A council’s announcement that it is planning a major roads upgrade scheme, having won funding from the Department for Transport that would see a “cycle optimised” CYCLOPS junction built, “reducing areas of conflict” and “optimising traffic flow” has been met with a vocal backlash from an outspoken portion of the community who have inundated the local authority’s Facebook post about the project with comments about “road tax”, it being “a waste of money”, and concerns parking spaces could be lost.
Despite LeicestershireLive reporting that the £1.9m of funding is coming from the Department for Transport and “already established active travel budgets”, Leicestershire County Council, and a borough council that shared the survey, received plenty of social media comments criticising the cost of the proposed scheme to upgrade the A6 junction joining Regent Street, Stoughton Road and The Parade, the first CYCLOPS (Cycle Optimised Protected Signals) layout in the county.
> Could UK-first CYCLOPS junction be “slam dunk” for cycling?
The local authority ran an engagement consultation between 23 July and today (20 August), opening up a discussion about the scheme between those planning the it and residents, business owners, cycling and walking groups, emergency services and road transport groups.
The design pictured below shows the junction would largely replicate other established CYCLOPS projects across the UK, providing cyclists a segregated route across an otherwise intimidating and potentially dangerous intersection.
And while a local cycling campaign, Better Biking For Blaby District, said it is “so pleased” at the plans, a glance at the Oadby and Wigston Borough Council’s Facebook communication about the proposals, the local authority having shared Leicestershire County Council’s plans, shows a vocal section of the community has made a range of complaints about the junction upgrade the council says would reduce conflict between road users, optimise flow of traffic, and encourage more active travel.
The top comment on the council’s post asking for resident engagement entered a “road tax” rant, claiming the authority was “already killing it [the area] with parking charges. Now you want to totally kill it with cycle crap…”
“Why waste more money on cycle lanes the cyclists don’t use nor do they pay rd tax [road tax] for,” it claims, seemingly forgetting ‘road tax’ was abolished in 1936 when Vehicle Exercise Duty was introduced.
Another commenter stated: “It won’t work! It will create further congestion on the A6 and cyclists won’t use it, they don’t use cycle lanes so why would they use this waste of money. If LCC want to make roads safer for cyclists they should fix the kerb edges, drains and potholes. Safer together.”
A vehicle parts business owner wrote: “It looks like unfortunately they will take parking from outside my shop, might make it not viable to stay open. No parking, no car accessories shop.”
The county council held two drop-in sessions for residents to make their views heard and it remains to be seen how the consultation period will impact the plans for the scheme going forward.
[?: Planning picture of a similar CYCLOPS junction in Manchester]
Communicating the proposals, LCC said: “A CYCLOPS junction is designed to prioritise the safety of cyclists and pedestrians whilst working in harmony with motor traffic. Active Travel England has identified junctions as containing the most conflict points between cyclists and motor traffic.
“As more people make journeys by cycling and walking, the CYCLOPS scheme in Oadby aims to make the junction safer for all individuals by reducing areas of conflict between traffic, motor traffic, cyclists and pedestrians, [and] optimising the flow of traffic for motorists. We hope this will motivate more people to cycle and walk in the local area.”
Cycling infrastructure projects, and other CYCLOPS junctions, have long since been a target for online outrage and vocal locals making headlines in the local press criticising councils’ projects.
A year ago, residents in St Helens said there was “nothing wrong” with an original roundabout and that the lengthy construction work on an “eyesore” cycling junction is leaving their homes “permanently covered in dirt and dust”.
22 thoughts on “Cycling junction could reduce conflict and optimise traffic flow… but council inundated with complaints on Facebook about “road tax” and lost parking”
Good looking plans,
Good looking plans, adequately funded. There is no “war on motorists”, and the smooth brain NIMBYs can cry into their Daily Mail.
What’s “Vehicle Exercise Duty
What’s “Vehicle Exercise Duty?” Do people have to pay extra to drive to the gym? Not a bad idea in itself, but we shouldn’t be penalising people for at least making an effort!
Jakrayan wrote:
I think it’s probably similar to “your turn to walk the dog”.
road.cc wrote:
Coming next: Drive-thru Halfords cornering the market in furry dice and screenwash.
Totally agree, waste of money
Totally agree, waste of money, just ban cars and cyclists can use the existing infrastructure as is?
And the car accessories shop can rebrand as a community cafe and cycle hub, passing trade, ebike recharge points etc?
Who could possibly object to that???
The car accessories shop is
The car accessories shop is losing half a parking space out of quiite a number, which can be recovered by a minor change of layout.
