Category Archives: campaigning

campaigning, news, space4cycling, TRO

CycleSheffield comments on, and objections to, Bridgehouses Gyratory

Leave a comment

CycleSheffield comments on, and objections to, Bridgehouses Gyratory

The details of the proposed changes to the Bridgehouses Gyratory are here http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=368&MId=5584&Ver=4

CycleSheffield are concerned about this because SCC has listened to, and considered, our concerns and we think have done the best they can for buses and cars, because that was the parameters of this change.

We believe that the situation for cyclists will be worse.

We have done about 6h of surveys and there are as many people cycling on the footways as on the road or using a combination of footway & road, often with a great deal of invention and craft!

However the sure sign of a traffic scheme unsuited to cyclists is one where cyclists are on the pavements.  The first part of this blog is objections to the proposed scheme( you have to stick precisely to the point); the second part is observations on what this says about policy and practice and laments the fact that there are no good quality cycle routes into Pitsmoor.

===========================================================================

To: Leigh Bramall, Chair of Highways Decision Committee

cc SCC Cycle Champions, James Burdett, Cate Jockel

We have objected to the plans for Bridgehouses Gyratory scheme.  We have been invited to meet with officers and discuss our concerns.  We appreciate the time and consideration given to us.  All of our objections have been considered and some have been addressed, eg a facility that allows cyclists to turn right from Pitsmoor Rd into Mowbray St, removal of parking on Chatham St.  Our ideas for long term developments were respectfully received. We also appreciate that there is a recognition that the present situation and the proposed changes at Bridgehouses still leave a road scheme that is difficult for all but the most confident and competent cyclists see comments in the Cyclists and Pedestrians section of the report.  We would argue that it is also difficult for pedestrians.

The substantive drawing/plan is this one http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s15494/Bridgehouses%202.pdf

This note contains two parts.  The first is objections to the scheme as resubmitted and the second is general comments about access for vulnerable road users to Pitsmoor for consideration by SCC when considering bus routes, designing for cycling and walking etc, in the future.

1 Objections to the Bridgehouses Gyratory

We have considered the proposal and resubmitted drawings and make the following objections:

We would like the Chair of the cttee to note that we think the details of the proposal themselves in section 4.5 of the report are ‘light’.

 

Original Our revisions (in italics)
New Inbound Bus LaneAll buses coming from Mowbray Street would use a new bus lane to accessNursery Street, instead of using the existing right turn lanes around theroundabout. New Inbound Bus LaneAll buses coming from Mowbray Street would use a new bus lane, to be constructed parallel to the present outgoing bus lane across Bridgehouses, to access Nursery Street, instead of using the existing right turn lanes around theroundabout.  This would also be accessible to cyclists, taxis and motorbikes
Pitsmoor RoadBuses heading towards Pitsmoor from Nursery Street would be able to usethe existing bus lane (which is currently used only by buses accessingMowbray Street) and then turn right via a new right-turn lane into Pitsmoor

Road, which would become two-way.   Traffic would no longer be able to turn right from Pitsmoor Road into Mowbray Street (except for cyclists).

 Mowbray StBuses heading towards Pitsmoor from Nursery Street would be able to usethe existing bus lane across Bridgehouses (which is currently used only by buses accessing Mowbray Street) and then turn right up Pitsmoor Rd via a newly installed right-turn lane.The central reservation separating outgoing and ingoing traffic on Mowbray St between Pitsmoor Rd and Corporation St/NIRR will be removed.  

Traffic would no longer be able to turn right from Pitsmoor Road into Mowbray Street (except for cyclists).

All traffic will be able to turn right off Corporation St into Mowbray St and then turn right on the new right-turn lane to travel up Pitsmoor Rd.  

Traffic will still be able to travel from Corporation St up Chatham St
Pitsmoor RdWill be made two way from Mowbray St to Chatham St/Rock St.  The cycle lane that is currently there will be removed.  The parking between Swinton St and Mowbray St will be removed.  

The parking between Swinton St and Chatham St will remain
Cycle RoutesCycle facilities continue through the area, with designated routes in bothdirections between Nursery Street and Mowbray Street. Cycle RoutesCycle facilities will still be present through the area but there will be alterations to their layout.There will still be designated routes in bothdirections between Nursery Street and Mowbray Street/Chatham St.
Changes to ParkingParking would no longer be permitted on Pitsmoor Road, between MowbrayStreet and Shipton Street, to allow for two-way traffic. These 8 spaces wouldbe replaced on Mowbray Street The additional 5 spaces proposed on

Chatham Street are no longer proposed, following on from the consultation:

see paragraph 4.16.

 Changes to ParkingParking would no longer be permitted on Pitsmoor Road, between MowbrayStreet and Swinton Street, to allow for two-way traffic. These 8 spaces wouldbe replaced on Mowbray Street The additional 5 spaces proposed on

Chatham Street are no longer proposed, following on from the consultation:

see paragraph 4.16.

