I must note that their consultation process is iffy - this has a week left but one on getting to schools runs to December - so they will have done stuff that makes it impossible to implement ideas from that - as I understand Wick Road does have several schools on and near it!
Why do I have the impression they want to spend £7ook this financial year without actually thinking about what they are doing?
.
Response ID ANON-J7U1-QPD3-Y
Submitted on 2015-07-06 09:52:04.629919
Introduction
1 Are you in favor of the proposed scheme as detailed in this document?
No
Any further comments?:
Hi I am a disabled person and next week am expecting delivery of my Christiania Cargo Trike, which is a metre wide and 2.2 metres long. I decided to get this
after very serious consultation with health professionals and research.
To use this successfully requires dedicated wide continuous cycle paths, much like a mobility scooter.
Wick Road is a critical liminal or connecting point and therefore provides a very rare opportunity to get this right, especially as there are very wide road and
pavement widths.
The proposals have not defined what they are trying to achieve and what the existing issues are they are trying to resolve. I understand they are seriously
discriminatory and therefore fail the Local Authority's Public Equality Duties.
I must formally ask that they are withdrawn and completely new proposals drawn up, showing various options.
For example, how do these proposals fit strategically with safe routes to schools, cycling and walking proposals, needs of disabled people, parking strategies, air
quality, noise, sedentary lifestyles etc?
How and why do these proposals achieve whatever the strategic aims are?
How do these proposals enable accessibility? How are crossovers and driveways treated? What risks and hazards might a young eight year old child cycling to
school meet?
How easily might someone use a mobility scooter or disability adapted tricycle?
I get the impression several poor assumptions have been made by people that do not actually prioritise children, disability, safe gentle cycling and walking.
Your plans require far more detail than is shown.
For example:
What has been done to remove completely hazards for example from opening doors, speeding and large traffic and vehicles turning into or coming from side
streets and driveways?
What changes of level occur, why?
What changes of direction? Why?
What obstructions are there, for example hazards from bollards?
Might an eight year old cycle to school by themselves?
Can a metre wide trike get everywhere? What are the proposed turning circles?
How has parking been considered? https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Europes_Parking_U-Turn_I...
I am very willing to be involved in detailed planning. I am unclear what is already fixed and what is changeable.
The following links give the overview I think is critical, and the detail required at the nano scale - I find for example dropped kerbs to be extremely hazardous
because of their slopes and contours. My experience is that this is actually true of most pedestrians using mobility aids, and was recognised in the Olympic
proposals. Excellent design for walking is almost identical to that required for cycling.
May I commend the solutions in the following links, and I formally ask that they are formally considered as part of the consultation process.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wp-content/uploads/...
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/08/but-we-have-driveways.html#...
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/notenoughspace
This is about disabled cycling and planning
https://cantstandupforfallingdown.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/udap140004...
Changes in level generally cause problems for many disabled people, particularly people with mobility or visual impairments. Even a single step can prevent
access for someone who has mobility impairment and can present a trip hazard.
Mobility ranges vary enormously between individuals with age and disability, while factors such as weather, topography (gradients) and obstacles can also affect
mobility ranges. Recent research found that 30 per cent of disabled people could manage no more than 50 metres without stopping or experiencing severe
discomfort and a further 20 per cent of those surveyed could only manage between 50 and 200 metres without a rest. 1"
https://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/~/media/lldc/policies/lldcinclus...
http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3976/southwarks_cycling_s...
2
.
Hello
Tunbridge Wells Council has released it's new cycling strategy for consultation and it would be great to get any input or responses from the Cycling Embassy. TWBUG will also respond (and has worked to influence the draft to date through the Tunbridge Wells Council's Cycle forum)....
http://consult.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/portal/economic_development__regene...
It'd be great to see some input from other advocates.
Many thanks
Scott
Initial thoughts: The consultation system is rather clunky although I've seen it used before. It asks questions about the eight actions before I've seen what they are. The 20mph question sounds like it is trying to enable use of any cycling funding for 20mph motor vehicle limits which gives me mixed emotions. It asks me about the routes before I've seen them, too. The "if you don't cycle" should really be an open question and not multiple choice.
I didn't see the actions or routes on the consultation system - only in the PDF download. Will that confuse people?
Reading the PDF, it seems like the Foreword is already blaming people for a "lack of confidence" before the results of the "if you don't cycle" question above is even asked, which will probably bias the results. They also seem to link growing public interest to a few sports and sportive events, which seems like it has little to do with transport cycling. This is not a Foreword that inspires me to visit TW!
