One-way streets can force us onto longer, indirect routes on busier roads those or with risky junctions. They’re often created to stop drivers rat-running, or to make more room for parking – every new residents’ parking zone seems to need new one-way streets. They make cycling less attractive by making routes longer and busier with traffic.

Confusingly, it’s Glasgow council policy to allow two-way cycling in one-way streets (contraflow cycling) (i), yet in the past couple of years when GoBike has pressed for cycling to be exempted from Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs – the legal instrument needed to create one-way streets) we’ve been told it’s impossible. And the reason? Vague ‘safety concerns’ from Police Scotland. Recently though there’s been a change of heart – GoBike received an email from the Roads department acknowledging the transport hierarchy, and saying that from now on, when one-way streets are proposed it would be ‘taken as good practice’ to consider ‘any ways to improve cycle travel and permeability, where appropriate’. Contraflow cycling ‘should be considered where it can be done safely’ with a requirement for a ‘minimum free road width of 3.5m’.

This is very good news, and comes after repeated, assertive, courteous and firm responses crafted by GoBike’s Consultations Lead to the ongoing slew of parking/one-way street TROs which have made no provision for cycling and have cut off convenient direct routes for many people.

But there are still questions about contraflow cycling – what exactly is it we’re thinking of and what are the safety implications of whatever that is?

On the first question, it’s worth taking a moment to think about what the idea of ‘contraflow cycling’ conjures up for each of us. Stop and take that moment now – picture yourself cycling the wrong way on a one-way street. What are you seeing? What are you feeling?

My picture is of pedalling gently along a quiet back street with cars parked on each side with just about enough room for a car to get between them. I’m stopping and tucking into a gap in the parking if the odd car comes the other way (and they’re passing me carefully and slowly). Not the best cycling conditions, but way better than that hill I’d have to go up or busy road I’d have to ride on, or series of turns I’d have to do in the traffic to go round the block. I feel perfectly safe, if anything’s coming it won’t be going very fast, I can see it and ‘it’ can see me.

What I can imagine the road engineers picturing is swarms of cyclists salmoning against the lanes of traffic on, say, Bath Street without a thought for the carnage they’re causing as drivers swerve and brake to avoid them.

And then there’s the handful of contraflow lanes that already exist in sections of Argyle St, Gordon St, West Nile St and Howard St in the city centre, much abused by drivers (including police drivers) for parking, where we should be ‘protected’ by that line of magic paint, but are too often forced out into the opposing lane.

It could be that we’re not all thinking of the same thing when we’re asking for contraflow cycling. It could be that the people who work in the roads departments are thinking of something different again. It could even be that the safety concerns about contraflow cycling are well-founded. Perhaps there is evidence that contraflow cycling is too risky.

Well – no. It doesn’t take much googling to find reports on the safety of contraflow cycling. Two key summaries of studies from cities around Europe (ii) (iii) agree on these headline points:

• Contraflow cycling is safe – no riskier than with-flow cycling, perhaps safer.
• The few accidents tend to be at the entry and exit rather than in the length of the street.
• Narrower streets are safer: they force all road-users to slow down and to pay more attention to each other.
• It’s safest when it’s the rule in an entire area, because then things are more predictable for everyone.

This is a useful summary of what the reports find:

At first sight, contraflow cycling looks risky. Over the years, however, experiences in various cities and countries have been consistently positive and have proven the overall safety gains of contra-flow cycling. Nowhere has contraflow cycling led to a rise in accidents, on the contrary. In many cities where contraflow cycling was tried, road managers and police started with very stringent safety criteria, but they mostly relaxed them as time went by.

So there is no evidence for the safety concerns of the police and council officers – but there is substantial evidence that those concerns are unfounded.

Hang on a minute though, perhaps the cities studied all had top quality protected opposite-way cycle lanes in their one way streets. Or perhaps they had very stringent criteria for the streets in which contraflow cycling is allowed.

But no, that’s not the case either. The famous cycling cities (Amsterdam, Copenhagen) barely feature in the reports. The studies include Brussels and Paris, in both of which contraflow cycling was permitted in all one-way streets with speed limits of 30kph (~20mph), with no special infrastructure.

If you like getting stuck into details, there’s a comprehensive study of accident statistics over three years in the Brussels city region (iv) (quoted in both the summary reports). Since 2004 contraflow cycling has been generally allowed on all one-way streets wider than 2.6m, indicated just by road signs (compulsory) and (optional) road markings. There are some 250 miles of it, about 25% of the road network open to cyclists. At about half of all the intersections one or more of the streets has a contraflow.

This detailed study found that – in this large network with no special infrastructure – contraflow cycling is safe, regardless of road width or parking arrangements.

Closer to home, a small and cautious trial in a London borough (v) started by allowing contraflow cycling (without expensive lanes and splitter islands) in five one-way streets. Careful monitoring found that these roads posed no more of a danger to motorists, pedestrians or cyclists, than those with the expensive infrastructure. The scheme has been extended across the borough. This wasn’t specially adventurous – UK and Scottish guidance has allowed contraflow cycling without special infrastructure (and no minimum road width) in 20mph zones since 1998 (vi) , repeated in 2008 (vii), both sources referenced in subsequent documents on designing for cycle traffic.

One of the summaries makes the point that different cities have different approaches to contraflow cycling:

• In cities with high levels of cycling and generally high quality cycling infrastructure the infrastructure for contraflow cycling also tends to be high quality (segregated, wide…).
• Cities wanting to increase cycling levels from a low base have introduced contraflow cycling without extensive (and expensive) special infrastructure. This opens up short direct routes, though at the expense of some comfort and speed.

There are suggestions that splitter islands or short lengths of marked lane at entries and exits can be useful, but even without these features contraflow cycling makes a positive contribution to road safety (including any effect on pedestrians). And it’s agreed that contraflow cycling is safest when universal in an area, because no one has to remember (or guess) what’s allowed in any one street.

What’s also clear is that blanket application of contraflow cycling in an area without infrastructure allows much better routing, but doesn’t make for the best cycling conditions – we would need to get used to taking care, looking out for unwary pedestrians (but we do that anyway, right?) and co-operating with approaching drivers. Of course, this could still be better than negotiating the alternative busier streets.

After immersing myself in this stuff for a few weeks (as well as the various guidance documents) it seems that these are the issues for GoBike:

• The council’s recent willingness to consider contraflow cycling in new one-way proposals is very welcome. Is it now good tactics (or even just polite) to pause our pressure for more?
• Should GoBike press the council (and their police safety whisperers) to make decisions based on evidence from cities that are further on in the changes they say they want for Glasgow (becoming a ‘cycling city’)?
• Should GoBike campaign for contraflow cycling to be allowed on all one-way streets in 20mph zones (perhaps initially limited to ‘narrow’ streets – those without markings for two or more driving lanes)?

GoBike members, we would like to hear your views. Please let us know what you think via our members’ channels.

