You Said, We Did - Consultation Results Spring 2021

You said...

We’re concerned about the width of the footway and cycleway. A substantial part of the cycle track is less than 3m wide, so could some extra space be provided in some sections?

What we did

We have worked hard to accommodate more space for cyclists in the redesign. More space has been dedicated to the cycleway whilst attempting to retain as much footway as possible for pedestrians. In most cases the extra width has been taken from the main highway, however there are limits on how much space we can use due to the minimum road width needed for two double decker buses to pass each other safely. Buying private land to increase the space available is not a cost efficient option, and locations of utilities like gas and water mains also need to be negotiated in the design. We believe we now have a scheme which balances the needs of all highways users and residents.

You said...

We’re concerned about the width of the footway and cycleway. A substantial part of the cycle track is less than 3m wide, so could some extra space be provided in some sections?

What we did

We have worked hard to accommodate more space for cyclists in the redesign. More space has been dedicated to the cycleway whilst attempting to retain as much footway as possible for pedestrians. In most cases the extra width has been taken from the main highway, however there are limits on how much space we can use due to the minimum road width needed for two double decker buses to pass each other safely. Buying private land to increase the space available is not a cost efficient option, and locations of utilities like gas and water mains also need to be negotiated in the design. We believe we now have a scheme which balances the needs of all highways users and residents.

You said...

This does not meet the guidelines. The width needed for cyclists and pedestrians needs to be considered.

What we did

The cycle path is now segregated in more places than in the previous design, and is fully separated from the main highway. In some circumstances, where there is little available width or where no safer alternative is available, there are shared use footway/cycleway facilities; however, we have tried to keep these to an absolute minimum. Several industry experts have approved the revised cycle path design.

You said...

This does not meet the guidelines. The width needed for cyclists and pedestrians needs to be considered.

What we did

The cycle path is now segregated in more places than in the previous design, and is fully separated from the main highway. In some circumstances, where there is little available width or where no safer alternative is available, there are shared use footway/cycleway facilities; however, we have tried to keep these to an absolute minimum. Several industry experts have approved the revised cycle path design.

You said...

The lines of sight for cyclists do not meet the criteria required at junctions or properties.

What we did

The redesign of the route allows for good visibility along the route, with priority given to cyclists at a number of junctions.

You said...

The lines of sight for cyclists do not meet the criteria required at junctions or properties.

What we did

The redesign of the route allows for good visibility along the route, with priority given to cyclists at a number of junctions.

You said...

The buffer between cyclists and the road does not meet safety standards, given the speed limit along this route.

What we did

Significant work has been done to make sure that there is now an appropriate buffer between the cycleway and the highway and we are proposing to reduce the speed limit along the B4063, which will improve safety for all road users.

You said...

The buffer between cyclists and the road does not meet safety standards, given the speed limit along this route.

What we did

Significant work has been done to make sure that there is now an appropriate buffer between the cycleway and the highway and we are proposing to reduce the speed limit along the B4063, which will improve safety for all road users.

You said...

Will street lighting be put in place where there were lampposts?

What we did

Yes, the scheme will see no reduction in the street lighting provision along the B4063. Some lighting columns will be moved to accommodate the proposed changes.

You said...

Will street lighting be put in place where there were lampposts?

What we did

Yes, the scheme will see no reduction in the street lighting provision along the B4063. Some lighting columns will be moved to accommodate the proposed changes.

You said...

Does the width of footways meet guidance on inclusivity?

What we did

Currently large sections of the footway on this route aren’t up to modern standard. Where possible we have tried to improve footway widths, and the surface along the whole route will be much better quality and more accessible than that which is currently in place. We have attempted to keep narrow widths to a minimum, where absolutely required and only for very short distances.

You said...

Does the width of footways meet guidance on inclusivity?

What we did

Currently large sections of the footway on this route aren’t up to modern standard. Where possible we have tried to improve footway widths, and the surface along the whole route will be much better quality and more accessible than that which is currently in place. We have attempted to keep narrow widths to a minimum, where absolutely required and only for very short distances.

You said...

The speed limit along the entire route should be reduced to a maximum of 40mph. As cyclists are sharing the carriageway with motorists, it would help to increase safety.

What we did

Once the scheme is built, cyclists will have the option to not use the carriageway. However, we agree; we are proposing to reduce the speed limit to improve the safety of all road users. This will strongly support the aims of creating an active travel corridor and encouraging cyclists and pedestrians.

The revised scheme increases compliance with Department for Transport (DfT) Cycle Design Standards (LTN1/20), which set out the standards expected for cycling infrastructure. However, to meet this standard we have had to make a number of decisions relating to the current speed limit and are proposing a 30mph limit over the entirety of the route.

The benefits of reducing the speed limit are:

Increased safety for all users of the road, cycleway and pedestrians
The buffer required between motorists and cyclists can be reduced, making better use of the available space
Inclusion of continuous cycle crossings at junctions, improving journey quality and allowing better visibility for users
More pleasant experience for pedestrians and cyclists travelling near to vehicles travelling at slower speeds

These measures are essential for us to provide the best possible facilities and ensure there is sufficient space between cyclists, pedestrians and traffic, meeting guidance from the Department for Transport (DfT) and Sustrans.

