I have offered to help Cllr Antony Hook investigate ways of improving the crossing of West Street at the Westbrook Bridge. He is responding to a number of approaches from people concerned that crossing at this point is unsafe for pedestrians.
Here are some first thoughts, starting with some observations I have made of how people are currently crossing. I then set out a number of design options, with comments on their pros and cons. Continue reading Westbrook Bridge Crossing
I’ve spent a good deal of time looking into the issue of parking in Faversham’s town centre, first of all campaigning against the proposal to paint yellow lines and then working as a member of the Public Realm Group.
What I understand is that the yellow lines were painted to distinguish between a) where there would be room to park in the evening (single yellow line) and b) where there wouldn’t be (double yellow lines). The view was taken that people wouldn’t be able to judge this for themselves. I don’t agree that people can’t judge for themselves – especially when the consequence is that the public realm of the town is defaced with yellow paint, a public realm that I used to speak about in conference presentations around the world as being rare, remarkable and beautiful for having no road markings.
But this is the view that was taken. And it fits a pattern. For about a century, traffic engineers have thought that they know better than road users, hence guardrailing that stops people crossing roads where they want to and endless signage that tells people things they either know already or didn’t ever need to know.
Anyone can check the logic of the yellow lines for themselves. If you walk around the town centre you can see that the double lines are painted where the road is narrow and the single lines are painted where it’s wide. The yellow lines tell us no more than what we can already see for ourselves. Continue reading Yellow lines tell us no more than we already know
I think we need to be very cautious about this announcement.
It talks about “many of the roads” not “all of the streets”.
It says they “may be suitable” not “are suitable”.
It says no 20mph on the A2. The A2 is possibly the one place where 20mph should be introduced asap, at the junction of The Mall and the Ashford Road, to alleviate congestion there.
It says only 20mph in “appropriate parts of Faversham”. A piecemeal approach is not what we have been campaigning for. Piecemeal is the wrong approach. We’ve covered the arguments for this before so I won’t go into them now.
It says KCC won’t fund this – what does that say about their commitment to the health and safety of vulnerable road users.
In my view this is no time to celebrate. Instead, it’s time to push back and demand an explanation for KCC’s reasoning.
KCC’s email
KCC have reviewed the proposal, as made by Faversham Town Council working in conjunction with the ‘20s Plenty’ group.
In principle many of the roads, which fall within the Faversham town boundary, are potentially suitable for the introduction of a 20mph speed limit; the A2 would not be suitable.
Kent County Council are happy to support Faversham Town Council in their taking this proposal forward, through KCC providing advice and guidance, in order that Faversham Town Council may be able to implement 20mph zones in appropriate parts of Faversham.
KCC would not be looking to fund this scheme at this time.
I was pleased to see the Design South East report on “More Faversham” and hope very much that it will serve to guide discussion about the future of the town.
I was both pleased and concerned to see so much of the Space Syntax analysis featured. Pleased, because it seems to have resonated with the workshop participants and concerned because I would have liked to have known of its inclusion in advance so that I could have proofed the images and accompanying text. Most concerning is the “Closed” analysis on p13, which is incorrectly described in the text below. This has already alarmed many people when it was discussed at yesterday evening’s Town Council meeting (see my note below). In addition, the image quality on pp10-15 is poor when it could easily – and should – have been much clearer.
I hope the comments below can be addressed in the next draft of the report, especially since issues like p13 can wrongly detract from an otherwise impressive report.
And I hope very much that d:se will be retained to provide continuing, and much needed, support going forwards, both in terms of “big picture thinking” but also in the scrutiny of development proposals through a “design review” process.
