A523 Poynton - New "shared space" junction

[boing_uk]

So we've gone from being bad for everyone, its good for peds? Isnt that the point of commercial centres - to be good for pedestrians? It is hard to know what the designers intentions were when it came to cyclists - have the footways been legally converted to shared use (Section 65 and 66) to permit leisure and utility cycling? Accepting that commuter cyclists (Lycra Warriors) will not use facilities but take up a strong position in traffic?

The design of Poynton is not expressly BAD for cycling, just because it doesnt have any overt facilities for cyclists. It just isnt overall positive like it has been for pedestrians and clearly the junction as a whole.

[Patrick Harper]

Isn't the whole point with shared spaces that there is no or little distinction between footways and the main carriageways?

[Benny]

So we've gone from being bad for everyone, its good for peds? Isnt that the point of commercial centres - to be good for pedestrians? It is hard to know what the designers intentions were when it came to cyclists - have the footways been legally converted to shared use (Section 65 and 66) to permit leisure and utility cycling? Accepting that commuter cyclists (Lycra Warriors) will not use facilities but take up a strong position in traffic?

The design of Poynton is not expressly BAD for cycling, just because it doesnt have any overt facilities for cyclists. It just isnt overall positive like it has been for pedestrians and clearly the junction as a whole.

What would help immensely with Poynton is the removal of the traffic driving north or south which I reckon makes up 70% of all traffic there. This would make the scheme better as its then quiet enough for everyone to share the space.

In other words, build the b****y bypass!

[fras]

Still a bit of time to wait: -

http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/highways ... _road.aspx

Route is chosen but CEC say they are going to consult again in 2015.

I reckon nothing before 2017

[Fenlander]

What would help immensely with Poynton is the removal of the traffic driving north or south which I reckon makes up 70% of all traffic there. This would make the scheme better as its then quiet enough for everyone to share the space.

In other words, build the b****y bypass!

Then you'll get most of the traders complaining that footfall is down as everyone drives round instead of through the middle, the big chains pull out as their leases lapse, the independents gradually hang on as the shop is their life not just their job and then a pension fund builds an out of town shopping centre with loads of parking on the bypass, which after a few years clogs that up to the extent that people start bypassing the bypass and drive through town again instead as it's quicker.

[RickyB_uk]

Are you looking at the same Crashmap data I am?

The pedestrian-only figures are also lower.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Poynton?

[Debaser]

"Shared space survey launched"

A survey to investigate public attitudes to shared space has been launched by Paralympic Champion and Parliamentarian Lord (Chris) Holmes.

Lord Holmes is blind and strongly believes that shared space schemes which minimise demarcations between vehicle traffic and pedestrians are dangerous. Shared space schemes remove features such as curbs [sic], road surface markings, traffic signs, controlled crossings and regulations...

...Lord Holmes states: “It is imperative that we take a proper look at the consequences of these schemes before it is too late. I hope this survey will cast some much needed light on the unintended but nevertheless terrible impact shared space schemes are having on so many people.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/sharedspacesurvey

[Fenlander]

Please send your survey responses on a single sheet of A4 paper, don't worry about writing in conventional lines, simply write your comments at different angles across the same page.

[Jim606]

URBAN TRANSPORT DESIGN AWARDS 2014
Poynton Town Centre - Overall Winner
Assessors mention "a ground-breaking scheme which has significantly advanced our understanding of traffic in towns and the possibilities for place-making and movement."

Slight blush...! Nice piece of polished glass to clutter up the desktop! Well i never...!

This self-congratulatory tone really bothers me. If I were the designer of such a scheme then I look to take the constructive criticism on-board and aim to improve / re-design future schemes. Shared-space is a problem for the visually impaired, you've only to look at Exhibition Road in London to see the there is still an intimidating dominant flow of traffic. The removal of kerbs and the introduction of more informal crossings doesn't help either the visually impaired or anyone else wanting the cross in safety. As for Poynton then I would not see the continuation of 'utility' cycling on the 'pavement' as a success. The provision of clearly demarcated cycle lanes would have been better. As said before, shared-space is ok for very low traffic areas i.e. only a handful of vehicles. Anywhere else then I don't think it's the wonderful success that it's supporters make out.

