- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Mile End Road, Colchester (from Google Maps)Cycling campaigners say council "wasting" £750,000 on cycle path
Frustrated campaigners say £750,000 is being wasted on a shared use cycling and walking pavement that cyclists didn’t ask for and won’t use.
Freedom of Information requests by Colchester Cycling Campaign (CCC) on Essex County Council plans to introduce a 3m wide shared use pavement on Mile End Road reveal there was no request for the route, or research data collected on cycling levels. The council says “trees, lighting columns, bus stops and deviation of route at side roads” will reduce cyclists' speeds while riding downhill on the pavement.
William Bramhill, CCC founder, says he’s hit a “brick wall” in attempts to influence designs of the cycle route, and says without clear design policies local councils will continue to build what he calls 1970s style infrastructure that cyclists won’t want to use.
Does Faversham have the UK's worst cycling infrastructure?
Bramhill told road.cc: “We have got severe concerns about this route because of the proximity of the car parking [to the pavement], and the potential for being doored."
He said because the road is on a hill there is the potential for collisions at speed between cyclists and pedestrians, as well as dangers posed by cars exiting driveways, and 3m won’t be enough to mitigate these risks.
An FOI response from Essex County Council states: “The facility will have features which will naturally check the speed of cyclists; these include road signs, trees, lighting columns and deviation of route at side roads.”
However, Bramhill points out this decision is against government guidelines on shared use paths, which state "suitable on-carriageway solutions are sometimes ignored in favour of inappropriate conversion of footways".
He says: “It would be far better to put the cycle route on the road. Mile End Road doesn’t even have 3,500 cars a day, and in the middle of the day you can stand there in the road and wait two minutes to be knocked over. Reduce traffic speeds to 20mph and stagger traffic instead."
He says he has attempted to suggest this but claims “we were told there’s different departments and different budgets for 20mph speed limits, and we’d have to apply for that separately.”
Last month Cycling Minister, Robert Goodwill, told road.cc it is the responsibility of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) to deliver cycle infrastructure locally and LEPs are given funding to deliver this. Colchester Cycle Campaign says it has tried a number of times to engage with the South East LEP, which provides the project funding, but has not yet received a response.
Boardman: government's cycling record "very disappointing"
Meanwhile, Bramhill believes this type of infrastructure could set a dangerous precedent and says we need design policies to prevent the scenario being played out across the country.
He said: “Cyclists aren’t going to use the routes, and motorists are going to say ‘get on the cycle path’, while local authorities are going to say ‘there’s no point in investing in cycle routes because people don’t use them’.”
“It shows how much we need a national policy, not just national design standards, because the officers on the scheme have turned around several times and said ‘they are only guidelines and we are providing for a different type of cyclist’.
"There are different types of motorist and they don’t put rainforest on the motorway.
“Essex Council is saying they are putting it in for economic reasons, there has been no count of cyclists, so what metrics are they going to use to assess its success?”
Cycle infrastructure helps companies attract "top talent"
He says those responsible for spending taxpayers’ money on bike routes should visit cycle-friendly countries before designing schemes, in the same way Goodwill visited Copenhagen last year.
Last week, Chris Boardman told road.cc there needs to be central government leadership to ensure local councils are building cycling infrastructure, so that “doing nothing is not an option”.
Essex County Council and the South East Local Enterprise Partership were both contacted for comment.
Latest Comments
- eburtthebike 1 sec ago
The defending lawyer said Brown maintained that he did not initially realise he had struck Mr Pike, and “struggles to explain how this incident...
- Hirsute 19 min 13 sec ago
You have to add images via a reply to yourself after the topic is created. One at a time too.
- Hirsute 21 min 23 sec ago
“Plus, riders who pair CarBack to their smartphone using the Trek Accessory app can enjoy even more features, including the ability to see the...
- Tom_77 37 min 14 sec ago
Had a Kona Blast sometime around the turn of the century, that was a pretty decent mountain bike for not much money....
