Sustainable Transport Money (£450,000) on Road Widening: Doncaster’s Herten Way 2 Way Scheme

The Sheffield City Region Sustainable Transport Exemplar Programme is funding car parks and cycle lanes where parking is allowed. Previously the Local Sustainable Transport Fund paid to widen a trunk road roundabout. The latest questionable scheme is in Doncaster and is widening a road to convert it from 1 way to 2 way with the aim of alleviating motor traffic congestion and encouraging new retail shops to be built.

The proposed scheme will convert Herten Way into a two way road which will help to alleviate traffic congestion issues with ASDA in particular but also make an existing piece of development land more attractive for investment as access will be greatly improved.

From the Scheme brief document

 

The schemes general arrangement drawing is available here.

The original design included an unsegregated shared use footway/cycleway, however even that was dropped from the design before the scheme was built. The shared use footway was the token sustainable transport part of this scheme, but even that minimal cycling facility was never built.

Following consultation with the Council’s cycling Transport Planners it has been decided that the length of footway along Herten Way will not be shared with cyclists at this time. Tactile provision will be amended accordingly. At such time as further development occurs in the area the cycling facilities will be reconsidered.

From the Road Safety Audit

A new toucan crossing was built, at a cost of probably no more than £100,000 (guestimated), but the signals were required to facilitate the new turning movement at the junction because traffic is now 2 way, the junction was previously unsignalled.

Questions must be asked about the governance of the Sheffield City Region Sustainable Transport Exemplar Programme given some of the schemes that it is funding. This scheme cost £450,000 in total. Funds like these should go to creating well designed cycle infrastructure, not shared use pavements, not road widening, and not converting 1 way roads to 2 way at an out of town retail park.

The road safety audit provides a good insight into how the scheme has been designed.

The raised plateaux is intended as an aid to pedestrians crossing the carriageway rather than a traffic calming feature such as a road hump. As such the approach and exit ramps will be installed with a shallow gradient <1:20. The ramp areas will also be treated with red coloured surfacing and a set of warning triangles which the Designers feels would be sufficient warning to approaching drivers and would highlight the presence of pedestrians.

This is the freedom of information request where this information is from.

What WE do makes a difference. Why Sheffield Council needs to be more air aware.

How do you effectively persuade people to choose a more sustainable mode of transportation?

Is it by telling them what do to? Or are their choices influenced by our streets, our public spaces and bigger structural issues?

When we live in a country designed around the car, are people really free to make their own choices?

For the past few months Sheffield Council has been running a campaign under the title ‘Air Aware, What You Do Makes a Difference’ (Twitter, Website).

We want to help make everyone in Sheffield more air aware so that you can make choices which help to protect you and your loved ones.

I think that what the council do makes a much bigger difference, the council needs to be more air aware so that their choices help protect the people of Sheffield.

Putting the emphasis on changing individual behaviours through a campaign like this is a distraction and a waste of time. This is why I’ve created a series of new images with the strap line ‘What we do makes a difference’, we being Sheffield Council.

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

These are the original images.

Sheffield’s long overdue tram cycle safety report is yet another disappointment

The latest Sheffield Council report into the dangers caused to cyclists by the city’s tram lines has been a long time coming. Commissioned in July 2014, issued to the council in Sept 2015, and published in June 2016. After almost 2 years of work, the report should be impressive, but sadly it’s deeply disappointing and its severely lacking in a number of key areas outlined below. You can read the full report here.

Converting footways to ‘shared use’: lumping people cycling in with people walking to the frustration of all

Suggested road layout changes focus on converting existing footways to ‘shared use’, with a presumption that cycling space must come from existing (limited) pedestrian space. Reallocation of space away from motor traffic is not given a single thought, and the creation of dedicated cycle ways is noticeable in its absence.

where footway width and pedestrian activity precluded almost any physical changes to the road and footway layouts

“…where footway width and pedestrian activity precluded almost any physical changes to the road and footway layouts”

space limitation in the highway, narrow footways near the tramway and significant levels of pedestrian activity in various locations mean that opportunities that some other tramways (especially in Holland, USA and Canada) have been able to utilise are not readily available on most of the Supertram network.

