Scrutiny
Meeting papers
Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee
Wednesday 14th January, 2015 at 10.00 am
Cabinet Suite - Shire Hall, Gloucester
Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee
Wednesday 14th January, 2015 at 10.00 am
Cabinet Suite - Shire Hall, Gloucester
AGENDA
1 APOLOGIES Chairman
To note any apologies for absence.
2 DECLARATIONS OF INTE REST Chairman
To record any declarations of interest. Please refer to note (a) at the end of the agenda.
3 MINUTES (Pages 1 - 12) Chairman
To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2014 (minutes attached).
4 GLOUCESTERSHIRE ROAD SAFETY PARTNERSHIP Gloucestershire Road Safety A presentation from the Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership. Partnership
Members will be invited to ask questions at the meeting, for which it is suggested they visit the Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership website at the following link for an update on events and activities.
www.roadsafety-gloucestershire.org.uk
5 BARRIERS TO CYCLING STUDY (Pages 13 - 128) Simon Excell
To consider the outcomes of the ‘Barriers to Cycling Study’ following a Lead motion considered at the Gloucestershire County Council meeting on 10 Commissioner: September 2014. Strategic Infrastructure
Date Published:7 January 2015
Please refer to the following link to view the Barriers to Cycling Summary Report:
http://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=673&MId =7853&Ver=4
Fraser Arnot from Atkins Consultants will be at the meeting to respond to questions.
6 GLOUCESTERSHIRE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE (Pages 129 - 134) Chief Fire Officer To consider and agree: -
a) The committee response to the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service Consultation on the Draft Integrated Risk Management Plan. Members are requested to submit any responses to [email protected] before midday on Monday 12 January 2015. Please refer to the following link to view the consultation document:-
http://www.glosfire.gov.uk/news_2014_11_03_irmp.html
b) A recommendation from the Constitution Committee for the Chief Fire Officer to present an update report at each committee meeting. (Report attached).
7 COMMISSIONING DIRECT ORS REPORT Nigel Riglar
Nigel Riglar, Commissioning Director: Communities and Infrastructure to Commissioning update the committee on current issues. Director: Communities Quarter 2 Performance Scorecard for 2014/15 will be considered under and this item and is attached for consideration. Infrastructure
8 WORK PLAN (Pages 135 - 136) Chairman
To review the committee work plan and suggest items for consideration at future meetings. (Work plan attached).
9 FUTURE MEETINGS Chairman
4 March 2015 13 May 2015 15 July 2015 14 September 2015 4 November 2015
Committee Membership – Cllr Robert Bird (Chairman), Cllr Tony Blackburn, Cllr John Cordwell, Cllr Iain Dobie, Cllr Paul Hodgkinson, Cllr Sarah Lunnon, Cllr Nigel Moor, Cllr Graham Morgan and Cllr Stan Waddington
(a) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST – Members requiring advice or clarification about whether to make a declaration of interest are invited to contact the Monitoring Officer, Jane Burns Tel: 01452 328472 /fax: 425149/ e-mail: [email protected] ) prior to the start of the meeting. (b) INSPECTION OF PAPERS AND GENERAL QUERIES - If you wish to inspect the minutes or reports relating to any item on this agenda or have any other general queries about the meeting, please contact: Joanne Moore, Senior Democratic Services Adviser Tel: 01452 425005/fax: 425850/e-mail: [email protected] (c) GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS Members are required to sign an attendance list. Please note that substitution arrangements are in place for Scrutiny (see page 81 of the Constitution). (d) PHOTOGRAPHY Please note that photography, filming and audio recording of council meetings is permitted subject to the Local Government Access to Information Provisions. Please contact Democratic Services (Tel 01452 425230) to make the necessary arrangements ahead of the meeting. If you are a member of the public and do not wish to be photographed or filmed please inform the Democratic Services Officer on duty at the meeting.
EVACUATION PROCEDURE - in the event of the fire alarms sounding during the meeting please leave as directed in a calm and orderly manner and go to the assembly point which is outside the main entrance to Shire Hall in Westgate Street . Please remain there and await further instructions.
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3
!" # $ % & . ' $( / ) * ! / + , - ( '* 0 " ' 1 0 * " * " ' 10 *0 0 0 " 2 * * 0 * 3 & !" #$% 0 00 ' 42 !0 ) "' * 00 ' * ' # 5 " 2 5 0 0 4 2 !0 * , 5 * 2 0 (" 2 05 0 6 * * 042 !0 , * * / 7"
& &&" '" !() * +', &&!-- 80 ( 00 # 0 *(0 "
Page 1 / 00 * * 0 ( 00 00 " 00 * # * * 00 " & ""$' #$!", -%# ' , 2 #0 % *( R :; & * 6 * / < 0 " 2 " 20 R * 16 ( ( **(* * = 0 " ' 5 * 2 #0" ', # * #0 6 * / * * " '2 #0 00 * 4 / > " . +/ 2 10 = 0 *(# # * * 0 "' *0 6 4 1) 7", * 6 * = 0 * ) / , / : " # ( . ? ) )( *( # 0 = *( # # " )- * !"( &&-" -#- &' - ' )- &--!"( 0 & + 00 0 # @ & * 0 *(!@ & / 00 ! 2 @ & ' 0 0 5 5 * ;! . @ & * 0 $ -(* * @ & = 0 ; *( *( @
Page 2 & * 0( ; 0 0 * @ / 0 50 0 4 1 , " ' 0 % 0 / 4 - + & " #0 = 0 * 2 < * 4 , , ) )( # / *(# %& *( * 0 "4 0 * * * 0 * 0" # , #0 * * * 2 < "'* * * 0000 * " + 0 / )( * 0 *(# R " / * *( 0 0 0 0( 80 . # * * " 2 + 60 #0 * 00 * *(0 8 0 . "20* . / <, " 1 2 4 6 * 0 0 ! 4 # + # ( / - %+#/-&" / * *4 # = 0 + # (/ - * 00 A0 ,+#/-! 0 7<" + * *( 0 * A) 7" ' 0 * 4 # * 00 "' 4 6 80 *00* (00 8 * 0 " . ( 0 * 0 0 * ( " / * 0 * 0 ( * 00 ! 2 ' ** 0 * (00 " ' 4 6 * * 4 # * 00 0*( " 0 * 00 0 0 ) 7"
:
Page 3 ' * ! 4 # * * (3 03;;***" " "(; *B BB :B 0" / * 0 )/ , 1, " 3 4* , #0 ( 8 * ) 73 & ! #- 0- & ! 4 # ,+ # (/ @ & C- #0 @ & 6 Q$ R * 0 " / ' # ) " #0 = *(! *2 !0 * " 2 !0 2 !0" 4 , #0 ** (3 03;; 8" " "(; ;: ;E E "0 4 +/ # , R #0 00 2 * 0 0 0 # *!"+* *(0 / 7* * ( .' 0- : 4 / 7" ' $( * 0 , , 4# (/ - * 6 :) * $( * F - 2* "
Page 4 '0 * * * (3 ***" "(; ; ; ( 0 #0 0 * 0 5 ! . . 4 2 * . */ ( * ( " ' = Q$ R" ' = * * ! 0 ** * 3 M ! " # ! $% ' 0= 0 ) 7" $&&'#, * )- !-& 5- ' - )- &&!-- #6 % '" !" $ - 0 & 6 $ M) 7 & ' 2 % # &M/ 7 & *42 !0/ # *M/ 7 & .' 0- : M/ 7 . = *(0 ! ) / 0 A 0 "'= 8 " 7 ) 7 / 7 :/ 7 7) 7 0 7 7
7
Page 5 2 / " 70
>
Page 6 Network Rail Western Route Study Draft for Consultation Gloucestershire County Council Response
Communities and Infrastructure Shire Hall Gloucester GL1 2TH
5 January 2015 Strategic Planner Western Route Study Consultation Network Rail 1 Holbrook Way Swindon SN1 1BD
Dear Sir/Madam
Network Rail Western Route Study Draft for Consultation
Thank you for consulting Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) on the above matter. The following comments have been approved by the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee and Lead Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure.
Introduction
The Western Route Study consultation is welcomed by the Committee as it will allow for a wide range of stakeholders to scrutinise proposals set out in the document. The Committee also recognise the significant potential investment set out in the document for Gloucestershire. The Committee was invited to comment on the draft consultation at its meeting on 8 th July 2014.
The Scrutiny Committee has focused comments primarily on the aspirations and choices for the routes through Gloucestershire and adjacent areas around the wider Bristol area and Oxford set out in section 5.
For consistency the format and numbering set out in the consultation document is used throughout this report.
Section 5 Accommodating the Conditional Outputs – Choices for Funders
Route Section H Oxford – North Cotswolds
Constraints: * Single line capacity
CP6 choices: H1: Potential for an additional Hanborough / Charlbury starting service to serve demand H2: Platform lengthening at Hanborough
Page 7 Network Rail Western Route Study Draft for Consultation Gloucestershire County Council Response
Longer-term choices:
H3: Norton Junction - recommended to review in line with renewals (2025) H4: Wolvercot Junction H5: Redoubling of the North Cotswold Oxford - Worcester Line
Response: H1/H2 – no comments. H3/4/5 - Redoubling the remaining single sections of the North Cotswold line between Oxford and Worcester and consequent junction improvements would seem logical in providing additional capacity and resilience on the section over the longer term period of the study.
General Comment : Schemes being promoted by adjacent LEPs and LAs such as improvements to the North Cotswold line and the reinstatement of the Stratford to Honeybourne line are welcomed. It is therefore important that the Western Route Study maintains the recognition of the benefits of the reinstatement of the Stratford-Honeybourne-Oxford/Worcester/Cheltenham route, detailed in the Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy, 2010 as in the longer term these will benefit the north of Gloucestershire.
Route Section M – Greater Bristol Area
Constraints: * Bristol Temple Meads capacity * Bristol East Junction
CP6 choices: M1: Cross-country train lengthening -between Cheltenham Spa, Bristol Temple Meads and Taunton M2: Bristol East Junction: * Bristol Temple Meads station capacity improvements * Review Bath Spa station capacity impacts * Review demand impact from MetroWest
Longer-term choices: * Trade-offs between journey time, service frequency and performance * Capacity enhancements between Westerleigh Junction and Stoke Gifford Junction
Response : The proposed choices are acknowledged and will ultimately benefit county residents as they will improve connectivity, journey times and capacity for services through Gloucestershire. Capacity enhancements between Westerleigh Junction and Stoke Gifford Junction will be critical to increasing capacity over the longer term. In the longer term, significant interventions will be needed at Westerleigh Junction to accommodate increased passenger and freight traffic and this needs to be considered as part of the Route Study given the technical and financial implications of such major works.
Bristol Parkway station is an important interchange for residents in the south of Gloucestershire providing fast and regular connections to London and south Wales and the south west and the north of England. Considerable improvements in the area in Control Period 5 (2014 – 2019) are committed including four tracking between Dr Days junction to Filton Abbey Wood and infrastructure interventions to facilitate MetroWest Phases 1 and 2. These will increase capacity and connectivity for passengers in the north Bristol and South Gloucestershire area and are thus supported.
Page 8 Network Rail Western Route Study Draft for Consultation Gloucestershire County Council Response
Route Section N: Worcester – Bristol Parkway and Gloucester – Swindon
Constraints
* Two-track railway from Westerleigh Junction to Abbotswood Junction with a number of short loops * Plain line capacity throughout due to speed mix * Junction capacity at Standish, Gloucester Yard, Barnwood and Abbotswood Junctions * Capacity through Cheltenham Spa station due to terminating services * Journey time disbenefit of Gloucester station being located off the Main Line
Potential Choices for the period 2019 – 2024 include:
N1 Enhancement of Abbotswood Junction recommended in line with renewals (2020)
Response : It would seem logical to enhance Abbotswood Junction to enable it cope with future additional services at the same time it is due for renewal. This is particularly important if services that currently terminate at Cheltenham run through to Worcester in the future to reduce the bottleneck at Cheltenham station.
M1 Cross-country train lengthening - between Cheltenham Spa, Bristol Temple Meads and Taunton
Response : This is supported as a relatively straightforward way of increasing capacity on services particularly during peak times when services run crowded between Bristol Temple Meads – Bristol Parkway – Cheltenham.
Potential electrification (aligned with Network RUS: Electrification strategy), and Gloucester resignalling in 2021
Response: Supported – see comments below.
Longer Term Choices (2024 - 2043) include:
N2 Mainline platforms at Gloucester (new station on the mainline side of the railway triangle)
Response: This choice is supported on the basis that the existing station in the city centre is retained. An additional station on the main line that is served by trains operating from the north to the south west would provide additional opportunities for residents of Gloucester to access direct services across the country.
N3 Capacity improvements between Gloucester and Cheltenham N4 Capacity improvements at Standish Junction N5 Capacity improvements between Standish and Haresfield N6 Capacity improvements between Charfield and Ashchurch – Eckington
Response: The above choices are supported in principle in that they will provide additional capacity to meet forecast demand over the period to 2043. It is not possible to offer a view on priorities, which will be subject to considerable further analysis and feasibility studies in the future. However, given the forecast growth on services to Swindon and London and those from the north to the south west it would appear that infrastructure improvements in the Standish/Haresfield area will be crucial. Also, as Swindon – Gloucester is the diversionary route from London to South Wales proposed interventions will need to take account of forecast growth on these services as well.
Page 9 Network Rail Western Route Study Draft for Consultation Gloucestershire County Council Response
Changes to the Indicative Train Service Specification to 2043
Additional services that are being proposed to meet connectivity outputs up to 2043 include:
• 1tph Bristol – Gloucester
Response: Additional services on this line serving Cam and Dursley will be crucial in meeting demand particularly in the peak period between the two cities.
• 2tph Cardiff – Bristol Parkway – Birmingham (continuing to Manchester/Leeds etc)
Response: As an alternative, some of these services, particularly in the peak times could run down the western side of the estuary serving Lydney and onwards to Cardiff. Lydney is the only station in the Forest of Dean and as such is an important facility for residents. Significant development is planned for Lydney over the next few years and demand for additional services is likely to grow. Improved connectivity to Bristol (Parkway and TM via connecting services at Severn Tunnel Junction), Cardiff and Gloucester would be welcomed in addition to the current Cardiff to Nottingham and South Wales to Cheltenham services. Indeed it is acknowledged on page 172 (Route Section I: Didcot Parkway - Bristol Parkway) that constraints around Westerleigh Junction and the Severn Tunnel means that there is likely to be a better case for these services to run between Cardiff and Gloucester via Lydney which would improve connectivity between the County and South Wales.
• Extension of 1tph London Paddington – Cheltenham to Worcester
Response : Extending the London Paddington – Cheltenham service to Ashchurch for Tewkesbury and Worcester is supported as it will improve the current two hourly service between these latter three settlements as well removing the need to cross the main line north of Cheltenham station. It is assumed that this service will not run via Gloucester which will receive a direct service to London as ser out below. As such, there will be, as stated in the draft document, a 12 min journey saving as the service will no longer reverse out of Gloucester station. This is supported on the basis that Gloucester maintains its direct service described below.
• 1tph London Paddington – Gloucester
Response: A direct service from London to Gloucester is supported. Presumably the stopping patterns of this service and the Cheltenham/Worcester service at Stonehouse, Stroud and Kemble will vary between the services throughout the day. If this is the case it will be important to ensure that these stations maintain and where possible enhance services.
• 1tph Swindon – North West England via Worcester and Birmingham
Response: Using the extra capacity created by the redoubling of the Swindon to Kemble line to improve connectivity between Swindon and Worcester to Birmingham and the North West is supported and this will increase travel options for residents in the County
Future Electrification Proposals
A ‘cross country’ package of options for the emerging electrification strategy is set out on page 43 comprising:
Page 10 Network Rail Western Route Study Draft for Consultation Gloucestershire County Council Response
• Bromsgrove to Westerleigh Junction (Bristol Parkway) including the Worcester loop and spurs to Worcester Foregate Street and Gloucester • Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester • Swindon to Cheltenham Spa
Paragraph 6.4 states that electrification between Bromsgrove and Westerleigh Junction and Gloucester to Severn Tunnel is being considered for CP6 as part of investing to reduce costs.
Response : These options are welcomed for consideration is as they will increase speeds, capacity and introduce new rolling stock. Bromsgrove to Westerleigh Junction would fill in the missing gap between Bristol and the North West through Gloucestershire. Similarly, electrifying Swindon to Gloucester and through to Severn Tunnel would provide full electrified coverage of the diversionary route for services from London to South Wales as well increasing benefits for increased capacity and speeds for journeys from the county to London and from South Wales to Cheltenham/Gloucester through to the Midlands.
Also, the potential intervention of extending electrification from Swindon to Kemble to accommodate increased demand and connectivity conditional outputs in the peak period between Didcot and Bristol Parkway is supported.
The Committee considers electrification of routes through the County as critical to boosting economic growth and improving overall services particularly on the north – south axis.
Journey Time Improvements
Response: The Committee would expect to see significant improvements in journey times particularly between Cheltenham/Gloucester and London with the introduction of the new IEP fleet of trains, electrification of the Great Western route, signalling improvements etc. The current journey times are a source of concern to businesses and passengers travelling between the County and the capital. It is acknowledged that the potential service changes discussed above will contribute to reductions in journey times.
Section 6 - Control Period 6 – Outline Strategy
6.2 Accommodating Demand
H Oxford to Worcester
Response: H1 - If passenger demand exceeds forecasts along this route then train lengthening and extending services to Moreton in Marsh is supported. This could provide passengers in the North Cotswolds additional choices particularly as Moreton in Marsh is a public transport hub, being on a number of bus routes.
N Worcester – Bristol Parkway and Gloucester – Swindon
Response: The recognition of the need to consider the longer requirements at the time of renewals on the Worcester - Bristol Parkway and Gloucester – Swindon route is logical. It is appreciated that longer term requirements are aspirations and not all will necessarily be delivered but the opportunity to make passive provision for longer term interventions needs to be taken to avoid them being excluded in the future.
Page 11 Network Rail Western Route Study Draft for Consultation Gloucestershire County Council Response
Station Capacity
Response: Cheltenham station should be considered for passenger capacity improvements as it receives heavy numbers at certain times of the year especially relating to race meetings.
Although not necessarily within the remit of this consultation the Committee would expect to see a range of significant improvements carried out at the County’s stations in the near future. Improvements to access, cycle provision and parking are required. Significant refurbishment is needed at a number of stations particularly along the recently fully redoubled route between Gloucester and Swindon.
6.4 Investing to Reduce Costs (including Electrification)
Response : The opportunity to combine the proposed resignalling of the Gloucester area around 2021with potential electrification of routes across Gloucestershire in order to reduce overall costs is supported and would represent a significant enhancement of infrastructure in the county.
LTP Review
The review of the Local Transport Plan 3 is currently taking place. This will incorporate the Gloucestershire Local Transport Board commissioned rail strategy which has now been assimilated within this review. It is anticipated that the rail strategy will be supportive of the proposals set out in the draft Western Route Study as it sets out to encourage rail use through a ranges of measures such as improved bus/rail connectivity and improved access at all stages.
Summary
Please consider this submission as the formal response to the Network Rail Western Route Study Consultation, as approved by Gloucestershire County Council Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee and Lead Cabinet Member (LCM) for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure.
Also, the LCM for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure is in broad concurrence of the response to this consultation submitted by Cheltenham Borough Council.
The Committee wishes to thank Network Rail for attending the meetings on 8 th July 2014 and 12 th November 2014, and looks forward to receiving a response to the issues highlighted in this statement.
Yours faithfully,
Cllr Rob Bird - Chairman of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee Cllr Will Windsor Clive – Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure
Page 12 Agenda Item 5 Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee
14 January 2015
Cycling Barriers Report
Amanda Lawson-Smith, Transport Planning Team Manager.
Background A motion was proposed (and unanimously agreed) at County Council on 10 September 2014, (Motion 723 Promoting Cycling – proposed by Cllr Hodgkinson; seconded by Cllr Dobie), which requested that a study be undertaken to identify the routes across the County where there are barriers to cycling. Gloucestershire County Council commissioned Atkins Consultants to undertake this work. A final draft of the report has now been completed.
The report considered:
• Background data and consultation feedback • County wide barriers to cycling • Specific barriers to cycling in Gloucester, Cheltenham, Tewkesbury, Stroud, Cirencester and Lydney. • Barriers between urban centres. • Opportunities
The study comprises a draft report and appendices as follows (all are circulated to Committee Members):
Appendix A: Barriers to cycling questionnaire Appendix B: Alternatives list Appendix C: Gloucester list of barriers Appendix D: Cheltenham list of barriers Appendix E: Tewkesbury list of barriers Appendix F: Stroud list of barriers Appendix G: Cirencester list of barriers Appendix H: Lydney list of barriers Appendix I: All other between town links Appendix J: All other suggested improvements
The study undertakes a high level prioritisation of identified barriers considering the scale of barrier, potential users of the route and cost and recommends a draft delivery plan.
The study recommends that the next steps are to:
a) Review the priority corridors and undertake feasibility studies b) Consult c) Refine the delivery plan d) Use the delivery plan to focus emerging resources, including capital programme, developer contributions, LTP3 review strategy development and Government bidding opportunities.
The study has been circulated to the Cycle Liaison Group and is now being considered by this Scrutiny committee on 14 January 2015. It is also recommended that officers circulate it more widely, to District Councils, and on request, to members of the public, MPs etc.
Resources will be needed to undertake any further work in relation to the study, both in terms of revenue for feasibility studies and capital for delivery.
No resources have yet been identified.
Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 14
Barriers to Cycling Summary Report Gloucestershire County Council
November 2014
Page 15
Notice
This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Gloucestershire County Council ’s information and use in relation to the GCC Barriers to Cycling Study.
Atkins Highways and Transportation assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.
This document has 80 pages including the cover.
Document history
Job number: 5135410 Document ref: 5135410_003F Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 Draft for client comment FA / JC KC SF FA October 2014 Rev 2.0 Draft including client FA / JC KC SF FA November amendments 2014 Rev 3.0 Final including FA / JC JC SF FA November stakeholder comments 2014
Client signoff
Client Gloucestershire County Council
Project Barriers to Cycling
Document title Summary Report
Job no. 5135410
Copy no.
Document 5135410_003F reference
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 2
Page 16
Table of contents
Chapter Pages Executive summary 5 1. Introduction 6 1.1. Purpose of Study 6 1.2. Methodology 6 2. Background data and consultation 8 2.1. Background data 8 2.2. General Barriers to Cycling 8 2.3. Consultation process 9 2.4. Analysis of consultation data 9 2.5. Analysis of GCC collision data 15 3. County-wide barriers to cycling 17 3.1. General 17 3.2. Leisure Cycling 17 3.3. Commuter Cycling 18 3.4. School Cycling 18 3.5. Analysis of softer barriers 18 4. Specific barriers to cycling 20 4.1. Gloucester 22 4.2. Cheltenham 26 4.3. Tewkesbury 31 4.4. Stroud 35 4.5. Cirencester 39 4.6. Lydney 43 5. Barriers between towns and cities 47 5.1. National Context 47 5.2. Regional Context 48 5.3. Barrier Descriptions 49 5.4. Prioritisation 51 5.5. Next steps 52 6. Opportunities 53 6.1. Quietway Safeguarding 53 6.2. Leisure cycling approach 53 6.3. Potential policy interventions – Active Travel 54 6.4. Potential political interventions 54 6.5. Funding mechanisms 54 7. Summary and Next Steps 56 7.1. Summary 56 7.2. Priority Corridors and Schemes by Town / City 59 7.3. Between Town Corridor Summary 65 7.4. General Barriers Summary 65 7.6. Suggested Next Steps 66
Appendices 69 Appendix A. Blank Questionnaire Form 70 Appendix B. Barriers to Cycling - List 71 Appendix C. Gloucester Barriers 72
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 3
Page 17
Appendix D. Cheltenham Barriers 73 Appendix E. Tewkesbury Barriers 74 Appendix F. Stroud Barriers 75 Appendix G. Cirencester Barriers 76 Appendix H. Lydney Barriers 77 Appendix I. Links Between Towns 78 Appendix J. All Other Barriers 79
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 4
Page 18
Executive summary
Over the last few years, various studies have been undertaken and background information has been collected to ascertain knowledge of the existing barriers to cycling across Gloucestershire. Some of these have proven to be physical barriers, such as infrastructure limitations, whilst others relate to softer measures such as cycle training and cycle route promotion.