We object to the following details

Pitsmoor Rd

  • The footway at the jn of Pitsmoor Rd/Chatham St/Rock St in the northbound lane is drawn as it currently is – projecting out.  We think this profile would have been installed when the road was made one-way.  However, if it is to become two-way again then it unnecessarily narrows the width of the road at this jn and means that vehicles continuing on Pitsmoor Rd towards Pitsmoor will not be able to take the best desire line and will be ‘pushed’ towards the line of oncoming traffic.
  • We observed four HGVs entering the aggregate site from SWinton St and two entering when travelling down Pitsmoor Rd.  We were assured that HGVs use the NIRR. They don’t.  We think these entrances  will impede traffic flow and be hazardous as the Swinton St manouevre entails crossing both lanes of traffic.  Exit from Swinton St should be a left-hand turn only
  • The parking on Pitsmoor Rd between Swinton St and the bridge is not necessary.  It is not residents who park there; it is usually people who work in the city.  There is a very reasonably priced car park (24/7/365) off Chatham St.  There is unrestricted parking on one-side of Pitsmoor Rd from the other side of the railway bridge all the way up to Wood Fold.
  • This proposed parking will entail drivers opening the door into the lane – which will cause delays and present a hazard to all traffic particularly cyclists (if using this route).  We are not convinced that the proposed (small-scale) widening will  be sufficient to provide a ‘safe’ door zone.  We also have evidence of lorries waiting in this parking in the morning before the aggregate site opens up and we are not convinced that the proposed bays would be wide enough to cater for HGVs, especially as wide buses will be going up and down often side by side.  We think there should be ‘no parking’ on all of the Bridgehouses Gyratory roads.  These are not residential streets, this is a major traffic interchange between Pitsmoor, Shalesmoor, Bridgehouses, Riverside, and nearby Wicker, Kelham Island and the city.
  • We particularly object when enough room can be found for parking on an arterial route but not enough room can be found for a cycle lane and it is also acknowledged that the footway will have to narrowed – to accommodate the parking.  The priority should be for supporting active, sustainable travel; we do not think this parking is consonant with Council travel and health priorities.

Chatham St

  • Chatham St cycle lane is currently no more than 1.2m wide and advisory.  Hatching was installed at the bend in Chatham St above Swinton St that extended the distance for cars to keep from the kerb to 2.1m.  We think this was installed to ensure that traffic did not ‘cut’ the corner and go into the cycle lane.  We have observed and recorded driver behaviour and traffic goes across this hatching and into the advisory cycle lane more often than not.  This is intimidating as well as dangerous.
  • We want the cycle lane on Chatham St to be 1.5m wide (as we thought agreed on cycle lanes policy) and we cannot see good reason why it cannot be mandatory, ie with a solid white line.
  • We have noted lorries turning right through more than 90deg from the top of Chatham St to go down Pitsmoor Rd.  We think this manouevre should be banned for all motor traffic when Pitsmoor Rd becomes two way.

Car wash on Mowbray St between Pitsmoor Rd and Chatham St

  • At present this enterprise has a one way system: in via Pitsmoor Rd; out via Chatham St.  With the present gyratory that makes sense.  But there is no proposal in this scheme to stop traffic turning off Mowbray St into the car wash instead of going up Pitsmoor Rd.   This could bring traffic going into the car wash into conflict with traffic coming down Pitsmoor Rd or cause them to stop and hold up traffic behind them wanting to go up Pitsmoor Rd.  If the car wash entry/exit system was changed to enter via Chatham St and exit via Pitsmoor Rd then these problems would be avoided.

Mowbray St

  • We note that more car parking is proposed on Mowbray St travelling towards Neepsend.  We note that the cycle lane on Mowbray St is on the driver’s door side.  The hazard to cyclists is to be ‘doored’. We think there should be a door zone, or the cycle lane put on the inside of the parking bays so cyclists are shielded from the other traffic.  If this cannot be done then we object to this vehicle parking (what is to stop HGVs waiting there).
  • We can see why the cycle lane travelling towards Bridgehouses/Nursery St has to be moved from the right hand side to the left hand side of the lane.  If the cycle lane is not blocked and the ASL is not occupied by traffic then it may be possible for a cyclist to get into position to carry on one of the three lanes.  We think this cycle lane should be mandatory to discourage careless obstruction of it.  Our observations of the ASLs at the current scheme show traffic stopping in the ASLs more often than not.  We believe that some education and enforcement on the issue of ASLs may be required.
  • If a cyclist can get into position on the ASL and gets in line with the the lane on the right hand side then buses will probably be behind her/him in the lane.  If you look at the drawing on Appendix A then buses and cyclists travelling towards Nursery St will be aiming for more or less the same spot.  There seem to be road markings for buses but no road markings to indicate that this route is SHARED with cyclists.  And as a cyclist you will need to be sharp and strong.  And if a cyclists can’t get into position and is stuck on the left hand side then one would have to cross two lanes of traffic setting off from lights to get into the third lane where the traffic would be well underway.  Again only for the quick and strong.
  • If Pitsmoor Rd is congested then could there be a need for a yellow box for traffic turning right to go up Pitsmoor Rd?  We also noted, in morning rush hour, traffic proceeding along Mowbray St from Shalesmoor queuing across the bottom end of Pitsmoor Rd and delaying traffic leaving Pitsmoor Rd and the same yellow box could work for this problem.  (Mind you SYP won’t enforce them).
  • We appreciate a controlled crossing being installed on Pitsmoor Rd which will allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross over.  Their needs to be a dropped kerb prior to the crossing to allow cyclists to access it (cf Arundel Gate crossing from SHU to Millenium Galleries).  This crossing is intended to help cyclists turn right outbound on Pitsmoor Rd into Shalesmoor.  If a cyclist is then to proceed towards Neepsend on Mowbray St will they be expected to lift their bike over the central reservation as they cross Mowbray St (its still there on Appendix A).  Or will they be able to cycle across and through a lane provided for them through the central reservation?  There are places in Sheffield where snickets like this have been installed.  Until this is clarified we object as we do not understand how the right-turn will be made to the outbound side of Mowbray St,