“…space limitation in the highway, narrow footways near the tramway and significant levels of pedestrian activity in various locations mean that opportunities that some other tramways (especially in Holland, USA and Canada) have been able to utilise are not readily available on most of the Supertram network.”

Unfortunately many of the methods have been shown to be difficult to employ at sites in Sheffield and on other tramway systems, due to constraints such as existing minimal footway and carriageway width, and exensive pedestrian activity in footway areas.

Constraints do not include motor traffic, it never crossed their minds to change the space allocated to motor traffic.

None of the provisional layout changes create cycleways, they just lump cycling in with walking, on the footway. It is a cycling report inspired by LTN2/08, widely considered to be obsolete and far behind recognised best practice in designing for walking and cycling.

Fundamental misunderstanding of how Dutch tramways reduce danger…

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how Dutch tramways reduce danger,  referring to sustainably safe junction layouts as ‘road markings’. The examples from the report below are shown as ‘road markings’ even though they clearly show separated cycle tracks, which provide clear routes across junctions with embedded tram tracks. The layout of these junctions has been designed to be as safe as possible, it’s not the ‘road markings’ that mean that these are safe, and cherry picking and replicating ‘road markings’ alone will not create a safe solution.

From articles and web forums it would appear that many cyclists worldwide believe that track / cycle crossing problems in Europe (e.g. in Holland) have already been fully resolved. However, it is clear from the information that was obtained that, even with various measures and design arrangements being introduced to reduce these issues, some problems still exist on many European tramway systems. Cyclists and tram operators in these places generally seem to be aware of this and, even in Hollsan, there is advice provided to cyclists about how to cross the tracks safely.

…And the best Dutch examples are missing

It’s disappointing that a detailed review of the best high quality cycle infrastructure around tram lines was not included. This example is from Utrecht.

No review of what’s been tried before and why it failed

There is no discussion of Sheffield’s previous plan for dealing with the danger of tram lines, no review of previous programmes of work, no review of their effectiveness, and no discussion of why previous work failed to adequately address the danger. There is no mention of the hospital study conducted in 1994.

No funding, nor any plan to seek it

Funding is non existent, there is no funding plan to go with this report.

Discussion of potential funding sources completely ignores the Sheffield City Region Growth Deal and devolved transport funding, instead choosing to focus on DfT direct funding.

Funding 2

Current tram rail replacement: a missed opportunity?

The report fails to mention the approximately £5 million currently being spent on tram line replacement and fails to identify opportunities from that project to improve the safety of cycling around tram lines.

Funding 1

Funding 2

Funding 3

Failure to look at the bigger picture

This report contains numerous missed opportunities. One if its real shortcomings is its failure to view the tram system as part of the wider street and transport network. Only very immediate localised changes have been proposed (e.g to tram stops, or the roads which have rails themselves), which fail to identify opportunities such as the potential use of service roads alongside tramways as cycling infrastructure. This is something commonly seen in the Netherlands and other European countries.

Service roads like this should be designed to support cycling parallel to the tram lines as is normal in The Netherlands.

Service roads like this should be designed to support cycling parallel to the tram lines as is normal in The Netherlands.

We know the council can do better, we’ve seen better designs in the past. The report doesn’t include the visionary design of the crossing of Upper Hanover Street tram lines, perhaps the best piece of cycle infrastructure design to have ever come from Sheffield Council. It’s not even mentioned in the report. (I’m sorry, I don’t have an image for this and I don’t think it’s been published and I think the design was later watered down citing concerns over motor traffic gridlock).

Desperate scrabbling for a ‘behaviour change’ solution

I’ve not even mentioned the suggestion of building a tram line cyclist training facility…

Additionally, it could be considered whether it might be possible to install a trial facility with tram rails away from live tramway somewhere in Sheffield and provide training sessions for cyclists as to how best to cross the tram tracks.

