The following email was sent to Suffolk County Council/Travel Ipswich highlighting our concerns about proposed changes to the Majors and Mulberry Corner Junctions, which we believe makes the junctions more dangerous for cycling:

Dear Sirs
At the January meeting of Cycle Ipswich we reviewed in detail the proposed plans for the alterations to the Major’s and Mulberry Corner junctions (http://www.travelipswich.co.uk/assets/PDF/Mulberry-Corner.Dec-2013.pdf)

We understand that the Rev A drawings (April 2014) as published on the Travel Ipswich website represent the latest version.

Whilst these plans are not at consultation stage, we feel that we have a duty to communicate our concerns that elements of the proposed scheme will worsen the provision for cyclists in this area.

We are particularly concerned about the removal of the existing “give way” system where the link road from St Helen’s Street rejoins Woodbridge Road.

At present, the nearside cycle lane and give way markings enable cyclists to stop and wait for an appropriate gap in eastbound traffic approaching from their left.

This is critical for cyclists who intend to proceed in the nearside (left) lane on Woodbridge Road to access Christchurch Street and other roads on the North side of Woodbridge Road. This is a key access route for parents taking children to St Margaret’s Primary school by bike as well as residents of the various residential streets on the North side of Woodbridge Road.

The new scheme will require cyclists to continue in a moving stream of traffic onto Woodbridge Road (emerging in the right hand lane) and then filter into the left hand lane in order to make a left turn.

This will be a difficult and risky manoeuvre, particularly when traffic flows are complicated by the bus stop which is proposed to be retained. It will deter cyclists from using this route due to perceived risk and will create a serious risk of injury or death to cyclists.

In addition, the present layout gives the benefit of at least a non-mandatory cycle lane on the lower stretch of Woodbridge Road, which can be a busy and intimidating environment for cyclists. Whilst we would prefer to see properly segregated infrastructure, the cycle lane markings do at least give an indication to drivers that cycle traffic is to be expected and tend to increase the space given to cyclists by overtaking traffic.

We cannot understand the assertion that removing this lane is for the benefit of “all road users” and would ask Suffolk County Council / Travel Ipswich to confirm the evidence on which this is based.

For cyclists who do not wish to use the link road, the proposed alternative set out in the scheme involves leaving the carriageway and negotiating two Toucan crossings, which will make this option considerably less convenient and slower.

The initial Toucan Crossing (on the East side of the link road by the old Odeon) is also difficult and dangerous for cyclists as the acute angle at which it crosses the link road makes it difficult to monitor the traffic approaching from behind the cyclist as they approach the crossing. The scheme design does not appear to address this.

Given that cyclists would only use this route to proceed East the double road crossing is unnecessary. It would be much more convenient to continue the existing segregated route along the side of the Regent onto Woodbridge Road and then provide a single Toucan crossing at this point to allow cyclists and pedestrians to cross Woodbridge Road and access the existing cycle lane towards Christchurch Street.

In addition, we are concerned that the existing segregated cycle routes in this section are proposed to be replaced with “shared use” which will inevitably increase the risk of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists and uncertainty for both groups.

There is ample space in the area of this scheme to provide (or to maintain where it already exists) separate infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with recognised best practice. In addition there is a large area of planting in the triangular island in the centre of the Mulberry Corner junction which is effectively wasted space and could be utilised to allow a higher quality treatment.

We would urge Suffolk County Council and Travel Ipswich to reconsider this scheme and to consider other options which would be safe and convenient for cyclists as well as motorised vehicles. We would be happy to attend a meeting at the site to illustrate the issues, but we believe the key points are as follows:-

• Reducing, rather than increasing, the number of lanes and reallocating carriageway space to cycling.
• Removing the “shared use” elements and replacing these with segregated cycle lanes (or retaining these where already provided).
• Ensuring that approach lines to Toucan and other crossings are suitable for cyclists and allow them to continue across without delay when there is no oncoming traffic.
• Minimising the number of road crossings required by cyclists using segregated off-road routes.
• Appropriate signalised junctions (with cycle priority phases where appropriate) to avoid cyclists having to join Woodbridge Road by merging into fast moving traffic and filtering across lanes.

At present we believe the scheme is in direct conflict with Suffolk County Council’s newly issued Cycling Strategy.

In particular we believe it fails to “adopt best practices as described in the Manual for Streets 2” and also to “review new junction treatments for the benefit of cycling”. These are both stated objectives in the strategy.

