Frampton Cotterell and – A432 Badminton Road – Yate to A4174 Ring Road, Reallocation of road space for cycling, Stage 1 – Feedback Report

Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to feedback the results from the recent consultation on the proposed reallocation of road space for cycling on the A432 between Yate and the A4174 Ring Road (Stage 1).

Background

In June 2020 the government announced that in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic measures needed to be taken to encourage more travel by bicycle and walking. Short term temporary measures have been implemented across Council whilst longer term more permanent measures have been in development. The announcement coincided with the release of the Department for Transport Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/20 ‘Cycle Infrastructure Design’ to which all new Government funded highways projects must comply.

Purpose of the Scheme

The A432 Badminton Road is a key link between the A4174 Avon Ring Road and the conurbation of Yate that has been identified for improvement. The existing on-carriageway cycle facilities are well below the standards set out in the LTN. Short term trial measures with a view to becoming permanent have also been implemented on this corridor on the Station Road part of the A432 in Yate. These measures highlight and support the Council’s vision of developing a network of cycle routes throughout Yate and the wider area, in accordance with the Yate Master Plan and the developing transport policies of Central Government.

The upgraded cycle route along Badminton Road would offer improvements for those cyclists already using the route and create a convenient and useable facility for residents and visitors to and from Yate, including commuters, who are new to cycling and/or seeking an alternative to driving.

Proposed Scheme

The proposed scheme has been broken into 4 stages:

Stage 1 – Nibley Lane to Stage 2 – Coalpit Heath to A4174 Ring Road Stage 3 – Nibley Lane to Stover Road Stage 4 – Coalpit Heath Village

This consultation focusses on the first stage of improvements between Nibley and Coalpit Heath. The proposals are as follows:

 The wide single carriageway road will be narrowed to incorporate 2m wide segregated cycle lanes in both directions.  Cycle demarcation kerbing and coloured surfacing will be used intermittently to highlight the cycle facilities and deter vehicles from encroaching the cycle lane.

Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 1

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk  The junction at Mayshill will be altered to accommodate the wider facilities.  The existing underused bus laybys at Mayshill will be removed in order to retain a pedestrian refuge crossing point.  The speed limit of the road will be reduced to 30mph temporarily with a view to becoming permanent in order for the reallocation of space to meet the requirements set out in LTN1/20.  The existing southbound vehicle activated 40mph warning sign located between Nibley and Mayshill will be replaced with a new one reflecting the revised speed limit.  The existing northbound vehicle activated 40mph warning sign located between Coalpit Heath and Mayshill will be replaced with a new one reflecting the revised speed limit.  The narrowed road width of 6.30 metres (3.15 metres in each direction) available to motorised vehicles will contribute to the reduction in speed. Consultation

Consultation took place between 16 November 2020 and 4 December 2020. Details of the proposals including a plan and statement of reasons were posted on the South Gloucestershire website. The Council sent letters advising of the consultation to all properties affected by the proposals. In addition, notices were posted and maintained in the area for the 3 week consultation period. Local members, the parish councils and emergency services, amongst other statutory stakeholders were invited by email to view the consultation.

Feedback from the consultation

There were 67 individuals and organisations that responded to the consultation via the questionnaire and six other responses.

The comments received as part of the consultation have now been reviewed. The comments/concerns received via the online questionnaire can be found in appendix A, all other comments received are included in appendix B.

Support for the scheme from was received from Parish Council and also Dodington Parish Council.

An access issue to an existing access at Mays Hill was raised and the replacement of a short length of stepped cycle lane with an advisory cycle lane will be necessary due to unresolvable constraints.

Questionnaire

The respondents were asked to fill out a questionnaire. Figures 1 - 2 show the results from the questionnaire.

Question 1 asked respondents how about they are associated with the route. 66% (44) responded that they driver along the route. 58% (39) responded that they cycle along the route. 27% (18) responded that they are visitors from outside the area, 22% (15) responded they are pedestrians and 10% (7) responded they are residents along the route.

Question 2 asked how often respondents travel along the route. 33% (22) responded a few times a week. 22% (15) responded a few times a month. 19% (13) travel along the route several times a day. 12% (8) responded once a week. 6% (4) responded once a day and 3% (2) preferred not to say. There were no responses advising they have never used the route.

An analysis of the responses has identified that out of the 44 respondents that drive along the route, 50% (22) supported the proposals, 18% (8) objected to them and 32% (14) indicated no preference.

Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 2

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk

Figure 1

Figure 2 Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 3

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk

Out of the 39 respondents that cycle along the route, 85% (33) supported the proposals, none objected to them and 15% (6) indicated no preference.

What happens now?

Based on the responses received at consultation, the scheme will progress to detailed design with construction of Stage 1 scheduled to commence in January 2021.

Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 4

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk Appendix A

Comments received at Consultation via the online Officer’s response questionnaire 1 It's unclear is this proposal meant to extend the 30 limit to Thanks for your comments. Mayshill or all the way to Nibley? The scheme will extend the 30mph speed limit all Cycling improvements are a good thing, however. the way to Nibley. I object to the limit change on the grounds that you have once again failed to give any information on what the The speed limit needs to be reduced to meet the different the proposals are expected to make in terms of requirements of LTN 1/20. *actual* traffic speeds or levels of compliance. If you needed to put in a vehicle activated sign that tells me The vehicle activated sign is to reminder people you may already have compliance issues with the existing what the speed limit is. speed limit. 2 Great, thanks for progressing, cycling improvements badly Thanks for your support. needed. 3 The current 40mph sections between Nibley and the Ring Thanks for your comments. Road are unlikely to support a 30mph limit. The introduction of enhanced cycling facilities and modest reduction in The speed limit needs to be reduced to 30mph to carriageway width is unlikely to sufficiently reduce average meet the requirements of LTN 1/20 for a 2m wide speeds. cycle track to be permitted. There is insufficient width available to provide a buffer between the cycle Note that the requirements within LTN1/20 do not override lane and traffic lane. DfT circular 01/2013. Average vehicle speeds must reflect the limit set. LTN1/20 Note 1 of Fig 4.1 makes clear that cycle infrastructure must be designed with regard to achievable vehicle speeds. 4 I support the proposal Thanks for your support. 5 Useful stage in the route to join Yate to Bristol Thanks for your support. 6 It seems like a good idea - joining and tidying up existing Thanks for your support. provision 7 I fully support these proposals. The time has long passed Thanks for your supoort. when we are encouraging people to get out of their cars and to take to two wheels. For the sake of personal health and more importantly the future of the environment, cycling and walking must be treated more seriously by both central and local government. As a regular cyclist, I ride the Badminton Road on a very regular basis and feel sorry sometimes for less experience riders who will not use the road due heavy traffic. 8 Fully in favour, but with caveat that all 4 phases must be Thanks for your support. completed. 9 This proposal is very welcome. I would also like to see Thanks for your support. The provision of traffic traffic lights erected at the staggered crossroads at signals at the crossroads will be Kendleshire. I have had a fair few near misses with drivers considered as part of the Phase 2 scheme. pulling out quickly to join the main roadway. 10 I think this would be really good, it would make Yate more Thanks for your support. accessible from Bristol 11 very much in favour of any improvements to cycling Thanks for your support. infrastructure, whilst it is difficult for councils to act/fund its important to enable all 8 - 80 years old to move around in normal clothes without a car. safer routes where people have space to cycle without (or less) intimidation from cars, intentional or not, is very welcome. More please South Glos... 12 A key goal for the supporters of CyclingWorks Bristol is the Thanks for your comments. provision of continuous, safe cycle corridors allowing people to travel to/from work directly and efficiently by bike. The speed limit needs to be reduced to 30mph to Accordingly, the plan to address this on the A432 (Yate - meet the requirements of LTN 1/20. There is not Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 5