_____________
Comments on ds:e “More Faversham” report
p6 should say:
Apart from some challenging topography on the north-west side (Dark Hill and Davington Hill), Faversham…
not:
Apart from some challenging topography on the north-east side, Faversham…
pp10-15 The image quality is poor. Space Syntax can supply print-quality images.
p10 Should say “Space Syntax” not “Space Syntax Ltd”. Add “Space Syntax © 2016” to each image.
p11 Delete this page – it doesn’t add to the argument since similar points can be made for the 3km analysis on the next page.
p13 Delete this page – the purpose of this analysis is not to suggest that the bridge might be pedestrian-only but rather to describe the likely impact on traffic patterns while the bridge is closed for construction. As it is, it is a technical argument that is not relevant to the general nature of the overall document.
p15 rewrite paragraph as follows:
“By combining their spatial scores for shorter and longer journeys, it is possible to categorise streets in terms of which are more important for “walking”, “driving” and “cycling” or a combination of different modes. Red streets score highly for both walking, cycling and driving, and this indicates that their design needs to cater for each type of user. Note that the A2 is in this category. Many of the key walking and cycling routes run north-south, and this could help promoting walking and cycling to the station and town centre from new housing at the town’s southern edge.”
p18 changes in bold italics:
Enhancing the A2
As growth occurs to the south of the A2, then the role of this major route needs to be re-evaluated to reflect its new place as a main street within the town, rather than as a highway passing by it. Improved crossings, lower speeds and a more pedestrian- and cycling-friendly environment will all be needed to ensure this new town street does not act as barrier, dividing the old and new parts of the town.
There has been increased discussion about a new link between the M2 and A2 in Faversham. I looked at this a couple of years ago, studying two options and considering the issues these raise.
The first option, Option A, runs between Junction 6 in the south east and the Western Link in the north west. The second, Option B, runs approximately north-south from the Western Link to a new junction on the M2:
The first issue to consider is the length of each route since longer routes will typically be more expensive to construct. Option B is shorter:
The second issue is the cost of the junction at the M2. Option B requires an entirely new junction whereas Option A makes use of the existing Junction 6:
The third issue concerns the impact of each route on historic buildings. Option A runs close to St Peter & St Paul Ospringe:
The fourth issue to consider is the design of the route itself. A fast suburban highway or a slow-speed urban street? Both can carry the same volume of vehicles. It’s a question of visual character, of safety, of air quality, of pedestrian and cycle friendliness and of junction capacity. Slower streets beat faster roads on every count.
Option A could be designed as a street serving buildings either side of it. These could include industrial, job-creating buildings eg warehouses, located closer to the motorway, that would free up the current warehouses on the north-west side of town to be redeveloped as housing. Option B could also be designed as a slower route, with buildings along parts of its eastern edge and even some on its western edge.
The fifth issue concerns directness and topography. Option A is indirect with multiple level changes whereas Option B is straight and generally level:
The sixth issue is the impact of each option on the environment. Both pass through high quality landscapes but Option B passes close by, and partly through, the Syndale Conservation Area:
For this reason I developed a variant of Option B, which avoids the Syndale Conservation Area:
Technically Option A in red is a boulevard (because it is an orbital route) not an avenue (which would be a radial route). So I have called it “Faversham Boulevard”.
Option B in blue and Option C in red are closer to being radial routes so I have called these “Faversham Avenue”.
It need not be an either/or choice between Faversham Boulevard and Faversham Avenue. Both could be constructed, which would give the town resilience in the event that one of the motorway junctions were out of action (eg because of accident/repair).
There might also be a new public square where the two routes meet.
After all, it’s what towns have done for millennia.
But is the link even needed in the first place? Is the answer to traffic problems to keep building roads? Don’t new roads just generate more traffic? My view is that, if it is just a road that is built then, yes, it will just create more traffic. However, if it is a slow-speed street, lined with buildings and providing connections into neighbouring developments then it is an entirely different and potentially beneficial proposition.
As settlements grow they need to provide new main streets to add to the existing network of primary routes. Secondary routes then connect off the primary network, interlinking to form a network of local streets. This hierarchy of primary and secondary streets allows new commercial uses to be focused on the main streets so that they can both be accessed by local people and can benefit from passing through traffic. It’s how traditional towns work.
Just building secondary residential streets and bypasses is not traditional and does not make commercial sense.
Far from seeing these new routes as bypasses or relief roads, my view is that any new, primary link should be designed as part of Faversham’s network of main streets, designed for all modes of transport, lined by trees and buildings, with vehicles moving at a sedate and people-friendly pace, not thundering through.
