A week ago, Streets for People learned that Manchester City Council (MCC) had published updated maps on the permanent Active Neighbourhood scheme, which is due to be installed next year.
The reactions from social media formed a wave of disbelief and anger; yet again, MCC are proposing to water down proposed measures to help make walking and cycling safer (you read this right. This is on top of the proposed removal of filtering from Manor Road that we reported on in the previous blog post (which itself was on top of years of the reduction of scheme ambition).
Some of the major effects of the planned watering-down of the scheme from the proposals widely consulted-on last year (which were extremely popular) can be seen in the two maps, below. These maps are not intended to capture all of the changes, but to highlight how big of a backwards step they are.
The first map shows these changes:
The second map shows some of the major ‘severance points’ the new changes create. Severance points are places where it does not feel safe to walk and cycle. As can be seen, the plans make even worse the lack of connectivity in the scheme. Without a safe route to the shops, schools and bus stops, how is this scheme supposed to lead to more active travel?:
The news does not only raise even greater concern about the level of MCC’s ambitions for our neighbourhood. Alongside the publication of the new maps, MCC have stated that the plans constitute “agreed design[s]…”, taking into account “a review process with Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)”. This strongly appears to suggest that TfGM, who act on behalf of Greater Manchester’s Active Travel Commissioner Dame Sarah Storey to ensure that plans can only be approved if they meet the high standards of the Bee Network, have approved these awful designs, which, not only offer little improvement for active travel in our area, but, in some cases, make active travel even more dangerous than it already is.
At the same time, Streets for People recently met with MCC officials – including the executive lead on transport, Cllr Tracey Rawlins, and the Head of Design, Ian Halton. In that meeting, Streets for People representatives raised the issue of the “leakiness” of the scheme, which now relies on far fewer filtering interventions than was previously planned. To Streets for People’s surprise, Mr. Halton repeatedly insisted that MCC had wanted far more filtering, but this was refused by TfGM, who instead favoured much more extensive ‘traffic calming’ (ie road humps, not planters).
Given both of these developments, Streets for People have written to Dame Sarah Storey regarding the Active Travel Commissioner’s office’s role in the watering-down of the scheme, and asking her to uphold the design standards of Bee Network projects like this.
Although TfGM is in some sense beholden to MCC, and other GM councils, because they, unlike TfGM, are directly-elected, this is not the case for the Active Travel commissioner, who is appointed by the directly-elected mayor of Greater Manchester. Dame Sarah Storey has a democratic mandate to uphold standards, and hold local authorities like MCC to account.
Mayor Burnham has made active travel a cornerstone of his promises to vastly improve the terrible transport provision currently on offer in the city region. We are happy to work with Dame Sarah Storey in her mission to support Burnham on this, but we feel that – whatever the truth of MCC’s recent claims – the Active Travel Commissioner’s job is to do far more than encourage and enable local authorities. Sometimes MCC – by far the most powerful of the region’s councils – will need to be stood up to. If TfGM aren’t up to it – whether because they don’t want to enforce the standards, or because they don’t feel able to – then we need our Commissioner to step-in, and publicly. Otherwise nothing will ever truly improve.
The letter, in full:
Dear Dame Sarah Storey,
Recent events regarding the Active Neighbourhood plans for Levenshulme and Burnage are now presenting serious concerns around not only the scheme being watered down ever further, but also how decisions are being made and agreements reached between TfGM and Manchester City Council (MCC).
1. Meeting between Manchester City Council and Streets for People – Levenshulme and Burnage (S4PLB) – September 22nd 2022
On September 22nd 2022 members of S4PLB were invited to a meeting with Cllr Tracey Rawlins and representatives from MCC Highways, including Ian Halton, Head of Design, Commissioning & PMO.
During this meeting we were told by Ian Halton that MCC has reached an agreement with TfGM and the Design Review Panel (DRP) regarding the final designs for Active Neighbourhood that the Council does not wish to go back on.
Further to this, Ian Halton also told us that MCC wanted to include more filters in the final design, however it was TfGM who refused this and insisted on more traffic calming instead.
We have several questions regarding this:
Q) On what basis did TfGM feel able to make that agreement? The recently published Phase 2 Final Designs now present a plan that can no longer be called a Low Traffic Neighbourhood. The final plans show a leaky design and over reliance on traffic calming where modal filters would be a cheaper and more effective intervention.
Q) If the DRP did make an agreement to approve the Phase 2 Final Designs, did TfGM concede to MCC and accept designs that do not meet the standards of an LTN? (Which current the plans clearly do not)
Q) How did TfGM come to make an agreement with MCC? On what basis was this deal agreed and what standards were used to approve the final designs?
Q) Has a Streets for All survey been carried out on these Phase 2 Final Designs?
Q) Are the claims made by Ian Halton regarding TfGM rejecting further filters and insisting on more traffic calming accurate?
S4PLB are asking that these questions are answered within the next few weeks and that these answers are made public.
2. Phase 2 Final Design Published October 13th 2022 – Public Statement Requested
https://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/7488/levenshulme_and_burnage_phase_2_final_designs
The recently published plans show that the scheme has been watered down yet again, with the Cyclops junctions now absent and parking bays retained where segregated cycles were originally planned.
Furthermore, other aspects of the scheme are simply dangerous. S4PLB members are not experts in highways engineering but even to us there are examples from the Final Phase 2 designs that will result in an environment that is more dangerous for active travel users than the current situation. The ineffective long speed tables on Broom Lane and segregated cycle track pushing cyclists onto the A6 being key examples of this.
The scheme overall proposes spending a lot of capital on speed calming rather than genuine attempts to reprioritise the use of road space in the area.In January of this year around the time of his departure from his role as Walking and Cycling Commissioner, Chris Boardman sent an email to our campaign. In this email he acknowledged the plans then for Levenshulme and Burnage no longer created joined-up corridors to get people to where they want to go and that schemes which receive post-consultation changes that result in not meeting the criteria should be considered ‘at risk’ of losing funding.
Representatives from your own team have confirmed publicly that the Final Phase 2 plans do not have design approval and the Active Travel Commissioner’s office have not seen them prior to publication. https://twitter.com/PeteZanzottera/status/1580852018029088768
Considering the above and the Active Travel Commissioner’s forthcoming “Reaffirm the mission” event, S4PLB are calling for an official response from your office to state that these designs do not meet the required Bee Network standards and an urgent rethink is needed. We ask that this statement is made in the next few weeks.
If your office is not prepared to make this statement it would call into question the very function of the Active Travel Commissioner. The leadership on the Bee Network cannot just focus on positives, key stakeholders involved in the project need to be prepared to be critical of poor designs that erode the overall vision of the Bee Network.
Continued delivery of substandard projects that barely pay lip service to the Bee Network standards and are approved by the very bodies established to ensure funds are not misspent, will cause reputational damage to all parties involved.
If TfGM and Manchester City Council cannot find a way to deliver effective active travel schemes, they are at risk of having future funding bids denied.
Yours sincerely
The Organising Committee – S4PLB
Streets for People - Levenshulme and Burnage 