✋

Was asbestos in the building, and has the advice for residents to stay indoors until further notice been lifted?

In a pressure cooker?

Is that millions? Or €2.8 per person who cycles a km? Or something else?

The 'Class Sketch'

Looking at it again there are two obvious issues: both parallel crossings are the wrong way round (cyclists should be closer to the junction) and there is curious mix of segregated and shared (better to make more shared).

That's horribly complicated! Analysis of the old design is available at the other place: x.com/paultroop/st...

From the designers...

maps.app.goo.gl/Zzph7PMsgqh5...

Overall, a curate's egg. Much better than it would have been, but significantly worse than it could have been, despite a massive lobbying effort from us. This was mainly due to being a legacy project from the former Conservative administration, picked up late by the new 'Rainbow' OCC coalition.

Another issue that was not addressed, despite being reassured that it would be, was the sharpness of the exit slip lanes. These are quite oblique, requiring cyclists leaving the highway to slow down in the teeth of the traffic, rather than on the slip lane. So frustrating!

The while lines are already trapping water against the gradient, this will freeze, it will not be gritted, and it will be a serious slip hazard.

A massive bug-bear is the use of non #LTN1/20 compliant path separation. Despite raising this with the designers and #OCC repeatedly, we were left with painted white line separation. The justification was claimed to be that 200m of Cambridge Kerb would cost £500,000 to install!

Instead, we get a narrow coloured area marking the edge of the path. Fine for adult cyclists, but troubling if you are a parent cycling with vulnerable young children. Another issue is that the coloured area obscures the kerb, such that a partially sighted user might not be aware of the kerb.

Another massive frustration was the lack of buffers or horizontal separation between the paths and the highway. Again, these were removed for cost cutting, but never reinstated despite OCC subsequently approving more funding: www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/2459124...

Not so good is the unholy mix of shared and segregated provision which we were told was unavoidable due to lack of space. Unavoidable? Judge for yourself...

We lobbied hard for small improvements, such as access to the public right of way having smooth corners suitable for cyclists and this was delivered.

Another good point is that cyclists can make both crossings in a single movement while pedestrians are making a single crossing. This will vastly expedite cycle crossings and make them as quick as a vehicle movement.

A positive point is that thanks to @andrewgant.bsky.social 's intervention, the pedestrian and cycle paths orientations are of an orthodox Dutch arrangement with bikes staying closest to the vehicles. This avoids a massive amount of unnecessary conflict envisaged under the previous #CYCLOPS design.