Bus Lane across Bridgehouses

  • We are re-assured that the inbound and outbound lanes are wide enough for buses.  Therefore we would argue that the cycle lane on the outbound lane could be mandatory to ensure buses or taxis do not stray into it.
  • The inbound cycle lane will be off-carriageway and has a dropped kerb for access into the ASL (marked but not coloured in red on Appendix A). Our concern here is that the front overhang of a bus could block this access and the ASL should be long enough to ensure that this does not happen – or bus companies train their drivers to park with the front of the body of the bus, not the front wheels, on the rear stop line of the ASL.

Air quality

  • We are concerned that there is no modelling of the impact on air quality of these changes.  The change to Pitsmoor Rd will make cycling down it more difficult as there will be no space for a cycle lane.  Pitsmoor Rd from Swinton St to Mowbray St is enclosed by a wall on one side and buildings on the other.  There will be no cycle lane for cyclists to undertake and no room for cyclists to overtake.  Cyclists will have  to take the position of vehicular traffic and wait in the queue.
  • This is a disadvantage for cyclists who usually have the advantage to make up journey time when motor traffic is queuing.
  • It is also a health issue for cyclists as they will be spending longer in polluted air – all those diesel buses!  We know the greatest concentration of NOx and PM pollution is inside a diesel vehicle but the exposure for cyclists will also go up

2 Comments on the Bridgehouses Gyratory and planning for cycling

The need to think long term

We believe that we need to consider the issue of cycling and walking routes and networks long term, eg we have a cycle report with a 2025 and 2050 targets. To meet the first target of getting 10% of all trips to be on bikes by 2025 then we need to start getting the 30% who want to cycle, but won’t because of driver behaviour and lack of good infrastructure, on their bikes now.  We note the comments suggesting that cyclists are currently poorly served by the Bridgehouses Gyratory.

Who benefits from this scheme and could the money be better spent?

The money for this scheme is being spent to reduce times buses have to wait to travel out of Nursery St round the gyratory.  We may be wrong but the cost of this seems to be in the hundreds of thousands of pounds (approx £700k)  May we suggest to the Bus Partnership that the way to speed up buses in Sheffield is not to disadvantage one group of road users but to advantage all road users incl buses by introducing a smart card system?  We think money of this order spent on a smart card system will have a much more beneficial effect on traffic flow for obvious reasons. This scheme just seems to be a public subsidy via construction for private bus companies.  We know we have been promised a smart card scheme and apparently they are working on one, but these promises have been made for a long time and to be frank, we will believe it when we see it.

Why is this scheme worse for cyclists?

We recognise that there will still be cycle facilities in scheme, the cycle routes across Bridgehouses have been kept and one improvement is that the outbound cycle path across Bridgehouses has better access than the current one, which requires slowing down and making a dog leg turn. Other than that a cycle lane will be removed, a continuous right-turn has been converted into a toucan crossing (and then god knows what), and a convenient right hand cycle lane has been, necessarily, shifted to an inconvenient left hand cycle lane.  Our judgement is that the scheme will be worse for cyclists than what is currently in place.

What should cyclists do?

Our systematic observations show a significant number of cyclists using the Bridgehouses Gyratory travel on footways and pedestrian crossings so that they can keep away from motorised traffic or follow desire lines, eg Pitsmoor to Kelham Island, Shalesmoor to Wicker. There is no better indicator of a scheme that is unsuited for cyclists than seeing cyclists on the pavement.  We note that incidences of cyclists using footways does not figure in traffic counts (why not?).  We note that a cycle audit was done but this seems to be oral; there is no paper copy.  We feel we can only advise our members to proceed on the Bridgehouses Gyratory as they see fit in any way that ensures that they are safe, and to not impede other vulnerable road users.

What are the opportunities for encouraging cycling to and from Pitsmoor?

This is important for any long term planning of cycle routes between the city and Pitsmoor.  There are currently no good quality cycle routes.  The current routes are:

  • Pitsmoor Rd inbound from Chatham St:  After you get to the jn at the top of the Bridgehouses Gyratory one has to cycle in traffic over the restricted width bridge (no ETA for when that will be fixed) and then along an uphill, outbound  lane on Pitsmoor Rd which has parking allowed in it so cyclists are pushed even further out into the lane. (Wouldn’t it be better to allow parking, if you allow it at all, on the downhill lane?) There are no cycle facilities on the wide and fast Pitsmoor Rd – again the priority is space for car parking
  • Pitsmoor Rd outbound: From Wood Fold to Chatham St – good, wide lane, double yellow lines so no parking.  From Chatham St: this will now be worse for cyclists (see above).
  • Chatham St inbound: This could be improved if the cycle lane was made a proper width and made mandatory.  If the top end could be made peds and cycles only that may be a benefit and could be part of a development of a green route from Riverside to Parkwood Springs
  • Brunswick Rd: This is accessed from the NIRR or via 4 controlled crossings across the NIRR & Saville St from Wicker.  It is very steep outbound and goes through a fly-tipped, glass-strewn, rat-infested, desolate area before it goes on past housing which is notorious for crime and anti-social behaviour.  Its not a route on which many would feel safe.
  • Spital Hill:  This has high-volume traffic, vehicles park in the cycle lanes, and the parking by the side of the pavement is often abused and is a door hazard, the width of the road varies and can be so narrow that vehicles cannot avoid going into the (advisory) cycle lanes preventing their use, it is heavily bussed and frequently jammed with buses – because there is no smart card system.  The right turn for cyclists into Carlisle St is just weird with the cycle facilities being obscured by a pedestrian refuge and overpainted with hatching.
  • Lyons St is isolated, steep and in an appalling state and Rutland Rd is a very steep road with fast and a high volume of road traffic unsuited to all but the strong and confident cyclists.