'Cyclists could also usefully become more aware of traction circle issues'

‘Cyclists could also usefully become more aware of traction circle issues’

Shifting the blame for under-reporting of incidents

The report states that ‘adequate data for cycle incidents in relation to crossing tram tracks in Sheffield is almost non-existent’. This is true, but it sets the blame squarely on the shoulders of cyclists, saying ‘these single person accidents tend not to be reported to the Police’ and ‘the only accident data available is when cyclists report incidents to SCC, SYPTE or Supertram… under-reporting of these types of incidents could be significant’.

Stats19

SYPTE reporting

This is a misrepresentation the situation. Research by CycleSheffield has found that when cyclists report these crashes to the police, they often refuse to accept the report. The Sheffield Council cycle forum has even sent a letter to South Yorkshire Police expressing concern at their failings to record these crashes. Another route is to report incidents to the Council or Supertram but people are often fobbed off just the same (as documented by CycleSheffield).

“I tried to report it to the police via 101 and they insisted that it was not reportable.”

“Supertram, they were not in the slightest interested and told me I should have gotten off my bike and walked across the junction.”

The blame for a lack of data lies squarely with our local authorities.

If you’ve crashed on the tram lines then report it at tramcrash.co.uk which is run by CycleSheffield. They collect the information and anonymously share it with whoever needs it (including Sheffield City Council). They have created an up to date map of all reported crashes.

Conclusion

So, to sum up, very very disappointing. I hope that CycleSheffield are able to put pressure on Sheffield City Council to improve this report. As a proven major cause of injury and distress, cycle crashes on Sheffield’s tram tracks should be taken seriously. Sheffield City Council says it wants to increase the number of journeys made by bike in the city, now we need some action to prove it.

Update (June 2016)

And they have, the report has been pulled from the council meeting agenda pending further discussion.

South Yorkshire’s Sustainable Transport Exemplar Programme – Update November 2015

As part of the Sheffield City Region Growth Deal, announced in 2014, a £16.3m investment allocation was made towards a Sustainable Transport Exemplar Programme (STEP). Let’s look at how that’s going. This information is from item 13 of this meeting.

STEP Funding Profiles

STEP Funding Profiles

The full list of projects is available here. The ones in Sheffield are in the table below. As of 30/09/2015 no money had been claimed.

2015/16 Funding as 02/03/2015
2015/16 Funding as 23/11/2015
Claimed (30/09/2015)
Comment
SS01
Greenhill Parkway / Greenhill Avenue
£350,000
£0
£0
Project cancelled – ‘intentionally delayed, and its 2015/16 funding allocation reallocated, whilst SCC officers consider an alternate funding regime’
SS02
Grey to Green Phase 1 – Sheffield Riverside Business District
£250,000
£225,000
£0 CycleSheffield have campaigned to improve this scheme because of problems with cycling provision.
SS03
Lower Don Valley Cycle Route
£265,000 £185,000 £0
“Lower Don Valley Cycle Routes – Weedon Street Link” – I’m not sure what this is.
SS04
Upper Don Valley Cycle Route
£200,000 £375,000 £0 I’m not sure exactly what part of the route this is, but it goes from Oughtibridge to Stocksbridge, it has been called the Little Don Link before.
SS05
Tinsley – Victoria Cycle Route – Canal Towpath
£50,000 £0 £0 This project isn’t included in STEP anymore, I’m not sure if it’s been cancelled.
SS06
Sheffield City Centre Cycle Routes
£0
£50,000
£0 Design and preparation works only in 2015/16
SS07
Blackburn Valley Cycle Route
£0
£50,000
£0 Design and preparation works only in 2015/16
PS04
Chesterfield Road – Heeley Bottom
£0
£760,000
£0 CycleSheffield have strongly criticised this scheme. It includes permitting parking in 1.5m painted cycle lanes.
Total
£1,645,000
£0

So… lets me honest here, the STEP is definitely not a step up in provision, it’s more of the same, and as far as I can tell, there’s zero road space allocation towards cycling.

And the Meadowhall Car Park extension which had £670,000 allocated to it for this year? That’s been pushed out, £1.45million next year, and £1.25million the following year, £2.7million, 16% of the entire STEP budget, on a car park.

