What’s wrong with this picture?(We’ll get back to that subliminal message later.) Take a close look at the junction.

Look at those geometric, perfectly sharp, 90 degree square corners. This is the epitome of a side road turning with tight radii. It gives pedestrians a short direct crossing. It requires drivers to slow right down to enter or leave the side turning, giving them time to look for people cycling past the junction, and making them less likely to left hook someone cycling on their nearside.

This is a cartoon version of a side road junction without traffic lights, but it’s not quite a fantasy. It’s the style of junction recommended by guidance such as Designing Streets (1), Scottish policy since 2010 (see pages 16 and 18), and by a 2020 Briefing Sheet (2) for professionals on street design standards badged by the Institution of Civil Engineers among others. Even Glasgow’s own Public Realm Design and Maintenance Guide (3) says this (p 42), “Junctions should be designed in order to both make people feel safe and actually be safe. …. Designers should therefore start with the tightest radii that they feel can be accommodated and not the most forgiving [for] motor traffic …”

This guidance is for streets generally (no special infrastructure for cycling) and it’s important for two reasons. The first is that there can never be protected cycle infrastructure on every street, so the design of ordinary streets and junctions must focus on safety for people cycling (and walking and wheeling). The second reason is that on streets where there is protected cycle infrastructure, junction design that requires low motor vehicle turning speeds supports the case for the cycleway to be continuous across side streets.

So what can we deduce from the choice of this ideal junction design to illustrate a council campaign? Is Glasgow committed to following the guidance, designing junctions for the safety of people cycling (and walking) and now moving on to reinforcing the message implicit in junction design with ads? Well – no.

Here’s a junction created in the last couple of years for new student accommodation on the Scotway House site between the Kelvin and Glasgow Harbour.

The road is Castlebank Street, right next to the Clydeside Expressway. There is nothing about it to encourage drivers to pay attention to their speed. The flaring trumpet mouth of the new service road invites drivers to swoop into or out of the turning, scattering people walking and cycling to and from the Riverside Museum. (As an aside, the green fingerposts along the footway give cycling times to various places, inviting cycling on the pavement, although there’s no indication that this is officially a shared surface, but that’s another story.)

Here’s another example. This is on Polmadie Road, it’s the entrance to a site repurposed with a brand new Starbucks.

This time the pavement has the appropriate signs for a shared cycling and walking surface, but look at the flared junction again. Drivers on their way to or from the M74 can just twitch a finger to turn in or out for their caffeine hit, barely moderating their speed or looking out for active travellers. Sadly, the next step here is quite likely to be the installation of railings to give people walking and cycling further to travel and still require them to cross the path of vehicles travelling too fast. When junctions are designed to be intrinsically safe, add-on ‘protective’ measures are not needed.

What’s going on? The council has plenty of great sounding policies about encouraging active travel. There’s no shortage of what looks like useful guidance on how to design streets that invite people to cycle or walk, and which feel safer for walking and cycling. Yet the same old dysfunctional, dangerous designs keep on being wheeled out. There’s no opportunity for public input when turnings like the Castlebank Street and Polmadie Road are created but campaigners have argued extensively for the design of safe side road junctions for cycle infrastructure on (for example) Sauchiehall Street, South City Way, St Andrew’s Drive and Byres Road. Responses from officials have included:

• The guidance applies only to new developments
• Refuse trucks have to be able to get round the corners
• Police advice is that what you want isn’t safe
• We could be sued if we do anything different from what’s established.

So here are suggestions – for officials (if you happen to read this) and for campaigners:

• Make it council policy that the guidance for new developments must be applied to every modification of existing streets
• Buy refuse trucks with rear-axle steering (or just be practical and accept that having to use part of the opposite carriageway is not a deal-breaker).
• Come clean about the precise source of this nebulous ‘police advice’ and, since it’s contradicting all the expert guidance, what the evidence is for it.
• Read the section at the back of Designing Streets about the risk of being sued (very slight).

And an extra one:

• Make road engineers accountable for prioritising the safety of foot and cycle traffic over the flow of motor vehicles.

It’s not as though there are no junctions in Glasgow with square corners. The older areas are full of them. Here’s one (in Hillhead) that has a good idea for stopping drivers cutting the corners.

Streets in urban areas aren’t motorways – drivers need to slow down before turning off the main road, not afterwards. The people with their hands on the wheel and their feet on the pedals need to have their brains fully applied to communicating their intentions to other road users through the way they signal, decelerate, brake and position their vehicles.

Going back to that bus ad, we might charitably see it as a sincere effort to alert drivers to the danger they pose at junctions to people cycling. Perhaps the intention is to create a safer environment for cycling so that more people will give it a go. It’s pretty much a disaster then that what most people’s brains will get from a passing glance is “Cyclists, injuries, 70%”. Clearly, a message on the side of a bus has to be in shorthand, but this one invites the inference that if you try cycling there’s a 70% chance you’ll be injured.

What about the usefulness of advertising as a way to change driver behaviour? Here’s what the Briefing Note (2) on street design standards has to say: “ Drivers drive according to the environment, including the width, and curvature of the road. Greater width, gentler curves, greater visibility lead to higher speeds, high-energy collisions and increased injury risk.” Driver behaviour at junctions is determined by the design of the junction, not by an ad on the side of a bus (if there’s evidence otherwise, let’s see it). The money spent on the bus campaign should have been directed at getting junction design that’s safer for people walking and cycling. And if the response to that is going to be that the funding for the ad campaign came out of a pot designated for “behaviour change”, getting designers to design good junctions is behaviour change too.