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk A4174) are welcome and it is good that the designers are enough space within the adopted highway to referencing LTN1/20. However, will the plan be compliant provide layouts prescribed in LTN1/20 at bus stops, with LTN1/20 wrt i) level of protection given speed/traffic however, the bus stops are subject to low usage. volume on this road, ii) at bus stops iii) at junctions? - see document sent by email 13 Yes please! This road is a key commuter route that is poorly Thanks for your support. serviced for cyclists and pedestrians 14 This is a positive change to the use of space. It will make Thanks for your support. the route safer for cyclists and potentially encourage a few people out of their cars. 15 Please don’t reduce speed limits as they will be ignored and Thanks for your comments. cause tension on the road The narrower width and speed visor signs should help keep speeds lower 16 More bike lanes the better. The ones you have put in place Thanks for your comments. at the moment are great, but still on/off, which puts a lot of cyclists off. It is a very busy road. 17 Safe, separate space for cycling on this route would be Thanks for your support. fantastic and hugely benefit how safe cyclists feel on this route, encouraging more active travel. More like this please. 18 Love the proposals for segregated cycle space Thanks for your support. 19 Any reallocation of road space to provide segregated space Thanks for your support. for cyclists is to be welcomed 20 Overall looks good, but sheet 1 of 3 of the proposals Thank you for your comments. appears to be removing the bus laybys and instead moving the bus stops into the cycle lanes. If so, this appears to be There is insufficient space to fully comply with the against LTN 1/20 sections 6.6.6 to 6.6.15 as cyclists would requirements of LTN 1/20. In addition, there are have to come into conflict with faster vehicles on the few buses stopping at these bus stops and this carriageway to pass stopped buses. number is not expected to increase. 21 I support the proposals Thanks for your support. 22 Excellent. Rebalancing road allocation in favour of active Thanks for your support. non polluting road users is to be welcomed. Build it and they will come. People are chiefly put off cycling by the danger of motor vehicles. This proposal will encourage uptake of cycling. 23 I am against the proposal as it is unnecessary, the road is Thanks for your comments. large, the existing speed limit is already too slow, the cycle lanes are plenty big enough and they hardly get used, This scheme has been identified as a council motorists are by far the biggest user of the road and priority priority to encourage active travel should be given to the majority user. 24 As someone who cycles along here quite frequently I can Thanks for your comments. say that I’ve generally felt safe as the road is quite wide, traffic volume is moderate (so vehicles don’t travel too fast) The existing lighting has been implemented to so I quite enjoy riding along here. Does need more lighting current standards and no changes to it are in places. proposed.

I can understand though why many users would benefit from infrastructure changes to increase activity along here as part of a connection to other cycle routes in Bristol.

I can’t imagine these changes negatively impacting other road users? 25 It's very important we move towards active travel in all parts Thanks for your comments. of South Gloucestershire, and this supports that idea. Unfortunately there is not enough width to provide If at all possible I think it would be worth the council fully segregated cycle lanes considering cycle lanes with true segregation from vehicles by having a sept raised curb between cycle lanes and other Council policy is to remove speed cameras and vehicles. enforcement of speed limits is a police matter.

Consider adding speed camera to slow down vehicle traffic. We have considered pedestrians and all footpaths Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 6

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk be connected and maintained. Very important to consider pedestrians too, making sure all footpaths are connected and maintained. 26 A wonderful suggestion, lowering the speed limit and Thanks for your support. making a cycle lane will encourage more people to step out of cars. If people see a cycle lane they can then use it, and if the journey takes longer in a car due to build up of traffic then they may think of other possible ways of travelling. With any change there is always uproar and especially if it involves either cyclists or potentially slower car journeys. The emergency services line will be trotted out and screamed from the rooftops 27 The idea of adding cycle lanes to areas cyclists already use Thanks for your comments. with little to no problem seems a waste of resources when the road surfaces in and around the yate area are already Funds has been allocated to encourage cycling on poor, the slowed speed limit will have a massive impact on the A432 and active travel, not for the repair of people traveling to work and cause more congestion along a potholes. route that in rush hour struggles with the flow, it will also put a strain on the local bus network adding time to their routes The length of this scheme is just over 1km and and putting people off using it when they can find alternative journey times over this length are not expected to routes. change much due to a change in the speed limit. 28 It is causing local businesses to lose a lot of customers as Thanks for your comments. they can't/will not be able to park We are not aware of any parking on this Phase 1 length. 29 The cycle lanes are too wide. Trying to make it all fit into Thanks for your comments unsuitable roads. Removing the filter lanes will cause huge traffic issues with queuing blocking the roads. My The Scheme has been designed in accordance with experience cyclists don't use existing cycle lanes. They LTN1/20. weave in and out of traffic not following the highway code. I had my wing mirror damaged while I was waiting in traffic by a cyclist squeezing through the static cars, did he stop NO. I have never seen a cyclist use the lanes you put down in the first phase. 30 I support fully any improvements to this route to encourage Thanks for your support. more cycling, and have no problem with the proposed reallocation of space. 31 The bike lanes installed recently have been made way too Thanks for your comments. wide making roads less accessible for motor vehicles (I have personally witnessed buses struggling to fit down Scheme has been designed in accordance with station road due to the size of the bike lanes) If bike lanes LTN1/20. need to be installed they should be a suitable size and there should be a rule for bikes to actually use them instead of cycling on the path next to them when they don't feel like waiting at traffic lights. 32 Sorting out the drainage at the bottom of the hill heading Thanks for your comments. towards coalpit heath and being slightly raised so the road hubris stays out of the cycle lane will make a huge The drainage issue will be investigated. difference. Drivers do not adhere to the speed limits so changing the Drivers not adhering to speed limits is a Police speed to 30 will not make much difference unless it is matter. The speed limit needs to be reduced to enforced. meet the requirements of LTN 1/20. As a side issue the traffic lights at Beesmoor road crossroad do not detect cyclists so I would suggest this requires The traffic lights at Beesmoor Road crossroads is updating. outside the scope of this stage of the scheme but will be considered as part of future stages. 33 I think we need traffic lights at the junction of Down Rd Thanks for your comments. before spending money on cycle track. That junction is so dangerous. This is outside the scope of this stage of the scheme but will be considered as part of the future stages.

Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 7

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk 34 I am generally for cycling improvements, but I think Thanks for your comments. considering the very low pedestrian levels on this route, removing one of the walkways on one side of the road and Existing footways are being retained for pedestrian using that replained space to increase the cycle lanes would usage. The speed limit needs to be reduced to allow the speed limits to be maintained. Comparing it to 30mph to meet the requirements of LTN 1/20. Heron Way in Yate which has a school, a park and some shops and is a 40mph, reducing this 2km long road to 30 seems absurd. I have personally had a marked police vehicle without lights on overtake me on this road. 35 I welcome the reallocation of space and the use of stepped Thanks for your support. cycle lanes to improve demarcation on this busy road. Retention of the temporary speed limit change will need to be considered based on the accident data on the full scheme (Phases 1 to 4) 36 I support the proposals. My main use of the road is in a car Thanks for your support. but this might encourage me to cycle. Hopefully it will do the same for others. 37 Cycling is not a viable year round event, dark nights, rain Thanks for your comments. etc. Make cycling dangerous. Cannot use it for shopping, and not for work if employer hasn’t provided shower Funds have been allocated to encourage cycling on facilities the A432 and active travel. The narrowing of the lanes will cause accidents if large lorries or buses meet in opposite directions. Cycle lanes too The proposals are based on the requirements of wide for the very small number of cyclists who use this road. LTN 1/20 which requires a change in the speed limit It a long straight is road with good visibility so a speed to 30mph. reduction is not necessary and we have 30 mph in Coalpit Heath. 38 Keep speed limit at 40 but put cycle lanes in. Thanks for your comments.

The speed limit needs to be reduced to meet the requirements of LTN 1/20. 39 Good. Thanks. Reduces risk. Thanks for your support. 40 Thinning the road will make it harder for cars to turn right Thanks for your comments. and with the lgvs using this route it could dramatically slow down traffic increasing air pollution. Cyclists use this road The proposals do not include reducing or removing intermittently at best an as current there is room to safely any right turn lanes and are not expected to cause overtake. If the road width is not reduced then the 40 mph delays. speed limit can stand. There is very little information on the benefits of doing this. The purpose of the scheme is to encourage cycling on the A432 and active travel. 41 Many more people will be encouraged to cycle this route by Thanks for your support. this scheme. 42 I fully support this scheme as a cyclist, motorist, pedestrian Thanks for your support. and local resident. 43 I avoid cycling along here when possible currently as it Thanks for your support. doesn't feel safe. The plans would mean I could use this route and cycle more as I would feel much safer. 44 I strongly support these proposals, as I have just started Thanks for your support. cycling and these lanes would make me feel much more comfortable using this route in my daily life. 45 Cycling along this route is always very dangerous. I feel I Thanks for your comments. take my life in my hands every time. I am a firm supporter of the segregated cycle lane. I am also supportive of reduction in the speed limit. This is because the speed at which cars pass you when you are cycling does make you feel safer or less safe depending on their speed. The current 40 mile per hour speed limit feels very dangerous as cars pass you when cycling. It is a very cyclable commuting route but I do not currently take it! 46 This will cause even more congestion and further reduce air Thanks for your comments. Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 8

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk quality. Cycle paths are rarely used in this area. The scheme is not expected to cause delays.

