Bridge over A444 at Whitley - Report to planning committee published

No sign of movement in the report from council officers to the planning committee of 6 Feb 2014.

On page 10, the report refers to the Coventry Development Plan (CDP):

 AM12 states that convenient cycle routes, made safer by design, must
generally be incorporated in the design of new developments and highway schemes. 

concedes (p11):

.. the number of crossing points increases to get from Leaf Lane to the JLR site

but then implies that making them signalised is a step forward:

all of these crossings are signalised whereas the current crossing points on Leaf Lane are uncontrolled. 

So one uncontrolled crossing of Leaf Lane traffic is worse than

1. a controlled crossing of Leaf Lane traffic plus traffic leaving the business park towards Coventry
2. plus a controlled crossing of traffic approaching the Business Park from the Festival Island roundabout
3. plus a controlled crossing of traffic leaving the Business Park towards the south

I'd rather cross no traffic than have to wait at a crossing.

One thing the report does include is an improved map.

Think about cycling in central London.  It's not pleasant, it's not safe, but lots of people do it. For many journeys it's more convenient than any other form of transport.  Convenience matters!

Whitley cycle route downgraded

Roads like the A444, A45 and Coventry's ring road present major barriers to cycling across the city. So cyclists need to take interest in any changes at the few places where they can be crossed.

Coventry Council proposes to increase the traffic handling capacity of the access to the Jaguar Business Park at Whitley. As is the usual practice, improvements for motoring mean a down-grade for walking and cycling.

The current arrangement:

The carriageways are shown in red and the toucan crossing a little north east of the roundabout outside the business park is shown in turquoise at the bottom of the diagram.

To understand the orientation, here's the above diagram pasted onto a satellite image:

The council's proposals:

The main aim of the changes is to add slip roads to the A444 for traffic to/from the Stivichall Interchange.

As far as walking and cycling are concerned, I've submitted the following comments (planning application reference FUL/2013/2599):

1) The proposals will make cycling and walking between Leaf Lane and the Business Park more time consuming and inconvenient. At the moment pedestrians and cyclists need only cross the path of Leaf Lane traffic. The proposals will force them, in addition, to cross the path of all traffic entering the Business Park, all traffic leaving the Business Park travelling south and all traffic leaving the Business Park travelling north (twice).

2) The idea, expressed in the Transport Assessment (Section 4.2, November 2013) of "requesting that cyclists dismount when crossing and within the central storage areas" on the island in the middle of the new bridge is fanciful. The requests will be ignored, leading to friction between pedestrians and cyclists.

3) As an alternative proposal, I would suggest grade separation between motorised and non-motorised users. Separated by grade, the delay suffered by both motorised and non-motorised users would be reduced. The hazard of cyclists/pedestrians tiring of waiting and crossing against the lights would be removed, as would be that of motorists ignoring/jumping signals at red.

Subways under the new slip roads and use of the southern rather than the northern side of the new bridge would be a means to this end. Use could be made of the new bridge over the Sherbourne to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the access road to JLR at a level a little above the river's surface.

This alternative would allow a contra-flow cycle lane on Leaf Lane between the west most subway and Black Price Avenue. This feature would remove the risk and inconvenience to those cyclists travelling west/south bound towards Black Prince Ave. or the south most portion of Leaf Lane of twice crossing Leaf Lane.

Further points:

4) The plans seem to indicate that all the paths used by cyclists will be at least 3m wide.  This is an improvement on the current situation where some of the paths (especially on the bridge over the A444) are very narrow.

5) The current cycle path at the Black Prince Ave. end of Leaf Lane is too narrow, especially as cyclists should not be expected to cycle close to the kerb (a gap of at least 500mm is needed between wheels and carriageway edge). The current design is also awkward for cyclists travelling  southwards along Leaf Lane towards Baginton. Note that LTN 01/12 para. 7.36 recommends a path width of at least 3m plus a buffer zone of at least 0.5m between a path and any carriageway (para. 7.60).

6) Segregating cyclists and pedestrians would be preferable to "shared use". The paths are likely to be used by commuting cyclists in a hurry. A white line would be better than nothing. Although a line might be ignored by many pedestrians when there are no cyclists present and also by many cyclists when no pedestrians are present, a line would be helpful when both types of user are present. There's a parallel with the "keep left" rule for vehicular traffic.

7) The diagrams in the planning application are inadequate for public consultation. None of them show only the latest proposal. Instead diagrams such as "General Arrangement Sheet 1 of 3 Dwg 5123654-ATK-DR-S-0001" show not only the latest proposal but also an older proposal (with the existing bridge being used for bus access), the current arrangement and various other details all in the same diagram.

Some might think that allowing the existing bridge to be a cycle/pedestrian route is a bonus. But it's in a place which won't bring any benefit - I suspect it would be expensive to demolish and might have a future use in supporting a bus route.

20's plenty for Coventry?

A committee of Coventry City councillors has been established to develop recommendations on how requests for 20 mph. zones and limits should be assessed and prioritised. In mid November, the committee sought views from representatives of the 20’s Plenty Campaign, the West Midlands Police and Coventry Cycling Campaign.

After introducing Coventry Cycling Campaign, I reminded councillors of the advantages of improving conditions for cycling. It helps to tackle obesity and traffic congestion using a means of transport open to a large section of society. Including, for example, people on low incomes and the under 17's.

Last year in the UK, more bicycles were bought than cars, yet their owners rarely use them. The main reason being fear of motor traffic. The Department of Transport's National Travel Survey found that 47% of adults questioned strongly agreed with the statement that "“the idea of cycling on busy roads frightens me”" and a further 27% tended to agree with the statement. While Britain's has a good record for injuries to car occupants, we are far lower down the international league table regarding injuries to cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists or pedestrians account for 22% of UK traffic deaths, while in countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium & Luxembourg the proportion is less than 10%. There's a particular problem in deprived areas.

Impatient motorists scare would-be cyclists; even in relatively quiet roads some adults cycle on the footway, putting pedestrians at risk. If motorists didn't feel they had the right to travel at 30 mph, they would be more willing to slow down when cyclists were around. If the whole of the city were covered by a 20 mph zone, people would be able to cycle many trips entirely on quiet roads. If these roads were full of cyclists, motorists wouldn't be able to travel so fast anyway!

There are strong arguments for slowing traffic as a mean of improving the quality of city streets (note the city centre) and making them more child friendly, but I let the other speakers take up those issues. See the 20's Plenty website.

Overall the councillors were rather positive about increasing the extent of 20 mph zones within Coventry. Mention was made of this proposal, out for public consultation in Birmingham:

• All unclassified roads within the administrative boundary of Birmingham would have a 20 mph speed limit;
• “A” and “B” roads would retain their current limits, except where they pass near the entrances of schools, through shopping parades or near the entrances to parks and leisure centres where the speed limit would be reduced to 20 mph.

If the proposal were adopted, 90% of Birmingham's road network would have a 20 mph speed limit, although the majority of the arterial roads would retain their current limits.

Perhaps 2014 will see a similar proposal for Coventry?