The city council would appreciate your views on some highways schemes which are intended to support economic growth in Longbridge. This scheme is important for cycling as numerous improvements for cycling are included in the general highways work. We have highlighted the good and bad points in our view below and included annotated plans, so you can have a look at that and further details as well as a survey link for you to voice your own opinions can be found on the Birmingham BeHeard website, at https://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/economy/longbridge-connectivity. (The survey link is at the bottom of the page)

Consultation runs to Friday 31st June 2015.

Push Bikes’ overall comments:

We are pleased to see that significant improvements for cycle users are being included alongside wider highways works and that the plans show an awareness of a cycle network, rather than isolated cycle routes with few local connections. These proposals will improve cycling conditions around Longbridge. It is important for the Birmingham Cycle Revolution’s success that all highways schemes consider how improvements can be made for cycle users making local journeys.

There are, however, some issues with the plans.

We are concerned that shared-use pavement cycling has been suggested in some locations where the pavements are narrow and the pedestrian traffic will be high. Segregated cycle tracks are the best option for providing comfortable space for cycling without impacting on pedestrian space, and should be prioritised over widening highways to provide more lanes for motor vehicles. It is also important that where turns are made on shared-use space paths, ample room is given for both pedestrians and cycle users to negotiate the turn with minimal conflict. Widths at turns and corners need to be much wider than on straight stretches of share-use paths.

We are also concerned by the use of multi-stage toucan crossings, which force cycle users to wait much longer than they would if they were cycling on the carriageway. We should be aiming to make cycling infrastructure as convenient to use as the highways by reducing the amount of stopping and starting at junctions and crossings as much as possible. We have suggested below several places where cycle crossings should be reduced to one movement, rather than the 2 or 3 movements suggested on the plans. In particular, at cross-roads where the cycle route crosses diagonally, cycle users should not be forced to cross two arms of the junction when a single traffic light would take them straight across.

Closure of part of Tessall Lane to motor traffic (CA-02712_S3_011):

The section of Tessall Lane next to Longbridge station is to be closed to motor vehicles, to provide two-way access for cycles along it, connecting the River Rea route (NCN 5) to the centre of Longbridge with a quiet comfortable route, where at the moment there is a fast rat-run that is not pleasant to cycle along. This closing of a route to through motor traffic, while leaving it open for pedestrians and cycle users, is referred to as filtered permeability, and is a core principle in the creation of better conditions for walking and cycling. This will be a considerable improvement that Push Bikes is very pleased to see and which we support whole-heartedly.

Bristol Road South and Lickey Road speed reductions:

Push Bikes supports the proposed changes from 40mph to 30mph on Lickey Road and Bristol Road South.

Longbridge Lane plans:

Good points:

Providing a continuous cycle route along this road as part of the works to upgrade the two junctions shows joined up thinking that is necessary to ensure the success of the Birmingham Cycle Revolution - improvements for cycles must be built into every highways project.

The use of the service roads alongside Longbridge Lane is a good way to create cycle routes for less money. In particular, the use of bollards on the corner of Cofton Road and Longbridge Lane is a cheap way to remove through motor traffic and create filtered permeability for cycles and pedestrians.

The removal of the roundabouts and the signalisation of the two cross-roads along Longbridge Lane will increase the safety of pedestrians in particular, as this will allow signalised crossings to be installed. It is particularly good that the crossings are direct, single stage, crossings, as these minimise inconvenience to pedestrians and cycle users.

Push Bikes supports option B for the Longbridge Lane / Cofton Road junction, as the solution to congestion is not to increase space for motor vehicles, but to encourage more cycle use for local journeys through building high quality cycle infrastructure. Option B does not increase the width of Cofton Road or Groveley Lane, so pedestrians have a shorter distance to cross those arms of the junction and there will be more space for high-quality cycle infrastructure on Groveley Lane in the future.

Points of concern:

(1) There is extensive use of shared-use pavement cycling along this route, which may work on streets with wide pavements, such as much of the length of Bristol Road, but creates potential conflict on pavements which are narrow and which have a lot of pedestrian traffic. The pavement outside of Albert Bradbeer Primary School will be particularly crowded during morning commuting hours, which will result in discomfort and trouble for cycle users and pedestrians alike. The light-controlled crossing next to Albert Bradbeer Primary School will be busy as well, and the area where the school driveway crosses the pavement is particularly narrow.

