Shawlands Cross - Civic Square Consultation

Shawlands Cross - Civic Square Consultation

Prompts to do GCC's job for them

After some judicious prompting from utility cycling veteran Byron Silver and a further blog-posting on Glasgow Cycle Forum by resident reader-of-interminably-dull-planning-documentation Darkerside, I decided to make my way over to the grand old Langside Hall to take a look at their open consultation for the proposed new civic square - a key part of the so-called town centre action plan for Shawlands.

Background

In a previous blogpost, I've briefly covered this area, although not in particular detail. This is perhaps due in part to the Hall being set apart from the road by fences and it being typically shrouded for a large part of the year in thick green foliage. It thus despite its handsome façade and classic (albeit faded) Victorian interiors, it remains at present a peripheral and somewhat anonymous feature in the psycho-geography of the area.

The consultation aims to create a new community space, anchored by the Hall, with the aim of developing it into some sort of "cultural hub" (to use the modern parlance), as well as providing a "gateway" to Queen's Park. Unlike consultations I've attended before, there isn't an actual concrete set of proposals yet, and consultees are being asked to fill in some of the answers themselves.

The most striking (and perhaps most concerning) aspect of this consultation is how open-ended the proposal really is: as stated above, almost nothing appears to have been planned up-front, other than the vague concept of opening up and developing the grounds of Langside Hall into useful public space. Indeed, the only element of the design which appears to be close to solid is the mooted removal of the left-turning junction by-pass, which currently serves mainly as a over-sized taxi rank (and erzatz social club for their drivers).

Touchy/Feely

This customer-focussed, almost do-it-yourself consultation strongly suggests that it's a different team or department in GCC from the one that usually implements infrastructural changes (namely, "here's a design: take-it-or-leave-it"), which despite appearances may be a good thing. There's an awful lot of discussion in the documents about "place" and "setting", hence the array of images of turf, neo-abstract expressionist sculpture, photogenic pebbles and brightly-dressed kids doing handstands in water fountains (well, perhaps I made that last one up!).

With that said, even with my most sceptical curmudgeon-y face on, I couldn't help but grudgingly admire some elements of what's being attempted here - one wonders if the exerable design for the new Sighthill development featured a similar event. Aside from the meat-and-potatoes consultation survey forms, observers were encouraged to make notes and add comments to the displays themselves - you might be able to see from the images above there are post-it notes attached to the boards. Additionally, a large scale map of the area was posted to a table with tracing paper provided, to encourage people to submit their own sketches.

No doubt they'll call this process "crowd-sourcing" a design but the approach betrays the fact that the proposers don't really have a clue what the square will look like and what it's ultimate purpose should be; a situation not helped by the slightly awkward offset orientation of the hall relative to the cross, as well as the copious number of mature trees which will presumably have to be clear-cut to make way for any landscaping. Then there's this mooted "gateway to Queen's Park"; a laudable aim somewhat undermined by the inconvenient presence of a five-a-side football complex and a bowling green immediately behind the Hall - both of which have been in the park for a considerable period of time and neither of which looks to be moving any time soon.

Over-riding all of this is a major (if not fatal) flaw in the narrow terms of reference for this proposal: they aren't going to deal with traffic.

Traffic

The cross itself consists of two intersecting roads: Langside Avenue/Minard Road and Pollokshaws Road. The former is a small part of the B768, an orbital route bisecting the south-side, stitching together Rutherglen, Toryglen, Mount Florida, Battlefield, Langside, Crossmyloof and ultimately Dumbreck, Bellahouston and Ibrox. Pollokshaws Road is of course both a constituent part of the old A77 Kilmarnock Road and an important tributary of the B769 Thornliebank Road. 

Thus both are currently major commuter routes for private motor vehicles and buses passing through from the wider south-side and beyond; note my emphasis. Despite what local businesses in Shawlands might think, very little of this heavy commuter traffic actually stops off there. As my fellow forum user Dez Cartez has said to me in the past, it's going to be very difficult to entirely remove through traffic from Shawlands, but I don't think it's an impossibility to make a sincere effort to reduce it. 

A Diversion

Glasgow-based readers might recall during the mid-1990s the mass of public dismay and anger caused by the extension of the M77 motorway through Pollok Park; anger soon boiled over into direct action and protest (indeed, the creation of a temporary "Pollok Free State" - impromptu camps placed in the path of the diggers). Given all the hassle and strife that was creating (resulting in the sitting Tory MP losing his seat at the '97 election) a big part of the impetus for forcing the construction through was to re-direct commuter traffic - particularly that coming from Newton Mearns and Giffnock - away from the A77. Somewhat counter-intuitively, this in and of itself is not necessarily a bad idea. 

Indeed, it fits into the strategy for segregating traffic modes known as unravelling - namely separate motor vehicles, bikes and pedestrians by providing them with differing routes such that they rarely coincide. There's a quid pro quo here: provide car drivers with a safe, fast, convenient route of their own into and by-passing the city (namely, the motorway or the inter-urban trunk road) but at the same time reduce, re-direct or remove through routes for them in places where you want people and bikes to be (urban high streets, residential areas). In the case of the M77 (and the recent M74 extension) they built the road, but forgot to remove traffic from the A77, hence the volume of traffic simply grew to fill the space.