References

1. https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/corporate-report/2010/03/designing-streets-policy-statement-scotland/documents/0096540-pdf/0096540-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/0096540.pdf?forceDownload=true

2. https://www.udg.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Briefing-Sheet-Street%20Design%20Standards%20-%20Published%202020-08.pdf

3. Glasgow Public Realm Design + Maintenance Guide Version 4.0 October 2020

https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=50702

This edition of the digest comes just a few days ahead of the Scottish Government publishing its updated Climate Change Plan. The Scottish Parliament will be leading on scrutinising this vital plan which aims to put in place improved policies and measures to ensure Scotland achieves its climate targets up to 2032. With the eyes of the world on Glasgow next November for COP26 the Scottish Government must show that it is seriously committed to meeting targets – especially when it comes to emissions from transport. And not just doing the bare minimum to scrape through but really making an effort to be a leader and aiming to exceed the targets with room to spare. So you never know it might be the perfect Christmas gift!

Time will be limited to provide your comments to the relevant Parliamentary Committee so do look at all the links in the forthcoming consultations section below.

Section 1: Current Consultations

(in date order for responses)

1.1: Scottish Government – Cleaner Air for Scotland 2 – a draft new air quality strategy for Scotland

Consultation on a draft new air quality strategy for Scotland, taking into account the recommendations arising from the independent review of the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy. Chapter 8 is all about transport actions so lots of opportunity to say what we need for active travel. It’s worth looking at and responding, even if you only answer this one question.

Closes 22 January 2021

1.2: *NEW* Fourth National Planning Framework (NPF4): position statement

Following the woeful Infrastructure Investment Plan which closed for consultation last month, the government has issued a position statement on the NPF4 and is seeking opinions. The main NPF4 is still to come next year so this consultation is asking what we all think about the Scottish Government’s direction of travel. Achieving climate emission targets is a big theme in this document along with resilient, greener, better communities and places. I will analyse this in more detail in next month’s digest.

Closes 19 February 2021

1.3: *NEW* A82 improvements survey

Kate Forbes MSP is using a survey to seek opinions on which sections of the A82 Glasgow to Inverness road are in most need of improvement in order to reduce traffic crashes and collisions. Read more here.

Section 2: Forthcoming Consultations

2.1: *COMING SOON* Climate Change Plan Update

We expect the Scottish Government to lay its updated Climate Change Plan in the Scottish Parliament in the next few days. Parliament’s Environment Climate Change and Land Reform Committee (ECCLR) are then likely to coordinate the hearing of evidence on the revised plan. See the ECCLR climate change page for more details next week. We know that various committees will be hearing evidence in sessions from early January so time is short to influence MSPs thinking.

The Climate Change Plan will not be a brand new plan but a revision of the current CCP, providing extra policies designed to achieve strengthened targets.  Transport is the sector contributing the most emissions of any sector in Scotland and has not cut its emissions in 30 years. Policies are desperately needed to reduce private vehicle use, boost public transport and of course encourage more people to take short everyday journeys by foot or cycle. Keep an eye on the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland website for up to date news about the coalition’s reaction. SCCS will be calling for the CCPU to include policies which will create the change needed, such as:

• An end to all new trunk road and motorway building.
• Increase in the active travel budget to spend at least 10% of the transport budget and realign transport spending to reflect the sustainable travel hierarchy. Plus:
  • Create cycle lanes physically separated from traffic along arterial routes into all towns and cities                              
  • A network of walking and cycling infrastructure in each town and city, including on-road quiet routes, LTNs and off-road routes.
  • Safe pedestrian and cycle access into villages
  • Integration of walking and cycling with public transport, especially in rural areas
  • Support for bike hire schemes
• A city-wide zero emission zone in operation in every city by 2030 supported by freight consolidation centres outside the zones to facilitate deliveries by cargo bike and zero emission vans.
• Extension to concessionary fares schemes.

2.2: Scottish Government – Permitted Development Rights (phase 2)

The first phase of the Scottish Government’s consultation on Permitted Development Rights closed last month. Phase 2 of the consultation is due in the new year and will cover permitted development rights for e-bike charging points.

2.3: Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR2)

The Scottish Government’s STPR2 is timetabled for the new year and is likely to see more work and consultation on the options.  See here for more information and links to previous STPR2 documents.

Section 3: Consultation Feedback

3.1: Road Collision Reporting Guidelines

Tricia Fort responded in a personal capacity to this consultation, outlined in Digest 71, Item 1.6. Here’s the response she received.

“Dear Subscriber

Firstly, a belated thank you for your interest in our Road Collision Reporting Guidelines. We were overwhelmed with the response to our consultation and have received a lot of great feedback from individuals and organisations with expertise, experience or simply an interest in the topic.

The draft guidelines were produced in collaboration with those in roads policing, academia, law, road safety and media. In total we received 164 responses to our consultation via email, our web form and in one-to-one interviews.

The response to the draft guidelines was overwhelmingly positive, with 95% of people saying they supported the principles of what we are trying to achieve.

As well as insight from organisations on how the language around road collisions affects their work we were struck by the number of responses from individuals simply concerned other road users’ attitudes result in them feeling unsafe on the roads, particularly while cycling – attitudes they feel could be improved with more mature, nuanced public discourse on road safety.

We know language matters, and that the way we talk about road collisions affects how we perceive levels of risk, where it comes from and what we can do about it as a society.

We also know that, more than ever, journalists’ jobs are challenging, working with restricted budgets, and that journalists are increasingly on the receiving end of abuse, both online and offline. Our aim is to make their jobs easier by helping provide guidance for reporting on road collisions that allows for accurate and fair reporting – without hindering their vital work.

Based on constructive feedback, and on reflection, we feel the guidelines, if they are to meet these aims, need some finessing. They need to be more concise and easier to follow, with clearly defined rationale behind them.