My previous blog post on this subject is here.

Sheffield’s Annual Traffic Count – A look at the data

Each year Sheffield does a traffic count in September and October. It includes both a cordon count and an occupancy survey for some roads and also some off road cycle routes. A map of the count locations is here and here). This document describes how it works. The data collected is aggregated into 15 minute chunks. The data has been collected since 2001, I do not know what was collected before then.

Summaries of the data can be obtained from Sheffield Council by writing to them (I think it should be published on their website, but until that happens I’ll publish what I have here).

Looking at the count locations. They have very good coverage of people traveling into and out of the city centre, there’s much less information about areas further out.

Modal split for 2014 looks like this, for both vehicles and people (taking into account occupancy data).

2014 Total Person Trips / Mode Proportion Person Trips / Mode Vehicles / Mode Proportion Vehicle Trips / Mode
Car / Taxi 521,782 56.02% 414,878 71.00%
Bus / Coach 159,507 17.12% 14,948 2.56%
Walk 69,049 7.41% 69,049 11.82%
Light Goods Vehicle 65,077 6.99% 55,056 9.42%
Tram 49,889 5.36% 1,283 0.22%
Rail 37,094 3.98% 180 0.03%
Medium Goods Vehicle 10,898 1.17% 10,898 1.86%
Heavy Goods Vehicle 7,258 0.78% 7,258 1.24%
Pedal Cycle 7,160 0.77% 7,160 1.23%
Motor Cycle 3,774 0.41% 3,658 0.63%
931,488 100.0% 584,368 100.0%

Of course, cars dominate, with 56% of all journeys being made by car. Public transport is next at 26% (bus=17%, tram=5% and train=4%). Walking has 7.4% of journeys, and cycling at 0.77% of journeys.

Because the data above have both occupancy data and vehicle count data, it’s interesting to look at how hugely efficient public transport is. Buses make up just 2.6% of the traffic, but carry 17.1% of journeys, trams make up just 0.2% of the traffic, but carry 5.36% of journeys, and trains, just 0.03% of vehicles (180 of them) but carry 3.98% of journeys.

Looking at motor traffic (cars/taxis), they make up 71% of the vehicles, but just 56% of journeys were made by car, very inefficient.

Car/taxi occupancy has been slowly declining over the past decade, but there has been a more substantial drop from 2012 to 2013. Car/taxi occupancy in 2014 was just 1.25 people per car/taxi.

Car/Taxi Occupancy Rates in Sheffield

Car/Taxi Occupancy Rates in Sheffield

The number of person trips being counted each year has been steadily declining. A drop of 10.3% from 2001 to 2014, from 1,038,366 to 931,488 in 2014.

Total Person Trips in Sheffield 2001 to 2014

Total Person Trips in Sheffield 2001 to 2014

The modal share has been changing too. For cars/taxis the number of person trips has been declining (blue), but the modal share (red) has remained reasonably steady (albeit with a drop to 52% in 2008.

Car Taxi Person Trips Modal Share and Total in Sheffield

Car Taxi Person Trips Modal Share and Total in Sheffield

For public transport (rail, tram and bus), the number of trips was fairly steady until 2008, and then has declined consistently since. From about 31% modal share to 26.5%.

Public Transport Person Trips in Sheffield 2001 to 2014

Public Transport Person Trips in Sheffield 2001 to 2014

Splitting this down into each of the three modes makes clear what’s going on.

Tram modal share has been fairly steady, but down in the past couple of years (the reason could be significant tram track maintenance).

Rail has seen a significant increase both in modal share and absolute numbers of trips, from 1.8% to 4.0%, and 18,823 to 37,094 from 2001 to 2014 respectively.

But buses have seen a significant drop. From 22.8% in 2001 to 17.1% in 2014, the absolute number is revealing, 236,909 trips to 159,507 trips from 2001 to 2011. A drop of 32.7%, there are now a third fewer journeys made by bus, in just 13 years.

