The official website of the North Devon Green Party

Join the Green Party and you'll receive our local quarterly newsletter, as well as invitations to Green Events. You'll be invited to attend meetings, join our discussion list, vote on issues, and contribute to our campaigns and policies for North Devon.

The Bradworthy Wind Turbines

return to main Local Action Page

Local Action - Transport - Barnstaple Western Bypass

Members of the North Devon Green Party often involve themselves deeply with local issues, putting personal time and energy into making the green voice heard, when all other voices muddy into brown.

This area documents some of those campaigns.

Barnstaple Bypass – Pedestrians and Cyclists, a letter from Mike Harrison, March 2005

Letter to Councillors Rodney Cann, Brian Greenslade, Ricky Knight, Derrick Spear, Nick Harvey MP

Copies to David Cowler DCC, Joe Deasy DCC, Michelle Peart GOSW, David Dodd NDC, Cherry Allan CTC, John Grimshaw Sustrans

Dear Councillor

The Barnstaple bypass, construction recently started, will under current plans contain serious shortcomings for pedestrians and cyclists. The three main deficiencies would seem to be:

1. Many of the pedestrian and cycle paths are to be built below current guideline standards.
2. Access to North Devon College has been insufficiently addressed and will create problems.
3. Opportunities to create a more sustainable transport network for the town may be missed.

Three weeks ago I expressed these concerns in an email sent to Devon County Council. The response was prompt but I question the adequacy and accuracy of contents that failed to address these points. I enclose copies of the email and return letter. Below, I explain the background and reasoning in detail for each of these potential problems. Officer speak on this matter is that the scheme is fully planned, got permissions/orders and is under contract. This argument I find unacceptable. There have been flaws in the planning process which should be put right. The plans were modified several times since the original drawings (some parts are still under discussion) and there was and is ample time to amend pedestrian and cycle facilities to meet current standards. The pedestrian and cycle paths are one of the last things to be done and the quality of build does not relate to the traffic regulation orders.

1. Building to Guideline Standards
Information about satisfactory quality of build can be found in ‘Local Transport Notes 2/04: Adjacent and shared use facilities for pedestrians and cyclists’. This came out on 12th May 2004, intended as a replacement for LTN 2/86. Plans for the bypass were mostly produced in 2003 but there have been modifications. Changes could have included much of this information because otherwise the end product would be deemed out of date the moment it opened. DCC claim that they have designed correct facilities according to LTN 2/86. Not only is this nearly twenty years old but also it was superseded by the National Cycle Strategy in 1996, Cycle Friendly Infrastructure IHT 1996, Guidelines for National Cycle Network (e.g. Tarka Trail) in 1997, Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Review IHT 1998 and Guidelines for providing for journeys on foot IHT 2000. Many of the paths planned do not meet these guidelines. A cycle audit should have picked up shortcomings.

It is important to design to current guidelines. Where facilities are substandard, cyclists may well go on and off the carriageway, pedestrians may cross busy highways or private land and there may be collisions or ill feelings between pedestrians and cyclists. In other words safety implications which would reflect on the council. On top of this there would be a failure to mobilise suppressed demand.

DCC in each case appears only to envisage designated minimum standards. There are several reasons why this is not sound. Government guidelines put in bold type: ‘Practitioners should not regard minimum widths as design targets’ (LTN 2/04 6.2.2). Minimum widths are inappropriate on slopes because of the variations in speed. In urban areas there are likely to be higher flows and a large number of people walking dogs. It is also desirable that major tourist facilities have appropriate infrastructure because of potential income generation and for many this is the gateway to North Devon.