It could be argued that the current Bridgehouses Gyratory was the best of a bad bunch – but the changes will make it worse than it was.  So what chance encouraging more people to cycle to and from Pitsmoor?


campaigning, Cycle Forum, cycling, news, space4cycling

Green routes, urban routes and what should we focus on in the Lower Don Valley?

Leave a comment

We are invited to work with the Council on developing a strategic cycle network for Sheffield, that is, a coherent set of cycle routes whether dedicated paths, cycle lanes or roads with low traffic/low speed.
We are agreed that these should be a mix of off-the-road and on-the-road routes – a current example of this kind of mix would be the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route

This blog is about the Lower Don Valley. It is a preliminary sketching out of some ideas I have had so I would welcome comments and criticisms about anything really – there are still some omissions and I may have made some errors; so it’s a work in progress and all faults are mine.

I’ve drawn a crude map which is below. I’ve marked, in black boundaries, shops, leisure, and in the Don Valley the site of the stadium which, currently, is scheduled to be a 5-18 academy. Red boundaries indicate housing and everywhere else is industry, business and either protected or undeveloped land


View Green Routes 5WW in a larger map

I’ve drawn 5 ‘cycle’ routes to Meadowhall starting roughly at Blonk St at the beginning of the 5WW.
The most direct route (mustard coloured line) to get to the cycle parking at Meadowhall is along Brightside Lane and it is 2.87 mi.
The 5WW is coloured royal blue and it is 3.92 mi to get to Meadowahll and is 1.37 times longer than the most direct route hence the note that states ratio 1.37.
The brown route is along the roads through Attercliffe and then takes the 5WW after Carbrook School. It is 3.23 mi and has a ratio of 1.12 to the direct route
The purple route follows the Woodbourn Rd cycle path and I have connected that along Cricket Inn Rd to the NCN 67 which runs from Blonk St to the bottom of Maltravers Rd. It is 3.78 mi and has a ratio of 1.31 to the direct route.
The turquoise line follows the canal from Tinsley – it is a proposed route that has been included in the latest LSTF funding. I didn’t hear about this until the last Cycle Forum. I don’t know a completion date. It is 4.23 mi long and has a ratio of 1.47 to the direct route.

A cycle route should be convenient and Dutch planners state that a cycle route should be no more than 1.2 times longer than the most direct route – otherwise people will cycle the direct route.
However one has to be careful with the ratios, there are connections from one route I’ve drawn to another and the routes I have drawn aren’t no-exit tunnels.
But the connections that are important are the connections that allow cyclists to conveniently access work, rest, shops and play.
For example the only connection I am aware of with the canal between the Canal Basin and Meadowhall South tram stop is at Broughton Lane, but this gives good access to the purple route. The proposed route along the canal may have a good surface but it may be unlit and it is not always easily accessible to nearby roads or buildings (cf the towpath to Rotherham) so it may feel unsafe as it is dark and isolated at night so it may be unsafe. This would make it a good leisure route but not all year round transport cycle route in the winter months or for people working shifts.
A cycle route should be enjoyable and it may be that Brightside Lane, a fast road with high traffic volumes, may not be enjoyable, or feel that safe.
Attercliffe Rd (the brown route) is supposed to have weight restrictions between I think Staniforth Rd and Carbrook School (I don’t think these are ever enforced) and if you have ever cycled along it the proximity of HGVs makes it feel unsafe. Much of it will be the Bus Rapid Transit route but I am not sure that cyclists needs have been considered in that design
The 5WW is not convenient, it has many crossing points and again Dutch planners state that cyclists should not be having to stop/start or get off frequently – otherwise they will seek alternative routes.
The 5WW may not be that safe either, some of it has rough surfaces, there’s a v low bridge, some of it is closed at night, some of it is unlit or away from any human contact in an emergency and some of it is all of these.
The 5WW is paved and lit from Stevenson Rd to Meadowhall and connects with the purple route at Carbrook so this section has something going for it.

The purple route is interesting though. It runs to the South of Attercliffe Rd. It has a good surface all the way. It is lit and it passes housing, leisure and is close to shops and businesses. It will pass right by the new academy and would be an ideal path to nurture and care for so that pupils and staff at the academy could cycle to and from it. With a bit of will it could connect directly to Meadowhall Retail Park and with even more will it could have connected to the new IKEA. Yet when talking to SCC officers this route hardly ever gets any mention.

I rode the purple route and the 5WW last but one week of July 2014. They are often down to a very narrow path because the vegetation is not cut back (eg weeds brushing yr face at Centertainment) and they are not swept so glass can be a problem. There are no plans to grit them in the winter. If these routes are to be a cycle network they will need maintenance.

So take some time to look at the map and then think about where should SCC be making the effort and putting the money.
I think some combination of the turquoise and purple route would be good to explore or there may be a different way of thinking about it altogether.