We originally set ourselves the challenge of launching the guidelines at last night’s Active Travel Media Awards but we have decided to delay launching them until Spring 2021. We are a small team and we want to get this important work right.

In the meantime, we plan to have further conversations across journalism and road safety organisations and keep working to produce something we can be proud of, that has real value.

We still very much believe in the need for these guidelines and we look forward to publishing something that ultimately helps us shape safer roads for all road users, and contributes positively to media discourse in this field.

We will keep you updated over the coming months.

All the best

The RC-RG team”

Mark Ruskell launched his Safer Streets Bill in 2017 and it is now making its way through the Scottish Parliament as the Restricted Roads (20mph Limt)(Scotland) Bill. The full details may be seen here.

The Bill has now moved to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for scrutiny and this committee has launched its own consultation, which closes on 28 January. There is information about the bill and a link to the committee’s survey here.

You can help us support this bill by doing two things – respond to this survey and contact to your MSP. We pulled together some help for you to do those things below.

RESPOND TO THE SURVEY

The link again is here.

We need a 20mph limit. The reasons for a 20mph default speed limit include:

1. Consistency from town to town across Scotland. Drivers will expect to drive at 20 not 30mph unless there is signage that allows them to drive at speeds in excess of 20.
2. Consistency within towns. Drivers will expect to drive at 20mph unless there is signage that allows them to drive at speeds in excess of this. Currently there is a lack of consistency, with some proactive communities aiming to protect their schools and their local residential areas with a 20mph limit. There is an increasing number of city areas where local authorities are imposing a 20mph limit to make places more people-friendly and to encourage active travel.
3. Reduction in signage. As urban speeds go up and down there is signage at each change in speed and this will be reduced if the default speed is 20mph. Local communities will see the benefits of a lower speed limit and will resist moves to increase a limit to 30mph.
4. Reduction in pollution. As motor traffic moves at a lower, but importantly, more consistent speed, vehicle emissions will be reduced as there is less requirement to accelerate away from traffic lights. See link, (a), below
5. Reduced danger to pedestrians. It is widely recognised that a vehicle travelling at 20mph is less likely to kill or seriously injure a pedestrian with whom it collides, than if it is travelling at 30mph or more.
6. An improved environment for cycling. The speed differential between a motor vehicle and a bicycle is reduced from a factor of 3 or 4 to a factor of 2 or less. Bicycles can regularly travel at 10-12mph and more people will feel confident of cycling on road alongside motor traffic moving at no more than 20mph.
7. A reduction in motor traffic within towns. Drivers will tend to use the outer ring roads where speed limits are 30mph or higher rather than a more direct route through an urban centre.
8. A reduction in congestion. This would come as more drivers avoid urban centres and those who do travel within urban areas move at a more consistent speed, with less need to overtake etc.
9. Improved compliance, monitoring and enforcement of the speed limit. A consistent speed limit of 20mph, rather than one that changes across an urban area, will encourage compliance by drivers and ease any monitoring and compliance to be done by the authorities. See note (b) below.
10. Reduction in the requirement for “traffic calming”. Local authorities are finding it necessary to install traffic calming measures, usually speed tables or cushions, to reduce motor traffic speeds to no more than 20mph. This expensive practice will not be so regularly required with a default speed of 20mph (Note that traffic calming can cost in the region of £60k vs £1k per km for speed limit signage).

(a) – see point 4 above – this link from a contribution to the Guardian newspaper provides interesting reading, including this quote:

“Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany. Table E-1 shows the relative change in emissions and fuel use when the speed limit is cut from 50kmh (31mph) to 30kmh (19mph) for two different driving styles. Even aggressive driving under the slower speed limit produces lower emissions (but higher fuel use) than under the higher speed limit, although calm driving produces greater reductions for most emissions and net fuel savings (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39 –40).”

The AA have carried out tests, see this article, to support a view that lower speed limits raise fuel consumption and hence pollution, although there is no mention of the reduced acceleration and braking when driving at a steady speed of 20mph. However the overriding concerns should be to reduce the severity of accidents and to encourage the switch to active travel. This article, “Speed reduction methods to promote road safety and save lives” gives a good summary of what can be done.

(b) – see point 9 above – Enforcement is an issue, as it is with ALL speed limits, from 20 – 70, but, like smoking and drink driving, the public mood must change. However, some enforcement will be needed and, given the other benefits – fewer and less-severe accidents, for example, Police Scotland and/or our Local Authorities should be funded accordingly.

CONTACT TO YOUR MSP

It is really important that we visit or write to our MSP to show our support for the 20mph Bill,  particularly those of us with MSPs on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.

Here is our official response and we also have a template letter here  with a pdf of that  too, that you might want to work from if you need some help getting started.

For the west of Scotland, the essential MSPs to contact are:

John Mason (Shettleston) john.mason.msp@parliament.scot

Richard Lyle (Uddingston & Bellshill) richard.lyle.msp@parliament.scot

Jamie Greene (West of Scotland Region) jamie.greene.msp@parliament.scot

As the bill progresses Cabinet Ministers will have the final say, so it’s important, particularly if your MSP is a Cabinet Minister that you meet them or email them. In the West of Scotland these people are:

Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Southside) nicola.sturgeon.msp@parliament.scot

Humza Yousaf (Glasgow Region) humza.yousaf.msp@parliament.scot

Derek Mackay (Renfrewshire North & West) derek.mackay.msp@parliament.scot

Aileen Campbell (Clydesdale) aileen.campbell.msp@parliament.scot

In addition to all the points in favour of the Bill listed above, here is a reminder of the MSP briefing that Mark Ruskell sent to us:  SaferStreetsMSPbrief

This fortnight we have two new consultations in from East Dunbartonshire, plus high level previews of two Strategic Development Frameworks (SDFs) for Glasgow (the River Clyde corridor and Govan – Partick), as well as an update on campaigning for a 20mph default speed limit in our towns and cities.