The intention is that some of the paths will be segregated and others will be unsegregated. Current thinking is that ‘there should be a presumption in favour of segregation in the absence of reasons for not doing so’ (LTN 2/04 6.1.1). Segregated paths are envisaged for those coinciding with commuter routes whilst unsegregated paths are for those primarily leisure routes (Tarka Trail). This is logical. The problem is with the design of the segregated routes. Figures that I was given by the DCC planner on site were 0.5m verge, 1.5m cycleway and 1.2m footway. The letter from County Hall (8th March/DMCowler) said 0.5m verge, 1.2m cycleway and 1.5m footway with white line segregation. Two bicycles in opposite directions can barely pass each other in 1.2m – the most common handlebar width is 0.6m. These paths are mostly on gradients where speed differences are considerable. There will be use by cycle trailers, child carriers and tricycles which will be problematic given that by law cycles should not cross into the pedestrian part. Clearly these measurements are inadequate and potentially dangerous. LTN 2/04 4.6.2 states “If pedestrian or cyclist usage is likely to be considerable, there should be a presumption towards providing an adjacent cycle track and footpath/footway, preferably segregated by level difference”. The level suggested is 50mm (6.1.10). The minimum acceptable width is 1.5m for a footway (allows pedestrians to pass a wheelchair) (6.2.5) and 2.0m is suggested for cyclists. Section 6.2.6 states: “A cycle track width of 2.0m will allow two cyclists to pass each other but this should be regarded as the minimum acceptable under most circumstances.” It goes on to explain that additional width is required if street furniture is adjacent to the cycle track (table provided in 6.2.10). These dimensions are entirely concurrent with the 1997 guidelines. They are minimum dimensions. The suggestion is that higher figures should be used ‘wherever practicable’.

For a shared use path the desirable minimum width is 3.0m – the width used in the vicinity for much of the Tarka Trail. Such widths should be taken ‘as a starting point’ and ‘local conditions and opinion will need to be taken into account’ (6.2.14). Given that these are predominately leisure routes there would seem to be less of a problem. As above, allowance should be made for adjacent street furniture.

There are other aspects of design that need consideration. ‘In general a design speed of 30-35km/h is desirable for cycle facilities’ (LTN 2/04 9.2.1) and as a consequence sight lines and radii at curves should be adequate. Other issues concern starts/finishes, kerbs, surfaces, signing and maintenance.

2. Access to North Devon College/Barnstaple’s pedestrian and cycle network
The link between the town centre and North Devon College is probably the busiest sub central pedestrian and cycle flow in North Devon. The college generates enormous problems over a wide area with motor traffic and parking. Sustainable movements are desirable and should be promoted. Yet plans for the bypass would seem to degrade such a possibility by adding extra length and involving impediments to smooth progress. I enclose a sheet with a map (on the left) that shows the proposed changes to the lower part of Sticklepath Hill. The right hand map is a suggested variation (details below).

The direct route from Sticklepath Terrace to Old Sticklepath Hill is to be replaced by a curving segregated path beside the new busway to the station. At the college end of this route the suggestion is to continue up steps located half way up Sticklepath Hill. The alternative is to swing back to reach the lower end of Old Sticklepath Hill. According to the DCC response (8th March/DMCowler) this ‘will result in a diversion of no more than 50 metres which is unavoidable if we are to produce a scheme of this magnitude in this location’. A diversion of 50m results in a longer total journey length as you have to get back on the original route – the distance is certainly around 100m and possibly the 130m (or 140m using the steps) of my sketch map.

The council’s suggestion that the steps would form a route to the college takes some comprehending. When I enquired about a cycle route to the college, I was told I could go up the steps! This route fails all the criteria of both the 1996 and 2004 guidelines. The steps are 1.4m wide and could not possibly cope with the peak flows of pedestrians. They are steep and shady and the 33 steps rise 5m, which would prove difficult for people with even minor disabilities. There would be pedestrians going up and down at the same time, perhaps in a hurry. Almost every cyclist would balk at the prospect of carrying a (laden) bike up the steps and to descend with one would be dangerous. A move in either direction would not be possible if pedestrians were on the steps at the time. And then there are the buses, which currently pick up and drop passengers in Old Sticklepath Hill (planned closure at bottom). I have been informed that the buses will stop in Sticklepath Hill though I’m sure this must be under discussion. As the top part is a main road, is it envisaged that they stop lower down and that their passengers also use the steps? I can sense concerned residents in this area. There has to be a better alternative.

Government guidelines state that ‘an overarching principle that any new measures proposed for pedestrians and cyclists should represent a real improvement over the existing situation, particularly in terms of accessibility’ (LTN 1/04 1.1.5). Earlier guidelines stressed the idea of directness (1996 above). The question is what is practicable. DCC’s ‘unavoidable’ can be questioned. The bypass in this location is on a viaduct so that there is a choice in the position that the pathway/cycle track crosses below it. A more direct route is possible, as is indicated on the right hand ‘modified’ map. The constraint would seem to be the desirability of extending the station car park. People and cyclists often cross car parks (and on the suggested plans would be tempted to do so) and it could easily be divided with an overflow section (on present use it is already more than adequate in size). Was enough thought given to this?