The purpose of the scheme is to encourage cycling on the A432 and active travel. 47 I support the proposals as they will enhance safety for Thanks for your support. pedestrians and cyclists. They will encourage more people to switch to making journeys on foot, bike or e-bike. This is crucial to tackling climate change and reducing air pollution hotspots (eg in central Bristol, where some South Glos residents will be commuting to, where pollution levels are breaching legal limits). Covid restrictions mean there is less capacity or desire to use buses and safe cycling along this route is vital. 48 The scheme is a marked improvement on the earlier Thanks for your comments. scheme implemented on Station Road in Yate. The requirements of LTN1/20 (1.6.1.1 & 1.6.1.3) could be Unfortunately there is insufficient width available to further improved upon with greater physical separation such provide segregated cycle lanes and physical as wands or similar. Making it safer for all ages/abilities and separation such as wands that would comply with prevent vehicles driving/parking on the raised cycle lane. the requirements of LTN 1/20. The section approx where the ETLs cross the A432 between the Swan and New Inn is regularly flooded, are Drainage investigation is being undertaken as part drainage improvements being considered as part of the of this scheme. scheme? 49 I agree with the proposed works and think more should be Thanks for your support. done to give cyclists segregated space from other users 50 I support this idea, but the other stages should also be Thanks for your support. progressed as soon as possible to make a joined up route along the whole length 51 I support these proposals, it will be very beneficial for Thanks for your support. everyone to have a really good, dedicated, continuous, cycle path along this major link. 52 I commute by bike from Yate to Bristol every day. I have a Thanks for your support. driver's licence but I want to reduce my impact on the planet such as by biking instead of driving into Bristol every day. This cycle expansion would greatly increase how safe I feel along my commute, I'm really pleased to see this being proposed and would be very grateful to see it in place. 53 I fear this will make travel on the road more dangerous. It is Thanks for your comments. an arterial route for many lorries, and making the road narrower will increase risk to car users. The already The purpose of the scheme is to encourage cycling completed cycle lanes into Yate are dangerous, causing on the A432 and active travel. The scheme is cars to have to change road position multiple times. The based on the requirements of LTN 1/20. number of cyclists on the road is more than accounted for by the current cycle lane width - this could be made a far by keeping the same width but demarked, curbed, lanes as proposed. 54 We cannot afford to keep spending money on these cycle Thanks for your comments. lanes. You are wasting tax payers money for little benefit. Surveys have shown they increase traffic issues and Funds have been allocated to encourage cycling on consequently pollution. Stop wasting our money to pursue the A432 and active travel. idealistic dreams of a few. Our Country cannot afford to keep spending money like this. I have also seen cyclists The scheme is not expected to cause delays so cycling up the wrong side of the road along Kennedy/ should not increase pollution. Cotswold Way. Of course the car driver will be blamed when there is an accident. 55 This is the dumbest idea the council have had in quite some Thank you for your comments. time and to be fair you are full of bad ideas, widening a cycle lane that will cause more congestion just like the The scheme is not expected to cause delays. moronic idea you have to put a bike lane in up Station Rd that closes off the left turn into Longs Drive, if you go ahead with this I will start making a petition and get local residents Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 9