Contents:

Section 1: Current Consultations

1. Glasgow City Centre Traffic Management Order Bus Priority, closes this Friday, 21 December
2. **NEW** Glasgow, Maxwell Drive and Bruce Road, Traffic Calming, closes Friday 04 January 2019, but views accepted until 11 January
3. **NEW** East Dunbartonshire Proposed Traffic Calming Measures – Newdyke Road, Kirkintilloch, closes Friday 04 January 2018
4. **NEW** East Dunbartonshire Proposed No Waiting & No Loading At Any Time Restrictions on Westerhill Road, Bishopriggs, closes 28 January 2019
5. The Scottish Parliament, Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) Bill Survey, closes 28 January 2019
6. **NEW** Scottish Law Commission Automated Vehicles consultation closes 08 February 2019
7. **NEW** Glasgow Strategic Development Frameworks for the River Clyde and Govan Partick closes 08 February 2019
8. East Dunbartonshire Council, Local Development Plan, closes 11 February 2019

Section 2: Forthcoming Consultations

1. Glasgow Battlefield, news of the website and next Design Group meeting
2. East Dunbartonshire Council, Local Development Plan, Transport Options Report Stakeholder Workshop Thursday 24 January 2019 – 10am-12noon

Section 3: Consultation Feedback and other information

1. Living Streets, the Pedestrian Pound Report
2. Without consultation! Glasgow City Council Minor Cycle Works, upgrade to shared path North Street / Piccadilly Street
3. Glasgow North East Active Travel Routes
4. Glasgow Elmbank Street one-way – interest from Blythswood & Broomielaw Community Council

Section 1: Current Consultations, in date order for responses

1.1 Glasgow City Centre Traffic Management Order Bus Priority, ie Oswald Street and Union Street, closes this FRIDAY, 21 DECEMBER

Please do write in about this. All the details were in our last two digests, 22 and 23, which you may read here. It’s important that we get good active travel infrastructure everywhere in the city, not just on the super designated avenues.

1.2 Glasgow City Council, Maxwell Drive and Bruce Road, Traffic Calming Scheme 2018, closes 04 January, but views will be accepted until 11 January 

On Friday 14 December we received this email from the City Council:

“Dear Sir / Madam

THE GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL, (MAXWELL DRIVE AND BRUCE ROAD), TRAFFIC CALMING SCHEME 2018

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

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:-

MAXWELL DRIVE

Details of the proposed Scheme

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

• 6 sets of 4.5m long, 75mm high speed tables

BRUCE ROAD

Details of the proposed Scheme

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

• 5 sets of 4.5m long, 75mm high speed tables

Please provide any comments you wish to make on these proposals within 21 days.

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 Scott Downie on 0141 287 9351.

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

Yours faithfully

Andy Waddell, Head of Infrastructure and Environment, Neighbourhoods and Sustainability”

We haven’t got long to get this back, 21 days, which means 04 January! However, in a  phone conversation on Monday 17 December Scott Downie confirmed that, given the number of public holidays coming up, views would be accepted until 11 January (and possibly after that). In comparison to Albert Drive, which we responded to back in October, see Digest 19 Item 1.2, cycle lanes are in evidence here, although for Bruce Road, there is reference to an “existing 750mm paved channel for cyclists”. This is only half the width given as the “absolute minimum” in Cycling by Design. In the phone conversation yesterday Scott also offered to have a look at the 750mm width to see if he could increase it to allow for cycles generally, ie including tricycles. If changes are to be carried out to the road to reduce speeding by “boy racers”, then surely cycling facilities can also be brought up to a good standard?

The three drawings provided by the Council are here: Bruce Road speed table spec Maxwell Drive speed table details Plan for Maxwell Drive and Bruce Road

This is not a Traffic Regulation Order; Scott Downie yesterday stated that one is not required for traffic calming. It is a notification that work is proposed and thus a standard consultation is carried out

If you know the area do please get your views into:  LandServices.Mailroom@glasgow.gov.uk

1.3 East Dunbartonshire Council, Proposed Traffic Calming Measures – Newdyke Road, Kirkintilloch

We first reported on something very similar to this back in August in Consultation Digest 16 item 1.3. The roads outside Hillhead Primary School are subject to a 30 mph speed limit but drivers exceed this. We  supported the introduction of traffic calming measures with this letter: GoBike Newdyke Road speed tables Letter 300817

We have now received this letter and information, again by snail mail (and it got a bit lost in our system!): Newdyke Road 2 . The letter refers to a previous letter of 5 November, which we do not have, but it looks as if the consultation has been reissued because a speed cushion on Newdyke Avenue had been ignored – oops. The proposal is now to remove this speed cushion; its function being overtaken by the larger speed table at the junction (see the drawing included in the information).

We will be writing a similar letter to the one of 30 August to maintain our support of this traffic calming measure.

1.4 East Dunbartonshire Council, Proposed No Waiting and No Loading at any time Restrictions on Westerhill Road, Bishopriggs, closes 28 January 2019

Here is all the information we have received, 08 December, from East Dunbartonshire Council by post (we’ll follow up on this to see if we can get details electronically in future) including the plan: Westerhill Road

This view on GoogleEarth shows industrial units on the south side of this section of road with cars parked 2 wheels on the footway, 2 wheels on the road all the way along. This obviously prevents effective use of the footway by anyone trying to walk, use a wheelchair or push a pram and there is the risk of “dooring” for anyone who is cycling along here on the road. Our reply will be to support the proposal and support the potential for increased active travel. If you know the area and have any comments do get them to the Council and do please let us know at consultations@gobike.org so we can submit a well-informed response.