WE want cycling that is safe, enjoyable and convenient.
WE also want cycling to be a genuine alternative to cycle to work, home, shops, leisure and entertainment
WE also want every child to be able to cycle safely to school.

Is this the kind of conversation/discussion we should be having with SCC?

campaigning, news, Peak District

CycleSheffield donation to Peak District Green Lanes Alliance.

Leave a comment

Cycle Sheffield is affiliated to the The Peak District Green Lane Association [PDGLA]

It costs us £15 pa.  Their aim is to restrict the use of motor vehicles off-road in the Peak District (http://pdgla.org.uk/)

We recently received a request to help with their work lobbying for a bill that will close green lanes to motor vehicles.

The exec discussed this and we have sent a CycleSheffield donation of £100 – as a one off – to this fund.

This is equivalent to 25p per CycleSheffield member.

Their letter of explanation is below and you may wish to donate yourself or pass the letter on to those who would donate.

This item will be on the agenda of our next meeting Mon Apr 7.

=====================================================

Campaign Fund

Dear PDGLA members.

We are currently working hard with our sister organisations to try and get the Deregulation Bill which is currently going through Parliament amended to add new rights of way clauses which, if adopted, would close over 3,000 miles of green lanes to motor vehicles. It will do so by classifying them all as Restricted Byways. (Restricted Byways can be used by walkers, horse riders, cyclists and horse-drawn vehicles but not by motor vehicles.)

As part of this effort we need to do some media work to help raise the profile of the green lanes issue among MPs and Lords. The media work will also provide a necessary backdrop to efforts, if we get as far as a vote in the Commons, to calling on people to write to/email their MPs. There will also be some printing or photocopying costs involved in lobbying within Parliament.

To support this work we need to raise about £5k to pay for a professional PR/media manager to work for  us for a number of weeks. The Yorkshire Dales Green Lanes Alliance is contributing £2k and the Friends of the Ridgeway £500. PDGLA is putting in £1k, but we need to raise more money.  If you can help with a donation, even if quite modest, please send a cheque made out to PDGLA to: Treasurer, PDGLA, PO Box 7976, Great Longstone, DE45 9AY.

Even if we don’t succeed via the Bill, we will have pushed green lanes higher up the political agenda. As a result of our efforts during the draft stage of the Bill we have already succeeded in getting the government to commit to consultation on the issue and MPs of all parties are increasingly aware of the issue due to our current lobbying efforts. Things are definitely moving in the right direction.

Please help if you can. This is a rare opportunity to try and change the law on offroading.

Please forward this email to friends and contacts you think might want to help.

Best wishes, thank you for your continuing support and interest, and my apologies to personal friends and contacts among our membership who have already had a similar message from me already.

Patricia Stubbs
Chair PDGLA

campaigning, Cycle Forum, news

Reaction to the Air Quality Action Plan 2015

Leave a comment

Reaction to the Air Quality Action Plan 2015

1. What’s the story?

  1. I’ve been following up a story in the Sheffield Telegraph “Traffic Strategy on the Way” p5 12/12/13 (and also partially here).  SCC has improving air quality high on the agenda for action and it needs to take, and be seen to be taking, effective action.
  2. The Council is likely to be heftily fined if it does not meet EU and UK air quality targets and has taken too little action to reduce it by 2015.
  3. The Council has an action plan for reducing air quality up to 2015 (AQAP 2015) which was adopted by Cabinet in July 2012 but it may be felt that not enough has been done in the last 18 months.
  4. After extensive and thorough monitoring, the report notes that road vehicles’ emissions contribute 50% of NOx pollution and 40% of particulate pollution in Sheffield and vehicle exhausts are the biggest single cause of air pollution.

2. Why is the story important?

  1. Sheffield’s Director of Public Health, now an SCC employee, has reported that approx 500 deaths a year can be attributed to the poor quality of Sheffield’s air (see p20&21 and the footnote on p21 of his 2013 report. ).
  2. Everyone of these deaths is classed as preventable.  To put this death toll into context: there are 4500-5000 deaths a year in Sheffield, which means that approx 10% of all deaths can be linked to poor air quality.  Death caused by poor air quality may well be the highest cause that can be linked to preventable deaths, mainly preventable respiratory and cardiovascular deaths, in Sheffield and, really, is a public health scandal.  It’s also a fairness issue because most of the people affected don’t own a car but live in the pollution and it disproportionately affects the very young, the old and those with existing heart and lung conditions.
  3. The Director of Public Health has been assigned the role of the Council’s Air Quality Champion.
  4. The plan has much to say about walking and cycling and I think should be of interest to CycleSheffield.

3. What actions are proposed?

The report lists actions that it thinks it can take up to 2015 which should help reduce air pollution.  Sheffield has an Air Quality Management Area, which tellingly is all of Sheffield except the area within the Peak District National Park and the city boundaries.