Following discussions with the police to ensure compliance with the new speed limit, we are proposing a series of traffic calming measures, including:

Carriageway narrowing
Average speed enforcement cameras
Reduced corner radii at junctions

We have carefully considered the impact on road users and estimate that there will be a slight impact on journey times along the route. Where this specifically relates to buses we are seeking to deliver improved bus facilities and allow the buses some priority over other vehicles where possible. This includes the new length of bus lane approaching Arle Court roundabout.

These speed limit reduction measures are absolutely necessary to deliver the exemplary active travel scheme set out by Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) and National Highways, supported by the DfT, Sustrans and all other project partners.

You said...

The speed limit along the entire route should be reduced to a maximum of 40mph. As cyclists are sharing the carriageway with motorists, it would help to increase safety.

What we did

Once the scheme is built, cyclists will have the option to not use the carriageway. However, we agree; we are proposing to reduce the speed limit to improve the safety of all road users. This will strongly support the aims of creating an active travel corridor and encouraging cyclists and pedestrians.

The revised scheme increases compliance with Department for Transport (DfT) Cycle Design Standards (LTN1/20), which set out the standards expected for cycling infrastructure. However, to meet this standard we have had to make a number of decisions relating to the current speed limit and are proposing a 30mph limit over the entirety of the route.

The benefits of reducing the speed limit are:

Increased safety for all users of the road, cycleway and pedestrians
The buffer required between motorists and cyclists can be reduced, making better use of the available space
Inclusion of continuous cycle crossings at junctions, improving journey quality and allowing better visibility for users
More pleasant experience for pedestrians and cyclists travelling near to vehicles travelling at slower speeds

These measures are essential for us to provide the best possible facilities and ensure there is sufficient space between cyclists, pedestrians and traffic, meeting guidance from the Department for Transport (DfT) and Sustrans.

Following discussions with the police to ensure compliance with the new speed limit, we are proposing a series of traffic calming measures, including:

Carriageway narrowing
Average speed enforcement cameras
Reduced corner radii at junctions

We have carefully considered the impact on road users and estimate that there will be a slight impact on journey times along the route. Where this specifically relates to buses we are seeking to deliver improved bus facilities and allow the buses some priority over other vehicles where possible. This includes the new length of bus lane approaching Arle Court roundabout.

These speed limit reduction measures are absolutely necessary to deliver the exemplary active travel scheme set out by Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) and National Highways, supported by the DfT, Sustrans and all other project partners.

You said...

We’re concerned about the designs of some of the junctions. The location of some of the footpaths will lead to pedestrians walking onto the cycle track.

What we did

Many of the junctions have now been redesigned to improve visibility, giving priority to cyclists and slowing traffic when turning.

You said...

We’re concerned about the designs of some of the junctions. The location of some of the footpaths will lead to pedestrians walking onto the cycle track.

What we did

Many of the junctions have now been redesigned to improve visibility, giving priority to cyclists and slowing traffic when turning.

You said...

Some of the bus stop laybys have been reduced to half laybys. However some within the 50mph section have no laybys, so why isn’t there a consistent approach?

What we did

Bus stops have been designed to make the best use of the available space. In some locations there are bus bays where the bus doesn’t pull into a layby, in particular this happens in the more constrained and urban locations such as Churchdown. We have done this because pulling in and out of bays slows the bus down, and picking up passengers from the side of the carriageway will not only save time for the bus, but will help slow down other motorists as they get used to any new speed limits.

You said...

Some of the bus stop laybys have been reduced to half laybys. However some within the 50mph section have no laybys, so why isn’t there a consistent approach?

What we did

Bus stops have been designed to make the best use of the available space. In some locations there are bus bays where the bus doesn’t pull into a layby, in particular this happens in the more constrained and urban locations such as Churchdown. We have done this because pulling in and out of bays slows the bus down, and picking up passengers from the side of the carriageway will not only save time for the bus, but will help slow down other motorists as they get used to any new speed limits.

You said...

The plans for this scheme are outdated and are not in line with *LTN 1/20 – more like LTN 1/08.

What we did

The original scheme plans, as published, were compliant with LTN 1/20 when assessed fully. Constraints in specific locations meant that some elements struggled to meet the standards. Designing a compliant and safe scheme is our priority and as such we have spent time working with independent cycle safety experts and running design audits. This work resulted in significant redesign, and we have been able to resolve many of these constraints by reallocating road space and proposing to reduce the speed limit.

* LTN stands for Local Transport Note. The number 1 shows it’s the first one released that year and the 20 indicates it was released in 2020. It relates to a document from the Department for Transport (DfT) that sets out standards expected for cycling infrastructure – such as how wide cycle lanes should be and safety for cyclists.

You said...

The plans for this scheme are outdated and are not in line with *LTN 1/20 – more like LTN 1/08.

What we did

The original scheme plans, as published, were compliant with LTN 1/20 when assessed fully. Constraints in specific locations meant that some elements struggled to meet the standards. Designing a compliant and safe scheme is our priority and as such we have spent time working with independent cycle safety experts and running design audits. This work resulted in significant redesign, and we have been able to resolve many of these constraints by reallocating road space and proposing to reduce the speed limit.

* LTN stands for Local Transport Note. The number 1 shows it’s the first one released that year and the 20 indicates it was released in 2020. It relates to a document from the Department for Transport (DfT) that sets out standards expected for cycling infrastructure – such as how wide cycle lanes should be and safety for cyclists.