Action 1: OK but there's a lot of caveats in there. "Where possible, inter-urban
and leisure cycling routes will be enhanced." - where would it not be possible? Do they mean where there aren't any obstacles? "partners will work with landowner(s) to secure implementation" - so they're already ruling out creation orders and compulsary purchases?
Action 2: cycle parking. OK.
Action 3: regular maintenance. OK. How often? To at least the same standards as analogous carriageways? Digging down, they look at TRL Application Guide AG26, which doesn't seem to be online freely just now. It's been about since 2003 so I expect it's the same inadequate maintenance that we've suffered for the last decade, which isn't really good enough.
Action 4: bikeability training. OK but that's mainly a palliative until infrastructure improves.
Action 5: "continue to promote road safety campaigns" no no no. Most road safety campaigns are dumb victim blaming and clandestine motoring promotion. We need things like Vision Zero, Sustainable Safety and Road Danger Reduction, not a continuation of the flawed approach. The 20mph action seems to rule out pushing KCC to use them more widely, too.
Action 6: advertising and cycle routes fully advertised and signposted. Good. The cycle map and related information should be part of the commons - put on opencyclemap or similar.
Action 7: support local cycling events where appropriate. OK but vague. Hopefully more appropriate than racing?
Action 8: monitoring. OK but vague.
Section 9: Development of the Cycle Network. Separation (although it also uses the nasty segregation word), green space routes, 2.5m minimum shared routes (still a bit too narrow but better than many places), slower speeds... this is all good stuff. Why isn't this an Action?
Route Proposals Maps: even the Tunbridge Wells map looks incomplete. It needs another route East-West between 8&6 and 4&2, the discontinuities filling in and the west end of 7 continuing around to join 10 and then up to 9. You need a joined-up network of routes. Look at the blue lines of Oxford or Cambridge or even King's Lynn or Norwich on opencyclemap to get an idea. What they're proposing is more like Ely, which is too sparse to really take off. The other two route maps are even less complete. Plan networks, even if you're only intending to deliver one or two routes at first - maybe the rest can be started with developer contributions, or be entered into grant bids, but neither can happen if they're not in any plans.
Hope that helps! I was interested to read this because we're expecting a Norfolk Cycling Strategy to enter consultation in the near future.
Leicester City Council are currently soliciting views on their proposed roadspace reallocation plan for Welford Road, Leicester. For background, this is part of the elected Mayor (Sir Peter Soulsby)'s plan called Connecting Leicester and ties into the cycle city action plan (link on http://www.leicester.gov.uk/transport-and-streets/cycling-in-leicester).
The proposal follows a sucessful trial closure of one lane last Nov /Dev and will turn a bus lane into a 2 way cycle track. The idea is great but as usual, the devil is in the detail. Bus stops, crossing side roads and separation from motor traffic are key - the nearby Newarke St cycle track is a popular short-term car park and for the Welford Road plan to suceed it needs to be impossible to abandon a car on it. Leicester Cycle Campaign are concerned that the council doesn't have the skills and expertise to make a really good cycle track here so input is very welcome.
Also of interest is the fact that it's not a traditional consultation linked from the "consultation hub" - it's a case of "send us your opinions". We know that weight of numbers matter, so even a "I want to see a safe, high quality route here" email is useful and will help.
More details from http://www.leicester.gov.uk/transport-and-streets/cycling-in-leicester and http://www.leicester.gov.uk/news/news-story-details?nId=88388
Thanks
Just missed this, but the plans are worth a read:
https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgConsultationDisplay.aspx?ID=1076
See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/westminster-bridge-south?cid=west...
My thought is that the first of the two options is best: (1) 2.3m lane in each direction protected by a white line (2) 1.8m lane in each direction protected by 0.5m strip of raised paving. But I think a rumble strip would be better than white line for the protection. Part of the reason is that there are heavy pedestrian flows over the bridge at busy periods. The extra width will be useful for the cyclists and the raised strip could be a hazard for both cyclists and pedestrians. I also wonder if having a bus stop on an island outside the cycle lanes will result in a nuisance for cyclists (and pedestrians). Opinions welcome.
See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/westminster-bridge-south?cid=west...
My thought is that the first of the two options is best: (1) 2.3m lane in each direction protected by a white line (2) 1.8m lane in each direction protected by 0.5m strip of raised paving. But I think a rumble strip would be better than white line for the protection. Part of the reason is that there are heavy pedestrian flows over the bridge at busy periods. The extra width will be useful for the cyclists and the raised strip could be a hazard for both cyclists and pedestrians. I also wonder if having a bus stop on an island outside the cycle lanes will result in a nuisance for cyclists (and pedestrians). Opinions welcome.
