict free access both to and FROM the station building and platforms (many people will be taking their bikes with them on the train).

b Safe, secure, convenient, covered parking. The current racks are well located but the stands themselves are poor. They are much too large and do not support bikes properly.

The immediate observation is that this is, again, a vehicle dominated scheme where cyclists and pedestrians are shoved to the margins.

If we want people to walk and cycle to the station rather than driving (and we really do want them to do so for a whole spectrum of social, environmental, health and economic reasons, not least to reduce the congestion on Hitchin’s roads) then we must design for walking and cycling FIRST, and then fit the vehicle circulation around that.

Road-side shared pavements are NOT popular with either cyclists or pedestrians, and are wholly inappropriate in most urban environments. While a shared pavement might appear to solve one issue (getting from the cycle parking to the exit against the flow), it does so by creating other problems.

Specifically:

L There will be conflict with queues of people waiting for a bus (who will inevitably wait on the cycle path, blocking passage).

L There is no safe and convenient way to get off the path and onto the road at the exit. Users will find themselves on the wrong side of the road, with no obvious means of getting across to the correct side, their path blocked by queuing vehicles, with other vehicles swinging in fast off the roundabout.

L The width of shared path is not quoted but comparison with the road width suggests only 3.0m overall. Deducting 0.5m clearance on either side for kerb and boundary shyness, the effective width is only 2.0m total for cyclists and pedestrians. This is wholly inadequate and will lead to feelings of conflict and antagonism between users. The recommended effective width for a busy shared path is 5m (3.0m cycle path + 2.0m footway), and in this case additional width would be needed to allow bus passengers to wait without obstructing the path (+2m).

This is wholly unsatisfactory and is the reason why proposals for a similar shared pavement were begrudgingly dropped in 1999.

We note that the cycle parking immediately outside the station entrance seems to have disappeared. There does not appear to be any reason for this, they have just gone. Although the pavement area has been reduced here, it is not on a pedestrian desire line and so there is no reason to believe that there would be any conflict.

Although this row of stands is currently not covered, it is the most convenient and best in terms of security (well overlooked). They should be retained.

We welcome the proposals to increase cycle parking. We assume that the existing cycle parking area will be retained so that the total number of spaces is increased. Please confirm that this is correct.

The oversized stands should be replaced by stands of the correct dimensions (750 long x 750 high, 1.0m min spacing).

Cycle parking close to the station entrance should be retained, but the stands replaced by ones of the correct dimensions and a cover should be built to protect from the weather.

Two way access MUST be provided to the cycle parking. A shared pavement is NOT an acceptable way to do this.

We recommend that contraflow cycling is allowed from the cycle parking either by:

b Providing a contraflow cycle lane in the bus lane. Or by…

b Using shared space principles to keep speeds down and allow unregulated circulation. Note that NO segregation or defined lanes are required in 20 mph limits or where 85th percentile speeds are below 25 mph. if speeds in the forecourt exceed 20 mph then there is something very wrong in the design.

We prefer unsegregated contraflow cycling as this is more flexible and less vulnerable to obstruction. We recommend a divider island at the lane exit to protect waiting cyclists and provide a visible reminder that contraflow cycling is perfectly legitimate.

The current layout encourages inappropriate speed, as does the proposed layout. Current speed management is crude – relying on speed humps instead of good geometry. In order to keep speeds to a minimum we strongly recommend the following:

L The access road encourages speed. It is straight, with no direct activity off it. Address this by:

b Realign the access road, moving it towards the station building to fit the “ kiss and drop” parking directly off it on one side (90 degrees parking is more space efficient). This will make the road less straight and create activity – making drivers more cautious.

b Put the taxi rank on the other (station) side of the road (parallel parking, 2 deep if necessary with a central footway).

b Plant mature trees to break up the view ahead and to create a calm environment. Make a tree the first thing that a driver sees in front of him as he comes through the entrance – people don’t argue with trees.

L The only real danger to somebody cycling contraflow to the exit is in crossing the wide mouths to the “ kiss and drop” and taxi ranks. At the moment, and as proposed, vehicles can sweep in without slowing because there is an excessive amount of space and wide curves.

b Separate the cycle / bus access completely from the taxi and car access. That way, cyclists do not have to cross any traffic.

L Tarmac encourages fast driving.

b Use block paviors to signal a change in function for the access road and set down / taxi areas. We recommend keeping tarmac on the bus / cycle lane as it provides a smoother surface and withstands heavy traffic better.