In addition, the Strategy sets out a commitment to reallocate carriageway space to cycling where segregated infrastructure cannot be provided. Woodbridge Road is prime example of this, but this scheme actually envisages the reverse by removing cycle lanes without provision of any alternative infrastructure.

We note that the stated aim of these improvements is to reduce congestion in St Helen’s Street; however, we would suggest that this can only be achieved in the long term by reducing unnecessary car journeys and encouraging and enabling a shift to cycling and walking. Our view is that the scheme as proposed will have the opposite effect.

When this scheme was discussed with Travel Ipswich at the initial consultation stage we were informed that there was support for a move to a single lane from Mulberry Corner to the Argyll Street area (consistent with the road layout at the St Margaret’s Green area) with provision for segregated cycle infrastructure. This makes it doubly disappointing that the proposed scheme provides for an increase in lanes at the expense of even the minimal existing cycle lane provision.

Having considered the proposed design, we feel we need to put on record our view that the new treatment of the link road onto Woodbridge Road is unfit for cycling to the point that it constitutes a breach of Suffolk County Council’s duties under section 39.3(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1998 to take appropriate measures to reduce the risk to vulnerable road users when constructing new roads. We would also request sight of the Road Safety Audit and the CDM Designers Risk Assessment which have been carried out in relation to the scheme.

We would welcome an urgent response from Suffolk County Council and Travel Ipswich on these issues and an assurance that this scheme will not be implemented without appropriate alterations to make it fit for purpose for all road users.

Cycle Ipswich – 21 January 2015

If there is anything that you would like to add to or change on the agenda, please get in touch on our mailing list.

January 2015 agenda

Notes from December 2014 meeting

Agenda is available

Ben Gummer MP will be attending. We will have a draft of the Cycle Ipswich manifesto, which has come out of the items written down at the previous meeting.

The full agenda is available.

If there are further items to be added please drop a note on to the mailing list, or otherwise let Shaun know so that it can be added.

There will be a short bike ride from Ipswich Station led by Ian Seeley starting at 6:30pm. More info on the mailing list post.

Second, we would like to thank both Ipswich Community Radio, and BBC Radio Suffolk for having us on their breakfast shows. We had several people come along due to the features on the shows.

I’ll give a quick summary of what happened at the meeting for those who couldn’t attend:

First Shaun gave a quick introduction to the Cycle Ipswich organisation, and the meeting.

Post-its from the public meeting

Second, attendees split into groups to discuss and write on post-its about the problems with cycling in Ipswich, and write down possible solutions or things they would like to see. This evening (Sunday), a few of the key organisers of the group have sat down to summarise the the information written down. The main general topics that were written down and will be taken forward in campaigning were in no particular order:

• Width of cycle paths & shared use problems
• Cycle lanes just ending
• Physical segregation
• Longer cycle lanes lead to ASLs
• Filtered Permeability
• Pot hole repairs – Campaign on reporting
• Enforcement – specifically car parking in cycle lanes; car driver education, and aggression; banning of pavement parking; and ASL enforcement
• Priority across side roads for pavements and cycle paths

A selection of the maps with notes written on them

Third, a set of maps were handed out to the groups to draw on where they believe there should be improvements, and what they should be. We will be soon be taking a closer look at these and adding these items to Cyclescape. Everyone is welcome to add more items to Cyclescape to be tracked.

The Fourth and final part of the meeting was a closing discussion with some of the highlights of the discussion. The most memorable remark at the end of the discussion was when someone said it was extremely difficult to know where to start with the drawing on the maps exercise as there are so many roads that have problems for cyclists, and need improvement.

Going forward we have a working group working on a few documents with this information to respond to the Suffolk Cycling Strategy, which lacks key elements expected in a strategy or much ambition; and to produce a 30 year vision similar to Leeds Cycling Campaign. We will be presenting the drafts at the next meeting on Thursday 13th November 2014 at 19:30.

We would like people from Ipswich and the surrounding area to come and help define the Ipswich which will make them happy to cycle in and around Ipswich. If you don’t currently cycle, or don’t like cycling for transport as opposed to off road leisure cycling, we would especially like to hear from you.

Please bring ideas of what you think the cycle routes in Ipswich should be like. Also bring ideas of cycle infrastructure that you would like to see. Photos of the good, bad, and ugly would also be appreciated.

The meeting will be held in the Collinson Room, Friends Meeting House, 39 Fonnereau Road, Ipswich, to the west of Christchurch Park on 9th October 2014 at 7:30pm. Plan your journey to Friends Meeting House with CycleStreets.

