Notes for my presentation to Swale’s Joint Transportation Board, 24th June 2019

Thank you, Chair and good afternoon, everyone. My name is Tim Stonor and I’m a resident of Faversham. I also design streets and traffic junctions for a living.

I wish to speak about Agenda item 11 regarding the update on designs for the junction of the A2 and A251 in Faversham. Several of the designs that have been under consideration are for very large roundabouts and one is for traffic signals.

The officer’s recommendation is to progress with the traffic lights option. I think this is sensible and, although I speak in a personal capacity, I know my views are shared elsewhere in Faversham and may even be echoed in this room. I’m looking specifically at Mr Whiting, who spoke very well last week at an event in Faversham on the future of transport across the town and heard the views of a packed room against the roundabout options.

I’d like to make two requests:

First, that for the sake of clarity, that if the JTB follows officers recommendations to progress the traffic lights that it confirms that the roundabout proposals will be abandoned. Maybe it’s just me but the briefing paper seems a little vague on this.

Roundabouts are entirely out of place in a town that, as you are about to hear from Amanda Russell under Agenda item 13, is working so hard to encourage people to walk.

Roundabouts send an inconsistent message, and not least on a street that, as a result of development along its southern edge, is moving from being an edge of town street to a street that runs through the centre of the town.

Second, that in following the officers’ recommendation and progressing the traffic signals design, that great care is taken to design the junction for pedestrians and cyclists as well as vehicles.

I’m sorry to say that, as the designs stands at present, there is very little in them for pedestrians.

The single, staggered pedestrian junction is of a design that should be consigned to the 20th century.

As the designs progress, can I encourage KCC officers to work with Swale Borough Council‘s own urban designer. And, in addition, with the urban designers acting for the Duchy of Cornwall, as well as with those of us looking at a crossing outside the Abbey School and along Forbes Road.

Indeed we are considering holding a design workshop to consider the future of the A2 as it runs through Faversham. Is this something the JTB would, in principle, wish to support and to participate in?

Major junction design is never simple but, with care, it is possible to balance the needs of all transport modes: vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

Thank you for your attention.

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.