See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/westminster-bridge-south?cid=west...
My thought is that the first of the two options is best: (1) 2.3m lane in each direction protected by a white line (2) 1.8m lane in each direction protected by 0.5m strip of raised paving. But I think a rumble strip would be better than white line for the protection. Part of the reason is that there are heavy pedestrian flows over the bridge at busy periods. The extra width will be useful for the cyclists and the raised strip could be a hazard for both cyclists and pedestrians. I also wonder if having a bus stop on an island outside the cycle lanes will result in a nuisance for cyclists (and pedestrians). Opinions welcome.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-driving-test-fit-for-the-21st-century
will close on 8 January 2016
Sorry if anyone has already posted this generic link - I haven't filtered-out the non-cycling ones - ignore 'bus' ones ?
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/advanced_consultation_finder?st=open
http://www.centreparklink.com/location/
It's as if they are still in a 1970s time warp - Fire up the Quatro.
http://www.centreparklink.com/location/
It's as if they are still in a 1970s time warp - Fire up the Quatro.
TfL are offering two options
1) 1.8m lanes with 'superhighway-style' raised kerb protection from motor vehicles
2) 2.3m lanes with less protection from motor vehicles
I think the second option is best for two reasons (1) more space for bikes (2) cyclists can spill into the motor lanes at the weekend - when pedestrians spill into the cycle lanes.
TfL have made a mistake in not counting pedestrians or considering the problem of pedestrians spilling into the cycle lanes and then tripping over the raised kerbs.
Here is a blog post with a video discussion of the issues http://www.landscapearchitecture.org.uk/westminster-bridge-urban-landsca...
My guess is that highway engineers prefer standardisation if they can possibly get it. So they want as few variations as possible even though every street in London has a different history and different characteristics.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?publication_filter_option=con...
Nothin much currently - mostly education.
Complaints about PCCs ?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?publication_filter_option=con...
Sorry about the duplication - the thing came up blank first time - I should have refreshed.
Last time I edited it.
If I click the 'delete' tab above, I get 'Access denied'.
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/comment/3038/delete
Admins - feel free to delete this !
It was very slow to submit - I went to make a cuppa, so I don't know how slow.
Final chance to comment on this massive development.
Ends 23rd May. Wife (ill) now calling for tea so will update later
http://consult.kingston.gov.uk/portal/planning/go/consultations_summer_2...
LCC announcement page:
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/four-new-consultations-for-kingston
linking to a map showing the location of these and other consultations in Greater London:
http://lcc.org.uk/pages/consultation-map
with further links to cyclescape discussion pages. One (highly disparaging) comment already appears there about the Surbiton to Kingston component:
http://www.cyclescape.org/threads/2654
which in my opinion is pretty much correct in essence. But as the LCC top page suggests, it may be worth waiting for the KCC and LCC responses before you do yours.
If you want to get stuck in, I'd suggest you start with the Fountain Roundabout scheme. A Cycling Embassy of GB response to this in particular would be very welcome.
Hertfordshire 2050 Travel Consultation (ends 14th Dec 2016)
Linky no worky, so search for 'Hertsdirect' website and enter 'consultations'
Hertfordshire 2050 Travel Consultation (ends 14th Dec 2016)
Linky no worky, so search for 'Hertsdirect' website and enter 'consultations'
Hertfordshire 2050 Travel Consultation (ends 14th Dec 2016)
Linky no worky, so search for 'Hertsdirect' website and enter 'consultations'
Durham County Council are updating their cycling strategy for 2017-2027. It is currently in draft form & so there isn't a public consultation open at the moment but I would be interested in hearing others thoughts on it in its current form.
The pdf file is available here: https://document.li/7rPz and password is: durhamcyc
Having had a quick review, once you get through the flannel, I think it is heading in the right direction but with room for improvement.
An improvement from last time is they are aiming to audit the network & establishing baselines, so it will be easier to see if the strategy/intervention is effective although the targets for growth (i.e. "more women cycling") should be defined.
And I like their boast that they will ‘use and exceed, where possible, the existing good practice guidelines … and the Dutch Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic (CROW)) to design cycling infrastructure.” I can’t wait to see what happens there.
But I think some of the policies are too specific really only relating to 1 project & do some belong in a cycling strategy (e.g. more 20mph zones, especially as Durham’s 20mph policy is part-time only outside schools with 2x the national accident rate)?
Anyway, interested to hear other peoples thoughts.