(i) Glasgow’s Strategic Plan for Cycling 2016–2015, GCC, p30 (see here)
(ii) PRESTO Fact sheet Contra-flow cycling (see here)
(iii) Contraflow Cycling Briefing, European Transport Safety Council, 2018 (see here)
(iv) Safety aspects of contraflow cycling, Chalanton and Dupriez, BIW-IBSR, 2014 (see here)
(v) Two-way cycling in one-way streets, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (see here)
(vi) Contraflow Cycling, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/98, Department for Transport, 1998 (see here)
(vii) Designing for Cycle Traffic, Local Transport Note 2/08, Depart for Transport, 2008 (see here)

Contents

Section 1: Current Consultations

1. Glasgow Avenues – Your Avenues Consultation, online, closes 09 February
2. Glasgow, Ardencraig Road Traffic Calming Scheme, closes 11 February
3. Glasgow, Bankfoot Road and Wedderlea Drive Traffic Calming Scheme, closes 11 February
4. Glasgow, Castlemilk Drive Traffic Calming Scheme, closes 11 February
5. **NEW** Glasgow, Mosspark Drive Traffic Calming Scheme, closes 14 February
6. Glasgow, Central District Regeneration Framework, closes 14 February
7. Glasgow, South Side Car Club Traffic Regulation Order, closes 14 February
8. Glasgow, Carmunnock Road Service Road, TRO, One-Way with no contraflow, closes 14 February
9. Glasgow, Byres Road, Byres Road Traffic Management and Parking Controls, includes cycle lanes, closes 14 February
10. Glasgow, Byres Road, 20mph Speed Limit Zone, closes 14 February
11. Glasgow, Byres Road, Hillhead Traffic Management and Parking Controls, closes 14 February
12. Scottish Government, Housing to 2040: consultation on outline policy options, closes 28 February

Section 2: Forthcoming Consultations

1. Transforming Planning, National Planning Framework 4 – drop-in sessions and workshops February and March
2. Glasgow, Byres Road Traffic Regulation Order: Drop-In Information Session, THURSDAY 06 February
3. East Dunbartonshire Travel Survey Week, 10-16 February

Section 3: Consultation Feedback

1. Glasgow, Mount Florida, Parking and One-Way, with no contraflow – Motor Traffic 1, Active Travel 0
2. East Dunbartonshire Council: LDP Newsletter No.55 January 2020
3. GoBike Ride 02 February, we visited Sighthill, North East Travel Routes and Robroyston in our tour of the East

Section 1: Current Consultations, in date order for response

1.1 Glasgow Avenues – Your Avenues Consultation, online, closes 09 February

Details of this on-line and street public consultation were given in Digest 52, Items 1.4 and 2.2 and here’s the critical information:

“1. You are invited to view and comment on the concept designs online at: www.glasgow.gov.uk/avenues

2. Complete the Scottish Government ‘Place Standard’ tool online at:  www.placestandard.scot/start/glasgow-avenues-glassford-street-stockwell-street, helping us understand your perception of the street as it is today.“

Do please complete the online consultation. Currently cycle lanes are shown for the very southern part of Stockwell Street, but not continuing up to Argyle Street and Glassford Street. Apparently discussion is ongoing, so do press them to do better!

1.2 Glasgow, Ardencraig Road Traffic Calming Scheme, closes 11 February

This was the first of 3 new traffic calming with speed cushions schemes that just made it into our last Digest, Item 1.5 and it’s now been joined by a fourth in this issue. Ardencraig Road is in a residential area and there are 6 schools in the area, so why isn’t the road being made more people-friendly? It really is depressing that we can’t have a more people-friendly approach to our streets. This really is a major concern and the City Council continues to treat speeding traffic in this piecemeal way, just as they did with 20mph zones.

1.3 Glasgow, Bankfoot Road and Wedderlea Drive Traffic Calming Scheme, closes 11 February

This was detailed as Item 1.6 in Digest 52 and here’s a view of Bankfoot Road, just off Paisley Road West, leading up to Wedderlea Drive.

As may be seen, the houses all have room for off-road parking, so plenty of room for improvement in line with Designing Streets. This document was issued in 2010 and “is the first policy statement in Scotland for street design and marks a change in the emphasis of guidance on street design towards place-making and away from a system focused upon the dominance of motor vehicles.” We don’t think it’s hit the desks of Glasgow City Council’s staff yet!

1.4 Glasgow, Castlemilk Drive Traffic Calming Scheme, closes 11 February

Castlemilk Drive is a major route down to Croftfoot and King’s Park railway stations and upwards to Carmunnock and the rural areas of South Lanarkshire, so why isn’t cycling being encouraged here? All the details of the proposed traffic calming were in Digest 52, Item 1.7
We fully understand that finances are tight, with the end of the financial year approaching so money has to be spent or lost, but the lack of forward thinking is extremely disappointing.

1.5 **NEW** Glasgow, Mosspark Drive Traffic Calming Scheme, closes 14 February

This proposal arrived just too late, on 24 January, for our last Digest; it’s for the eastern end of Mosspark Drive, from Arran Drive up to the junction with Mosspark Boulevard. A helpful member of staff at the City Council confirmed that west of Arran Drive, where cars are parked both sides it was not considered that traffic calming measures are required. Even here, though, where there are houses both sides, all with gardens, cars reign supreme, taking up the place on the roadway where people would normally cycle. Here’s the email that we received:

“MESSAGE SENT ON BEHALF OF KEVIN HAMILTON, HEAD OF ROADS, NEIGHBOURHOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Dear Sir / Madam

The Glasgow City Council, (Mosspark Drive), Traffic Calming Scheme

The Council propose to consider the introduction of the above named Traffic Calming Scheme and I wish to establish the views of your organisation.

Please note that these proposals have also been released to the public by displaying on-street notices within the affected area.

Background to the proposed Scheme
The scheme is aimed at improving road safety by reducing vehicle speeds.

Roads affected by the proposed Scheme
The list of roads affected by these proposals are:-         Mosspark Drive

Details of the proposed Scheme
The proposed Scheme (as depicted on the attached plan) will comprise of:-

·       5 sets of 3, 1.9m, 75mm high, speed cushions,

·       The installation of bollards beside the proposed speed cushions.

·       The installation of a pedestrian island at the junction with Mosspark Boulevard

Please provide any comments you wish to make on these proposals within 21 days (Reply by 14^th February 2020).

Please reply directly to LandServices.Mailroom@glasgow.gov.uk.

In the meantime, should you require any further information or clarification on any points arising from the proposals, do not hesitate to contact my assistant (name and phone number removed by GoBike).

Should the Council proceed with these proposals; I will write to you again and confirm this.

Yours faithfully” etc

Here are the plans associated with the proposal: Full view, Island, Section 1 and 2, Section 3 and 4 and Section 5.

It’s very upsetting that so many motor drivers, in so many places, drive at speeds that endanger lives and all we do is install a few speed cushions to try to slow them down.

1.6 Glasgow, Central District Regeneration Framework, closes 14 February

This featured last in Digest 52, Item 1.8 and it’s a high-level document that will be used as a basis, or an excuse, for years to come. Our response is still being prepared as this Digest goes out but it will be sent in before the closing date.

