Metrolink...(not) going round the bend !

Back in March this blog posted about the madness of Metrolink's plans to install a series of steps into the Trans Pennine Trail near Sandhurst Road as part of the extension of the tram network to Didsbury.  See Access for All? Metrolink plans to trash the Trans Pennine Trail ... Take action now!

Thankfully, (after a lot of campaigning, emails and lobbying), the then Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authrority (GMITA) instructed Metrolink to change their plans.  See Update: Step away from the Trans-Pennine Trail !

The photograph on the right (taken last week) shows how the old Sandhurst Bridge has been removed and preparations to install a new pedestrian bridge are progressing. The new bridge will have a wider span which will allow sufficient space to have a flat, ground-level Trans-Pennine Trail alongside the tram lines on this part of the route.

Hurrah for that we can hear you saying.....

Unfortunately, it appears that the people responsible for designing and managing this scheme do not yet seem to have a good grasp of what makes a good cycling route.

The photographs on the left show very tight-angled bends in the new Trans-Pennine Trail path.  Now, sometimes depending on the terrain and other factors it is necessary to build in tight turns.  But this is a newly constructed section and there is clearly space to 'soften' the angle of the bends.

Have the designers never seen a copy of Sustrans Greenways guide ?, for example "7. The Design and Construction of ‘Traffic Free’ Sections."
 
This section contains, plenty of really good and practical design and construction advice - what you won't find in these design guides are any right-angle bends in the walking and cycle path designs.  When Sustrans were asked, if there was any guidance for such tight-angle designs, a helpful but rather bemused response was received along the lines of "it seems such an obvious design criteria (not to include) that it is not specifically covered in the Greenway design guide" !

We hope that there is still time to improve the design of the TransPennine Trail, before all works are completed. 

If you would prefer not to have to navigate sharp turns when cycling along - perhaps you would like to drop Councillor Andrew Fender, the Chair of Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), and (politely) ask him to request Metrolink learn a few basic cycle design rules...

Councillor Fender can be contacted via tfgmc@manchester.gov.uk

On the slow road to nowhere fast....

Avid readers (!) of this blog will remember a post in June discusing the damage caused to cycle lanes and advance stop line (ASL boxes) by contractors working for the utility companies and the seeming reluctance of Manchester City Council to use their statutory powers to require the contractors to repair the damage. See Digging a hole, don't dig there, dig it elsewhere !

An initial Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request attempted to find out when the work (damage) had been carried out and by which contractors.  After a little bit of to-ing and fro-ing, this FoIA request was answered on 4th July (answers in bold).

"You have requested the following information for the Charles Street / Princess Street junction area:

a) When (date) was the work on the highway, which resulted in the damage to the Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs), originally carried out?

The first phase of work was started on 31 January 2010 and completed on 17 February 2011.  No defect was recorded.
The second phase of work was carried out between 12 April to 21 April
b) Which utility company/contractor was authorised to carry out that work?

The work was carried out by Electricity North West - Escalon.
        Escalon Ltd, Duncan Street Yard, Duncan Street, Salford M5 3SQ

c) Were the completed road works inspected by Manchester City Council staff, and if so,

i) on what dates were the inspection(s) undertaken?

No inspection was carried out at the above site at the time of the opening, as no Random Sample sheets had been generated by the Exor computer for this site. Note only 10% of each layer of inspection of all works are generated for inspection by the Exor computer.

ii) What information was recorded as a result of any inspections?

A reported inspection was carried out on this section of carriageway on 28 June.  The information recorded as a defect was: "no temporary lining" each side of the cycle bay prior to permanent reinstatement.
iii) What actions, if any, were initiated as a result of the inspections?

A site meeting has been requested by the inspector with Escalon to discuss the temporary and final reinstatement of the surface and lining."

Only repairing a pothole!

 

So what have we learnt from this response?  The Department for Transport (DfT) document: Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways: Second Edition 2002  Section 6.4.5.4 Coloured Surfacings states that : "Coloured surfacings used to highlight highway features such as speed warnings, bus or cycle lanes, ‘gateways’ etc. shall be permanently reinstated using like materials of equivalent type and similar colour.

It is fairly clear that contractors who work on the roads should be required to reinstate the road to how they found it. However, in this case the works were not inspected after completion - despite causing quite major changes in the road surface at a busy junction.

But the good news was that a "defect" had now been recorded and a "site meeting" requested with the contractor, Escalon.  So far, so good.

Unfortunately, any progress has been a little more elusive. With no progress on repairs visible by mid October, another FoIA request was submitted. The following response was received on 3rd November (answers embolded):

"You requested:

a) What was the date of the site meeting with an Escalon representative?  A meeting has not taken place despite continued requests to the utility company, they have not yet contacted the Manchester City Council.

b) Which personnel were present at the site meeting? N/A

c) What outcomes / actions were identified / recorded from that site meeting? N/A

d) Has a scheduled date been agreed for "the temporary and final reinstatement of the surface and lining." ? No, this is an ongoing defect, we have defected the repair through computer system (central computer system used by all who wish to excavate/carry-out works on the highway).  This defect has been reported to the utility on the following dates: 15/06/2011, 28/06/2011, 25/10/2011.