(2) Shared use crossings where a cycle route requires two arms of the junction to be crossed will inconvenience cycle users and discourage use of the cycle route. This is of importance at the Cofton Road / Longbridge Lane junction, where the cycle route crosses two arms of the junction. It would be much better to take the cycle route directly across the junction, on their own traffic lights, so that they can cross quickly and smoothly away from pedestrians.

Suggested changes:

(1) The section of pavement cycling from Central Avenue to the junction with Turves Green is unnecessary, as there is a service road that could be utilised, and a linking section of cycle track could be created from the end of that. The junction of Central Avenue with Longbridge Lane is very messy, and should be simplified to make it easier for cycle users to cross to the service road.

(2) At the junction of Longbridge Lane and Turves Green, cycle users should be given lights to cross diagonally across the junction, on to the south side of Longbridge Lane. This should be converted to a shared-use pavement, so that cycle users can avoid the front of Albert Bradbeer Primary School and reduce the number of traffic lights that they need to wait for.

Without a segregated cycle track in front of Albert Bradbeer Primary School, that area will be too busy for cycle users to share with pedestrians. Because the budget constraints for this project probably will not allow for the building of a segregated cycle track there, we suggest that the south pavement is used instead, and money is saved on converting the existing crossing next to the primary school and building the footway/cycle link. Instead the money should be spent on widening the south pavement as much as possible, and improving the surface of the service road.

The best solution, though, would be a segregated cycle track alongside the road that crosses to the service road before the driveway for the primary school. If there is money available, then Push Bikes would prefer that option.

(3) At the junction of the service road and Kingswood Road, there is a wide junction mouth, which does not decrease motor traffic speeds sufficiently to make crossing Kingswood Road comfortable for cycle users. The mouth of Kingswood Road should at least be tightened up so as to slow down motor traffic entering this road, to improve safety for cycle users crossing this junction.

Ideally it would be closed off, as Kingwood Road connects up with Gravely Lane and Coombes Lane further down and so it is already well served for motor traffic. Closing Kingwood Lane to motor traffic at this end would encourage more people to use it for walking and cycling to the school, and would make crossing this road very safe for cycle users.

(4) At the Longbridge Lane / Cofton Road junction, Push Bikes supports option B because the solution to motor traffic congestion is to make cycling and walking local journeys more attractive, rather than widening roads. We are pleased to see that this junction will be signalised, but the route across for cycles is too circuitous. There is precedent for this at the A435/B4217 crossing, where pedestrians are given a simultaneous green phase. If the same were applied to this junction, cyclists could use the phase to make a diagonal crossing in one movement. This would greatly reduce conflicts with pedestrians and allow cycles to cross in one stage rather than two.

We also suggest that the mouth of the service road should be closed or restricted to an exit only, so as to reduce turning conflicts here between cycles and motor vehicles. We note that there is a Kwik-Fit garage on the corner here, whose driveway provides a cut-through for motor vehicles to avoid the junction. We suggest that bollards are used to prevent the use of this cut through, so that the service road entrance can only be used to access Kwik-Fit.

Lickey Road / Bristol Road South junction (CA-02712_S2_005):

Good points:

These plans provide cycle routes all around the roundabout and the new junction for the West Link Road. It is good to see that segregated cycle routes are being proposed around the roundabout, which offer a better experience for cycle users than unsegregated shared-pavement cycling (although note our concerns below).

The proposed cycle route under the bridge, along the Rea river, is a particularly nice route as the bridge has wide arches which will provide good visibility and so offer a sense of social safety. This also connects up with a good route to NCN5, at Tessall Lane.

The two dropped kerbs to help cycle users on the highway to join the pavement are well placed, giving ample space before the crossings so that cycle users do not have to join the pavement where pedestrians are crowded waiting for the lights. There are some details that are not clear on the plans, so we have noted some concerns below.