1.7 Glasgow, South Side Car Club Traffic Regulation Order, closes 14 February

Digest 52, Item 1.9 gave all the details for this consultation and here’s the reply we sent in for the Stage One consultation. We don’t object to car clubs as such but they do take up cycling room on our roads and add to the clutter on our footways. Our reply will be similar to that at Stage One but do get your own views in, particularly if you live in the area affected by this or any other car club, or if you are a car club member yourself.

1.8 Glasgow, Carmunnock Road Service Road, TRO, One-Way with no contraflow, closes 14 February

Digest 52, Item 10 explained this proposal and it really highlights the City Council’s refusal to implement the default position of contraflow cycling in their selected design guide, Cycling by Design, Section 5.1.5. Our comments when we replied to the Stage One consultation are in this letter and will be repeated; side roads should be available and welcoming to people who choose to respect well-publicised concerns for our health and the environment by cycling. We should not be pushed onto busy main roads when alternatives are available.

1.9 Glasgow, Byres Road, Byres Road Traffic Management and Parking Controls, includes cycle lanes, closes 14 February

The details we were sent of this Order were in Digest 52, Item 1.11 and, as we informed you, we sent in detailed concerns for the Stage One consultation. We received this reply on 23 January, after querying whether our views had been received:

“MESSAGE SENT ON BEHALF OF CHRISTINE FRANCIS, HEAD OF TECHNICAL SERVICES, NEIGHBOURHOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Dear Ms Fort,

I refer to your email of 9^th January and can confirm that we did receive the stage 1 response. Your previous objections will be carried forward into this stage of the consultation process, however, a large portion of your letter does not specifically relate to the TRO process (mostly design choices) and will not be considered as part of the objection to the TRO.

In terms of the design of the cycle lanes, these are for the most part are finalised in terms of specification (i.e. at footway level with an asphalt surface). Future design changes would be limited to localised alignment changes along Byres Road in relation to potential layout tweaks and potentially colour in addition to street furniture placement etc. Any other significant changes would be restricted to the outcome of the TRO consultations.

I can also advise that our records have been updated to reflect the change of contact information for our consultation stage emails to consultations@gobike.org – any future TRO updates will now be directed to that email address.

If you require any further information regarding the Byres Road TRO please contact ByresRoadTRO@glasgow.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,” etc

While we support the limited range of the TRO, as per our post of 27 January, we remain extremely concerned that the clear and basic guidance given in Cycling by Design and good practice elsewhere is apparently not being followed for the detailed cycle lane design. See this extract from page 86 of Cycling by Design:

Our response will go in next week, but if you haven’t sent in your views yet, do please get them in by the 14th.

1.10 Glasgow, Byres Road, 20mph Speed Limit Zone, closes 14 February

Digest 52, Item 1.12 gave the details for this proposal, which we support. Suggested wording for you to add your voice was given in our post of 27 January, so do write in. Our letter will be going in soon.

1.11 Glasgow, Byres Road, Hillhead Traffic Management and Parking Controls, closes 14 February

No, the picture’s not Hillhead but there is parking nose to tail there that severely limits walking and cycling. Details of this order were given in Digest 52, Item 1.13 and our suggested wording for your response was in our post of 27 January. GoBike generally supports parking restrictions but we have become aware of one general concern and a specific one for this Order. The general concern is that parking charges in Glasgow are so low, only 80p for an hour – compare this with the cost of a return bus or subway journey and you can easily see that it is the car driver, and not the bus or subway passenger, who is being encouraged to visit Hillhead and Byres Road, and other parts of the city. The specific concern in Hillhead, one of the more affluent areas of Glasgow, is the proposal that residents be offered a second parking permit – in a city that’s hosting COP26 this year! Where’s the City Convener for Sustainability and Carbon Reduction when you need her? Let’s support her with opposing these 2 aspects of the parking Order.

1.12 Scottish Government, Housing to 2040: consultation on outline policy options, closes 28 February

Just about all new housing in Scotland is built as per this example, ie with car parking space and/or a garage, so it’s no wonder so few people cycle. Do please respond to this national consultation, which was detailed in Digest 52, Item 1.14.

Here’s the link: https://www.gov.scot/publications/housing-2040-consultation-outline-policy-options/pages/3/

Do have a look and let’s get lots of responses in that mention cycling and active travel. We know it’s the way to go.

Section 2: Forthcoming Consultations

2.1 Transforming Planning, National Planning Framework 4 – drop-in sessions and workshops February and March

The Scottish Government says: “We are committed to encouraging interest and wide public involvement in the preparation of NPF4 and want to engage with the public, community, voluntary and private sectors, as well as academics, experts and professional bodies.
We will make a particular effort to reach beyond the people and organisations normally involved in planning consultations.“

Locally drop-in sessions followed by workshops are being held in Foxbar (Paisley) on 18 February, Glasgow on 17 March and Kilmarnock on 27 March. See this link for further information.

Jim, from Cycling UK in Scotland told us about this, with this email:

“Hi

This is a quick note to highlight that the Scottish Government is seeking early views on the National Planning Framework 4 and is holding a series of workshops and drop in sessions throughout Scotland. See the full list here https://www.transformingplanning.scot/national-planning-framework/get-involved/  I’m planning to be at the Glasgow event.

They also are looking for written comments – so check the same page. Its always to get ideas in early!

The NPF4 will be a hugely important Government plan for Scotland up to 2050 – it decides national investment, development and infrastructure plans for the future. They have said they will use is to take forward the transport projects needed for the future (from STPR2) – so a big opportunity to re-state what infrastructure we think is needed for cycling and active travel. NPF3 in 2014 included the National Cycling and Walking Network so NPF4 must do much more.

Please pass this on through your networks to anyone you think might be interested.

I will be providing more information on NPF4 opportunities in the future but I’m happy to discuss with anyone.

Regards
Jim
Jim Densham
Campaigns and Policy Manager – Scotland
Cycling UK in Scotland“

GoBike needs members to go to these events and feed back – please get in touch at consultations@gobike.org

2.2 Glasgow, Byres Road Traffic Regulation Order: Drop-In Information Session, THURSDAY 06 February

An event at Hillhead Library, hosted by Byres Road Corners and Hillhead Library from 2-6pm. Here’s the link: https://www.facebook.com/events/s/traffic-regulation-order-drop-/622550555222298/

Do go along if you wish to know more!

2.3 East Dunbartonshire Travel Survey Week, 10-16 February

Here’s the info from the East Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan
Newsletter, Issue 55 – January 2020

“The Draft Local Transport Strategy contained an action for the Council to establish an East Dunbartonshire Travel Survey. Planning has been underway for this project and the inaugural East Dunbartonshire Travel Survey Week will take place from Monday 10 February to Sunday 16 February 2020.
Market researchers, Research Resource – on behalf of the Council – will be carrying out on-street surveys during the week beginning Monday 10 February in Kirkintilloch, Milngavie, Bearsden, Bishopbriggs, Lennoxtown, Auchinairn, Hillhead, Harestanes and Twechar.
In addition to the on-street survey, an online version is also available which can be completed between now and Sunday 16 February. Follow the link to get involved: www.researchresource.co.uk/eastduntravel.html
The survey aims to compile a picture of local travel behaviours which will provide the basis for long-term regular data collection – helping the Council to understand evolving travel behaviours and shape plans for the future.
Funding has been provided through the Smarter Choices, Smarter Places programme, administered by Paths for All.”

