amasidlover
Guru
- Location
- Gatley
Stockport Council are having another 20 year strategy review of transport issues and options; I've read and responded and my thoughts are below - I'd strongly encourage other local cyclists to do the same...
http://stockport-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/localplan/stlp
I've had a read through the 2001 report first and found some noteworthy sections
5.31 The study area topography and built environment limits the potential for new infrastructure provision as well as on-line improvements to existing infrastructure. Furthermore, without any significant changes in traffic patterns the predominantly single carriageway road network places constraints on the opportunity to transfer road space from car to public transport or cycle use
-> Because so many people use cars we can't get more people not using cars?
7.11 Integral to the recommendations outlined above is a further recommendation that road space on roads relieved by new construction is reallocated to pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and to support urban regeneration initiatives. In some locations facilities for freight traffic may be most appropriate. The exact nature of the reallocation must be a matter for the implementing authorities and should be informed by a detailed investigation of local needs and priorities, supported by consultation with local residents and businesses. If new roads are built without road space reallocation elsewhere, the traffic generation which will result will lead to a failure to achieve the benefits that have been identified as resulting from the recommended strategy
-> Didn't happen though did it; traffic has _increased_ thanks to / despite of the new road building...
Figure 7.1 Shows 'More road space given to public transport, pedestrians and cyclists'
-> Assumption here is that a scheme like Manchester Road (Cheadle / Parrswood) counts; in reality although the carriageway is smaller cyclists used to safely use the carriage way and now can't.
7.59 - It is recommended that a study area wide programme of behavioural change is adopted.
-> was it?
The key infrastructure projects that have been delivered from the 2001 report are the Metrolink airport extension (still not fully operational with trams all the way through the city centre) and the A6MARR (due to finish next year). Yet there seems already to be an assumption that the A6MARR will reduce congestion, but the same assumption was proven wrong when building the existing stretch of A555.
It seems to me an equally valid assumption that the A6MARR could cause more people to switch from public transport/cycling and more people to take jobs further from home if there is a brief improvement in traffic; resulting in a long term increase in congestion thanks to A6MARR.
Seems to me like the new report is too early and completely lacking in vision...
The cycling section seems a little self-congratulatory despite the state of even the new cycling infrastructure.
If we want to get more people cycling then we need:
1) Cycling to be perceived as adequately safe.
For experienced cyclists that means; good surfaces on carriageways, design that encourages good driver behaviour, stricter rules governing driver behaviour and the police and courts to start taking road crime seriously - no more "it was an accident/could have happened to anyone/they need their car for work" - when drivers step into a motorvehicle they need to have at the forefront of their mind that if they kill/maim or come close to killing/maiming another road user, even by accident, they will face severe consequences (loss of license for many years / prison).
For inexperienced cyclists; enough sections off the main carriageway that they are willing to use short sections of normal carriageway between the 'off carriageway' sections.
2) Cycling has to be more convenient that driving.
That means providing some cycle only, two way, uninterrupted (or with clear priority), well maintained cycle ways that run between places people actually need to go.
On the main carriageway providing rule / signal changes that give cycles priority over motor vehicles even at the cost of more congestion until motorists realise that it will be quicker to go by bike.
The new cycling infrastructure in Stockport is ok for quietly pootling on a day out and has pushed some cyclists off the roads thus freeing up space for motor vehicles, but as 'transport' it has major failings:
1) Cyclists are expected to go much longer routes than the equivalent car journeys in the vast majority of cases.
2) Cyclists have to share with dog walkers and pedestrians, to do so safely means cycling at not much more than walking pace.
3) Few of the routes give cyclists priority at junctions/crossing side roads.
4) Toucan crossings default to being on green for motor vehicles until a cycle/pedestrian arrives, rather than on green for cycles/pedestrians until a motor vehicles arrives.
5) Anti-motorbike / cycle slowing features (barriers & gates) make the infrastructure difficult to use / unusable for anything other than a standard cycle - trailers, cargo bikes etc. are not properly considered.
The A555 feels like quite a missed opportunity - given the scale of the work there could have been seperate cycle way (not shared with pedestrians) that was continuous through every junction using tunnels etc. from end to end giving a very nice orbital cycle route. Instead there will be a shared path with numerous crossing points for cycles to negotiate...
We also need to change the perception that 'congestion' is something outside of a motorists control - when an individual steps into a motor vehicle they become part of 'congestion' - if they make the choice not to, then there is less congestion. People need to make that mental leap that jumping in the car on every whim is the problem, instead of the 'congestion' being the problem.
Why do there seem to be no measures proposed that nudge people out of their motor vehicles, e.g., taxing car parking spaces (like Nottingham), changing traffic light cycles to favour pedestrians / cycles in village/town centres, preventing motorists from using village centres as cut-throughs?
I don't feel that 'boosting the economy' should be considered as a goal. IF we make Stockport a pleasant place to live with minimal noise / pollution from motor vehicles and village/town centres that are pleasant to just 'amble' around without worrying about getting mown down and we massively reduce congestion (by reducing the number of motor vehicles, not giving them more space!) then companies and employees will want to come and live and work in Stockport.
Currently as a small business owner I'm looking to find offices outside of Stockport because its such an unpleasant place to be mainly because of motorvehicles.
