Newcastle GNR corridor plans

9 posts / 0 new
Log in or register to post comments
Last post
26 January, 2014 - 13:43
#1
Katsdekker
Katsdekker's picture
Newcastle GNR corridor plans

Leading on from Tom's post (yes, this roundabout design is on the same corridor, it in fact marks the northernmost extent for the improvements, just before the road turns from 30mph to 40mph, go figure http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/node/3104) an entire stretch is "up for grabs" - and it seems firmly in the hand of the highway engineers with traffic flow being first in their consideration, whilst only token efforts to cycling are made, and the proposal does not actually hold much for improving walking conditions.

GNR = Great North Road. Funding for improvements comes from direct DfT "traffic smoothing" budget and £1.3m stems from te DfT's Cycle Safety Fund.

It's seven pdf drawings - filesize is laaarge, and download may be slow http://newcycling.org/sites/default/files/All_101-107.pdf

The council drawings (separately) are on the council website. It's also attempt for council to put things into context and give some narrative http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-transport/travel-planning/gosforth-transport-major-scheme-funding-bid

An overall plan (part of the traffic order) is here http://newcycling.org/sites/default/files/16.01.14%20Gosforth%20Corridor%20Scheme%20TRO%20plan.pdf

If the Embassy / forum has a view on the designs and layouts, that'd be great. In fact... knock yersel oot. But be warned, I - having had a look - am ready to curl up in the corner to weep. Even just commenting on one junction design would help immensely. Thanks!

AttachmentSize
Microsoft Office document icon Traffic order (text)127.5 KB
Submitted by Katsdekker on 26 January, 2014 - 13:43
Top
26 January, 2014 - 15:17
AndyR

Sorry, this is a bit of a rant aimed at the Newcastle C.C. website descriptions before I look at the detail, but where did the likes of 'hybrid cycle lane' come from? I've seen it in other documents, along with 'on carriageway cycle track' and 'in highway cycle track', describing very different things, but using virtually the same terminology. They are nonsense terms.

What was wrong with a cycle lane being on-carriageway provision by way of lining, a cycleway being the cycle-specific equivalent of a footway - segregated from, but adjacent to, the carriageway, and a cycle path being the cycle-specific equivalent of a footpath - away from the carriageway?

Submitted by AndyR on 26 January, 2014 - 15:17
Top
26 January, 2014 - 15:20
AndyR

Sorry, this is a bit of a rant aimed at the Newcastle C.C. website descriptions before I look at the detail, but where did the likes of 'hybrid cycle lane' come from? I've seen it in other documents, along with 'on carriageway cycle track' and 'in highway cycle track', describing very different things, but using virtually the same terminology. They are nonsense terms.

What was wrong with a cycle lane being on-carriageway provision by way of lining, a cycleway being the cycle-specific equivalent of a footway - segregated from, but adjacent to, the carriageway, and a cycle path being the cycle-specific equivalent of a footpath - away from the carriageway?

 

Submitted by AndyR on 26 January, 2014 - 15:20
Top
27 January, 2014 - 00:22
(Reply to #3)
pete owens

A "Hybrid cycle lane" is a coss between what you would call a cycle lane and a cycle way. It is basically placed in the gutter in the same position as a painted cycle lane would be, but instead of paint they use a very low kerb. I cannot imagine that it would be much of an obstacle to any motorist who sees it as a convenient parking space, but it would be a serious hazard to a cyclist who needed to leave the lane - say to get round a parked car. The drawings don't appear to show what they intend to do at bus stops.

Submitted by pete owens on 27 January, 2014 - 00:22
Top
26 January, 2014 - 15:50
gazza_d

Some quick points from a quick look at the plans and google maps.

Great North Road/Broadway

1. No exits from the off-road cycleways onto Broadway East and West

2. exits off the Zebras look potentially a little tight. More details on how the surfaces "interact" would be needed. Presumably dropped kerbs. I would lengthen them to allow for a smoother flow across the junction

3. Are the Toucans single stage or two stage? If two what is the design of any rails on the islands? 

Now for the rest.

Park Avenue table and crossing seem a long way from the junction, but that is possibly necessary from a legal point of view. the hybrid lane should be continued a short distance past the junction to protect against traffic turning left out of Park Avenue.

As for the new lights at Hollywood Ave, have they even considered cycling? A complete dogs breakfast. Only remotely half decent thing about this junction is the  light bypass for left turning cyclists.