See Section 3.2 for a link to the whole newsletter.

Section 3: Consultation Feedback

3.1 Glasgow, Mount Florida, Parking and One-Way, with no contraflow – Motor Traffic 1, Active Travel 0

Back in July 2019 GoBike objected, with this letter, to proposals to change the parking regime in Mount Florida. These proposals included making some streets one way and refusing to countenance contraflow cycling. There was some further correspondence with this second letter from GoBike in September and an email exchange in November. This latter exchange was published in Digest 47, Item 3.1. We did meet with Michael Brady on 12 December at Glasgow City Council offices, and contraflow cycling was discussed, but we have had no further update until this final message confirming adoption of the TRO came in on 27 January:

“MESSAGE SENT ON BEHALF OF KEVIN HAMILTON, HEAD OF ROADS, NEIGHBOURHOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Dear Sir / Madam

THE GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL, (MOUNT FLORIDA), (TRAFFIC REGULATION) ORDER 2020

I refer to your objection to the above named Traffic Regulation Order and can advise that your objection was reported and considered. However, the Council have decided under its scheme of delegated functions to proceed with the proposal with changes as specified below:-

• Removal of a small section of proposed no waiting at any time restrictions at the western extremity of McLennan Street at the request of a local resident in order to provide additional parking space.
• The existing waiting/loading restrictions will remain in place on Cathcart Road between Prospecthill Road and McLennan Street following a request from a bus operator.

The Order was made on 22 January 2020 and an advert was placed in the Evening Times on 24 January 2020 stating that the Traffic Regulation Order has been made.

I realise that this may not be the outcome you wished for, however this Order will introduce improvements to the existing parking restrictions in the area.  The specific objective was to assist the local community by reducing the parking restrictions on Cathcart Road and to facilitate business activities allowing all vehicle types to utilise the designated loading areas.

In addition to the above, the Council are taking the opportunity to improve parking practices and road safety within the adjoining residential areas.  This includes ensuring crossing points are accessible, sightlines at junctions are sufficient and generally parking practices are safe and not obstructive.

Should you require any further information on the above named Order please contact my assistant (name and phone number removed by GoBike).

Yours sincerely,” etc

So there we have it: a resident gets extra parking space, a bus company gets space for its buses (and quite right too) and we get restrictions for cycling. Just what vehicle/transport/active travel hierarchy does Glasgow City Council work to?

3.2 East Dunbartonshire Council: LDP Newsletter No.55 January 2020

This newsletter contains information on:

• The Local Transport Strategy 2020-25
• East Dunbartonshire Travel Survey Week (See Item 2.3 above)
• The Proposed Local Development Plan 2 – Update
• The Scottish Government’s Consultation on a Replacement National Planning Framework (NPF4) (See also Item 2.1 above)

3.3 GoBike Ride 02 February, we visited Sighthill, North East Travel Routes and Robroyston in our tour of the East

Eight intrepid souls rode out east on Sunday morning and arrived back, still in the rain, just in time for a sunny afternoon!

Here’s the cycle lane alongside Fountainwell Road on the northern edge of Sighthill. It’s separated from the road and nice and smooth, but stops before that nasty Springburn Road.

On our approach to Robroyston Railway Station, just opened in December. There are no cycle markings on the new access road or footway (See Digest 48 Item 1.6 for consultation for the accesses to this station) but the crossing was a toucan one and there are NO cycle lanes on the road. Of course GoBike requested cycle lanes when we responded to the TRO, but that was only for the double yellow lines. There was NO consultation on cycle access.

This is the station access on the Robroyston, northern side.

And the station parking. There is talk of cycle lanes on the south side, the Millerston side, along Station Road, although the boundary between North Lanarkshire and Glasgow runs down the centre of the road …..

Our ride finished in Govanhill and home via the still unfinished South City Way.

So that’s it, another mixed bag of delights, for another two weeks. Thanks for reading.

Contents

Section 1: Current Consultations

1. Closes TODAY! North Toryglen green space and active travel designs, open on-line until TODAY, 30 April
2. **NEW** Infrastructure Commission for Scotland, Call for Evidence, closes 03 May
3. Edinburgh Napier and Transform Scotland, Pedestrian Crossing Facilities User Survey, closes 10 May
4. **NEW** Scottish Government – Consultation on Environmental Principles and Governance in Scotland, closes 10 May
5. **NEW** Glasgow, B759, Cathkin Road, 30mph Speed Limit Traffic Regulation Order, closes 21 May
6. Glasgow Climate Change Survey, closes 31 May
7. **NEW** Petition for a safer crossing to Victoria Park at Westland Drive, Glasgow.

Section 2: Forthcoming Consultations

Yet again, we have no advance news.

Section 3: Consultation Feedback

1. Govan Partick Strategic Development Framework
2. Glasgow City Council, Byres Road Public Realm: Revised Concept Design, 23 April – SUCCESS, Segregated cycle lanes to be included
3. Glasgow, Elmbank Street: the City Council maintain their opposition to permeability
4. Glasgow, South City Way, Gorbals Street Traffic Regulation Order

Section 1: Current Consultations in date order for responses

1.1 Closes TODAY! North Toryglen green space and active travel designs, open on-line until TODAY, 30 April

This is a delightful community scheme, transforming wasteland and introducing active travel routes, which we featured in Digest 32. Do please have a look at the plans that are here: https://www.urbanroots.org.uk/workshops/northtoryglen/ and complete the survey. Then see if you can get something similar done where you live! Here’s the letter of support GoBike has sent in.

1.2 Infrastructure Commission for Scotland, Call for Evidence, closes 03 May

Here’s a survey that Transform Scotland told us about. It’s high level but this is where we need to get our views in if we want meaningful change for active travel. Here’s the link to the call for evidence.

Let’s see if we can get some iconic cycling infrastructure! The documents aren’t long ones but there is a form that you have to return with your submission!

1.3 Edinburgh Napier and Transform Scotland, Pedestrian Crossing Facilities User Survey, closes 10 May

We mentioned this survey last time, in Digest 32, and it’s a quick and easy one to do. It’s about road crossings and your preference for them/behaviour at them. Do please give it a go.

1.4 Scottish Government – Consultation on Environmental Principles and Governance in Scotland, closes 10 May

Here’s another one that Transform Scotland passed on to us and it’s about what happens to environmental controls when we leave the EU. It’s quite alarming how much work has been done, and there still is to do, about leaving. Ideally you need to know about environmental principles and current governance controls as they are handled in the EU, but there is information in the consultation paper. Here’s the link to the consultation, so give it a try.

1.5 **NEW** Glasgow, B759, Cathkin Road, 30mph Speed Limit Traffic Regulation Order, closes 21 May

This is one that we will support – unless you tell us you think Cathkin Road should remain at 40mph? This is the email that we received from Glasgow City Council on 24 April:

“MESSAGE SENT ON BEHALF OF ANDY WADDELL, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS NEIGHBOURHOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Dear Sir or Madam,

THE GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL, (B759 Cathkin Road) (30mph peed Limit) Order 20__
Further to my consultation email of 26 March 2019 regarding the above named Traffic Regulation Order, and in accordance with statutory procedures, I now enclose a copy of the press notice of the proposed Order, relevant map, statement of reasons and detailed report.
I would once again ask that you pass this information on to all bus operators likely to be affected by these proposals.