Given the importance of this route it is essential that adequate design specifications are used. Probably this would be the busiest of the adjacent use paths in the bypass plans and should be built at more than the minimum widths, together with a 50mm drop, for reasons and information stated in Section 1. Building to Guideline Standards. Some points are suggested on the Modified Version of the maps provided. Design should reflect the core principles of LTN 1/04 3.2.2 – 3.2.7 which for example stress the need to avoid delays and interruptions to a route.

This is not simply a question of providing a quality route to the college. Other actual and potential flows of pedestrians and cyclists use the area and several components of a network of routes for Barnstaple intersect here. Safe Routes to Schools are a high priority. At present a quality route leads from the Park School across the Taw and to Severn Brethren – this can link with the Sticklepath route to give access to residential areas south of the river. A new route is being developed from Pilton Community College to Pottington which will connect with paths across the new bridge. Pedestrian and cycle movements at the top of Sticklepath Hill need to be considered and facilities should be appropriately designed. Links to the station is another special case. Direct, continuous and safe – I hope so! This is also a key commuter route into the town centre or for shopping or leisure journeys.

3. Opportunities for a sustainable future
Where good quality facilities are built in the right place cyclists will appear and use them. Who could have predicted how successful the Tarka Trail was going to be? With the rising cost of motoring and congestion and frustration many people welcome a choice of travel mode. People can enjoy walking significant distances if there is the right environment. Any plan or major development for Barnstaple should be seeking to enhance these possibilities. One of Barnstaple’s attractions is its extensive pedestrian and cycle network, mostly built to a good standard and including pleasant sections of the national cycle network.

Construction of the bypass produces an opportunity to render this network more comprehensive. Such a situation coupled with workplace and destination facilities could radically influence people’s choice of transport mode. Not only would this offer choice to the residents of the Barnstaple area but it would also be in tune with current government strategies with regard to integrated transport. This would be money well spent and could attract more.

Barnstaple’s Western Bypass is clearly Devon’s biggest transport project. It would be a pity if the outcome fell short for a local community interested in sustainable transport and a healthy, pleasant lifestyle. Using documents from 1986 is short sighted. There has been a resurgence in cycling and walking since then, which local planning should reflect.

Yours sincerely

Mike Harrison
CTC Right to Ride Representative

Barnstaple Bypass – Pedestrians and Cyclists

Letter to Councillors Rodney Cann, Brian Greenslade, Ricky Knight, Derrick Spear, Nick Harvey MP
Copies to David Cowler DCC, Joe Deasy DCC, Michelle Peart GOSW, David Dodd NDC, Cherry Allan CTC, John Grimshaw Sustrans

Dear Councillor

The Barnstaple bypass, construction recently started, will under current plans contain serious shortcomings for pedestrians and cyclists. The three main deficiencies would seem to be:

1. Many of the pedestrian and cycle paths are to be built below current guideline standards.
2. Access to North Devon College has been insufficiently addressed and will create problems.
3. Opportunities to create a more sustainable transport network for the town may be missed.

Three weeks ago I expressed these concerns in an email sent to Devon County Council. The response was prompt but I question the adequacy and accuracy of contents that failed to address these points. I enclose copies of the email and return letter. Below, I explain the background and reasoning in detail for each of these potential problems. Officer speak on this matter is that the scheme is fully planned, got permissions/orders and is under contract. This argument I find unacceptable. There have been flaws in the planning process which should be put right. The plans were modified several times since the original drawings (some parts are still under discussion) and there was and is ample time to amend pedestrian and cycle facilities to meet current standards. The pedestrian and cycle paths are one of the last things to be done and the quality of build does not relate to the traffic regulation orders.