The purpose of this study is to provide a high level collation and assessment of work done to date, in order to establish key themes and trends amongst the existing barriers to cycling across the County. A lot of work has been done previously, and so this study aims to pick out the major barriers and potential solutions from work already completed, to enable a broad prioritisation process and delivery plan to proceed. This document can be considered as an advisory baseline for approaches to cycling in Gloucestershire which, in tandem with meetings and discussions with relevant groups, can provide an effective profile for where cycling improvements are required across the county.
This study does not include new thinking on existing barriers and solutions, it is a collection of previous study work combined with new, up to date consultation amongst a variety of key stakeholders. Therefore the suggested solutions throughout this report are not identified by Atkins, since they are collected from primary and secondary data sources.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 5
Page 19
1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose of Study This study has been commissioned with a relatively wide remit to assess, at a high level, the major barriers to cycling across Gloucestershire. Through exploring this subject, this study will support, inform and shape Gloucestershire County Council’s longer term objectives which are to create a primary and secondary cycle route network. According to the 2011 Census, cycling levels across the county are slightly higher than the national average, though there is still potential to develop this mode further. Figure 1.1 summarises the current cycling situation in the county for commuters. The variation between towns is potentially owing to a number of factors such as topography, safety and distance between rural and urban settlements.
Figure 1.1 Percentage of working age residents (16-74) that cycle to work in Gloucestershire including a comparison to the national average, according to the latest census data (Table QS701EW) (Atkins 2014, Census 2011)
5.0
4.5 National Average 4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Percentage 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 Gloucestershire Gloucester Cheltenham Cotswold Forest of Dean Stroud Tewkesbury Area
The aim of this study is to identify the main barriers to cycling together with proposed solutions. It is recognised that the solutions will need further investigative work in subsequent studies, but are listed here in terms of their impact (benefit) and indicative cost. This is to enable a broad prioritisation of schemes to be undertaken with the ultimate aim of ‘setting the wheels in motion’ in terms of delivering appropriate solutions to barriers and thus increasing levels of cycling across the County.
This study is not intended as a complete solution, but does offer guidance and direction on what is required to deliver a safer cycling e nvironment across the County. It is therefore an ‘initial phase’ of work designed to capture as much information as possible and set a way forward.
1.2. Methodology The following tasks for this initial phase of work have been agreed:
A review of available past studies to identify relevant barriers and schemes. A bespoke consultation exercise (questionnaire) including basic level analysis and recording of the results. A consultation exercise with Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) Officers. Review of relevant background information – such as accident data.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 6
Page 20
An assessment of the main barriers in each case, and potential solutions and indicative costings. N.B. This will not provide a solution to every identified barrier as further work will be required. Grouping of barriers along selected main transport corridors, to provide a holistic ‘unlocking’ approach. A prioritisation exercise based on deliverability, cost and potential benefits. This will be a Red Amber and Green (RAG) rating system. Guidance on the next steps required to move potential improvement projects along.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 7
Page 21
2. Background data and consultation
2.1. Background data The following sources have been reviewed as part of this initial phase of work:
Meeting with GCC to define the scope of the project Meeting with GCC to outline the key corridors for cycling in and around 5 out of 6 of the largest towns in Gloucestershire Transport in Gloucestershire: LTP Evidence Base (Atkins, 2014) Cycling Strategy (Gloucestershire County Council, Forthcoming) Cirencester Active Travel Map Tewkesbury Smarter Travel Guide & Map Cheltenham Cycle Map Gloucester Cycle Map Stroud District Cycling Map Lydney Revolutions: The Lydney Cycle Route Scheme (Openshaw, J. & Street, D., 2014) A4019, Tewkesbury Road, Cheltenham. Final Report. (Atkins, 2012) A Cycling Strategy for Cheltenham Town Centre (C&TCC, 2011) Options for Enabling and Encouraging Cycling in Stroud District (Franklin, J., 2012) A419 Stroud to Chalford Corridor Study Local Sustainable Transport Fund, South Gloucester Corridor Study (Atkins, 2013) http://www.cyclecheltenham.org.uk/wish_list.php [Accessed: 06/11/14] Cycle Review of Tewkesbury (Franklin, J., 2009) A435 Cheltenham – Bishops Cleeve Cycling Study (Atkins, 2013) Get Britain Cycling (All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, 2013) Draft Cycling Delivery Plan (Department for Transport, 2014)
2.2. General Barriers to Cycling The nature of this report requires a summary of the generic barriers to cycling that are acknowledged as such in the wider literature. This section will primarily focus on the issues raised in the Get Britain Cycling 1 report. This report aimed to enable more people across the UK to cycle, which included a review of the ‘obstacles that must be o vercome’ (All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCC), 2013 p.2). They key obstacles outlined in this report aligned with the following themes:
Limited investment in cycling Current road design practices and principles being unsuitable for cyclists Current road practices, including speed limits and driving styles being obstructive to cyclists A lack of training and education relating to the encouragement of cycling uptake Political leadership limiting the success of cycling initiatives
Through each of these limitations the obstacles, or barriers, to cycling are presented. These represent a common concern over space, as even though some towns have positive cycling proportions, with Oxford and Cambridge (17% and 30% respectively) often cited as exemplary, there is always potential to improve and increase cycling’s modal share. These themes are understood to contain all the obstacles to cycling in simplified form, ranging from issues such as underspending on cycle infrastructure, to design guidance and training.
This provides the national context for this study. By considering the physical and perceived barriers to cycling in Gloucestershire, it shows an active attempt to instil an agenda to overcome the concerns raised at the national scale and apply improvements on a local or regional scale. Showing similarities with the APPCC report, this study contacted cycle-users and experts in a consultation process which allowed an effect uncovering of the Gloucestershire-specific issues.
1 All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (2013) Get Britain Cycling: Summary & Recommendations
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 8
Page 22
2.3. Consultation process In o rder to fulfil the study’s purpose as a high level study of the extant barriers to cycling across Gloucestershire, a questionnaire was formulated and subsequently distributed to appropriate parties. Prior to distribution of the survey, the project team met with the lead officers at GCC for them to provide input and their agreement to the questions and the format. The contact details for the individuals or groups that were consulted were contained within a stakeholder database provided by Gloucestershire County Council. In some cases respondents indicated a request to forward the questionnaire on to other interested parties or individuals, which was made possible by the flexible nature of the assessment measure. In order to meet pre-determined timescales, this approach was encouraged in order to unlock as many barriers to cycling across as many towns in Gloucestershire as possible.
Respondents’ included representatives from the following broad categories:
Cycling Groups / Clubs Local Councillors for each Town / City including neighbouring county representatives Sustrans Lobby Groups such as Travelwatch Related Groups such as the Canal & River Trust The Highways Agency The University of Gloucestershire Respondents who replied having been forwarded the survey from other directly addressed individuals The Royal National Institute of Blind People Local Business Interests
For completeness, other organisations contacted that did not respond either in time or at all included: Transport operators in the area, including First Group, Arriva and Stagecoach
The questionnaire aimed to uncover the perceptions of the barriers to cycling in Gloucestershire across a variety of scales. In the first instance, more general questions were included to contextualise the physical barriers to cycling against a wider-framed backdrop. Respondents were asked to consider their opinions of the main barriers to cycling generally, as well as their perceptions of issues regarding safety. This information was accessed through open and closed questions.
Secondly, respondents were asked to consider and relay specific barriers to cycling across Gloucestershire, from issues within the county more generally such as training through to individual barriers that are apparent on the existing network. This could be an issue ranging in size from an entire route through to an individual junction. This information would provide the backdrop required to overcome some of the extant barriers, using the most appropriate techniques where possible.
A blank questionnaire is provided for information within Appendix A.
2.4. Analysis of consultation data This section provides an analysis and interpretation of responses to the less specific questions asked within this questionnaire, with later sections incorporating the specific responses within the broader literature and evidence utilised in Section 4 onwards.
Question 1 Question 1 asked respondents to consider their perception of the main barrier to cycling. Some respondents misinterpreted the question and selected more than one choice, as a result two figures have been produced below ( Figures 2.1 and 2.2 ).
Figure 2.1 excludes those where multiple answers were selected and Figure 2.2 includes all of their choices. Despite instances where respondents cited more than one issue, both figures show a similar trend.
Of those who answered, lack of off-road infrastructure was cited as the most prevalent barrier to cycling in both figures, with joint highest response along with lack of on-road infrastructure in Figure 2.2 . Concerns over safety provided the third most cited response. This information highlights the central role on- and off-road infrastructure plays in shaping individual perceptions over the current barriers to cycling. More general
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 9
Page 23
concerns over safety show a continued need to improve this perception. It is likely that each category is not independent and as such are likely to overlap, however this information provides the initial overview and context to the concerns raised in the remainder of the questionnaire.
Figure 2.1 . Respondent perception of the main barrier to cycling (Question 1).
16
14
12
10
8
6
NumberReferecnes of 4
2
0 Safety Lack of Lack of Lack of Direct and Sufficient No Answer More than sustainable suitable available convenient cycle one infrastructure infrastructure cycling routes – planning answered – on road; – off road training for missing information such as cycle (traffic free); adults and bridges/links such as maps, lanes and such as children guides and advanced shared use journey stop lines paths and planners cycle tracks Barrier
Figure 2.2. Respondent perception of the main barrier to cycling, including responses who selected multiple options
25
20
15
10
NumberReferences of 5
0 Safety Lack of Lack of suitable Lack of Direct and Sufficient cycle No Answer sustainable infrastructure – available convenient planning infrastructure – off road (traffic cycling training routes – information on road; such free); such as for adults and missing such as maps, as cycle lanes shared use children bridges/links guides and and advanced paths and cycle journey stop lines tracks planners Barrier
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 10
Page 24
Question 2 Question 2 asked consultees to consider the main issues, with specific regard to safety, that prevent or restrict the encouragement of new and returning cyclists.
As this was an open question, a variety of responses were received. Many responses generated recurring themes, with the nature of the road being by far the most frequently referenced. Themes included notions such as (in order of most referenced):
Speed of traffic; the number of vehicles; and motor vehicle priority, in both signage (such as 'Cyclists Dismount' signs) and infrastructure layouts (such as roundabouts or gradients). Driver behaviour and attitude, which is considered as poor by many respondents. A lack of off-road infrastructure, away from motor vehicles, as a barrier.
Other themes were:
Road condition; missing links and sudden ending of cyclist infrastructure; poor enforcement of motor vehicles; lack of cyclist awareness and training; and finally, the requirement to make cycling a common, day-to-day mode of transport rather than simply a recreational activity.
This question thus provides a wider scope to consider the barriers to cycling against, in particular the political or strategic approaches that are required at a higher level.
Drawing on the above response, Questions 3 and 4, below, focus on the provision of on-road and off-road infrastructure respectively.
Question 3 Of those who answered Question 3, only 6% (to nearest digit) suggested that there was sufficient on-road cycling infrastructure. The second part of the question provided an open-ended response box to allow respondents to express where they think improvements to on-road infrastructure should be targeted across the county. Key themes have been interpreted from these responses.
The most apparent theme suggested a focus on key commuter routes and busy A-roads, with the suggestion that improvements in these areas will affect the most individuals possible as well as offering secondary tangible benefits, such as a reduction of congestion. Connected to this theme, the idea of utility cycling, or planning cycling around trips which have a destination in mind, was highlighted. This was specifically mentioned within the context of both commuting and school access.
Multiple responses also highlighted regeneration and future growth zones as needing to be focal areas for on- road improvements. Cross-town and broader town/city centre access were also referenced by multiple individuals, with signage of current routes, limited access to central zones and poor alternatives highlighted as needing improvements on-road.
The third part of Question 3 offered a list of on-road infrastructure measures that consultees could select which they perceive to be the most suitable or effective method of improvement. One respondent applied conditions to each option, reflecting the need to consider each project in its individual context. This information is displayed in Figure 2.3. Cycle lanes are the most popular suggestion, with the remaining six options remaining within seven counts of each other. A variety of approaches can thus be considered useful when looking at ways of improving the cycle network.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 11
Page 25
Figure 2.3. Number of references to each type of outlined on-road infrastructure methods to improve the situation for cyclists (Question 3).
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15
NumberReferences of 10 5 0 Cycle lanes Cyclist priority Advanced stop Increased Use of bus Cyclist Controlled traffic signals lines at signage and lanes for contraflow crossing points junctions directional cyclists schemes for cyclists such markings for as Toucan cyclists crossings and cyclist Zebra crossings Measure
Question 4 Question 4 asked respondents to consider the levels of off-road infrastructure across Gloucestershire, and where improvements are required in a broad sense. Showing similarities with Question 3, of those who answered, only 14% suggested there was sufficient off-road infrastructure.
As cycling is a divisive topic, with a variety of views being held on a personal level, responses relating to off- road infrastructure were diverse. Nevertheless, some common themes were identified. As with Question 3, multiple responses referred to a need for good routes for utility purposes, such as for commuting however, the touristic or leisure function of off-road cycle routes was highlighted most frequently. Included in this were frequent references to the existing canal footpaths and old railway line routes, as well as connections into and within the Forest of Dean.
A key summary response highlighted that off-road routes need to be an attractive alternative to the existing road route, in terms of directness, maintenance and lighting, with another respondent highlighting the issue with some routes ending suddenly or having poor access points at the route’s end .
This diversity in response is further highlighted in the third part of Question 4, which presented a list of off-road infrastructure types, asking the consultee which types they would prefer to see. In part reflecting the summary of the qualitative part of the question, responses were varied (Figure 2.4 ). Cycle tracks and segregated routes were the most referenced with regard to off-road preferences. Controlled crossing points for cyclists were the least supported, potentially in part representing the complex and diverse opinions regarding bicycle access to footpaths.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 12
Page 26
Figure 2.4. Number of references to each type of listed off-road infrastructure methods to encourage cyclists.
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15
NumberReferences of 10 5 0 Shared use paths Cycle tracks Segregated routes on Grade separated Controlled passing (pedestrian and cycle) the carriageway (i.e. crossings - for points for cyclists such reallocation of road example bridges and as Toucan crossings space) subways and cyclist Zebra crossings Measure
[Questions 5-9 are referred to in Section 3]
Questions 10 & 11 Questions 10 & 11 narrowed the focus of cycling barriers down to that of behaviour change measures, considering the specific issues of training and journey planning information previously referenced in Question 1.
From those who answered Question 10, which asked: ‘Is there scope to improve cycle training and awareness across the County? ’ all said yes. When asked to consider specific measures, ‘All of the above’ was the most popular response, referring to a need to educate and train adults, school children and motorists equally. Figure 2.5 summarises this response data.
Question 11 asked respondents to consider whether there was scope to improve cycle journey planning information across the County. Of those who answered, 95% said ‘yes’ initially. Online Information and Signage and Route Branding were highlighted as the principle ways that cycle journey planning information could be delivered in the most effective manner, in part reflecting the responses to Question 3. These responses are summarised in Figure 2.6.
The required strategies and issues highlighted within the questionnaire can be understood as barriers to cycling. A fundamental outcome of poor cycle strategies and infrastructure is accidents. The following section will analyse accident data from Gloucestershire.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 13
Page 27
Figure 2.5. Responses to Question 10: ‘ Where should cycle training and awareness be targeted across the County?’
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15 Numberrecferecnes of 10
5
0 Adults School Children Motorists All of the Above No Response Selected Response
Figure 2.6. Responses to Question 11: whether there is ‘scope to improve cycle journey planning information across the County ’, including those that provided no answer.
40
35
30
25
20
15
NumberReferecnes of 10
5
0 Online Information Printed Information Personalised Journey Signage and Route No answer Planning Branding
Option
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 14
Page 28
2.5. Analysis of GCC collision data Table 2.1 , below, provides a snapshot of the recorded pedal cycle collisions across the County for the latest available 5 year period. These are collisions only where an injury was reported therefore damage-only collisions are not included.
Table 2.1. Collision Data Summary
Road / Junction Total number Severity Severity Severity Type of recorded – Fatal – Serious – Slight collisions
No junction 252 5 66 181
T-Junction 239 1 46 192
Roundabout 99 1 10 88
Crossroad Junction 75 0 16 59
Private 55 0 11 44
Mini-roundabout 40 0 1 39
Slip road 4 0 1 3
Multi-arm Junction 4 1 0 3
Other 3 0 2 1
Totals 771 8 153 610
The table above shows that:
Most cyclist collisions in Gloucestershire occur away from junctions, particularly fatal ones. Collisions at T-junctions are particularly prevalent across the County. 1% of all recorded cyclist collisions are fatal, and approx. 20% and 79% result in serious and slight injuries respectively.
Fatal collision analysis A total of 8 fatal collisions were recorded within the latest available 5-year period. In line with expectations, the vast majority occurred within built-up urban environments.
Serious injury and slight injury collisions have not been assessed due to the volume of collisions and limited timescale for this study. However, there is an approved method of quantifying the savings made from reducing the number of such collisions and so there would be huge merit in reviewing these records more thoroughly to assist with business cases for new infrastructure schemes and, ultimately, funding bids.
The following table (Table 2.2 ) provides a basic snapshot of the fatal collisions.
Table 2.2. Fatal collision analysis
Collision Collision Location Brief description Junction Corridor Severity reference*
Fatal A417 Swindon Road, Vehicle / Cyclist N/A CIR101 Cirencester collision
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 15
Page 29
Fatal Shurdington Road, Cyclist trying to N/A CNM005 Cheltenham cross road
Fatal B4077, Cheltenham Vehicle / Cyclist N/A N/A collision on hill
Fatal Judges lane, Newent Vehicle / Cyclist N/A N/A collision on hill
Fatal Peter Street, Frochester Vehicle / Cyclist N/A N/A collision
Fatal Lansdown Road, Cheltenham Left turning vehicle RBT with CNM007 has struck cyclist Montpellier Walk
Fatal Leckhampton Road, Vehicle / Cyclist T-Junction with CNM006 Cheltenham collision Halland Road
Fatal Trier Way, Gloucester Cyclist trying to Multi-arm junction GLO101 cross road
*see Section 4 of this report for corridor reference numbers. N.B. This data is taken directly from the provided GCC collision statistics which in turn is taken from Police data recorded at the time of the collision. The data suggests a high concentration of collisions within Cheltenham, with 4 out of 8 fatal collisions being recorded there, potentially reflecting Cheltenham having a comparatively high number of cyclists ( Figure 1.1 ). There appears to be a relatively strong correlation between the fatal collisions recorded and the transport corridors where barriers are deemed to exist for cycling with 5 out of the 8 fatal collisions occurring on these corridors, as identified in the above table. These corridors and barriers are described in the following sections of this report. Collision cluster sites which include more than just the fatal collisions have not been identified due to time constraints within this study, but doing so would help to prioritise improvement work. This exercise should be considered as an additional follow-up piece of work.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 16
Page 30
3. County-wide barriers to cycling
3.1. General General barriers to cycling refer to broader issues that have been raised through the consultation process. These are summarised in no particular order below. As these represent commonly referenced barriers to cycling, they are qualitative in nature and so cannot be ordered into a prioritised list. Additionally, each type of barrier is very different to another and so suggesting that approaching one is more important than the other undermines the value of noting the variety of issues that are potentially restrictive to cycling. This list is therefore intended to be indicative of the variety of concerns of suitability that individuals have and as such is in no particular order. Common themes of the perceived barriers to cycling included:
Maintenance – respondents to the consultation highlighted that many cycle routes are in a state of disrepair. A lack of regular tidying has left some tracks full of litter, glass and overgrown vegetation, and thus difficult to negotiate. This is also mentioned with regard to on-road cycle lanes which have faded or been worn away. Security – with specific mention often made to a lack of lighting on key cycle routes Safety – referring to motor vehicle drivers’ actions or non-actions and cycle-pedestrian interaction on shared use routes. Included within this are references to stopping/parking on cycle lanes, driving too closely or aggressively and not being monitored effectively for illegalities, such as speeding or using mobile phones. Topography – hills are a particular limiting factor across the County. Surfacing – poor surfacing, with frequent reference made to the canal networks. Network priority – road vehicle priority on the road network, noted as most apparent through roundabouts, junctions, throttles and other infrastructure which compound the effects already experienced by cyclists, for example when cycle lanes end suddenly. Similarly, poor or restricted access to off-road infrastructure was identified as a significant issue faced by cyclists. Poor design of current cycle infrastructure was further highlighted as the system being unsupportive of cyclists. Mentality – where it is perceptions of cycling being unsafe, and a lack of cyclists on the road that is preventing the uptake of cycling more broadly. Further to this, introducing cycling as a normalised day-to-day commuter mode rather than a casual leisure activity was suggested as a key change required to encourage uptake and utilisation.
Importantly, this list shows congruence with the broader issues noted in Section 2.2 , in effect highlighting the continuity in the applicability of these concerns to a variety of scales, from a national strategy to a local project.
3.2. Leisure Cycling A variety of towns across the County and peripheral areas were highlighted in the consultation process as lacking suitable leisure cycling facilities (Question 7). In particular, the Forest of Dean and the Cotswolds were highlighted as broad areas which offer vast opportunities for cyclists. Conversely, not all comments on leisure cycling were supportive, with multiple respondents to the consultation suggesting that leisure cycling is not as important as commuter or utility, and as such should not be prioritised over commuter initiatives. This section will summarise the areas most mentioned with regard to leisure cycling.
3.2.1. Forest of Dean Most references to the Forest of Dean leisure cycling facilities considered there to be isolated leisure trails which are not externally accessible by bike. Additionally, travelling between the towns in the Forest of Dean was noted as difficult and restricted, further enforcing the pockets of leisure trails that currently exist. Pedalabikeability and the Cannop Hub are two cited cycle-related facilities which were highlighted as not being realistically accessible by leisure cyclists.
More specifically, a lack of a suitable cycle link to Lydney, the ‘gateway to the forest’ and further to Gloucester isolates the Forest from the rest of the County. This is despite a network of cycle-friendly Forestry Commission Paths and other opportunities existing, for example using the Wye Valley as a tourist route. Coleford, Newent, and Lydney were all identified as requiring an increase in accessibility to the Forest and leisure route opportunities.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 17
Page 31
3.2.2. Cotswolds The Cotswolds were also identified by respondents as requiring improved access in order to benefit from the leisure opportunities present. Vehicle speeds and heavy goods vehicles on country roads including The Fosse Way were noted as limiting the accessibility of the Cotswolds by bicycle. Similarly, from Cheltenham a lack of an alternative to the A40 towards Andoversford acts as a barrier for leisure cycling into this area. Bourton-on- the-Water was also highlighted as a Cotswold town that was in need of improvements for leisure cyclists. Additionally, the lack of leisure links between towns and activity centres, such as the Cotswold Water Park or Westonbirt Arboretum were also cited.