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk to stop paying any council tax and expose the council for what you really are, how bloody dare you. 56 Fully supportive of providing these facilities. However I'm Thanks for your support. concerned over the safety of the current provision. I've observed misuse of the current provisions on Kennedy Way The proposals for this scheme are based on the & Station Rd; namely users (including young families) requirements of LTN 1/20. cycling, walking/running the wrong way along the lane, causing frequent user conflict & near misses with cars. Perhaps marking direction arrows to the lanes and signing rq'd. Cycle lane alignment on Station Rd/ Longs Dr jnc could be tapered, its unachievable in a big car. 57 There is always a high volume of traffic on this road. Any Thanks for your comments. congestion issues cause major problems with traffic backing up to Yate or back though Coalpit Heath. It’s a ludicrous The scheme is not expected to cause delays. The idea to reduce the speed limit to 30. It will just cause more speed limit needs to be reduced to 30mph to meet problems. Reducing the width of the road space does not in the requirements of LTN 1/20. itself mean that the speed limit has to be reduced. You will cause accidents as impatient drivers will not wait behind those sticking to the limit and will overtake in unsafe situations. 58 There are not enough cyclists to justify this expense and Thanks for your comments. inconvenience/chaos for car drivers and shops Funds have been allocated to encourage cycling on the A432 and active travel. 59 A survey of usage should be conducted before more money Thanks for your comments. is wasted on cycle paths that are very under used. On Station Road cyclists are still using the pavements! Funds have been allocated to encourage cycling on the A432 and active travel. 60 Narrowing the road will create a safety issue especially with Thanks for your comments. lorries that frequent it. The current cycle lanes are barely used and widening them will not encourage many extra Funds have been allocated to encourage cycling on people to any volume vs the volume of traffic. The current the A432 and active travel. The proposals are speed limit and width of cycle lane is better than this based on the requirements of LTN 1/20 which proposal. requires a change in the speed limit to 30mph. 61 Another proposal by an anti car council aimed at stopping Thanks for your comments. traffic. I have lived here 10 years and do not remember seeing a cyclist on this road. You just do what you want and Funds have been allocated to encourage cycling on ignore your constituents. If you can proceed without the A432 and active travel. consultation you do as in previous cycle lanes. This council is unfortunately a local standing joke. 62 North Bristol SusCom is very pleased to see the proposal Thanks for your support. being put forward. We have significant numbers of employees who commute from Yate to other parts of North Bristol. Making this major route safer for cyclists means that we can increase the number of employees who commute to work by bicycle and reduce the number of vehicles on the road. We hope that the other stages will be progressed as quickly as possible to provide a comprehensive route linking Yate to the Ring Road Cycle Path. 63 Prior to coronavirus I regularly cycled along this route and Thanks for your comments. was generally happy with its layout. The wider cycle lanes are useful, to give cyclists that little bit of extra clearance The proposals are based on the requirements of from the minority of drivers who do not give adequate LTN 1/20, which include reducing the speed limit to clearance. However, I am not so sure about the reduction 30mph. in speed limit. I feel that such a reduction will lead to more overtaking, as I have observed on the B4059, which potentially puts everyone at more risk. Is there evidence to support this reduction? 64 Demarcation kerb may cause drainage of water along kerb Thanks for your comments. causing cyclists to get splashed. Why does bus stop at Mayshill need to be removed to then place a stopped bus in Drainage will considered during detailed design. the middle of the cycle lane. Cyclists overtaking one another The proposed change to the bus stop is to enable a Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 10

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk may have to cross the kerb line into traffic. Is this kerb safe refuge to be retained to assist bus users crossing in all weathers (frost) to be crossed over along it's length? the road and to comply with the wishes of the bus Lorries can be 3.2m wide including mirrors. With 3.03m service provider who reports difficulty for buses lanes, passing lorries could end up driving on the kerbs pulling out into traffic from bus bays. The kerb when passing proposed is a product specifically produced for this location/purpose. The width/layout complies with LTN 1/20. 65 I am strongly against this proposal based upon the previous Thanks for your comments. works in Station Road yate. The ridiculous widening of the lanes are dangerous. I and others have seen large and The proposals for this scheme are based on the heavy vehicles entering the cycle lane or moving into requirements of LTN 1/20. Funding has been oncoming traffic. Lane is now too narrow The lanes are allocated to encourage cycling on the A432 and rarely used and this is a total waste of public money at a active travel. The consultation has followed time when things are hard for many with numerous cuts in standard SGC consultation procedures. other areas. I also would state that the awareness of these terrible proposals are not advertised enough

Two questionnaire responses were received with no comments.

Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 11

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk Appendix B

Comments received at Consultation via other Officer’s response methods 1a Response from Avon & Somerset Constabulary. Many thanks for your response. Regarding Abnormal Indivisible Loads, the new cycle Thank you for the email, link to online consultation and tracks will not be constructed to a strength our previous correspondence regarding the proposed that would withstand abnormal loading. Yate to A4174 Ring Road reallocation of road space for However, the full width of the road will be cycling (Stage 1). available for the vehicle to pass, this will be an absolute minimum of 6 metres (3 metres From the drawing T001-375-005 Rev A Cross Section in each direction). The haulier will need to and pdf “Cycle Kerbs and Dutch Entrance Kerb (003)” arrange a suitable method of travelling which shows a “cycle lane demarcation kerb”, the along the route, most likely escorted if the carriageway widths appear to be 3.03m in each vehicle is wider than 3 metres. direction, with a 2m cycle lane (there is no width mentioned for a footpath. Drawing T001-375-001 GA The demarcation kerb is of grey finish Rev D Sheet 1 of 3 shows a proposed pedestrian similar to a standard pre-cast concrete refuge island on the A4174. The width of the kerbing unit, these are visible at night in carriageway at this point doesn’t appear to be street lit areas and by headlights. They annotated. also have an upstand of 50mm which should be detectable to an errant vehicle. There is concern regarding the carriageway width and The foundation of the stepped cycletrack potential issues for Abnormal Indivisible Loads. will be designed to withstand the overrun of Abnormal Indivisible Loads are defined in The an AIL. Authorisation of Special Types 1979, Construction and Use Regulations 1986 and the Road Traffic Act 1972, Section 42 and Section 79. The scheme is still subject to the road safety audit process. I will pass your Such vehicles vary in width from a minimum 2.9 metres observations on the auditors for their to an undefined maximum. An Abnormal Indivisible consideration. Load of 32' / 9.75m width has been moved within our Force Area in the past. Movement of Abnormal Indivisible Loads which fall in the width band between 2.9 metres and 6.1 metres is not uncommon. Abnormal Loads are permitted, subject to the constraints of their routing, to move without escort up to a width of 4.1m (over that the loads are either self- escorted/subject to police escort).