- OldRidgeback 38 min 38 sec ago
Right whingers moaning about 20mph limits, cyclists and 'woke' are numbskull snowflakes IMHO.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 12 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
- HoarseMann 1 hour 43 min ago
Decathlon have the Garmin Varia RTL515 on offer at the moment for £129.99: https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/rearview-radar-varia-rtl515-65-lumens/_/R-...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 54 min ago
So when you said "all Jews" you didn't actually mean all Jews, just religious ones. However even that distinction is erroneous, as you must surely...
- Dnnnnnn 3 hours 48 min ago
Almost - but apparently not quite. There are in Northern Ireland.
Add new comment
30 comments
About the path in Bearsden, I have used it half a dozen times or so and it works well for me. But I only use it southwards after loops around the Campsies and at that point am usually grateful for a bit of relief away from the traffic. I can understand the grumbling about having to use a crossing to access it northbound but it's a start isn't it? There is a stretch of "cycle path" near my home that is just a long car park. They even extended the pavement over it to make the point.
I'm over by the campsies and haven't seen that path in Bearsden before, but honestly it looks great! I'm amazed there is bad press about it. There is quite obviously a genuine attempt at segregation from cars, buses, bus stops, pedestrians and there is lighting at the side road priority someone street linked above. Plus fresh new tarmac and not pot holed old road.
There is so little like that in North Glasgow, why cyclists would crap all over that hard work is beyond me! East Dunbartonshire council should be given a lot of credit for that. They also do a decent job resurfacing the old train tracks and canal paths around Strathblane and Kirkintilloch (especially compared to Glasgow city council and North Lanarkshire). The road conditions could be improved, especially around Strathblane.
Having grown up in London it does not surprise me though that Essex cycle paths resemble a tough mudder course... The attitude to cycling is so poor - the irony is that the south east would benefit the most from increased cycling in terms of congestion and pollution.
Newcastle City Council are currently building around 100 metres of cycle path along Heaton Road. I've not seen the plans and look forward to using it and then filtering into the traffic where it abruptly ends next to a traffic island!
There's also parking to take into accont as there's both a church and mosque in this short stretch of road.
A cycle lane on either side apparently.
Here! https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Heaton+Rd,+Newcastle+upon+Tyne,+Tyne...@54.9860083,-1.582082,3a,75y,180.87h,84.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suiT2ZDznGpbb5xF2hdwjrg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DuiT2ZDznGpbb5xF2hdwjrg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.921249%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x487e70e55e7dc3b7:0x9d7f93232fe65e62
What da???
Yes, and all those trees that they don't cut down for motorways are a traffic calming measure too... Oh, wait a minute...
"It's not a bug, it's a feature"
It is mind blowing..............
Has the CTC approached the Auditor Generals office with their evidence of this waste of money?
Though it's seen to often, Council secure a grant to part fund a project with officers hoping that the shortfall will be met by council, but the councillors bicker about it, vote against the extra budget and leave the officers in a "spend it or lose it" situation. When you see how some councillors behave and carry on in chamber you sometimes have to wonder why they employ officers at all.
well I suspect partly because you get eventually dumped onto a horrendous multi lane,multi criss-cross lane roundabout thats hellishly busy with commuters heading towards the train station, in the rush hour that A134 road is just a glorified car park, and partly because youd only be coming from that "Mile End" part of Colchester, so practically very few cyclists would probably ever be using that route.
but Colchester council are busy trying to (over)develop that northern side of the town thesedays,calling it the northern gateway, there were plans for a new velodrome at one stage,but those seem to have fallen out of favour. So this development is probably very much linked to that northern gateway plan and whilst it might seem disconnected now, may well be part of that wonderful "traffic free cycle route" phrase councils like to use to describe how great they think their sustainable transport schemes are.
Working in the public sector I get to see all of this first hand and witness the bizarre thought processes. My council will bid for money simply because it's available, get awarded it and then come up with anything just to spend it in time. And this then joins up with the general philosophy of "we don't need to build it but if we do everyone will use it" and "we don't need to research it because that will take too long and, anyway, we're the transportation experts so know what we're doing".
