Travel Ipswich consultations

Well, the plans look as if apart feom these little patches (urm, ASLs) there is no cycle infra to speak of in the proposal.

I do like the presentation though. The colour on the drawings helps, I think. In Newcastle we get these engineering drawings that can be dreadful to understand.

Back to Ipswich. What's the road context? Traffic volume, speed etc? Do we know?

This one looks to be mostly harmless - and a genuine improvement for pedestrians.

A couple of points:

1. The cycle gate leading to the ASL on the Bishops Hill approach needs to be between the two traffic lanes rather than (or as well as) the one on the left. An ASL is most useful for right turning cyclists but the proposed layout prevents them accessing it safely and legally.

2. The splitter island on Felixtowe Rd could create a pinch point which may result in dangerous overtaking. No dimensions are shown but you want to be looking at a lane width of at least 4.5m.

There is another central island just off the plans heading east towards the town centre and this looks to be really nasty:

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=ipswich&ll=52.049785,1.17164&spn=0.0000...

A zebra crossing would be an improvement.

A missed opportunity here - the thinking is still 1970s maximise motor traffic speeds at the expense of people.

The main problem is the giratory system - return Woodbridge Road and St Helens Street to two-way working and Argyle Street would be virtually traffic free. I can't imagine that the higher speeds actually save drivers any time due to the extra distances and junctions they face.

These streets should to be subject to a 20mph limit.

However, questioning god of high speed motor traffic flow would probably be far to radical for traffic engineers to contemplate. So if you want some suggestions for minor tinkering:

1. There needs to be a pedestrian crossing across Argyl Street. (under the one-way arrangement this will be the most difficult  arm to cross as it will have the greatest traffic flow (both of pedestrians and vehicles) and, as it is an exit,  the vehicle traffic will not be interrupted by the normal light sequence.

2. The corner radius needs to be tightened to slow motor traffic.

3. The cycle gap to the ASL should be between the traffic lanes to enable turning cycles to access it.

This scheme is beyond redemption and needs sending back to the drawing board - it basically entrenches the existing layout which is apalling even by UK standards. It is so obvious by the way they cram in as many traffic lanes as possible and send pedestrians on long diversions that the only concern is with moving motor traffic. However, it looks so badly designed  that I doubt the junction works effeciently even on those terms. 

There are incredibly thin cycle lanes, barely wider than the double yellow lines that force cyclists to turn left (assuming they could fit inside them in the first place). Do they seriously expect cyclists heading east to get on the pavement, ride north, cross Blenheim Road, use a two stage pedestrian crossing with a convuluted staggered cattle pen and presumably a long delay on each stage, ride back south on the other pavement and the rejoin the road five minutes later?