Details of the proposals will also be available on the Glasgow City Council website at www.glasgow.gov.uk/proposedtro

As stated in the attached documentation, any person wishing to object to the proposed Order should send details of the grounds for objection in writing to Andy Waddell, Director of Operations, Neighbourhoods and Sustainability, Exchange House, 231 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1RX or by e-mail to land@glasgow.gov.uk by 21 May 2019.

Yours faithfully”

We did not receive a “consultation email of 26 March”, but it looks as if one or more bus operators were not too happy with whatever went out that day, or perhaps didn’t go out. Hence, it seems, this full consultation now.

The documents attached to the email are: Advert Statement of Reasons, Plan and Report.

1.6 Glasgow Climate Change Survey, closes 31 May

This was Item 1.6 in Digest 32 and although there is still one month to respond, there’s no time like the present!

Here’s the link to the survey and here’s the link to response suggestions that we got from Extinction Rebellion.
But you will no doubt, be able to think of many more measures to reduce pollution and climate change – realistic implementation and enforcement of the 20mph speed limit in the city centre, sorting out road drainage, clearing vehicles off our pavements so that we can walk along them, cycle lanes, segregated of course, on all the main roads into the city ……

1.7 **NEW** Petition for a safer crossing to Victoria Park at Westland Drive.

Off the back of one of last weekend’s many pop up Pedal on Parliament protests around Scotland, GoBike member Andy Watson has launched a petition asking for a safer crossing at Victoria Park. The protest was reported in Glasgow Live here. The notoriously dangerous double roundabout crossing that creates a real obstacle for families trying to reach the park has long been highlighted to the council. Sunday’s protest was attended by many local families as well as Carol Monaghan MP, Councillor Feargal Dalton and Robert McKay, chair of Jordanhill Community Council, who have all taken council reps to the roundabout to highlight the dangers. The council have so far maintained that as there have been no recorded fatalities at the crossing so far, it is “safe”. Help them reconsider by adding your name to this really quick petition.

Section 3: Consultation Feedback

3.1 Govan Partick Strategic Development Framework

Back in February, in Digest 27, Item 1.2, we published our response to this Framework Document and last month, 22 March (sorry about the delay in telling you) we got this acknowledgement:

“Thank you for your response to the draft Govan-Partick Strategic Development Framework consultation. Your response is currently being considered by the Council as it prepares the final version of the Strategic Development Framework.

We received a substantial and diverse range of commentary on the Strategic Development Framework and the input from all respondents to the consultation was greatly appreciated. We are currently reviewing the ideas, suggestions and representations that were submitted and these will be invaluable in informing the Finalised Draft Strategic Development Framework.  Many of the responses related to wider issues than just spatial planning and the commentary is also informing the Council’s approach to the regeneration of the area more generally.

We will be in touch again soon to clarify the timescales for moving towards formal adoption of the SDF.
If you have any further questions at this time please feel free to contact us at this email address.

Best regards
Spatial Strategy Team
Development & Regeneration“

3.2 Glasgow City Council, Byres Road Public Realm: Revised Concept Design, 23 April, SUCCESS, Segregated cycle lanes to be included

You can read the long-awaited decision on Byres Road here, from the City Council, Neighbourhoods, Housing and Public Realm City Policy Committee, Report by Executive Director of Regeneration and the Economy.

If you subscribe to our posts then you will have read this post which describes how the City Council have approved plans to incorporate segregated cycle lanes into the upgrade for Byres Road. If you haven’t read it then it’s well worth a read. Our thanks and congratulations go to everyone who was involved in the campaign. Unfortunately things haven’t gone so well right next door on University Avenue and we know we’ve still a long way to go before Glasgow City Council will accept, across the board, that safe active travel is a requirement on all redevelopment schemes.

Here’s some information from the twittersphere that explains why it has all taken to long to come to the Byres Road decision:

3.3 Glasgow, Elmbank Street: the City Council maintain their opposition to permeability

So a win above on Byres Road for active travel, but the situation on Elmbank Street appears to be a loser. If you have been following the sorry tale there with the loss of a route to Sauchiehall Street, you will be aware that GoBike received a favourable reception when we went to a meeting of Blythswood and Broomielaw Community Council. One of the local councillors, Bailie Philip Braat who was at that meeting, wrote in to Neighbourhoods and Sustainability and we reported on the reply he got in Digest 30, item 1.4
We were delighted to hear that the other councillor who attended that meeting, Bailie Christy Mearns wrote in to N&S on 24 April with this:

“Please could you confirm whether it is technically possible to construct a safe contra-flow cycle lane along Elmbank Street? Whether this is by removing three parking spaces, realigning kerbs, and/ or altering pavement and signals.

Many cyclists are frustrated that conta-flow cycling has been removed from this street which has made it more difficult to move about with ease. Given that contra-flow lanes are the Council’s policy, I am trying to ascertain why this decision was made and how feasible it would be to reintroduce it. Despite the nearby improvements to Sauchiehall Street, cycling infrastructure has actually got worse here and I want to understand how this has been justified.

It is safe, joined-up cycling infrastructure which gets more people cycling; and I worry we are going in the wrong direction, at encouraging active travel, with this move. I look forward to hearing from you on this.”

Almost quick as a flash, as if the answer was there on the shelf, came this reply just one day later, 25 April:

“Dear Bailie Mearns

Thank you for your email in relation to the non-inclusion of a contraflow cycle lane on Elmbank Street as part of the Sauchiehall Street Avenue.

A primary objective of the project was to provide an environment which would enhance social and economic wellbeing of Sauchiehall Street and lead to economic growth in the area re-population of the area.

The basis of the design for Sauchiehall Street is the upgrading of the pedestrian and public transport infrastructure and installation of cycling infrastructure. Circa 550m of 2 way segregated cycle lane has been installed in an area where previously there were no segregated cycling facilities, all in accordance with Glasgow City Council policy. Construction of the proposed cycling infrastructure and median strip, required the carriageway width of Sauchiehall Street to be reduced which meant that vehicles turning into Elmbank Street have a tighter turn. In addition an ‘Avenue’ of trees has been installed to further enhance the local environment of the area within a median strip. The new cycling infrastructure connects to the ‘Connecting Woodside’ proposals in the west and the possibility of providing a link to cycling infrastructure on Cambridge Street from Rose Street is to be investigated as part the works proposed for Sauchiehall Street Precinct.  

Prior to the works 53 parking bays, none of which were disabled bays, were located on Sauchiehall Street. On completion of the works 3 number disabled bays will be installed on Sauchiehall Street, ie a 95% reduction in the number of parking bays implemented to enable the construction of the segregated cycle route and median strip.