It's still not too late to do something radical - it's happened before after all. I'm old enough to remember when Victoria Road extended all the way from Queen's Park to the Gorbals. Then, the unthinkable happened: a staggered bus-gate was designated between Eglinton Toll, Butterbiggins Road and Coplaw Street, turning what was once a busy commuter route into the city centre became a virtual dead-end overnight. Only buses, taxis and people on bikes are permitted to traverse it nowadays. Like diverting a river flow, traffic merely shifted onto the lower part of Pollokshaws Road (away from the cross), or dissipated down a circuitous route towards Cathcart Road, with no major long-term negative effects on either.

Unfortunately this particular intervention failed to significantly grow cycle numbers, mainly because - amazingly - people on bikes don't particularly like to share the same space as fast-moving buses and taxis. It also failed to boost local businesses on Victoria Road because the lower reaches of the street which allowed through traffic were still choked with motors but the point still stands: you can successfully close off routes to traffic in the teeth of predictions of dire consequences.

The A77

The A77 differs slightly from Victoria Road in that - due to the confining nature of the nearby railway line, there aren't too many obvious alternative routes to divert traffic onto. The aforementioned M77 takes a lot of the Mearns traffic, but it's perhaps a little further away for Pollokshaws (X miles to the west, in fact), however there are other more suitable potential trunk routes, like the B768/B769 - both routes generally set back from housing and away from retail centres - if a little imagination and ingenuity is used. Traffic could be routed along Nether Auldhouse Road, or even a circuitous dog-leg route back along the far end of Pollokshaws Road. Perhaps those roads will need widening; an extra lane added here or there, speed limits adjusted upwards. It might even just be a case of making strategic parts of our target roads into one-way streets, ban a left or a right turn here or there; simple measures which provide just enough of faff and delay that it might reduce the flow through the cross. Now admittedly I'm not a traffic engineer, nor have I the experience of modelling traffic flows or predicting where drivers rationally choose to travel. But neither it seems are the designers of this scheme.

Unfortunately, none of the suggestions above - fanciful or not - are on the cards, either in terms of this civic square proposal, nor indeed the entire Greater Shawlands plan. Ironically, by focussing so much on place - namely whether or not pink or grey flagstones provide the right ambience for a street cafe - the very real movement function of the area is being ignored, the latter thus ruining the former.

Kilmarnock Road's future - without bikes?

The picture there outlines the existing plans for developing the rest of Kilmarnock Road - most of it involves re-tarmacing the pavements and removing the raised tables across side roads, in favour of dropped kerbs and cobblestones. There will apparently be an attempt to "de-clutter" the footpaths, which is welcome, as well as an apparent aim to improve the junction of Pollokshaws Road and Kilmarnock Road - with any luck by removing the hated metal barriers and providing crossings closer to pedestrian desire lines. However, there is nothing in these plans for cycling, despite arguably ample width and opportunity to do so.

It is unlikely that once this goes in, further revisions will be made for several years to come. By then, it might be too late for Shawlands - the Arcade might just provide enough of a drag on the area that it brings everything else down. Maybe the continuing gridlock and choking atmosphere will continue to put off shoppers, despite the fancy paving. And unfortunately, we've got to face the possibility that, without a clear purpose and a serious determination to sort out traffic problem, the civic square might become yet another empty, unwelcoming, gradually deteriorating space that people rush past on the way to somewhere more pleasant.

Response to East Dunbartonshire Council's Bears Way Scheme

This blog is my response to the above consultation as referenced here:

http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/council_and_government/consultations,_complaints_and/consultation_and_engagement/current_consultation_activity/bears_way.aspx

Firstly, I have to commend EDC for their vision. I am encouraged that there appears to be a recognition that separating modes of travel is vital to increasing the number of people cycling, by improving both actual safety and (crucially) a subject sense of safety - the latter is particularly important for encouraging demographic groups such as children and the elderly who are currently excluded from cycling through fear of hostile road conditions.

I'm pleased that priority for the cycle path will be given over minor side roads - this is particularly important as it:

1. Signals that cycling is considered a serious form of transport, rather than something associated with leisure
2. Facilitates journeys along the path by minimising interruptions by give ways and junctions - cycling is most suited to continuous travel conditions at steady speeds
3. Will encourage potential users onto the facility who, under normal circumstances, would forgo the use of cycle infrastructure which typically impede progress

Combining the above with the raised tables for pedestrians at junctions, a clear message is being sent that active travel methods have priority at these junctions.

I also welcome, in principle, the concept of continuing the protected cycle path in proximity to bus-stops. Often with poor quality implementations, cycle lanes give up at "difficult" points like this, thus forcing cycles into conflict with buses; two forms of transport that are least suited to mixing.