The action plan has specified seven actions:

  1. Feasibility study of a Low Emission Zone (LEZ)
  2. Develop infrastructure for refueling low emission vehicles (LEV)
  3. Promote smarter travel choices
  4. Improve engine performance of commercial diesel vehicles
  5. Mitigate the effect of the M1
  6. Develop policies to support better air quality
  7. Control industrial emissions

Action points 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 as they have little to say that directly relates to cycling. Action 1 is a feasibility study to see what boundaries there could be for an LEZ and what actions are needed.  There will be initiatives with road haulage companies, bus companies and taxi licensing on improving engines. Action 2 is about increasing gas (LPG) fueling points electric vehicle charging points.  This action will be dependent on successful bids for Government and European grants and also will need to be across the Sheffield City Region (SCR) not just in Sheffield city.  Action 4 is voluntarily working with bus and haulage companies to update their vehicles or the engines in their vehicles.  It is also about taxi engines and as SCC licenses the taxis it is one thing they can control by only licensing vehicles with ‘clean’ engines.  Action 5 notes that there is very little SCC can do with the M1 other than work with and lobby Government via the DfT and the Highways Agency to ensure that the amount of vehicles and their speed is controlled to reduce emissions.  Action 7 is about working with the Environment Agency and companies to ensure that when emission permits are granted, they are also enforced, and regulated sites are updated as and when needs be.

4. Action 3 Promote smarter travel choices.  The actions proposed here are to get more people on public transport, encourage tele-working, get car share programmes set up, and get more people cycling and walking.  Text in italics is a direct quote from the action plan.

“SCC will develop specific schemes to get employees to and from work and children to and from school such as Bike It, which promotes cycling through schools “

  1. The Bike It initiative is funded by Sustrans and I think has had an impact on 50 schools so far and we are not sure what the success and monitoring criteria are. I have heard that if a student cycles to school once a week then that is a ‘tick’.  We can ask questions about the uptake and impact of Bike It at the next Cycle Forum.
  2. What the AQAP doesn’t mention or consider is the Bikeability programme that has been running in Sheffield schools since, I think, 2007.  Over the last seven school years there must be approximately 10,000 students who, in their last two years of primary school, have attained Bikeability level 2 (basic standard to be out cycling on roads). The first cohort would have left secondary school by now.  I guess that many of these students did not cycle to their secondary schools and hardly cycle on the road now.  We know that most of the staff do not cycle and the cycle parking provision across all schools is very patchy.  The majority of parents do not want their children to cycle to school as they perceive it as hazardous.  This is a specific scheme but we need to ask what SCC is doing to monitor and evaluate its long term impact wrt to trained students carrying on cycling for transport or leisure?
  3. As for employees: Sheffield Council has promoted Cycle to Work schemes but the irony is that it has never introduced one for its own employees.  Despite many of the officers in positions of influence cycling to work themselves, the Council has spent years kicking this idea around the halls of bureaucracy and never doing it themselves.  The Council should be leading the way; it may be hypocritical to recommend actions you cannot or will not do yourself.  So we should re-iterate our request; when is SCC to introduce a Cycle to Work scheme for its own employees?
  4. Sheffield has a CycleBoost programme as well.  This is targeted on North East Sheffield and designed to get adults cycling for transport and wellbeing.  It has an extensive programme of cycle loans, cycle training, maintenance classes and a bike kitchen.  Its all good and started in 2013.  It’s funded from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund money and is part of the South Yorkshire In Motion! project.  Never heard of this? No neither had I until I happened to pick up a leaflet on it.  I think we need to ask CycleBoost to talk about its work at the next Cycle Forum and for SCC to talk about In Motion wrt to uptake of the various strands, coordination across South Yorkshire and what impact it has had so far, especially in Sheffield.

5. Action point 3 states, “The first principles of reducing the need to travel by car would be to ensure that all destinations are accessible to public transport, walking and cycling to ensure the provision of alternatives to the car.” , and action point 6 Develop policies to support states, “We will integrate policies for spatial and transport planning to reduce travel demand and open up possibilities for walking and cycling.”

  1.  I link these two points because I think it is stating that urban spaces or places where we work, rest, play and shop must be planned and developed, or redeveloped, with the needs of transport other than the car put first. To do this no space should be redeveloped unless transport designers are involved and no transport scheme should be developed unless urban space designers are involved, hence the proposed integration of spatial and transport planning. This could be interpreted as all designing should be done according to the hierarchy of road users, eg in order of consideration; able and disabled pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, commercial vehicles, private vehicles.  Its worth asking if this is what AQAP means?  And of course the other question, is when is SCC to introduce cycle audits? We still seem to be no closer to getting them as part of highway planning procedure, although it was agreed nine months ago it would take place.
  2. If SCC gets its act together to do then that would be a great improvement as long as politicians and officers hold their nerve.  When presenting AQAP to Cabinet Simon Green, Executive Director, Place stated, “….attempting to reduce emissions from traffic by using some form of demand management measure.  However, this may still not deliver the required air quality targets and EU limit values by 2015 and would also have a negative impact on Sheffield’s economy, working against the wider aims of the Corporate Plan.”  July 2012 papers presented to Cabinet.  What you can’t find is exactly what this negative impact is or would be and it is not identified in SCC’s Corporate Plan 2011-2014
  3. I think this blanket excuse of harming the economy must be resisted; the first question to ask is, “What is the negative economic cost of 500 preventable deaths caused by air quality per annum?”  And this is a legitimate question; the DfT’s own evaluation of Sheffield’s AQAP states,  “The Council is encouraged to consider the wider socio-economic impacts of the various measures, for instance encouraging cycling and walking has a health benefit beyond that of the expected air quality improvements, and it would be useful to consider this within the report.”  Defra response to SCC AQAP 2015 Sep 2012.  So I think we should ask at Cycle Forum what is the negative and positive economic impact of implementing AQAP 2015 and how do they compare?