The third notice (fine) expires on the 7th November and we are unable to action any works ourselves until the said expiry date. Thereafter we will investigate the possibility of carrying out the works and recharging the utility concerned. "

 So....  what I thought was a simple task of asking the Highways Section to request the contractor to repair the damage to the ASL has turned into quite a saga.... never realised it would be so difficult to get a private sector company to provide a quality service.  Doesn't seem to square with the current Government's mantra of 'public sector bad - private sector good'.

I will shortly be asking MCC what the results of the investigation into the "possibility of carrying out the works and recharging the utility concerned" were...... watch this space!

 

Are the wheels beginning to fall off the Localism agenda...?

Earlier this year, Secretary of State for Communities, Eric Pickles, declared that the introduction of the Localism Bill would mean the "era of big government is over" and that it would "reverse the central creep of decades and replace it with local control."

The Pickles hyperbole machine continued claiming that the Localism Bill was "a triumph for democracy over bureaucracy. It will fundamentally shake up the balance of power in this country. It will revitalise local democracy and put power back where it belongs - in the hands of the people."

Which all sounds fantastic until the wheels start to come off.  Lets take the case of the powers contained in Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004... (yes, I know this is probably very sad but stick with it as the example is instructive!)

London boroughs and Transport for London already have the powers to enforce moving traffic contraventions - such as driving in bus lanes, banned turns, and boxed junction infringements. Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 contains the powers which would allow local authorities outside London to take enforcement action against road users who committed such "moving traffic contraventions".

On 15th December 2010, Norman Baker (the Transport Minister) wrote to local councils asking whether they wanted the powers contained in "Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004". The  letter outlined that the: "main powers, therefore, that local authorities outside London do not have that local authorities in London have under locally made legislation is to enforce some moving traffic matters that are there either to give priority to certain road users or to smooth traffic flows and help manage localised congestion and road safety hot spots."

It has been reported that the consultation generated responses from 13 highway authorities, including: Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth, Reading, Salford, Sheffield, and Southampton. All but one authority supported the powers being introduced and most reported that they would use the powers.

In September, the House of Commons transport committee’s report on traffic management, snappily entitled 'Out of the jam: reducing congestion on our roads', on traffic management concluded that: "We can see no reason why Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 should not be fully commenced to enable local authorities to deal more effectively with moving traffic contraventions and we recommend that the Government bring this part of the Act into force, by 2013.” (Paragraph 16) (emphasis added).


So virtually everyone at the local authority level (who responded) wanted the regulations to be extended outside of London and the parliamentary transport committee could see "no reason" why this should not happen.

Unfortunately, it was announced on 18th November 2011, that Norman Baker had decided not to give the the powers to enforce moving traffic contraventions to the local authorities outside of London.  The reason given?  According to TransportExtra who broke the story, Norman Baker told the Local Goverment Association that “I have therefore concluded that there can be no case for devoting scarce resources to this matter at the moment. I am sorry to send what I expect will be a disappointing letter.”

So next time you are cycling in a bus lane and are nearly run over by a car, truck or lorry that shouldn't be driving in the bus lane, or are nearly side-swiped by a car doing an illegal U-turn or you cannot cross the road when the traffic lights are green because vehicles are blocking the yellow box junction.... and get to wondering why your local council aren't doing anything about it.... just remember, they would have liked to do be able to take action against such thoughtless (or downright homicidal) road users but unfortunately, despite Mr Pickles pledge to"reverse the central creep of decades and replace it with local control",  it would seem that central Government still thinks it knows best.

Localism?  Eat your heart out!

and the winner is.....

Congratulations to LC, she of Naturally Cycling Manchester blog fame, for winning the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain’s Summer Poster Competition.

Great photo and caption. More details on the Naturally Cycling Manchester blog.

And another Mancunian, Kat Malin was a runner up.  See Imagine photo below.

This was taken when our local “motorway in the sky” was closed to traffic for maintenance. While angry and frustrated drivers crawled through the city, some members of the local cycling community took to the sky and the gloriously clear motorway. Imagine how wonderful life would be if our roads were always this empty, reserved for a band of cheerful cyclists.
Photo by Kat Malin (Design by Zero)

“Making Manchester a World Class Cycling City” ?

Manchester City Council has recently released a  consultation draft of the Manchester Cycling Strategy  "A Strategy for Cycling in Manchester 2011-2015" to members of the Manchester Cycle Forum for early comment.   The introduction explains how:

"As part of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2010 by British Cycling and Manchester City Council, it was agreed that a joint cycling strategy be produced. Once complete, the intention is to bring together in one place the three strands of cycling: “utility” (commuter) cycling; leisure cycling and sports cycling."