It may be a don't-give-a-flying-fuck-about-cycling measure, but £750,000 is nothing like enough to do anything remotely useful anyway. The councillors should have gone on a fact-finding mission to the Bahamas.
Joke. From what I understand, they've started work on it now so it won't be stopped, more money down the toilet. Like someone else said it's just ticking boxes. I live nearby and generally avoid Colchester. There are cycle paths throughout the town, but they are dogshit. If you use the roads you literally risk your life because the road layout throughout the town is terrible and (not just saying it because I'm a cyclist) for some reason, people drive like maniacs. Unless you're a confident cyclist you don't stand a chance. Not sure if it's an Essex thing, but there is a lot of aggresion on the roads round here so properly implemented infrastucture would be welcome. Not gonna happen though is it.
So, £750,000 for a bit of paint and a few signs? Doesn't sound doddgy at all.
So it isn't a cycle path. It's an obstacle course.
It's no less than a conscious decision on the council's part to waste precious funds rather than deliver what could really benefit cycling in the area.
I see exactly the same council intransigence in my part of the world, though a scheme even as daft as the one in Colchester would be a vast improvement.
Councils all over build stuff like this. They'd be so much better just by having priority over side roads, but in many cases even that can't be done because "we don't want to hold up traffic " (TM).
and even when they do build priority over side roads (like Princess Elizabeth Way in Cheltenham) they fail to re-engineer the corners to slow motor vehicles down...
https://goo.gl/maps/J9kYErTuc2o
cars just carry on swooping in off the main road and swooping out of the sideroad...
Totally agree with you there; but we can't slow the cars down, cos the economy will collapse or the world will end, or something- didn't you get the memo?
I had the same argument in Preston an the A6. I was saying the north bound was not fit for cyclist not realising they were doing this side as well
https://goo.gl/maps/HYx6AP9rPYN2
which has shops and house doors opining on to it never mind all the junctions
I just got the impression they don't give a F**k as they know best. For me it is the perfect example of what not to do!!!
I hope the first person injured on it sue the engineers who wasted the money on this stupid design.
The problem I believe is that no-one is really accountable, it's nothing more than a box ticking exercise and as far as I am concerned it borders on criminal waste of taxpayer funds.
If a specific Mr. X was subsequently assessed for the expenditure rather than having the nameless efforts of a group department no-one appears to be in charge of appraised purely on the basis of "Have you spent some money on anything to do with cycling however useless" we might start to see something remotely useful.
Add the fact the powers that be refuse to engage with those trying to help them deliver something useful and the whole matter, as with anything UK does with cycling, is both embarrassing and a disgrace.
This caught my eye too -
An FOI response from Essex County Council states: “The facility will have features which will naturally check the speed of cyclists; these include road signs, trees, lighting columns and deviation of route at side roads.”
They've missed trip wires and spikes but give them time...
Are we going to see similar 'features' added to the roads to 'speed check' motorists given they're the ones doing all the killing, akin basically to a legalised terrorist cell?
Is the admittal of adding such obvious obstacles to a transport route and method the council supposedly has a legal duty to promote and endorse an open invitation to litigation when a cyclist hits one of these?
After all if the council adds a bollard in the centre of the road as a motoring 'speed check' and a car hits it what court is going to rule against such placing being 'reckless and obviously dangerous'?!!
One rule here, another set over there.
We have stuff like that in Leeds, with City Connect (Cycle City ambition funding project), where a canal towpath was "upgraded" at a cost of £1.6 million to create a route for year round cycling. Features include regular speedbumps, loose gravel (apparently so that pedestrians can hear cyclists coming) and as of last week, a few "cyclist dismount" signs. There have been quite a few crashes on the speedbumps and gravel, but the people behind the project don't want to know.
So for cylists' own safety, we better make sure that they are discouraged from actually cycling.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/people-walked-away-flipped-...
Ubiquitous - also uses our bodies as 'traffic calming'.
Rather different from 'shared pavement' here !
Neither is the (Dutch) answer, so both will be unpopular.
At least 'Bears Way' is part of a long-term plan, with scope to improve it in future.
Point I'm making is that local authorities often waste money on cycle infrastructure without apparent thought for it's design or impact.