Action point 6 goes on to say, “This (action) includes developing Park and Ride schemes, journey planning tools, cycle paths, cycle storage and better footpaths, subject to a successful funding bid. We will also be investing in public transport, such as the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Northern Route and support the implementation of the Government-led 2 year Tram-Train pilot scheme to promote innovation in sustainable travel, improve reliability and increase modal shift from cars to tram.”

  1. I think the important points here are
    1. to raise the issue of quality and coherence of cycle routes (not just paths) and to point out that putting in more does not necessarily make things better.
    2. to enquire how the BRT is to impact upon cycling, e.g. along Attercliffe Rd and using the 5WW around Meadowhall
    3. to note that the tram-train national pilot has vetoed carriage of bicycles despite the Council’s view and the Council’s need to develop a coherent view across the SCR on this issue.  This decision should be noted for when franchises are up for tender again.
  2. Action 6, Develop policies to support better air quality, also states that,
    1. a.    “We will introduce and enforce a planning policy to ensure that for significant developments predictable resulting loss of air quality would be appropriately mitigated.  We will expect all new developments to implement or support actions that make a positive contribution to improving air quality, such as by reducing the demand for fuel consumption.
    2. The proposed IKEA is a substantial development that has more or less ignored access for walkers or cyclists although Meadowhall must be one of the best linked places via public transport and could be for cycling.  Note this plan has been here since 2012 but seems to have given little backbone to Sheffield councillors and officers.  Is it negative economic impact to resist the wishes of developers?

Is AQAP worth pursuing?

It is of course linked to 20s Plenty, Living Streets and so on, so Richard is going to have a look at it from the Active Travel angle too.

I think It ‘fits’ with the demands we may make with Space for Cycling so we can use it as evidence/argument for our case

AND it also gives us an argument to take to community associations and TARAs to help build possible alliances for the 2014 and 2015 elections

Whether we make We Want Good Air Quality action an election demand is a moot point; I think we are pushing at an open door on that BUT we need to demand sound strategies for action on cycling and walking to ensure good air quality

For me actions like “We will maintain cycle training” don’t go far enough!  (on the realisation that if you don’t ask you won’t get and if you do ask it is highly likely you won’t get – but, hey! that’s campaigning for you)

Addendum: How is this all led and managed?

The plan has a steering group and a working group and a different officer championing  each of the above actions in each group!

14 people, 11 of them SCC officers, are members of the steering group.  16 people, 11 of them SCC officers, are members of the working group.  Two officers are both members of the steering group and the working group and those who are not officers are from agencies such as SYPTE, HA.

The working group should have a member of the local community assigned to each of the specific actions but currently there are no nominees and this plan will be finished in 2015.  That should be seven local community representatives in all making the working group a total of 23 members.

Its complicated but so is managing air quality.  However it may not be akin to a “lean environmental strategy team” as extolled on p20 of SCC’s Corporate Plan 2011-2014

The current documentation is out of date by the way as some people like Les Sturch have left SCC and the Government’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund no longer exists.

The other problem is that it will be very difficult to monitor and evaluate progress.  The Defra evaluation states, “ We note that the Plan includes a section on how progress will be monitored, and states that monitoring will be done by integrating the Plan into the Council’s performance management framework. This is welcomed, however it would be useful for the Council to define the indicators that will be used to evaluate progress with implementation of each measure, and to include the indicators and targets explicitly within the descriptions of each of the measures.  “

I couldn’t find a modus operandi for these groups, there are chairs and so on but I can’t find minutes, attendance so we can ask about that too.

 

announcements, campaigning

Save the Sheaf Valley Route

2 Comments

CycleSheffield is campaigning to save the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route, which is being degraded through poor planning and lack of consideration.  The route runs from Granville Square to Archer Rd (and then you can cycle on beyond through Millhouses Park towards Dore).  Many cyclists use it and it links Heeley and Meersbrook (which have the greatest number of people cycling to work in Sheffield) to the city centre.

See the full campaign detail, link below

http://www.cyclesheffield.org.uk/coreprinciples/save-the-sheaf-valley-route/

announcements, campaigning

Our new President: Josie Dew & her cycling thoughts

Leave a comment

We asked Josie Dew (of cycle touring books fame) if she would become our Honorary President and she happily agreed,

We thought we would ask her to answer some questions about cycling for our website.

questions and answers with Josie Drew

1. When did you first start cycling and how did you learn?

I was 3 when I learnt to cycle on a bumpy muddy lane outside our house when my dad let go of me.

 

2. What was your first bike? and your favourite?

My first bike was some bashed-up and bent-wheeled mini steed that had been passed down through my older brothers.
I don’t have a favourite bike – I like them all for different things: my first big wheeled bike – a 5-speed Raleigh Misty for being a present from the local bike shop (A.J.Penny) on my 11th birthday and for being the first bike I rode to Land’s End on (when I was 11) among multiple other places; my Italian Campione – for being the first bike I raced on (when I was 13) and for being the bike that I toured on around Wales, Ireland, up to John o’ Groats (when I was 14/15) and cycled across Europe on to Africa after I left school at 16; both my Roberts Roughstuff tourers for taking me all over the shop; my Brompton for speedily squashing down into a tidy portable package; my Danish Nihola trike contraption for being fun to ride and carrying multiple offspring and husbands (well, one actually, of the latter); my Circe tandem for keeping Molly tucked in safely behind me and taking us across Holland, Germany and Denmark. And I like all my other bikes too!