Therefore, rather than displacing the problem of traffic onto “relief” roads we need to embrace it and transform it by building main streets.
Faversham Town Council needs to be careful not to be sending mixed messages about cycling. It’s clear from Faversham Future Forum comments that new development in the town needs to support cycling. If this is the case then, to be effective, cycling needs to be supported throughout the whole town. And this includes, in my opinion, the town centre itself.
So I think it’s counter-productive to promote a ban on town-centre cycling.
Cycling in pedestrianised areas
There’s no reason a pedestrian area has to ban cycling. This blogpost is worth a read:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/cycling-in-pedestrianised-areas/
It describes the range of measures to be found in pedestrianised areas throughout the UK and offers guidance on how to promote safe cycling in them.
Here are four short extracts:
“The standout message, therefore, is that cycling behaviour naturally adapts itself to pedestrian environments…The evidence shows that we can trust people to make the right decisions.”
“The rationale for these bans – or the refusal to lift them – is usually a single incident (or even just an anecdote) about a near miss, or a collision, involving a pedestrian and a someone cycling. This is a poor basis for making policy, and, if applied to the road network as a whole, would lead to the wholesale closure of roads to motor vehicles.”
“East Street, in Horsham, is now closed to motor vehicles between 10:30am and 4:30pm each day, but with cycling still permitted. For these six hours, it’s a pedestrianised area, with cycling in it. After two years, there hasn’t been a single incident involving cycling, or complaint (as far as I am aware). There have been only two (slight) pedestrian injuries, both involving motor vehicles, outside of the ‘pedestrianised’ hours. It works well.”
“However the background assumption in the UK seems to be that cycling is ‘a problem’, that needs to be clamped down on, and eradicated in pedestrian areas, even where there is scope for its introduction.”
Cycling in Faversham
I took a look again at the reporting of the Local Engagement Forum in 2015 when cycling in the town centre was discussed. There is a large number of comments beneath the article that are worth a browse because they speak about a wide range of relevant experiences. A warning, though, some are rude about councillors, sorry:
http://road.cc/content/news/164361-faversham-councillors-keen-rid-town-centre-arrogant-and-fast-cyclists
Of course anti-social cycling should be tackled. But that is no reason to put a blanket ban around all cyclists. In the same way the odd misbehaved person on a bench is no reason to ban sitting in the town centre.
A thought: by banning cyclists from riding or pushing their bikes across the town centre the Town Council, Swale Borough Council and Kent County Council are forcing cyclists to ride on the B2040 inner ring road, with its hostile traffic and substandard cycle infrastructure. It’s hardly surprising there are so few cyclists in Faversham when these are the conditions that cyclists face.
A vision for the future of Faversham town centre
If we follow what the research shows, rather than what anecdotes assume, then a vision for the town centre should promote both cycling and sitting – as well as a new, time-limited parking regime that encourages vehicle use whenever the town centre gates are open.
We have to stop saying no and start saying yes.
A new Traffic Order for the town centre
This vision can be achieved through a rewriting of the Traffic Order for the town centre. Since a new Traffic Order would need to be written to paint double yellow lines around the Guildhall (the previous one expired last year, two years after it came into force) the opportunity could be taken to follow a different and far-sighted approach.
Does Faversham’s Town Council have the vision to seize this opportunity? Or will it continue to say “No (parking), no (cycling), no (sitting)”?
It isn’t always that expert advice aligns with public opinion. So, when it does, how should a town council respond?
With former presidents of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Town Planning Institute against the painting of yellow lines around Faversham’s historic Guildhall, as well as knighted architects and the chairman of the Academy of Urbanism, you might take notice of the issue.
When 85% of people voting in a public poll also oppose the idea you would do well to sit up and pay attention.
But what did Faversham Town Council do this evening?
Quite the opposite. It voted to ignore both the experts and the public. It voted to deface a cherished building by painting yellow lines around it; yellow lines that will continue to allow people to park in front of the building; that will leave us all staggered at the gall of our elected representatives.
For yellow lines 6
Abstain 4
Against 2 (Belsom, Hook)