The broad vision for the partnership is “Making Manchester a world class cycling city”

The draft strategy document states that to achieve this vision, "the partnership will deliver tangible improvements by making a commitment to:

• Collaboratively develop utility, leisure and sports cycling through a co-ordinated and sustainable cross-city programme

• Build on existing investment and development programmes

• Seek out additional investment to meet existing and future needs and
 

• Learn from others who have set examples of good practice."

The document acknowledges that it has yet to be completed and highlights that  the "sections detailing plans for recreation and sports cycling are still under development but outlines of their content are included."

 

Whilst waiting for a more detailed draft version, (promised towards the end of November) interested parties are invite to bring their comments to the Cycle Forum meeting due to be held on Tuesday 13th December 2011 or send them to cycle.forum@manchester.gov.uk by 24th December 2011.

A message from Tameside Council to the cycling community...

See below for the text of an email recently sent by Tameside Council's Sustainable Travel Officer to members of Tameside Cycle Forum.

Dear Cyclist,

As you are aware the Tameside Cycle Forum has not met for a number of months.  The reasons for this are numerous and includes over a 1,000 staff leaving the authority in recent months, severe and ongoing budget reductions and additional work being taken on by remaining staff.

Part of the budget reductions is a year on year decrease by the Department for Transport funding for structural maintenance money which generally addresses resurfacing and bridge maintenance. Other minor maintenance work funding for elements such as footways repairs and potholes have also been cut. Apart from a small sum of council funded capital works there are no other capital monies available to improve the overall highway infrastructure.

Clearly the Greater Manchester Transport Fund is rolling out Metrolink, and other schemes within the GM area and a comprehensive Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LTSF) bid is being put together led by Transport for Greater Manchester on behalf of all GM districts. A LTSF report is being considered by TfGMC on 11 November 2011.

Please don’t forget if you have any maintenance issues which need to be looked at these can be reported this via the Tameside website at: http://public.tameside.gov.uk/symology/cs_index.asp

However, in respect of the cycle forum, Tameside is to seek views of the other Greater Manchester Districts as to whether they hold such meetings and if so how often and their Terms of Reference. Once this information has been collected, then a decision will be made as to how cycle issues in Tameside should be taken forward.

Michael Hughes, Sustainable Travel Officer 

E-mail:  michael.hughes@tameside.gov.uk



The policy decision to establish Cycle Forums in all of the 10 Greater Manchester local authority areas was adopted in the "The Greater Manchester Cycling Strategy" 2006 and also the Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan 2006/07-2010/11 which required local authorites:


"To strengthen partnerships with other public bodies, commercial organisations and voluntary bodies in order to promote and cater for cycling. 

3.8.1 Dialogue with local cyclists and other interested parties through Cycle Forums, which have been established in all councils, should be maintained and improved where necessary. Authorities should also work with local cycling groups, representatives from health authorities, schools, local businesses, the police and the passenger transport providers."  (Policy 8 Partnerships and consultation)

It seems a little strange that Tameside Council are proposing to "seek views of the other Greater Manchester Districts as to whether they hold such meetings and if so how often and their Terms of Reference. Once this information has been collected, then a decision will be made as to how cycle issues in Tameside should be taken forward".


How about asking the cycling (and non-cycling) communities in Tameside whether they would like to have a functioning cycle forum?  


So if you live, or work, in Tameside and have an interest in developing better cycling facilities - perhaps you would like to let the Sustainable Travel officer, or better still, your local councillor know your views on the matter..... just a thought!

New report: Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities

Whatever your views on bicycle hire, or bike sharing schemes (BSS) it is always useful to have comparative data when considering the benefits (or problems) with such services.

The recently launched OBIS handbook (Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities) presents interesting facts and figures from bike sharing schemes in ten European countries - Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.

The handbook describes bike share scheme characteristics such as technology, scheme size, service design etc in relation to a range external city  factors.

Not surprisingly, given the title, the handbook authors have a supportive attitude towards bike sharing schemes. 

There is even a handy section entitled "Arguments You’ll Have to Deal With" (page 14) which lists 7 arguments (and responses) which the authors argue are commonly raised when discussing bike share schemes.  These include:

• The city already has a high cycling modal share; people have their own bikes. 
• BSSs are expensive. 
• The city is too small and does not have enough funding options. 
• A BSS will compete with local bike rental companies. 
• The city does not even have proper cycling infrastructure. The BSS a) will compete for funding and b) nobody will use the BSS due to the lack of infrastructure. 
• Cycling is dangerous; a BSS will increase the number of accidents 
• All the trips will be one-way; there will be a distribution problem

For any local authorities or organsiations considering introducing such schemes, the handbook also provides comprehensive advice for the three stages in the lifetime of a Bike Sharing Scheme: Planning, Implementation, Optimisation.