3.2.3. Towns and Cities Leisure routes in towns and cities were most commonly highlighted as necessary through two different frames. The first considered towns in particularly picturesque locations, such as Stroud, as requiring a need to provide routes for leisure cyclists. On the other hand, Gloucester and Cheltenham were also highlighted as lacking in leisure routes, away from the road networks and across town. In this light, a variety of towns from across Gloucestershire were highlighted as needing improvements to leisure facilities, from smaller areas like Bishops Norton to the largest towns in Gloucestershire.
3.2.4. Other Network Links and Opportunities Aside from the specific areas and towns/cities that were cited as requiring improvements, there were other infrastructures that were cited as offering an opportunity for leisure conversion and use. The canal networks, including the Stroud Canal and the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal in particular, were most frequently cited as desirable for leisure cycling. Surface improvements, signage and route clearance were all recognised as essential works in order to open up these routes further.
Secondly, and linked to the canals, is the National Cycle Network (NCN). NCN Routes 41 and 45 were cited as offering the most potential for increasing leisure cycling provision within the county. Tying in with the canal network offers an ability to extend both networks mutually. Furthermore, the NCN Routes extend beyond the county borders, connecting to other counties and towns through a national network.
3.3. Commuter Cycling The focus for responses to this question (Question 5) shifted towards the larger urban areas in the main. Incorporated within this is a mentioning of key corridors into the central areas as being necessary to develop for cyclist use. Links between towns gained interest, particularly those that are within reasonable distance of one another such as Gloucester to Cheltenham. These responses underpin commuter cycling being considered as utility cycling, and as such a clear destination and route shape the suggestions made.
3.4. School Cycling Since schools are often inherently local, suggestions for improvements varied, from within and between villages to movement and accessibility across the larger urban areas. By its nature, traveling to school is a form of utility cycling and as such key corridors and busy areas were cited as requiring improvement, in line with suggestions regarding commuter cycling.
However, barriers to cycling to school led to more specific responses, such as individual schools being highlighted as having poor access or infrastructure within the grounds, widening the scope of responses accordingly. Therefore schools presented a variety of multi-scalar responses, emphasising the need to have a school by school approach to addressing the barriers.
3.5. Analysis of softer barriers
3.5.1. Cycle training As Figure 2.5 and the answers to Question 2 demonstrated, the most popular response regarding cycle training was to provide training to children, adults and motorists rather than one group independently. Cycle training therefore acts as part of this system, with multiple respondents noting that a lack of helmets and generally unsafe riding styles are problematic characteristics for improving the safety of cycling. Training is a continuous process and as such is unlikely to be resolved with a one-off measure, rather a sustained approach.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 18
Page 32
3.5.2. Journey planning tools Two key themes were most mentioned with regard to journey planning tools. The first acknowledgement apparent through the consultation is the presence of poorly signposted routes. Sudden ends to signage, or complete lack thereof is a popular response when discussing the difficulty of traversing dedicated routes. Secondly, a lack of knowledge of safe routes is also restrictive to encouraging further travel, this refers to between town links as well as the corridors within towns. The most effective ways to distribute this information are presented in Figure 2.6, with Online Information and Route Signage being preferable to printed methods or personal journey planning.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 19
Page 33
4. Specific barriers to cycling
This section provides previous project information and consultation responses to identify barriers on each of the corridors in each of the towns and cities. Each corridor has been coded such that specific barriers or schemes can be attributed to them with relevant sub-codes. Each barrier has then been given a Red Amber Green (RAG) rating according to the criteria set out in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Deliverability and intervention cost criteria
Deliverability Red A solution could be delivered in the future but will need extensive consultation, feasibility study and subsequent design.
Amber A solution could be delivered within two years, subject to design and funding.
Green Could be delivered relatively easily now, subject to funding . Considered a “Quick Win” scheme.
Indicative Red £250k plus Cost Amber £50k-£250k
Green Up to £50k
The purpose of this approach is to show the full range of responses and background information in a succinct way, and to prioritise corridors within each town and city.
This helps to promote a phased approach to network development within a specified area and to avoid schemes being prioritised, and thus compared against, schemes from other areas. If schemes on each corridor were prioritised in isolation, it is likely that a very disjointed programme of works would result, meaning that less impact on cycling mode share would be evident.
Barrier Definitions Each of the barriers suggested by consultees and previous reports have been grouped for simplicity into the following categories:
Traffic Management and Enforcement – this includes all on-road barriers such as lack of advanced stop lines, cycle lanes and traffic restrictions. Signage – This includes all directional signage, carriageway markings and route maps / branding. Infrastructure – This includes all of the off-road infrastructure such as missing crossings, bridges and links that would require a physical construction project to remove a particular barrier. Maintenance – This includes all barriers that prevent or discourage use of existing links such as overgrown vegetation, litter, poor surfacing, etc. Other – A category for barriers that do not fit in to the other categories or those which are unclear.
Transport Corridor Identification In order to organise the large number of schemes and corridors suggested, a coding system was created, the full breakdown of which can be found in the following Table 4.2. The first three letters of a code refer to the town that the corridor or scheme is within, for example Cheltenham is CNM. These first three letters could also denote whether the corridor is between towns (LNK) or between towns and other destinations (DST). Following this are three digits which differentiate the corridor from others. The first of these numbers considers whether the scheme is a radial corridor from the centre, or a circular one around the centre. Other numbers are utilised to refer to schemes that did not fall onto the previously identified corridors from a meeting with GCC, and these can be found in their entirety in Appendix B . The remaining two digits refer to the corridor number whilst the final letter allows schemes on the same corridor to be distinguished from one another.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 20
Page 34
Table 4.2. Corridor coding system
Second and First three letters First Digit Last Letter third digit Code Meaning Code Meaning Code Meaning Code Meaning
CNM Cheltenham 0 Corridor e.g. 01 The e.g. A The scheme connecting the corridor identification town centre to number another area in a radial form
GLO Gloucester 1 Corridor that avoids the centre, providing a ring
STR Stroud 2 An individual scheme raised in the initial consultation with GCC that doesn’t fall onto a particular corridor
CIR Cirencester 5 Links between towns that were identified in the initial consultation with GCC
TWK Tewkesbury 8 Additional individual schemes that were suggested through the consultation process
LYD Lydney 9 Additional corridors that were suggested in the consultation process
LNK A link between two towns
DST A link between a town and a destination
GLC Other suggestions from within Gloucestershire
UKL Links outside of the County
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 21
Page 35
4.1. Gloucester
Map data provided by Ordnance Survey OpenData
Key
Central Area / GLO001 Inner Ring Network (Via St Oswald's City Centre to Ermin Street Way/Gouda Way/Black Dog Way/Bruton (Brockworth) / GLO002 Way/Trier Way/St Ann Way/Llanthony Road/Castlemeads Way) / GLO101 City Centre to B4073 Upton Hilll (Upton St Leonards) / Outer Ring Network (Via GLO003 A38/A417/Barnwood Road Junction to A38/A430/Bristol Road Junction) / City Centre to A4173 South GLO102 (Tuffley) / GLO004 Centre to Abbey Mead and Lobleys City Centre to Bristol Road Drive M5 Bridge / GLO906 , GLO201 (Quedgeley) / GLO005
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 22
Page 36
Across Gloucester, the following transport corridors or areas are considered the most problematic in terms of cycling, with brief descriptions offered as to why. The map graphic above highlights the corridors which are referenced in the table below. A full description is included as Appendix C .
4.1.1. Barriers Number of barriers and subsequent Barrier Corridor Description interventions required Type Green Amber Red Other Total Traffic Management 2 1 3 Signage 0 GLO001 Central Area Infrastructure 3 4 3 10 Maintenance 1 1 Other 0 Total 5 5 4 0 14
Traffic Management 0 Signage 1 1 Centre to GLO002 Infrastructure 1 1 Brockworth Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 1 0 1 0 2
Traffic Management 1 1 Centre to Signage 0 GLO003 Upton St Infrastructure 0 Leonards Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1
Traffic Management 1 1 Signage 1 1 Centre to GLO004 Infrastructure 2 2 Tuffley Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 2 2 0 4
Traffic Management 3 5 8 Signage 1 1 2 Centre to GLO005 Infrastructure 4 4 8 Quedgeley Maintenance 1 1 Other 0 Total 5 10 4 0 19
Traffic Management 1 1 Inner Ring GLO101 Signage 0 Network Infrastructure 1 1 Maintenance 0
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 23
Page 37
Other 0 Total 0 0 2 0 2
Traffic Management 2 3 5 Signage 0 Outer Ring GLO102 Infrastructure 0 Network Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 2 3 0 0 5
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Lobleys Drive GLO201 Infrastructure 1 1 M5 Bridge Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 1 0 1 48
4.1.2. Prioritisation Each of the corridors has been summarised below, with the main beneficiaries highlighted. This is an informed appraisal based on amenities, businesses and schools within each corridor and the types of barrier experienced in each case.
Table 4.3.1. Corridor summary and benefits
Main Beneficiaries Number of Indicative Town/City Corridor Utility School Leisure Red Barriers Cost GLO001 Ɏ x Ɏ 4 >£1m GLO002 Ɏ Ɏ x 1 >£250k GLO003 Ɏ x x 0 <£250k GLO004 Ɏ Ɏ x 2 >£500k Gloucester GLO005 Ɏ x Ɏ 4 >£1m GLO101 Ɏ x Ɏ 2 >£500k GLO102 Ɏ Ɏ x 0 <£250k GLO201 Ɏ x x 1 >£250k
Suggested priority of implementation This is a high-level prioritisation based on the maximum number of beneficiaries and least number of ‘red ’ barriers. Red barriers are considered to be those that are key to ‘unlocking’ a particular corridor. N.B. this process does not take in to account the number of amber and green barriers identified. It is further considered that these barriers would not prevent progress but are subject to further detailed investigation and costing. This prioritised list could be amended to suit external funding opportunity scoring criteria, it is merely an example.
1. GLO102 2. GLO002 3. GLO004 / GLO101 4. GLO001 / GLO005
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 24
Page 38
5. GLO003 6. GLO201
4.1.3. Less complex barriers This section highlights any barriers contained within Gloucester that are deemed to contain only ‘green’ risk barriers to cycling. Therefore, these corridors could be considered “quick wins”. However, it is important to note that whilst such corridors may contain relatively simple solutions to barriers, further work may need to be undertaken in terms of feasibility design and to ensure connectivity with other links and networks, to prevent an isolated approach to network development.
Quick win corridors are identified below, where relevant.
Table 4.3.2. Quick win corridors
Main Beneficiaries Number of Indicative Town/City Corridor Green Cost Utility School Leisure Barriers Gloucester No such corridors identified
4.1.4. Next steps It would be prudent to agree the prioritised list above amongst key stakeholders. This will allow additional relevant information to help inform the prioritisation such as key committed development and future strategic plans as well as other information that is outside the scope of this initial study.
Once agreed, the prioritised list of corridors should be examined in further detail through specific feasibility studies and subsequent preliminary design drawings. These studies should carefully examine the costs and benefits of removing the existing barriers, and relate to potential funding streams. Part of this process will also require an awareness of the existing infrastructure in place, and consideration of how to maximise its utility.
In each case, a local steering group or champion could be enlisted to help promote progress of the specific corridor, and encouragement given to such groups to work with neighbouring groups to achieve a coherent network development profile (as opposed to competing against each other for funding purposes). The larger, more ambitious projects (such as GLO001 / 005, above) are likely to require extended consultation with local stakeholders and therefore could be open to a larger share of risk in terms of delays to progression. However, it is the more ambitious projects that will, ultimately, deliver bigger benefits and increase cycling mode share safely.
Whilst no specific quick wins have been identified from this study, it is acknowledged that this could change and as such a review of the identified corridors should be undertaken on a regular basis. This will help keep the momentum and appetite for change in modal share.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 25
Page 39
4.2. Cheltenham
Map data provided by Ordnance Survey OpenData
Key
Central Area / CNM001 Centre to Caernarvon Road/Up Hatherly Centre to Racecourse/Bishops Way Junction via Honeybourne Line Cleeve / CNM002 and Cheltenham Spa station / CNM008
Centre to A40 East (Charlton Centre to A4013/Orchard Lane Junction Kings) / CNM003 (Alstone/Arle) / CNM009
A40/A435 Junction to A435 Centre to A4019 North (Tewkesbury South (Charlton Kings South) / Road, Kingsditch) / CNM010 CNM004 Kingsditch (Wyman’s Lane) to Tatchley Centre to Shurdington Road Lane (Outer Ring North) / CNM101 South / CNM005 Lauriel Drive to A40/B4075 Junction Shurdington Road/Leckhampton (Outer Ring East) / CNM102 Road Junction to Leckhampton Road South / CNM006 A40 Suffolk Road (Outer Ring South) / CNM103 Centre to A40 West / CNM007 Kingsditch Lane to Gloucester Road / CNM910
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 26
Page 40
Across Cheltenham, the following transport corridors or areas are considered the most problematic in terms of cycling, with brief descriptions offered as to why. The map graphic above highlights the corridors which are referenced in the table below. A full description is included as Appendix D.
4.2.1. Barriers
Number of barriers and subsequent interventions required Corridor Description Barrier Type
Green Amber Red Other Total Traffic Management 8 4 6 18 Signage 1 1 CNM001 Central Area Infrastructure 4 2 1 7 Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 13 6 7 0 26
Traffic Management 1 1 Centre to Signage 1 1 CNM002 Bishops Infrastructure 1 1 2 Cleeve Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 3 0 1 0 4
Traffic Management 1 1 Signage 1 1 Centre to CNM003 Infrastructure 0 Charlton Kings Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 2 0 0 0 2
Traffic Management 0 Centre to Signage 0 CNM004 Charlton Kings Infrastructure 1 1 (South) Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1
Traffic Management 1 1 Signage 0 Centre to CNM005 Infrastructure 0 Shurdington Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1
Traffic Management 0 Centre to Signage 0 CNM006 Leckhampton Infrastructure 0 Maintenance 0 Other 1 1
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 27
Page 41
Total 0 0 0 1 1
Traffic Management 2 2 Signage 1 1 Centre to A40 CNM007 Infrastructure 4 2 1 7 West Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 7 2 1 0 10
Traffic Hatherley to Management 0 Bishops Signage 0 CNM008 Cleeve Infrastructure 2 2 (Honeybourne Maintenance 1 1 Line) Other 0 Total 1 0 2 0 3
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Centre to CNM009 Infrastructure 1 1 Alstone/Arle Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 1 0 1
Traffic Management 4 6 10 Signage 1 1 Centre to CNM010 Infrastructure 1 8 1 10 Kingsditch Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 6 14 1 0 21
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Outer Ring CNM101 Infrastructure 0 North Maintenance 0 Other 1 1 Total 0 0 0 1 1
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Outer Ring CNM102 Infrastructure 0 East Maintenance 0 Other 1 1 Total 0 0 0 1 1
Traffic Management 1 1 Signage 0 Outer Ring CNM103 Infrastructure 0 South Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 1 0 0 0 1 73
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 28
Page 42
4.2.2. Prioritisation Each of the corridors has been summarised below, with the main beneficiaries highlighted. This is an informed appraisal based on amenities, businesses and schools within each corridor and the types of barrier experienced in each case.
Table 4.4.1. Corridor summary and benefits
Main Beneficiaries Number of Indicative Town/City Corridor Utility School Leisure Red Barriers Cost CNM001 Ɏ x x 7 >£1.75m CNM002 Ɏ x Ɏ 1 >£250k CNM003 Ɏ Ɏ Ɏ 0 <£250k CNM004 Ɏ Ɏ Ɏ 0 <£250k CNM005 Ɏ Ɏ x 0 <£250k CNM006 Ɏ Ɏ x 0 <£250k Cheltenham CNM007 Ɏ x Ɏ 1 >£250k CNM008 Ɏ Ɏ Ɏ 2 >£500k CNM009 Ɏ Ɏ x 1 >£250k CNM010 Ɏ x Ɏ 1 >£250k CNM101 x x x 0 <£250k CNM102 Ɏ Ɏ x 0 <£250k CNM103 x Ɏ x 0 <£250k
Suggested priority of implementation This is a high-level prioritisation based on the maximum number of beneficiaries and least number of ‘red’ barriers. Red barriers are considered to be those that are key to ‘unlocking’ a particular corridor. N.B. this process does not take in to account the number of amber and green barriers identified. It is further considered that these barriers would not prevent progress but are subject to further detailed investigation and costing. This prioritised list could be amended to suit external funding opportunity scoring criteria, it is merely an example.
1. CNM003 / 004 2. CNM008 3. CNM005 / 006 / 102 4. CNM002 / 007 / 009 / 010 5. CNM103 6. CNM001 7. CNM101
4.2.3. Less complex barriers This section highlights any barriers contained within Cheltenham that are deemed to contain only ‘green’ risk barriers to cycling. Therefore, these corridors could be considered “quick wins”. However, it is important to note that whilst such corridors may contain relatively simple solutions to barriers, further work may need to be undertaken in terms of feasibility design and to ensure connectivity with other links and networks, to prevent an isolated approach to network development.
Quick win corridors are identified below, where relevant.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 29
Page 43
Table 4.4.2. Quick win corridors
Main Beneficiaries Number of Indicative Town/City Corridor Green Cost Utility School Leisure Barriers Cheltenham CNM003 Ɏ Ɏ Ɏ 2 <£100k CNM103 x Ɏ x 1 <£50k
4.2.4. Next steps It would be prudent to agree the prioritised list above amongst key stakeholders. This will allow additional relevant information to help inform the prioritisation such as key committed development and future strategic plans as well as other information that is outside the scope of this initial study. Specifically, this can be undertaken with consultation with the Cycle Liaison Group.
Once agreed, the prioritised list of corridors should be looked at in further detail through specific feasibility studies. These studies should carefully examine the costs and benefits of removing the existing barriers, and relate to potential funding streams. Part of this process will also require an awareness of the existing infrastructure in place, and consideration of how to maximise its utility.
In each case, a local steering group or champion could be enlisted to help promote progress of the specific corridor, and encouragement given to such groups to work with neighbouring groups to achieve a coherent network development profile (as opposed to competing against each other for funding purposes). The larger, more ambitious projects (such as CNM001, above) are likely to require extended consultation with local stakeholders and therefore could be open to a larger share of risk in terms of delays to progression. However, it is the more ambitious projects that will, ultimately, deliver bigger benefits and increase cycling mode share safely.
Different types of corridor will need to be progressed in slightly different ways, for example the CNM001 corridor is likely to require regular and updated consultation so is likely to be a rolling project that has a working implementation document rather than a simple “one size fits all” design. Indeed, it is an opportunity to provide innovative urban solutions using examples from other areas, including those abroad. Furthermore, developing CNM001 could provide the basis for urban network design for the County, where initiatives and branding for example can be used elsewhere such as in Gloucester to provide a familiar, coherent provision of cycling infrastructure, signage and maintenance standards.
Equally, those corridors which do not appear to present many user benefits (CNM101, for example) should be discarded for the short term, to allow focus on the more beneficial corridors. The medium and long term assessments should still consider such corridors, however.
The quick wins could be addressed through a parallel process and be formally recorded for S106 developer contribution negotiations, for example. In this case, it is evident that the CNM003 corridor provides benefits to all types of user and should therefore proceed to feasibility and design stage.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 30
Page 44
4.3. Tewkesbury
Map data provided by Ordnance Survey OpenData
Key
A38/Ashchurch Road (A438) Junction to Central Area / TWK001 A38 South (Via Wheatpieces) / TWK003
Tewkesbury Centre to Station Road to A438 Missing Link / Ashchurch via M5 Junction 9/ TWK201 TWK002 Northway Lane / TWK902
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 31
Page 45
Across Tewkesbury, the following transport corridors or areas are considered the most problematic in terms of cycling, with brief descriptions offered as to why. The map graphic above highlights the corridors which are referenced in the table below. A full description is included as Appendix E.
4.3.1. Barriers Number of barriers and subsequent Barrier Corridor Description interventions required Type Green Amber Red Other Total Traffic Management 2 6 8 Signage 0 TWK001 Central Area Infrastructure 1 6 7 Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 3 12 0 0 15
Traffic Management 3 3 Signage 1 1 Centre to TWK002 Infrastructure 2 8 4 14 Ashchurch Maintenance 0 Other 1 1 Total 6 8 4 1 19
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Centre to TWK003 Infrastructure 1 1 Wheatpieces Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 1 0 1
Traffic Management 0 Missing Link Signage 0 TWK2 01 Station Road Infrastructure 1 1 to A438 Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 1 0 1 36
4.3.2. Prioritisation Each of the corridors has been summarised below, with the main beneficiaries highlighted. This is an informed appraisal based on amenities, businesses and schools within each corridor and the types of barrier experienced in each case.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 32
Page 46
Table 4.5.1. Corridor summary and benefits
Main Beneficiaries Numb er of Town/City Corridor Indicative Cost Utility School Leisure Red Barriers Tewkesbury TWK001 Ɏ x x 0 <£250k TWK002 Ɏ Ɏ x 4 >£1m TWK003 Ɏ x Ɏ 1 >£250k TWK201 Ɏ x x 1 >£250k
Suggested priority of implementation This is a high-level prioritisation based on the maximum number of beneficiaries and least number of ‘red’ barriers. Red barriers are considered to be those that are key to ‘unlocking’ a particular corridor. N.B. this process does not take in to account the number of amber and green barriers identified. It is further considered that these barriers would not prevent progress but are subject to further detailed investigation and costing. This prioritised list could be amended to suit external funding opportunity scoring criteria, it is merely an example.
1. TWK003 2. TWK002 3. TWK001 4. TWK201
4.3.3. Less complex barriers This section highlights any barriers contained within Tewkesbury that are deemed to contain only ‘green’ risk barriers to cycling. Therefore, these corridors could be considered “quick wins”. However, it is important to note that whilst such corridors may contain relatively simple solutions to barriers, further work may need to be undertaken in terms of feasibility design and to ensure connectivity with other links and networks, to prevent an isolated approach to network development.
Quick win corridors are identified below, where relevant.
Table 4.5.2. Quick win corridors
Main Beneficiaries Number of Town/City Corridor Indicative Cost Utility School Leisure Green Barriers Tewkesbury No such corridors identified.
4.3.4. Next steps It would be prudent to agree the prioritised list above amongst key stakeholders. This will allow additional relevant information to help inform the prioritisation such as key committed development and future strategic plans as well as other information that is outside the scope of this initial study.
Once agreed, the prioritised list of corridors should be examined in further detail through specific feasibility studies and subsequent preliminary design drawings. These studies should carefully examine the costs and benefits of removing the existing barriers, and relate to potential funding streams. Part of this process will also require an awareness of the existing infrastructure in place, and consideration of how to maximise its utility.