The area within which the site is located is a major part of the ‘night time’ economy for Glasgow City Centre therefore consultations with local businesses were undertaken and the issue of reduced levels of parking on Sauchiehall Street was highlighted. To mitigate this reduction the Council committed to providing parking bays on the streets between Sauchiehall Street and Bath Street where possible. The number of bays that could be incorporated at these locations was limited given the need to maintain taxi ranks, bus stands for public transport and loading facilities for businesses. The final scheme constitutes a significant overall reduction in the level of car parking in the area.  

An existing loading bay for Sauchiehall St businesses was located on Sauchiehall Street to the west of the junction with Elmbank Street. This bay had to be removed to accommodate the construction of the segregated cycle lane and median strip. It was relocated to the north west corner of Elmbank Street. In addition an existing loading bay was located on the south east quarter of Elmbank Street to provide servicing facilities to the businesses in  Elmbank Street area and this bay was retained.

The possibility of installing a contraflow cycle lane on the west side of Elmbank Street was investigated and the required buffer zone and cycle lane have been highlighted on the attached extract from the general arrangement. The turning requirement of vehicles into Elmbank Street was added and there is a clash between the two. The visibility of vehicles exiting the loading bay would have been compromised increasing the risk of injury to cyclists heading north. As a consequence of these risks a contraflow cycle lane was not installed at this location on safety grounds.

The possibility of installing a contraflow cycle lane on the east side was also investigated however the existing loading bay and parking at this location would require to be removed. The removal of these facilities would have had a detrimental impact on the economy of the area.

Given the various factors to be considered in the preparation of the proposed layouts, a balance had to be struck to accommodate the requirements of the various interest groups. Overall, the existing footways were upgraded for pedestrians, the addition of a  segregated cycle lane has improved cycling facilities, public transport infrastructure was upgraded and the number of parking bays available to private cars was substantially reduced whilst taking into account the impact on the economy of the area. It is accepted that, at this particular location, Elmbank Street, cycling facilities have not been incorporated into the works however when the full project is taken into consideration, segregated cycling facilities within the area have improved significantly and in accordance with Council policy.

I hope that this explanation of the consultation, care and attention that has gone into achieving the best overall balanced design for all users in the area clarifies the reasons why segregated cycling facilities were not included in Elmbank Street.

Andrew Harrison
Group Manager, Neighbourhoods & Sustainability”

Here’s the “extract from the general arrangement” referred to in the reply.

So there we have it folks – 550m of segregated cycle lane on Sauchiehall Street, but who cares whether we can actually reach it? A major part of our City Council just doesn’t get it that we cycle from A to B. Unless they think we are going to put our bikes on the back of a car, park in Elmbank Street, carry our bike across to Sauchiehall Street, and cycle up and down the 550m for an hour or two. Very disappointing indeed.

3.4 Glasgow, South City Way, Gorbals Street Traffic Regulation Order

In January we responded favourably to the consultation for the part of the South City Way that will be on Gorbals Street (see Digest 26, Item 1.3), and we have now, 18 April, received this acknowledgement:

” MESSAGE SENT ON BEHALF OF ANDY WADDELL, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, NEIGHBOURHOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Dear Ms Fort,

THE GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL, (SOUTH CITY WAY) (GORBALS STREET), ORDER 2019
I refer to your support of the above named Traffic Regulation Order and can advise that your support was reported and considered. The Council have decided under its scheme of delegated functions to proceed with the proposal as advertised.

The Order was made on Tuesday, 9 April 2019 and an advert was placed in the Evening Times on Wednesday, 17 April 2019 stating that the Traffic Regulation Order has been made.
Should you require any further information on the above named Order please contact my assistant Suzette Aidoo on 0141 287 9024.

So no response to our comment that unidirectional cycle lanes should be the norm, but let’s hope that the project gets a move on and we can all soon cycle from the Clyde to Queen’s Park.

So, that’s it for now – a relatively quiet fortnight, but with lots of activity for the Pedal on Parliament, we hope you enjoyed getting out on the streets.

We have some interesting new proposals for you this time, from parking changes to allow a new cycle lane at Speirs Wharf to pedestrian crossings to climate change. Also, fascinating feedback that demonstrates a lack of overall compliance with aspirations for active travel, with contraflow cycling denied yet again in the west of Glasgow and ongoing concern about University Avenue. Read on!

Contents

Section 1: Current Consultations

1. **NEW** Glasgow, Port Dundas, Controlled Parking Zone Order 2002, Variation No 3, Speirs Wharf, closes 19 April
2. East Dunbartonshire Council, Lenzie – Waiting Restrictions , closes 22 April
3. Glasgow Pollokshaws Road/Eglinton Street Traffic Regulation and Parking Control, closes 24 April
4. North Toryglen green space and active travel designs, event Monday 15 April, open on-line until 30 April.
5. ** NEW** Edinburgh Napier and Transform Scotland, Pedestrian Crossing Facilities User Survey, closes 10 May
6. **NEW** Glasgow Climate Change Survey, closes 31 May

Section 2: Forthcoming Consultations

Nothing new coming forward that we are aware of.

Section 3: Consultation Feedback

1. Glasgow Broomielaw District Regeneration Framework
2. North Lanarkshire Council Local Development Plan
3. Glasgow, Blythswood Street and Holm Street contraflow lanes
4. Glasgow Byres Road Design Workshop
5. Glasgow, University Avenue
6. Glasgow, HYNDLAND, HUGHENDEN AND DOWANHILL WEST (MANDATORY 20MPH SPEED LIMIT ZONE) ORDER 201
7. Glasgow Avenues, Sauchiehall Street and others Consultation Event
8. Glasgow, Doune Gardens – fixed, or is it?
9. Renfrewshire, Glasgow Airport Improvement Area, Design and Construct contract awarded.

Section 1: Current Consultations in date order for responses

1.1 **NEW** Glasgow, Port Dundas, Controlled Parking Zone Order 2002, Variation No 3, Speirs Wharf, closes 19 April

This is one that almost slipped through the net but was rescued from the inbox just in time!
Here’s the email received from Glasgow City Council on 22 March:

“ MESSAGE SENT ON BEHALF OF ANDY WADDELL, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
NEIGHBOURHOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY

 Dear Sir / Madam,
THE GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL, (PORT DUNDAS) (CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE) ORDER 2002, (VARIATION NO 3) (SPEIRS WHARF) ORDER 201_

The Council propose to consider the introduction of the above named Traffic Regulation Order.
Please find enclosed a copy of the press notice of the proposed Order, relevant map, statement of reasons and detailed report.
Details of the proposals will also be available on the Glasgow City Council website at www.glasgow.gov.uk/proposedtro. 
As stated in the attached documentation, any person wishing to object to the proposed Order should send details of the grounds for objection in writing to Stephen McDonagh, Neighbourhoods and Sustainability, Exchange House, 231 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1RX or by e-mail to land@glasgow.gov.uk by Friday 19^th April 2019.

That doesn’t tell us much but the first paragraph of the Report does:

1. Reason for the proposal: Glasgow City Council proposes to implement a new two-way segregated cycle track on the north side of Craighall Road, linking proposed works on North Canal Bank Street with proposed improvements to the pedestrian and cycle link between Speirs Wharf and Garscube Road. This will incorporate a new signalised junction at Speirs Wharf and Craighall Road, providing a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists to cross an otherwise busy road.

