From Love Your Bike
At the Manchester Cycle Forum on Tuesday 28th June, a number of changes to the cycle infrastructure designs on the Oxford Road corridor were outlined. Ironically, these changes appear to have come about as a result of concerns raised about a different scheme – the Cycle City Ambition Grant (CCAG) route from Rusholme to Didsbury.
Love Your Bike has consistently supported the case for high quality – protected space for cycling on the Oxford Road corridor and elsewhere. We continue to support the Oxford Road scheme but believe that some of the proposed changes will make the cycling facilities less attractive, less comfortable and less safe.
We have until 12th July to send in comments on the proposed changes. Love Your Bike have set up a simple email action (see link below) to help people to show their support for the Oxford Road scheme but ask for the proposed changes to be modified.
Join us in campaigning for the scheme to be as good a possible, by completing our simple email action.
Link: http://www.manchesterfoe.org.uk/loveyourbike/oxford-road-2016/
Showing posts with label consultation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consultation. Show all posts
Friday, 1 July 2016
Sunday, 10 January 2016
Response to the “Strategic Plan for Manchester City Centre: 2015-18
Response to the “Strategic Plan for Manchester City Centre: 2015-18"
This document is at best a plan. It should not be described as a “strategy” since it lacks any overview of how Manchester City Centre functions and most importantly it lacks an overarching vision for the future of Manchester City Centre. It is also largely a backwards facing document, giving a lot of detail about past developments without properly addressing the plans for the future.
The documents also fail to join up with the forthcoming Manchester City Centre Transport Strategy and the wider transport and statutory plans for the area. The way in which the document lists tiny fragments of the area in separate sections, for example Castlefield is separated from Water Street and St John’s Square which fails to address the horrendous impact that the proposed “Sky” development will have on all these areas. Indeed, the separation of the document into sections covering small areas seems to have lead to some confusion and has resulted in some developments being listed in the wrong area.
The key element that is missing from this document are the people of Manchester. Their experiences of living, working, learning and carrying out daily life in the centre are completely absent. The document is all about “development”, “growth”, “investment”, “marketing” and other financial issues. It says very little about how people experience the city centre. It is as if the people of Manchester don’t matter…
Air Quality and Public Health
Air pollution is a major cause of ill health and early mortality in Manchester City Centre. It is a serious problem for all residents along with those who travel into the city for work or leisure. Tacking air quality should be the number one priority for the City Centre as it a major health issue and will put severe limitations on the growth of the area.
The other health crisis facing the people of the area is physical inactivity. The most important measure for the health of the people of this area will be to ensure that they can travel on foot and/or cycle for most, if not all of their daily journeys. The city centre must proritise walking and cycling as a matter of urgency as this will pay huge dividend for public health, both in reducing obesity and improving air quality
The Public Realm
Nowhere is this clearer than in the references to the public realm.
Take for example the references to St Peter’s Square. This area has suffered from the removal of the green space provided by the Peace Garden and the closure of Library Walk. The Cenotaph has been moved from its central position on the site of St Peter’s church and placed out of the way by the back door of the Council House in order to make space for a major tram station which will dominate the whole area.
Other public spaces suffer similar problems:
Piccadilly Gardens is a poor quality bus station and tram interchange with a small area of green space in the area remaining.
Exchange Square is also now given over to an oversized tram stop.
Albert Square is dominated by traffic on 3 sides and is predominantly used as an event space.
Deansgate is one of the most important public spaces in the city, hosting major events, and yet it is given over to traffic 99% of the time.
The only reasonable quality green space in the city centre are smaller areas like Sackville Gardens, St John’s Gardens and Parsonage Gardens. It is notable that there has been a significant loss of green space in recent years with the loss of the Peace Garden in St John’s Square and the loss of Hardman Square.
The city centre now lacks a major public space that gives the city an iconic location for events. There is a need to identify and carve out public space and prevent the further degradation of the few remaining spaces.
Deansgate should be closed to traffic and become a key piece of public realm all year round. It is a major desire line when travelling by bicycle and on foot.
Whilst the city centre has a desperate need for green spaces it has many large squares which are given over to car parking. In China Town the car park by Nicholas Street is a key location that should become green space, along with the Major Street and Aytoun Street car parks whilst the Bloom Street car park in the Village is a major blot on the landscape that should be converted into a high quality public space.
The contrast with developments in the City of Leicester are striking. Here whole areas of the city centre have been turned into public realm, given over to the movement of people on foot and cycling.
See http://www.uklandscapeaward.org/Entryfiles/1282044643statement.pdf
and https://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/179023/core-strategy-adopted-july-2014.pdf
Car Parking
The document admits that the city centre has in excess of 30,000 off road and 2,000 on-street parking spaces. This is a massive over supply of car parking in the city centre and with the impact of free parking on single yellow lines in the evening.
There needs to be a phased plan to halve the number of available parking spaces and increase charging to ensure that there is always space available for essential users.
Tackling Severance
A major problem for the city centre is severance caused by major roads. Most particularly the Mancunian Way is a major barrier for movement along with much of the inner ring road. The Mancunian Way should be declassified as soon as possible, removing its motorway status and putting a 30mph speed limit in place. The demolition of the Mancunian way would be a major step forward in regenerating the Corridor and surrounding areas.
Cycling
The provision for cycling in the City Centre is dreadful. Most direct routes involve getting off and walking. There needs to be a complete change of approach integrating cycling into the public realm and making all streets two way for cycling including those where traffic is excluded.
See how Leicester is achieving this:
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/nov/26/lessons-from-leicester-the-uks-unlikely-new-poster-city-for-cycling
http://www.beta.leicester.gov.uk/media/67134/connecting-leicester-cycle-city.pdf
This document is at best a plan. It should not be described as a “strategy” since it lacks any overview of how Manchester City Centre functions and most importantly it lacks an overarching vision for the future of Manchester City Centre. It is also largely a backwards facing document, giving a lot of detail about past developments without properly addressing the plans for the future.
The documents also fail to join up with the forthcoming Manchester City Centre Transport Strategy and the wider transport and statutory plans for the area. The way in which the document lists tiny fragments of the area in separate sections, for example Castlefield is separated from Water Street and St John’s Square which fails to address the horrendous impact that the proposed “Sky” development will have on all these areas. Indeed, the separation of the document into sections covering small areas seems to have lead to some confusion and has resulted in some developments being listed in the wrong area.
The key element that is missing from this document are the people of Manchester. Their experiences of living, working, learning and carrying out daily life in the centre are completely absent. The document is all about “development”, “growth”, “investment”, “marketing” and other financial issues. It says very little about how people experience the city centre. It is as if the people of Manchester don’t matter…
Air Quality and Public Health
Air pollution is a major cause of ill health and early mortality in Manchester City Centre. It is a serious problem for all residents along with those who travel into the city for work or leisure. Tacking air quality should be the number one priority for the City Centre as it a major health issue and will put severe limitations on the growth of the area.
The other health crisis facing the people of the area is physical inactivity. The most important measure for the health of the people of this area will be to ensure that they can travel on foot and/or cycle for most, if not all of their daily journeys. The city centre must proritise walking and cycling as a matter of urgency as this will pay huge dividend for public health, both in reducing obesity and improving air quality
The Public Realm
Nowhere is this clearer than in the references to the public realm.
Take for example the references to St Peter’s Square. This area has suffered from the removal of the green space provided by the Peace Garden and the closure of Library Walk. The Cenotaph has been moved from its central position on the site of St Peter’s church and placed out of the way by the back door of the Council House in order to make space for a major tram station which will dominate the whole area.
Other public spaces suffer similar problems:
Piccadilly Gardens is a poor quality bus station and tram interchange with a small area of green space in the area remaining.
Exchange Square is also now given over to an oversized tram stop.
Albert Square is dominated by traffic on 3 sides and is predominantly used as an event space.
Deansgate is one of the most important public spaces in the city, hosting major events, and yet it is given over to traffic 99% of the time.
The only reasonable quality green space in the city centre are smaller areas like Sackville Gardens, St John’s Gardens and Parsonage Gardens. It is notable that there has been a significant loss of green space in recent years with the loss of the Peace Garden in St John’s Square and the loss of Hardman Square.
The city centre now lacks a major public space that gives the city an iconic location for events. There is a need to identify and carve out public space and prevent the further degradation of the few remaining spaces.
Deansgate should be closed to traffic and become a key piece of public realm all year round. It is a major desire line when travelling by bicycle and on foot.
Whilst the city centre has a desperate need for green spaces it has many large squares which are given over to car parking. In China Town the car park by Nicholas Street is a key location that should become green space, along with the Major Street and Aytoun Street car parks whilst the Bloom Street car park in the Village is a major blot on the landscape that should be converted into a high quality public space.
The contrast with developments in the City of Leicester are striking. Here whole areas of the city centre have been turned into public realm, given over to the movement of people on foot and cycling.
See http://www.uklandscapeaward.org/Entryfiles/1282044643statement.pdf
and https://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/179023/core-strategy-adopted-july-2014.pdf
Car Parking
The document admits that the city centre has in excess of 30,000 off road and 2,000 on-street parking spaces. This is a massive over supply of car parking in the city centre and with the impact of free parking on single yellow lines in the evening.
There needs to be a phased plan to halve the number of available parking spaces and increase charging to ensure that there is always space available for essential users.
Tackling Severance
A major problem for the city centre is severance caused by major roads. Most particularly the Mancunian Way is a major barrier for movement along with much of the inner ring road. The Mancunian Way should be declassified as soon as possible, removing its motorway status and putting a 30mph speed limit in place. The demolition of the Mancunian way would be a major step forward in regenerating the Corridor and surrounding areas.
Cycling
The provision for cycling in the City Centre is dreadful. Most direct routes involve getting off and walking. There needs to be a complete change of approach integrating cycling into the public realm and making all streets two way for cycling including those where traffic is excluded.
See how Leicester is achieving this:
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/nov/26/lessons-from-leicester-the-uks-unlikely-new-poster-city-for-cycling
http://www.beta.leicester.gov.uk/media/67134/connecting-leicester-cycle-city.pdf
Sunday, 13 December 2015
Tyldesley Loopline consultation - 11th-18th December
Salford Council is proposing to improve the entire length of Tyldesley Loopline between Roe Green Loopline in Beesley Green and where it meets the new cycleway along the guided busway at Newearth Road.
This route is in desperate need of major works. It is pretty muddy in places after rain and has steep slopes and sharp turns. You can see more details in this post Tyldesley Loopline 2, Roe Green to Ellenbrook.
A public exhibition of the plans are on display at Beesley Green Community Centre from Friday 11th December to Friday 18th December and the council will be holding a drop in session there between 4pm and 6pm on Tuesday 15th December for anyone who would like more information or to discuss any particular issues. Assuming people support the proposals, the council intends to start the advanced tree works in January/February (outside of the bird nesting season) and then carry out the main works over the summer.
More information including the feasibility drawings and consultation boards are available at: http://www.salford.gov.uk/tyldesleyloopline.htm
Please support these proposals as they will make a major difference, joining together a number of good quality routes. If you are unable to attend in person contact Catriona Swanson catriona.swanson@salford.gov.uk to comment on the scheme.
This route is in desperate need of major works. It is pretty muddy in places after rain and has steep slopes and sharp turns. You can see more details in this post Tyldesley Loopline 2, Roe Green to Ellenbrook.
A public exhibition of the plans are on display at Beesley Green Community Centre from Friday 11th December to Friday 18th December and the council will be holding a drop in session there between 4pm and 6pm on Tuesday 15th December for anyone who would like more information or to discuss any particular issues. Assuming people support the proposals, the council intends to start the advanced tree works in January/February (outside of the bird nesting season) and then carry out the main works over the summer.
More information including the feasibility drawings and consultation boards are available at: http://www.salford.gov.uk/tyldesleyloopline.htm
Please support these proposals as they will make a major difference, joining together a number of good quality routes. If you are unable to attend in person contact Catriona Swanson catriona.swanson@salford.gov.uk to comment on the scheme.
Sunday, 22 November 2015
Port Salford Greenway Phase 2
Salford Council are consulting on phase 2 of the Salford Greenway.
Plans showing the proposed phase two improvements are on display at Winton and Worsley libraries until Friday 27 November 2015.
There will be a drop in session at each library where you can discuss the proposals with the team:
Winton Library: 4.30pm to 6.30pm, Monday 23 November.
Worsley Library: 4.30 to 6.30pm, Thursday 26 November.
More details at http://www.salford.gov.uk/portsalfordgreenway.htm
Plans showing the proposed phase two improvements are on display at Winton and Worsley libraries until Friday 27 November 2015.
There will be a drop in session at each library where you can discuss the proposals with the team:
Winton Library: 4.30pm to 6.30pm, Monday 23 November.
Worsley Library: 4.30 to 6.30pm, Thursday 26 November.
More details at http://www.salford.gov.uk/portsalfordgreenway.htm
Clean City Programme: Sites for public cycle stands across Manchester
As part of a new Clean City programme Manchester City Council is planning on installing new cycling parking across the city and they would like your help to identify suitable sites for around 1,000 public cycle parking clusters.
They say they also have some funding to install innovative cycle parking. So if you have any suggestions of locations or types of cycle parking that would fall in to this category, please let us know by completing the online form.
The council will generally favour locations suitable for clusters of cycle stands or in some cases ‘toast racks’ rather than single racks and say they are best installed where there is a good light and good natural surveillance, not tucked away out of sight.
Some local organisations made separate Clean City bids for bike parking, and these locations are being considered as part of this project. Manchester City Council has already identified locations to install a significant number of cycle parking stands in St Peter’s Square, following a great deal of feedback on twitter and from this blog.
The form can be completed online at http://www.manchester.gov.uk/directory_record/145577/cycle_parking - ends 22nd December.
They say they also have some funding to install innovative cycle parking. So if you have any suggestions of locations or types of cycle parking that would fall in to this category, please let us know by completing the online form.
The council will generally favour locations suitable for clusters of cycle stands or in some cases ‘toast racks’ rather than single racks and say they are best installed where there is a good light and good natural surveillance, not tucked away out of sight.
Some local organisations made separate Clean City bids for bike parking, and these locations are being considered as part of this project. Manchester City Council has already identified locations to install a significant number of cycle parking stands in St Peter’s Square, following a great deal of feedback on twitter and from this blog.
The form can be completed online at http://www.manchester.gov.uk/directory_record/145577/cycle_parking - ends 22nd December.
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Deansgate junction with Liverpool Road and Great Bridgewater Street – Proposed junction alterations
Just received this email...
It is a response to this reply http://madcyclelanesofmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/response-to-manchester-city-council.html
It is pure fail from Manchester City Council!
What is the point of consulting the public when you just respond with this???????
What a mess!!
It is a response to this reply http://madcyclelanesofmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/response-to-manchester-city-council.html
It is pure fail from Manchester City Council!
What is the point of consulting the public when you just respond with this???????
Dear Sir/Madam,
Deansgate junction with Liverpool Road and Great Bridgewater Street – Proposed junction alterations.
Following the consultation exercise relating to proposed alterations to the junction of Deansgate with, Liverpool Road and Great Bridgewater Street, your comments along with others provided on the proposals have been included within a report to the Citywide Highways Manager and Executive Member for the Environment for review.
After consideration of all comments received, it has been decided that the proposals are not implemented at this stage but that improved cycling provision along Deansgate is considered as part of the overall City Centre Cycling Strategy currently being developed, taking into account wider city centre issues raised during this consultation process.
Thank you for taking the time to respond with your views to this consultation information.
Yours faithfully,
Mr C. O. Ebizie IEng FIHE
Engineer
Tel: 0161 219 6289
Internal Tel: 800 36289
Email: c.ebizie1@manchester.gov.uk
Website address: www.manchester.gov.uk
Capital Programme and Property
Growth and Neighbourhoods Directorate
Manchester City Council
PO Box 532 Town Hall
Manchester
M60 2LA
Office Location
Level 6 Town Hall Extension
Lloyd Street
Manchester
What a mess!!
Tuesday, 29 September 2015
Medlock Way Cycleway Consultation
Just received this email from Manchester Council's Cycle Forum. Nothing like giving plenty of notice...
From: cycle.forum@manchester.gov.uk
Dear All,
The consultation for the proposed cycle link from the Mancunian Way Toucan Crossing via Medlock Street to the City Centre is available on the Council website.
Closing date for comments is the 5th October.
See attached link http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200024/consultations_and_surveys/6665/better_by_cycle/8
Yet another sticking plaster measure from Manchester City Council. This time it's turning a short section of pavement into a shared use cycleway.
Wednesday, 19 August 2015
City Centre Cycling Infrastructure Plan Stakeholder Workshop
I received this email today about an event in September to discuss a City Centre Cycling Infrastructure Plan for Manchester.
Unfortunately it is being held at a time when most people (like me) are at work, rather than at a weekend when more cycle commuters could attend, so I am posting it here so more cycling city centre residents can sign up.
Unfortunately it is being held at a time when most people (like me) are at work, rather than at a weekend when more cycle commuters could attend, so I am posting it here so more cycling city centre residents can sign up.
City Centre Cycling Infrastructure Plan Stakeholder Workshop
1-4pm, 23rd September 2015
Upper Hall, Friends Meeting House
Mount St
Manchester City Council, working in partnership with Transport for Greater Manchester and Salford City Council, is developing a City Centre Cycling Infrastructure Plan (CCCIP). The plan will:-
- Provide a strategy to guide future investment
- Provide a pipeline of cycling schemes
- Prioritise cycling and transport infrastructure more effectively
- Assist with bidding for future funding for investment in the city centre cycle network
We invite you to join us at the CCCIP Workshop to help shape the future of cycling in the City Centre. We'd like to hear from a wide range of contributors to understand what the critical issues are for you and what you believe are the opportunities for improving cycling in the City Centre.
Further details on the format of the afternoon workshop will be provided nearer the time. If you are interested in contributing to the vision for the future of cycling in the City Centre please register by emailing your name, organisation and contact details to planningstrategy@manchester.gov.uk
Planning Strategy Team
Policy, Programmes and Research
Growth & Neighbourhoods
Manchester City Council
Floor 5, Town Hall Extension
Manchester
M60 2LA
Tel: 0161 234 4011
www.manchester.gov.uk
Sunday, 7 June 2015
Response to Manchester City Council: Proposal to Improve Deansgate Junction with Liverpool Road and Great Bridgewater Street
I don't know whether these plans have been discussed with the new Manchester Cycle Forum group, but I received it as a local resident. As far as I can tell these plans are not available on the City Council web site. If you wish to respond you can email c.ebizie(at)manchester.gov.uk by the 12th June. I have responded as a local resident along the following lines...
I frequently walk and cycle through this junction and occasionally have to drive through it.
This is a dangerous and intimidating junction for anyone cycling or walking. The behavior of drivers in this area is dreadful. Speeding is a frequent problem in this area, as are drivers using the wrong lanes, blocking cycle lanes and running red lights. Stand at this junction for more than 10 minutes and you will see cars, taxis or even buses being driven through red lights.
Looking North
Looking South
Looking East - note the respect shown for the cycle facilities!
Looking West
National Cycle Network Route 6 runs through this junction
This is what it is like to cycle NCN 6 here.
I support the proposal to ban right turns for motor vehicles from Deansgate in both directions, not least because I suggested this approach to the council last year. At the time I was told that it was not possible, so I am glad to see this first step. However, the proposals do not go far enough to make this junction safe and people friendly and are still dangerous. This design will encourage even more dangerous rat running along Barton Street and Southern Street to get around the banned right turn into Liverpool Road.
Barton Street
The proposed design lacks good quality segregated cycle tracks and the proposal places people cycling directly in the path of left turning traffic on all four approaches.
Also, these proposals have been brought forward in isolation without the plans for the junction on Deansgate by the station and the plans for Liverpool Road, both of which will have an impact on this design.
There are a number of changes that I think are necessary to ensure that this junction is safe:-
I frequently walk and cycle through this junction and occasionally have to drive through it.
This is a dangerous and intimidating junction for anyone cycling or walking. The behavior of drivers in this area is dreadful. Speeding is a frequent problem in this area, as are drivers using the wrong lanes, blocking cycle lanes and running red lights. Stand at this junction for more than 10 minutes and you will see cars, taxis or even buses being driven through red lights.
Looking North
Looking South
Looking East - note the respect shown for the cycle facilities!
Looking West
National Cycle Network Route 6 runs through this junction
This is what it is like to cycle NCN 6 here.
I support the proposal to ban right turns for motor vehicles from Deansgate in both directions, not least because I suggested this approach to the council last year. At the time I was told that it was not possible, so I am glad to see this first step. However, the proposals do not go far enough to make this junction safe and people friendly and are still dangerous. This design will encourage even more dangerous rat running along Barton Street and Southern Street to get around the banned right turn into Liverpool Road.
Barton Street
The proposed design lacks good quality segregated cycle tracks and the proposal places people cycling directly in the path of left turning traffic on all four approaches.
Also, these proposals have been brought forward in isolation without the plans for the junction on Deansgate by the station and the plans for Liverpool Road, both of which will have an impact on this design.
There are a number of changes that I think are necessary to ensure that this junction is safe:-
- Ban right turns for motor vehicles from Liverpool Road onto Deansgate southbound.
- Ban right turns for motor vehicles from Great Bridgewater Street onto Deansgate northbound.
- Reduce the northbound road to a single lane for motor traffic approaching the junction on Deansgate.
- Reduce the southbound road to a single lane for motor traffic approaching the junction on Deansgate.
- Use the road space reallocated by reducing the number of lanes to create 3 metre wide segregated cycle tracks on all four approaches to the junction and remove the advance stop boxes.
- Install traffic lights with separate traffic light phases for cycles.
- Enable right turns for cycles in all directions during the green cycle phase.
- Close Barton Street and Southern Street to motor vehicles by placing bollards in the road at the junction with Liverpool Road on both sides to prevent dangerous rat running.
Sunday, 22 March 2015
Response to Wilmslow Road Consultation
This is my response to the Wilmslow Road consultation on the proposed new cycle route.
-------------
I support these proposals from the principle of providing safe segregated cycle tracks along the length of this route. This route is one I currently avoid when cycling because I consider it to be too dangerous. This is because of the large number of buses, poor driving, bad parking and conflict with drivers looking for somewhere to park. Whilst this design will do nothing to improve any of these it will reduce the impact of all of these on people cycling.
Apart from the plans for Oxford Road these are the only proposals which approach the standard required to enable cycling as an everyday mode of transport in Manchester.
These cycle routes should be safe and convenient to use by anyone, from the age of 8 to 80.
Europaplien, Amsterdam
However, I have major concerns about many of the details of these plans, and their effectiveness in achieving these aims.
There are a number of key issues that need to be addressed in these plans before this route can be considered safe. A comparison with Scheldestraat in south Amsterdam, a very busy route with many shops and street cafés, is useful to see where some of the problems in the Wilmslow Road plans lie.
Scheldestraat, Amsterdam
The most obvious problem with these plans is the lack of a 20mph speed limit. In such a busy area with many people moving around on foot it is unacceptable to leave the speed limit at 30mph. Most of the surrounding roads have 20mph limit, so it would also be consistent with the surrounding area.
Next there is still an excessive amount of space given over to the roadway in many places. It is unnecessary to accommodate 3 lanes of traffic at any point on this route. Space is very restricted and is needed to give protection to the cycle track not increase traffic flows. The ban on private motor vehicles on Oxford Road will remove Wilmslow Road's role as a radial route into the city centre, so more should be done to reduce traffic capacity along this route.
These plans do not specify the widths of the cycle tracks and the kerb separation widths. Segregated cycle tracks should be 2.5 metres wide, and a minimum of 2 metres wide where space is restricted. There should also be at least 1 meter separation between any parking spaces and the cycle track to avoid people cycling being hit by opening car doors.
Also the kerb heights and types are not specified. The kerbs should be half height (maximum 50mm) and preferably sloped. Full height kerbs, such as those used on the Alan Turing Way are oppressive and potentially dangerous, especially on narrow cycle tracks.
However, the most dangerous part of these plans is the lack of proper junction treatments. In these plans the segregation disappears at the junctions which is the place where most cycle crashes happen. Contrast this with the Dutch approach where there are clearly demarcated cycle route at the junctions and separate cycle phases at traffic lights.
Scheldestraat, Amsterdam
President Kennedylaan, Amsterdam
On Wilmslow Road the cycle tracks should cross the side roads on raised tables to clearly mark the crossing out from the road. Green paint alone won't send a strong enough message to drivers.
Also, many of the parking bays are too close to junctions and crossings and should be removed for safety reasons.
All the images below link to the maps on the council's web site.
Issues to note:-
Issues to note:-
Issues to note:-
Issues to note:-
-------------
I support these proposals from the principle of providing safe segregated cycle tracks along the length of this route. This route is one I currently avoid when cycling because I consider it to be too dangerous. This is because of the large number of buses, poor driving, bad parking and conflict with drivers looking for somewhere to park. Whilst this design will do nothing to improve any of these it will reduce the impact of all of these on people cycling.
Apart from the plans for Oxford Road these are the only proposals which approach the standard required to enable cycling as an everyday mode of transport in Manchester.
These cycle routes should be safe and convenient to use by anyone, from the age of 8 to 80.
Europaplien, Amsterdam
However, I have major concerns about many of the details of these plans, and their effectiveness in achieving these aims.
General Comments
Firstly, it should be noted that these plans fail to come up to the standards laid out in the TfGM publication "Greater Manchester Cycle Guidance". The designs for this short route are strangely varied, as if it has been designed by several different people with no attempt at a consistent design.There are a number of key issues that need to be addressed in these plans before this route can be considered safe. A comparison with Scheldestraat in south Amsterdam, a very busy route with many shops and street cafés, is useful to see where some of the problems in the Wilmslow Road plans lie.
Scheldestraat, Amsterdam
The most obvious problem with these plans is the lack of a 20mph speed limit. In such a busy area with many people moving around on foot it is unacceptable to leave the speed limit at 30mph. Most of the surrounding roads have 20mph limit, so it would also be consistent with the surrounding area.
Next there is still an excessive amount of space given over to the roadway in many places. It is unnecessary to accommodate 3 lanes of traffic at any point on this route. Space is very restricted and is needed to give protection to the cycle track not increase traffic flows. The ban on private motor vehicles on Oxford Road will remove Wilmslow Road's role as a radial route into the city centre, so more should be done to reduce traffic capacity along this route.
These plans do not specify the widths of the cycle tracks and the kerb separation widths. Segregated cycle tracks should be 2.5 metres wide, and a minimum of 2 metres wide where space is restricted. There should also be at least 1 meter separation between any parking spaces and the cycle track to avoid people cycling being hit by opening car doors.
Also the kerb heights and types are not specified. The kerbs should be half height (maximum 50mm) and preferably sloped. Full height kerbs, such as those used on the Alan Turing Way are oppressive and potentially dangerous, especially on narrow cycle tracks.
However, the most dangerous part of these plans is the lack of proper junction treatments. In these plans the segregation disappears at the junctions which is the place where most cycle crashes happen. Contrast this with the Dutch approach where there are clearly demarcated cycle route at the junctions and separate cycle phases at traffic lights.
Scheldestraat, Amsterdam
President Kennedylaan, Amsterdam
On Wilmslow Road the cycle tracks should cross the side roads on raised tables to clearly mark the crossing out from the road. Green paint alone won't send a strong enough message to drivers.
Also, many of the parking bays are too close to junctions and crossings and should be removed for safety reasons.
Detailed Comments along the Route
1) Moss Lane East to Great Western Street
Note that the map for this section is incorrectly labeled.All the images below link to the maps on the council's web site.
Issues to note:-
- The junction with Moss Lane East is not shown on the plans. From the small amount that is visible it is clear that there is no protection for cycling through this junction in either direction.
- The three lane section of road at this point should be narrowed to two lanes.
- The central island should be widened to improve safety for cycles turning right out of Rusholme Place.
- Narrowing the road would also enable a greater clearence between the parking spaces and the cycle track.
- The cycle track across the side road, Rusholme Place should be on a raised table to distinguish it from the road.
- The cycle track across Banff Road should be on a raised table to distinguish it from the road.
- There is no segregation past Banff Road, this section should be segregated.
- There is no need for the 3 lane section of road opposite the petrol station. There should only be one lane each way and the lights should be phased to allow each direction to go in turn, removing all turning conflicts.
- The design of the junction with Great Western Street has no protection for cycles. This junction is not safe and should be radically redesigned with proper segregation and a cycles only green phase.
2) Great Western Street to Walmer Street
Issues to note:-
- The cycle track across Dagenham Road should be on a raised table to distinguish it from the road. Also the cycle track should continue in a straight line across Dagenham Road with the give way line pushed back.
- There is no right turn facility opposite Dagenham Road. The parking bays opposite should be relocated and replaced with a right turn facility.
- The cycle track across Denison Street should be on a raised table to distinguish it from the road.
- There is no right turn facility opposite Denison Road. The parking bays opposite should be removed and replaced with a right turn facility.
- The parking bays and loading bays south of Denison Street interfere with the crossing, they shorten the ziz-zag line area just before Walmer Street. These bays make the crossing unsafe and should be removed or reolcated.
- The parking bay south of the crossing, opposite Walmer Street also is in the crossing safety zone and should be removed.
- The cycle track across Walmer Street should be on a raised table to distinguish it from the road. Also the cycle track should continue in a straight line across Walmer Street East with the give way line pushed back.
- There is no right turn facility into Walmer Street - this can be included by removing the parking space.
- The cycle track across Walmer Street East should be on a raised table to distinguish it from the road. Also the cycle track should continue in a straight line across Walmer Street East with the give way line pushed back.
- There is no right turn facility into Walmer Street East.
3) Walmer Street to Park Crescent
Issues to note:-
- The cycle track across Thurloe Street should be on a raised table to distinguish it from the road. Also the cycle track should continue in a straight line across Thurloe Street with the give way line pushed back.
- There is no right turn facility opposite Thurloe Street. The parking bays opposite should be relocated and replaced with a right turn facility.
- The parking bay on the opposite side of the road between the Jobcentre and Grandale Street encroaches into the safety zone (ziz-zag line area) of the crossing. This bay should be shortened to keep the crossing clear.
- The loading bays opposite Grandale Street encroach into the safety zone of the crossing and interfere with the bus stop. This bay should be relocated to keep the crossing and the bus stop clear.
- The cycle track across Grandale Street should be on a raised table to distinguish it from the road. Also the cycle track should continue in a straight line across Grandale Street with the give way line pushed back.
- There is no right turn facility opposite Grandale Street. The loading bays opposite should be relocated and replaced with a right turn facility.
- The cycle track across Park Crescent should remain segregated and then cross the road on a raised table to mark it out.
- Also the cycle track should continue in a straight line across Park Crescent with the give way line pushed back.
4) Park Crescent to Dickenson Road
Issues to note:-
- The cycle track across Claremont Road should be on a raised table to distinguish it from the road. Also the cycle track should continue in a straight line across Claremont Road with the give way line pushed back.
- There is no right turn facility opposite Claremont Road. The loading/parking bays opposite should be relocated/removed and replaced with a right turn facility.
- The design of the layout for the light controlled crossing between Claremont Road and the Supermarket is a mess. It is inconsistent with the rest of the route and needs to be completely reworked. Southbound the loading bays before and after encroach into the safety zone. these must be relocated for safety reasons. Northbound this is the only place where the cycle route is included in the crossing. The road can be narrowed at this point to preserve the cycle track segregation, and the parking bay removed that is in the crossing safety zone.
- The cycle track across Rusholme Grove should be on a raised table to distinguish it from the road. Also the cycle track should continue in a straight line across Rusholme Grove with the give way line pushed back.
- The junction with Stone Place and Dickenson Road is not shown on the plans. From the small amount that is visible it is clear that there is no protection for cycling through this junction in either direction. The design of this junction needs to be changed to provide a safe passage for cycling.
Friday, 27 February 2015
Wilmslow Road Cycleway Consultation
Manchester City Council has today posted proposals for the development of the Wilmslow Road Cycleway - Moss Lane East to Dickenson Road, and is carrying out a consultation.
Two events have been arranged for the public to drop in and see the proposals and discuss them with the team on the following dates:
Tue 17 March, 11.00 a.m. - 7.00 p.m
Spicy Hut Restaurant, 35 Wilmslow Road
Fri 20 March, 9.00 a.m. - 12.00 p.m
Rusholme Sure Start Centre, Great Western Street
I will post analysis of the plans when I've had a good look at them, but the preview we saw at last Manchester Cycle Forum was promising.
The consultation closes Friday 27 March.
Two events have been arranged for the public to drop in and see the proposals and discuss them with the team on the following dates:
Tue 17 March, 11.00 a.m. - 7.00 p.m
Spicy Hut Restaurant, 35 Wilmslow Road
Fri 20 March, 9.00 a.m. - 12.00 p.m
Rusholme Sure Start Centre, Great Western Street
I will post analysis of the plans when I've had a good look at them, but the preview we saw at last Manchester Cycle Forum was promising.
The consultation closes Friday 27 March.
Sunday, 20 July 2014
Deansgate Junction Consultation ZZ208237H
Comments in response to ZZ208237H – Cycle City Ambition Grant – The Bridgewater Canal
General Comments
It is very unfortunate that this design is being considered in isolation from the LSTF proposals for the junctions to the north involving Trafford Street, Bridgewater Street, Liverpool Road, Great Bridgewater Street and Deansgate. These two areas need to be considered as one design in order to create a coherent design for the whole area.
Though labelled The Bridgewater Canal the main substance of this document is the junction between Deansgate, both north and south, Whitworth Street West, the Bridgewater Viaduct and Castle Street. This is a very unpleasant and complex junction which has been designed to maximise traffic flows and creates a very unpleasant environment for people walking and cycling.
The proposed design lacks ambition for encouraging of cycling in the city and when judged on the five core principles of design for people walking and cycling, safety, coherence, directness, comfort and attractiveness1 these proposals fail on all these principles. It also fails to take account of people with children in cycle trailers or people with disabilities who ride unconventional machines such as handcycles.
See detailed comments in Appendix 1.
Alternative Design
Rather than focus on the proposed junction layout, the junction should be redesigned to increase safety and improve the environment which would also bring economic benefits to the Castlefield area which has several bars and clubs as well as the tram stop and railway station.
I live in this area, and during rush hour many more people walk through this area than travel by car. The priority for this area needs to be radically changed to improve the environment for walking and cycling.
Walking is the most common way of moving around Castlefield and those who arrive by bus, tram or train also walk to their final destination. In the City Centre around 43% of residents travel to work on foot2. This whole area must prioritise the movement of people and restrict the movement of motor vehicles.
This junction could be radically simplified by taking a completely different approach to the phasing of the traffic lights, namely that each arm of the junction should be given the green phase in turn so that there are no conflicting traffic movements for people turning right. There should also be an all green walking/cycling phase where all motor vehicles are stopped.
The great advantage of having of having green phases for each arm in turn is that there need only be a single vehicle lane leading up to the junction, because there is no need for traffic to give way in any direction. This enables the area taken up by motor vehicles to be dramatically reduced, leaving space for the inclusion of high quality cycle provision through this junction as well as a significantly improved environment for people on foot.
As a result the Bridgewater Viaduct, Deansgate and Whitworth Street West can all be reduced to one traffic lane each way leaving room for good quality cycle tracks on both sides of the road.
There would then be no need for traffic light control ofCastle Street. It should be a give way junction, set back from the cycle track. There should be no right turn onto the Bridgewater Viaduct and no right turn into Castle Street from Bridgewater Viaduct southbound. This would allow people cycling northbound on the Bridgewater Viaduct to bypass the traffic lights straight up onto Deansgate, giving cycles a significant advantage over the motor vehicles.
A similarly radical approach needs to be taken with the Liverpool Road, Great Bridgewater Street and Deansgate junction to the north.
See below for a rough sketch of a possible layout. Note the dramatically different scale of the roads in the area. Red signifies motor vehicles, green pedal cycles.
Appendix 1 Detailed comments on the original proposals
The current pedestrian crossing layout is inadequate, it does not enable crossing at the southern end of Deansgate, nor the north end of Bridgewater Viaduct, both of which are significant desire lines, particularly with the Railway and Tram stations nearby.
The area to the south, Deansgate below the bridge, is very unpleasant and often used as a car park. Access to this area needs to be closed off to motor vehicles and a properly defined cycle track created across this area.
These islands are very small, and would not be big enough, for example, for a bicycle with a trailer carrying children.
This is an unsatisfactory approach. Simply pushing pedal cycles onto the pavement causes conflict and reduces the amount of space for people on foot.
Lack of feeder cycle lane into new reservoir makes it pointless.
There will be nothing to prevent vehicles ignoring these markings, leading to conflict.
Again there is no physical barrier to prevent drivers cutting right across pedal cycles from the left hand lane.
It is unacceptable to be installing cycle lanes less than 2m wide when narrow cycle lanes make driver behaviour worse3.
Also there should be no right turn from Castle Street onto the Bridgewater Viaduct and there should be no right turn into Castle Street from Bridgewater Viaduct southbound.
The island looks very small from the plans and the cycle lane runs straight into the bus stop.
see above
It is quite impossible to comment on this as these plans have not been provided.
This is a pretty scary looking cycle lane, and it will be difficult to reach in moving traffic
This may not make much difference, see above.
Again this is pushing pedal cycles onto the pavement bringing about conflict with people on foot.
This will be slow and inconvenient and will be difficult for cycles with trailers or other larger machines.
It is unacceptable to be installing cycle lanes less than 2m wide when narrow cycle lanes make driver behaviour worse4.
It is not clear how this will work from the diagram. Suddenly stopping in the lane to try and get onto a busy pavement is a real problem.
Again this will be slow and inconvenient and will be difficult for cycles with trailers or other larger machines.
Again this will be slow and inconvenient and will be difficult for cycles with trailers or other larger machines.
The existing cycle lane is too narrow and dangerous because of the on-street parking.
This existing cycle track is dangerous and is largely ignored by people cycling. The entrance to the ASL is particularly dangerous.
See above.
As the plans show the reduction from 2 to 1 traffic lane, there will be space to provide a 2m wide segregated cycle track rather than an unprotected lane which will be blocked in rush hour by drivers forming two lanes.
This is very dangerous. Firstly there is the danger of ending up trying to emerge between parked vehicles such as vans which block any view of oncoming traffic.
Secondly all the parking spaces are at right angles to the road with most people driving into the parking spaces. This means they reverse out into the road, without sight of oncoming cycles. All this parking needs to be turned parallel to the road to make this route safe.
See above
The surfacing of this ramp needs to be such that it does not become slippery when wet. The current surfacing can become very slippery in the winter.
This will need to be updated to provide a satisfactory access and egress.
See above. Note most of the signage around the city centre for cycling is unsatisfactory and difficult to follow, especially the NCN routes.
General Comments
It is very unfortunate that this design is being considered in isolation from the LSTF proposals for the junctions to the north involving Trafford Street, Bridgewater Street, Liverpool Road, Great Bridgewater Street and Deansgate. These two areas need to be considered as one design in order to create a coherent design for the whole area.
Though labelled The Bridgewater Canal the main substance of this document is the junction between Deansgate, both north and south, Whitworth Street West, the Bridgewater Viaduct and Castle Street. This is a very unpleasant and complex junction which has been designed to maximise traffic flows and creates a very unpleasant environment for people walking and cycling.
The proposed design lacks ambition for encouraging of cycling in the city and when judged on the five core principles of design for people walking and cycling, safety, coherence, directness, comfort and attractiveness1 these proposals fail on all these principles. It also fails to take account of people with children in cycle trailers or people with disabilities who ride unconventional machines such as handcycles.
See detailed comments in Appendix 1.
Alternative Design
Rather than focus on the proposed junction layout, the junction should be redesigned to increase safety and improve the environment which would also bring economic benefits to the Castlefield area which has several bars and clubs as well as the tram stop and railway station.
I live in this area, and during rush hour many more people walk through this area than travel by car. The priority for this area needs to be radically changed to improve the environment for walking and cycling.
Walking is the most common way of moving around Castlefield and those who arrive by bus, tram or train also walk to their final destination. In the City Centre around 43% of residents travel to work on foot2. This whole area must prioritise the movement of people and restrict the movement of motor vehicles.
This junction could be radically simplified by taking a completely different approach to the phasing of the traffic lights, namely that each arm of the junction should be given the green phase in turn so that there are no conflicting traffic movements for people turning right. There should also be an all green walking/cycling phase where all motor vehicles are stopped.
The great advantage of having of having green phases for each arm in turn is that there need only be a single vehicle lane leading up to the junction, because there is no need for traffic to give way in any direction. This enables the area taken up by motor vehicles to be dramatically reduced, leaving space for the inclusion of high quality cycle provision through this junction as well as a significantly improved environment for people on foot.
As a result the Bridgewater Viaduct, Deansgate and Whitworth Street West can all be reduced to one traffic lane each way leaving room for good quality cycle tracks on both sides of the road.
There would then be no need for traffic light control ofCastle Street. It should be a give way junction, set back from the cycle track. There should be no right turn onto the Bridgewater Viaduct and no right turn into Castle Street from Bridgewater Viaduct southbound. This would allow people cycling northbound on the Bridgewater Viaduct to bypass the traffic lights straight up onto Deansgate, giving cycles a significant advantage over the motor vehicles.
A similarly radical approach needs to be taken with the Liverpool Road, Great Bridgewater Street and Deansgate junction to the north.
See below for a rough sketch of a possible layout. Note the dramatically different scale of the roads in the area. Red signifies motor vehicles, green pedal cycles.
Appendix 1 Detailed comments on the original proposals
Deansgate / Whitworth Street West / Bridgewater Viaduct/Castle Street Junction
The principle proposals for the junction are:
• Upgrade the existing pelican crossing to a toucan crossing to facilitate signal controlled
cyclist movements across the junction east/west direction to access the Bridgewater
Canal
The current pedestrian crossing layout is inadequate, it does not enable crossing at the southern end of Deansgate, nor the north end of Bridgewater Viaduct, both of which are significant desire lines, particularly with the Railway and Tram stations nearby.
The area to the south, Deansgate below the bridge, is very unpleasant and often used as a car park. Access to this area needs to be closed off to motor vehicles and a properly defined cycle track created across this area.
• Relocate and increase existing pedestrian islands within the junction
These islands are very small, and would not be big enough, for example, for a bicycle with a trailer carrying children.
• Unsegregated shared footways between crossing points
This is an unsatisfactory approach. Simply pushing pedal cycles onto the pavement causes conflict and reduces the amount of space for people on foot.
• New ASL (Advanced Stop Line) on right turn lane from Whitworth Street West on to
Deansgate. ASL cycle reservoir increased on Deansgate southbound
Lack of feeder cycle lane into new reservoir makes it pointless.
It is proposed to amend the existing traffic lane arrangement at the junction:
• Bridgewater Viaduct northbound; from one lane ahead, one lane ahead and right to one
lane ahead, one lane right
There will be nothing to prevent vehicles ignoring these markings, leading to conflict.
• Deansgate southbound; from one lane ahead, one lane ahead and left to one lane
ahead, one lane left
Again there is no physical barrier to prevent drivers cutting right across pedal cycles from the left hand lane.
• Whitworth Street West and Castle ; existing lane arrangement to be retained
Cycle lanes are proposed to be introduced at the junction, see drawing ZZ208237H-000-005 Rev D. All proposed cycle lanes are at least 1.5m wide, with width increased through
junctions.
It is unacceptable to be installing cycle lanes less than 2m wide when narrow cycle lanes make driver behaviour worse3.
Also there should be no right turn from Castle Street onto the Bridgewater Viaduct and there should be no right turn into Castle Street from Bridgewater Viaduct southbound.
Deansgate (to the north of the junction)
The main proposals are:
Northbound
• Direct northbound traffic into the centre of the carriageway and away from cyclists
travelling in the nearside cycle lane by introducing a small splitter island
The island looks very small from the plans and the cycle lane runs straight into the bus stop.
• Existing bus stop to remain
see above
• Tie into the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) proposed works along Deansgate
(project number 206292) Southbound
It is quite impossible to comment on this as these plans have not been provided.
• 2m wide cycle lane between the two general traffic lanes
This is a pretty scary looking cycle lane, and it will be difficult to reach in moving traffic
• Cyclists in more prominent and visible position on approach to the junction
This may not make much difference, see above.
• Accessing the unsegregated shared footway through dropped kerbs in the ASL reservoir
Again this is pushing pedal cycles onto the pavement bringing about conflict with people on foot.
Whitworth Street West
The main proposals are:
Eastbound
• Cyclists can access Whitworth Street West eastbound using the proposed toucan
crossing and unsegregated shared footway
This will be slow and inconvenient and will be difficult for cycles with trailers or other larger machines.
• Tie into existing cycle lane via a short length of proposed 1.5m cycle lane
Westbound
It is unacceptable to be installing cycle lanes less than 2m wide when narrow cycle lanes make driver behaviour worse4.
• Nearside cycle lane to access unsegregated shared area under the railway arch or cycle
lane on Bridgewater Viaduct southbound
It is not clear how this will work from the diagram. Suddenly stopping in the lane to try and get onto a busy pavement is a real problem.
• Cyclists can access all arms of junction using proposed toucan crossing
Again this will be slow and inconvenient and will be difficult for cycles with trailers or other larger machines.
• Access to Deansgate and the Bridgewater Canal via unsegregated shared area
Again this will be slow and inconvenient and will be difficult for cycles with trailers or other larger machines.
• Tie into existing cycle lane
The existing cycle lane is too narrow and dangerous because of the on-street parking.
Bridgewater Viaduct
The main proposals are:
Northbound
• Cyclists join carriageway on approach to the junction with Castle Street, as existing
This existing cycle track is dangerous and is largely ignored by people cycling. The entrance to the ASL is particularly dangerous.
• Lighting column proposed to be relocated
See above.
Southbound
• On carriageway 2m cycle lane
As the plans show the reduction from 2 to 1 traffic lane, there will be space to provide a 2m wide segregated cycle track rather than an unprotected lane which will be blocked in rush hour by drivers forming two lanes.
Deansgate (Chester Road to Whitworth Street West)
The main proposals are:
• To access the canal basin, an existing car parking space is to be relocated as shown
This is very dangerous. Firstly there is the danger of ending up trying to emerge between parked vehicles such as vans which block any view of oncoming traffic.
Secondly all the parking spaces are at right angles to the road with most people driving into the parking spaces. This means they reverse out into the road, without sight of oncoming cycles. All this parking needs to be turned parallel to the road to make this route safe.
• Preferred canal basin access option would involve the removal of one existing car
parking space; however, there is space adjacent to the existing car parking bays for a
replacement space
See above
• Ramp access on towpath by canal basin
The surfacing of this ramp needs to be such that it does not become slippery when wet. The current surfacing can become very slippery in the winter.
• Tie in with existing cycling facilities on Chester Road
This will need to be updated to provide a satisfactory access and egress.
• Signed route to Deansgate/Manchester City Centre for cyclists travelling northbound
using existing two way cycle track on Chester Road
See above. Note most of the signage around the city centre for cycling is unsatisfactory and difficult to follow, especially the NCN routes.
Sunday, 15 June 2014
Armadillos - don't believe the hype!
A big thank you to Anthony H on Twitter for keeping us all informed of developments in Camden.
Remember all the hype about how wonderful Camden's new cycle infrastructure was? No, then here are a few reminders....
Camden Cyclists - "Royal College Street has Space for Cycling"
Cycling Weekly - "Segregated cycle lanes using planters and armadillos could spread across Britain"
London Evening Standard - "Rubber blocks and plant boxes keep motorists and bikes apart in new Camden cycle scheme"
Though doubts were raised from the beginning...
Camden New Journal - "Armadillos a failure"
Cycling Weekly - "Camden defends use of cycle lane segregation"
The Alternative Department for Transport - "Armadillos: The Emperor’s New Infrastructure"
Well this cheap plastic infrastructure" continues to degrade and, just as in Salford, it is a complete failure at keeping vehicles out, as these images testify..
So, with Salford Council having gone very quiet about Armadillos, following their "consultation" on the matter, we can but hope that TfGM and Manchester City Council do not waste money on this crap.
Er, well except that they already have plans to do just that....
Remember all the hype about how wonderful Camden's new cycle infrastructure was? No, then here are a few reminders....
Camden Cyclists - "Royal College Street has Space for Cycling"
Cycling Weekly - "Segregated cycle lanes using planters and armadillos could spread across Britain"
London Evening Standard - "Rubber blocks and plant boxes keep motorists and bikes apart in new Camden cycle scheme"
Though doubts were raised from the beginning...
Camden New Journal - "Armadillos a failure"
Cycling Weekly - "Camden defends use of cycle lane segregation"
The Alternative Department for Transport - "Armadillos: The Emperor’s New Infrastructure"
Well this cheap plastic infrastructure" continues to degrade and, just as in Salford, it is a complete failure at keeping vehicles out, as these images testify..
Award winning segregation-lite, coming to a borough near you. RCS NW1, been there for about a week now. pic.twitter.com/I7Iqi4DOQN
— Anthony H (@Adh1907) March 11, 2014Armadillo testing on RCS NW1 this morning. Handy to pull into, that award winning bike lane. pic.twitter.com/l2n4cTmebn
— Anthony H (@Adh1907) March 12, 2014.@AlternativeDfT @GBCycleEmbassy whereas on RCS NW1, cyclists can experience award winning planters. Today. pic.twitter.com/Y7aI81gM0T
— Anthony H (@Adh1907) May 21, 2014RCS NW1, over the armadillos this a.m., northbound track. pic.twitter.com/kGZAup074J
— Anthony H (@Adh1907) June 5, 2014@AlternativeDfT @citycyclists this intrigues me, planter moved 6ft south, traffic going north? pic.twitter.com/G0Gr2i6Wpw
— Anthony H (@Adh1907) June 11, 2014So, with Salford Council having gone very quiet about Armadillos, following their "consultation" on the matter, we can but hope that TfGM and Manchester City Council do not waste money on this crap.
Er, well except that they already have plans to do just that....
Monday, 21 April 2014
Salford's Armadillo Consultation - 5th May
Last week Salford council carried out yet more changes to the armadillo trial on Middlewood Street and Liverpool Street, this time trying to protect the armadillos using Jislon plastic traffic islands.
As soon as had these islands been put in place, and photographed, Salford have launched a consultation:-
Further comment appeared on Facebook which make it clearer that this consultation is all about the armadillos, and alternative products aren't being considered:-
Now before you compose your response it is worth considering a few facts about this "trial".
To start with both these cycle lanes are substandard. They are only 1.5m wide which is the absolute minimum for a cycle lane, despite this being a very wide road. Cycle lanes should be 2m wide and segregated cycle tracks should be 2.5m wide.
The first set of armadillos were installed at the beginning of February, and failed on Middlewood Street within a few days.
This is similar to the experience in Camden, where armadillos and planters were soon damaged.
The armadillos on Liverpool Street lasted a little longer, but were replaced within a month.
The Middlewood Street Armadillos were replaced at the beginning of March, but this time parallel to the road so they were less likely to be dislodged by traffic.
Indeed many drivers didn't even see them so ended up driving over the top of them.
Just imagine being in the cycle lane when that happens...
The Liverpool Street armadillos were replaced around a week later, but in the same configuration as before.
Soon after two black bollards were added to try and stop people driving into the cycle lane, but the one in Middlewood Street was damaged within a couple of days. Undeterred two yellow bollards were added a few days later.
These bollards have now all been removed following the extensive damage and replaced by the plastic traffic islands.
So, what are we to make of this constant cycle of damage and replacement? Well, this seems to be the experience in the USA as well.
A fallen soldier on Milwaukee Avenue. Photo by John Greenfield.
Unsurprisingly, plastic is not a material that stands up to heavy traffic. Any cycle route that is "protected" by plastic separators of any sort will be likely to degrade within 12 months. If the budget is not available for continual replacement then these so called "protected" cycle facilities will soon revert to just ordinary cycle lanes. So do Salford Council propose to put aside guaranteed funds for the maintenance of these proposes cycle facilities?
I very much doubt it!
The Other Problems with Armadillos
If Salford council were trialling plastic bollards or the Jislon plastic traffic islands then I would have many concerns about their suitability and resilience. However, the armadillos are a particularly bad product which fails to provide protection in several key ways:-
Visual separation
The armadillo is a rounded black plastic lump around 9cm high at the middle. Visually it is not much different to a cats-eye and lacks the visual significance of a kerb edge. Many people fail to see them at all. In the mind of a driver they do not clearly convey the message that this represents the edge of the road. As a result people drive into the cycle lane despite their presence.
Physical Separation
The armadillo's low rounded profile is little higher than a speed bump and can be driven over without causing damage to even the smallest car. Indeed the suppliers say this is one of their advantages. However it is a very dangerous obstruction for someone riding a bicycle, likely to throw you to out onto the road. Armadillos provide no protection from drivers parking in the cycle lane.
Salford Council have tested these plastic armadillos in a location where there is no obstruction of the cycle lane by parked cars and HGVs. Armadillos are utterly useless in these sorts of locations because drivers will simply drive over them to park on the cycle lane.
Raw Materials
The armadillo used in Salford is made from amorphous plastic waste. It is less resilient to damage than fresh plastics.
Alternative separators
Seville's cycle segregation measures are nothing like the armadillo. They are a much higher concrete bollard, high enough to prevent incursion by motor vehicles and visually very clearly the edge of the road.
pic via the Alternative Department for Transport
These are known as "Tobys" and have been chosen by Bristol in preference to plastic armadillos.
Replying to this consultation
The web page instructions say "Comments can be emailed to cyclesalford@urbanvision.org.uk or you can call on 0161 779 6166."
However, I would warn against only sending your reply to that email address, because Urban Vision Partnership Ltd. is not strictly Salford Council, but a "a joint venture between Salford City Council, Capita and Galliford Try."
So I would suggest sending your reply to cyclesalford@urbanvision.org.uk and also to Salford Council, both to Salford's Cycling Officer lee.evans@salford.gov.uk and to Salford's City Mayor citymayor@salford.gov.uk - that way your reply is on the council's records and not just in the hands of a limited company.
Salford's mayor's web site also gives a very prominant place to the consultation so he must be taking an interest in the results.
So, get writing, remember it closes on the 5th May, and don't forget to tell the council where you live in the area and how often you cycle here.
As soon as had these islands been put in place, and photographed, Salford have launched a consultation:-
Scheme consultations
Segregated cycle lane trial
Segregated cycle lanes are an important part of delivering Salford's Cycle City Ambition Grant (CCAG) strategy. Following consultation with the Salford Cycle Forum, two trial sites have been implemented, to test a product which provides a semi segregated buffer between cyclists and general traffic.
The separator is commonly referred to as an armadillo. The armadillos have been used successfully in Europe for a number of years, but they are relatively new in the UK. The trial sites are being used to test the concept of semi segregation using armadillos, prior to their potential wider use in the CCAG programme. The trial sites are being closely monitored, and may be refined as necessary following observations and feedback from users.
Trial sites
Liverpool Street
Approximately 80 metres of semi-segregated cycle lane have been implemented on the westbound carriageway of Liverpool Road, between Albion Way and Cross Lane.
Middlewood Street
Approximately 70 metres of semi segregated cycle lanes have been provided on Middlewood Street eastbound.
Consultation on trial sites
The city council is very interested in receiving feedback on the trial sites from all users. This will assist the city council in evaluating the product, and influence how we progress with segregated cycle lanes in the future. Comments can be emailed to cyclesalford@urbanvision.org.uk or you can call on 0161 779 6166.
The consultation period will run until Monday 5 May 2014.
Downloadable documents
Liverpool Street segregated cycle lane trial plan
Middlewood Street segregated cycle lane trial plan
Further comment appeared on Facebook which make it clearer that this consultation is all about the armadillos, and alternative products aren't being considered:-
Official consultation on the armadillos is now under way. Info below should be self-explanatory but Lee is especially interested to hear how the spacing and angles of the armadillos works. If people put comments on here, I'll pass them on.
Now before you compose your response it is worth considering a few facts about this "trial".
To start with both these cycle lanes are substandard. They are only 1.5m wide which is the absolute minimum for a cycle lane, despite this being a very wide road. Cycle lanes should be 2m wide and segregated cycle tracks should be 2.5m wide.
The first set of armadillos were installed at the beginning of February, and failed on Middlewood Street within a few days.
This is similar to the experience in Camden, where armadillos and planters were soon damaged.
The armadillos on Liverpool Street lasted a little longer, but were replaced within a month.
The Middlewood Street Armadillos were replaced at the beginning of March, but this time parallel to the road so they were less likely to be dislodged by traffic.
Indeed many drivers didn't even see them so ended up driving over the top of them.
Just imagine being in the cycle lane when that happens...
The Liverpool Street armadillos were replaced around a week later, but in the same configuration as before.
Soon after two black bollards were added to try and stop people driving into the cycle lane, but the one in Middlewood Street was damaged within a couple of days. Undeterred two yellow bollards were added a few days later.
These bollards have now all been removed following the extensive damage and replaced by the plastic traffic islands.
So, what are we to make of this constant cycle of damage and replacement? Well, this seems to be the experience in the USA as well.
A fallen soldier on Milwaukee Avenue. Photo by John Greenfield.
In the wake of this brutal winter, some sections of Chicago's Dearborn Street protected bike lanes resemble a gap-toothed grin. Several of the white, plastic posts that delineate the bi-directional bikeway are missing in action.
Half of the posts that once shielded cyclists on Kinzie Street from auto traffic are gone.
And on Milwaukee Avenue, a key route northwest from downtown and Chicago's busiest biking street, every single bollard is missing.
Unsurprisingly, plastic is not a material that stands up to heavy traffic. Any cycle route that is "protected" by plastic separators of any sort will be likely to degrade within 12 months. If the budget is not available for continual replacement then these so called "protected" cycle facilities will soon revert to just ordinary cycle lanes. So do Salford Council propose to put aside guaranteed funds for the maintenance of these proposes cycle facilities?
I very much doubt it!
The Other Problems with Armadillos
If Salford council were trialling plastic bollards or the Jislon plastic traffic islands then I would have many concerns about their suitability and resilience. However, the armadillos are a particularly bad product which fails to provide protection in several key ways:-
Visual separation
The armadillo is a rounded black plastic lump around 9cm high at the middle. Visually it is not much different to a cats-eye and lacks the visual significance of a kerb edge. Many people fail to see them at all. In the mind of a driver they do not clearly convey the message that this represents the edge of the road. As a result people drive into the cycle lane despite their presence.
Physical Separation
The armadillo's low rounded profile is little higher than a speed bump and can be driven over without causing damage to even the smallest car. Indeed the suppliers say this is one of their advantages. However it is a very dangerous obstruction for someone riding a bicycle, likely to throw you to out onto the road. Armadillos provide no protection from drivers parking in the cycle lane.
Salford Council have tested these plastic armadillos in a location where there is no obstruction of the cycle lane by parked cars and HGVs. Armadillos are utterly useless in these sorts of locations because drivers will simply drive over them to park on the cycle lane.
Raw Materials
The armadillo used in Salford is made from amorphous plastic waste. It is less resilient to damage than fresh plastics.
Alternative separators
Seville's cycle segregation measures are nothing like the armadillo. They are a much higher concrete bollard, high enough to prevent incursion by motor vehicles and visually very clearly the edge of the road.
pic via the Alternative Department for Transport
These are known as "Tobys" and have been chosen by Bristol in preference to plastic armadillos.
Replying to this consultation
The web page instructions say "Comments can be emailed to cyclesalford@urbanvision.org.uk or you can call on 0161 779 6166."
However, I would warn against only sending your reply to that email address, because Urban Vision Partnership Ltd. is not strictly Salford Council, but a "a joint venture between Salford City Council, Capita and Galliford Try."
So I would suggest sending your reply to cyclesalford@urbanvision.org.uk and also to Salford Council, both to Salford's Cycling Officer lee.evans@salford.gov.uk and to Salford's City Mayor citymayor@salford.gov.uk - that way your reply is on the council's records and not just in the hands of a limited company.
Salford's mayor's web site also gives a very prominant place to the consultation so he must be taking an interest in the results.
So, get writing, remember it closes on the 5th May, and don't forget to tell the council where you live in the area and how often you cycle here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)