Sustrans: The Big Pedal

The Big Pedal is a massive cycle and scoot to school event. How massive? In the Big Pedal 2012 over 890,000 journeys were made by bike and scooter, by pupils at nearly 1,000 schools, representing a combined roll of over 310,000 pupils. And that was just to school!

 
How does it work?

The format is simple. The more pupils who cycle, the quicker your school races round a “virtual” course – and it’s all weighted so schools of any size have an equal chance to win.

Superheroes Fundraising Day

Kick off your Big Pedal on 28 February with our Superheroes fundraising day! Join thousands of children dressing up as superheroes for £1 to help Sustrans make the school journey safer, healthier and more fun across the UK. We’ll give you info, resources and fun stuff to help and there’s even a prize for the best photos uploaded – for full details, see our Superheroes fundraising page.

In 2013 we could pedal past one million journeys if we get over 1,000 schools to take part. Will you be there? As ever, there will be some fantastic prizes to be won, a fun theme and an exciting course to race around, plus schools will receive free resources to help with their entry.

Register your school.

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

Update: Step away from the Trans-Pennine Trail !

Readers of this blog will remember that earlier this year, Metrolink, in its infinite wisdom, decided that the best solution for the Trans-Pennine Trail (TPT) near the Metrolink extension at Sandhurst Road, Didsbury was to propose installing six sets of steps into the TPT. See "We will remove barriers to cycling by installing steps".  

Those lovely people at Love Your Bike thought that building steps into a popular walking and cycling route was not the most sensible option and so organised an email lobbying action to get Metrolink to think again.

Pressure pays off.  Over 550 people sent emails lobbying their GM Integrated Transport Authority members and as a result a lively GMITA committee meeting on Friday 25th March saw a succession of councillors from all political parties lining up to question the steps proposal.  The Committee unanimously voted NO to the steps proposal.

Deluded fantasy. One councillor when questioning Metrolink's cost projections for the steps and the other solutuions referred to the costs as being a "deluded fantasy". Hard not to agree.

Next steps (sorry!) GMPTE/Metrolink officers were instructed to go away and come back with a more suitable  proposal. Anyone who sent an email should have received a letter from Keith Whitmore, the current chair of Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) - the successor to GM Integrated Transport Authority. [Ed - please do pay attention at the back]

For all those that have not had the pleasure of receiving this missive, the letter outlines that the options being examined were:

"1. Steps plus cycle groove at Sandhurst Road (current design).

2. Lengthening of the Sandhurst Road bridge to allow the Trans Pennine Trail to pass beneath (instead of up and over).

3. “Tunnelling” through the embankment next to the Sandhurst Road bridge, again, to maintain the Trail within the cutting rather than crossing up and over Sandhurst Road itself.

4. Re-routing the Trans Pennine Trail alongside the River Mersey whereby it would not occupy the Metrolink corridor – as suggested by residents and the Love Your Bike Campaign at the meeting on 25 March and which is being discussed with the City Council."

and goes on to state that the "option of providing ramps to cross up and over Sandhurst Road is not being considered further on the basis that our preliminary investigations concluded that Options 2 and 3 above would be the more cost-effective means of providing a steps-free Trail at Sandhurst Road and would be considerably less visually intrusive than ramps (which was a concern for residents). Therefore, these options have been preferred for further consideration."

It is understood that Metrolink have requested a meeting with Sustrans and Trans-Pennine Trail in the next few weeks..... hopefully to discuss a more sensible plan.  More news as we get it....

We will "remove barriers to cycling"... by installing steps...

The soon-to-be-published Local Transport Plan (LTP3) for Greater Manchester contains a number of priority committments. One of these boldy asserts that:

“Our proposals set out ways to improve the pedestrian environment, remove barriers to cycling, improve cycling infrastructure…” 

Which sounds really progressive and is certainly to be welcomed.  Unfortunately, another part of the Greater Manchester transport machine is gearing up to implement this policy by installing a series of steps into the Trans-Pennine Trail near Sandhurst Road as part of the Didsbury Metrolink extension construction work.  See previous blog entry for more details.

Metrolink's new access policy?

