Thread by @BetterToCycle

Plans released for what @GlosCC claim is cutting edge #cycling route costing majority of active transport budget for whole county this yr. Fails LTN1/20 on almost every sheet, 2.0m for long lengths, relies on pedestrians walking single file/doing detours😭 firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/c2g-cycle…

#B4063 @GlosCC 'Signature' Glos-Chelt cycle route proposal. This will be slow thread analysing each element.

A) Lane widths. 3 metre minimum from LTN1/20. Important so cycle users can pass safely. Shared use acceptable in non-urban areas. Only ~36% of route meets guidance (1/x)

#B4063 But doesn't LTN1/20 say minimum at 'constraints' of 2m? Yes, but constraint is "where there is a physical constraint on an existing road." c44% of the 3.6 mile route is only 2 metres wide, inc. where ample spare road space. It's narrowest at busiest sections as well. (2/x)

#B4063 Let's talk junctions now. Route seems to assume once on cycle path, you don't leave. There's no coherent link to many houses, shops & businesses to south. Seems you have to join heavy traffic ~12k vehicles/day to cross. Without local micromobility, it's even less use (3/x)

#B4063 Crossings today. There are four 5m full setback crossings on route. LTN1/20 which @GlosCC claim they're following says corner radius should be max 6m (so drivers slow enough to give way). Only 1 of 4 complies. Means crossing users are at increased risk of being hit. (4/x)

#B4063 Only two partial setbacks (phew, they're not gr8). Both on low traffic side arm. However, one has weird sliproad (allowing drivers to approach faster) & other is too close to road line. Cycles will either be given false illusion of safety, or have to stop their flow. (5/x)

#B4063 Then there's no-setback junctions. Well, actually, there shouldn't be. Govt guidance clear they shouldn't be used on 2-way lane, but here they are, being used to imply continuity of route at consultation, when almost inevitably end result will be 'sorry, can't do it' (6/x)

#B4063 Footway experience; councils often pit pedestrians vs cyclists, rather than tackle car dominance. Means squeezes, pauses, bell bings, conflicts, worries.
Only 17% of route meets Inclusive Mobility 2m width. (Thanks @RantyHighwayman for link: gov.uk/government/pub…) (7/x)

#B4063 So it's not great. But better than nothing, right? No, for 3 reasons;
First: Opportunity cost. Doing this means no other big schemes. From recent FOI, this route costed at £4.4 million inc £3mil Glos resident cash in budget this year. What else could that do? A lot. (8/x)

#B4063 Second; failed benefits. If this route isn't accessible/usable/desirable/useful, it won't get used. That becomes an excuse to not invest in/compromise on future schemes, creating a -ve feedback loop. Cyclists stay on roads, drivers get frustrated, you know the story. (9/x)

#B4063 Third, more risk. Bad routes creates false illusion of safety. Tight lanes and junctions built for vehicle dominance, but which are painted to give *impression* of priority, means people get hurt. Or you make such slow progress keeping safe it's an awful experience. (10/x)

#B4063 Whilst q. remains on why safe cycle to Sharpness is priority not cycling to school, seems @GlosCC will build it. So could it be better? Easily, mostly thru stuff @transportgovuk told them (& assume @atkinsglobal?) in LTN1/20 & direct feedback, at least once already (11/12)

@GlosCC @transportgovuk @atkinsglobal #B4063 So respond to consultation. Otherwise, we get this. Wastes limited £ on poor routes & sets back case for future schemes as @GlosCC yet again fail to meet standards. …-have-your-say.gloucestershire.gov.uk/site/homePage. Ask for consistent 3m width, 30mph, coherent junctions, tight car corners. (12/12)