Proposed route in Runcorn

Pete Owens
Posts: 1886
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Proposed route in Runcorn

Postby Pete Owens » 25 Aug 2020, 3:48pm

Just came across this proposal for a cycle route in Runcorn:
https://lcwip.commonplace.is/schemes/proposals/halton/details
Full of fiddly convoluted shared use rubbish of the sort that the government promised to put a stop to.

The most worrying bit however, is the proposal for raising bollards on Keckwick Lane at the eastern end. While I have no objection to prohibiting the small amount of motor traffic, Keckwick Lane is a steep, narrow and unlit country lane - so I would rather not be encountering bollards in the road when I am riding downhill in the dark.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16037
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Proposed route in Runcorn

Postby mjr » 25 Aug 2020, 5:49pm

Pete Owens wrote:Just came across this proposal for a cycle route in Runcorn:
https://lcwip.commonplace.is/schemes/proposals/halton/details
Full of fiddly convoluted shared use rubbish of the sort that the government promised to put a stop to.

The most worrying bit however, is the proposal for raising bollards on Keckwick Lane at the eastern end. While I have no objection to prohibiting the small amount of motor traffic, Keckwick Lane is a steep, narrow and unlit country lane - so I would rather not be encountering bollards in the road when I am riding downhill in the dark.

No, the most worrying bits are the crap design at almost every junction and the bizarre attempt to sandwich pedestrians between the cycleway and the busway between Bridge Street and Irwell Lane. I know from experience that people will walk as far away from the heavy motor vehicles as they can, so they'll be walking on the cycleway freely, but any cyclist cycling on the walkway will risk a footway riding fine.

While I'd rather not have bollards on a steep unlit road, it probably has potholes and other crap to avoid which doesn't even have reflective bands on it, as a bollard should. The Bridge Street junction looks far worse:
· the cycleway approach from the west is 2m, which is just too narrow for a 2-way cycleway apparently shared with walkers;
· the north side Toucan basically requires an S bend to get to/from the cycleway west of there and the counterintuitive pavement sandwich for the cycleway east of there.
· an unsuspecting cyclist could easily try to turn NW on Bridge Street and find themselves stuck between a high kerb drop and "hazard pavement" (their words - oh so true!) and I bet most would continue on the pavement rather than make a U turn;
· the T junction immediately north of there has a raised table but no give-ways before the table, so crossing traffic will often be blocked by waiting cars.

I then saw the Astmoor Road junction design and gave up. It's just so wrong and anti-cyclist. Someone there doesn't understand that bikes don't turn on the spot. Here's a sketch of why:
Image Attachments
AstmoorRdWrong.jpg
Astmoor Road: Desire v Design
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1886
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Proposed route in Runcorn

Postby Pete Owens » 25 Aug 2020, 7:55pm

Yes, it is difficult to choose the absolute worst element of the proposal. I suppose I'm selfishly more concerned about Keckwick Lane 'cos that where I work and often ride down the road on the way home.

The junction you highlighted has a further oddity in that the NW road is a busway (so virtually traffic free) to the SE is a closed busway which makes for a more direct route apart from the barrier:https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/88045/. Simply allowing cyclists to ride along the busway and go straight across at the lights would improve things.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16037
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Proposed route in Runcorn

Postby mjr » 25 Aug 2020, 8:35pm

It gets madder! Can't they merge with TfGM? Whatever defects Boardman's buddies may have, and however slow they've been to remove some of their predecessors' mistakes, I don't think they've produced any proposals quite as horrible as this.

As I've written before, when faced with this level of incompetence, I can understand your preference for them to do nothing!
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1886
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Proposed route in Runcorn

Postby Pete Owens » 25 Aug 2020, 8:58pm

Its strange that the proposals seems to come from an entity called "Liverpool City Region" - when Runcorn is in Halton n Cheshire - not part of Merseyside. Merging with Boadrman's terrain would be tricky as it shares no borders with Greater Manchester it is the other side of Warrington. However, while Boardman does the talk the reality of what is appearing on the ground in Manchester is every bit as daft as everywhere else.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1886
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Proposed route in Runcorn

Postby Pete Owens » 30 Aug 2020, 1:53am

Looks like there is an even worse proposal from the same outfit - this time in the Wirral.
https://lcwip.commonplace.is/schemes/proposals/wirral/details

benshepherd
Posts: 2
Joined: 5 Sep 2017, 10:56am

Re: Proposed route in Runcorn

Postby benshepherd » 1 Sep 2020, 3:39pm

I'll be sending in my response to this proposal. But is there anyone at Cycling UK who would be able to look at the proposal with a professional eye and comment on the bad bits? I'm not an expert and going over everything in these drawings is going to take up a lot of time.