So that’s a lot better isn’t it? But, before you ask, no we haven’t been given sight of the plans for the segregated cycle lane. However, it’s a move in the right direction – best to support it. Here’s the GoBike letter of support.

The supporting documents are here: Advert/Press Notice, Report, Statement of Reasons and the Plan (showing only the parking changes)

1.2 East Dunbartonshire Council, Lenzie – Waiting Restrictions , closes 22 April

Our response to this consultation was submitted on 01 April and here’s the confirmation reply:
“Good afternoon Tricia
I acknowledge receipt of your email and would like to thank you for taking the time to respond.
Regards
Fiona Stirling“

If you haven’t done so already, and you know this area do please reply before the 22nd. Here are the details.

1.3 Glasgow Pollokshaws Road/Eglinton Street Traffic Regulation and Parking Control, closes 24 April

We mentioned this first in our last Digest, Digest 31, Item 1.8. The documents are the Advert, the Plan, the Report and the Statement of Reasons.

Here’s the wording of the Report:

“This order will amend the existing ‘Glasgow City Council (Eglinton Street, Pollokshaws Road, Allison Street, Calder Street, Kilmarnock Road, Thornliebank Road, etc.) (Traffic Regulation) Order 1998’ parking and no waiting/no loading and unloading restrictions on the existing western footway along Pollokshaws Road and Eglinton Street. This corridor will support and enhance ongoing regeneration of the surrounding area, manage parking and promote active and sustainable travel
Development of the route will provide links to a network of existing walking and cycle routes spanning the city and surrounding areas, serving: parks, shops, academic, leisure and cultural establishments along and close to the core route helping make cycling and walking the most convenient modes of transport over short distances.”

Thus it is one that we should all support to ensure that the South City Way may be built. The email from the City Council was in our last Digest, Digest 31, and the email address to send responses to is: land@glasgow.gov.uk. The GoBike response will be going in soon.

1.4 North Toryglen green space and active travel designs, Monday 15 April, open on-line until 30 April.

This was a new item, 1.6 in our last Digest, Digest 31 and, if you didn’t get along to the event yesterday, you can still respond on line from 15 – 30 April. Here’s the link:
https://www.urbanroots.org.uk/workshops/northtoryglen This is a neighbourhood programme of improvement so do please support it if you know the area.

The event yesterday was excellent, with attendees ranging from the Traffic and Transportation Engineer from South Lanarkshire Council to young children from the local nursery. The proposals include better cycle and walking access across North Toryglen plus park areas with activity equipment for young and old. It will become far more than a housing scheme with derelict land around it, for more an interesting and desirable place to live and to visit.

1.5 **NEW** Edinburgh Napier and Transform Scotland, Pedestrian Crossing Facilities User Survey, closes 10 May

Here’s one that arrived on paper in some flyers inside our newspaper (yes a paper paper!) and allows the use of my zebra crossing photo again!

Here’s the survey link: https://crossingsurvey2019.questionpro.com

The survey is being done by the Transport Research Institute of Edinburgh Napier University and Transform Scotland (of which GoBike is a member).

It’s an easy survey to do so do please complete it.

1.6 **NEW** Glasgow Climate Change Survey, closes 31 May

Here’s another survey that we heard about from the Tweet above and that GoBike member, Greg, also told us about. It’s at:
https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/ClimateChange2019/ so do please complete it.

Helpfully, Greg provides some information from Extinction Rebellion: “The questions asked are not multiple choice and require some thought so we’ve put together a list of suggestions to help people complete the form. They are just suggestions so please do pick and choose, customise your answers, add in your own thoughts. The suggestions can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KKgT9ats_8yp9r5GTvvbDcCOJ9JcnitaaC271xjdol4/edit?usp=sharing

There are lots of ideas in this document so do please put those brain cells to work and tell the City Council what they need to do – and what we, as citizens, need to do.

Section 3: Consultation Feedback

3.1 Glasgow Broomielaw District Regeneration Framework

We finally got our response in for this consultation – and hope you all did the survey! Here’s the letter we submitted on 05 April and here’s the response we got – within minutes or submission:

“Thank you very much for making the time to read and respond to the Framework document. I will ensure that your comments are fed into the consultation process.
Best regards
Ian”

Let’s hope we see the transformation this framework promises.

3.2 North Lanarkshire Council Local Development Plan

Here’s the letter we submitted just in time on the closing date, 05 April, for responses. (See previous Digests at: https://www.gobike.org/consultations for details. We received this automated response soon after submission:

“Thank you for your email. Please accept this in acknowledgement of receipt and please note that we will contact you should further information be required.
If you wish more information on the Local Development Plan Modified Proposed Plan, please see our website:
Local Development Plan Modified Proposed Plan<http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=32484> “

3.3 Glasgow, Blythswood Street and Holm Street, contraflow lanes

You might remember that in Digest 25, (in the final item) after the GoBike Infrastructure ride on 06 January we reported on the blocked contraflow lanes on these two streets? After two emails to the City Council and no response, it can now be seen that some improvement has been made; see this series of photographs, taken 07 April, going south down Blythswood Street:

On Holm Street, around the corner, things aren’t quite so good, with the fence horizontal rather than vertical and, along at the Robertson Street end we still have the part-time contraflow, part-time car park situation. We must, though, be grateful for a wee bit of progress? We have been trying to push the council to make cycling and walking diversions around works policy more effective and hope we will soon reach a status that won’t require us to complain to them about every individual instance before improvements are made.

3.4 Glasgow Byres Road Design Workshop

We were euphoric after a meeting with the City Council just before Christmas, see Digest 25, Item 3.4, where we were told that, despite previous denials, there is room on Byres Road for segregated cycle lanes. However, things have slipped; we were told the design would be completed in January with a Traffic Regulation Order following soon after. We heard nothing until then being invited to a Design Workshop, which finally took place on 21 March.
Here are the notes from the meeting, which were sent to attendees. Our Co-Convenor, Iona, who attended, sent back this response:
“Thank you for taking the time to gather this info and for sending it through. We are concerned that the record holds an inaccurate bias within the feedback of section ‘3. Cycle Infrastructure’ and would like to request that it is corrected. The notes state that
“There was very little consensus in relation to measures proposed to improve the cycle friendliness of the street. The decision to include segregated cycle infrastructure was not supported by a number of stakeholders who felt that the benefits to cyclists were outweighed by disadvantages to other users of the street. There was particular concern in relation to loss of on-street parking, localised narrowing of footways and the fact that the introduction of an additional kerb line will make it more difficult to cross the street.’
but the notes don’t make any reference to the support in the majority for the segregated cycle lanes within the voting, which showed that 3 tables were in support and only 1 in opposition.
We accept that the voting results are included within the report, however we have seen how evidence can so easily be overlooked when people are asked to give up space for active travel, and that those who oppose it can shout loudest, without necessarily being in the majority. It is therefore really important that the majority support for the segregated cycle lanes shown in the voting is also reiterated within the text.
Could you please confirm that the record can be amended to balance this correctly?

Another point to make is on the legitimacy of including the question of support for the segregated cycle lanes at all. Being that we agree that the transport hierarchy mandates that space for cycling needs to be included in redevelopment schemes, that question shouldn’t need to be asked at all. We wouldn’t ask “should there be pavements” or “should there be a road”.

Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Let’s hope there is no back-tracking on what we were told in December!

3.5 Glasgow, University Avenue

There has been NO consultation on the proposals for University Avenue, just the almost final nails in the coffin for what was once a flagship cycle route for the City Council, ie the Colleges Cycle Route linking Glasgow Caledonian University to Glasgow University and then out to the old Strathclyde campus at Jordanhill.

See our post of 12 April for our latest update on this sorry tale.

3.6 Glasgow, HYNDLAND, HUGHENDEN AND DOWANHILL WEST (MANDATORY 20MPH SPEED LIMIT ZONE) ORDER 201

Back in February, and reported in Digest 27, Item 1.6 we reported on the proposals for introducing a 20mph speed limit in this area. Back in 2017, Hyndland, Hughenden and Dowanhill West were brought into the city’s restricted parking zones and streets were made one-way to facilitate “legal” parking, but with no exemption for bikes – despite the default position given in Cycling by Design. GoBike submitted this letter supporting the 20mph but deploring the cut in permeability for bikes.

We received this response on 04 April:

“MESSAGE SENT ON BEHALF OF ANDY WADDELL, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS,
NEIGHBOURHOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Dear Ms Fort

THE GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL, (HYNDLAND, HUGHENDEN AND DOWANHILL WEST), (MANDATORY 20mph SPEED LIMIT ZONE) ORDER 201_

Thank you for your support for the above named traffic regulation order.
I note your comments reiterating GoBike’s aspirations for one-way roads with exemptions for cycling which was related to the Hyndland, Hughenden and Dowanhill West (Traffic Management and Parking Controls) Order 2019 however, this is unrelated to this Order.
As previously advised, once the parking controlled zone and associated 20mph speed limit zone scheme have been introduced and ‘bedded in’ the Council will have a better understanding of the parking demands and associated traffic movements. Any cycling improvements, including one-way except cycles could be considered as part of a future strategic cycling strategy which would require amendments to the existing parking control scheme and would require to undergo the statutory traffic regulation order process.
Your support will be considered and included within the final report to the Executive Director of Neighbourhoods and Sustainability. Once a decision has been taken in regards to these proposals I shall write to you again and advise of the outcome.

Yours sincerely”

This really does make a mockery of using design guides and having a policy of encouraging active travel. It’s another point to put in your response to the Climate Change survey advertised in Item 1.6 above!

3.7 Glasgow Avenues, Sauchiehall Street and others Consultation Event

Last week one of our members went to a Consultation Event about Sauchiehall Street and the other Avenues proposed for Glasgow (with City Deal funding). Here’s the feedback from what seems to have been a disappointing experience:

“Today I went to the Sauchiehall and other avenues event. A friendly lady from the community engagement company (Icecream, icebox? Something like that) was there and an Engineer from the company doing the streetscape. They had the usual post-it-notes on a street map for feedback on Sauchiehall St. This work should finish “soon” but when I was there zero construction was happening.

The only information they had on the other avenues was a timeline chart. Argyle St planned to start work May 2020 but this might change as traffic modelling by the council is not complete. Cathedral St work planned to start May 2022 but traffic modelling work is not done so no renders to show. No updates for George Square as traffic modelling work is not done so no planning can be done (You might start to notice a trend here)

There was supposed to be a council planner there but he was not there at 1300. I was there for a while, left for a coffee and went back and left again at 14:00 but still was not there.

Only 1 other member of the public was there when I was. He expressed total frustration with another round of consultations (Just build it! Was the best phrase) . Overall a total waste of everyone’s time but a nice box ticking exercise I guess.”

What a shame but then, just what is happening now with Sauchiehall Street?

3.8 Glasgow, Doune Gardens – fixed, or is it?

Over 18 months ago Alasdair and Tricia from the GoBike committee toured Hillhead and Maryhill wards with City Councillors Jane Morgan and Martha Wardrop, GoBike member, Steph, tells us that the cut-through for bikes on Doune Gardens has been fixed. Let’s hope that this arrangement does stop parked cars blocking access for bikes, as the previous arrangement did. The before version is below, with the cut-through blocked and the only access via the footway, see here on the right:

However, although it might be better for a standard bike, will it take a tricycle or a cargo bike? Here’s some guidance for “Making Streets Better: A Guide to Filtered Permeability” from City Infinity. It’s also on the Design Guides page of the GoBike website, at: https://www.gobike.org/cycling-info/design-guides

3.9 Renfrewshire, Glasgow Airport Improvement Area, Design and Construct contract awarded.

Here’s an email that should have been in the last Digest, sorry, but some good news from Renfrewshire:

“GAIA construction contract approved.

The design and construction contract for the Glasgow Airport Investment Area project has been approved for awarding to Wills Bros Civil Engineering Limited.

Councillors on the Finance, Resources and Customer Services Policy Board approved the £21million construction contract to the Motherwell-based company.

The Glasgow Airport Investment Area project is jointly funded by the UK and Scottish Governments through the £1.13billion Glasgow City Region City Deal and will see new roads, bridges, cycleways and footpaths being built to connect into a site at the centre of the emerging Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District Scotland (AMIDS).

The construction contract award was also subject to approval of the Full Business Case by the Glasgow City Region Chief Executives Group – this approval was given on the 28 March.

Final procurement procedures are now being completed, with construction work set to start this summer and be completed in 2020 on the enabling infrastructure and environmental enhancements underpinning AMIDS – a major innovation district being developed in Renfrewshire.

Abbotsinch Road will be upgraded and realigned, and a new bridge spanning the White Cart from Wright Street to an approach road off Arran Avenue, offering access for cyclists, pedestrians and Wright Street businesses. There’s also a new cycle and pedestrian bridge crossing the Black Cart and an off-road cycle link between Abbotsinch Road and the A8 Greenock Road.

This will improve connections into a 52-hectare site next to Glasgow Airport, which is already confirmed as the location for the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland (NMIS) and the Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Centre (MMIC).

The construction work will ensure the site is ready to welcome its new tenants and provide the perfect investment opportunity, focusing on innovation, research and advanced manufacturing.

Planning Permission in Principle

Future development at the innovation district also took a major step forward with the granting of planning permission in principle.

Renfrewshire Council’s Communities, Housing & Planning Policy Board approved an application for planning permission in principle on 26 March 2019.

The planning permission in principle addresses common planning, environmental and statutory requirements for the land and establishes the appropriateness of the proposed uses: a business park with a focus on advanced manufacturing and research & development.

This helps streamline the planning process for future developers, making the site more attractive for investment.

The site has already attracted its first tenants in the form of two new national innovation centres; the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland (NMIS) and the Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Centre (MMIC) which will be the catalyst for the development of Scotland’s advanced manufacturing and life sciences sectors, providing support for businesses of all sizes and connecting all of Scotland’s engineering universities and colleges.

Further information on investment opportunities can be found at www.paisley.is/amids and further information on all of our City Deal projects can be found on our website at www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/citydeal. “

Always good to end on a high; let’s hope we have more good news in a fortnight’s time.