Lack of lighting on bypass is unsafe
Dear Sir, — I find myself in disbelief at the total lack of responsibility for the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists who will use the new bypass in Congleton when it opens.
I had the forethought to make a freedom of information request to ask what provisions will be made for cyclists and pedestrians along the new road and what street lighting will be provided.
To my utter horror I discovered that although some cycleways will be provided, the new bypass will have no street lighting. This is especially concerning at the roundabouts and known, highly used cycle routes such as Sandy Lane.
I would ask where else across Cheshire is there another example of an unlit roundabout or major junction? I would suggest there is none, so why has Cheshire East Council decided to make this road unsafe before it is even open?
I have also noticed that cycleways are not continuous along the whole of the bypass. Why is this, when Cheshire East and the leadership are so pro-cycling?
I have undertaken some internet searches on street lighting provision and came across a design manual for roads and bridges that states in section two, purpose of road lighting, the first is to reduce personal injury, a quantifiable benefit. The predicted accident cost saving should be greater than the lighting scheme cost in order to provide economic justification for road lighting.
Other areas where road lighting can provide benefits include physical fitness (by encouraging walking and cycling), journey ambience and community severance.
These areas will often not be quantifiable, but should nevertheless be recorded and taken into account.
The FOI request said there was no street lighting provided on the new road due to its rural nature, save for Back Lane, which is residential. As residential develops along the extension to Viking Way, street lighting will be considered as part of the planning process.
Regarding cycleways, three have been instructed but still need to be added: a three metre-wide footway/cycleway from the end of Hulme Walfield footpath FP3 extending westwards to meet the footway/cycleway on the link road; an increased footway on the east side of the southern arm of Macclesfield Road roundabout to provide a continuous three metre-m wide footway/cycleway from the roundabout to the highway tie-in; and increased width and extents of the footway on the east side of the northern arm of the Macclesfield Road roundabout, to provide a continuous three metre-m wide footway/cycleway from the roundabout to the access to Tan House Farm.
I would hope that Cheshire East reconsiders its decision not to provide adequate cycle provisions or suitable lighting on the new road. — Yours faithfully,