All the objections are just standard wibble.
It perhaps shows how far the
It perhaps shows how far the small town Midlands is still stuck in the 1990s.
The consultation is here until August 20th. Feedback from visitors would be welcome – we need all the help we can get:
https://surveys.leics.gov.uk/snapwebhost/s.asp?k=171638609120
I’ve done it but rather
I’ve done it but rather perplexed as to what relevance my sexuality has to do with a Cyclops junction (one of the survey questions).
I’ve done it now, and done
I’ve done it now, and done thorough feedback, especially on how Equality Law ‘requires’ them to give equal priorirty to different modes, and how they MUST NOT compromise pedestrian signals for motor traffic, as we are ALL traffic.
But there was no option for me to be emailed a copy, which was intended to go in my Resources folder for next time. Aaaargh.
I even linked them to Ashley Neal’s video of the cocked-up St Helens one.
It’s ntoable that – unlike St
It’s ntoable that – unlike St Helens – they have the light sequencing right, with an all-round green for peds and cyclists as a separate phase.
Detail of walking lines for visually impaired pedestrians do not look quite right in detail, yet.
Does this connect to
Does this connect to continued cycle paths? It’s not clear if more than the junction is protected or if you’re just dumped back onto the road?
For those unfamiliar with the concept there’s a paper on the Cyclops design here (they still have redundant bike boxes / ASLs though…). Ranty Highwayman has an article on the general Cyclops design vs. Dutch infra. The key takeaway seems to be that:
– Cyclops designs favour pedestrians / higher pedestrian flows. (BUT – my observation not his – they build in more potential cyclist-pedestrian conflicts – taking one corner there’s conflict in 7 of 9 movements of pedestrian and cyclist as opposed to 4 of 9 in the Dutch design).
– Dutch designs (not surprisingly) favour cyclist and can probably be squeezed into slightly smaller spaces (though we should be taking space from drivers…) Dutch roads also make much more use of “smarter” signals with varied phases and vehicle detection to minimise wait times. (Though they’d probably fare little better with the UK’s motor-vehicle dominated junctions and driver’s expectations…)
Frankly doing anything genuinely helpful (not ASL paint…) at junctions for cyclists is a massive step for the UK.
Quote:
They haven’t forgotten, they’re flat out ignorant and believe what they’re told by the tabloid politicians and press.
& they’d never refer to it as
& they’d never refer to it as pollution tax, especially as electric cars are zero rated!
I’ve come to the conclusion
I’ve come to the conclusion it’s not ignorance it’s deliberate misinformation. When schemes were proposed locally, there was a lot of “why don’t they spend the money on x instead”. I wasted my time explaining that the money was already allocated to active travel so we should try to get it spent locally…. But of course that wasn’t their point.
£1.9m. What a waste of money
£1.9m? What a waste of money that could be spent on upgrading a junction for motor vehicles that costs real money e.g. £350m. Funny how no-one complains at that complete waste of money.
Didn’t see a link in the
Didn’t see a link in the article so for those wanting (some) detail (nitty gritty still to be finished – so have your say…):
https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/road-projects/the-parade-oadby-cyclops-junction-scheme
Quote:
That would be Epic Accessories on Leicester Road then, a company who a quick look on Streetview shows happily blocks much of the footpath with rooftop boxes, a trailer and an A board, so clearly has issues sharing space appropriately. And I see several parking bays just outside the scope of the CYCLOPS proposal, not to mention the supermarket car park I’m prepared to bet many of his customers already use (regardless of whether it’s for Asda shoppers only).
“Bloody cyclists don’t pay
“Bloody cyclists don’t pay road tax!”
“Why should I have to pay for parking?!”
Motorway drivists don’t use
Motorway drivists don’t use the inside lane. What a waste of money. Scrap the inside lane & replace it with a cycle lane/tramway/bus lane or just re wild it.
Clem Fandango wrote:
Can’t just rewild, sadly. lorry drivers have to keep freight away from the much more efficient rail network, and they rely on the inside lane, and lane 2. And 3 if there’s a fourth.
In fact, I say they should stick to the inside lane. If lorries only use lane 1 of the motorway, then I’ll only use cycle lanes when provided.
Besides, I’m not sure we need
Besides, I’m not sure we need to be making the roads any wilder than they already are.
Here in Cambridge we have had
Here in Cambridge we have had court cases brought on the City Council by drivists who don’t want a bus-gate because ‘it will destroy passing trade’ er….drivers who just drive by and not stop. Will also mean drivers can’t park anywhere…..