Given the relatively small size of Tewkesbury (when compared with Cheltenham and Gloucester), and the small number of corridors, it could be reasonable to progress all corridors in parallel, thereby taking a more holistic approach to network development. This would enable a greater level of stakeholder involvement from the outset, but may limit the funding opportunities available for specific scheme development.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 33
Page 47
Whilst no specific quick wins have been identified from this study, it is acknowledged that this could change and as such a review of the identified corridors should be undertaken on a regular basis. This will help keep the momentum and appetite for change in modal share.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 34
Page 48
4.4. Stroud
Map data provided by Ordnance Survey OpenData
Key Cainscross Road to A419 West via
Central Area / STR001 Stonehouse / STR503
Dr Newton’s Way to Chalford Stonehouse to Dudbridge Road/Bath via A419 East / STR501 Road Junction (Lightpill) / STR504
Station to Nailsworth via A46 / Beeches Green to A4171 / STR901 STR502
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 35
Page 49
Across Stroud, the following transport corridors or areas are considered the most problematic in terms of cycling, with brief descriptions offered as to why. The map graphic above highlights the corridors which are referenced in the table below. A full description is included as Appendix F.
4.4.1. Barriers Number of barriers and subsequent Corridor Description Barrier Type interventions required Green Amber Red Other Total Traffic Management 1 1 Signage 1 1 STR001 Central Area Infrastructure 1 1 2 Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 3 1 0 4
Traffic Management 4 1 1 6 Signage 1 1 Stroud to STR501 Infrastructure 1 5 6 Chalford Maintenance 1 1 Other 4 4 Total 5 3 6 4 18
Traffic Management 1 1 2 Signage 0 Stroud to STR502 Infrastructure 1 2 3 Nailsworth Maintenance 1 1 Other 1 1 Total 2 2 2 1 7
Traffic Management 2 2 4 Signage 2 2 Stroud to STR503 Infrastructure 2 5 7 Stonehouse Maintenance 0 Other 1 1 Total 4 4 5 1 14
Traffic Management 0 Lightpill Signage 0 STR504 (Stroud) to Infrastructure 0 Stonehouse Maintenance 0 Other 1 1 Total 0 0 0 1 1 44
4.4.2. Prioritisation Each of the corridors has been summarised below, with the main beneficiaries highlighted. This is an informed appraisal based on amenities, businesses and schools within each corridor and the types of barrier experienced in each case.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 36
Page 50
Table 4.6.1. Corridor summary and benefits
Main Beneficiaries Number of Town/City Corridor Indicative Cost Utility School Leisure Red Barriers STR001 Ɏ Ɏ Ɏ 1 >£250k STR501 Ɏ Ɏ x 6 >£1.5m Stroud STR502 Ɏ x Ɏ 2 >£500k STR503 Ɏ Ɏ Ɏ 5 >£1.25m STR504 x x Ɏ 0 <£250k
Suggested priority of implementation This is a high-level prioritisation based on the maximum number of beneficiaries and least number of ‘red’ barriers. Red barriers are considered to be those that are key to ‘unlocking’ a particular corridor. N.B. this process does not take in to account the number of amber and green barriers identified. It is further considered that these barriers would not prevent progress but are subject to further detailed investigation and costing. This prioritised list could be amended to suit external funding opportunity scoring criteria, it is merely an example.
1. STR001 2. STR503 3. STR502 4. STR501 5. STR504
4.4.3. Less complex barriers This section highlights any barriers contained within Stroud that are deemed to contain only ‘green’ risk barriers to cycling. Therefore, these corridors could be considered “quick wins”. However, it is important to note that whilst such corridors may contain relatively simple solutions to barriers, further work may need to be undertaken in terms of feasibility design and to ensure connectivity with other links and networks, to prevent an isolated approach to network development.
Quick win corridors are identified below, where relevant.
Table 4.6.2. Quick win corridors
Main Beneficiaries Number of Town/City Corridor Indicative Cost Utility School Leisure Green Barriers Stroud No such corridors identified
4.4.4. Next steps It would be prudent to agree the prioritised list above amongst key stakeholders. This will allow additional relevant information to help inform the prioritisation such as key committed development and future strategic plans as well as other information that is outside the scope of this initial study.
Once agreed, the prioritised list of corridors should be examined in further detail through specific feasibility studies and subsequent preliminary design drawings. These studies should carefully examine the costs and benefits of removing the existing barriers, and relate to potential funding streams. Part of this process will also require an awareness of the existing infrastructure in place, and consideration of how to maximise its utility.
Given the relatively small size of Stroud (when compared with Cheltenham and Gloucester), and the small number of corridors, it could be reasonable to progress all corridors in parallel, thereby taking a more holistic approach to network development. This would enable a greater level of stakeholder involvement from the outset, but may limit the funding opportunities available for specific scheme development.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 37
Page 51
Whilst no specific quick wins have been identified from this study, it is acknowledged that this could change and as such a review of the identified corridors should be undertaken on a regular basis. This will help keep the momentum and appetite for change in modal share.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 38
Page 52
4.5. Cirencester
Map data provided by Ordnance Survey OpenData
Key Inner Ring Network, A435/The White
A435/A429/London Road Way Junction to A419/Chesterton Lane Junction / CIR101 Junction to A429 North (Burford Road) / CIR001 Chesterton Lane / CIR102
A429/A417 Junction to A417 East (London Road) / CIR002 A419 South West to Cirencester College / CIR201 A419/Chesterton Lane Junction to A429 South West A419E Cirencester Road Crossing / CIR202 (Tetbury Road) / CIR003 A419 South West to the Royal A429/A419 Junction to A419 West (Stroud Road) / CIR004 Agricultural University / CIR203
Indicates principl e movement across the A435 towards the centre
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 39
Page 53
Across Cirencester, the following transport corridors or areas are considered the most problematic in terms of cycling, with brief descriptions offered as to why. The map graphic above highlights the corridors which are referenced in the table below. A full description is included as Appendix G.
4.5.1. Barriers Number of Interventions required Corridor Description Barrier Type Green Amber Red Other Total Traffic Management 1 1 Signage 0 CIR001 Burford Road Infrastructure 1 1 Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 2 0 0 2
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 CIR002 London Road Infrastructure 1 2 3 Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 1 2 0 0 3
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 CIR003 Tetbury Road Infrastructure 0 Maintenance 0 Other 1 1 Total 0 0 0 1 1
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 CIR004 Stroud Road Infrastructure 0 Maintenance 0 Other 1 1 Total 0 0 0 1 1
Traffic Management 2 2 Signage 1 4 5 Inner Ring CIR101 Infrastructure 1 6 2 9 Network Maintenance 2 2 Other 0 Total 2 14 2 0 18
Traffic Management 0 Chesterton CIR102 Signage 0 Lane Infrastructure 1 1 2 Maintenance 0
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 40
Page 54
Other 0 Total 1 1 0 0 2
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Cirencester CIR201 Infrastructure 1 1 College Link Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Road Crossing CIR202 Infrastructure 1 1 on A419E Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 1 0 1
Traffic 0 Management 0 Royal Signage CIR203 Agricultural Infrastructure 1 1 University Link Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 1 30
4.5.2. Prioritisation Each of the corridors has been summarised below, with the main beneficiaries highlighted. This is an informed appraisal based on amenities, businesses and schools within each corridor and the types of barrier experienced in each case.
Table 4.7.1 – Corridor summary and benefits
Main Beneficiaries Number of Indicative Town/City Corridor Utility School Leisure Red Barriers Cost CIR001 Ɏ x Ɏ 0 <£250k CIR002 Ɏ Ɏ Ɏ 0 <£250k CIR003 Ɏ Ɏ Ɏ 0 <£250k CIR004 Ɏ Ɏ Ɏ 0 <£250k Cirencester CIR101 Ɏ x x 2 >£500k CIR102 Ɏ Ɏ x 0 <£250k CIR201 x Ɏ x 0 <£250k CIR202 Ɏ x Ɏ 1 >£250k CIR203 x Ɏ x 0 <£250k
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 41
Page 55
Suggested priority of implementation This is a high-level prioritisation based on the maximum number of beneficiaries and least number of ‘red’ barriers. Red barriers are considered to be those that are key to ‘unlocking’ a particular corridor. N.B. this process does not take in to account the number of amber and green barriers identified. It is further considered that these barriers would not prevent progress but are subject to further detailed investigation and costing. This prioritised list could be amended to suit external funding opportunity scoring criteria, it is merely an example.
1. CIR002 / 003 / 004 2. CIR001 / 102 3. CIR202 4. CIR201 / 203 5. CIR101
4.5.3. Less complex barriers This section highlights any barriers contained within Cirencester that are deemed to contain only ‘green’ risk barriers to cycling. Therefore, these corridors could be considered “quick wins”. However, it is import ant to note that whilst such corridors may contain relatively simple solutions to barriers, further work may need to be undertaken in terms of feasibility design and to ensure connectivity with other links and networks, to prevent an isolated approach to network development.
Quick win corridors are identified below, where relevant.
Table 4.7.2 – Quick win corridors
Main Beneficiaries Number of Indicative Town/City Corridor Green Cost Utility School Leisure Barriers Cirencester No such corridors identified
4.5.4. Next steps It would be prudent to agree the prioritised list above amongst key stakeholders. This will allow additional relevant information to help inform the prioritisation such as key committed development and future strategic plans as well as other information that is outside the scope of this initial study.
Once agreed, the prioritised list of corridors should be examined in further detail through specific feasibility studies and subsequent preliminary design drawings. These studies should carefully examine the costs and benefits of removing the existing barriers, and relate to potential funding streams. Part of this process will also require an awareness of the existing infrastructure in place, and consideration of how to maximise its utility.
Whilst no specific quick wins have been identified from this study, it is acknowledged that this could change and as such a review of the identified corridors should be undertaken on a regular basis. This will help keep the momentum and appetite for change in modal share.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 42
Page 56
4.6. Lydney
Map data provided by Ordnance Survey OpenData
Key
Lydney Station to Town / East Lydney Development to Town Link LYD001 / LYD005
St Mary’s Halt to Cambourne Church Road to LYD001 / LYD006 Place (Highfield) / LYD002 Aylburton to Town / LYD007 Lydney Station to Harbour / LYD003 Harbour to the Town via Naas Lane / LYD008 LYD002 Link to Hams Road (Tutnalls) / LYD004
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 43
Page 57
Across Lydney, the following transport corridors or areas are considered the most problematic in terms of cycling, with brief descriptions offered as to why. The map graphic above highlights the corridors which are referenced in the table below. A full description is included as Appendix H.
4.6.1. Barriers Number of barriers and subsequent Corridor Description Barrier Type interventions required Green Amber Red Other Total Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Lydney Station LYD001 Infrastructure 1 1 to Centre Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 1 0 1
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 St Mary’s Halt LYD002 Infrastructure 1 1 to Highfield Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 1 0 1
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Lydney Station LYD003 Infrastructure 1 1 to Harbour Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Centre to LYD004 Infrastructure 1 1 Tutnalls Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1
Traffic Management 0 East Lydney Signage 0 LYD005 Development Infrastructure 1 1 Link Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 1 0 1
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 LYD006 Church Road Infrastructure 1 1 Maintenance 0 Other 0
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 44
Page 58
Total 0 1 0 0 1
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Aylburton to LYD007 Infrastructure 1 1 Centre Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1
Traffic Management 0 Signage 0 Harbour to LYD008 Infrastructure 1 1 Centre Maintenance 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 1 0 1 8
4.6.2. Prioritisation Each of the corridors has been summarised below, with the main beneficiaries highlighted. This is an informed appraisal based on amenities, businesses and schools within each corridor and the types of barrier experienced in each case.
Table 4.8.1. Corridor summary and benefits
Main Beneficiaries Number of Indicative Town/City Corridor Utility School Leisure Red Barriers Cost* LYD001 Ɏ x x 1 >£250k LYD002 x x x 1 >£250k LYD003 Ɏ x x 0 <£250k LYD004 Ɏ x x 0 <£250k Lydney LYD005 x x Ɏ 1 >£250k LYD006 x Ɏ x 0 <£250k LYD007 Ɏ x x 0 <£250k LYD008 x x Ɏ 1 >£250k *N.B. A recent study of Lydney contains more detailed cost information for schemes across Lydney but these have not been specifically included here in order to allow a fair comparison of indicative costs with other towns within this report.
Suggested priority of implementation This is a high-level prioritisation based on the maximum number of benefic iaries and least number of ‘red’ barriers. Red barriers are considered to be those that are key to ‘unlocking’ a particular corridor. N.B. this process does not take in to account the number of amber and green barriers identified. It is further considered that these barriers would not prevent progress but are subject to further detailed investigation and costing. This prioritised list could be amended to suit external funding opportunity scoring criteria, it is merely an example.
1. LYD003 / 004 / 006 / 007 2. LYD001 / 005 / 008 3. LYD002
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 45
Page 59
4.6.3. Less complex barriers This section highlights any barriers contained within Lydney that are deemed to contain only ‘green’ risk barriers to cycling. Therefore, these corridors could be considered “quick wins”. However, it is impor tant to note that whilst such corridors may contain relatively simple solutions to barriers, further work may need to be undertaken in terms of feasibility design and to ensure connectivity with other links and networks, to prevent an isolated approach to network development.
Quick win corridors are identified below, where relevant.
Table 4.8.2. Quick win corridors
Main Beneficiaries Number of Town/City Corridor Indicative Cost Utility School Leisure Green Barriers Lydney No such corridors identified
4.6.4. Next steps It would be prudent to agree the prioritised list above amongst key stakeholders. This will allow additional relevant information to help inform the prioritisation such as key committed development and future strategic plans as well as other information that is outside the scope of this initial study.
Once agreed, the prioritised list of corridors should be examined in further detail through specific feasibility studies and subsequent preliminary design drawings. These studies should carefully examine the costs and benefits of removing the existing barriers, and relate to potential funding streams. Part of this process will also require an awareness of the existing infrastructure in place, and consideration of how to maximise its utility.
Given the relatively small size of Lydney (when compared with Cheltenham and Gloucester), and the low number of beneficiaries per corridor, it could be reasonable to progress all corridors in parallel, thereby taking a more holistic approach to network development. This would enable a greater level of stakeholder involvement from the outset, but may limit the funding opportunities available for specific scheme development.
Whilst no specific quick wins have been identified from this study, it is acknowledged that this could change and as such a review of the identified corridors should be undertaken on a regular basis. This will help keep the momentum and appetite for change in modal share.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 46
Page 60
5. Barriers between towns and cities
5.1. National Context The existing routes within Gloucester that make up part of the National Cycle Network (NCN) are shown below. It’s clear from Figure 5.1 , below, where the existing barriers between towns are – indicated by the arrows. It is also clear that most of the links between towns are on-road routes and therefore only likely to appeal to the longer distance touring cyclist who is likely to be much more confident than those wanting traffic free routes.
Figure 5.1. The NCN Cycle Network
Source: www.sustrans.org.uk
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 47
Page 61
5.2. Regional Context Figure 5.2 , below, shows in more detail the corridors where the main barriers lie between towns within Gloucestershire.
Figure 5.2. Corridor barriers between towns
Key
Gloucester to Cheltenham, via Stroud to Nailsworth / STR502 A40, Churchdown or B4063 / LNK938 Stroud to Stonehouse / STR503
Cheltenham to Bishops Cleeve Stonehouse to Gloucester / (Racecourse), via A435 or LNK936
Honeybourne Line Extension / LNK942 Stroud to Cirencester / LNK945
Gloucester to Cinderford via Cirencester to Fairford/Lechlade / Churcham or Minsterworth (for LNK948 Forest of Dean) / LNK924
Lydney to Parkend (for Forest of Cheltenham to Dean) / LNK949
Northway/Tewkesbury via Bishops Cleeve / LNK941 Gloucester to Tewkesbury /
LNK939 Stroud to Gloucester / LNK944
Stroud to Chalford / STR501
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 48
Page 62
5.3. Barrier Descriptions Table 5.1 , below, provides a description of the barriers contained within the corridors summarised in Figure 5.2 , above. Against each barrier is a RAG rating which is an informed rating of the risk to deliverability and likely cost to remove the barrier. This follows the same principle as the rating system in Section 4 of this report but is a much higher level and therefore subject to much more detailed study outside the scope of this initial study. N.B. The data and suggested interventions have been taken from the consultation responses and therefore are not necessarily suggested interventions by Atkins, they are merely provided here as a summary.
Appendix I provides other barriers and suggestions that lie outside the main corridors listed below whilst Appendix J contains a list of all other towns in Gloucestershire that were mentioned within the consultation process but lie outside the main towns listed in this report.
Table 5.1. Corridor barriers descriptions – between towns
Barriers Between Towns
Link Corridor Scheme Main RAG Barrier Summary Intervention required Corridor Code Number Beneficiary Rating
Lack of direct, off Control traffic on chosen on -road road or sufficient LNK938A corridor. Improved surfaces and RED on road lighting. markings. Cheltenham Providing an to LNK938 Commuter effective, direct Gloucester Provide a continous, high quality and continuous LNK938B off-road route either via the A40, RED route between B4073 or Churchdown is essential. these two destinations Extend Honeybourne Line LNK942A RED northwards Busy and Cheltenham unsuitable for Route must be fast, direct, well lit, to Bishop's LNK942 Commuter cyclists along the not too secluded, Cleeve LNK942B RED A435 maintained/swept/gritted, easy to access on or off, not mandatory Cycle access to quieter roads for Gloucester LNK924A access to the Forest of Dean to Leisure GREEN A40 to Highnam to avoid A40 is a busy road Cinderford LNK924 Congestion and roundabout with poor cyclist (via between Two Mile Lane/A40 facilities LNK924B Commuter AMBER Highnam) Junction and A40/B4215 Junction. Provide an off-road cycle lane.
Improvements required to Lack of a clear existing route from Bishops Cheltenham cycle route Cleeve northwards. Could be Leisure / to LNK941 between the two LNK941A RED developed as part of a Commuter Tewkesbury towns, with room Honeybourne Line North for improvement Extension
Lack of a clear Route avoiding Edge Hill Stroud to Commuter / LNK944 cycle route LNK944A developed in favour of cyclists - AMBER Gloucester Leisure between the two A46/A4173
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 49
Page 63
towns, with room for improvement Direct route initially, rather than Commuter / LNK944B AMBER via Stonehouse Leisure
Extending speed limits. E.g. 20 mph speed limit to the east of A419 Unsuitable STR501A Waitrose and the 30mph speed Commuter AMBER Stroud to STR501 for Cyclists in the limit to Bowbridge and through to Chalford main Brimscombe. Canal towpath as an alternative STR501B Commuter RED route to A419 NCN45 in poor condition - tree roots making path uneven - level A46 busy, STR502A the end of the cycle track into Commuter AMBER alternative routes Stroud to Stroud and make a bridge STR502 including NCN45 Nailsworth connecting it with Stroud Town not in good condition Nailsbridge - George Street/Spring STR502B Hill roundabout is hostile - traffic Commuter AMBER signal control traffic -free route (or shared STR503A pavement) along Beeches Green, Commuter RED A need for a Stratford Road & Cainscross Road Stroud to resilient Cainscross Roundabout -short STR503 Stonehouse alternative route term changes such as altering to the A419 West STR503B markings to make it easier for Commuter RED cyclists to go ahead. Replacement of junction long term
Stonehouse Poor condition A38 link in poor condition for to LNK936 link between the LNK936A Commuter AMBER cyclists Gloucester two towns
Introduce and utilise traffic management tactics to reduce LNK945A Commuter AMBER Steep, narrow speeds, for example removing Stroud to LNK945 road with high middle lines Cirencester vehicular speeds Increase visibility of cyclists, for LNK945B instance using signage to enable Commuter GREEN drivers to expect cyclists Cirencester Consider a variety of Lack of route to Leisure / to Fairford LNK948 LNK948A improvements to develop this link RED access this area Commuter & Lechlade as a cycle corridor
Poor links Lydney to between Lydney Provide a contin uous, high quality LNK949 LNK949A Leisure RED Parkend and the Forest of off-road route Dean
Gloucester Lack of quality A38 link in poor condition for to LNK939 LNK939A Commuter AMBER link cyclists Tewkesbury
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 50
Page 64
5.4. Prioritisation Typically, overcoming the barriers to cycling on links between towns is a larger task than individual schemes on corridors within towns, as noted by the lack of GREEN RAG ratings in Table 5.1 . The prioritisation method utilised in Section 4 is not suitable for the between towns links due to different measuring criteria.
Each link is different in length, serves populations of variable size and tends to be distinct between being a commuter or leisure route. These three fundamental variances make comparison and thus prioritisation difficult. However, Table 5.2 , below, presents a range of information which can be used to provide a simplified prioritisation. The information is organised in descending population of start and end destinations to provide an example. Other factors such as the relevant routes within towns, the length and existing situation also need to be considered. The category of ‘Main beneficiary’ provides guidance only and is not a fixed categorisation by any means.
Table 5.2. Exemplar prioritisation of the links Between Towns, using Population Served as a simple guidance.
Estimated Length of Relevant corridor Population Link link Main numbers from within Link Served by Link Description (estimated beneficiary towns for concurrent (Out of term, in km) development Census 2011)
≈240000 16.0 Commuter CNM001, CNM007, Cheltenham to CNM008, GLO001, LNK938 Gloucester GLO002 (depending on route), GLO101
Stroud to ≈135000 15.8 (direct) Commuter / STR001, GLO001, LNK944 or 25.3 (via Leisure GLO004 , GLO101 Gloucester Stonehouse)
Gloucester to ≈130000 24.9 Leisure GLO001, GLO101 LNK924 Cinderford (via Highnam)
Cheltenham to ≈130000 14.2 Commuter TWK001, TWK002 , LNK941 Tewkesbury CNM002
Gloucester to ≈130000 17.1 Commuter TWK001, TWK003, LNK939 Tewkesbury GLO001, GLO101
Cheltenham to ≈130000 5.9 Commuter CNM001, CNM002 LNK942 Bishop's Cleeve
≈130000 20.9 (via Commuter GLO001, GLO101 Stonehouse to NCN45) or LNK936 Gloucester 17.2 (via B4008)
≈32000 32.9 (via Commuter CIR001, CIR004, CIR101, Stroud to NCN45) or STR001 LNK945 Cirencester 23.5 (via A419)
Cirencester to ≈25000 21.4 Commuter / CIR001, CIR002, CIR101, LNK948 Fairford & Leisure STR001 Lechlade
19000 7.0 Commuter / STR501 , STR001 STR501 Stroud to Chalford ≈ Leisure
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 51
Page 65
Stroud to ≈19000 8.0 Commuter STR502, STR001 STR502 Nailsworth
Stroud to ≈16000 5.0 Commuter STR503 , STR001 STR503 Stonehouse
LNK949 Lydney to Parkend ≈9000 6.3 Leisure N/A
5.5. Next steps In order to progress the above corridors, it would be prudent to link them with improvements within towns i.e. if Gloucester and / or Cheltenham are decided to be priority areas for development of cycle networks, then links between these two towns should take priority in order to make the biggest impact on cycling modal share. That said, there may be links that could be developed in parallel but it is important to note that any links that are developed should have a meaningful origin and destination with appropriate facilities at either end. Part of this shows that there is a need to be aware of the existing infrastructure alongside a consideration of all of the factors which can influence interpretations of route priority.
Furthermore, the provision of suitable facilities such as cycle parking and changing facilities are much more of a consideration on the longer routes (at origin and destination) to encourage modal shift and such facilities should be progressed in tandem with physical measures. Work that has been completed on workplace travel planning studies throughout Gloucestershire would be invaluable in establishing complementary measures such as cycle parking and route promotion.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 52
Page 66
6. Opportunities
6.1. Quietway Safeguarding Across the County, there are various rural roads and lanes that could that could readily be used by cyclists and accordingly designated as “Quietways” . Whilst these are likely to be used by longer distance cyclists, they could form important links between major settlements across the County where dedicated routes and links do not yet exist. Furthermore, such links could prove useful in enabling less confident cyclists to gain confidence in an on-road environment.