If total trip numbers start to increase (post recession), unless this downward trend in bus patronage is reversed then we’ll see a huge growth in private car traffic on our streets and that will be very problematic.

Public Transport Person Trips, split by mode, in Sheffield 2001 to 2014

Public Transport Person Trips, split by mode, in Sheffield 2001 to 2014

Onto cycling. In 2014, 1.21% of vehicles, and 0.77% of person trips counted we cycles, just 7,160 in total. Cycling is second to bottom in modal share, only motorcycles have fewer journeys.

Since 2001, levels have increased from 3,250 to 7,160, 0.34% modal share to 0.77% modal share.

Cycling in Sheffield - Modal share from 2001 to 2014

Cycling in Sheffield – Modal share from 2001 to 2014

Ecclesall Road South

Further to this summary published data, the council hold detailed 15 minute data for each site. I’ve tried to request it’s release in the past via FOI, but I’ve been unsuccessful, apart from receiving one sites data for one year. Ecclesall Road South, 2012.

Across the whole day, for Ecclesall Road South, the number of people traveling along this road has fallen from 36,686 to 33,318. The number of vehicles has broadly remained constant.

Ecclesall Road South - Total Trips and Vehicles

Ecclesall Road South – Total Trips and Vehicles

Cycling levels have increased from 142 per day in 2001 to 223 per day in 2012 (0.67% modal share). Cars down from 27,072 person trips to 24,653. The number of single occupancy cars has increased from 79.95% to 83.34%. People walking, up from 762 to 844. Public transport (bus only) person trips down from 6174 people to 4968, but an increase in bus vehicles from 621 to 773. The data is below.

Ecclesall Road South - Bicycle Modal Share

Ecclesall Road South – Bicycle Modal Share

Ecclesall Road South Detailed Data

Ecclesall Road South Detailed Data

We also have detailed data for one day in 2012, broken down by direction. There were between 200 and 400 vehicles per 15 minutes across the whole day in each direction.

Ecclesall Road South - Vehicles Across Day - 2012

Ecclesall Road South – Vehicles Across Day – 2012

And for just bicycles, there were just 223 across the whole day, 131 inbound and 92 outbound. At a maximum rate of 23 between 08:15 to 08:30 (a modal share of about 3.7% in that 15 minute period). The modal share for the majority of the day is under 0.5%.

Ecclesall Road South - Bicycles Across Day - 2012

Ecclesall Road South – Bicycles Across Day – 2012

We can also break down the number of cars by occupancy. 1 occupant = 83.3%, 2 occupant = 14.8%, 3 occupant = 1.6%, 4 occupant = 0.03% (just 60 out of 20,742 cars).

That’s it, a whistle stop tour of traffic count data available in Sheffield. 2015 counts were done very recently (although I understand that they were late). I’ll do another post when I get a copy of the data.

Write to your MP NOW! Tell them to support the Pavement Parking (Protection of Vulnerable Pedestrians) Bill

Even Sheffield Police park on the pavements. In this case, blocking a dropped kerb which they conveniently drove up.

Even Sheffield Police park on the pavements. In this case, blocking a dropped kerb which they conveniently drove up.

Please write to your MP and ask them to support the Pavement Parking Bill which is being debated in a couple of weeks in Parliament.

Click here to use the Living Streets tool to email them, or use WriteToThem.

The email I’ve sent is below.

Dear Harry Harpham,

I’m writing to you because I’d like you to support the Pavement Parking
Bill that’s being debated for the first time on Friday 4th December
(second reading).
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/pavementparkingprotectionofvulnerablepedestrians.html

Pavement parking is a huge problem in Sheffield, especially on the main
roads in the city centre where people seem to be able to leave their
vehicles with impunity. I try to work with Sheffield City Council (as
part of CycleSheffield) to get the vehicles ticketed and moved on, but
often they say there isn’t anything they can do because there are no
double yellow lines.

It’s a problem for me, both walking around, and cycling, because the
same rules apply to cycle paths. It’s often not possible to prevent
people from parking on cycle paths, blocking them. Just yesterday
(Saturday) cars were parked blocking the Penistone Road cycle path.