1.5 The Scottish Parliament, Restricted Road (20 mph Speed Limit) Bill Survey, closes 28 January 2019

We have been telling you about this bill in our two previous Digests 22 and 23 and we now have this extra bit of guidance for if you are contacting the MSPs specifically on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee (John Mason (Shettleston), Richard Lyle (Uddingston & Bellshill)  Jamie Greene (West of Scotland Region)) or the Cabinet Ministers who might have the final say,  (Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Southside), Humza Yousaf (Glasgow Region), Derek Mackay (Renfrewshire North & West) and Aileen Campbell (Clydesdale)).

1. Consistency – from town to town across Scotland, drivers will expect to drive at 20 not 30 unless there is signage that allows them to drive at speeds in excess of 20.
2. Consistency – within towns, drivers will expect to drive at 20 unless there is signage that allows them to drive at speeds in excess of this. Currently there is a lack of consistency, with some proactive communities aiming to protect their schools and their local residential areas with a 20mph limit. There is an increasing number of city areas where local authorities are imposing a 20mph limit to make places more people-friendly and to encourage active travel.
3. Reduction in signage – as urban speeds go up and down there is signage at each change in speed and this will be reduced if the default speed is 20mph. Local communities will see the benefits of a lower speed limit and will resist moves to increase a limit to 30mph.
4. Reduction in pollution – as motor traffic moves at a lower, but importantly, more consistent speed, vehicle emissions will be reduced as there is less requirement to accelerate away from traffic lights. See link, (a), below
5. Reduced danger to pedestrians – it is widely recognised that a vehicle travelling at 20mph is less likely to kill or seriously injure a pedestrian with whom it collides, than if it is travelling at 30mph or more.
6. An improved environment for cycling – the speed differential between a motor vehicle and a bicycle is reduced from a factor of 3 or 4 to a factor of 2 or less. Bicycles can regularly travel at 10-12mph and more people will feel confident of cycling on road alongside motor traffic moving at no more than 20mph.
7. A reduction in motor traffic within towns – drivers will tend to use the outer ring roads where speed limits are 30mph or higher rather than a more direct route through an urban centre.
8. A reduction in congestion – as more drivers avoid urban centres and those who do travel within urban areas move at a more consistent speed, with less need to overtake etc.
9. Improved compliance, monitoring and enforcement of the speed limit – a consistent speed limit of 20mph, rather than one that changes across an urban area, will encourage compliance by drivers and ease any monitoring and compliance to be done by the authorities. See note (b) below.
10. Reduction in the requirement for “traffic calming” – local authorities are finding it necessary to install traffic calming measures, usually speed tables or cushions, to reduce motor traffic speeds to no more than 20mph. This expensive practice will not be so regularly required with a default speed of 20mph (Note that traffic calming can cost in the region of £60k vs £1k per km for speed limit signage).

(a) – see point 4 above – this link from a contribution to the Guardian newspaper provides interesting reading, including this quote:

“Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany. Table E-1 shows the relative change in emissions and fuel use when the speed limit is cut from 50kmh (31mph) to 30kmh (19mph) for two different driving styles. Even aggressive driving under the slower speed limit produces lower emissions (but higher fuel use) than under the higher speed limit, although calm driving produces greater reductions for most emissions and net fuel savings (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39 –40).”

The AA have carried out tests, see this article, to support a view that lower speed limits raise fuel consumption and hence pollution, although there is no mention of the reduced acceleration and braking when driving at a steady speed of 20. However the overriding concerns should be to reduce the severity of accidents and to encourage the switch to active travel. This article, “Speed reduction methods to promote road safety and save lives” gives a good summary of what can be done.

(b) – see point 9 above – Enforcement is an issue, but, like smoking and drink driving, the public mood must change. However, some enforcement will be needed and, given the other benefits – fewer and less-severe accidents, for example, Police Scotland and/or our Local Authorities should be funded accordingly.

Do remember the MSP briefing that Mark Ruskell sent to us,  SaferStreetsMSPbrief and please contact your MSP, particularly if they are mentioned above, to ask them to support this Bill.

1.6 Scottish Law Commission, Automated Vehicles Consultation, closes 08 February.

GoBike member, Derek MS, alerted us to this one, see this link and here’s the introduction from the News Release:

“The Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission are launching the first of a series of public consultations about crucial legal reforms which will ensure the country is prepared for the introduction of automated vehicles.
This is an early milestone in a three-year review to examine any legal obstacles to the widespread introduction of self-driving vehicles and highlight the need for regulatory reforms.
The work will be crucial in examining how current driving laws – designed with traditional motoring in mind – can support the next generation of vehicles.
The consultation will ask a series of questions to examine the types of changes that may be required to ensure the country is ready for the introduction of automated vehicles. This includes questions on if and how road rules should be adapted for automated vehicles, who would be responsible for accidents and how to ensure safety for passengers and the wider public.
The review is part of the Future of Mobility Grand Challenge set out in the Government’s Industrial Strategy.”

There’s no obvious mention of how these vehicles will interact with cycles, pedestrians and other non-motorised road users, so we will be thinking about our response.

1.7 Glasgow Strategic Development Frameworks for the River Clyde and Govan Partick closes 08 February 2019

Here’s the message we received earlier this month, just too late for our last Digest, from Glasgow City Council:

“Help shape the future of the River Clyde and Govan-Partick

As part of the implementation of the City Development Plan, ‘Strategic Development Frameworks’ (SDFs) are being prepared for 6 areas of major spatial change across the city. These SDFs are key instruments for implementing the Council’s strategic priorities, linking spatial planning and placemaking objectives with the priorities of communities. 