Those nice people at Love Your Bike, working with Sustrains and the Trans-Pennine Trail office have been lobbying Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority members to encourage Metrolink to come up with a better solution. The campaign has been reported in both local and national cycling media.

Hundreds of people took part in an email action asking their local councillors who are GMITA memebrs to intervene. The GMITA councillors asked Metrolink for a report to be discussed at the Authority meeting on Friday 25th March. Unfortunately, the report's recommendation is that "members note this update and the issues encountered in incorporating the Trans Pennine Trail into the corridor and affirm their support for the proposed design."  Or put more simply, to carry on installing steps.

Which in terms of the LTP priority commitment to remove barriers to cycling demonstrates the same logic as the (in)famous Vietnam era quote that saw the US military report that 'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.'

Love Your Bike has updated the email action and is urging people to contact their local GMITA members and ask them to reject the steps option.  Oh.. and you may want to remind them that the GMITA constitution states that all members must not: "do anything which may cause your authority to breach any of the equality enactments (as defined in section 33 of the Equality Act 2006."  Just a thought ....

Are we on the pavement to nowhere ? (with apologies to Talking Heads)

Several years ago the Warrington Cycle Campaign became (in)famous for producing the Crap Cycle lanes book (subtitled 50 worst cycle lanes in Britain).

Well, if the growing number of complaints about the cycle lane developments on Manchester Road in Chorlton are anything to go by there may soon be a "Crap Cycle Lanes on Pavements" edition being produced. 

A recent article in the South Manchester Reporter highlighted concerns from local people in Chorlton about the sudden appearance of white paint cycle markings on a narrow stretch of pavement alongside the Unicorn store on Manchester Road.

In fact, this "shared use" section of National Cycle Route 55 has been in the planning stage for quite a while and was sent out for consultation by Manchester City Council's Engineering Services in late 2008 / early 2009. At the time the consultation document stated that "It is anticipated that the proposed scheme will be implemented in the Spring of 2009." Clearly the timescale slipped a little!


The blue circle signs on Kensington Road indicate that this shared use route is considered as an "unsegregated shared facility which is a cycle track with a right of way on foot".



The consultation document also stated that the purpose of this section of Off Highway Shared Use Area on NCR 55 was "To provide a safe crossing point for the route over Manchester Road,  it is proposed to introduce an unsegregated shared use area from Albany Road in the south to allow access to the existing controlled crossing outside Chorlton Leisure centre, demarked through the use of shared use signage and corduroy paving to assist those pedestrians with visual impairments."

The South Manchester Reporter article quoted Pele Bhamber, Manchester City Council’s head of highways services as saying that "The preferred option was to use the pavement and the businesses forecourt area as a shared space for pedestrians and cyclists, rather than the removal of the limited parking bays to the front of the shops." 

Which seems to be a little bit at odds with the text in the consultation document that stated: "To allow for two-way cycle access to the controlled crossing on the west side of Manchester Road, it is proposed that the limited waiting bay outside 109 Manchester Road be removed and built up to footway level to provide additional width for shared use operation and provide
access to the controlled crossing from Kensington Road in the west."  See the consultation map for more details.

 
Whilst the physical engineering work will have been done by Manchester's Highways Services
department - the national cycle route design and co-ordination is undertaken by the national charity, Sustrans.  Who produce an "Information Sheet on Shared Use Routes" which acknowledges concerns about the potential for conflict between different user groups accessing shared space.

"There is concern in some quarters that poorly designed shared use facilities could lead to an increase in illegal pavement cycling. The fear is that if there is little distinction between a poorly designed shared use route and an ordinary pavement, cyclists may gain the impression that it is acceptable to ride on pavements."

The Sustrans Information Sheet also provides the following guidance with regard to the width of shared use facilities: "On well used unsegregated shared use paths we recommend a minimum of 3m width. Where paths are lightly used and there is a clear verge on both sides a minimum width of 2m may be sufficient."

It is difficult to see how this section of shared use pavement meets the requirements of Sustrans
own design guidance.

