An approach to the proposed cycle provision on Mayals Road, Swansea.

What follows was written for local consumption and is posted here for reference as the substance of the local highway engineering scheme is largely proceeding.

Although addressing considerable detail, for non-locals, the initial key information is that Mayals Road is one of several connectors from the Gower ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ (AONB) in the west, to the city at the east of the plan, the bay-fronting Mumbles Road, and left into the city. The notes are an initial voluntary urban design appraisal, following site visits, discussions, thanks to Google Earth and much experience of our city, if always learning. 

The site: Mayals Road, uphill from middle right (east) to middle left (west)

Mayals Road is a largely uphill, sometimes steep avenue and gateway to Gower. It sits alongside Clyne Gardens, in a heavily wooded environment, with three pedestrian entrances into that great park, four if you count Westport Avenue into the top end. The primary consideration for all interventions in these environs is the environment, the greenspace, and its conjunction with people.

For urban design, the issues are based on how people connect to the local ingredients of their neighbourhood. Into this mix comes the ‘arterial’ roadway connection that is Mayals Road. The concerns and interests of cyclists, residents and visitors are as relevant as the traffic flow of drivers.  

To seek a balance, perhaps even a change of priority, junctions and crossing places are the first foci.  The junction at Owls Lodge / Westport is worthy of a feature, including the entrance to the park there just down to the east. At present, it is seen as a traffic junction with a couple of gestures to pedestrian safety – well one really, and more to say about that; the other is for pedestrian convenience rather than safety. 

That important junction is perhaps secondary (from our perspective) to the junction uphill at Southerndown, which connects over to Mayals Green and on to Fairwood Road – perfect for routes to school, including schools further away, Whitestone, Llwynderw, Grange, St David’s. Of course, that link also connects much of the top end of West Cross to Clyne. [For me, this is a critical cycle route that reinforces the claim for work to Fairwood Road.]

The other key location is the combination stretch Clyne Crescent, Whitestone and the top of Fairwood Road.

Of course, the two other locations are the narrowings top and bottom, which will be discussed separately So, for pedestrian, cyclist and environment design interventions, in addition to the above (coming downhill), we have, after Clyne Cresc/ Fairwood:

on the left (otl), the lane to Sunningdale;

the enclave at the bus-stop;

Mayals Green/ Southerndown (and that connection to schools);

Owls Lodge/ Westport;

on the right (otr) Green Close;

otl, the park entrance;

otr, Westward Close;

Whitegates;

otl, park entrance;

otr, Clyne Drive;

otl, park entrance.

Then there are all the residential entrances. Plenty scope for traffic speed interventions to benefit cyclists and pedestrians.

General approach

For cyclists: three issues – the long climb uphill; the fast downhill; safe connections and downhill for less confident cyclists. [Crossing places are the same for pedestrians and are discussed later.]

Why should the uphill cycle route not be on the left for the full length of the road? Most of the way can be on a separate cycle track, much as is there now, improved and straightened in a few places.

It can work its way round trees; there is no problem with that at the uphill speed. Pedestrians can walk there if they wish but, generally, they should be encouraged by design and as little signage as possible to walk down the park side. There is also little reason why less confident cyclists cannot use these paths downhill. (They will, and do already.)

For the 200m or so at the Mumbles Road end, a painted cycle lane will suffice. Drivers will have to slow down and pass as necessary. This is hardly a major issue given even an optimistic assessment of cyclist numbers.  [I’m for a similar lane on the downhill side too. Narrow the road, drivers slow for a short stretch. It is done in Netherlands but I don’t have the best main road picture to hand. The visual message to drivers is clear. For me, this is the sort of challenge we should be debating with Highways, not all the other technical niceties.]

A marked cycle lane all the way down would provide some status for downhill cyclists, including giving priority over drivers at pinchings etc.

At the Gower end, a similar approach is proposed. There, the design and layout is beginning to address the Fairwood Common provision and that is a separate discussion.

So we can improve the paths both sides – on the south, primarily for cyclists, on the north, primarily for pedestrians.

The design of the on-road interventions, largely based on pedestrian and cycle crossing places, can use versions of the provisions already evident, albeit located on desire lines (as against as shown). There is scope for a wide range of detail for safety, comfort, convenience and environmental benefits.

Slowing motor traffic and probably cycles (for pedestrian safety reasons) would be a consideration for such design work, and be subject to consultations. 

Conclusion

This approach is cheaper and significantly more beneficial to a wide range of public space users and the environment. It does change the character of Mayals Road from a motor vehicle ‘arterial’ to a multi-functional public place adjacent to homes and Clyne Gardens. So much nicer.

I am aware that it challenges the fundamentals of traffic system design, not least because the evidence from recently Broadway and the work already completed at the Mumbles Road junction is that Highways are using the Active Travel umbrella to further their traffic oriented priorities. There is barely any cyclist and pedestrian benefit in either. Hence, as Nick points out, the ‘out of the blue’ surprise emergence of this Mayals Road, scheme.

The current proposal from Highways will, in my opinion, make little difference to motor vehicle flow or speed, despite reducing carriageway width. New kerbs, increased drainage work and resurfacing are the main cost elements without any (ie NO) changes to speed and flow.

Meanwhile, the cycling lobby is riven with debates about how best to participate in (oft-times fruitless) consultation, what alternatives to propose, etc, to a scheme that is already on the drawing board and has obtained funding, albeit, one hopes (and it is only a hope) with a degree of flexibility remaining.

GLG August 2020      

Consultation proposal from City Council