It is proposed that Quietways are advertised as part of cycle network plans and routes and that signage is provided where appropriate. These links can then be included on cycle maps with the aim that these routes are safeguarded as far as possible from development plans. Where development is proposed in the future, the safeguarded Quietways would provide an ideal opportunity for the securing of improvement funding such as Section 106 developer contributions. The concept of safeguarding of routes is a similar approach taken to that in the Active Travel Act in Wales, which borders Gloucestershire. Within this, Local Authorities in Wales are now required to map existing routes and highlight plans for network development. The Act is a world first, and the relevant details of it are provided in Section 6.3.
Quietways should be carefully selected to meet the needs of less confident cyclists, but also serve a useful purpose as a link between an origin and destination. Examples of the type of environment to be expected on such routes within Gloucestershire are shown in Figure 6 , below.
Figure 6. Images of a road that would be suitable for ‘Quietway’ designation.
Source: Google Maps
6.2. Leisure cycling approach Another approach for consideration is developing leisure routes at a lower cost, with the potential remaining to further improve these routes to a commuting standard at a later date. This may involve less extensive upgrading works or simple legalisation to make the route suitable for traversing by mountain bikes or similar in the short term.
Canals and public bridleways are two examples of this type of infrastructure. For canals, discussions with organisations such as the Canal & River Trust could provide supportive information and knowledge. For improvements to public bridleways, a positive example is demonstrated by the Churn Valley Cycle Group,
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 53
Page 67
which has improved an existing public bridleway between Stratton and North Cerney at a low cost to enable cycle usage.
Investigating the existing stock and engaging with local groups invested in related infrastructure presents a low cost opportunity for a leisure route, at least in the short term.
6.3. Potential policy interventions – Active Travel As mentioned above, within Wales there is now the Active Travel (Wales) Act which legislates for the provision of routes designed for walking and cycling. This includes the mapping and promotion of existing routes, together with maps showing potential future routes and links. The Act also allows for walking and cycling needs to be considered in every new road scheme.
As part of the Act, a number of documents have been produced to ensure consistency and compliance. These include a delivery plan and design guidance. GCC could adopt a similar approach to this, using information from this initial study.
6.4. Potential political interventions Following on from national political changes with respect to cycling, such as the publishing of the DfT Cycle Delivery Plan 2 in 2014, there are also a range of regional or local political initiatives that should be considered, such as:
Engagement with the Government’s partnerships programme, which will benefit the local authorities through; providing access to tools and incentives, knowledge sharing, priority access to funding, and sector expertise. Promotion of safe and sustainable school travel.
Furthermore, the Gloucestershire Cycling Strategy 3 outlines a list of requirements for a successful approach to cycling, some of which overlap with the DfT initiatives as follows:
Appointment of a cycling champion from within its elected members (Policy No.3). Hold promotional events all year round to publicise the benefits of cycling (Policy No.11). Requirement of all infrastructure projects to demonstrate consideration of cyclists’ requirements (Policy No.14). Meeting the needs of the less able (Policy No. 16).
By completing these interventions, this will facilitate achievement of the national targets outlined by the Government which are:
To double cycling, where cycling activity is measured as the estimated total number of bicycle stages made each year, from 0.8 billion stages in 2013 to 1.6billion stages by 2025; and Increase the percentage of children aged 5 to 10 that usually walk to school from 47% in 2013 to 55% by 2025 (DfT 2014).
6.5. Funding mechanisms Due to the current nature of funding there is limited forward visibility of options so it is crucial that a series of schemes, projects and initiatives are developed as far as possible. This will allow GCC to apply for any funding streams which are released with relatively tight deadlines. The nature of the current funding environment means that it would be prudent for GCC to monitor existing and new funding opportunities and disseminate such information to relevant officers.
Current examples of funding opportunities include, but are not exclusive to:
Local Sustainable Transport Fund and any future extensions. Department for Transport.
2 Department for Transport (2014) Draft Cycling Delivery Plan 3 Gloucestershire County Council (Forthcoming) Cycling Strategy
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 54
Page 68
Department for Transport Cycling Delivery Plan. Local Growth Fund. Section 106 contributions. Sustrans. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF - includes funding for clean and sustainable urban transport infrastructure). The European Social Fund (ESF – provides funding for socially inclusive strategies, including access to work) Public health bodies. Sport England’s Community Investment Fund . Lottery Funding.
Additionally, regeneration and road safety funding streams are relevant for walking and cycling projects. Section 2.4 of this report highlights the opportunity of providing a business case for schemes based on collision savings, for example.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 55
Page 69
7. Summary and Next Steps
7.1. Summary It is clear from the review of existing project reports and the consultation exercise that there are a large number of barriers to cycling across the County and that these require both minor and major projects (of varying types) to remove the barrier. Key to improving the modal share of cycling across the County will be the co-ordination of both minor and major projects together with behaviour change initiatives and the development of ancillary facilities such as cycle parking, signage, changing facilities and workplace travel plans, for example.
Using the exemplar prioritisation strategy utilised throughout Section 4 , a summary of priority projects can be outlined. This section will present this summarised information.
NB. This information has been compiled using an example method of prioritisation. Depending on aims and objectives, an alternative strategy may be more appropriate. For example, this method considers each route independently whereas some corridors, for example CIR101, act as an important corridor in facilitating all of the other corridors and so their rating under this system is not necessarily appropriate and a symbiotic approach to network development may be more positively generative.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 56
Page 70
7.1.1. Top Priority Corridor in each of the study towns / cities Figure 7.1 , below, shows a snapshot of the top priority corridor for cycling in each of the towns and cities across Gloucestershire included within this study.
Figure 7.1. Top priority corridor locations in Gloucestershire
Key
GLO102 TWK003 CIR002 / 003 / 004
CNM003 / 004 STR001 LYD003 / 004 / 006 / 007
For Gloucester and Tewkesbury, the top priority corridors are existing orbital routes. For Cheltenham, Lydney and Cirencester the improvements are directed more towards radial routes. Within Stroud, the top priority for improvement is the central town area. This alone highlights the differing types of infrastructure and target user audience of the improvements and is something to be considered throughout any feasibility level design.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 57
Page 71
7.1.2. Prioritised routes in each town / city Table 7.1.1 Summary table of route prioritisation in descending order
Town Gloucester Cheltenham Tewkesbury Stroud Cirencester Lydney CIR002 / 003 / LYD003 / 004 GLO102 CNM003 / 004 TWK003 STR001 004 / 006 / 007 LYD001 / 005 GLO002 CNM008 TWK002 STR503 CIR001 / 102 / 008 GLO004 / CNM005 / 006 TWK001 STR502 CIR202 LYD002 101 / 102 GLO001 / CNM002 / 007 TWK201 STR501 CIR201 / 203 005 / 009 / 010
GLO003 CNM103 STR504 CIR101
Corridor Priority GLO201 CNM001
CNM101
Using the aforementioned prioritisation approach, the corridors identified as most important for development in each town / city are:
GLO102 - Gloucester (Outer Ring); CNM003/004 - Cheltenham (A40E to Charlton Kings); TWK003 - Centre (via Wheatpieces) to A38 South; STR001 - Stroud (Central Area) CIR002/003/004 - Cirencester (Tetbury Road, London Road and Stroud Road respectively); LYD003/004/006/007 - Lydney (Lydney station to Harbour, Centre to Tutnalls, Church Road and Aylburton to Centre respectively).
The following sub-section of this report outlines the existing barriers or potential remedial measures to remove a barrier in each corridor on a town by town basis. They are listed as barriers or remedial schemes as the consultation data and project data does not necessarily differentiate these. For the barriers or schemes listed, further investigation is needed to provide a suitable solution. The broader integration of a suggestion within the existing cycling infrastructure should also be considered. N.B This data is collated from consultation or previous project sources and is therefore not a recommendation put forward by Atkins.
Table 7.2, below sets out the summary of the quick wins across each town. It is clear that not many quick wins exist, owing to the existing complexities of providing cycling facilities. However, there is a clear correlation between a quick win a priority corridor within Cheltenham – CNM003.
Table 7.1.2. Summary table of quick win schemes
Main Beneficiaries Number of Indicative Town/City Corridor Green Utility School Leisure Cost Barriers Gloucester No such corridors identified. Cheltenham CNM003 Ɏ Ɏ Ɏ 2 <£100k CNM103 x Ɏ x 1 <£50k Tewkesbury No such corridors identified. Stroud No such corridors identified. Cirencester No such corridors identified. Lydney No such corridors identified.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 58
Page 72
7.2. Priority Corridors and Schemes by Town / City
7.2.1. Gloucester Figure 7.2.1. Gloucester Top Priority Corridor
Key
Outer Ring Network (Via A38/A417/Barnwood Road Junction to A38/A430/Bristol Road Junction) / GLO102
Table 7.2.1. Gloucester barriers or schemes for priority corridor GLO102
Town Corridor(s) Scheme Description RAG Rating
Cycle priority at junction on GLO102A Eastern Avenue. Two way AMBER cycling General improvements GLO102B AMBER required on Eastern Avenue Cycle lane suddenly ends on Gloucester GLO102 GLO102C GREEN Eastern Avenue Cycle Lane from KFC Cole GLO102D AMBER Avenue to Monkmeadow Cars parked in cycle lane on GLO102E GREEN Finlay Road
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 59
Page 73
7.2.2. Cheltenham Figure 7.2.2 . Cheltenham Top Priority Corridors
Key
Centre to A40 East / CNM003
A40/A435 Junction to A435 South / CNM004
Table 7.2.2. Cheltenham barriers or schemes for priority corridors CNM003 / 004
Town Corridor(s) Scheme Description RAG Rating
Cycle lanes around parked CNM003A GREEN cars in Charlton Kings CNM003 / Cheltenham Signs required to warn 004 CNM003B GREEN motorists of cyclists General Infrastructure CNM004A AMBER improvements
NB: CNM003 and CNM103 were identified as quick win corridors, though CNM103 did not provide to the beneficiaries as outlined in Section 4.2.3 . As previously noted, this method of prioritisation and discounting can be altered and utilised differently depending on the objectives and aims of the project, and as such the summary tables are not definitive.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 60
Page 74
7.2.3. Tewkesbury Figure 7.2.3. Tewkesbury Top Priority Corridor
Key
A38/Ashchurch Road (A438) Junction to A38 South / TWK003
Table 7.2.3. Tewkesbury barriers or schemes for priority corridor TWK003A
Town Corridor(s) Scheme Description RAG Rating
Gloucester Road/A38 Tewkesbury TWK003 TWK003A RED Roundabout Improvements
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 61
Page 75
7.2.4. Stroud Figure 7.2.4. Stroud Top Priority Corridor
Key
Central Area / STR001
Table 7.2.4. Stroud barriers or schemes for priority corridor STR001
Town Corridor(s) Scheme Description RAG Rating
Traffic-free route along STR001A RED Merrywalks Access to Train Station limiting Stroud STR001 STR001B AMBER . 20mph across town STR001C AMBER .
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 62
Page 76
7.2.5. Cirencester Figure 7.2.5. Cirencester Top Priority Corridor
Table 7.2.5. Cirencester barriers or schemes for priority corridors CIR002 / 003 / 004
Town Corridor(s) Scheme Description RAG Rating
Poor access to Kingshill CIR002A School, no crossings over AMBER London Road
Beeches to Kingshill School CIR002B and town, path not continuous AMBER or wide enough for dual use CIR002 / 003 Cirencester / 004 London road entrance to CIR002C Corinium Heights, no crossing GREEN to access cycleway
CIR003A General Improvements OTHER CIR004A General Improvements OTHER
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 63
Page 77
7.2.6. Lydney Figure 7.2.6. Lydney Top Priority Corridor
Key
Lydney Station to Harbour / LYD003 Church Road to LYD001 / LYD006
LYD002 Link to Hams Road / LYD004 Aylburton to Town / LYD007
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 64
Page 78
Table 7.2.6. Lydney barriers or schemes for priority corridors LYD003 / 004 / 006 / 007
Town Corridor(s) Scheme Description RAG Rating
Shared path conversion, LYD003C AMBER undergrowth management Conversion of current LYD004D AMBER LYD003 / 004 rambling/walking routes Lydney / 006 / 007 Cycle path, crossing Dean LYD006F AMBER Forest Railway Shared path to link to LYD007G AMBER Aylburton
7.3. Between Town Corridor Summary According to the exemplar prioritisation used in this report, using population as a guide unsurprisingly links together the major settlements in Gloucestershire. However this is highly simplified, and other characteristics such as: the existing infrastructure; the purpose of the route; the cycling population proportions; the nature or topography of the corridor; the suitability of other infrastructures for conversion (such as canal paths); the length of the corridor, and; whether there is demand for improvements. As a result, any prioritisation is over- simplified.
What is essential for Between Town links is a focus on the way these interconnect with the internal networks within the towns and cities. Without the development of these links, the Between Town corridors would be ineffective as a standalone development. This necessitates a consideration of the existing infrastructure that connects into the existing internal routes and a strategic plan to approach the issue, looking beyond the characteristics of the corridor itself.
7.4. General Barriers Summary As noted in Section 3.1 , respondents to this consultation showed similarities with the conclusions presented by the APPCC in their 2013 report. This highlights the importance of both a local and national scale strategy to encourage the use of the bicycle, as the end aim is the same. The barriers to cycling are diverse, yet manageable and focus should be on resolving each barrier in its broader context accordingly. In this light, prioritising an order of barriers to overcome is restrictive of this broader agenda, as it would narrow focus on improvements in one sphere, such as infrastructure, which may not be utilised without improvements in another sphere, such as education and training. A barrier indicates a finite and fundamental limitation to encouraging cycling; removing one barrier without considering another over-simplifies a complex situation.
That being said, the survey respondents, as noted in Section 2.4 , highlighted a lack of infrastructure as the predominant limitation to cycling in Gloucestershire, and so an initial consideration of physical improvements is an important, instructive and appropriate cornerstone for improving access to cycling across the county.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 65
Page 79
7.6. Suggested Next Steps
The DfT Cycling Delivery Plan (2014) sets out the following steps:
- Submit Expression of Interest to DfT about forming a partnership - Develop a local walking and cycling delivery plan - Appoint an influential cycling and walking champion locally - Planned and funded cycling and walking investment programme - Demonstrate a door-to-door journey commitment - Demonstrate a cycle- and pedestrian-proof design principle when considering new transport infrastructure - Demonstrate that cycling and walking plans show steps to meet the needs of people from hard to reach groups, such as disabled people and the elderly
Project –specific steps to complete:
Stage 1
Review each of the priority corridors per town and produce a more detailed Feasibility Study for each town Are they still relevant? If yes, look at links to other corridors within and outwith the town to inform a phased Delivery Plan What next? Consult with the public and relevant stakeholders
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 66
Page 80
Stage 2
Review Stage 1 to incorporate consultation comments and suggestions Refine Delivery Plan
Produce Final Delivery Plan What next? Maintain the Delivery Plan to ensure it is kept up to date with external opportunities and developments produce more detailed Feasibility Study
Stage 3
Use Delivery Plan to influence developer negotiations, future funding bids and inform future local transport plan submissions Post scheme implementation
Conduct monitoring of cycling modal shares and specfic scheme interventions to help maintain focus of the Delivery Plan and adapt as necessary
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 67
Page 81
7.6.1. Descriptions The following graphic sets out the types of things that should be included in each of the Feasibility Studies, the Delivery Plan and future Monitoring exercises.
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 68
Page 82
Appendices
Page 83
Appendix A. Blank Questionnaire Form
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 70
Page 84
Appendix B. Barriers to Cycling - List
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 71
Page 85
Appendix C. Gloucester Barriers
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 72
Page 86
Appendix D. Cheltenham Barriers
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 73
Page 87
Appendix E. Tewkesbury Barriers
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 74
Page 88
Appendix F. Stroud Barriers
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 75
Page 89
Appendix G. Cirencester Barriers
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 76
Page 90
Appendix H. Lydney Barriers
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 77
Page 91
Appendix I. Links Between Towns
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 78
Page 92
Appendix J. All Other Barriers
Atkins Summary Report | Version 3.0 | November 2014 | 5135410 79
Page 93
Fraser Arnot Atkins Highways and Transportation Longcross Court Newport Road Cardiff CF24 0AD
[email protected] 02920 358020
© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise.
The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd .
Page 94 Barriers to Cycling Questionnaire
General Questions
1 Across the County as a whole, please indicate your opinion of the main current barrier to cycling:
▪ Safety ▪ Lack of suitable infrastructure - on road; such as cycle lanes and advanced stop lines ▪ Lack of suitable infrastructure - off road (traffic free); such as shared use paths and cycle tracks
▪ Lack of available cycle training for adults and children ▪ Direct and convenient routes - missing bridges/links ▪ Sufficient cycle planning information such as maps, guides and journey planners
2 In terms of cyclist safety, what do you see are the main issues across the County for encouraging new or returning cyclists?
3 Does the County have sufficient levels of on-road cycling infrastructure? Yes No
If no, where should improvements to on-road infrastructure be targeted within the County?
Page 95 Are there any of the following specific on-road types of infrastructure you would like to see? ▪ Cycle lanes ▪ Cyclist priority traffic signals ▪ Advanced stop lines at junctions ▪ Increased signage and directional markings for cyclists ▪ Use of bus lanes for cyclists ▪ Cyclist contraflow schemes
▪ Controlled crossing points for cyclists such as Toucan crossings and cyclist Zebra crossings
4 Does the County have sufficient levels of off-road cycling infrastructure?
Yes No
If no, where should improvements to off-road infrastructure be targeted within the County?
Are there any of the following specific traffic free types of infrastructure that you would like to see implemented more across the County? ▪ Shared use paths (pedestrian and cycle) ▪ Cycle tracks ▪ Segregated routes on the carriageway (i.e. reallocation of road space) ▪ Grade separated crossings - for example bridges and subways ▪ Controlled passing points for cyclists such as Toucan crossings and cyclist Zebra crossings
5 Across the County, which areas (towns/villages) are in most need of improvement/development for commuter cyclists ? (Please choose a maximum of 5, in priority order).
Page 96 6 Across the County, which areas (towns/villages) are in most need of improvement/development for children cycling to school ? (Please choose a maximum of 5, in priority order).
7 Across the County, which areas (towns/villages) are in most need of improvement/development for leisure cyclists ? (Please choose a maximum of 5, in priority order).
8 In terms of links between main towns and villages within the County, please indicate links you would like to see developed (in prioritised order):
9 In terms of links between main towns and villages outside the County, please indicate links you would like to see developed (in prioritised order):
10 Is there scope to improve cycle training and awareness across the County?
Yes No
If yes, where should training be directed? ▪ Adults ▪ School Children ▪ Motorists
Page 97 ▪ All of the above
11 Is there scope to improve cycle journey planning information across the County?
Yes No
If yes, where should efforts be more directed? ▪ Online information ▪ Printed information - e.g. maps ▪ Personalised journey planning ▪ Signage and route branding
Specific Questions
12 For each of the areas identified below, please provide brief details of one development scheme, intervention or improvement that could be made in order to remove an existing significant barrier for cycling.
Gloucester
Cheltenham
Cirencester
Tewkesbury
Page 98 Stroud
Lydney
13 Is there one town from the list above that should be prioritised for cycling infrastructure improvements over other towns to encourage greater awareness amongst motorists and 'set an example' for the County, if so, which town, in your opinion, would be most suitable?
14 Are there locations within the County that are significantly lacking in cycle parking facilities? If so, please list locations below.
Any other comments?
Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 100 Corridor Barriers/Schemes Area Previously Suggested by Corridor Corridor Identified Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, Number Description Corridor? P=Previous Study): Gloucester Road - Yes: Halcrow CNM901 parallel to 2003, 1 survey CNM901 Honeybourne Line respondent Pitville-FCH-Park CNM902 CNM902 Q Campus Links Centre-Swindon CNM903 CNM903 Q Village CNM904 Centre-Longford CNM904 Q CNM905 Rowanfield Area CNM905 Q Ring road Yes: 2 survey CNM906 CNM906 Routes to avoid central one-way system Q improvements respondents CNM907 Cleeve Hill CNM907 Q Leckhampton Hill CNM908 (extension of CNM908 Q CNM006) Cheltenham to Central Severn CNM909 Kingsditch (NW Vale - Atkins CNM909A General P Extension) 2010 Report
Swindon Road/Kingsditch Lane/Runnings CNM909B Q Road Roundabout - redesign entire area
Kingsditch Lane to Kingsmead Road to Grevil Road - widen Gloucester Road Yes: Halcrow CNM910 CNM910A access paths to the toucan crossing, P (Via Princess 2003 improving access onto Arle Road Elizabeth Way) Coronation Square - remove gyratory CNM910B system - make the main through route two Q way along one side of the square CNM910C Tanners Lane lighting P Grafton Road (Links CNM005 with CNM911 Gloucestershire CNM911 General improvements Q Park Campus and Tivoli) Copt Elm Road (Links CNM003 with CNM912 CNM912 CNM004 after separation) Alternative route to Using developments through Montpellier CNM913 CNM005 (to Park CNM913A gardens by signposting Great Norwood Q Campus/Tivoli) Street as an alternative, suitable cycle route
Westal Green to Tivoli and St Stephens Road - access to shared use footway into St CNM913B Stephens Road poor. Also an issue with the P phasing of the lights, long waiting times. No easy response - study may be useful.
