Town Planners told to do more for cyclists!

McBain_v1

This from Regeneration and Renewal

Planners urged to prioritise walkers and cyclistsBen Willis, Regen.net, 23 January 2008

Planners, architects and local politicians should give pedestrians and cyclists priority over motorists in regeneration and new development projects.

The recommendations are included in guidance published today by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) aimed at creating environments that promote physical activity.

NICE said planning applications for new development should always enable people to build physical activity into their daily routine.

This might mean ensuring local facilities are easily accessible by foot or bicycle, or that children are provided with suitable areas for outdoor play.

The recommendations said motor vehicle access should be restricted in some areas and road space reallocated to pedestrians or cyclists.

NICE estimates that 65 per cent of men and 76 per cent of women fail to take the recommended of activity each week, and that the effects on health of inactivity costs the public around £8 billion a year.

Professor Mike Kelly, director, Centre for Public Health Excellence at NICE, said: "Our lives are more sedentary than ever before, but even modest increases in daily activity will help break the pattern of couch potato behaviour and benefit health."

The guidance is not binding, but NICE said copies of the document would be sent out to built environment professionals such as planners, transport authorities, architects and developers.

As a Chartered Town Planner, I think it would be have been more beneficial to direct this call for action towards the Highway Engineers, who remain hell-bent on making sure that the car retains its primacy in development proposals :evil:

DavidTQ

Who is it who gets to decide to make 50cm wide cycle lanes?

The money could be well spent doing something with them...

McBain_v1

Highway Engineers usually specify the specification of cycle lanes - this is why I think that this sort of "clarion call" is misdirected.

pantscp

An interesting article and a good point you make mcbain. It just so happens that I am writing a dissertation about adequacy of cycle provisions in the UK. I am coming at it from the point of whether people use the provisions that are there and why. Could I contact you off-line about this! Especially good to get a planner's perspective.
Good timing.

knedlicky

McBain_v1 wrote:

This from Regeneration and Renewal

Planners urged to prioritise walkers and cyclistsBen Willis, Regen.net, 23 January 2008 ............................

As a Chartered Town Planner, I think it would be have been more beneficial to direct this call for action towards the Highway Engineers, who remain hell-bent on making sure that the car retains its primacy in development proposals :evil:

Although there are many highway engineers who are pretty philistine, without an eye for aesthetics or a thought for anything but the car, please don't tar them all with the same brush. Part of the reason is that few get training in urban planning or landscape architecture. However, sometimes it’s the client who is the stumbling block.

In my work I am an avid promoter of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and of landscaping for people. But that some ideas don't get realised often lies with a client who has no interest in or appreciation of these aspects and during the design asks for them to be reduced or eliminated. This is especially true if the project looks like it may have construction cost problems, even though there are usually better possibilities of reducing costs by looking at roadways, or the structure and its mechanical and electrical installations.

Two recent examples:
- a client building a housing estate with 138 houses initially accepted a layout with an off-street cycle path network crossing the whole estate, the cycle lanes routed in green areas between houses. All houses were to have garages and there were also to be 70 other parkplaces. However, as the design progressed he got cold feet about not providing enough for the car driver, so requested changes, namely reduction of the cycle paths by 66% (effectively eliminating any idea of an off-street cycle network), and also elimination of the pedestrian pavement on one side of each of the 7 residential streets. With the saved money, he wanted the number of parkplaces increased to 210! (The parkplaces were only for residents and private visitors.)

- in a renovation and extension project of a secondary school, the client asked for an increase in parking from 32 to 125 parkplaces. Based on the projected numbers of staff and pupils in coming years, this number was about double what design standards advise as necessary. At the same time no bicycle parking was wanted even though some teachers and many pupils live within a mile or so of the school in a relatively low traffic area. When the bids came in above the budget, it was clear something would have to be cut out of the project, so (amongst other measures) it was suggested reducing the number of parkplaces to 85, and at the same time installing 60 bike stands. The client, however, rejected this proposal and stood firm with his wish for 125 parkplaces.

Sometimes it's a case of 'Whoever pays the piper, calls the tune.'

knedlicky

DavidTQ wrote:

Who is it who gets to decide to make 50cm wide cycle lanes?

If a cycle lane is only 50 cm wide, then the planner or engineer who designed the lane has been negligent in his job and possibly created a safety hazard. There is no excuse since there are plenty of design standards to which a planner or engineer can, and should, refer, if he is doing his job properly.
In any design office there should also be a checking system to ensure a design meets both the client's wishes and design standards, so if a cycle lane is only 50 cm wide, at fault isn't just the individual engineer but also his management and his organisation.

(fyi, typically the standards require a cycle lane to have a minimum width of 1.5 m or 1.6 m, more in some circumstances)

McBain_v1

knedlicky - it isn't the client who decides whether a scheme gets planning permission, it's the planning officers (acting under delegated authority or recommending to the planning committee). If they are content to live with the often pathetic advice doled out by their apathetic engineering colleagues then that's their problem. However, my experience has shown that the majority of local authority engineers are mired in the past and cannot bring themselves to really appreciate alternative modes of transport and the provision of infrastructure to serve them.

Maybe it's just because cycling just isn't sexy enough from an engineering perspective (and Yes, I have read - and continue to read - the "girls in lycra shorts" thread - very sexy!) to make them sit up an take notice. Afterall, I can't recall JMP being asked to model cycling traffic within a large conurbation, only ever vehicular traffic.

Your points about the client are well made however - there are some dunces out there

pantscp - feel free to message me