I would be grateful if you could advise whether the cycle lane demarcation kerb would allow over-run by a trailer and also what the maximum available road width is proposed to be, in either direction, together with whether there will be any street furniture which could reduce the carriageway, associated with the proposals.

With regard to the cycle lane /carriageway proposals, the photograph on the pdf file appears to show a sloped surface/cap to the separation between cycle and vehicle lanes. Please can you clarify how the demarcation between the vehicle lane and the cycle lane is to be achieved? Is it an upstand/kerb with a profile or a raised paint area? If this is a kerb, is there a method which ensures its conspicuity during hours of darkness? 1b Follow up response from Avon & Somerset Thanks for your comments. The foundation Constabulary. of the stepped cycletrack will be designed to withstand the overrun of an AIL. Looking at the attached cross section drawing, beefing up the construction of the kerb so that an AIL could

Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 12

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk drive along as it does now; as you have suggested, would address the issues we have raised previously by increasing the available carriageway width to 5m in each direction, should it be needed. 2 The following are comments & questions for Thanks for your comments. consideration in the consultation process on behalf of the supporters of CyclingWorks Bristol. CyclingWorks Bristol (https://bristol.cyclingworks.org/) is a campaign that is building momentum amongst the region’s big employers in support of Safer Commuting by Bike. The campaign partners with regional business representation bodies; Business West, Bristol Green Capital Partnership, Destination Bristol, North Bristol Suscom and SevernNet, as well as national active travel charity Sustrans. The campaign has already received the support of organisations employing a total ~20,000 people in our region. Signatory organisations include: Aardmann Animation, Ashton Gate Stadium, Babcock, Bristol Airport, The Bristol Port Company, Burges Salmon, Foot Anstey, North Bristol NHS Trust, Osborne Clarke, Rolls-Royce, Stagecoach, The Mall at , Triodos Bank, Unite Student, Womble Bond Dickinson, WSP and YTL Arena & Development. A key goal for the supporters of CyclingWorks Bristol is the provision of continuous, safe cycle corridors allowing people to travel to/from work directly and efficiently by bike. Accordingly, the proposed plans to address this on the A432 from Yate to the A4174 Ring Road are welcome. The proposal to reduce motor vehicles speeds along the A432, and to make room for two continuous, uni- directional 2m wide stepped cycle lanes by narrowing the vehicle lanes is welcomed by our supporters. It is also reassuring to see references to LTN1/20 in the consultation papers. We understand that the consultation scope is only for Stage 1 (Nibley Ln to Frog Lane, Coalpit Heath via Mayshill). We hope that the additional stages can be quickly added to make the entire journey to/from Yate & its new Park & Ride to the Ring Road safer and more welcoming to cyclists. Clearly, in this regard, there are concerns about a phased approach, as it will mean that cyclists will be left exposed on the uncompleted future stages for the rest of their journey along the A432. We would suggest that consideration be given to Unfortunately the current funding is restructuring Stage 1 to make it a more coherent and insufficient to allow the Phase 1 extents to useable cycling section (see map) by adding: be extended. • To the North – a short extension (~0.2mile) to connect to the new Yate Park & Ride ie part of Stage 3 • To the South - a further short section (~0.5mile) into Coalpit Heath (junction with Woodend Road) and the intersection with NCN17 ie part of Stage 2

Additionally, we would like to raise the following questions – see below:

Question 1. Legal status of the Cycle route The cycle lanes will be mandatory. What will be the legal basis of the upgraded cycle route along Badminton Road? ie Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 13

