We have been sent an e-mail with the following message about the proposed redevelopment of Byres Road, with an invitation to attend the consultation event on 23 February:
“There’s a new Byres Road coming….
Funding of £9m has been allocated through the Glasgow City Region Deal to make Byres Road better for people. This means improvements for walking, cycling, air and noise pollution, business and community activity. And there will be still be room for buses, cars and delivery vehicles.
Consultation and design work are starting now. Construction will take place from autumn 2018. Yes, it really will happen!
You are warmly invited to a public launch workshop on Thursday 23 February at 7pm (Hillhead Library) (now in PARTICK BURGH HALL) where we will ask people to re-imagine how the street could be. Then, more detailed public engagement to design each section of the street will follow over the next 18 months.
Everyone is welcome to the launch. Please circulate the attached poster and email!
So, the long awaited plans for the Sauchiehall Street avenue, with its two way cycle lane, are now out for consultation, see: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=18127 – but, hold on. There’s no mention of the separated cycle lane in the advert and the key does not have a colour code for what looks to be this facility. We have looked at the drawings and here’s the wording of the e-mail sent to Glasgow City Council requesting clarification. We will keep you updated on progress:
Many thanks for forwarding the drawings etc for this long-awaited scheme! We have heard so much about the Avenue concept, and the Sauchiehall Street avenue in particular, that it is good to have confirmation that there is progress.
However, having looked at the drawings, we have concerns, which I hope you can alleviate; they include:
The key does not appear to match the drawings: for example, there is coloured shading on Elmbank Street for which there is no explanation in the key.
There is what looks like, and we were led to expect would be, a two-way cycle lane on the north side of Sauchiehall Street, but there is no mention of it in the advert and the edging colour looks very like that of a parking area.
What are the access arrangements for cycles coming from the west of Charing Cross to join what we hope is a two-way cycle lane?
What are the access arrangements for cycles from Woodlands Road and St Georges Road to join what we hope is a two-way cycle lane?
What arrangements are there for all the cyclists who travel from Woodlands Road and St Georges Road to continue down Newton Street?
You state that Elmbank Street is to become one-way? In line with Glasgow City Council’s Strategic Plan for Cycling and your chosed Design Guide, the default position is to allow for contraflow cycling on such streets. The arrangements for this are not clear on the drawing.
To provide clarity could you please:
Re-issue the drawings showing the missing detail, including the key for all the colours and symbols used and compliance with the Strategic Plan and Cycling by Design?
Hold a meeting between the design staff responsible for this scheme and members of the GoBike committee to explain and discuss your proposals?
We are very keen to see the very ambitious ambition for Sauchiehall Street that we have been led to expect become a reality and we would not like to see it fail because of ambiguity of the plans and/or misunderstanding of your intentions.
Late last month Glasgow City Council published a Traffic Regulation Order proposing that all bus lanes in the city will operate from only 7am to 7pm. While this is an increase for some, for others it is a reduction from 24 hour operation.
Why is this important for those of us who cycle? Because Glasgow City Council have the audacity to include not only bus lanes but bus corridors (ie the main routes travelled by buses) in the 310km they claim in their Strategic Plan for Cycling to be part of the “Cycle Network”! See Glasgow Cycleman’s blog, https://glasgowcycleman.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/a-slap-in-the-face/ for an excellent commentary on this.
Sorry this is short notice but please use the information given to put in an objection – comments close on Thursday 22 December. Please write in if you live in Glasgow and if you cycle into Glasgow on one of the routes affected. Thank you.
Thank you to the 50+ people who came along to tonights Go Bike! open meeting.
We heard Sue Hilder, Access Officer and Andrew Brown of the sustainable transport team, both from Glasgow City Council, give presentations and answer questions on their respective areas of expertise about Core Paths and the City Centre Transport Strategy. The evening finished with an opportunity for everyone to add their comments to maps of the city centre and the existing and proposed cycle routes. Thank you to Sue and Andrew for their valuable contributions to the evening and event.
Andy Preece e-mailed the Go Bike yahoo group on 16 December to inform people of the link http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4216
to 2 Traffic Regulation Orders relating to the Fastlink Bus scheme which is proposed to run from the city centre out to the Southern General Hospital. The 2 Orders relate to the section from the Finnieston Bridge (otherwise known as the Clyde Arc Bridge or Squinty Bridge) to Whitefield Road and Whitefield Road to Elder Street. Some of you may have looked at these and/or you may have been in the Clyde Arc, Pacific Drive or Govan areas and seen that work is already proceeding on this segregated bus link.
Objections to the Orders must be received by Friday 24 January and should be sent to:
Project Management and Design,
Land and Environmental Services,
231 George Street,
Glasgow, G1 1RX
(FAO Brian Hubbert)
by post or by email to email@example.com.
The proposals detail the segregated bus link going over the Clyde Arc Bridge and along Pacific Drive; the bus lanes will be for the bus only, ie no taxis or cycles will be allowed in these lanes. This means that all vehicles, apart from the buses, will be restricted to one lane in each direction over the Clyde Arc Bridge and along Pacific Drive. The Orders give no details of cycle routes and no information about the National Cycle Network Routes 7 and 75. However, information on proposed cycle routes was given at the GCC Glasgow’s Strategic Plan for Cycling: Transport Sub Group meeting on Tuesday 14 January, which was attended by members of the Go Bike Committee. It is proposed that the cycle route will be along Congress Road, over Bells Bridge and then back on a shared footway to cross Pacific Drive via a Toucan crossing to reach Govan Road and then on to Brand Street. For cyclists heading towards Govan the proposed route is along a shared footway on one side only of Pacific Drive.
Thus, although cyclists will not be banned from the Clyde Arc Bridge, Pacific Drive, Govan Road and Golspie Street, there will be a strong deterrent not to cycle there. The segregated bus lanes are in the centre of the road over the Clyde Arc Bridge and along Pacific Drive and Govan Road as far as Burndyke Court (ie the start of the straight part of Govan Road near the river) where they become kerbside for most of the remainder of the route through Govan. Where they are kerbside, cyclists will have to cycle in the outside lane with all other road users.
This means a big reduction in safety for cyclists going from the Broomielaw towards Govan by way of the Clyde Arc Bridge and for cyclists who live adjacent to the route. The additional cycle route information given on Tuesday does not give reassurance that the needs of cyclists in the area are being catered for; it is already well-known that the shared footway past the hotel near the Clyde Arc Bridge is inadequate and the route via Bells Bridge adds quite a distance to the cycle journey either to Govan or to Cessnock.
Go Bike is amending its original draft letter of objection further to receipt of the cycle route information on Tuesday and this will be posted on the Go Bike website when it has been submitted but we encourage all our members and supporters to write or e-mail in by Friday 24 January if you share our concerns about this lack of recognition of the needs of cyclists.