Spaces for People ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhood’ Scheme in Dennistoun

We write regarding the Spaces for People ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhood’ scheme in Dennistoun and further to the Dennistoun Community Council (DCC) Statement on Traffic and Streetscape published on Monday 7th December 2020, which was sent to all Dennistoun and Calton Ward Councillors and Cllr Anna Richardson (as City Convener for Sustainability and Carbon Reduction).

This was followed-up with further discussion at the January and February DCC meetings, which were attended by local Councillors and are minuted here: dennistouncc.org.uk/minutes.

Our most recent DCC meeting, held on 9th March 2021, was attended by more than a dozen members of the public wishing to discuss the scheme. Additionally, approximately 30 items of correspondence have been recently received by DCC, expressing a broad range of sentiments on the scheme. Many residents are greatly concerned by the lack of clear communication from GCC. Notably, some common themes have emerged, regardless of whether sentiment is broadly for or against:

  • Better, safer, provision around schools is generally supported in principle;
  • Better, safer, active travel provision and public transport as a general principle are supported;
  • It is felt that the new no entries and one ways have rerouted traffic, for reasons that have not been clearly explained, to minimal or no obvious benefit at best, or to a clear detriment at worst;
  • Reasons for particular dissatisfaction or concern include: road safety issues created arising from non-compliance of vehicular traffic; increases in volumes of traffic on roads not suited to it; removal of contraflow cycling provision and overall available roadspace; noise concerns; and potential pollution and air quality issues arising if traffic levels are not sufficiently reduced as a counter to the longer through routes created.

DCC therefore seeks answers to the following questions:

  1. Why have multiple through routes been left open in both directions between Duke Street and Alexandra Parade?
  2. Temporary signage with poles in concrete blocks has been deemed sufficient in certain locations, so why have numerous new permanent signposts been installed elsewhere, for a scheme which is initially temporary and said to be easily changed in response to feedback?
  3. The completion of the scheme and installation of missing no entry signage and markings. Why do the no entry points on Craigpark (at Craigpark Dr, and at Golfhill Dr), and on Armadale Street (at Craigpark Dr) have no entry signs on only one side of the road whilst other no entry points have signs on both sides of the road?
  4. What feedback has been received from emergency services?
  5. Why has a Spaces for People active travel scheme ended up with less usable road space available to cycles – i.e. if a road was previously suitable for two-way mixed vehicular and cycle traffic, what specific additional risk was identified by having contraflow cycling permitted on a well-marked and signed vehicular one-way street (especially when it is within what is now being described as a low traffic neighbourhood and of identical geometry to vehicular two way roads which have no constraints on access to cycles)?
  6. Why has a scheme initially given a two week installation programme ended up with three months being the revised installation period?
  7. The drawings circulated showed the removal of pedestrian barrier at Alexandra Parade primary school and appeared to show a build-out feature or marking realignment at the corner of Whitehill St and Duke St (outside Coia’s) – are these elements of the design still due to be implemented?
  8. What arrangements are in place for compliance monitoring and enforcement measures?
  9. How are various factors contributing to success or failure being measured and determined?
  10. What and when are the next steps for traffic safety and management, and active travel provision, in Dennistoun in the event of success/failure (e.g. removing/reducing/keeping and maintaining/enhancing/extending this scheme; introducing similar measures elsewhere in Dennistoun; introducing the 20 mph limit previously proposed by the RPZ, etc)?

DCC understands the staffing pressures arising due to Covid. However, it is hoped that these questions are presented in a reasonable manner, as a summary of widespread local concerns, such that they can be responded to with a full and prompt reply.

Finally, we ask that we can be kept updated on the developments of the Spaces for People consultation that is noted to begin in April/May and the community is also kept updated.

This correspondence was sent on Monday 15th March 2021 to the Glasgow City Council Neighbourhoods and Sustainability Assistant Group Manager for Parking, as the designer of the scheme. It was copied to Dennistoun Ward Councillors Allan Casey, Kim Long and Elaine McDougall; Cllr Anna Richardson (City Convener for Sustainability and Carbon Reduction); and Sustrans Scotland, as the Spaces for People funding programme manager on behalf of the Scottish Government.

To get DCC updates delivered to your inbox, enter your email address into the box in the menu section of this site and click Subscribe Now! (To the left of the screen in desktop view, or via the menu button at the top of the screen in mobile view). Easy to unsubscribe from at any time.

Share

Published by

Dennistoun CC

Dennistoun CC's aim is to ascertain, coordinate and express the views of the wider community. It seeks to promote the Dennistoun area as a positive and inclusive neighbourhood.

4 thoughts on “Spaces for People ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhood’ Scheme in Dennistoun”

  1. Meadow Park Street at Duke Street end is congested every night as a result of traffic finding an exit from Dennistoun. This is during lockdown. It’s going to be worse when lockdown is over and football commences. There is more traffic in Roslea Drive now than in my 49 years of living here.

  2. Thoroughly agree with these comments. As a Dennistoun resident, these road restrictions popped up with no consultation, are not adhered to and result in a build up of cars/traffic on the only permissible streets, when few cyclists are using the other roads! Seems like a ridiculous, ill thought out scheme.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.