Unless there is going to be a seperate phase for cycles, the ASLs are not deep enough to get across 3 lanes. Will the crossings be Toucans as well?

If you continued the hybrid lanes, and made the crossings toucans and straight across instead of staggered, then it would be a lot better. Also needs a crossing on the 4th arm of the junction.

Regent Centre junction is another missed opportunity. No hybrid lanes and hardly any  other consideration to cycling, other than paint an ASLs. 

An awful lot of the "improvements" for cycling seem to be at the expense of pedestrian space. Lots of shared crossings and shared space with cyclists being allowed to ue the footpaths to avoid the lights etc. It is roads where the space for cycling needs to be reclaimed from. 

Also why do we need seperate parallel routes for less experienced cyclists? Get the direct route safe and you only need the one route.  That statement almost admits the whole scheme as a failure. Cycling routes should be direct, convenient and intuitive.

If seperate routes (I presume protected lanes are OK too) and signalled crossings are the favoured improvements, then why are they only putting in painted lanes and ASLs at several of the junctions?

Submitted by gazza_d on 26 January, 2014 - 15:50
Top
27 January, 2014 - 01:10
pete owens

Looks like the (unfortunately common) strategy of including sufficient greenwash in order to pay for a motor traffic capacity enhancement scheme from funds notionally intended to improve conditions for cyclists.

It is probably better to avoid getting bogged down in the detail and oppose the whole scheme as fundamentally not good enough. If you give them a long list of detailed criticism then they are likely to make one or two minor changes and claim that they have designed the whole thing to your specification. (It has happened to me often enough). Concentrate on the broad principles - leave them in no doubt that simply letting cyclists ride on the pavement is not acceptable.

Submitted by pete owens on 27 January, 2014 - 01:10
Top
27 January, 2014 - 08:20
(Reply to #6)
Katsdekker
Katsdekker's picture

Yup, not getting bogged down, that mirrors our thoughts here in Newcastle too. This went out to Newcastle council last night http://newcycling.org/news/20140126/gosforth-corridor-scheme-tro

The TRO deadline is Friday. We have a Newcycling committee meeting Tuesday (tomorrow) to decide what we want to do. Objecting is an option (as the meeting is unlikely to be arranged before the deadline) but might not change the scheme. In fact, my experience is that it makes no difference at all... once it's out as a TRO council WILL implement, come heaven or hell. 

Why does council rush it like this, every time? There was sufficient time for council to talk this through with groups. Totally useless community engagement again. Or as a Brit would say "it's an area of improvement".

Submitted by Katsdekker on 27 January, 2014 - 08:20
Top
28 January, 2014 - 12:03
RGAlexander

To echo the others, this is a bit of a dog-breakfast, with a couple of figleaves attached (if that's not too much of a mixed metaphor)

If you were to focus areas of recommendation/objection then it must be on the Christon Road-Holywood Avenue section. The parallel "quietway" route via Moor Road North and South isn't itself a bad idea, but it is of no use if it can't be matched up to anything! Therefore additional effort is needed to take cyclists who would be tempted by a longer but quieter route across these junctions and the railway bridge (the only one of any use in the area). This is also the weakest part of the design full-stop.

 

Submitted by RGAlexander on 28 January, 2014 - 12:03
Top
2 February, 2014 - 12:20
Katsdekker
Katsdekker's picture

Objection shown here:

In the light of what's been presented and the lack of communication leading up to the traffic order being issued, we feel obliged to OBJECT to the proposal as it stands. This is on the grounds of vehicle movement and road / junction capacity being negligently the sole design priority for this scheme, at the expense of walking / cycling safety, attractiveness of place and long-term environmental factors (air, noise) that can only be met my reducing car journeys.

Junctions at Hollywood Avenue and Church / Salters are particularly over-engineered, especially in an urban setting. The traffic modelling does not respect the existing bottleneck at The County, where there's space constraint due to the tight built environment. The decision-making framework is plainly wrong and more leadership and vision is needed.  Putting local people first and reducing road space for passing cars should have been the sensible, reasonable and enlightened way to go about this. As it stands, apart from the Northern end (Broadway junction and cycle space onwards to Hollywood junction) we are facing a purely traditional highway design scheme in the middle of a densely populated Newcastle suburb.

 

Campaign TeamNewcastle Cycling Campaign
Submitted by Katsdekker on 2 February, 2014 - 12:20
Top
Log in or register to post comments