The Council are now consulting on draft versions of the River Clyde SDF and the Govan-Partick SDF.. These SDF documents along with an introductory document providing further information with regard to the background and Updates on the progress of the preparation and adoption process for the SDFs will be provided on the Council Development Plan webpage.

The Council is now required to process personal information in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).  For more information about this please see our privacy statement.

All comments should be submitted by 4pm on 8th February 2019.  In the interim, if you have any questions or want further information please contact SDFconsultation@glasgow.gov.uk.

Best regards

Spatial Strategy Team

Planning & Building Standards, Development & Regeneration Services, Glasgow City Council, SDFconsultation@glasgow.gov.uk ”

The link to the consultations is here and the River Corridor Strategic Development Framework is here.  The Govan and Partick Strategic Development Framework is on this third link here.

Please get your views in if you live, work or travel in these areas and help us to develop our response either by an email to consultations@gobike.org or on the GoBike Slack Consultations channel.

1.8 East Dunbartonshire Council, Local Development Plan, closes 11 February 2019

Don’t forget to get your feedback in for this important consultation. Get your support in for an extension to the Bears Way, south to the Glasgow boundary on Maryhill Road. Plus other strategic routes are needed in East Dunbartonshire. There were details of the drop-in sessions in our previous Digest, No 23, see here . There’s news of the Transport Options Report, the first stage of the Local Transport Strategy here on the EDC website. Do have a look at it; all the drop-in sessions are listed too.

Section 2: Forthcoming Consultations

2.1 Glasgow Battlefield, news of the website and next Design Group meeting

Progress continues with the redevelopment of Battlefield. There’s a blog on this website showing the display boards from the drop-in event on 15 November along with photos from the day. The next meeting of the Battlefield Street Design Working Group, which includes GoBike, will be held on Tuesday 15 January. Further public events will be announced in due course.

2.2 East Dunbartonshire Council, Local Development Plan, Transport Options Report Stakeholder Workshop Thursday 24 January 2019 – 10am-12noon

We have been invited by East Dunbartonshire Council “to a stakeholder workshop we are holding on the Transport Options Report on Thursday 24 January 2019 – 10am-12noon. If you or any members of your organisation can join us at the workshop, please let me know by Monday 14 January 2019.”

This is, of course, in conjunction with Item 1.8 above. If you are a GoBike member who lives in East Dunbartonshire and would like to be one of our representatives at this event please email our co-convenors to let them know at convenor@gobike.org by Monday 07 January at the latest.

Section 3: Consultation Feedback and other information

3.1 Living Streets, the Pedestrian Pound Report

Earlier this month, 07 December, we got this message:

“Today we launched our updated Pedestrian Pound report which puts forward the business case for walking. Funded by Transport for Scotland, it looks at 20 case studies across the UK which show how making high streets better for walking can boost footfall and sales. The report finds shoppers arriving on foot spend up to six times more than those who arrive by car.

Read our full report here

High streets and town centres that are walkable, accessible and offer a diverse range of retail, culinary and cultural activities have a bright future.  

Read our Pedestrian Pound report here and use it to inspire your local council to invest in your walking environment.

Many thanks for your support.

Stuart Hay
Living Streets Scotland”

Clearly walking, and cycling, are the way to go, so do use this report to strengthen your arguments for an improved active travel environment. We have added it to our ever growing Evidence pages on our website.

3.2 Without consultation! Glasgow City Council Minor Cycle Works, upgrade to shared path North Street / Piccadilly Street

Yes, that’s right, Glasgow City Council carry out minor works to cycle routes in response to individual requests and the new improved raised table across the exit from North Street to Piccadilly Street is one of them. It’s just at the turn off from the northbound carriageway of North Street into Piccadilly Street (outlined in red above) and concern had been expressed that vehicles were crossing the shared path too quickly. The path now continues at grade. There aren’t any road markings to announce this change to drivers as yet, but GoBike have asked that the council ensure these are added.

If you would like something to be added to Glasgow City Council’s Minor Cycle Works Contract do email in to either: sustainabletransport@glasgow.gov.uk or LandServices.Mailroom@glasgow.gov.uk and then hope that it gets on the list.

And here’s further evidence that these small things get done, see: https://twitter.com/erniemarples/status/1074598863552565248?s=12 Well done not only to Glasgow City Council but to the people who report these small suggestions for improvments. It’s the small things that can make all the difference.

3.3 Glasgow North East Active Travel Routes

Just received yesterday – clearing the decks for the holidays – is this message from Glasgow City Council:

“Dear Ms Fort,

I write further to previous correspondence regarding the North East Active Travel Routes (NEATR) project and can advise as follows:

The findings of the consultation have been reviewed and were recently published in a report available via glasgow.gov.uk/neatr.

A summary is presented below:

• Improvements to active travel and sustainable transport must come by supplying the conditions for encouraging positive choices that are either missing or currently unattractive.
• Enabling people’s choices by introducing enhanced infrastructure is critical to achieving these aims.
• The NEATR design proposals aim to reflect those priorities.
• A variety of individuals and organisations with a wide range of opinions made representations to the consultation.
• Support for most aspects of the proposal were found amongst nearly all user groups.
• Where written comments raised concerns, specific responses have been provided.
• Following on from this consultation, a detailed design is being compiled, taking into account the scope for improvements made evident as a result of this review.
• The design is expected to be concluded by the end of 2018, with tenders sought subsequently.
• Construction is expected to take place in 2019.