To reiterate, I approve of these measures - EDC have the opportunity here to provide good quality facilities that outstrip the ambition of neighbouring councils. With all that said, I have some comments that I'd like you to consider:

1. Bus-stop by-pass

The Royal College Street bus-stop cited in your document is an inferior example to follow. It puts people on cycles into direct conflict with people boarding or alighting buses. There is only a narrow strip on which to stand and the bus shelter is on the wrong side of the cycle path. As such, it has been necessary to force cycles to give way, thus impeding progress. In addition, elderly, disabled or passengers with pushchairs may feel uncomfortable crossing the path at this point, even if they have notional priority.

This potential for conflict should not be necessary with a well-designed scheme. Much better examples exist in the UK already, specifically in Brighton (see below):

A Bus-stop bypass in Brighton with plenty of space for passengers - first class

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/photos/good-cycling-facility-of-the-week/good-cycling-facility-of-the-week-5th-june-2014

As you can see, the (wide) cycle path diverts around the rear of the bus-stop and the shelter. Pedestrians will still have to cross the path, but the crossing takes places away from the actual stop itself, thus completely avoiding the potential for conflict with passengers on a recently arrived bus. The effect is similar in function to existing unmarked road crossings with pedestrian refuges - an arrangement most users will already be readily familiar with.

This sort of facility is very common in the Netherlands. For further continental examples, please follow this link:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/bus%20stop%20bypass

I appreciate that it may be that lack of space behind the bus-stop might be cited as justification for your approach here, but it would be worthwhile considering narrowing the road and pushing the bus-stop further into the lane, as is commonplace for other crossing points. Alternatively, it might be necessary to relocate the bus-stop to a more suitable location. It also might be easier to implement a scheme on a uni-directional path (see point 3).

2. Junctions with Minor Roads

As I stated above, giving cycles priority over minor side roads is a major step forward. However, the design used is sub-optimal.

Typical junction treatments where cycle paths cross minor roads in the Netherlands have the cycle (and pedestrian) path divert slighty in order that they cross slightly into the minor road. This means that there is sufficient space for vehicles turning in and out of the road to wait whilst giving way:

For right turning vehicles, this helps in keeping the main carriageway clear and thus removes the requirement for a right-turn waiting lane (as per QCC2). Secondly, vehicles make the turn manoeuvre in two distinct movements - this means that the driver does not have to wait for clear oncoming traffic as well as a clear junction to cross the carriageway. Thirdly, it means that the driver is facing the cycle path at right angles, providing better lines of sight between driver and cyclist or pedestrian and hence minimising the potential for error.

See the following links for further examples:

https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/continuous-paths-across-minor-junctions/

3. Cycle Paths: Bi-directional vs. Uni-directiona

It would be better if a way could be found to keep the cycle path on one side of the road for the whole length of the facility. Indeed, it would be even more worthwhile considering implementing two uni-directional paths on both sides of the road, rather than a single bi-directional path which switches sides. The reasons as three-fold:

1. It is a more natural arrangement, particularly where the path isn't continuous and cycles are coming from roads which don't have separated paths.
2. Crossing the road is inefficient and inconvenient - this will be a particularly acute problem if the phases of the crossing aren't optimised to favour cyclists and pedestrians
3. Width - if the path is heavily used in both directions, congestion could become a problem as there isn't sufficient space to over-take slower-moving riders

Regarding point 2, commuter cyclists will likely not want to use the facility, or will only partially use it if they find their progress is hampered unnecessarily by having to cross at the toucan - alternatively, you might find people will attempt to cross the road against the red signal, thus increasing the risk of a collision.


On that note, the recommended width of paths is as follows (although width recommendations vary with the volume of cycle traffic) - note both below require a 50cm margin between the path and the road:

• Uni-directional path - 2m
• Bi-directional path - 3.5-4m

Note that both of these solutions should fit within a single "car" lane. In addition, it is worth nothing that there are ways to resolve conflicts between bike lanes and residential parking - namely by putting the cycle path behind the line of parked cars. This is a common solution in both the Netherlands and in the USA:

(note that is bi-directional path in the picture above).

4. Shared Use and The Roundabout

I can see why this method has been chosen for the top part of the route - it allows users travelling along Main Street to bypass the roundabout entirely. But I can't stress this point enough: shared use paths represent poor quality cycle infrastructure which benefits no-one other than motor vehicles, except perhaps where pedestrian use of the path is negligible in the first place. All shared use paths do is put pedestrians into direct conflict with cycles - the reason why bikes were banned from the pavements in the first place. This creates ill-will between the two user groups, whilst impeding the natural progress of quicker, more nimble bike users (although, the priority at minor roads mitigates this to a degree).

It also avoids dealing with the most problematic element: the roundabout itself. There are ways to upgrade roundabouts to make them safely navigable by bike, particularly ones as large and with as much unused space as this example. Upgrading the roundabout will also extend the usefulness of the facility for those travelling further north along the A81 Glasgow Road. Southbound riders coming from that direction would have difficulty gaining access to the path as a result.

The following video illustrates a number of potential solutions for the roundabout. I would strongly advise giving it a watch:

Alternatively there are a number of examples discussed here:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/roundabouts

If these measures were to be combined with uni-directional paths on either side of the carriageway, it would be possible to travel down either route and through the roundabout without interacting with traffic at all for the entire length of the facility. This would be a major incentive to for all types of cycle user.