Coventry to downgrade its Binley cycle scheme?
Just a quick thing...
I have chosen not to use adverts, pop-ups, mailing lists, or mandatory subscriptions, but it means there is an ongoing cost for me in researching and writing content, and generally advocating for active travel - time spent not working! If you can throw a few pounds my way to help out, your support is gratefully received! Thank you!
Coventry City Council are running a “Let’s Talk” consultation on proposals to partly downgrade the separated cycleway in Binley, to include sections of shared use space on Clifford Bridge Road. This suggestion is a concerning one that puts the city’s second main separated cycle route at risk by adopting old-fashioned and inappropriate standards that risk conflict and hazard where mixing high flows of pedestrian and cycle traffic.
The consultation runs to Sunday 30 July, and I have submitted my own comments. Rather than re-write the same to explain why I think this is a bad idea, I’ve included my own response here. Please feel free to copy and adapt this for your own submission if you wish:
I object to the proposal to lower the standards of the Binley cycleway on Clifford Bridge Road (or any other location along the route) down to shared use space.
Current national guidelines (LTN 1/20) are clear that shared provision is depreciated and not appropriate for routes with high pedestrian and/or cycle traffic flows. Shared space introduces conflict and hazards which lead to a substandard experience for both pedestrians and cyclists. This may also be considered an accessibility issue where visually impaired pedestrians can find the uncertainty of where cyclists may be particularly unnerving, startling, or even dangerous.
Reducing the standard of provision down from fully separated to shared use risks the attractiveness of the scheme for cyclists – if riders are slowed or risks of mixing with pedestrians are perceived as too great, they may opt instead to use the main carriageway. This will be not only to the detriment of the Binley scheme itself, but also future cycle infrastructure projects that Coventry and/or the WMCA may wish to undertake.
Fully separated cycle infrastructure which keeps all three key transport modes separated – walking/wheeling, cycling, and driving – is designed to enable active travel by a wide variety of users, from young children to the elderly, disabled and not disabled people, experienced or new riders. A good quality scheme enables independent travel from a younger age than might otherwise be permitted, giving children greater autonomy and freedom which in turn can enhance their development as people, and give them a greater appreciation for their local area. By downgrading the scheme, additional hazards are introduced which may affect the attractiveness of the route and its perception as a safe space for children to cycle. It may also have the same detrimental impact for people who choose to walk, where children may be perceived as less safe when mixing with high levels of cycle traffic in the shared use spaces. This in turn may then induce greater motor traffic (or hamper modal shift) including all the associated harmful impacts and costs to society – congestion, pollution, road danger, inactivity etc.
Shared use routes are, with some limited exceptions which do not apply here, outdated and inappropriate. A proposal for shared use infrastructure would be unlikely to be awarded national funding from Active Travel England who evaluate schemes against current national guidelines. If Coventry is perceived to be downgrading its ambitions for cycling across the city, this may affect future funding awards.
Coventry is still at the start of its development of a high quality cycle network but recorded figures show that where provided, routes are being used. This can only grow as builds continue and more connections and journeys are enabled. The routes are used precisely because they are fully separated, providing that feeling of safety and comfort that does not otherwise exist whether on the main carriageway or in shared use space. Reverting to old-fashioned and substandard infrastructure puts that development and the work that has been done to date at risk.
Please commit to providing and maintaining full separation on Clifford Bridge Road (and indeed, the full length of this scheme).
Note: the featured image for this article is from the Coundon cycle scheme and is therefore illustrative only. I’ve not yet been along the Binley route, so haven’t got a picture available.
Have you found this content interesting or useful? If so, and if you are able to, any contributions are greatly appreciated! Thank you! Oh, and do please share with others!
CBR is simply not wide enough to take a fully segregated cycle route. It is the main trauma route for Ambulances and other emergency vehicle’s that simply will not get though a narrowed road, lives will be lost in blue lighted ambulances suck in traffic, it’s just to busy a road. Why could the sowe Vally route not be used a much nicer safer leisurely route with the same destination? Not against cycle paths just need better planning and a suitable road which unfortunately is not CBR
This scheme has been out to consultation and the ambulance service (and everybody else) will have already had the opportunity to raise there concerns. In the absence of anything formal to say that the ambulance service are concerned about this scheme, I’m inclined to suggest that it’s not the problem you may perceive it to be.
Ultimately, delays are caused by too much traffic which has grown at an unsustainable rate for decades, coupled with a growth in the size of personal vehicles. This is the problem that must now be tackled. Cycle infrastructure is a very important part of enabling modal shift away from the car to active travel – far too many local journeys are currently made by car which could be made by other means. It’s also important to remember the health consequences of an overreliance on cars – excessive pollution, inactivity, direct physical dangers all contribute to ongoing death, injury, and ill health statistics. Being able to incorporate active travel into daily activities and reducing the reliance and use of cars is therefore an important health strategy that itself will save and improve lives.