I trust this is of assistance; should you require any further information, please contact Wesley Wright on 0141 287 9478.

Tam McKee, Asst Group Manager (Sustainable Transport), Land and Environmental Services”

You might remember that back in August in Digest 16 we encouraged you to support these ambitious plans for the north east of the city, so we look forward to seeing the results.

3.4 Glasgow Elmbank Street one-way – interest from Blythswood & Broomielaw Community Council

You may remember that for some time now we have been campaigning to ensure that two-way cycle traffic is allowed on that part of Elmbank Street between Bath Street and Sauchiehall Street? Here’s the e-mail correspondence: Sauchiehall Elmbank email chain 2017-8 which we published in November in Digest 22 . GoBike has now heard back from the local Blythswood & Broomielaw Community Council, who might be able to help us. We will keep you informed, but if you live in Ward 10 Anderston/City please do ask your City Councillors what is the position here.

So that’s it for this Digest and for 2018. We’ll be back in January but, when you are writing your letter to Santa, do remember to ask for a few good quality cycle routes – and let’s hope we all have a Happy New Year.

“This is a book that should be made available to everyone involved in designing for cycle traffic, from policy makers and their advisers, to those responsible for the design details. It should also be studied by those who think their responsibility is designing solely for motor traffic.

The book’s title signals its stance: cycle traffic is distinct from both motorised traffic and pedestrian traffic, and needs specific design decisions. It is taken as read that reducing the dominance of motor traffic on our roads is an uncontested good, given the benefits of increased activity levels and reduced congestion, noise, pollution and risk. Its standpoint is that people who walk and cycle become ‘vulnerable’ road users only because of decisions made by the designers and motorised users of the road network, and that the benefits of increased cycle use will be gained by designing out of the physical infrastructure the ability to create vulnerability. Sadly, this case probably needs to be made more explicitly and elsewhere to traffic designers still entrenched in the aim of maintaining or increasing the volume and speed of motorised traffic through our streets.

The book succeeds in its aim of providing a coherent summary and evaluation of principles and practices of designing for cycle traffic, referring mainly (and widely) to Danish. Dutch, US and UK guidance. It is clearly structured, with an opening overview, closing highlights summary and source references in each chapter. The principles of planning and design are covered first, then designing for cycle traffic on or next to the carriageway, routes away from roads, and then designing for crossings and junctions. Later chapters deal with more general questions such as modelling and auditing, and developing national issues and innovation.

The central chapters provide a wealth of examples of good solutions to common design problems, such as crossings and side roads, maintaining permeability for cycling through one-way streets, and the problem of motor traffic turning left while cycle traffic moves straight ahead. The author explains that it’s not his aim to provide a catalogue of poor practice, but a few more pictures showing the contrast with the good practice advocated could have amplified his message. As one example, the quiet statement in connection with signal-controlled crossings (11.4.2) that ‘[s]eparation of cycle traffic from pedestrians should be the norm’, illustrated with a picture of such a crossing, is far from the daily experience of many people cycling in UK towns and cities. A contrasting picture of a crossing shared with pedestrians with two stages and a narrow guard-railed island could have emphasised the scope of the change in thinking needed.”

Our lead on consultations, Tricia Fort, came across this book via her membership of the Institution of Civil Engineers and has now been asked to submit her own review, hopefully to be published in a forthcoming issue of “Proceedings of the ICE – Urban Design and Planning.” The book is good, it challenges a lot of the things we are told about road design, such as that one-way streets are one-way for everyone, or that shared footways are the way to go, and it is a really refreshing, common sense read for anyone who cycles.

The book does have some slight flaws:

• The photographs are all grey scale and many don’t have the definition required to adequately demonstrate the author’s point.
• There is mention of Scotland and Cycling by Design, but UK reference is generally to English documentation, one example being the omission of any mention of Core Paths. Bridleway appears to be the nearest equivalent.
• In the chapter on Planning for Cycle Traffic methods of counting cycles, such as cordon counts, are discussed but there is no mention of cycle tracking apps. At GoBike we have been very grateful to Bob Downie for the work he has done with Strava, and his latest work demonstrates a good correlation between the data from this app and cordon counts.

The author appears to have collaborated at times with Brian Deegan, who is one of the UK’s leading street design engineers and was co-author of the London Cycling Design Standards. Brian was brought in briefly by the consultants working on the plans for Byres Road in Glasgow, but his, and their, input appears to have been compromised by the City Region Deal constraints and council plans, and of course, we are still awaiting the final outcome.

Designing for Cycle Traffic is not yet available to download but Tricia will certainly be referring to her review copy in future responses to consultations.

Vehicle emissions affect all of us who cycle, or walk, and we are told by GoBike member, Liz McTeague that:

On the evening of Thursday 05 October, GoBike members Tricia Fort, Johnston Orr and Andy Winter met Labour Councillor Martin Rhodes and SNP Councillor Kenny McLean who represent Ward 23 Partick East / Kelvindale on the City Council to look at cycling conditions in part of their ward.  Neither Martin nor Kenny cycles, but neither do they drive; they both walk or use public transport.  We are grateful to them both for the time they took to walk round Hyndland and Dowanhill with us and here is a summary of the issues we discussed:

• Pedestrian/cycle crossing from Leicester Avenue across Great Western Road towards Gartnavel:  We didn’t visit this but after the report on our website from the cycle tour of 23 September with Councillor Tony Curtis, one of our members who lives in Kelvindale commented “it takes FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES to cross over GWR to the restaurant if you use the toucan.”  Andy confirmed this from the visits he has made to the sports ground there with his children.  This is not conducive to active travel.
• Great Western Road: there is no cycle infrastructure on this road, apart from Advance Stop Lines (into which motor vehicles encroach, as we saw) and the part-time bus lanes that give some protection.  This is a busy main road into town with fast traffic and deserves segregated cycle lanes to protect the people who already cycle on it and to encourage others to cycle.
• Great Western Road alternative: from Byres Road to Gartnavel there is the potential to create a quiet way along the terraces.  This could then link into Shelley Road, and while this would not be suitable for people going right into town, it would encourage many to cycle in the local area.
• Cross roads, Great Western Road/Hyndland Road/Cleveden Road: at 6:30 in the evening this was a busy junction, with a lot of potentially dangerous driving practices.  We saw motorists going through the lights when they had changed back to red, many vehicles on Hyndland Road using the left-turning lane to go straight on to avoid the queue of vehicles waiting to turn right into Great Western Road, vehicles were stopped in the Cycle Advance Stop Line and many appeared to be exceeding the speed limit.  Despite all this, we saw a significant number of people on bikes, but, as Andy said, it is not a route suitable for children to cycle from Dowanhill and Hyndland through to Cleveden School.  A simple solution at the traffic lights might be to ban the right turn from Hyndland Road onto Great Western Road, but this might push the problem elsewhere.  Creating a cycle-friendly junction here would encourage more adults and children to cycle here, and should reduce motor traffic.
• Hyndland Road: cars parked on both sides, on a road that deserves a segregated cycle route to give access to the local sports facilities, schools and Glasgow University.
• Hughenden Lane: this provides a good route through to Gartnavel, but is currently over-parked.  Parking controls are needed to allow access for residents and bikes.  A left turn allows access through the new flats to Lauderdale Gardens and then to Clarence Drive and we saw several people using this route.  Just a bit of work is needed to widen the ramped exit from the carpark at the back of the flats and parking needs to be controlled to free up the dropped kerb into Lauderdale Gardens to improve permeability for active travel.
• Clarence Drive: cars parked on the cycle lanes and on the footway, see the photo above.  Parking restrictions are needed as is segregation of the cycle route.
• Hyndland Road, outside the shops: no cycle lane at all, but there are cycle stands and the wide footway improves the ambience of the area.
• Hyndland Road, at the end of the row of shops: the footway has been built out, apparently to provide two parking places outside the shops, but this is where the cycle lane starts again – on the bend, with the danger of cars etc cutting in.
• Highburgh Road: the parking bays are narrow, with many vehicles part, or fully on, the too narrow (only 0.5m) door opening zone and the cycle lane is minimum width too, meaning that the safe place to cycle is out in the vehicle lane.  This narrowness is exacerbated by the two disabled parking bays that have been painted in; there is no door opening zone here at all!  See the photos below.  Parking, at most, should be on one side only, to allow the construction of a cycle lane suitable for all the people, young and old, in the area to use.
• 
• Highburgh Road/Dowanhill Street junction: Dowanhill Street is stopped off at the south side of Highburgh Road but the crossing over Highburgh Road allows access for bikes travelling along the street, giving access to the school and a quieter route to Dumbarton Road than Hyndland Road.  However, north of Highburgh Road, Dowanhill Street has recently been made one-way, southbound, thus preventing someone from cycling northbound, unless on the footway!  This is despite there still being a cycle route sign at the location and, more pertinently, despite the statement in Glasgow City Council’s design document “Cycling by Design” in 5.1.5: “Contra-flow Cycle Lanes.  The default position should be to permit two-way cycling on one-way streets.”  We discussed this at length, and compared this area with the proposals for the Woodside mini-Holland, where permeability, ie through access, for bikes is being encouraged, whereas in Dowanhill it is being prevented.  It is little surprise that one scheme has been produced by the parking section in Land and Environment Services and one by the cycle section.  The alternative route for Andy, or his children, is to cycle up Dowanhill Street, turn left onto Highburgh Road and then do a right turn, on a bend, into Crown Road South – not an attractive prospect.
• Byres Road: heavily parked on both sides, even though studies show that most people arrive here by foot, bike, subway or bus, this busy road with many shops, pubs and restaurants has a high accident rate.  We need active travel input to the current consultations.  Here’s the link to a GoBike supported group event on 22 October: https://space4peoplebyresroad.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/ride-for-a-better-byres-road/
• Dowanside Road: under the Dowanhill parking controls this has been made one way and yet, even with cars parked both sides, there is plenty of room for contraflow cycling, see the photograph below.  We have contraflow cycling in other parts of the city, the nearest to here being Dalnair Street from Old Dumbarton Road to Yorkhill Hospital.  We need more.
• 
• Beith Street: we didn’t walk this far but, with all the student accommodation here, it needs cycle lanes.

The main points from this tour are that, while we need good quality segregated cycle lanes on our main roads, we need the access and the permeability in our local areas for people to get out and about in their neighbourhood and to reach the main roads that will take them to school, to work, the shops or the art gallery etc.

One of our members has sent in this link to a reasoned article from today’s Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/29/is-the-uk-really-menaced-by-reckless-cyclists?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

THE ORGANISERS HAVE CHANGED THE DATE!  It is now 1 week earlier than previously advised.

GoBike has been made aware of this event by one of our members:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/staying-awesome-where-next-for-cycling-safety-and-large-vehicles-tickets-31255320505?invite=&err=29&referrer=&discount=&affiliate=&eventpassword=

Here’s another hospital to visit, and learn about cycling and the law.  Register at Eventbrite for this second, free, lunchtime talk from Cycle Law Scotland:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/cycling-and-the-law-tickets-30853587912?utm-medium=discovery&utm-campaign=social&utm-content=attendeeshare&aff=esfb&utm-source=fb&utm-term=listing