In the report 'Support for cycling as mode of transport', presented to the Manchester City Council - Communities and Neighbourhoods Overview and Scrutiny Committee in November 2009, it was stated that: "When considering the safe shared or segregated use of off-road facilities for
pedestrians and cyclists, the City Council uses guidance laid out in the Department
for Transport, Local Transport Note 02/08 - Cycle Infrastructure Design." It was also stated that the overall number of reported pedestrian vs cyclist casualty figures for the three-year period (01/11/04 to 31/10/08) was thirteen. These included:

• Six involving pedestrians walking into the carriageway in front of cycles;

• Six involving cyclists illegally riding on the footway colliding with pedestrians;

• One cyclist colliding with a pedestrian stood in the off-road segregated cycle track on Oxford Road at the junction with Grafton Street in 2005.

Judging by the volume of complaints regarding cycling on pavements in the letters and comments pages of local Manchester media - an obvious problem with these figures is that most people do not appear to formally report the many "near misses" that occur on shared use areas in Manchester. It will be interesting to see what increase (if any) in casualty figures occurs for this shared use route.

But back to the Department for Transport Local Transport Note 02/08 or "Cycle Infrastructure Design" guide.  This states that "In general, offroad cycle routes in urban areas tend to be the least desired option, and it is usually better to cater for urban cyclists onroad if this is practicable. Offroad routes are often created by converting existing footways/footpaths and, if such routes are not carefully designed, pedestrians may view them as a reduction in quality of provision."  It also contains an interesting Hierarchy of Provision (below) that advises which options local authorities should consider when designing cycling infrastructure.

It is interesting to note that "Conversion of footways/footpaths to shared use for pedestrians and cyclists" comes in the "Consider last" category.  

The Cycle Infrastructure Design guide draws considerably on the earlier Local Transport Note 2/86 Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians report published in 1986. This states that:


"Unsegregated facilities: No kind of segregation is likely to be effective if some users are likely to move regularly across the segregating line. For segregation by white line, colour contrast, or surface texture, the likelihood of ineffective operation is present for any facility whose width is less than those suggested in Table 2 (above). Consequently, if road safety gains merit conversion of such a narrow foot way or footpath this should normally be to unsegregated use. (6.19)"


and that: "Unsegregated shared facilities have been provided, and have operated safely, down to 2.0 metres with considerable - some 100 to 200 per hour - use by pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists have also safely passed pedestrians, including those with prams and wheelchairs, on even narrower unsegregated shared facilities down to 1.5 metres wide where there have been grass verges. (6.21)"


Well so much for the national guidance - how does this match up with the cycle infrastructure that has been delivered on the ground in Chorlton?

After crossing Manchester Road at the pedestrian crossing, the National Cycle Route 55 continues along the Manchester Road pavement until turning left onto the pavement of  Kensington Road.

This section of pavement may nominally meet the 2m metre width requirement - but without adequate (any !) enforcement to prevent pavement parking and combined with wheelie bins on the pavement - in reality this route will be much narrow making the shared use of this space even more difficult. 

Many people regularly cycle on the pavement because they do not feel safe cycling on the roads due to the speed & volume of traffic as well as the aggressive driving behaviour of some road users. Clearly, there is a real need to provide  safer routes for people who are not confident or experienced enough to cycle on the road network. High quality / well designed shared use facilities can help meet this need.

But according to the national Cycle Infrastructure Design guide "Conversion of footways/footpaths to shared use for pedestrians and cyclists" is supposed to be the last option considered - after "Traffic volume reduction",  "Traffic speed reduction",  "Junction treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic management", "Reallocation of carriageway space" and "Cycle tracks away from roads" options have been explored.


The consultation documents do not appear to have offered any other options from the "Hierarchy of Provision" and there are real concerns that poorly designed "shared use" schemes are a typical English "lowest cost" approach to cycle infrastructure.  Instead of re-engineering the roadspace to create high-quality European-style segregated cycle routes - we settle for painting "white paint" cycle designs on pavements that are too narrow and will (almost by design) create conflicts between pedestrians, elderly / disabled people and cyclists.  

If you want to like to take this issue up with the Council then you can of course contact your local councillor or communicate with:  Enviroment On Call
By telephone: 0161 954 9000
Email: contact@manchester.gov.uk