Some more traffic generation proposals in Warrington:
The first one (College Place) does include much needed (though poorly designed) crossing to take the cyclists across Crab Lane from the cycle path to Fearnheadf Lane. This is part od a "strategic" cycle route. Unfortunately the design takes cyclists away from the desire line and dumps them on an unconverted footway on the wrong side of the road heading west. The rest is just squeezing in extra motor capacity on the roundabout with cyclists and pedestrians sharing converted footways that folow inconvenient convoluted routes with multiple staggered crossings to and from the central island.
The last one has some merit - converting a short dark cycle path strewn with concrete bollards into a bus gate.
The other two are just raw traffic generation with no though whatsoever to the impact on cyclists. The proposed free flow left hand filter lane on Oakwood Gate looks particularly vicious.
A proposal to build yet another road across the Mersey west of warrington (presumably to relieve the congestion that will be caused when the two other bridges that are currently underway start to generate traffic).
Warrington Western Link Consultation
They could upgrade to Trans Pennine Trail (which follows the same route as a narrow muddy path at the moment) to a proper cycleway for a fraction of the cost.
Proposed new development - Birchall Garden Village, Welwyn Garden City, Herts
http://www.tarmac.com/birchallgardensuburb
Exhibition 30th June/1st July
Hatfield needs direct cycleway to Hertford (funded by the Developer) by joining the existing path at Mill Green to the Cole Green Way.
Transport for Great Manchester are running a survey about traffic congestion:
Respondents can be individuals or organisations, so it might be good idea for the Embassy to submit a response as an organisation.
Transport for Great Manchester are running a survey about traffic congestion:
Respondents can be individuals or organisations, so it might be good idea for the Embassy to submit a response as an organisation.
Hertfordshire County Council LTP consultation
https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/about-the-council/consultations/transpo...
Bucks County Council consultation for Buckingham Cycleway from A421 ring road into town centre. Two options. Help them choose the right one!
Ends Wednesday 24 January 2018
Cambridge Greenways Scheme - routes into the city from the surrounding villages.
Exhibitions Feb/March 2018, online forms
https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/transport/transport-projects/greenways/
Cambridge Greenways Scheme - routes into the city from surrounding villages.
Exhibitions Feb/March 2018, online forms
https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/transport/transport-projects/greenways/
See video & review of Cambridge Greenways Scheme, arguing that it has great potential but that it suffers from being 'too Sustrans'. The Greenways have been planned as mini-roads for commuters. They lack connections to leisure routes, they largely ignore the local context and they lack radial connections between the commuter spurs. http://www.landscapearchitecture.org.uk/cambridge-greenway-cycleway-plan...
In case this has passed anyone by, Manchester's beelines proposals and map are at:
https://mappinggm.org.uk/beelines/
It is worth noting that so far the Cambridge Greenways have no *proper* specification. The problem with this is that without a specification then contractors are able to put in any old rubish.
This first came to my attention when they built the Barton cycleways and a surveyor expressed frustration at the lack of/poor specification that would result in the cycleway cracking in just a few years. Sure enough it did.
In an attempt to goad Cambridgeshire into producing a cycling spec I sent my own specification to them. This also reference all the existing specs (CROW, IAN195, Oxfordshire, London, etc etc).
Astonishingly Cambridgeshire and the GCP are being very bone headed about not having a spec. Just simple things pointed out to them such as cycles are not able to turn at right angles (the Greenway plan shows many right angle turns), or that if the Greenway does not give priority over driveways then cyclists will not use them and instead stay on the road (as happens in Harston). The planners seem completely unwilling to take these points on board and produce a proper spec (or adopt CROW).
Manchester to Chorlton cycling and walking route (beeline) proposals
No closing date is given on the website.
New Railway Station for Soham, Cambridgeshire (closed 1965).
Public exhibition of proposed plans at Ross Peters Sports Centre, Soham.
26th Feb 4pm - 8pm, 27th Feb 10am - 2pm.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/anglia/reconnecting-soham/Does anyone know of any LCWIPs (Local Cycling Walking Infrastructure Plans) that have been completed by any authority yet in accordance with the DfT guide? And if so, are they of a standard worth emulating? Shropshire Council s developing its next Local Transport Plan and our group has been invited to join a Task & Finish group to help inform it. Thanks, Peter
Here is a review of the London Borough of Lewisham Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan.
http://www.landscapearchitecture.org.uk/london-cycle-strategy-review-wha...
There are a few good things about the CWIP but it is spoiled by Transport for London's muddled thinking about cycle networks and by a totally unrealistic approach to funding.