We need proper leadership from politicians who are willing to tell the public that they will have to take some short term pain (more congestion / harder to use private motor vehicles) in order to get the long term gain of a place that is very pleasant to live in with cheap and convenient public transport/cycling/walking options.
http://stockport-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/localplan/stlp
I've had a read through the 2001 report first and found some noteworthy sections
5.31 The study area topography and built environment limits the potential for new infrastructure provision as well as on-line improvements to existing infrastructure. Furthermore, without any significant changes in traffic patterns the predominantly single carriageway road network places constraints on the opportunity to transfer road space from car to public transport or cycle use
-> Because so many people use cars we can't get more people not using cars?
7.11 Integral to the recommendations outlined above is a further recommendation that road space on roads relieved by new construction is reallocated to pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and to support urban regeneration initiatives. In some locations facilities for freight traffic may be most appropriate. The exact nature of the reallocation must be a matter for the implementing authorities and should be informed by a detailed investigation of local needs and priorities, supported by consultation with local residents and businesses. If new roads are built without road space reallocation elsewhere, the traffic generation which will result will lead to a failure to achieve the benefits that have been identified as resulting from the recommended strategy
-> Didn't happen though did it; traffic has _increased_ thanks to / despite of the new road building...
Figure 7.1 Shows 'More road space given to public transport, pedestrians and cyclists'
-> Assumption here is that a scheme like Manchester Road (Cheadle / Parrswood) counts; in reality although the carriageway is smaller cyclists used to safely use the carriage way and now can't.
7.59 - It is recommended that a study area wide programme of behavioural change is adopted.
-> was it?
The key infrastructure projects that have been delivered from the 2001 report are the Metrolink airport extension (still not fully operational with trams all the way through the city centre) and the A6MARR (due to finish next year). Yet there seems already to be an assumption that the A6MARR will reduce congestion, but the same assumption was proven wrong when building the existing stretch of A555.
It seems to me an equally valid assumption that the A6MARR could cause more people to switch from public transport/cycling and more people to take jobs further from home if there is a brief improvement in traffic; resulting in a long term increase in congestion thanks to A6MARR.
Seems to me like the new report is too early and completely lacking in vision...
The cycling section seems a little self-congratulatory despite the state of even the new cycling infrastructure.
If we want to get more people cycling then we need:
1) Cycling to be perceived as adequately safe.
For experienced cyclists that means; good surfaces on carriageways, design that encourages good driver behaviour, stricter rules governing driver behaviour and the police and courts to start taking road crime seriously - no more "it was an accident/could have happened to anyone/they need their car for work" - when drivers step into a motorvehicle they need to have at the forefront of their mind that if they kill/maim or come close to killing/maiming another road user, even by accident, they will face severe consequences (loss of license for many years / prison).
For inexperienced cyclists; enough sections off the main carriageway that they are willing to use short sections of normal carriageway between the 'off carriageway' sections.
2) Cycling has to be more convenient that driving.
That means providing some cycle only, two way, uninterrupted (or with clear priority), well maintained cycle ways that run between places people actually need to go.
On the main carriageway providing rule / signal changes that give cycles priority over motor vehicles even at the cost of more congestion until motorists realise that it will be quicker to go by bike.
The new cycling infrastructure in Stockport is ok for quietly pootling on a day out and has pushed some cyclists off the roads thus freeing up space for motor vehicles, but as 'transport' it has major failings:
1) Cyclists are expected to go much longer routes than the equivalent car journeys in the vast majority of cases.
2) Cyclists have to share with dog walkers and pedestrians, to do so safely means cycling at not much more than walking pace.
3) Few of the routes give cyclists priority at junctions/crossing side roads.
4) Toucan crossings default to being on green for motor vehicles until a cycle/pedestrian arrives, rather than on green for cycles/pedestrians until a motor vehicles arrives.
5) Anti-motorbike / cycle slowing features (barriers & gates) make the infrastructure difficult to use / unusable for anything other than a standard cycle - trailers, cargo bikes etc. are not properly considered.
The A555 feels like quite a missed opportunity - given the scale of the work there could have been seperate cycle way (not shared with pedestrians) that was continuous through every junction using tunnels etc. from end to end giving a very nice orbital cycle route. Instead there will be a shared path with numerous crossing points for cycles to negotiate...
We also need to change the perception that 'congestion' is something outside of a motorists control - when an individual steps into a motor vehicle they become part of 'congestion' - if they make the choice not to, then there is less congestion. People need to make that mental leap that jumping in the car on every whim is the problem, instead of the 'congestion' being the problem.
Why do there seem to be no measures proposed that nudge people out of their motor vehicles, e.g., taxing car parking spaces (like Nottingham), changing traffic light cycles to favour pedestrians / cycles in village/town centres, preventing motorists from using village centres as cut-throughs?
I don't feel that 'boosting the economy' should be considered as a goal. IF we make Stockport a pleasant place to live with minimal noise / pollution from motor vehicles and village/town centres that are pleasant to just 'amble' around without worrying about getting mown down and we massively reduce congestion (by reducing the number of motor vehicles, not giving them more space!) then companies and employees will want to come and live and work in Stockport.
Currently as a small business owner I'm looking to find offices outside of Stockport because its such an unpleasant place to be mainly because of motorvehicles.
We need proper leadership from politicians who are willing to tell the public that they will have to take some short term pain (more congestion / harder to use private motor vehicles) in order to get the long term gain of a place that is very pleasant to live in with cheap and convenient public transport/cycling/walking options.