1. Building to Guideline Standards
Information about satisfactory quality of build can be found in ‘Local Transport Notes 2/04: Adjacent and shared use facilities for pedestrians and cyclists’. This came out on 12th May 2004, intended as a replacement for LTN 2/86. Plans for the bypass were mostly produced in 2003 but there have been modifications. Changes could have included much of this information because otherwise the end product would be deemed out of date the moment it opened. DCC claim that they have designed correct facilities according to LTN 2/86. Not only is this nearly twenty years old but also it was superseded by the National Cycle Strategy in 1996, Cycle Friendly Infrastructure IHT 1996, Guidelines for National Cycle Network (e.g. Tarka Trail) in 1997, Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Review IHT 1998 and Guidelines for providing for journeys on foot IHT 2000. Many of the paths planned do not meet these guidelines. A cycle audit should have picked up shortcomings.

It is important to design to current guidelines. Where facilities are substandard, cyclists may well go on and off the carriageway, pedestrians may cross busy highways or private land and there may be collisions or ill feelings between pedestrians and cyclists. In other words safety implications which would reflect on the council. On top of this there would be a failure to mobilise suppressed demand.

DCC in each case appears only to envisage designated minimum standards. There are several reasons why this is not sound. Government guidelines put in bold type: ‘Practitioners should not regard minimum widths as design targets’ (LTN 2/04 6.2.2). Minimum widths are inappropriate on slopes because of the variations in speed. In urban areas there are likely to be higher flows and a large number of people walking dogs. It is also desirable that major tourist facilities have appropriate infrastructure because of potential income generation and for many this is the gateway to North Devon.

The intention is that some of the paths will be segregated and others will be unsegregated. Current thinking is that ‘there should be a presumption in favour of segregation in the absence of reasons for not doing so’ (LTN 2/04 6.1.1). Segregated paths are envisaged for those coinciding with commuter routes whilst unsegregated paths are for those primarily leisure routes (Tarka Trail). This is logical. The problem is with the design of the segregated routes. Figures that I was given by the DCC planner on site were 0.5m verge, 1.5m cycleway and 1.2m footway. The letter from County Hall (8th March/DMCowler) said 0.5m verge, 1.2m cycleway and 1.5m footway with white line segregation. Two bicycles in opposite directions can barely pass each other in 1.2m – the most common handlebar width is 0.6m. These paths are mostly on gradients where speed differences are considerable. There will be use by cycle trailers, child carriers and tricycles which will be problematic given that by law cycles should not cross into the pedestrian part. Clearly these measurements are inadequate and potentially dangerous. LTN 2/04 4.6.2 states “If pedestrian or cyclist usage is likely to be considerable, there should be a presumption towards providing an adjacent cycle track and footpath/footway, preferably segregated by level difference”. The level suggested is 50mm (6.1.10). The minimum acceptable width is 1.5m for a footway (allows pedestrians to pass a wheelchair) (6.2.5) and 2.0m is suggested for cyclists. Section 6.2.6 states: “A cycle track width of 2.0m will allow two cyclists to pass each other but this should be regarded as the minimum acceptable under most circumstances.” It goes on to explain that additional width is required if street furniture is adjacent to the cycle track (table provided in 6.2.10). These dimensions are entirely concurrent with the 1997 guidelines. They are minimum dimensions. The suggestion is that higher figures should be used ‘wherever practicable’.

For a shared use path the desirable minimum width is 3.0m – the width used in the vicinity for much of the Tarka Trail. Such widths should be taken ‘as a starting point’ and ‘local conditions and opinion will need to be taken into account’ (6.2.14). Given that these are predominately leisure routes there would seem to be less of a problem. As above, allowance should be made for adjacent street furniture.

There are other aspects of design that need consideration. ‘In general a design speed of 30-35km/h is desirable for cycle facilities’ (LTN 2/04 9.2.1) and as a consequence sight lines and radii at curves should be adequate. Other issues concern starts/finishes, kerbs, surfaces, signing and maintenance.

2. Access to North Devon College/Barnstaple’s pedestrian and cycle network
The link between the town centre and North Devon College is probably the busiest sub central pedestrian and cycle flow in North Devon. The college generates enormous problems over a wide area with motor traffic and parking. Sustainable movements are desirable and should be promoted. Yet plans for the bypass would seem to degrade such a possibility by adding extra length and involving impediments to smooth progress. I enclose a sheet with a map (on the left) that shows the proposed changes to the lower part of Sticklepath Hill. The right hand map is a suggested variation (details below).

The direct route from Sticklepath Terrace to Old Sticklepath Hill is to be replaced by a curving segregated path beside the new busway to the station. At the college end of this route the suggestion is to continue up steps located half way up Sticklepath Hill. The alternative is to swing back to reach the lower end of Old Sticklepath Hill. According to the DCC response (8th March/DMCowler) this ‘will result in a diversion of no more than 50 metres which is unavoidable if we are to produce a scheme of this magnitude in this location’. A diversion of 50m results in a longer total journey length as you have to get back on the original route – the distance is certainly around 100m and possibly the 130m (or 140m using the steps) of my sketch map.

The council’s suggestion that the steps would form a route to the college takes some comprehending. When I enquired about a cycle route to the college, I was told I could go up the steps! This route fails all the criteria of both the 1996 and 2004 guidelines. The steps are 1.4m wide and could not possibly cope with the peak flows of pedestrians. They are steep and shady and the 33 steps rise 5m, which would prove difficult for people with even minor disabilities. There would be pedestrians going up and down at the same time, perhaps in a hurry. Almost every cyclist would balk at the prospect of carrying a (laden) bike up the steps and to descend with one would be dangerous. A move in either direction would not be possible if pedestrians were on the steps at the time. And then there are the buses, which currently pick up and drop passengers in Old Sticklepath Hill (planned closure at bottom). I have been informed that the buses will stop in Sticklepath Hill though I’m sure this must be under discussion. As the top part is a main road, is it envisaged that they stop lower down and that their passengers also use the steps? I can sense concerned residents in this area. There has to be a better alternative.

Government guidelines state that ‘an overarching principle that any new measures proposed for pedestrians and cyclists should represent a real improvement over the existing situation, particularly in terms of accessibility’ (LTN 1/04 1.1.5). Earlier guidelines stressed the idea of directness (1996 above). The question is what is practicable. DCC’s ‘unavoidable’ can be questioned. The bypass in this location is on a viaduct so that there is a choice in the position that the pathway/cycle track crosses below it. A more direct route is possible, as is indicated on the right hand ‘modified’ map. The constraint would seem to be the desirability of extending the station car park. People and cyclists often cross car parks (and on the suggested plans would be tempted to do so) and it could easily be divided with an overflow section (on present use it is already more than adequate in size). Was enough thought given to this?

Given the importance of this route it is essential that adequate design specifications are used. Probably this would be the busiest of the adjacent use paths in the bypass plans and should be built at more than the minimum widths, together with a 50mm drop, for reasons and information stated in Section 1. Building to Guideline Standards. Some points are suggested on the Modified Version of the maps provided. Design should reflect the core principles of LTN 1/04 3.2.2 – 3.2.7 which for example stress the need to avoid delays and interruptions to a route.

This is not simply a question of providing a quality route to the college. Other actual and potential flows of pedestrians and cyclists use the area and several components of a network of routes for Barnstaple intersect here. Safe Routes to Schools are a high priority. At present a quality route leads from the Park School across the Taw and to Severn Brethren – this can link with the Sticklepath route to give access to residential areas south of the river. A new route is being developed from Pilton Community College to Pottington which will connect with paths across the new bridge. Pedestrian and cycle movements at the top of Sticklepath Hill need to be considered and facilities should be appropriately designed. Links to the station is another special case. Direct, continuous and safe – I hope so! This is also a key commuter route into the town centre or for shopping or leisure journeys.

3. Opportunities for a sustainable future
Where good quality facilities are built in the right place cyclists will appear and use them. Who could have predicted how successful the Tarka Trail was going to be? With the rising cost of motoring and congestion and frustration many people welcome a choice of travel mode. People can enjoy walking significant distances if there is the right environment. Any plan or major development for Barnstaple should be seeking to enhance these possibilities. One of Barnstaple’s attractions is its extensive pedestrian and cycle network, mostly built to a good standard and including pleasant sections of the national cycle network.

Construction of the bypass produces an opportunity to render this network more comprehensive. Such a situation coupled with workplace and destination facilities could radically influence people’s choice of transport mode. Not only would this offer choice to the residents of the Barnstaple area but it would also be in tune with current government strategies with regard to integrated transport. This would be money well spent and could attract more.

Barnstaple’s Western Bypass is clearly Devon’s biggest transport project. It would be a pity if the outcome fell short for a local community interested in sustainable transport and a healthy, pleasant lifestyle. Using documents from 1986 is short sighted. There has been a resurgence in cycling and walking since then, which local planning should reflect.

Yours sincerely

Mike Harrison
CTC Right to Ride Representative

Letter to Councillors Rodney Cann, Brian Greenslade, Ricky Knight, Derrick Spear, Nick Harvey MP
Copies to David Cowler DCC, Joe Deasy DCC, Michelle Peart GOSW, David Dodd NDC, Cherry Allan CTC, John Grimshaw Sustrans

Local Transport Plan 2006 - 2011 and Reality?

A letter from Mike Harrison, CTC Right to Ride Network Representative for North Devon, Feb 2005

Tackling congestion, improving accessibility, safer roads, better air quality? Improved pedestrian and cycle facilities match all these themes. Perhaps the first large scheme to come along in the funding period arrives with deficiencies in these areas. What value then the rest of the LTP?

Barnstaple Western By pass

The Report of the County Environment Director (03/11/99: ED/99/361/HQ) commented:

"This strategy seeks to give priority to pedestrians, public transport and cyclists whilst redirecting other vehicular traffic away from the town centre."

"At the bottom of the existing Sticklepath Hill, an underpass will be provided for pedestrians, cyclists and buses. This will provide direct access to the railway station without having to use the new Sticklepath junction. In addition pedestrians and cyclists will be able to access the town centre via the stopped up Sticklepath Terrace."

With construction now begun concerns are growing that the scheme may not deliver satisfactory facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. There is an opportunity to enhance the pedestrian and cycle network of the town and encourage modal shift. However, if the quality of provision is deficient there could be impairment of the key themes.

Possible shortcomings

1 Design specifications.

The pedestrian and cycle paths associated with the by pass are at or below the minimum widths recommended in the guidelines. I believe that the line segregated paths alongside the bridge and approaches will be 0.5m verge, 1.5m cycle, 1.2m pedestrian (Guideline minima 2.0/1.5 if unbounded; absolute minima 1.5/1.5 or 1.75/1.5 if bounded). In places the verge may contain safety fencing and signs. The intended width for the unsegregated paths would seem to be 3.0m. This is the minimum suggested width and if applied to some of the paths would lead to significant conflict and safety implications between pedestrians and cyclists. Building at or below the minima suggested would seem mean, given the scale of the construction. Three further points apply:

(a) This is an urban area with high demand, for example dog walking or journeys to work or the shops. Facilities should be of ample size.

(b) Sticklepath is the arrival point for many visitors to the area and the Tarka Trail a showcase attraction. Quality and functionality of facilities may influence potential tourist revenue.

(c) Many paths are on significant gradients where the differential speeds will be significant. For reasons of safety it is essential that there is adequate width.

2. Design criteria.

The criteria for cycle and pedestrian facilities are that they are direct, continuous, coherent and safe. The route between the town centre and North Devon College is probably the busiest pedestrian route in North Devon. Local congestion and parking issues make clear the importance of encouraging the sustainable modes. Plans clearly fall short of the criteria. Why should pedestrians and cyclists go on three sides of a square, adding 130m to their journey, so that the station car park can be extended? The alternative route suggested is up steep and narrow steps -–clearly not safe, probably couldn’t cope with flows and is in fact longer. There are additional issues of mixing modes and creating interruptions to the route. This key route provides access to the station and, for people who live south of the river, access to Park School and town centre shops and employment. Elsewhere, it is unfortunate that the deviation of the Tarka Trail is so marked – at least attention could be paid to radii of curves and sight lines.

Clearly observations like these would be more appropriate at the design stage. I am informed that there was a cycle audit on the scheme and that "our engineers are cyclists". Given the mismatches with criteria, I am surprised. I have been writing, visiting and asking questions for nine months but only now am managing to glean details. There have been and continue to be modifications to the original plans. Ameliorations for pedestrians and cyclists are possible. Yesterday I supplied your person on site, Pete Smith, with information. It would be short sighted and unnecessary to provide less than quality facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

"£42m to make things worse for pedestrians and cyclists. Sticklepath screw-up!"

A letter from Mike Harrison, Feb 2005

In the rush to get tarmac for motor vehicles has proper consideration been given to pedestrians and cyclists? By far the greatest flow is between the centre of town and North Devon College and yet the plans will cause a significant inconvenience and add new dangers. Sub standard and mixed modes facilities can cause problems.

Nationally, and indeed elsewhere in Barnstaple, the aim is to improve non car methods of getting to schools and colleges but at Sticklepath we will get the disincentive of added distance for walking and no evidence that facilities will be of good quality. Cycle facilities need to be direct, continuous and safe. Devon CC's plans would seem to fail on all counts. The sketch maps show how the bottom of Sticklepath Hill is planned to be and how, given the intrusion of the by-pass the situation could be ameliorated.

(update: The original information did not include the fact that new steps are likely on the lower part of Sticklepath Hill which would ameliorate the situation described, though it still could remain an inferior facility)

(click on the thumbnail maps for larger versions)

The Correspondence of Mike Harrison

Following the exhibition in the Pannier Market (which included a model of transport proposals for Barnstaple) I wrote a letter to the North Devon Journal suggesting that the plans were flawed. I was hoping to spark off a debate which, ideally, would lead to changes – however there was very little further correspondence. The newspaper letter began with "Blessing or blight? A new bridge brings opportunities but get the details wrong and it’s hello, problems".

At the same time, I wrote to the County Council embedding my NDJ letter. The County Council has done many good things for the benign modes and had responded positively to earlier enquiries I had made about cycling in North Devon. Thus I aimed for a more constructive approach: the paper had "Failure 1" and so on but in the letter (reproduced below) this was changed to "Concern 1". The longer letter added sections – it began with a discussion of planning priorities and ended with a list of specific questions. I sent copies of it to concerned parties under the heading "Barnstaple deserves better" asking for a response. These went to Nick Harvey (reply awaited), to North Devon District Council (no reply yet), to Darling and Government Office South West (reply very quick: County Council is the highway authority!) and to cycle groups (CTC contacted me to discuss issues).

Croyde
26th May 2004

Mr J Deasy
Local Service Officer Barnstaple
Environment Directorate
Civic Centre
Barnstaple
Devon
EX31 1ED

Transport changes in Barnstaple

Dear Mr Deasy

"Providing choices to the car and protecting Devon’s outstanding environment" are words that begin the Local Plan. Does the council have priorities for transport planning such as these (with some local applications)?

1. Pedestrians – providing direct and pleasant routes for walking.

Between the town centre and station/college.

From sub-central car parks.

In the Strand/riverside area.

2. Cyclists – producing a quality network offering realistic travel choice.

Routes to schools/college/hospital that are direct, continuous and safe.

Coherent routes to heart of the town centre.

Developing leisure and utility routes such as the Tarka Trail and associated links.

3. Buses – serious bus priority to improve frequency, times and reliability.

Bus lanes approaching centre, at least from south and west.

Bus stops and routes that reflect demand.

Integration with other modes.

4. Service and emergency vehicles.

5. Taxis.

6. Delivery vehicles.

7. Disabled drivers.

8. Car-using local traffic.

9. Visiting/transiting traffic.

10. Non-essential heavy goods traffic.

General points:

Conserving and enhancing the special local environment.

Supporting and facilitating the local economy.

Maximising the Tarka Trail and other such local assets.

Matching government guidelines and Devon Local Plan.

If so, why such scant match with new developments proposed for Barnstaple? The councils should be applauded for staging the exhibition and widening the debate but I cannot feel reassured. In earlier discussions related to this matter it seemed as though developments could offer opportunities to improve transport whilst showing respect for the environment in North Devon. Visiting the exhibition I now realise that the scale and narrow focus of the scheme raise serious questions. I outline below several of my concerns.

Concern 1. The downstream bridge will underperform for the town centre. In Bideford a new bridge radically rearranged town centre traffic flows. Many cities enjoy historic bridges that have been enhanced and are a pleasure for the pedestrian. What is envisaged for Barnstaple? The bulk of the traffic coming daily from south of the river is aiming for the town centre – the Long Bridge looks set to remain the main option. The ‘Downstream Bridge’ has become on the maps the ‘Barnstaple Western By-Pass’. Will the result for a hugely important pedestrian route and visual key area be low air quality and delays whilst traffic crawls past? Will hopes of serious bus priority evaporate?

Concern 2. The scale of Sticklepath junction will be totally inappropriate for its central location. The huge roundabout would be in keeping with an access point to the M4. It will take much land and have a big impact visually, with massive noise generation from its raised network. Money-no-object solutions go underground (Conway, Stonehenge) – at least, here, keeping the road as low as possible would mitigate its effects.

Concern 3. The enhanced pedestrian and cycle facilities could be illusory. It is good to see considerable thought given to the existence of pedestrians and cyclists. However many of the suggestions represent ‘bolt-ons’, looping and undulating around the main scheme. The existing busy pedestrian route between the town centre and the college is direct and climbs steadily – will its successor take more effort and time? Cycle routes need to be direct, continuous and safe – it is doubtful whether those envisaged match these criteria. Serious cyclists will opt for the road, as in Milton Keynes, but will they be safe with multi-lane junctions engineered for high speeds?

Concern 4. Something special for the Strand may not be secured. Maximising Barnstaple’s river frontage is axiomatic and the Strand is its essential link to the town centre. Suggestions for a one-way street cause concern: they can be dangerous race-tracks with traffic speeding to make up for the longer journey, cyclists stranded and pedestrians fearful. To enhance the Strand and the area around, comprehensive restrictions will be required, such as bollards to stop through traffic.

Concern 5. The Tarka Line integrity will be lost. It may be in years to come (diminishing petrol supplies?) that a light rail system could once again connect Bideford with the national network. Prudence would suggest that the old rail route be kept intact, not covered in earth and concrete.

Concern 6. Expectations for ‘Park and Change’ may be unrealistic. Large cities with massive congestion problems have had some success with Park and Ride but its operation is problematic in smaller centres and it can generate extra traffic in rural areas. Where there is perceived roadspace (as we have now) and central car parking possibilities, motorists will choose to stay with their cars.

I do not relish being critical of the County Council given that, to date, they have done splendid things for pedestrians and cyclists but I am concerned whether this is planning for the 21st Century. Would it be possible to know what consideration was given to these points?

Minimising the environmental impact of the new highway.

New access route to the college.

Bus ‘gates’ or priority at Sticklepath Terrace and Rolle Street.

An arched bridge with maximum height over main channel near north shore.

Pedestrian/cycle low level crossing at Downstream Bridge.

Keeping the Tarka Line route intact – road passing underneath.

Pedestrian improvements (less delays, more pleasant) on Long Bridge – Sticklepath.

Quiet area with clean air for the Strand.

Car parks accessed from main roads.

Clearly new roads can enable temporary improvements for motorists, though it may mean jams elsewhere. This is an opportunity but my conclusion has to be: Barnstaple deserves better.

A letter to the Journal from Ricky Knight

Dear Sir / Madam,
Once again, the Journal confuses reportage with comment in its front-page article on the Friends of the Earth / Transport 2000 court action to halt the building of the down-stream bridge. The named individual, Mr Tony Bown, was the North Devon Green Party candidate at the last election. His legal challenge to the building of this bridge is bold and principled and does not warrant an orchestrated put-down by ostensibly objective local media. By all means mount campaigns but do not let them permeate the tone of reporting dissent. The North Devon Green Party wholeheartedly supports the serious ecological misgivings presented by Friends of the Earth and fully supports the comments made by Mr Bown, quoted in the article. To simply adopt the angle that the democratic due processes of Law are only going to lead to further frustrating delays is a rather unfortunate and self-indulgent lament.

The whole strategy of curing the curse of traffic gridlock by building more roads is, just in case the Journal is unaware, debatable. Similarly, the systematic degradation and destruction of the countryside is a burning issue of international concern. The vast majority of people actually acknowledge the merits of "Think Globally, Act Locally" but unfortunately we are also prone to considering our own locality as a special exception. There is a significant number of well-informed and very concerned individuals, who are by no means convinced that Barnstaple's traffic problems are even going to be eased by this bridge, let alone cured. It is a hugely expensive, political flagship-project, which threatens to become a monumental white elephant. Friends of the Earth and Mr Bown are to be congratulated, not vilified.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Ricky Knight
North Devon Green Party

Website designed by Jon Hooper

Published and promoted by Jon Hooper, 3 Elizabeth Court, Well Street, Torrington EX38 8EP on behalf of the North Devon Green Party, 1 Taw View Terrace, Bishops Tawton, EX32 0AW

PLEASE NOTE: Not all of the material presented on this site is necessarily Green Party Policy or endorsed by The Green Party.