I would like you to attend the debate of this bill and speak in support
of it to give our local authorities the powers they need to keep our
pavements clear of parked cars.

Just a few weeks ago, I saw vehicles parked 3 abreast on the pavement
on West Bar Green. I watched as people walking in the dual carriageway
to get around. Neither the Police, not the council, would/could do
anything about it.

I understand the pavement parking bill would not introduce a blanket
ban, but would instead only allow pavement parking to take place on
streets that have been specially designated to allow it, making it the
exception rather than the rule. I understand that in lots of
residential areas, the problems would need significant work to solve.

This bill could make a big difference to people in your constituency
and more vulnerable people in general, and it needs your support to
reach its progress to the next parliamentary stage.

Please let me know if you plan to back the bill on 4 December.

Yours sincerely,

Matt Turner

Sheffield’s Rutland Road/Pitsmoor Road Junction – Rated Zero/30 on the London Cycle Design Standards Junction Assessment Tool

Pitsmoor Road/Rutland Road

Pitsmoor Road/Rutland Road

As part of Sheffield’s Better Buses programme, the Rutland Road/Pitsmoor Road and Rutland Road/Cooks Wood Road junctions have been identified as causing delays. The council’s reports are available here, and the full design is here. The junctions are next to each other, Google map link with Streetview.

“Buses are delayed due to congestion, and limited road width, along Pitsmoor Road.”

The solution is “a scheme to address the delays, which comprises road widening, revised road markings and a new pedestrian crossing point”, costing “around £300,000 which includes for design, construction, supervision, contingency and commuted sum. It is to be funded from the Passenger Transport Executive’s 2016/17 Better Buses programme”.

The fundamental problem is that the right turn lane into Cooks Wood Road from Pitsmoor Road is of insufficient capacity to cater for the number of vehicles. Consequently this queue blocks other movements and causes delays. The scheme addresses this by widening the carriageway on the northern side of Rutland Road, allowing the right turn lane to be extended. Pedestrians also have difficulties crossing at the junction, so a new refuge island is to be provided to offer better crossing opportunities without causing undue delays to traffic.

“Without causing undue delays to traffic”, says it all really, happy to do anything, unless it delays traffic, and by traffic, they mean motor traffic. Putting aside the problem with widening the road to ease congestion in the name of bus improvements… I’ve tried to assess this design using the London Cycling Level of Service junction tool (page 14/15) to see what it means for cycling.

Indicative criteria for scoring junction assessments from the London Cycle Design Standards

Indicative criteria for scoring junction assessments from the London Cycle Design Standards

Every motor traffic movement is signal controlled. There is no protected space for cycling, there are no cycle specific signal stages, and there are no signal controlled pedestrian crossings. Speed limits are 30mph and traffic volumes are about 1,325 motor vehicles per hour (16:00 on Saturday afternoon) on Rutland Road, with higher numbers on Pitsmoor Road.

Rutland Road/Cooks Wood Road T-Junction- Score 0 out of 12

The volume of traffic (at 16:00 on a Saturday) is 1,325 motor vehicles per hour, >1000 vph is the critical failure threshold (at peak, and where cyclists are not separated).

Cooks Wood Road/Rutland Road Junction. All cycle movements are shown and coloured according to their LCDS score.

Cooks Wood Road/Rutland Road Junction. All cycle movements are shown and coloured according to their LCDS score.

Travelling from Rutland Road South, there is a 5m deep advanced stop line with a 1.5m cycle lane leading into it, but there’s no cycle infrastructure continuing into the junction. The left turn into Cooks Wood Road isn’t protected at all. Going straight on Rutland Road, the cycle lane doesn’t continue across the junction and there is no protection from left turning traffic (approximately 1/3 of traffic). Both of these movements score 0, but it’s possible that the left turn should score 1.

