Heres the proposed road building at Wessex Fields Planned as part of Bournemouth Local Enterprise Partnership Business Park, and the Cycle forums response,  you can see all phases for this here  .You can see more from the Forum here

Bournemouth Cycle Forum – Response to A338 proposals, 26th June 2017

On Monday 12th June, Council Officers presented the latest proposals for the A338 / Wessex Fields Development to the Bournemouth Cycle Forum. The Cycle Forum would like to thank the officers and others involved for the opportunity to view and comment, and gives the following feedback:


  • The Cycle Forum believes the proposals presented do not cater adequately for the needs of cyclists and pedestrians.
  • The current proposals are a significant missed opportunity to create infrastructure that can be used safely by all road users including cyclists and pedestrians.
  • Without creating safe and appealing infrastructure for these road users, congestion is likely to increase more considerably than if suitable routes were created. The benefits of cycling are well understood. Research shows that “inadequate routes”, “fear of being hit”, and “negotiating junctions” are the three most significant factors which deter people from cycling. There is a growing body of evidence that if proper cycling infrastructure is built, people will use it. If it isn’t, people are less likely to cycle or walk.
  • Where a new road is being constructed, the cycle forum would urge strong consideration of segregated cycle lanes wherever possible, as they represent the safest style of road design for all road users. Building infrastructure suitable for cyclists and pedestrians at the same time as for motor vehicles would be far more efficient and cost-effective than trying to do so at a subsequent date.
  • The crossings proposed are suboptimal and again, represent a significant missed opportunity. Refuges in the middle of the road are difficult to use and unsafe for many road users, and discourage walking and cycling. Conversely, the cycle forum would urge consideration of alternative designs.


The forum would also like to submit the following questions:


Road users and demographics

  1. What assumptions were used to determine what to build in terms of roads: How many new jobs will be created? What proportion of new employees are expected to come from Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch? What proportion of employees coming from beyond 15kms are presumed to drive? What proportion of employees coming from Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch are the Council assuming will drive?
  2. What is this assumption of car mode share based on?
  3. Has the Propensity to Cycle Tool been used to help make a judgment about potential numbers of existing and future staff who would cycle to the Castle Lane employment sites?
  4. What consideration has been given to economic development resulting from the movement of people rather than cars?
  5. Has it been considered that using the development as an opportunity to create infrastructure for walking and cycling could have a significant impact on walking and cycling commuter rates? Have targets been set for this?
  6. Women make more complex journeys than men and are more likely to walk. Women, older people and children are suppressed demand when it comes to cycling in the UK: what measures are in place to ensure land use patterns, buildings, parks and road networks are conducive to walking and cycling and restrict car use for short journeys?
  7. Many authorities start developments by assessing land use/buildings/parks etc; why is Bournemouth Council using the main road network as the driving force for this development?


Prioritisation of road users

  1. A number of forum members raised concern that the development has given priority to motor vehicles above cyclists and pedestrians, in contravention to the hierarchy of provision set out in local transport strategies. In addition, Stages 1 and 2 of the proposals appear to be in direct contravention of the Bournemouth; Poole & Dorset Local Transport Plan that commits to encouraging alternatives to car use in preference to building more roads. What is the response to this, and in the views of the officers and the council, how does this design enhance cycle provision?


Crossing points

  1. A number of forum members have raised concern regarding the design of the crossings. The proposed uncontrolled crossing was highlighted as of particular concern. Motor-traffic coming onto these new roads will have just been on a dual carriageway, and there is concern over the suggestion that this will slow down to a suitable speed. It would be preferable to see a controlled crossing, which would encourage people to travel by foot or by bike. The design as it stands does not appear to be ‘family-friendly’ – this will increase the likelihood of families choosing to travel by car and further increasing congestion. What consideration will be given to alternative designs?
  2. What consideration has been given to installing Tiger or Zebra crossings (as are being constructed elsewhere in the conurbation) or other formats?


Other design observations and queries

  1. Which design guidance is being used for the layout? Design Manual for Roads and Bridges or Manual for Streets?
  2. In phase one, will there be an improvement to the steps on the bridge that would include a wheel space alongside that users can push a bike up and down?
  3. From first view the circuitous route taken by bikes leaving the bridge to go along towards Throop is unappealing. Have the designers considered direct lines of travel for people travelling some distances?
  4. What consideration has been given to using the development as an opportunity to facilitate arterial, direct, segregated, unidirectional and easy cycle routes?
  5. There is concern the curves could encourage speed in motor vehicles. What consideration has been given to ensure speeds are appropriate and cars are slowed down at key points?
  6. Has consideration been given to implementing 20 mph speed limits around the hospital, offices, and other buildings where there are pedestrians?
  7. What consideration has been given regarding pedestrian – cyclist conflict? The draft design appears to increase the potential for this as well as between motor traffic.
  8. What consideration has been given to creating segregated cycle paths?



Traffic volumes

  1. In the presentation to the cycle forum it was said that when phase 1 was complete the traffic volume coming off the A338 would be low. The indication was that this was because the Wessex Fields site would not be developed at this time. Has it been considered that a large proportion of traffic travelling south on the A338 that would normally turn left at Cooper Dean will use this new junction instead? The same issue could arise in the opposite direction when phase 2 is complete. What consideration has been given to this?
  2. Has filtered permeability been considered in order to ensure appropriate access for ambulances, buses, and cyclists?



Future concerns

  1. Concern was expressed that if Stage 2 goes ahead, the Stour Valley Way will be seriously compromised. This project is currently working to provide a safe Pedestrian/Cycle route from Hengistbury Head to Kingston Lacy. Part of the route goes across the bridge at Riverside Avenue to Holdenhurst Village. In plans for Stage 2 the bridge will be removed and there doesn’t appear to be a safe alternative planned. What consideration has been given to this?

Here is an important paper about cycle infrastructure why it works/ dosent work



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *