Warrington Cycle Campaign Comments on
|
| Pedestrians | Cyclists | |
|---|---|---|
| Consider first | Traffic reduction | Traffic reduction |
| Speed reduction | Speed reduction | |
| Reallocation of road space to pedestrians | Junction treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic management | |
| Provision of direct at-grade crossings | Redistribution of the carriageway (bus lanes, widened nearside lanes etc) | |
| Improved pedestrian routes on existing desire lines | Cycle lanes, segregated cycle tracks constructed by reallocation of carriageway space, cycle tracks away from roads | |
| Consider last | New pedestrian alignment or grade separation | Conversion of footways/footpaths to unsegregated shared-use cycle tracks |
This is an updated version of policy CP1 of the Cycle Strategy. Essentially it seeks to prioritise measures that tackle the source of the problems faced by cyclists, rather than the symptoms.
In the past the Council appears to have been biased towards measures at the bottom of the hierarchy. This bias persists in the draft LTP2 with several inaccurate claims made to justify this poor practice.
Converting pavements to shared use should be a measure of last resort, yet time and again this form of treatment appears to be the preferred or even only provision considered, despite the well documented danger of such facilities. It needs to be spelled out to everybody involved in provision for cyclists, that this type of facility is strongly deprecated.
It is important that the Council starts to apply cycle audit techniques routinely for all highway developments from an early stage in the design process. All too often cycle-hostile road layouts have been implemented and opportunities have been missed to improve conditions for cyclists.
While we do recognise that there is a cost involved we think this is money well spent as it much more cost effective to accommodate cyclists by designing them into a scheme early on, rather than have to tag on expensive facilities afterwards, or even re-engineer a scheme when problems become apparent only after it has been constructed.
A cycle review should be undertaken on the main radial routes proposed in LTP1. The aim should be to discover where the most serious barriers to cyclists are and target what resources are available on tackling those hard cases.
This document is out of date and incompatible with the cycle strategy or modern planning guidelines such as PPG13. It still reflects the auto-centric philosophy of the new-town era. Many of the changes to the roads that make life more difficult for cyclists are as a result of development rather than directly funded by the council, and developers tend to refer to the design guide rather than the more up-to-date policies of the council when designing road layouts.
We would like to see the LTP adopt a "road danger reduction" rather than a "casualty reduction" strategy. This means tackling the problems at source in order to facilitate the movement of pedestrians and cyclists, rather than erecting barriers to prevent vulnerable road users taking their desire lines. There should be strong emphasis to speed management good enforcement of road traffic law (including parking, bus or cycle lane infringements).
We welcome the fact that the Council is adopting decriminalised parking enforcement. We would like to see the traffic wardens take up the maximum powers that are now possible to enforce other traffic laws, such as cycling on the pavement, blocking box-junctions and so on.
There is growing evidence of the benefits that cyclists gain from "safety in numbers", i.e. cycling gets safer the more people do it. We are very concerned that the Council still appears to worry that promoting cycling (6.2.3.7 p49) may lead to an increase in casualties. The more people leave their cars at home the safer the roads become for everybody.
We are concerned that the council appears to be reluctant to address road safety problems on the main roads (6.1.2.6-7) and concentrates on "naturally bounded" area wide schemes. The natural boundaries of these areas tend to be the main roads so area wide traffic calming schemes tend to result in treating the safest roads where pedestrians and cyclists face fewest problems.
It is important that accessibility mapping should take account of actual travel times for walking or cycling routes, rather than assume average speeds. A cyclist riding along a greenway can only move at about half the speed they could on the road so there has to be a significantly more direct route to improve accessibility. The need to give way at junctions or stop at barriers adds to the delay.
Similarly pedestrians can be delayed at junctions and crossings where they have to cross in several stages, pushing a button and waiting at each stage. These times need to be incorporated into accessibility model.
We welcome the fact that the Council is improving the standards to which cycle facilities are constructed. However, a large number of cycle "facilities" have appeared in Warrington that serve no useful purpose, and are designed to such low standards that the make conditions worse for cyclists than they were before. These should be brought up to proper standards or removed. Also, it still appears that the council treats standards for cycle infrastructure as "aspirational" rather than the minimum acceptable quality. There needs to be a recognition that poor quality cycle facilities make conditions worse for cyclists and should not be installed.
This should be a properly funded scheme so that any school safe routes project can implement the changes throughout their catchment area to enable most of the children to walk or cycle to school. If funds are limited it is better to target a limited number of schools (or even just one) to make a real difference, rather than spread funds over a larger number of trivial token schemes, such as short 20mph zones just outside a school gate or a one off walking bus that is little more than a photo opportunity.
Schemes need to address the whole home to school journey in order for parents to feel sufficiently confident to permit their children to walk to school unaccompanied.
We presume that "virtuous circle" (Appendix G5.1.2) is a typo rather than a Freudian slip!
We welcome the fact that the draft LTP recognises the link between land use planning & transport. The towns poor record compared to other towns can be mainly attributed to our auto-centric planning policies.
The latest planning guidelines (particularly PPG13) seek to reduce transport demands by measures such as restricting car parking and promoting higher density and mixed-use development. Yet, throughout the development of the UDP the council appears to have been attempting to resist these measures and build in loopholes. The enthusiasm with which the council is pushing the Omega development, which goes against the grain of all this is disappointing.
There is some promising progress, with new dense town centre housing being built rather than the suburban sprawl of the past, but the council appears to be extremely reluctant to impose conditions on developers that would restrict car use for any employment based development. The Council still refuses planning applications that fail to fully cater for private motor vehicles, while the needs of those travelling by more sustainable means are considered much less seriously. A major culture shift is needed if the fine words in the draft LTP are to be translated into effective action.
We would like to see more of these in Warrington. A number of bus lanes were promised in the last LTP, yet failed to materialise. It is disappointing that the council seems to be considering these only if they are constructed at great expense in addition to existing roads.
It would be far more in keeping with the government guidelines to achieve best value for money and to make most efficient use of existing road space, if road space were to be reallocated to create bus lanes. A number of the main routes into Warrington have the potential for such an approach.
We would like to see fewer of these in Warrington. Roundabouts are the single most feared aspect of the road system, and Warrington has more than its fair share, making the town a very cycle hostile place.
We would recommend that the LTP includes a roundabout reduction programme with a target to reduce in the total number of roundabouts in Warrington over the period of the plan. The biggest roundabouts are the most cycle hostile so high priority candidates for early treatment could be:
According to the first LTP bid this was supposed to have been completed before the start of the LTP1 period! Completing this will now prove a pit tricky seeing as part of the route has been removed to make way for the new bus station. We are still very concerned that the routes around the bus station should be of much higher quality that the proposals we have seen. Now that the western side of the route has been completed the only remaining stretch is treating Bold Street to permit contra-flow cycling.
Our top priority, in terms of infrastructure, are the radial connections to the town centre described in our "Core km report" and we hope this is what the action actually refers to. The measure outcome should be "number of cycle access routes to the Town Centre".
We would like to see a more specific output, with a target to install high quality cycle parking facilities at all shopping centres, schools, parks, council buildings. The council also needs to develop cycle parking standards to specify the quality as well as quantity of cycle parking provision expected from developers.
We are very concerned that "length of route treated" is chosen as the measure of output. This gives an incentive to install cycle facilities where they are least useful or indeed harmful, on long easy stretches where there is no problem but plenty of room, rather than tackle the key junctions where the length of provision is minimal, but the potential to improve conditions for cyclists is huge.
A cycle review should be undertaken to discover where the most serious barriers to cyclists are and focus what resources are available on those hard cases. A starting point would be gaps in the Cycle City Guides survey, but the assessment needs to distinguish between busy roads, which can be perfectly cycle friendly, and those that are particularly hostile.
A better measure of output would be "treat the most cycle hostile junction of each of the 12 radial cycle routes identified in LTP1"
While we are not opposed in principle to the provision of Greenways, we are very concerned that these have come to dominate the Council's thinking with respect to catering for the needs of cyclists. There is still a bias in the language with a presumption that off-road schemes are somehow safer than roads, contrary to all the evidence. Even if greenways were built to a decent standard they would still be of only marginal significance to utility cyclists.
With budgets so tight we would suggest that this is a very low priority representing poor value for money and resources should be redirected to projects higher up the hierarchy of provision. However, the key barriers in the greenway ring are now the on-road sections or crossings eg Hawleys Lane, Kingsway roundabout, R turns from Manchester Road, at grade crossing of Sankey Way.
It would be better for any spending on greenways to be focussed on improving the quality of the existing network rather than on further expansion. Things such as providing proper junctions connecting greenways to the highway network, removal of barriers, providing decent surfaces and so on.
If the idea is to divert cyclists along some of the convoluted routes identified on the Cycle City Guides map then this would be a very bad idea. There is a need for better signage for cyclists in Warrington, but this should focus on those routes that offer a more direct and faster alternative to main roads (such as Town Centre to NW Warrington via Bewsey St and Old Hall).
A starting point would be to improve the signage on the Trans Pennine Trail and Sankey Valley to include direction and distance information.
We would like to see Warrington do more of its promotion in house. For example the park rangers used to organise regular rides and they should be permitted to do so again. The council's web site could include information for cyclists. While the company of cyclists do a good show, we are not sure that this represents best value for money.
Also we do not think that the road safety team should be in charge of promoting cycling. The repeated association of cycling and road safety issues gives the message that cycling is a uniquely dangerous mode of transport - thus discourages rather than promotes cycling
We are keen to see this published.
We would urge caution at the proposal to treat junction and highway layout to enhance local capacity. Most locations have already been designed with the intention of optimizing traffic capacity - often at the expense of vulnerable road users. These busy junctions also tend to be those where the greatest need for treatment to overcome barriers to accesibility
| Home |