[tggzzz]

That's why some suggest we create refuges on either side of shared spaces - using bollards or benches or other street furniture - which provide secure areas for the blind, partially sighted and mobility impaired to walk in complete safety.

False, pure and simple. Blind people walk along roads (with a dog or with a long cane) by following the kerb. No kerb means they can't tell where they are. Full stop.

Judging by your complete lack of understanding of blind people, you must be a shared space apologist. Unfortunately such denial seems to be traditional for such apologists.

On the contrary, if you read this and other threads you'd see I am on the more sceptical side of the argument - the (unsolved) problems blind and partially sighted peds in particular face in these featureless schemes being their major downfall. That "some suggest we create refuges on either side of shared spaces - using bollards or benches or other street furniture - which provide secure areas for the blind, partially sighted and mobility impaired to walk in complete safety" was me pointing out that if such 'refuges' are needed on a shared space scheme it shows that scheme to be intrinsically flawed.

My mistake; I stand corrected.

Thanks for highlighting the doublethink involved if refuges are required!

[tggzzz]

How would you define Portishead's Cabstand as "pleasant" or "unpleasant". For whom?

If you're concerns about shared space were correct, we should be seeing worse accident statistics in shared space areas. This does not seem to be the case - it is still two early, after two years' operation, to fully assess Poynton Town Centre's accident improvements, but the reports look pretty positive so far... Maybe drivers really are more intelligent and responsible than we tend to assume?

Benhb might feel the cabstand is better without traffic lights, but clearly other people think removing them was a mistake: they are reinstating all the traffic lights.
See http://www.northsomersetmercury.co.uk/P ... story.html

More people are questioning whether this emperor is wearing any clothes! (FWIW, I think shared spaces can be beneficial in some places, but their proponents all too frequently overstate the evidence about their benefits).

[nowster]

On a smaller scale, people often report that traffic flows more smoothly when a set of traffic lights goes out-of-order. However this is thought only to be a temporary effect.

[Jim606]

Shared Space has been in the news again following a fresh round of criticism this time in the form of a report by Lord Holmes who basically says that Shared Space is dangerous for visually impaired and other disabled people, never mind those with young children etc. This BBC news article and video clip outlines what's been said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33377894

The Cycling Embassy of GB have also criticised, yet again, the provision for cycling in such schemes http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/news/ ... ared-space on the back of this report.

The Holmes Report into Shared Space Posted by Mark Treasure on Friday 3rd of July 2015 (Cycling Embassy of Great Britain)

Today sees the publication of Lord Holmes' report into the effect of 'shared space' street redesigns on blind and partially-sighted people. With this in mind, it's worth emphasising that many of the difficulties that these groups have with these layouts are shared – in slightly different ways – by people cycling, reflecting the way in which these environments often fall short of genuine inclusivity.

In recent years 'shared space' layouts have been applied on busy roads, carrying many thousands of motor vehicles a day. A lack of formal crossing points and minimal kerb separation on these roads can present great difficulty for blind people. But these are also the kinds of roads that are often hostile or intimidating to cycle on, due to the volume of motor traffic using them. Without dedicated space, people cycling on these roads – for instance in Poynton – are expected to share the carriageway with heavy traffic, or to informally cycle on 'footways', which presents further difficulty for those with visual impairment.

Poynton footway cycling shared space

These busier road environments need clear separation from motor traffic, both for people cycling, in the form of cycleways physically distinct from both footway and carriageway, and for blind and partially sighted people - or, alternatively, separation in the form of greatly reduced motor traffic levels.

This shouldn't conflict with attempts to 'declutter' our roads and streets – for instance, removing pedestrian guardrail that makes crossing the road circuitous and inconvenient – or with more general pedestrian-friendly design measures like continuous footways across side roads, and crossings on pedestrian desire lines. Such streets should be 'self explaining', making it clear without a lot of signs and barriers who should go where and who has priority; form follows function. Simply removing all cues, as shared spaces do, in an attempt to confused drivers into slowing down is ultimately self-defeating. More importantly, it sacrifices the comfort of people with disabilities, and on bikes, without providing any of the freedom of movement its proponents promise - except, that is, for those in cars.