Travelling from Rutland Road North, there is a 5m deep advanced stop line, but no cycle lane leading into it. There are two lanes, a straight on and a right turn. Going straight on, there are no cycle facilities and there is a pinch point 3.9m wide (width of 3.2-4.0m should be avoided). Turning right cyclists have to move into the outside lane with no protection and then don’t have any protection through the junction and there is oncoming traffic. Both of these movements score zero because of pinch points, speed of traffic, volume of traffic, multiple lanes and oncoming traffic when turning right.

Travelling from Cooks Wood Road there is a 5m deep ASL, with a 1.5m feeder lane, the road has two lanes of traffic, one for left and one for right. Making the left turn, there is no protection from left turning traffic and the ASL feeder lane begins beyond the start of the traffic queue. Turning right, cyclists have to move into the outside lane, there is no protection in the junction and a pinch point of 3.9m on the exit of the junction. Both of these movements score zero.

6 Movements, all scoring 0, out of a total score of 12.

Rutland Road/Pitsmoor Road Crossroads – Score 0 out of 24

Rutland Road / Pitsmoor Road Crossroads. . All cycle movements are shown and coloured according to their LCDS score.

Rutland Road / Pitsmoor Road Crossroads. . All cycle movements are shown and coloured according to their LCDS score.

Travelling from Rutland Road, there are two lanes, one left (a sliplane), one combined straight on and right, there is no ASLs and no cycle facilities. All of these movements score zero, left turn because of the left turn slip lane, straight on because of the need to move out into the outside lane to use the junction and because of the lack of separation, and the right turn for the same reason with the added risk of having to sit in the middle of the junction with traffic passing on the left going straight ahead, and oncoming traffic on your right.

Travelling from Pitsmoor Road South, there is a 1.5m wide feeder lane to a 5m deep ASL. There is a single general traffic lane. The speed limit is 30mph and there are > 1000vph, a critical failure. Turning left, the radius is being increased, there’s no dedicated space in the junction for cycling. Going straight on, there is no protection from left turning traffic and there will be conflict with vehicles trying to overtake cycles while oncoming vehicles are waiting to turn right into Rutland Road. There is no dedicated space for cycling in the junction. Turning right, you will have to wait in the middle of the junction with traffic passing on your left, as well as oncoming traffic. All of these movements score zero.

Travelling from Pitsmoor Road North, there is a 5m deep ASL with no cycle lane or feeder lane. The speed limit is 30mph and there are >1000vhp. There are two lanes, a combined straight on and left and a right turn lane. Turning left, there is no dedicated space for cycling, no protection and a large junction radii. Cycling straight on, there is no protection from left turning traffic and no dedicated space for cycling through the junction. Turning right, cyclists need to move into the outside lane and wait in the middle of the junction for a gap. All of these movements score zero.

Travelling from Minna Road from the east, the story is the same. Speed limits are 30mph but I don’t know the volume of the traffic. There is a 5m deep ASL with a 1.5m feeder lane. Turning left, there is no dedicated space for cycling. Going straight on, there is no protection from left turning traffic or dedicated space for cycling. And turning right, there will be a need to wait in the middle of the junction with traffic on both sides. All of these movements score zero.

So, a scheme that scores zero (possibly one) out of 30. Not great. We’ve got to up our game in Sheffield if we’re ever to get to 10% of journeys made by bike in 10 years. Feedback on how I’ve applied the LCDS tool is more than welcome, especially if you think I’ve missed anything or given any movements incorrect scores.

No More Investment in Cycling – Write to your MP now

Osbourne's Halloween Horror - From The Private Eye

Osbourne’s Halloween Horror – From The Private Eye

I’ve just written to my MP about the news that investment in cycling is going to dry up at the spending review at the end of this month.

You should write to your MP too, it’s easy and only takes a couple of minutes. https://www.writetothem.com/?a=westminstermp

Dear Harry Harpham,

I’m writing to you about the news that investment in cycling is due to be cut in the November spending review at the end of November as reported in The Times yesterday.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article4601075.ece

I’m dismayed at this news. We must keep investing in cycling, not for cyclists, but so that everyone has the freedom to ride a bike. Helping to revitalise our neighborhoods by reducing congestion, noise and making them nicer places to spend time. To give our children the freedom to travel independently, to reduce the burden on our health service, to begin to tackle climate change and especially poor air quality (which all cities in the UK suffer from), and fundamentally, to give people a the choice to move about without relying on a car (especially given 1/3 of households in our constituency do not have access to one).