Points of concern:

(1) The plans do not provide any details about the segregated cycle tracks. Push Bikes believes that these segregated cycle tracks should be of the same width as those planned for Bristol Street in the city centre - 3 meters wide - to allow for bi-directional cycle use. Because of the many links around this junction, the cycle tracks will be used in both directions and so it is important that cycle users are able to pass each other in comfort without leaving the cycle track. A width of 3 meters would also allow cycle users to pass more easily pedestrians who stray into the cycle track.

(2) Dropped kerbs for cycles to join the pavement must be well sign-posted, so that cycle users know they exist and can decide whether to use them or not well in advance. In addition the dropped kerbs must be wide and with absolutely no raised kerb, so that cycle users do not have to brake hard and focus on the turn while there is fast moving motor-traffic behind them. There must, therefore, be space on the pavement for cycle users to finish braking, and the surface must be perfectly flush, ideally with continuous tarmac, rather than a kerb stone.

Bad points:

(1) The new dog-leg crossings will reduce the attractiveness of these new measures to cycle users. It is very important that new light controlled crossings are direct, not dog-legged, as they require cyclists to make sharp turns in the vicinity of pedestrians, creating conflict. The crossing on Lickey Road already exists, and the central reservation is wide, so that is not such a problem. However the new crossing at the new West Link Road, and the new toucan crossing on Bristol Road South next to the island, must not be bent like this. In addition, as cycling is faster than walking, it would be good to provide cycle specific crossings here (activated solely by a cycle specific control) that gives cycle users the ability to cross in one action. These are possible under DfT regs for cycle specific lights, and lights that change quickly for cyclists mean motor traffic is held up for a much shorter period when only cyclists are crossing.

Bristol Road South / Tessall Lane (CA-02712_S3_012):

Good points:

The only good point about this particular section is that junction of Farren Road will be made no entry, and the road mouth will be tightened up. This is very positive, as it will reduce motor traffic along Farren Road as well as making it easier to cross the mouth of Farren Road.

Bad points:

(1) On the south side of Bristol Road South, the proposed shared cycle and pedestrian crossing takes users on a dog-leg across two islands. Having a light controlled crossing here is an improvement, but the dog-leg will create too much conflict between pedestrians and cycle users for this crossing to be comfortable and attractive to use. For this reason Push Bikes does not consider the current proposal there to be a positive improvement.

In addition, we ought to note that with the closure of Tessall Lane to motor traffic next to Longbridge station, Tessall Lane to the south of Bristol Road South will become a mainly residential street, with only motor traffic to the Job Centre and Austin Sports and Social Club in addition to the residential motor traffic.

Suggestion: As the motor traffic on this arm of Tessal Lane will be minimal, there should be no need for the left-turn lane on Tessall Lane next to the Job Centre, and instead the mouth of Tessall Lane should be tightened up and a direct crossing for cycle users and pedestrians provided, rather than the dog-leg crossing that is currently shown on the plans.

An additional suggestion is that left turns into Tessall Lane from south-bound motor traffic (see diagram below) could be prohibited, and the left-turning motor traffic directed onto Mavis Road instead. With the closing of Tessall Lane to through motor traffic, there will be only a small increase in motor traffic using Mavis Road (as it is likely that much of the local motor traffic already takes that route to avoid the traffic lights). The benefit would be that the mouth of Tessall Lane could be tightened up, to reduce the distance for pedestrians and cycles to cross the junction, and that there would be more time for pedestrians and cycles to cross.

(2) On the north side of Bristol Road South, the shared-use pavement cycling route finishes at the junction, and deposits cycle users into the ASL. This is unrealistic - they will ONLY be able to enter that box when motor traffic is held at the traffic lights, so when they arrive they will have to wait for it to stop, and then they will have to enter the box and wait for the lights to go green. This makes cycling slow and laborious. Of particular note is that Bristol Road South is a 40mph limit in this section, so we ought not to be mixing cycles and motor traffic here.

Suggestion: Rather than adding an extra lane for the minimal motor traffic turning right into Tessal Lane, create a lane to hold the left-turning motor traffic, and then have a cycle / pedestrian crossing that goes straight across the mouth of Tessall Lane. This would remove conflicts between cycles trying to exit the pavement into the ASL and motor vehicles trying to turn left. Having a left turn lane would also permit you to slow down left-turning motor traffic, and so tighten up the junction mouth and reduce the distance that cycles and pedestrians have to cross.