3. Have you ever had a bike stolen?

I’ve had a bike light stolen but never a bike.

 

4. Have you always cycled or was there a break at any stage of your life?

I have been cycling virtually every day since I was ten (which is the age I became besotted with cycle-touring). The only time I haven’t was due to injury (wonked knee and pinged Achilles tendon). I also didn’t cycle when I travelled to New Zealand by a Russian rust bucket cargo ship. It was supposed to take 5 weeks but took nearly 2 months as the engine broke down reducing speed to half. I had my bike with me and when we finally hit first land (Tahiti after about 6 weeks of being at sea) I was like an unsprung spring and rode all over the island non-stop until the containers had been loaded again and we off.

5. How do you think teenagers can be encouraged to keep cycling?

How can teenagers be encouraged to keep cycling? Pay them? I jest – although it might work.
Put cycling in the national curriculum for primary and secondary schools so that it becomes more a way a life. The government needs to make it less glamorous and more difficult to travel by motor vehicle and provide safer and far more Dutch-like facilities for cyclists (eg bikes have priority at roundabouts and dangerous junctions, lower the speed limit in villages and urban areas to 20mph and lower it on rural roads with strict enforcement and serious penalties for those who break it – and stricter punishment for drivers who hit cyclists – make the motorist liable until proven otherwise as in many European countries). Parents will only let their children cycle when they consider the roads are safe enough (as in Holland) and once young children start cycling daily (to school, friends, for fun etc) it becomes a normal activity for all and they will automatically continue cycling into teenage years and as adults.
Far more cycling (racing, time trials, mountain biking, bike polo, cycle touring, BMX-ing) should be televised and the government should give British bike manufacturers a load of money so that they could compete with car manufactures by making glamorous adverts for cycling on television, cinemas, computers, phones etc.
6. How have you managed the tricky stages when children are too big for a bike seat? and later when they can cycle independently but not very far?

I have managed tricky stages for my children when they become too big for bike seats by moving into cycle trailers then Danish trikes (the Nihola) then tag-along bikes and Follow-me kits that fit on their bikes to tandems when we need to travel big distances for little legs.

 

7. Do your little ones need encouragement sometimes and, if so. what are the most successful enticements?!

My girls rarely need encouragement to get on the bike because we do it every day so it’s as normal as brushing their teeth. And anyway there’s no other choice as there is no other way!

 

8. Where is your favourite cycle route? and your favourite long-distance cycle? and what is the most memorable place you have visited by bike?

If I answered all my favourite places visited by bike I could go on for ever!

 

9. What do you feel are the most important cycle campaigning issues for the UK?
Campaigning issues I’ve mostly answered in question 5

bike week 2013, campaigning

Get Britain Cycling – sign the petition

Leave a comment

As bike week approaches a reminder about the get Britain Cycling e-petition.

The e-petition was launched in support of the report by The Times as part of their ‘Cities Fit for Cycling’ campaign. The petition needs to reach 100,000 signatures to trigger a debate in Parliament.

The total number of signatories now stands at just under 67,000, which is remarkable, but we urge everyone who cares about making Britain a truly cycle-friendly country to support the all-party call to ‘Get Britain Cycling’ at :

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196

 

campaigning

Missed Opportunities

Leave a comment

There have been plenty of missed opportunities for cycling in Sheffield over the years I’m sure you guys could tell me about loads of them. I have a few here which could be addressed under the streets ahead and some which could have been great but are long since lost.

Northern General Hospital – there has been lots of kerfuffle over parking here in recent years, some money was spent on improved cycling routes but the vision wasn’t big enough. The signposted route from town to the hospital is treacherous and not cycling friendly, cycle lanes were added to part of Herries Road but ended at a dangerous and busy crossroads with no further assistance, access to the site by bike is through the same routes as cars even though there are lots of potential better and safer routes available.

Lady’s Bridge – a real missed chance to create another section of riverside path from Blonk Street to Lady’s Bridge to nicely link up the current cycle provision but you can barely get a bicycle past the new buildings structure now, there are opportunities for shops and cafes there too.

Smart Routes – aren’t as smart as they could be and limited in focus, how about connecting the ends of tram routes and bus stations like the ones around Hillsborough, up with good quality secure cycle parking and a network of bicycle routes to continue your journey.

Localised approaches – the bigger routes only benefit established cyclists, the primary focus in my opinion is to give local people safe routes to local conveniences like shops, schools and libraries. Local signposting of these routes with cycle lanes provided on any main roads they encounter, linking into longer routes is easy then.

Signage – confusing, incomplete and the routes aren’t logical and go against peoples perceived better judgement. Directing people along roads generally unknown to them and then coming to a junction to find no assistance.

Cycle Map – yellow roads should be identified by cyclists not highway personnel.

I have lots of individual gripes about lots of cycling infrastructure in Sheffield its why I don’t care for it much, but I can understand how it can be used to encourage cycling if we can get a few things sorted out with the streets ahead it may help and have a little more rational thinking behind transport infrastructure in Sheffield it may assist. Having poor quality of anything does not assist the users. We can’t rip up all our roads and put in segregated cycle paths we must work with what we have but in my opinion the first stage is making it safe to ride a bike to your local conveniences.

Sorry just needed to get that off my chest.

(note a big  thanks to Russell Cutts for contributing this discussion post, we invite comments)