I understand that a big focus of this review will be on transport infrastructure, but cycling seems to be missing out. Back in March the government published research into the benefit cost ratio (BCR) of cycling investment compared to other transport investment, it showed completely that the BCR was far higher for cycling than for any other form of transport. I simply can’t understand why cycling investment wouldn’t be a key part of infrastructure investment in the UK.
Link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348943/vfm-assessment-of-cycling-grants.pdf

Please could you let me know what you think and if there’s anything you could do to help? I think the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group is amazing and it’d be great if you were to talk to them about this.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/cycling.htm

Yours sincerely,

Matt Turner

Sheffield City Region Devolution – What does it mean for cycling?

logo-960Today George Osborne has announced details of a new devolution deal for the Sheffield City Region. What does this mean for cycling and transport ?

Highlights are more control over transport budgets, franchised bus services and strategic planning, as well as a new mayor who will chair the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority.

The Combined Authority already has responsibility for delivering large transport projects (amongst other things), however it looks like they will take control of some strategic roads via a new Key Route Network of local authority roads which will be managed at a regional level.

Responsibility over the region’s transport budget, with a multi-year settlement to be agreed at the Spending Review

Responsibility for franchised bus services, which will support the Combined Authority’s delivery of smart and integrated ticketing across its councils

Responsibility for an identified Key Route Network of local authority roads that will be collaboratively managed and maintained at the city region level by the Combined Authority on behalf of the Mayor

Powers over strategic planning

This all sounds very similar to the situation in London with Transport for London being headed up by the Mayor of London, the ability for TfL to franchise bus services, managing a strategic network of key roads and strategic planning. There will be lots of involvement of the private business sector as there is with TfL (this already happens at a Sheffield City Region level).

I think that TfL and the Mayoral leadership have been good at delivering for cycling (comparatively compared to area’s outside of London). We don’t know exactly what the future holds, but we’ve said for a long time that we’d like the same level of control (and investment) that London has with transport and funding, perhaps we’re now on that path in Sheffield.

sheffield-city-region-map

Local Sustainable Transport Fund – £275,000 spent on widening a trunk road roundabout in Rotherham

P1180766 - cropped

Newly widened, the third outside lane on the approach and on the roundabout is new – Funded by LSTF

In July 2014 Rotherham Council decided to spend £225,000 of their Local Transport Plan funding on improving Rotherway Roundabout [council approval document]

Earlier this year it became clear that the costs had risen to £275,000 and that the funding source had been switched to the Local Sustainable Transport Fund [LSTF final spend document]

£275,000 of LSTF money to be spent on Rotherway Roundabout Revisions. Source

£275,000 of LSTF money to be spent on Rotherway Roundabout Revisions. Source

A significant queue frequently forms on the A630 West Bawtry Road approach to the Rotherway roundabout in the evening peak period and at times this queue can be 600m long. This queue causes delay to traffic using the A630 and also causes issues with some drivers using an adjacent service road at inappropriate speed to cut out some of the queue.

Consideration of the practicalities of the free flow and widening options shows that the preferred scheme is to widen the A631 West Bawtry Road approach from Canklow entry to the Rotherway roundabout and it is recommended that this scheme is progressed to detailed design and implementation.

It is expected that by reducing the length of queues on the A630 West Bawtry Road entry to the Rotherway roundabout that traffic queues and delay would be reduced and that, together with the recently introduced traffic calming, would mean that drivers would no longer use the service road.

This was approved along with the preliminary design below.

Rotherway Roundabout Preliminary Drawing

You can see on Streetview the construction works of the approach widening and the roundabout widening. There was already a shared use footway at the edge, that hasn’t been changed.

This is what it looks like now. Is this a good way to spend £275,000 of LSTF money? I don’t think so!