On genuinely low traffic streets, a lower degree of physical distinction between footways and the carriageway will often be more appropriate. But this must be coupled with measures to keep the speed and volume of that motor traffic low, to create places where people cycling feel relaxed using the carriageway, and where those with visual impairment can cross in relative comfort.

Designing inclusive, accessible streets and roads means designing environments that work well for everyone.

The whole point of constructive criticism is to point out things which don't work and could be better. The designers of these schemes really need to 'wake-up' and take these points on-board (rather than constantly wriggling around saying how great they are) and start to work on future schemes which include better facilities for the visually impaired/other vulnerable users and cyclists.

[Mark Hewitt]

They do seem to fail to grasp the impact of traffic volumes. Shared spaces, where they can work is where there are very low volumes of traffic, as in one car every minute or so proceeding at a very slow pace.

Not for the likes of this where traffic volumes are high.

[fras]

As the Road to Nowhere (A555) is about to be built, the Poynton By-pass will surely not be far behind, now Woodford aerodrome is closed, so it's probably best to hold fire on criticism of this particular scheme until the effect of the by-pass is seen. FWIW, I have no real complaints about it other than the nice stone blocks are starting to get displaced due to the relentless HGV traffic with its huge axle loads.

[Jim606]

As the Road to Nowhere (A555) is about to be built, the Poynton By-pass will surely not be far behind, now Woodford aerodrome is closed, so it's probably best to hold fire on criticism of this particular scheme until the effect of the by-pass is seen. FWIW, I have no real complaints about it other than the nice stone blocks are starting to get displaced due to the relentless HGV traffic with its huge axle loads.

As far as I am aware the Poynton scheme opened in 2012, so after three years there should at least be some time to make an objective assessment. I am sure that any future Poynton bypass will have an effect on reducing traffic flows especially the removal of HGVs. However, I don't think that such projects are the wonderful 'cure-all' panacea that the designers make out. IMHO it seems like they (the designers) are not answering the key criticisms of;

1. Visually impaired/other vulnerable users
2. Cyclists
3. & I would also agree with your own criticism of granite blocks cracking up under the weight of vehicles!

Arguments about shared-space are likely to keep rumbling-on, but for anyone who is interested in how impassioned this debate can get then have a look at the following discussion on the Easy as Riding a Bike forum page as below https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... 6/poynton/

[AAndy]

Driven, no, crawled through Poynton a few times recently, the first time I've been there since it was done.

All I can say is how on earth were they allowed to get away with it, on such a major road.

It must have cost a heck of a lot of public money yet all other roads in the area are still in a bad state of repair.


Its all non-standard stuff too and must be against highway regulations.



On another note, the bypass seems to be chugging ahead a bit further south.

[Helvellyn]

On another note, the bypass seems to be chugging ahead a bit further south.

Didn't think that had got started yet (the airport link road is well under way but that's to the north of Poynton).

[Jeni]

Driven, no, crawled through Poynton a few times recently, the first time I've been there since it was done.

Woodford Road, a busy unclassified road to the north-west has been closed for the last couple of weeks because of MARR works. The only reasonable way around it is through Poynton which is causing it to clog up. It'd be the same even if it was still the previous layout. Normal service will be resumed when it re-opens.

In the mean time, I'm avoiding the area like the plague.

[Helvellyn]

Driven, no, crawled through Poynton a few times recently, the first time I've been there since it was done.

Woodford Road, a busy unclassified road to the north-west has been closed for the last couple of weeks because of MARR works. The only reasonable way around it is through Poynton which is causing it to clog up. It'd be the same even if it was still the previous layout. Normal service will be resumed when it re-opens.

In the mean time, I'm avoiding the area like the plague.

Maybe that explains why I've been finding Hazel Grove worse lately, although this week hasn't been as bad.