Pittville Lawn - cycle link through Pittville CNM913C P Gates, route that avoids Prestbury Road
Cheltenham The Park - install activated speed signs - CNM913D remove centre line, widen cycle lane and P remove traffic islands Arle Avenue/Colletts Drive; relocate barriers Link between Yes: C&TCC CNM914 CNM914 on bridge, install dropped kerb leading in to P CNM008/CNM009 Wishlist Colletts Drive Back Montpellier Terrace (improve crossing Link between CNM915 CNM915 of Suffolk Square, improve signing and P CNM006/CNM007 signal alterations at Bath Road)
Page 101 A4015 Queen's Circus to Moor End Charlton Kings cycle route, St Judes Walk - Road (Charlton CNM916 CNM916A route from Chancel Park/St Judes Walk to P Kings) - also the existing cycle route connects CNM004 and CNM005 Charlton Kings Cycle route junction with Moorend Road - improve entrance, CNM916B P measures to slow traffic and improve visibility Promenade, Imperial Square to Crescent Terrace and Crescent Terrace itself (2 way - CNM916C P will require layout changes at Imperial Square end) Prestbury Road roundabout and Albert CNM917 Prestbury Road CNM917 Road - closing Albert Road for through P traffic, roundabout difficult to cross Sandford Road To allow ease of transition from Keynsham CNM801 CNM801 Q Crossing Road to Christowe Lane CNM802 A417 Missing Link CNM802 Leckhampton Hill @ Air Balloon Q Christchurch School CNM804 CNM804 Lack of cycle parking even for staff Q - Malvern Road Timbecombe CNM805 Lane/Cirencester CNM805 Q Road junction Park Lane to Gordon's Lamp - widen ACL Park Lane to CNM806 CNM806 and extent to cul-de-ac, protect entrance to Q Gordon's Lamp Gordon's Lamp Crossing Welland Lodge Footpath - widen and remove barriers as CNM807 Road to New Barn CNM807 part of housing development to five link to P Lane Prestbury Informal track across Approach Golf Course Wymans Brook to between Roman Hackle Avenue to Tommy CNM808 CNM808 P Pittville - Taylors Lane - useful for access to Pittville School GLO901 London Road GLO901 Q Slimbridge Canal GLO902 GLO902 Q Corridor Access to GLO903 GLO903A General Q Gloucester Station GLO903B Via Platform 4 Q Gloucester City Elmridge Underpass; vegetation clearance GLO904 Centre to Elmbridge Atkins 2010 GLO904A Q and surfacing improvements (and Churchdown)
Elmridge court underpass - drains, lights on GLO904B cycle paths under bridge on A417 between Q Elmbridge Court and C&G Roundabout
Unlit in some places so provide lighting, GLO905 NCN41 Atkins 2010 GLO905 poor surface in the wet but not suitable to P use bituminous materials to surface Widen cycle lanes on Abbeymeade Avenue Gloucester City and clarify ambiguity of central refuges GLO906 Centre to Abbey Atkins 2010 GLO906A Q which make it unclear who has priority at Mead these pinch points GLO906B Abbeymead improved cycle route signing Q
Abbeymead Avenue - studs to demarcate GLO906C Q cycle lanes as cars ignore lanes GLO906D Abbeymead - Asda, poor surface Q All painted lanes around Abbeymead, poor GLO906E Q surface Abbeymead Av - poor quality cycle lane, GLO906F narrowing of lanes where there is cycle Q lanes
Page 102 Abbeydale - removal of keep left signs and GLO906G Q bollards Where footpaths are shared with cyclists, GLO906H pedestrians can suffer with narrow paths Q and cyclists taking ownership of the route
There is currently a good path from Gloucester to Highnam roundabout. A wide path continues down the A48 to Gloucester City Minsterworth and beyond, but stops for the GLO907 Centre to Highnam GLO907A A40. If you travel along the A40 1/2mile the Q (A40W) and beyond track starts up again just past 2mile lane. This then continues to Huntley and beyond.
Gloucester This seemingly missing 1/2mile has wide verges especially on the southern side.
Over Causeway to the Highnam Turning, GLO907B Q poor surface Gloucester City Centre to A better route for cyclists across Longford GLO908 GLO908 Q Longford/A38 roundabout (A40/A38) North Bicycle Parking at GLO801 GLO801 Q Gloucester Queens Cycle Parking at GLO802 GLO802 Q Robinswood Hill Green Lane (link GLO803 between GLO002 GLO803 Removal of wooden barrier Q and GLO201) Waterwells Drive GLO804 GLO804 Revision of cyclepath markings Q (Quedgeley) C&G and Walls Avoiding making changes on this as it works GLO805 GLO805 Q Roundabout well Elmbridge Road (link between GLO002 and Cheltenham road for routes to GLO806 Cheltenham via GLO806 Cars regularly parked in cycle lanes Q NCN41 - Innsworth/Churchd own and Gloucestershire Airport) New track in GLO807 GLO807 Q Hemstead Cycle track from Elmbridge up to the truck stop, routing under either of the existing GL808 A417 West side, GL808 Q bridges carrying the railway in order to cut out the route through Lavington Drive Pirton Corner to new Fire Station; cycle path required as safer to stay on carriageway GL809 NCN41 GL809 Q rather than cross to the dedicated cycle path Beeches Green- A4171 (for schools, Yes: 3 survey Merrywalks, Beeches Green and out to STR901 STR901A Q Pagan Hill and respondents Archway and Stroud College Stratford Park) traffic-free route (or shared pavement) on STR901B Beeches Green, Stratford Road & Cainscross Q Road cycle lane between the bus station area at Merrywalks via Beeches Green to link the STR901C Q town with the Leisure centre and Paganhill area.
Stroud Yes: 2 survey Route from town to canal under railway STR902 Stroud Canal STR902 Q respondents bridge is particularly nasty.
Page 103 Stroud Centre to STR903 STR903 cycle path required to Painswick Q A46 North Marling and High STR801 STR801 Q Schools Access to STR802 Robinswood STR802 Country Park Chesterton (new Links to town centre, hinterland and CIR901 CIR901 Q development) Kemble rail Better and safer cycle access to the schools Kingshill School to CIR902 CIR902 (Kingshill and Deer Park) from the new Q Kingshill estates, Kingshill N and S. Former Railway Yes: Hyder Not signed whether pedestrian/cyclist CIR903 CIR903 P Line 2008 route, not continuous surface No direct link to town centre via Purley County Primary Yes: Hyder Road from Fields. Links to school: poor CIR904 CIR904 P School 2008 lighting, visibility and adverse road infrastructure Yes: Hyder Lack of signage to centre of to Watermoor CIR905 Watermoor Road CIR905A P 2008 primary Watermoor-Chesterton Subway - no CIR905B signage about where subway goes to or that P it is there Sustrans route along Watermoor Rd - lack CIR905C P of signage and high traffic speed Sustrans route 45 - no safe link to town CIR905D P centre Yes: Hyder Poor surfacing, no links to Love Lane and CIR906 Fosse Way CIR906 P 2008 new housing Stratton- Yes: Hyder Cycle lane stops before entrance to Overhill CIR907 CIR907A P Cirencester 2008 Road and Stratton Heights residential areas Gloucester Street - leisure route and main CIR907B route to Stratton but narrow and one way P in the wrong direction Cheltenham Road - no footpath or cycle CIR907C lane on the main route into Cirencester P
Cirencester from Perrot's Brook and Stratton Cycle link to Yes: Hyder CIR908 CIR908 Not yet constructed P football club 2008 Links to Preston CIR909 and the CIR909 Not yet constructed P Countryside Love Lane - sharp bends and camber by CIR912 Love Lane CIR910A Metric House and by the Divisional P Surveyors Office No cycle parking/cycle lanes to Water Park CIR910B P or Town Centre Centre Cycle A lack of parking facilities e.g. Market Place, CIR801 CIR801 Q Parking Dyer Street Poor visibility on sharp bend over the road CIR802 Golden Farm CIR802 P bridge to join the cycle path to town
Open air pool link CIR804 CIR804 Overgrown/no signage or lighting P to Barton Lane Park Lane/Cecily Narrow bend - constraint for cyclists CIR805 CIR805 P Hill - heading to Deer Park School CIR806 Siddington Road - CIR806 Signage to Water Park stops once joining P CIR807 Querns Lane CIR807 Busy shortcut through town P Severn Way Link TWK901 TWK901 Q improvements Northway Lane centre islands and throttles, TWK902 Northway Lane TWK902A P Northway Remove cycle lanes across motorway bridge TWK902B in Northway Lane - increase width of cycle P by pass of throttles, if retained
Page 104 Abandon Toucan and related shared-use TWK902C footways towards west end of Northway P Lane Remove footway cycle facilities at TWK902D Northway Lane/The Park, potentially P retaining right-turn jug-handle path Modify footway to station for pedestrian TWK902E P use only
Tewkesbury Centre - Extend 30mph speed limit on Bredon Road Mitton via Bredon to the county boundary, consider 20mph TWK903 TWK903A P and Tewkesbury zone from town centre to Carrant Road Road (B4080 North) (narrow road)
Replace centre island on Bredon Road near TWK903B P Oldbury Road with a zebra crossing Upgrade cycle path to Northway Lane and TWK903C P resolve legal status Abandon proposal for shared footway from TWK903D Trafalgar Road; enable cyclists to access P Digby Drive from Toucan TWK903E Improve road surfaces throughout P Tewkesbury Centre- Remove direction of cyclists to footways at TWK904 Mythe (A38 TWK904 P Mythe Bridge North/A438 West) Secure parking is TWK801 TWK801 E.g. covered parking at Ashchurch station P lacking Allow cyclists to use one-way roads in both TWK802 Prior's Park TWK802A P directions TWK802B Upgrade Abbots Walk for cycling P Create a good quality, direct link for cycling TWK802C P between Dukes Way and York Road
Tewkesbury
Reduce the size of Gloucester Road/A38 TWK802D P Roundabout with Continental Geometry
Upgrade footpath from Barton Court to TWK803 Wheatpieces TWK803A Widgeon lane as a cycle track to meet DfT P guidelines. Sign access to track within estate Restore Rudgeway Lane to meet DfT TWK803B P guidelines as an urban cycle route Consider feasibility of more direct routes TWK803C P for cycling across Wheatpieces Modify or replace spacious estate TWK803D P roundabouts to facilitate cycling Modify of replace A38 roundabouts at TWK803E Snowdonia Road and Monterey Road to P facilitate cycling TWK804 Industrial Area TWK804A Improve damaged or worn road surfaces P Reduce aggressive driving by employer- TWK804B P inclusive initiatives Upgrade and extend railway path to meet TWK804C P DfT guidelines in full Improve safety of shared path from Green Lane to Shannon Way. Build out at Green TWK804D P Lane to improve sightlines, terminate in minor road at first opportunity Improve cycle tracks at Green Lane (through TWK804E P road closure) Abandon shared-use footways in Shannon TWK804F P Way Modify footways around Wheal Road for TWK804G P pedestrian use only Upgrade footpath from Warren Road to TWK804H P Alexandra Way Longhope to LYD901 LYD901 Q Mitcheldean
Page 105 Lydney station to LYD902 LYD902 Q the Town
Patchy and disjoint cycle infrastructure necessitating the use of Lydney High St, which is very busy during commute hours. LYD903 The Dean Academy LYD903 Alternatively there is a need to run Q alongside a short stretch of the A48 (with the national speed limit in force) with barriers that force cyclists into the road!
The key to Lydney is making the High Street Lydney available for cycling that is safe and perceived as safe. The High Street acts as a central spine and cyclists need safe direct LYD801 High Street LYD801 Q routes. The proposed Newerne Link needs to take a pragmatic and holistic approach in its design to ensure that clear cycle routes are provided. LYD802 Parking LYD802 Station and Centre Q 20mph zone in LYD803 LYD803 Q town centre
Page 106 Corridor Barriers / Schemes Required Intervention Area Suggested by Corridor Corridor Previously Intervention Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, RAG rating Intervention Key Number Description Recognised? Type P=Previous Study): GLO001 City Central Area No GLO001A St Oswald's Road/A4031/A417 Roundabout Q I R T Traffic management and enforcement
GLO001B Railway Station: Parking Q I G I New or improved infrastructure GLO001C Railway Station: Access Q I A M Maintenance Cycle corridor through central pedestrian GLO001D Q I A S Signage zones, clearly lined or with kerbs
Make town centre a 20mph zone. Prevent GLO001E cars from parking on present cycle lanes, Q T A O Other and higher fines for speeding/poor parking Improvements to the subway under the GLO001F QIG railway station Remove the ban for cyclists through The GLO001G QTG Cross
Stroud Road/Weston Road junction - on road cycle lanes that give cyclists turning priority would improve the situation on GLO001H PTG Stroud Road Westbound. On road cycle lane on Weston Road southbound across the junction with new street
Junction of Eastgate Street/Brunswick GLO001I PIA Road/Trier Way (?)
Quay street - zebra crossing and beacons at GLO001J Kimbrose Island to make clear the right of QIG way for pedestrians at this point
Decent cycling surfaces and widths - GLO001K QMR preferably off-road - maintenance
the biggest problem is the immediate city centre access roads to the main gate streets - the pavements are full of pedestrians with priority, the roads are in dreadful potholed condition (main source of punctures), traffic is rife and thoughtless towards cyclists and the routes are full of buses which are a big worry to cyclists. The gate streets are no cycling in the daytime so to get around the GLO001L city centre cyclists have to go a longer QIR circuitous route to get to a destination or struggle with a bike through high level pedestrian traffic. I think the city centre access area should be reasonably easy to improve - how about one pavement side city centre perimeter on roads being predominantly pedestrian and one cyclists and a an approved cycle lane area through the gate streets?
GLO001M more cycle parking areas in the main docks. QIG
Yes: Central Severn Vale City Centre (St Transport Oswald's Road) to GLO002 Study - Atkins GLO002A Barnwood improved cycle route signing QSG Ermin Street/A46 2010, Halcrow Junction 2003, GCC Officers
Cars parked in cycle lanes on the A46 from the Cirencester dual carriageway GLO002B Barton street stop-start cycle lanes IR roundabout to Brockworth roundabout - widen road and add cycle path. City Centre (Bruton Yes: Halcrow GLO003 Way) to B4073 2003, GCC GLO003A Barton street stop-start cycle lanes QTA Upton Hill Officers City Centre (Bruton Yes: Halcrow Way/Tier Way A4173 cycle lane into Gloucester replaced GLO004 2003, GCC GLO004A QIR Junction) to A4173 with separate track Officers South Replace A38 roundabout near St Barnabas GLO004B QIR church with Dutch system
A38 Roundabout - lights and clearer cycle GLO004C markings to control traffic and create Q T + s A benefits for cyclists and pedestrians Yes: Central City Centre (St Ann Severn Vale Way/Tier Leisure and commuter route along canal Transport GLO005 Way/B4072 GLO005A past GlosCol to Cole Avenue - NCN41/45, QIR Study - Atkins Junction) to Bristol runs adjacent to Bristol Road) 2010, GCC Road Officers Bristol Road (B4008) - contraflow cycling needed up existing path on flyover exit from GLO005B QIA Hardwicke, to link with cycling infrastructure from J12 to Hardwicke Route via Seymour road to avoid busy GLO005C P T/S A Bristol road on East side. Between Seymour road and Weston Road the route uses Stroud road. On this road, GLO005D P T/S G hatch out existing right turn lane and improve signing. Between Seymour Road and Tuffley Gloucester Crescent/Podsmead Road, a staggered left, right movement is required. Protect GLO005E visibility splays. Install a cycle lane on PTA Tuffley Avenue/install Double Yellow/Single Yellow links to maintain visibility on Tuffley Avenue. On Bristol Road, Wider cycle lanes or GLO005F narrow footpath to avoid the need for P T/I A chicane manoeuvres around parked cars
Restrict parking on Podsmead Road (part of GLO005G PTG the Bristol Road avoidance route)
Page 107 On Bristol Road, on road cycle lane and GLO005H widening of Southbound Lane (northbound PTA currently on unsuitable pavement)
Tuffley/Kingsway to Bristol Road Cycle connections inadequate; shared use path along Greenhill Drive linking Cole Avenue to GLO005I the Tuffley Lane/Bodiam Avenue PIA roundabout and suitable crossing provision to link to the proposed signed cycle routes at Streamside would address this issues.
Signed cycle route between Tuffley Lane and Podsmead Road is poor quality - better infrastructure at Podsmead Road/Cole Avenue junction and a small off-road cycle path section west of this junction. Provide a GLO005J shared use path adjacent to Cole Avenue PIR from Lower Tuffley Lane to Podsmead Road, existing facilities at Podsmead Road/Cole Avenue to Toucan, add a Toucan crossing on Cole Avenue linking Lower Tuffley Lane to Tuffley Lane
Missing link in high quality cycle route reduces its connectivity to southern parts of Quedgeley - a bridge over Dimore Brook would provide a very high quality route into GLO005K PIR the city centre and future links to the Hunts Grove Development Site, with new shared use paths connecting existing pathways to the bridge (lighting on these paths)
Widen footpath on Greenhill Drive to provide a shared facility between GLO005L PIA Bodiam/Avenue/Greenhill Drive r/abt and Cole Avenue Traffic Lights. Cycle lanes often blocked by cars. Traffic GLO005M calming curves an issue as they require QTA cyclists to move into the centre of the road Barnwood/Hucclecote Road - cycle lanes on both sides of road to give legitimacy for GLO005N QTG cyclists and to give them 'first claim' to road space Westgate Bridge Car Park to Quedgeley: GLO005O QMG maintenance and cleanliness issues
Beyond: Quedgeley - widen road and add GLO005P QIR cycle path
Inner Ring Network (Via St Oswald's Way/Gouda Way/Black Dog Review of traffic management and vehicle GLO101 Way/Bruton GCC Officers GLO101A priorities required, inc. reallocation of road Q T/I R Way/Trier Way/St space Ann Way/Llanthony Road/Castlemeads Way)
Outer Ring Network A38 Yes: Halcrow Link up access roads on NW of Eastern (A38/A417/Barnwo GLO102 2003, GCC GLO102A Avenue as two way for cycles with priority QTA od Road Junction to Officers at junctions A38/A430/Bristol Road Junction)
GLO102B Eastern Avenue PTA Eastern Avenue near Coney Hill - cycle lane GLO102C QTG ends suddenly Cycle Lane from KFC Cole Avenue to GLO102D QTA Monkmeadow GLO102E Cars parked in cycle lane on Finlay Road QTG
Lobley's Drive M5 Bridge over M5/improvements to existing GLO201 GCC Officers GLO201A IR Bridge bridge
Page 108 Corridor Barriers / Schemes Required Intervention Area Suggested by Corridor Corridor Previously Intervention Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, RAG rating Intervention Key Number Description Recognised? Type P=Previous Study): Yes:C&TCC Cheltenham 2011 (wish CNM001 CNM001A All day cycling through Cheltenham Centre Q/PTR T Traffic management and enforcement Central Area list), GCC Officers CNM001B 20 mph limit in Cheltenham Centre Q/P T R I New or improved infrastructure Town centre traffic including buses have CNM001C an easy alternative route around town so QTR M Maintenance please exploit that. CNM001D Lack of cycle parking Q I G S Signage Allow two way movement along Pittville Street, from High Street to Albion street. CNM001E PTG O Other Use the existing southbound bus/cycle phasing at the lights Allow two way movement along CNM001F Winchcombe Street, from high street to PTG Albion Street Allow two way movement along Rodney CNM001G PTG Road, to enable 2 way access to high street
Allow two way movement along Albion Street (existing proposals to allow CNM001H buses/cyclists to use this two way). Would PTA require traffic signal adjustments at the junction with Pittville Street Junction High Street, Henrietta St to Promenade (allow buses and cycles to cross Clarence CNM001I PIG Street directly at High Street (Boots corner) Wellington Street 2 way (TRO and signing CNM001J needed). Part of an alternative to P S & T G CN004/5) High Street, Strand to London Road (reduce westbound traffic to one lane - CNM001K PTR with a contra-flow cycle lane to clarify arrangements) Royal Well Road/Clarence Street/North CNM001L Street (2 way cycle access - existing PTG proposals to remove car access) Promenade/St Georges Road/Royal Well CNM001M Place - difficult junction; signal PTR phasing/layout revisions North Street to Albion Place/North Place; realignment to slow forward traffic CNM001N PTA (proposal to restrict access to buses and cycles) St James Street at High Street; zebra crossing at the junction rather than CNM001O PIG vehicular priority would improve situation for pedestrians and cyclists Grosvenor Place South to High Street (allowing cycling on pedestrianised CNM001P section, using low level planters to deflect PIG pedestrians away from the blind junction at high street) St Anne's Road - allowing 2 way cycling for CNM001Q PTG links between town centre and Fairview
Albert Place - 2 way use of road to shorten access to the town via Sherbourne Street, CNM001R PTA or/and, opening up closure of Black Albert Place at Prestbury Road Jersey Street - introduction of a cycle gap CNM001S through the closure near Holy Trinity PIG School Cheltenham 1 way system - look at making some parts both direction again, with CNM001T PTR traffic measures to stop through traffic coming through Cambray Place - Rodney Road to Cambray CNM001U Place link (widen footway to provide for PIA shared use) High street at St Pauls Street South - CNM001V P S & t G regularisation of officially blocked access North Place/Margaret's Road - advanced CNM001W PTG stop line at the traffic lights Promenade/Post Office Lane - poorly lit, CNM001X reinstate 2 way cycling on Promenade PTG instead (planned for 2011) CNM001Y Queens Hotel - redesign layout P I R Royal Well Lane - widen and realign CNM001Z PIA existing paths Cheltenham Centre Yes: Halcrow (Portland Street) to 2003, C&TCC, Clarence Street, St George's Place to CNM002 Racecourse/Bishop 1 survey CNM002A Q (multiple) T + S G Clarence Parade (2 way, needs signing) s Cleeve via A435 respondent, North GCC Officers Atkins 2013, CNM002B Honeybourne Line Extension Northwards Q I R GCC Officers Honeybourne Line at Folly Lane - realign CNM002C PIG barriers and lay additional surfaces
London Road Charlton Kings - where cars Yes: Halcrow may open doors onto oncoming cyclists. Cheltenham Centre 2003, 1 survey 'put lines on the road that show that CNM003 (High Street) to CNM003A PTG respondent, cyclists on inside lane will be pulling out A40 East GCC Officers around parked cars, and that cars/lorries behind them should expect that.' A40 East of Cheltenham/Tunnel CNM003B Hill/Withington bend - signs warning QSG motorists of cyclists Yes: Halcrow A40/A435 Junction CNM004 2003, GCC CNM004A Infrastructure improvements IA to A435 South Officers Cheltenham Centre Yes: Halcrow (Bath Road) to 2003, 1 survey Widening and addition of cycle lane which CNM005 CNM005A QTA Shurdington Road respondent, has priority at T-junctions South GCC Officers
Page 109 Shurdington Road/Leckhampton Yes: 1 survey CNM006 Road Junction to respondent, CNM006A Not enough information OU Leckhampton Road GCC Officers South
Yes: Halcrow Cheltenham Centre 2003, 2 survey Reduce speed limit on Lansdown Road to CNM007 (Queen's Circus) to CNM007A QTG respondents, 30mph A40 West GCC Officers
B4063 at Arle Court, extension of the cycle CNM007B path and safe crossing (Access to Golden QIA Valley/Gloucester avoiding A40)
Marking on cycle path on Lansdown Road where path passes house entrances; a CNM007C QSG cycle icon at each entrance would remind drivers that cyclists are about. Montpellier Street - 2 way cycling, CNM007D pedestrian crossing near Fauconberg Road QIG would need to be revised Gloucester Road - crossing to Campden CNM007E Road, poor bends and inappropriate PIG barriers Hartherley Lane/B&Q - re-design route CNM007F from the A40 with cycle priority all the way PIR to B&Q/Hatherely Lane/Grovefield way Lansdown Road by Gloucester Road - CNM007G PIG dropped kerbs hazardous Lansdown Road cycle track - improve CNM007H junction with Lansdown Parade, and close PIA road with Lansdown Walk Telstar Road/Gloucester Road junction, CNM007I new cut through from Miserden Road to PIG the crossing
Cheltenham Centre (via Honeybourne Yes: C&TCC, 3 Line) to survey Caernarvon respondents South Cheltenham to Station Link CNM008 CNM008A P/Q (multiple) I R Road/Up Hatherley (Honeybourn (Honeybourne Line South Extension) Way Junction via e South Link), Cheltenham Spa GCC Officers Station
Vegetation clearance and lighting on CNM008B PMG Honeybourne Line Honeybourne Line at Queens Road - re- design area, moving buses to station CNM008C PIR forecourt and removing barriers - as these affect access to the Honeybourne Line Honeybourne Way - new road a barrier to Cheltenham Centre people reaching the town centre from (St George's Road) CNM009 CNM009A Alstone, restoration of a link between QIR to A4013/Orchard Millbrook Street and Great Western Road Lane Junction required Yes: Halcrow 2003, Atkins Cheltenham Centre 2012, 1 Tewkesbury Road - widen and introduce CNM010 (Tewkesbury Road) CNM010A PIA survey cycle lanes to A4019 North respondent(s) , GCC Officers
A4013 Princess Elizabeth Way and Kingsditch Lane junction - cyclist off road route requires a diversion (Toucan facility) CNM010B PIA which some cyclists don't follow as it requires a rejoining of the east and west bound carriageways
Poole Way - install 1.5 metre wide Advisory Cycle Lane on the inside lane of Poole Way (westbound). Install a central 1.2m ACL to enable cycles to undertake Cheltenham the manoeuvre into High Street from Poole Way. Alternative/additional changes CNM010C PTA including remove hatching in the centre of the carriageway, adjusting the width of the lane widths, crossing island and pedestrian crossing staging should be investigated to provide the additional carriageway width for the ACLs (an extra 2.4-3m)
High Street and Park Street Junction - alternative signed route to the town CNM010D PSG centre via New Street and St George's Street
High Street - between Poole Way and B4633 Gloucester Road junctions, cycles forced to cut in front of general traffic around parking bays - removal of three car parking bays and provision of alternative CNM010E free parking on a small area of land to the PTG right of the railway bridge. Potential additional: double yellow line restrictions, signing and improved access to the proposed off-street parking area, purchase of private land for public use.
