Monday, 30 November 2015

A10 Harston Cycle Improvements

The county council are consulting on their proposals for improvements to the shared-use cycling and pedestrian path alongside the A10 in Harston Village between Harston Mill Business Park in the south and the junction of London Road in the north.

CTC are strong supporters of the A10 corridor cycling campaign and we strongly support the goal of creating a continuous safe cycle route along the A10 between Cambridge and Royston.  This section in Harston Village is one of remaining bad sections and these proposed improvements are a key step towards realising that goal.

The situation in Harston Village is constrained by the limited width of the carriageway and the high volumes of motor traffic that use the road.  There has been some consideration of alternative cycle routes that bypass the village to the west to try and avoid these constraints, but on balance we think the proposed route alongside the A10 is the correct and best choice.

Please take the time to support the scheme via the County website. It is important that cyclists actively support this scheme to give the County a clear mandate to go ahead. There is some local opposition and this needs to be balanced by the many supporters of the scheme.

A copy of my reply is appended below, and you are welcome to  use any of this content as part of your own reply.



Dear Patrick,

I have been looking at the new proposals for cycling and walking improvements in Harston Village.

I want to confirm CTC support for the proposed scheme. I think this will be a good and useful improvement to cycling through Harston and it is an important link in the overall A10 cyclepath. In particular, I support the principle of routing the A10 cyclepath along the High Street (as opposed to a bypass route around the village) as this provides a better desire line route plus provides direct access for village residents. I think creating an off-road cyclepath on the western side of the High Street is the best option given the high levels of motor traffic on this road.

As I am sure you are aware the proposals are not universally welcomed. I understand that the current proposals are a compromise with many constraints.

But I hope you will try to achieve the best possible scheme. In particular, please try to widen the cycle path where possible. I also hope you will consider a few other important improvements to the proposed scheme as detailed below.


You will be aware that the proposed width of 3m is quite narrow for a 2-way cyclepath, and there are hard edges to the path in places which reduce the effective width. I recognise that there is limited scope for increasing the width but I think it is important that the proposed 3m width is achieved and the width of the narrower sections increased where possible.

One specific example: I am aware that the widened path on on the southern corner (opposite the Newton turning) will require the kerb lines to be moved. I appreciate that this will be a relatively expensive element and it is essential that this widened section is realised as part of the proposed improvements.

It would also help if you can move the cyclepath away from the edge of the carriageway and to provide some spacing from walls and hedges where possible. Any extra spacing will help to maximise the effective width and will help to improve sightlines into the residential drives.

SECOND SOME ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS to the proposed scheme as detailed below.


I think the eastern junction of Church Street needs to be closed or remodelled to remove or reduce the high risk of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists using the cycle path. The combination of 2-way cycling with the shallow angle of the junction (even allowing for the proposed modest realignment) is a potentially dangerous arrangement. The failure of drivers to always notice cycles moving in both directions is known problem for 2-way cycle paths and will be more severe in this location due to the shallow angle of the junction. I think there is a particular risk from vehicles turning right off the A10 into the eastern arm of Church Street.

My simplest and preferred option is to close the eastern arm of the Church Street junction to motor vehicles entering from the A10 and make it exit only; i.e. to restrict motor vehicles entering Church Street from the A10 to the western arm which has a better angled junction with the A10.

Alternatively, the eastern arm should be more extensively remodelled to slow vehicles movements: I suggest adding a central island so that the right turn movement has a much more steeply angled T-junction with the A10 to help control the speed of turning vehicles.

In both cases, cycles should continue to be able to use the current alignment along the eastern arm of the junction to both access the new cycle path and to join the A10.


I think the off-road cyclepath will not suit all cyclists. It will be beneficial for school children but will only be suitable for a proportion of other cyclists. Hence I think we should also adjust the plans to provide support for more confident cyclists, mainly commuter cyclists, who may prefer to continue to use the road.

As a minimum change I would like the plans to include a series of painted cycle symbols along the edge of the carriageway to make it clear (to both cyclists and drivers) that the option of cycling on the road remains.


Taking account of point (2) I think you should try to remove all of the central islands and the associated central hatching on the northern half of scheme. It is not clear why these have been retained. The remaining central islands will continue to create unwanted pinchpoints making this section of road more difficult and dangerous for on-road cyclists.

I support the inclusion of a zebra crossing on the northern section to provide crossing places but I don't think this one crossing should have a central island. Apart from the cycle safety issues noted above, the removal of the central islands would provide a more consistent theme for motor vehicles (by matching the single stage crossing used elsewhere). You could consider adding new traffic signs to signal "Multiple pedestrian crossings" to support this theme.

If the other central islands are needed to provide more pedestrian crossing places, it would be better to add further single stage zebra crossings on the northern section.


The design of the cyclepath should support cyclists who want to (a) connect from Church Street across to Station Road (to Newton) or (b) turn right from the A10 into Station Road (to Newton) or (c) cross the A10 and join the cycle path when approaching from Station Road . This will require a new crossing point and/or well positioned dropped kerbs to support all these movements.

The simplest way to support this movements is for cycles to use the informal crossing that is positioned between the two junctions. To make this usable for cyclists this requires an new length of off-road cycle path on the south-west side of the A10 between the crossing and the Station Road turn. Also, it would be desirable to have a formal tiger crossing (cycle and pedestrian) rather than the informal crossing shown. A zebra crossing would be a poorer alternative, but traffic volumes here means that a formal crossing is needed: an informal single stage crossing is not practical in this location.

An alternative is to relocate this tiger/zebra crossing on the corner opposite the Station Rd junction. I suggest a crossing slightly west of the removed central island adjacent to the Station Rd island. This requires two further changes. First, a short length of cycle path across the western corner of the Station Road island - to provide a refuge for cycles waiting to cross the A10 and/or a refuge after crossing the A10 (and before joining Station Rd). Second, a dropped kerb access to the cycle path on the opposite side of the A10. The rationale for this alternative crossing location is to keep these cycle movements clear of the Station Road road junction. This alternative crossing location may also be a better desire line for pedestrian movements, in particular for Station Rd residents.

Rupert Goodings

No comments:

Post a Comment