Before the meeting there will be an optional short bike ride starting at 6:30pm from outside Ipswich Railway Station to finish at the Friends Meeting House in time for the meeting. Plan your journey to Ipswich Railway Station with CycleStreets.

You can also suggest infrastructure improvements in our Cyclescape group.

I have just had the room booking confirmed for Thursday October the 9th at 7.30pm.
Let all know about this meeting please.

This is a meeting specifically to find out what people would like to input to Cycle Ipswich cycling route map for Ipswich and surrounding villages.

Bring your ideas !

Best wishes
Kevin

Agenda items include:

• Ipswich Northern Fringe/Garden Suburb planning applications re cycle infrastructure;
• discussion on Suffolk Cycle Strategy;
• discussion on road traffic on various town centre street where there are traffic restrictions in place, and what enforcement can take place;
• planning where cycle infrastructure should be built in Ipswich;
• feedback from previous events and noting/discussion about upcoming events.
  The full agenda is available.

If there are any further items to be added please drop a note on to the mailing list, or otherwise let Shaun know so that it can be added.

Agenda items include:

• discussion on Suffolk Cycle Strategy;
• discussion on road traffic on various town centre street where there are traffic restrictions in place, and what enforcement can take place;
• feedback from previous events and noting/discussion about upcoming events.

The full agenda is available.

If there are any further items to be added please drop a note on to the mailing list, or otherwise let Shaun know so that it can be added.

Here are the main points that came across:

1.Why Ipswich is a town worth living in: Outdoor spaces were mentioned a lot “lovely parks especially christchurch park” (Inga Lockington, Lib Dem), “lovely parks and the quay” (Lee Reynolds, Conservative), “surrounding countryside…still close to…  London and Cambridge (Nadia Cenci, Conservative)

2.Support of Space4Cycling: is mostly supported. Edward Phillips and Lee Reynolds (both Conservative) support it. Inga Lockington(LibDem)would not support the closure of residential roads for through traffic,as this would only push the problem elsewhere and congest other roads nearby. Nadia Cenci (Conservative) does not prioritize cycling as such, but would support anything that enhances health and enjoyment and is value for money.

3. Improvements/Deterioration so far:

Nadia Cenci (Conservatives) thinks that footpaths open to the public are abundant, but potholes are an issue for cyclists

Edward Phillips (Conservatives) states that only minor improvements on traffic lights, advanced stop lines and extra cycling lanes in some places have been implemented so far.

LibDem Inga Lockington admits that there have been some pavements relaid but a lot still needs to be done.

4. What would they improve when elected:

John Cook(Labour):highway issues are with County Council,but sees opportunity for improvement through borough’s role in planning permissions (newbuild and developments on the Northern fringe

Nadia Cenci(Conservatives) would encourage parents to walk and not drive children to school. She also would continue working with County Council to tackle potholes

Edward Phillips(Conservatives) would push for safe cycling facilities when roads are improved.

Lee Reynolds(Conservatives) suggests to try and stagger out the school run by varying schools’opening and closing times to avoid mass traffic

Inga Lockington(LibDem) sees planning permissions as a good start to improve things

5.Danger points in Ipswich

Inga Lockington(LibDem) : Tuddenham Road and Henley Road, esp. at the junction to Belvedere Road and at the right turn into Anglesea Road

John Cook(Labour): the one way system between Duke Street and Novotel roundabout; the subways crossing Civic Drive when esp when nobody is around

Edward Phillips(Conservative): Norwich Road beyond Valley Road roundabouts

Lee Reynolds(Walkable and cyclable Ipswich, some candidates’ responses to the survey

Conservative): Cardinal Park roundabout

6. Suggestions for improvements, interest in improving certain areas:

Inga Lockington (LibDem) would love to see a pedestrian and cyclists’ bridge east of Stokebridge. She says that the past plans for a Tesco would have come with an improvement budget. She also mentions that the new block of flats “must have taken pedestrians, cyclists and cars in consideration”. We might be able to get more information from her.

Lee Reynolds (Conservatives) and Edward Phillips (Conservatives) both think improvement of Cardinal Park roundabout area is needed.

John Cook (Labour) is happy to be lobbied about improvements in Futura Park shopping Centre

Lee Reynolds(Conservatives) says that more can be done for cyclists at Futura Park.

Lee Reynolds (Conservatives) encourages businesses to invest in safe bike parking.His company does.

Please click here for the full survey:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvQzClQmPSNEdERWSXpqZlFFYWg5UHZrZmFFczNhVFE&usp=drive_web#gid=0