High Street, B4633 Gloucester Road, Tewkesbury Road, Townsend Street junction. Queuing traffic prevents cyclist access to the stop lines. Providing Advanced Stop Lines and a feeder lane as a CNM010F solution on westbound approach to PTG Gloucester Road on High Street. ASL on Tewkesbury Road (eastbound) at junction with Townsend Street and Gloucester Road. Potential additional: changes to lane markings and junction entry widths.
Page 110 Indirect cycle /pedestrian access (via Churchill Park) to the Honeybourne Line CNM010G Route which runs across High Street - PIA provide a DDA compliant ramp to provide a more direct and convenient access.
Cycle lanes (1/5m) along Tewkesbury road in both directions along the link in it's entirety. Additionally, could use the hatched area adjacent to the central CNM010H PTA reservation and narrowing of general traffic lanes. Potentially could also remove the central reservation, or the inside general traffic lane (more radical).
Tewkesbury Road, Colletts Drive junction - provide ASL and feeder lane on nearside lane of Tewkesbury Road westbound CNM010I approach to Colletts Drive - linked to PTA proposed ACL. Also provision of ACL on Tewkesbruy road eastbound at juntion with access to the Wickes DIY store
Tewkesbury Road (E and Wbound) between Colletts Drive and The Range/Elm Street. Provide at least 1.5m wide ACLs in both directions along the entire length of CNM010J the link. Additional requirements may be: PTA narrowing of central reservation islands. Removal of inside traffic lane. Could also remove the right turning opportunity into Sun Street and Waterloo Street.
Tewkesbury Road, eastbound and westbound between The Range/Elm Street and Brook Road including Tewkesbury Bridge - large traffic volumes and high speeds. Providing at least 1.5m ACLs in CNM010K PTA both directions suggested. Potential additional: using hatched area adjacent to central reservation and narrowing of general traffic lanes. Radical option would be to remove the inside lane.
Tewkesbury Road and Brook Road (Westbound) Junction. Advanced stop line and feeder lane on nearside lane to link CNM010L with the proposed ACL mentioned in the PTG previous suggestion, which may necessitate a change to lane markings both east and westbound
Tewkesbury Road and Centrum Retail Park junction. Provide an ASL eastbound at the junction. Reallocate road space to provide a sage merge from the cycle track on the north side of the A4019 carriageway, to avoid the delay at the Toucan crossing off CNM010M the side road to the retail park. This PTA merging can be facilitated by merging into the proposed ACL in the previous suggestions. This gives cyclists an option to avoid the Toucan crossings. Removing the right turn lane into Brook Road may provide this road space.
Tewkesbury Road and A4013 (Princess Elizabeth Way) junction. Provision of an ACL westbound between the exit of Brook CNM010N PTG Road junction to the start of the cycle track at the junction. Roughly 220m. Lane widths may have to be adjusted.
Tewkesbury Road, eastbound and westbound between Princess Elizabeth Way and Hayden Road: off road cycle tracks on both sides end suddenly. The suggestion is to provide a 3metre cycle CNM010O PIR track in both directions using a combination of existing footway and the grass verge along this 450m link (c. £500,000). Tightening geometry to slow speeds for petrol station entry required.
Tewkesbury Road and Hayden Road junction. Currently no provision for cyclists though it is a short-cut route. Installing a CNM010P Toucan crossing on both westbound and PIA eastbound sides of Hayden Road, with a 3m wide cycle track on the island between these two sides
Tewkesbury Road and Manor Road junction. A busy access point into the Gallagher Retail Park. No dedicated cycling facilities. Install Toucan crossing on both northbound and southbound sides of CNM010Q Manor Road with a 3.0metre wide cycle PIA track on the island between the two sides of Manor Road. This could potentially involve the widening of existing pedestrian refuge island, and converting the Pelican crossing into a Toucan crossing.
Tewkesbury Road westbound and eastbound between Hayden Road/Manor Road and B4634 Old Gloucester CNM010R Road/Gallagher Retail Park stub. Provide a PIA 3.0 metre cycle track in both directions using a combination of the existing footway and grass verge.
Page 111 Tewkesbury Road and B4634 Old Gloucester Road junction. The B4634 road provides an unofficial north western bypass. Install crossing on both CNM010S PIA northbound and southbound sides of Old Gloucester Road with a 3m wide cycle track on the island between the two sides of Old Gloucester Road.
Tewkesbury Road and Gallagher Retail Park Stub. Install a Toucan crossing on both northbound and southbound sides of the retail park stub, with a 3m cycle track CNM010T on the island between the two sides of the PIA retail park stub. This may involve the conversion of the existing Pelican crossings to Toucan as well as increasing the size of the current pedestrian refuge islands.
Cycle parking at shops on Elm Close - 3 CNM010U Sheffield stands suggested on suitable land PIG which may be an existing vehicle space. Kingsditch CNM101 (Wyman's Lane) to GCC Officers CNM101A No proposed improvements OU Tatchley Lane Lauriel Drive to CNM102 A40/B4075 GCC Officers CNM102A No proposed improvements OU Junction Suffolk Parade - 2 way cycling to aid access from roads to the south of Suffolk Road CNM103 A40 Suffolk Road CNM103A PTG and the Town Centre - difficult to cross Suffolk road
Page 112 Corridor Barriers / Schemes Required Intervention Area Suggested by Corridor Corridor Previously Intervention Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, RAG rating Intervention Key Number Description Recognised? Type P=Previous Study): TWK001 Tewkesbury Centre GCC Officers TWK001A Make all over town a 20mph zone Q T A T Traffic management and enforcement Far to many vehicles park in town. Ban motor access in High Street at week ends TWK001B Q T/I A I New or improved infrastructure and turn it into a true shared space for pedestrians and cyclists. TWK001C High Street/Bredon Road mini-roundabout P T/I A M Maintenance Oldbury Road/swimming pool access road TWK001D P I/T A S Signage mini-roundabout Add hatch markings for at least 0.75m wide alongside marked parking bays in TWK001E P T G O Other High Street to make it easier for cyclists to avoid the door zone Increase cycle parking throughout High TWK001F P I G Street and Abbey Church Mini-roundabouts at High Street/Bredon Road, Oldbury Road/swimming pool access, Oldbury road/Sun Street, and TWK001G proposed mini-roundabout at High P I/T A Street/Sun Street - improve actual and perceived safety for cyclists/change junction type Review centre islands on Barton Road and Gloucester Road, increase lane widths to a TWK001H P I/T A spacious profile or remove, replacing with zebra or controlled crossings TWK001I Reopen Post Office Lane to cyclists P T G Upgrade cycle facilities to meet DfT TWK001J P I A guidelines
Yes: Atkins 2010, Franklin Tewkesbury Town 2009, Centre to Gloucester cycle link across M5 J9 to Ashchurch (c. TWK002 TWK002A Q/P (multiple) I R Ashchurch (via Highways, 3 £2.5m) A438 and M5 J9) survey respondents, GCC Officers
New toucan crossing to improve cyclist access to Northway Cycle track and TWK002B P I A Tirlebrook Primary School between Elmbury Drive and Springfield
Improve pedestrian/cyclist crossing of Junction 9 - responsibility of the HA - TWK002C footbridge or underpass facility like what P I R exists on M5 Junction 12. Crossing doesn’t have a pedestrian phase Access to new Sainsbury's/retail TWK002D P I A development just east of the M5
Tewkesbury Better access along A46 from east of town TWK002E to schools including Ashchurch primary Q I R and Tewkesbury school. Ashchurch Road/Eastern Relief Road TWK002F junction (including nearby entrance to P I A Morrison's) TWK002G Ashchurch Road/Shannon Way junction P I A
allow cyclists to use left-turn lane at TWK002H P T G Eastern relief road for ahead movements remove, or clarify meaning of 'No cycling' TWK002I P S G sign at Walton Cardiff Lane from Walton Cardiff Lane to Shannon Way, remove hatched area, consider TWK002J 20mph zone and/or shared-space P I A treatment to reduce dominance of motor traffic allow cyclists to go ahead from the left TWK002K lane at Shannon Way, review junction P T/I G design for all users Change angle of exit from Little Chef to TWK002L P I G 90o. Modify or remove centre islands and pedestrian crossing over railway and near TWK002M P I A St David's Road to increase critical profile lane widths reverse traffic priority in Walton Cardiff TWK002N Lane at cycle track crossing, to improve P T G visibility rebuild cycle track to Tewkesbury School or TWK002O incorporate into shared-space treatment P I R of the road rebuild or remove shared-use footway onto Shannon Way. Improve arrangements TWK002P for cyclists at Shannon Way junction, P O U allowing direct access to/from path to motorway if retained modify Alexandra Way junction to improve TWK002Q P I A use to cyclists improve safety and convenience of shared- TWK002R use footway beyond Northway Lane or P I A remove A38/Gloucester TWK003 Road Junction to GCC Officers TWK003A Gloucester Road/A38 Roundabout P I R A38 South Station Road to TWK201 GCC Officers TWK201A I R A438 Missing Link
Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 114 Corridor Barriers / Schemes Required Intervention Area Suggested by Corridor Corridor Previously Intervention Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, RAG rating Intervention Key Number Description Recognised? Type P=Previous Study): traffic-free route (or shared pavement) along Merrywalks and link it into similar STR001 Stroud Centre STR001A Q I R T Traffic management and enforcement routes on Beeches Green, Stratford Road & Cainscross Road STR001B Train station access Q I A I New or improved infrastructure STR001C 20mph zone over town Q/P (Multiple) T/S A M Maintenance Stroud (Dr Newton's Way) to STR501 Yes: Franklin 2011,STR501A GCC A419 Report, General GCC officers Q (Multiple) O U S Signage Chalford via A419 East unpleasant cycling along the A419 between Stroud and Chalford - there is a towpath STR501B that is left overgrown and uneven that Q M G O Other could be a pleasant cycle route with minimal expenditure STR501C Don't rely on canal path Q O U Not a cycle facility option that is likely to STR501D P O U produce a solution for the A419 Towpaths as an opportunity but very narrow, with limited headroom STR501E underbridges. Heritage Lottery Fund P I R constraints. More useful for leisure than commuter. Ameliorate A419 road environment - extending speed limits. E.g. 20 mph speed STR501F limit to the east of Waitrose and the 30mph P T G speed limit to Bowbridge and through to Brimscombe.
Waitrose and Dr Newton's Way roundabouts, T- junction or smaller STR501G P I/T R roundabout at the former and traffic signals at the latter. Environmental changes to A419 to give it a less traffic'dominated appearance - such as STR501H using textured surfaces, landscaping etc. P I R Removal of the centre line from additional sections.
Need to increase number of cyclists on the route to support other cyclists to join - STR501I P T/S U publicity, training and employer discussion could support Extend 20mph zone in Stroud Town Centre STR501J P T A to Waitrose roundabout Waitrose roundabout to Bowbridge signals - STR501K on-carriageway cycle lane and speed limit of P T G 30mph Borbridge signals-Brimscombe, off-road STR501L P I R shared route using north or southern verge
30mph speed limit extension to STR501M P T G Brimscombe or Toadsmoor STR501N Brimscombe to Chalford - canal tow path P I R
Toucan crossing points at Bowbridge and STR501O P I A Chalford STR501P Cycle lane addition to Caincross Road Q T G
Stroud Yes: Franklin (Station/Bath Road) 2011, 2 survey STR502 STR502A General Q O U to Nailsworth via respondents, A46 GCC Officers
Route 45 - tree roots making path uneven - level the end of the cycle track into Stroud STR502B Q M G and make a bridge connecting it with Stroud
Stroud Town Railway path as an alternative to the A46 - needs to be good quality, all=weather STR502C P I R surface similar to road standard. Lighting if use after dark is to be encouraged Bridge over Dudbridge Road to avoid steps, or a zig-zag ramp. At the Northern end the STR502D path should be connected directly to the P I G Wallbridge underpass beneath Dr Newton's Way Encourage drivers to leave cyclists more STR502E P T G space - e.g. removal of central white lines
Nailsbridge - George Street/Spring Hill STR502F P T/I A roundabout is hostile - traffic signal control
Stroud (Cainscross Yes: 2 survey Road) to A419 new link at Saul Junction along the STR503 respondents, STR503A Q I R West/A38 Junction Stroudwater Canal into Stroud GCC Officers via Stonehouse
A419 Stonehouse into Stroud (development link) - include Horse Trough Rabt, Cainscross STR503B Q O U and Sainsbury's x2 at Dudbridge. Tie into existing paths and canal.
traffic-free route (or shared pavement) STR503C along Beeches Green, Stratford Road & I R Cainscross Road Horsetrough Roundabout - junction signalling or separation of flows along the STR503D P I A B4008 from those on the A419 with a link between the two Cainscross Roundabout - junction size, short term changes such as altering markings to make it easier for cyclists to go ahead. STR503E P/ Q (Multiple) I R Replacement of junction with cycle- compatible designs will reduce the severance caused Merrywalks mini-roundabouts - hostile, out STR503F of place. Major barrier to cycling. P I R Roundabouts need replacing STR503G High street and bath road 20mph zone P T/S G
Page 115 Deter non-access traffic from Ebley Road and Westward Road and calm the STR503H P T/I A remaining. 20mph limit and physical measures Around Cashes Green Road - exemptions to STR503I P T G banned movements Caincross Road - West of Homebase satisfactory. From Homebase to Merrywalks STR503J the road is less conducive due to queuing P I A and traffic volume. Wider changes to Merrywalks junction Rowcroft - road width and gradient an STR503K issue. Signs to motorists to give cyclists P S G space Stonehouse (A419 Yes: 1 survey East) to Dudbridge STR504 respondent, STR504A No proposed improvements Q/P O U Road/Bath Road GCC Officers Junction
Page 116 Corridor Barriers / Schemes Required Intervention Area Suggested by Corridor Corridor Previously Intervention Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, RAG rating Intervention Key Number Description Recognised? Type P=Previous Study): A435/A429/Londo Yes: Hyder Burford Rd - busy traffic with double CIR001 n Road Junction to 2008, GCC CIR001A P I/T A T Traffic management and enforcement roundabout A429 North East Officers A429/A417 London Road - no cycle link or crossings to CIR002 Junction to A417 GCC Officers CIR002A P I A I New or improved infrastructure Kingshill School East busy link between the Beeches, Kingshill School and town council sporting facilities - CIR002B P I A M Maintenance path is not continuous or wide enough for dual use London Road entrance to Corinium Heights CIR002C cycleway - no crossing point to join the P I G S Signage cycleway A419/Chesterton CIR003 Lane Junction to GCC Officers CIR003A P O U O Other A429 South West A429/A419 Yes: 1 survey CIR004 Junction to A419 respondent, CIR004A Q/P O U West GCC Officers Inner Ring Network (A435/The White make all over town a 20 mph zone, prevent cars CIR101 Way Junction to GCC Officers CIR101A from parking on present cycle lanes, and Q T/S A A419/Chesterton higher fines for speeding and poor parking Lane Junction) A419 Tetbury Road. Partial cycle route here, CIR101B but difficult to enter/leave and doesn't take Q I A you where you want to go! Grove lane- no cycle link from Stratton to CIR101C P I/S A Kingshill School Route adjacent to A429 Swindon Road - City Bank - pathway worn and overgrown - link CIR101D P I/M A between Love Lane industrial estate and the Beeches Lorry Park to Watermoor subway - no signage CIR101E P S/I G Cirencester or lighting Tetbury Rd Subway - lighting and perceptual barrier to cycling and walking to school. CIR101F P I R Alternative solutions above ground, e.g. bridges potentially Tetbury Rd Cycleway - poorly marked and surfaced - heavily used by Dee Park and CIR101G P S/M A Cirencester College students - proposed Sustrans route 45 Mini roundabout by Lidl/Vauxhall Dealership - CIR101H busy at peak times which affects ability of P I/T A cyclists to access Watermoor subway Watermoor Roundabout Subway - above CIR101I P I R ground solutions potentially Link to Watermoor roundabout - no signage or CIR101J P S/I A lighting, poor surface CIR101K Tesco to Kingshill Link P I A CIR102 Chesterton Lane GCC Officers CIR102A narrow pavements and busy at peak times P I A Somerford Road/Chesterton Lane Junction - CIR102B P I G difficult crossing due to visibility A419 South West Better and safer cycle access to the schools CIR201 to Cirencester GCC Officers CIR201A (Kingshill and Deer Park) from the new estates, Q I A College Kingshill N and S. A419 Cirencester CIR202 GCC Officers CIR202A Near the garden centre I R Road Crossing A419 South West to the Royal CIR203 GCC Officers CIR203A Across the recreational ground I G Agricultural University
Page 117 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 118 Corridor Barriers / Schemes Required Intervention Area Suggested by Corridor Corridor Previously Intervention Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, RAG rating Intervention Key Number Description Recognised? Type P=Previous Study):
bespoke cycle route from the end of Swan Road, entering the lower slopes of the wooded area just before the Football Yes: Lydney Clubhouse'. It would cross FLY/24/1, Revolutions requiring a chicane to protect walkers, LYD001 the Lydney LYD001A post A48, the route would join an existing, P I R T Traffic management and enforcement cycle route non-definitive path which passes under scheme the A48 bypass. New bridge over River Lyd and along the river bank to reach Station Road just north of the Dean Forest Railway level crossing. - £125,536-£370,800
'the original route of FLY/84/2 from Par Four Lane is still available and would be Yes: Lydney used as a cycle/pedestrian route into Revolutions Cambourne Place. A new path would be LYD002 the Lydney LYD002B created to link Cambourne Place to run P I R I New or improved infrastructure cycle route across open ground south of the boating scheme lake to join the Link 1 route near the Severn Trent pumping station'. Cost: £115,620-£346,860 utilising the proposed Lydney Station underpass, though if not, will use the level crossing. The route would follow the lane Yes: Lydney towards the sewer farm and then along Revolutions the permissive path down the west side of LYD003 the Lydney LYD003C P I A M Maintenance the Harbour. It would require little work to cycle route cut back the side undergrowth and scheme upgrade the full surface for dual use. Cost: £53,873 to £127,897 - shared path conversion from Hams Road, opposite Tutnalls Street, Yes: Lydney use of PROWs FLY/24/4 and FLY/84/1 Lydney Revolutions which are tarmac surfaced and are of LYD004 the Lydney LYD004D p I A S Signage suitable width. Link 2 is connected beyond cycle route the Boating Lake. Cost: £36,988 to £73,928 - scheme mainly shared path conversion
upgrade existing public rights of way to improve access from the East Lydney development to the town - FLY/86 and Yes: Lydney FLY/39. Beyond Crump Farm, FLY/36 will Revolutions be lost in the estate, area beside the LYD005 the Lydney LYD005E watercourse running down from near the P I R O Other cycle route old Rodley Manor to Crump Farm lends scheme itself to becoming an attractive linear park with a pedestrian/cycle way to replace the current FLY/36 right of way. Cost: £245,340- £736,020
connect to link 1, a new cycle path to link Yes: Lydney with the existing cycle paths on Church Revolutions Road, requiring a railway crossing across LYD006 the Lydney LYD006F P I A the Dean Forest Railway near St Mary's cycle route Halt, travelling on possible via the Church scheme grounds. Cost: £21150-£63450 Yes: Lydney connect with Link 1, using cycle lanes Revolutions marked on Newerne St, Hill ST and High St. LYD007 the Lydney LYD007G P I A A shared path would be used to like to cycle route Aylburton - £79,100-£157,890 scheme Harbour to the LYD008 town via Naas LYD008H Harbour to the town via Naas Lane. P I R Lane.
Additional Proposed Corridors and Schemes Schemes Previously Corridor Corridor Area Identified Code Scheme Description Suggested by? Number Description Corridor Longhope to LYD901 LYD901 Q Mitcheldean Lydney station to LYD902 LYD902 Q the Town
Patchy and disjoint cycle infrastructure necessitating the use of Lydney High St, which is very busy during commute hours. LYD903 The Dean Academy LYD903 Alternatively there is a need to run Q alongside a short stretch of the A48 (with the national speed limit in force) with barriers that force cyclists into the road!
The key to Lydney is making the High Lydney Street available for cycling that is safe and perceived as safe. The High Street acts as a central spine and cyclists need safe direct LYD801 High Street LYD801 Q routes. The proposed Newerne Link needs to take a pragmatic and holistic approach in its design to ensure that clear cycle routes are provided. LYD802 Parking LYD802 Station and Centre Q 20mph zone in LYD803 LYD803 Q town centre
Page 119 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 120 Corridor Barriers/Schemes Between Towns Previously Suggested by (All) Corridor Corridor Recognised Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, Number Description Corridor? P=Previous Study): Central Severn Cheltenham to LNK901 Vale - Atkins LNK901 P Staverton 2010 Bishops Cleeve to Central Severn LNK902 Northway Vale - Atkins LNK902 P (Tewkesbury) 2010 Central Severn Highnam to LNK903 Vale - Atkins LNK903 P Newent 2010 Churcham- LNK904 Halcrow 2003 LNK904 P Longhope (via A40) Churchdown Lane (Gloucester- LNK905 Halcrow 2003 LNK905 P Hucclecote to Churchdown) Stonehouse- LNK906 LNK906 Q Standish (B4008) Stroud and Local Including Horsley, Slad, Brimscombe, LNK907 LNK907 Q Villages Amberley, Minchinhampton, Whiteshill NCN45 Cricklade- South Cerney, Path in poor condition, extensions possible LNK908 Yes: Sustrans LNK908 P Cotswold Water in CWP Park Feasibility study available for traffic free LNK909 Tetbury-Kemble Yes: Sustrans LNK909 P route NCN45 Stroud- Existing traffic free alternative to main LNK910 Yes: Sustrans LNK910 P Nailsworth route, needs resurfacing NCN45 Stroud Width potentially not adequate for shared LNK911 Yes: Sustrans LNK911 P Canals use of towpath Stroud/Cotswold canal towpath, linking to NCN45 Stonehouse- LNK912 Yes: Sustrans LNK912 NCN41 for Gloucester on traffic free route P Saul avoiding A38/M5 roundabout NCN41 Sharpness Canal towpath, CRT aspiration to upgrade path for shared LNK913 Yes: Sustrans LNK913 P Slimbridge to use Purton Local initiative for traffic free route to LNK914 Lydney-Parkend LNK914 P Forest from Lydney Station Westonbirt-Tetbury- Local initiative to improve access to LNK915 LNK915 P Malmesbury Tetbury, particularly around A433
River Severn Bank is collapsing, threatening LNK916 NCN45 Maisemore Yes: Sustrans LNK916 P path and in turn the adjacent A road NCN depends on unreliable ferry service - NCN45 Lower Lode- potential for a traffic-free route skirting the LNK917 Yes: Sustrans LNK917 P Tewkesbury river meadows (Sustrans would like GCC support) NCN45 Tewkesbury- cycle link non existent - assistance would be LNK918 Yes: Sustrans LNK918 P Twyning appreciated
NCN41 Cheltenham- Strong support and currently being LNK919 Yes: Sustrans LNK919 P Bishops Cleeve developed
Section of bridleway needs to be surfaced NCN41 Tewkesbury- through fields to complete route on quiet LNK920 Yes: Sustrans LNK920 P Beckford lanes and traffic free paths between Tewkesbury and Evesham Proposals for a leisure route in Wye Valley, LNK921 NCN42 Wye Valley Yes: Sustrans LNK921 P Chepstow northwards
Page 121 Sustrans is working with Forestry Coleford/Christchur Commission on a local link between LNK922 LNK922 P ch/Symonds Yat Coleford and the Forest Holidays site at Christchurch Forestry Commission support for a traffic LNK923 Parkend-Lydney LNK923 P free link Gloucester/Newent Proposal for cycle access on quiet lanes LNK924 LNK924A P/Q (Multiple) /Cinderford from Gloucester to the Forest Highnam A40/B4215 Junction - road congestion in mornings on the dual carriageway section of the A40 from this junction, alternative route for cyclists could exist via Kents Green, Tibberton, Bulley and east onto the A40 to the Highnam roundabout - part of the route 'could be LNK924B Q very easily upgraded to a very good quality cycle path on the south side of the A40 between Two Mile Lane and the roundabout. Further west towards Bulley on the A40 there is room for a cycle lane/path. Have approached highways agency to no avail Proposal mapped for a route on traffic free Tewkesbury/Chelte path and quiet roads, 7 mile route that also LNK925 LNK925 P nham services Elms Park NW extension of Cheltenham Bishops LNK926 Cleeve/Stoke LNK926 Linking to above route P Orchard Cheltenham/Andov Tourist/commuter route as alternative to A LNK927 LNK927 P ersford/Bourton roads long distance leisure journey, on road but Northleach - LNK928 LNK928 would need a safe crossing of A429 at P Bourton-Stow Burton Newent to Local initiative for traffic free route from LNK929 LNK929 P Gloucester Highnam to Rudford Newent to LNK930 LNK930 General Q Highnam LNK931 Newent to Ledbury LNK931 General Q Gloucester to Yes: Franklin LNK932 LNK932 P Stonehouse 2011 Gloucester to LNK933 LNK933 Q Chepstow Gloucester to Ross- LNK934 LNK934 Q on-the-Wye Gloucester to LNK935 LNK935 Q Ledbury Gloucester to LNK936 LNK936A General Q (multiple) Stonehouse LNK936B A38 poor quality Q Gloucester to LNK937 LNK937 Q (multiple) Lydney Extend the Honeybourne Line to link Gloucester to Bishops Cleeve (or Winchcombe is possible) LNK938 LNK938A Q (multiple) Cheltenham to Cheltenham and then on to Gloucester. Ideally this could follow the railway. LNK938B Chelt to Gloucester via Churchdown Q Cheltenham and to Gloucester - reduce speed limits on main road and improve LNK938C Q cycle lanes and off road paths which are narrow and discontinuous. LNK938D A40 Q Route parallel to A40 between Glos and LNK938E Chelt is poor, not well lit and could be loads Q better. LNK938F B4063 Q
Page 122 A new cycle track between Cheltenham and LNK938G Gloucester away from the roads running Q near to the existing railway line LNK938H Express cycleway Q Fast route along B4063 route from Chelt to Gloucester (Route 41 is much too tedious, LNK938I Q dangerous & ill conceived. Fine on an ATB bike, truly awful on a road bike) Gloucester to LNK939 LNK939A Poor Quality Q Tewkesbury LNK939B A38 Q Gloucester to via Down Hatherley, Twigworth and LNK940 Atkins 2010 LNK940 P Staverton Longford Cheltenham to LNK941 LNK941 Q (multiple) Tewkesbury Cheltenham to LNK942 LNK942A General Q (multiple) Bishops Cleeve LNK942B Extend Honeybourne Line Q
Bish Cleeve to Chelt past the racecourse are really intimidating for cyclists. But if bypassed with cycle path off road it MUST be fast (not full of cyclist dismount signs), LNK942C direct, well lit, not too secluded to present Q personal safety issues, maintained/swept/gritted, easy to access on or off, not mandatory. i.e. something that all cyclists prefer to use.
Cheltenham to LNK943 LNK943 A46 Q (multiple) Stroud Stroud to LNK944 LNK944A A46/A4173 (Avoiding Edge Hill) Q (multiple) Gloucester Short route instead of via Stonehouse at LNK944B first Stroud to LNK945 LNK945 A419 Q (multiple) Cirencester Cirencester to LNK946 LNK946 General Q Tetbury Cirencester to LNK947 LNK947 General Q Kemble Cirencester to LNK948 LNK948 General Q (multiple) Fairford/Lechlade
LNK949 Lydney to Parkend LNK949 General Q (multiple) Lydney to LNK950 LNK950 General Q (multiple) Chepstow LNK951 Coleford to Parkend LNK951 General Q Stroud to LNK952 LNK952 General Q Tewkesbury Stroud to Cam & LNK953 LNK953 General Q (multiple) Dursley Brimscombe to LNK954 LNK954 General Q Bussage Maisemore to LNK955 LNK955 General P Hartpury
Page 123 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 124 Towns to other Corridor Barriers/Schemes destinations Previously Suggested by Corridor Corridor suggested links Recognised Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, Number Description Corridor? P=Previous Study): Stroud - Westonbirt DST901 DST901 General Q Arboretum Cirencester - Water DST902 DST902 General Q Park big freight and speeding cars make this road DST903 Fosse-Way DST903 Q too scary to attempt Existing Forest of DST904 DST904 General Improvement Q Dean network Links from the Forestry Commission's cycle DST905 DST905A hire hub at Cannop to connect with Forest Q towns and key local visitor attractions.
DST905B scope here by converting bridleways etc. Q DST906 Retail Parks DST906 Parking: 'almost all lacking' Q DST907 Severn Vale Area DST907 Connectivity/general Q Gloucester to Dedicated cycle path/general DST908 DST908 Q (multiple) Forest of Dean improvements Lydney to Forest of DST909 DST909 Tintern to Tutshill Q Dean DST910 Wye Valley DST910 Q Major safe cycle link routes between Stroud, Glos, Chelt, Tewkes, to include the DST911 Wider Network DST911A Q A40 Golden Valley route. I would guess they would be very expensive.
reclaiming of disused railways (Chelt/Andoversford/Bourton/Kingham, DST911B Chelt/Andoversford/Chedworth/Cirenceste Q r, Cirencester/Tetbury/Kemble) as cycle routes. DST911C Cycle lanes on Golden Valley Q segregated path by A40 to Cheltenham to DST912 DST912 Wittington/Andoversford. 40mph rural Q Cotswolds routes Forest of Dean DST913 DST913 General Q Towns Bourton to DST914 DST914 General Q Moreton in Marsh
Other Corridor Barriers/Schemes suggested Previously Suggested by towns for Corridor Corridor Recognised Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, improvement Number Description Corridor? P=Previous Study): GLC001 Winchcombe GLC001 General Q (Multiple) GLC002 Coleford GLC002 General Q (Multiple) Bourton-on-the- GLC003 GLC003 General Q Water GLC004 Churchdown GLC004 General Q GLC005 Newent GLC005 General Q (Multiple) Cycle parking in centre (out of date-Halcrow GLC006 GLC006 Q '02) GLC007 Nailsworth GLC007 General Q GLC008 Bishops Norton GLC008 General Q GLC009 Stonehouse GLC009 General Q (Multiple) GLC010 GLC010 Horsetrough Roundabout Q GLC011 Cinderford GLC011 General Q (Multiple) GLC012 GLC012 General Q (Multiple) Kemble GLC013 GLC013 Train station access Q
Page 125 Whaddon/Leckham GLC014 GLC014 General Q pton
GLC015 Rodborough/Minch GLC015 General Q inhampton Witcombe/Birdlip/ GLC016 GLC016 General Q Air Balloon GLC017 Hardwicke GLC017 General Q GLC018 Nailsworth GLC018 General Q GLC019 Tetbury GLC019 General Q (Multiple) GLC020 Cam GLC020 General Q GLC021 Dursley GLC021 General Q Cam Village to Cam Yes: Franklin GLC022 GLC022 General P & Dursley 2011
Cam & Dursley Greenway |Report by Sustrans (2008) identified route, opportunities and associated issues. The route has been installed in parts (east of Yes: Cam & Rednock School etc.) and, more recently, Durseley GLC022A the land east of Cam (see attached map) P Greenway was under discussion as it was believed to have been on the market at a very low price, and then it was mooted that it might be delivered as part of local development. At present discussions aren’t active.
Protected cycle parking at Cam & Dursley pg.142 for list GLC022B P Station Draycott and High Street - removed centre islands and narrow cycle lanes, replacing GLC022C P these with a zebra crossing for pedestrians. Also extend 30mph limit to Box Road. Mini-roundabout at the junction of High GLC022D Street and Cam Pitch - traffic signals more P appropriate. Mini-roundabouts at Woodsfield Road, Dursley Road and Blackboys - priority GLC022E P junctions or signals with less space to cross could help to reduce anxieties Roads around Chapel Street on the minor road route - inclusion in 20mph zone. GLC022F P Raised junction at the junction with Station Road GLC022G Dursley town centre - 20mph zone P Mini-roundabout size at Uley Road/Woodmancote could be reduced. Lister Road requires more extensive GLO022H changes due to critical profiles and new P hazards created by over engineering. Downham View - attempts to slow traffic have created deterrents to cycling GLC023 Saul GLC023 General Q GLC024 Frampton GLC024 General Q GLC025 Moreton-in-Marsh GLC025 Cycle Parking Q
GLC026 Chipping Campden GLC026 Cycle Parking Q
Road bridge: 'do not overtake cyclists sign' GLC027 Berkeley GLC027 Q as road is narrow
Corridor Barriers/Schemes Links out of the County Previously Suggested by Corridor Corridor Recognised Code Scheme Description (Q=Questionnaire, Number Description Corridor? P=Previous Study):
Page 126 Cheltenham and Gloucester, why not a new UKL001 UKL001 Q Evesham route not a few lines UKL002 UKL002 Tewkesbury - Evesham Q UKL003 Bristol UKL003 General Q (Multiple) UKL004 Worcester UKL004 General Q (Multiple) River Severn UKL005 UKL005 General Q Corridor UKL006 Sustrans Network UKL006 General Q UKL007 UKL007 Stroud to Oxford Q Oxford UKL008 UKL008 Cheltenham to Oxford Trackbed Q UKL009 Bath UKL009 Nailsworth to Bath Q (Multiple) UKL010 Stratford UKL010 Cheltenham to Stratford Q Wye Valley Tourist UKL011 UKL011 General Q route Links from NCN Route 45 (Tewkesbury) to UKL012 Worcestershire UKL012 Q Route NCN 41 UKL013 Swindon UKL013 General Q Lechlade to UKL014 UKL014 General Q Highworth South Cerney to UKL015 UKL015 General Q Cricklade Tetbury to UKL016 UKL016 General Q Malmesbury Sedbury to UKL017 UKL017 General Q Chepstow Wotton-under- UKL018 UKL018 General Q Edge to Charfield Tewkesbury - UKL019 UKL019 General Q Beckford UKL020 Hereford UKL020 Gloucester-Hereford track bed Q
Page 127 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 128 Agenda Item 6 ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITIES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Chief Fire Officer Report: 14 January 2015
1) Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service
Demand Management Service Delivery
A new Service Delivery Model went live on the 1st October with a renewed focus on Prevention. As a result GFRS are now building stronger relationships with partnership agencies and Local Risk Managers (LRMs) are becoming key players in their respective District Council’s Community Safety Partnerships. These partnerships will form one of the cornerstones of our Local Risk Management Plans.
The Focus on Prevention and Protection
The key principal of local risk management is to work in partnership to effectively reduce risk across the County. By tapping into the expertise of partner agencies and using the extensive experience within GFRS, we can target the most vulnerable members of our communities, reducing risk, preventing accidents and loss. This not only ensures Gloucestershire is one of the safest places to live, but also minimises the burden and demand on services, reducing both societal and financial cost to the community of Gloucestershire.
A new sub –group of the Gloucestershire Safeguarding Adults Board has been established with a focus on fire safety. This is chaired by GFRS and is a vital tool in ensuring partnership work is effectively co-ordinated and delivering a reduction in demand in the most effective way. This group is also developing a wider role for GFRS in the community with a clear focus on supporting communities to help themselves.
Another example of this partnership approach is the Tewkesbury Public Service Centre (PSC). This facility is unique in the Country and brings together key agencies under one roof to provide a “one stop shop” for service users. This is the key to its success, with agencies having close relationships ensuring swift and easy access to services and effective signposting for those who need help.
There are now eight public sector and two voluntary sector organisations delivering services to the communities in Tewkesbury Borough from the PSC. They all have a common agenda to reduce service costs, but importantly they all want improve service delivery outcomes for customers, especially by helping them to help themselves.
Incidents October – December 2014
October
House fire in Gloucester: One adult male and female rescued by service suffering smoke inhalation treated at scene.
House fire in Cheltenham: One adult male and two females rescued by service all being treated at scene.
November
Factory fire in Tewkesbury: 10 appliances mobilised to a single storey factory building which was severely damaged by fire.
Page 129 December
House fire in Cirencester one adult female found dead at scene
House fire in Gloucester, one adult male suffered burns and was treated at the scene, also two dogs rescued uninjured.
Integrated Risk Management Plan 2015/18
As required by the Fire & Rescue Services Act 2004 the Government outlines its expectations of English Fire & Rescue Services through the National Framework for Fire & Rescue Services. One of the Government’s expectations is the assessment of local risks to life and how effectively resources are used in response to those risks, at the same time providing value for money to the local taxpayer – this is called an Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP). All Fire & Rescue Services have to produce a local IRMP that sets out their plan for:
• Reducing the number and severity of fires, road traffic accidents and other emergency incidents occurring in the area for which it is responsible; • Reducing the severity of injuries due to fires, road traffic accidents and other emergency incidents; • Reducing the commercial, economic and social impact of fires and other emergency incidents; • Safeguarding the environment and heritage (both built and natural); • Providing value for money.
The IRMP development process makes fire & rescue services regularly consider four key questions:
• What are the existing and potential risks in Gloucestershire? • How effective are our current risk management measures? • What opportunities are there for improvement and setting of appropriate standards? • What resources are necessary to meet those standards
They then build a draft plan based on the answers to those questions.
The IRMP incorporates a three-year action plan with which to manage the changes/improvements to service provision identified through the planning process. Once the draft plan has been endorsed by Cabinet the service will consult with the community and their representatives on the draft plan. The IRMP is focussed on giving the community a ‘tailor made’ service that best meets their needs but cannot do so without taking into account realities such as the current financial climate.
The draft IRMP action plan features the following proposals: • A full review of operational response provision including a review of response targets • Adoption of an approach to risk management which ensures that GFRS resource utilisation is based on risk • Greater emphasis on proactive and focussed prevention & protection initiatives to drive down risk and demand • A more flexible approach to operational response
Page 130 • Use of technological solutions where doing-so improves effectiveness and is an efficient use of resources • Greater use of retained and community firefighters to build resilience
The IRMP 2015 – 2018 received Cabinet endorsement to progress to public consultation at the meeting held on 22 October 2014. Consultation began on 4 th November 2014 and will run until 27 th January 2015. The survey will seek feedback on the year one review and will specifically ask stakeholders what elements of the service should be in scope during year one. Feedback from the consultation will help inform the more detailed planning process which will follow; feedback will also be used to inform the more detailed planning process which will then go back through consultation cycle.
Target audiences for the consultation:
• Wider Gloucestershire population • People’s panel • Voluntary and community sector organisations • Business organisations • GFRS staff • District, parish and town councils • Representative bodies • MP’s • Other emergency and response organisations • DCLG
The IRMP and the consultation can be viewed at www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/irmp
Statement of Assurance for 2013/14.
The Fire and Rescue National Framework for England (the Framework) sets out the Government’s expectations for Fire and Rescue Authorities, those expectations include a duty to provide an annual statement of assurance on financial, governance and operational matters. The document sets out the government’s priorities and objectives for Fire and Rescue Authorities in England; these are high level expectations and it does not prescribe operational matters which it says are best determined locally.
The statement of assurance explains how the Fire and Rescue Authority is meeting the requirements of the Framework and how it has progressed with the stated objectives in our Integrated Risk Management Plan.
The statement of assurance demonstrates how we, the Fire and Rescue Service on behalf of the Fire and Rescue Authority (Gloucestershire County Council), have met and continue to meet our commitment to the communities we serve.
This is the second year in which the County Council, as Fire Authority, has produced this retrospective report. It brings together key governance, performance, financial and operational information relating to Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service during 2013/14.
Cllr Will Windsor-Clive signed the decision statement in respect of the GFRS SOA for 2013/14 on 30 December 2014. The SOA has now been published (after 7 January).
Page 131 2) Civil Protection / Emergency Planning
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA), and accompanying non-legislative measures, delivers a single framework for civil protection in the UK. The Act is separated into 2 parts: local arrangements for civil protection (Part 1); and emergency powers (Part 2).
Part 1 of the Act and supporting Regulations and statutory guidance establish a clear set of roles and responsibilities for those involved in emergency preparation and response at the local level. The Act divides local responders into 2 categories, with a different set of duties for each.
Those in Category 1 are organisations at the core of the response to most emergencies (the emergency services, local authorities, NHS bodies). Category 1 responders are subject to the full set of civil protection duties. They are required to:
• assess the risk of emergencies occurring and use this to inform contingency planning; • put in place emergency plans; • put in place business continuity management arrangements; • put in place arrangements to make information available to the public about civil protection matters and maintain arrangements to warn, inform and advise the public in the event of an emergency; • share information with other local responders to enhance co-ordination; • co-operate with other local responders to enhance co-ordination and efficiency, and • provide advice and assistance to businesses and voluntary organisations about business continuity management (local authorities only).
As such, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA) places a duty on the county council, and the Fire & Rescue Service (both being Category 1 Responders) to maintain plans for responding, reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of emergencies.
The Civil Protection Team (CPT), which is located at Gloucestershire Fire & Rescue HQ, is a small team responsible for ensuring that the county council remains compliant with the requirements of CCA. In addition, CPT acts as a central resource and point of reference, to provide advice and support to five of the district councils before, during and after an incident.
The team also provides a Duty Officer as a single point of contact, 24/7 365 days a year, which activates an appropriate local authority response right across the county.
Following a year of high long- term absences, the team is now back to full strength and eager to deliver a comprehensive range of business plan outcomes.
3) Business Continuity Management (BCM)
The Chief Fire Officer / Operations Director is the risk owner of BCM on behalf of the county council.
Whilst most services have BCM plans in place, there is a need to refresh arrangements and ensure that appropriate assurance mechanisms are in place.
This work is scheduled for the last quarter of 2014/15.
Page 132 4) Road Safety Partnership
The Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership is an informal, voluntary partnership between Gloucestershire County Council and Gloucestershire Constabulary. The overarching remit is to improve the quality of life for people living, working and travelling within the county by reducing collisions and casualties on our roads and promoting road safety skills for life. As a result of a review carried out last year, the governance arrangements have recently been refreshed. A Governance Board has been established with membership consisting of the GCC Lead Member for Communities and infrastructure, GCC Commissioning Director, The Chief Fire Officer, the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Chief Constable and the Head of the Road Safety Partnership. The Board are responsible for providing strategic leadership and political accountability through a combined approach.
2014 was the 50 th anniversary of Drink, Drive Campaigning aiming to drive a downward trend in the number of motorists identified as and prosecuted for, drink or drug driving. It combined police enforcement, engagement and education to achieve this aim. The Road Safety Partnership delivered the anti-drink and drug presentation “Wrecked” to over 2000 students across the county in a unique collaboration between Fire, Police and RSP staff. An evaluation of the campaign will be delivered early in 2015.
The partnership has been running a number of Road Safety Academies with staff from the Constabulary and the Fire and Rescue Service. The aim is to encourage a co-ordinated response to road risk reduction and collision prevention throughout the county. The Academies provided by the RSP team give support and information to groups of staff who are then better equipped to deal with road safety issues within their work areas. This approach greatly increases the number of people who are able to engage productively with our local communities.
5) Trading Standards
The Trading Standards Service is charged with the duty to enforce over 100 Acts of Parliament and significant amounts of associated legislation relating to trading practices affecting individual consumers and businesses alike.
This legislation covers a wide range of areas including:
• Protecting consumers and businesses from unfair and misleading trade practices involving goods and services; • Protecting consumers from unsafe goods and trade practices; • Ensuring food composition, labelling and descriptions are accurate; • Licensing of petroleum, explosives, poisons and animal movements; • Protecting young people from sales of age restricted products, and • Ensuring the health of farm animals and preventing the spread of disease.
This legislation gives powers and duties to the local authority, which is deemed to be the enforcement authority. The Trading Standards Service in Gloucestershire executes those duties and powers on behalf of GCC.
This is achieved by:
• risk based inspections on premises; • sampling programmes; • surveys on trading areas; • investigating enquiries from the public;
Page 133 • education programmes, and • partnership working on consumer issues.
The service aim is to ensure a fair, safe and healthy trading environment in Gloucestershire. Service priorities are:
• protecting Gloucestershire’s most vulnerable consumers from illegal trading activity; • tackling trading practices which cause the most consumer detriment in Gloucestershire in terms of safety, health and finance; • dealing with the most serious 'rogue traders' and fraudulent trading activity; • supporting the local economy by ensuring a fair trading environment exists in Gloucestershire and by providing help and support to business in respect of meeting legislative requirements, and ensuring the health of animal livestock and preventing the spread of disease.
The Trading Standards Service was successfully relocated to Tri-Service Headquarters in July, 2014, following the disposal of Hillfield House, Gloucester as a capital receipt.
Page 134 ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITIES OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
WORK PLAN 2014/15
9 September 2014 12 November 2014 14 January 2015 Other items
Broadband Fastershire Network Rail Gloucestershire Road Safety Radon Gas (Western Route Study Consultation ) Partnership Presentation Reduction in Bio Diversity/ Integrated Risk Management Plan Fire and Rescue Service Fire and Rescue Service Impact of the Council’s Bio (Options) (Draft IRMP Consultation) (Draft IRMP Consultation) Diversity Action Plan
Commons and Rights of Way Outcomes of the Residents On-Street Committee Update Barriers to Cycling Study Parking Review Joint Municipal Waste Management Hierarchy/Strategy
Page 135 Highways Agency/ Speed Issues
Highways Community Offer
Resource levels Commons and Rights of Way Committee
Nuclear Related Issues Agenda Item8
Local Transport Plan 3
4 March 2015 13 May 2015 15 July 2015 14 September 2015
Cotswold Flood Action Group Local Transport Plan 3 12 Month Review
Congestion on the A40
Page 136