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk • Mandatory cycle lane (marked with a solid line) - Motor vehicles must not enter the lane during its hours of operation or • Advisory cycle lane (marked with a broken white line) – Motor vehicles should not enter unless it is unavoidable • What steps will be taken to prevent vehicles There are no businesses on the phase 1 encroaching on the cycle lane for parking/loading? length which are expected to attract parking Conversely, will it be necessary to make loading on the cycle lanes. They will be mandatory provision for businesses along the road? cycle lanes so parking will not be permitted. • What signage will be used to notify road users Detailed design is yet to be completed. of the status of the cycle lanes, esp at junctions? Signage will be in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual. Question 2. Temporary speed limit The plan is based on a road speed reduction (from 40mph to 30mph), together with building two one directional stepped cycle tracks of width of 2m. This combination is consistent with LTN1/20 at that reduced speed, but not at speed limits above 30mph. However the plan states the speed limit reduction is temporary, at this time. LTN1/20 6.15 (p50) “Stepped cycle tracks and light segregation are generally considered less suitable for It is the intension that the 30mph speed urban highways with speed limits above 30mph.” limit would become permanent. This TRO Therefore, what happens if the temporary speed amendment still needs to be advertised. If reduction is not retained? – as the provision is then no the decision is taken to revert to the 40mph longer LTN1/20 compliant (or safe for users) without speed limit, the scheme would need to be further modification. reviewed. Additionally, given the building of Stage 1 will likely The existing speed limits on future phases result in more cyclists on the A432, will consideration of the A432 will remain unchanged and will be given to reducing the speed limit to 30mph on the be reviewed as part of the design process rest of the road to the Ring Road to reduce cycling of future phases. “hostility” and the likelihood/seriousness of collisions with vulnerable road users.

Question 3. Provision at bus stops The plan appears to indicate that there will be no cycle There is limited space at the bus stop lane provision at the location of the bus stops near to locations and the usage and bus frequency Mayshill. What is the plan for cyclists to safely pass is low (buses stop four times a day across stopped buses? the two bus stops). The significant cost LTN1/20 6.6 (p69) “Cyclists therefore need a means of involved in providing a means of passing passing stationary buses and trams without having to stationary buses is not warranted where come into conflict with faster vehicles on the bus very rarely stop. carriageway”.

Question 4. Provision at road junctions The plan appears to indicate that there will be no change to the cycle lane design at road junctions. Can the designers consider the optional recommendations in LTN1/20 to improve safety at these points? LTN1/20 (p 62) suggests consideration being given to: 6.4.12 “Increasing the cycle lane width locally at side There is insufficient space available to roads as shown in Figure 6.20 (below) can help increase the cycle lane widths at the side encourage cyclists to position themselves further from roads without removing the right turn lanes the kerb. This can enable them to avoid vehicles that which would affect traffic flow at the might be edging into the main road from the side road junctions. or overtaking and then turning left across the front of the cyclist.” 6.4.13 “Side road entry treatments are raised tables In order to provide raised tables the Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 14

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk across the mouth of the side road (see Chapter 10) and alignment of the stepped cycle track would help reduce the speeds of vehicles turning in and out of need to divert into the side roads at the junction, further adding to the safety of cyclists. junctions. There is insufficient space to They also bring significant benefits to pedestrians.” achieve this. CyclingWorks Bristol 3 Thank you for consulting the conservation team on the Thanks for your response. proposals for Phase 1 of the Yate to A4174 Ring Road cycle route enhancements. I can confirm that we have no comments to make. 4 To Whom it May Concern Thanks for your support. Apologies that this response is past the cut off date of 4th December 2020 (no excuse – work has just been particularly busy). I can confirm that my members at Dodington Parish Council did review this consultation at their Full Council Meeting on 25th November 2020 and wanted to make the following comment:- They are pleased to see the reallocation of road space – in particular the stepped lanes for cyclists. If you have any queries – don’t hesitate to contact me. Clerk & RFO to Dodington Parish Council 5 At last night’s meeting Westerleigh Parish Council Thanks for your support. expressed their SUPPORT for this stage of the scheme, in particular the reduction in the speed limit. Parish Clerk Westerleigh Parish Council

Nigel Riglar, Director for Environment and Community Services Streetcare, Transport and Waste, Design & Operations Team, P O Box 1954, Bristol, BS37 0DD 15

Tel: 01454 868004 E-mail: [email protected] www.southglos.gov.uk