As for routing through the Sowe Valley, firstly this is not primarily about leisure cycling, but cycling as everday transporation. Second, cycle networks must adopt five key principles to be successful – to be coherent, direct, safe, comfortable, and attractive. These principles form the basis of current national design guidelines. Routing through the green space does not fulfil the criteria. The route would no longer be direct, and – with a particular emphasis on quiet times and after dark (especially problematic in winter months) – would not be comfortable or safe due to isolation. Routes should and must be located along key corridors where they are not only highly visible but easy to navigate.
It presumes motorists undertake local journeys which could be completed by public transport-currently residents vary between those working outside of the City with no public transport provision and those with other physical mobility issues.
A number acquired property with easy access to main highways for work and also those with physical limitation able to use car/mobility support via immediate parking pick up facility.
Though it was recognised the road did not meet usual criteria in terms of road width the scheme was allowed to continue through process.
Residents are not NIMBYs-they have considered carefully the proposals and have not necessarily been given due hearing.
The danger to pedestrians caused by thoughtless use of cycles is already there as they use the footpath-as do scooters both powered and not. In hours of poor light or darkness will the requirement to show adequate lighting be there for the sake of pedestrian and resident, bearing in mind this is two way traffic on the pathway? Those taking children to school will need to be cautious.
Street lighting needs upgrading, and cameras to monitor behaviour on the pathway will be needed.
Emergency vehicles will find difficulty in negotiating the road at key times with a reduced carriageway.
Completion of the next phase of the A46 will add to the woes. The reduced access from CBR to the present A46 is diminished by the proposals in reducing lane size at the island leading to the dual carriageway to one lane only increasing traffic backlog. And it needs to understand that in the absence of current lay-bys vehicles will be reversing into the carriageway (they certainly won’t have opportunity to reverse in! The impact here is trauma hospital access, business park access, shopping centre access, school access, access to M roads.
There’s a lot in your comment which I have slightly edited for clarity and ease of reading.
Many trips that are currently made by car are local. These journeys add significantly to traffic congestion and the associated impacts of the same. Cycle schemes are not about public transport except as part of multi-modal transport. Rather, they offer individuals the opportunity to switch some/all of their local journeys to cycling, if they wish to do so. A lack of provision currently means journeys are either unsafe or feel unsafe. This is obviously a highly important consideration for the school run, for example, and whether children are granted the independence to travel around their local areas unaccompanied. But the safety aspect applies to adults too, where people do not want to be mixing with heavy motor traffic.
Access to the road network is not being prevented. Those who need to use a car due to the nature of their journeys or due to physical ability can continue to do so. Good cycle schemes offer personal transport choices for those who cannot or do not want to drive for whatever reason, where motor transport has dominated to their detriment over the past decades. Cycle schemes begin to restore some of the balance.
Residents and others have been given due opportunity to feed into the scheme development through the mandatory consultation periods and engagement – but these are not referenda and comments are only taken for consideration. With regard to the ambulance service, any suggestion that it will be adversely impacted will need to be backed up with formal evidence from that service, otherwise you are making unsubstantiated claims.
As for wider road schemes, behaviour of individual users, street lighting, CCTV – these are all beyond the scope of a cycle scheme and should not be conflated. A good cycle scheme will help keep cyclists away from pedestrians, reducing danger including from those who behave poorly. Downgrading the scheme to shared use will increase dangers.
There are at least 600 households that would be affected by the Clifford Bridge road scheme as unlike the wide Binley Road and Coundon schemes Clifford Bridge Road is not extra wide and is the only outlet for these households. Those of us who live in the area have suffered weeks of disruption to our daily lives so far already and the needs of these people need to be taken into account. The loss of parking spaces and trees cut down and the disruption that would be caused is totally disproportionate to any benefit a small number of residents would get. Coombe Park road runs parallel to CBR and is away from traffic and would be much better for any cyclists. This does not seem to have been considered. I walk regularly to Tescos and round the estates and see very few cyclists so I do not understand the need for the scheme in this area. If the work proceeds will footpaths have to be closed again and what about all the children who use it when leaving school. I am not against cyclists but a balance needs to be made to take into account the needs of the vast majority of residents.
Short-term disruption is obviously inconvenient, but the benefits must be evaluated in the long-term. High quality cycle infrastructure is a benefit not just to immediate residents but anyone travelling along the corridor who wants, or needs, to do so without a car. It enables journeys that might otherwise be difficult or impossible, and while cycling might start off from a low base, the infrastructure will begin to change that – especially as a broader, connected, and coherent network is built out.
As has already been explained, routing a main cycle scheme off-road through parks or other green space is not appropriate for anything other than a leisure route. It makes navigation less intuitive, and puts vulnerable people into an isolated environment – particularly concerning after dark, and therefore worse in winter months. Cycle infrastructure provides for cycling as local transport, not specifically for leisure (though there are benefits there too). It must follow key transport corridors and be highly visible to be effective.
Cycle infrastructure is also about restoring balance. For too long, motor traffic has dominated road space, pushing everyone for doesn’t or cannot drive to the edges. Pedestrians at least usually get footpaths (though drivers are increasingly invading into that space too). Cycling has usually been provided with nothing, forcing riders into dangerous mixing with motor traffic, introducing conflict with pedestrians in shared (and sometimes not shared) paths, or discouraging people from cycling in the first place.