As for the Bears Way, I don't know any cyclist who uses it who prefers it to the old lane. Practically everyone hates it.
The Bears Way is on a hiding to fuck all, there is no space to accommodate a cycle lane past it's present start/end point and extending it is politically toxic. A public consultation provoked death threats to council staff. Car loving, middle class Bearsden and Milngavie detests it. So it's been kicked into the long grass;
http://www.kirkintilloch-herald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/work-on-bears...
Actually, I do. I much prefer the new lane, and I am far from being alone. As Eric D pointed out, I have been critical in the past. There are certainly problems with Bear Way. However, it is a vast improvement compared to before (zig zagging in and out of the door zone) and if extended some of the problems will be solved.
The newspaper article saying it has been called to a halt is absolute rubbish. I know that for a fact (having spoken to council officers and councillors). Plans are still being drawn up for extension. Why not have a look here (https://friendsofbearsway.wordpress.com/) for some balance.
So if you look at the map:
https://goo.gl/maps/iqMMuFvNE712
You have the A134 not far away. Which happens to have a big grassy area containing nothing at all. So why not build a brand new segregated cycling-only route there, instead? Or am I missing something completely obvious, like "the council don't care about cycling"?
It's almost as though the people who make these decisions don't cycle. Ever. Except in Centre Parks. Once a year. Maybe.
Why don't cyclists ride on that road in the picture?
Same thing happened in Bearsden, a suburb of Glasgow. There was already a cycle lane, flawed admittedly, but it was direct and worked reasonably well.
The local council burned the paint off and made a two way segragated cycle lane on one side of the road complete with chicanes, bus stops, 3 toucan crossing and barely wide enough to let two bikes pass each other. Four feet wide to accommodate both lanes.
It's a fucking dogs dinner.
Result? Everyone hates it; drivers and cyclists.
I have to say, that's one of the best designed cycle paths I've ever seen in the UK. OK, there's a little flaw in it at one point for the outbound-from-Glasgow direction, with an awkward kink at a bus stop:
Bus stop kink
However, for the rest it's amazing. It gets the other bus stop bit right:
Other bus stop
Even the bit where it crosses a side-road has been done the correct way, as the NL tries to do where possible - i.e. set back into the side-road and with priority for the cycle-path:
Side road done right
I know David Brennan took a dislike to it initially and started campaigning against, but that bicycle path is at an amazingly high standard for the UK. I think he's a bit less negative about it since. It's *almost* at a good dutch level (and don't think every cycle path in the NL is perfect, you can find ones that are too narrow and in door zones over there too!). This is a really rare case where a local council _really_ tried. They took space from the main carriageway, and took considerable heat over this from the local car brigade, and they made a pretty damn good effort.
It's one of the few cycle paths I will always take - even when out on my road bike. It really is a _good_ cycle path. It's a shame there's such negativity about it from some cycling quarters. The council got absolutely no gratitude from cyclists, for taking a politically ballsy decision to build a _good_ path - which won't make it any easier to get more built.
Really, this is an excellent path. The main thing wrong with it is that it's far too short. Some people seem to be looking a gift pedigree filly in the mouth.
(Note: I was cycling on my own to school in the Netherlands aged 6, on the newly built cycle paths over there, and cycling with my mum well before that, etc.).
...almost right. If you look at the Gmaps view, the biggest problem is that the design encourages road users to think that they normally have priority. Ignore the give way markings for a second, you see that the double yellows run straight, the kerb runs straight, and that the cycle lane has an abrupt "end" where the yellow tactile pavement is.
It'd be far better to move all those markings around 90 degrees. That, combined with the give way markings, would make it much clearer as to who has priority.
I agree fully, I don't use that daft lane in either direction. When heading out of Glasgow city, you have to turn right across the road and the entrance is terribly marked. Its then slow and unsafe (and currently covered in sand / dirt from a building site halfway along which makes it slippery as heck). Coming down the hill its faster in traffic lanes and safer. The irony is they need to extend it to really get the benefit as the next section going past Asda etc is where traffic is much tighter and it would do more good....