preferred-google-button
log in
register

Petition to stop Sustrans getting any funding for cycling-related projects

  • Creator
    Topic
  • April 29, 2015 at 9:04 am #23876
    the little onion

    We all have our favourite bit of “who-thought-this-was-a-good-idea” cycling infrastructure, the cycle lane that heads into a brick wall, that disappears into a five lane highway, that puts cyclists under greater danger and through greater inconvenience. We all like to view the Facility of the Month page on the Warrington Cycle Campaign website. We also know that these are probably projects designed or approved by Sustrans, the chocolate teapot of the sustainable transport world.

    (my current problem with sustrans is their multi-million pound project to upgrade the Shipley-Leeds canal towpath, which leaves the worst stretches unmodified, has put a whole lot of cobbled speedbumps on the path, and has eschewed a simple tarmac surface on the busiest stretches for a gravelled surface).

    So, given that Sustrans gets lots of money for creating cycling infrastructure, and either wastes this money or even makes cycling less convenient or more dangerous, how about creating a petition so that the Department for Transport gives them no funding for cycling-related projects, and instead gives it to either CTC or Chris Boardman, C/O British Cycling, who actually know what cyclists want from infrastructure projects?

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 13 replies - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • May 5, 2015 at 4:23 pm #843881
    0
    csgd

    I am not clear that
    I am not clear that organisations like Sustrans have thought through issues of accessibility.

    For example, gravelly surfaces are not liked by wheelchair users.

    Are all paths accessible for mobility scooters or are there problematic or too narrow gateways? Can a dad take their child in a buggy?

    Cargo trikes for work people?

    Are shared spaces for example near schools properly thought through?

    http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.co.uk

    Home

    May 2, 2015 at 7:32 pm #843879
    0
    dotdash

    seanie1965 wrote:
    I averaged

    seanie1965 wrote:

    I averaged 14mph on the whole route before – have only done the Abbey Pub to the Substation on the new bit and even tarmaced was bumpy as hell

    I liked the fact that it was bumpy because that slowed you down, without the risk of skidding.

    Anyway, I have little hope for the so called “super highway” after what I’ve seen delivered as part of the Thornbury Barracks roundabout changes, which in part is so dangerous my advice is to stick to the road, if coming from Bradford to Dawson’s Corner.

    May 2, 2015 at 7:26 pm #843877
    0
    seanie1965

    the little onion wrote:A mean

    the little onion wrote:
    A mean of 12-14 mph is reasonable, particularly at busy times, when you are slowing down for blind corners, bottlenecks, bridges, other canal towpath users etc. However, the whole project (which is supposed to be a commuting route under the conditions of funding, not just a leisure route) is being designed around the idea that cyclists will travel at 8mph. By the way, the bits around Calverley (think Paris-Roubaix) are not even being resurfaced under current plans, so a cross bike at a bare minimum, ideally a mountain bike, is needed to make the whole route.

    I averaged 14mph on the whole route before – have only done the Abbey Pub to the Substation on the new bit and even tarmaced was bumpy as hell

    May 2, 2015 at 6:47 pm #843875
    0
    the little onion

    On reflection, maybe we
    On reflection, maybe we should lobby Sustrans to apply the Copenhagen test to every piece of urban cycling infrastructure in which they are involved – in other words, if the design wouldn’t be acceptable to cyclists in Copenhagen, it should not get approval from Sustrans. See also the story about Sustrans endorsing a dangerous cycle route in Edinburgh, currently on the homepage.

    May 2, 2015 at 6:44 pm #843873
    0
    the little onion

    A mean of 12-14 mph is
    A mean of 12-14 mph is reasonable, particularly at busy times, when you are slowing down for blind corners, bottlenecks, bridges, other canal towpath users etc. However, the whole project (which is supposed to be a commuting route under the conditions of funding, not just a leisure route) is being designed around the idea that cyclists will travel at 8mph. By the way, the bits around Calverley (think Paris-Roubaix) are not even being resurfaced under current plans, so a cross bike at a bare minimum, ideally a mountain bike, is needed to make the whole route.

    May 2, 2015 at 6:29 pm #843871
    0
    dotdash

    I’ve only rode the part from
    I’ve only rode the part from Rodley to Kirstall, so not seen the rest of it. I would expect an average speed of about 12 -14 on that path, which should be fast enough to get from Shipley to Leeds in about an hour.

    May 2, 2015 at 4:09 pm #843869
    0
    the little onion

    The speedbumps were
    The speedbumps were apparently not in the original plans, and there are a lot of them, not all of them near locks or bridges (e.g. new ones in Shipley). I did see some kid crash on them the other day, resulting in a buckled wheel and a scraped arm. The project was designed so that people could commute from Shipley to Leeds on a road bike. It turns out according to posts on the project facebook page that they expect cyclists to average a speed of 8 mph on the canal path, including the rural areas with few people. Now I am all for considerate cycling on a shared use canal towpath, but it seems that Canal and Rivers Trust (aided by Sustrans, the Quislings of the cycling infrastructure world), don’t want to deliver the vision of a route that can be commuted by road bike.

    May 2, 2015 at 11:03 am #843867
    0
    JonD

    pamplemoose wrote:As if a man

    pamplemoose wrote:
    As if a man made canal is a natural feature that needs preserving or something.

    Except that towpaths were never tarmaced, tarmac only appeared in the 1900s.
    Aside from the possible racetrack issue, to put down tarmac would probably need wholesale removal/reinstatement of the layer(s) below to give the tarmac any kind of longevity (££££).

    May 2, 2015 at 10:14 am #843865
    0
    dotdash

    The “speed bumps” have been
    The “speed bumps” have been placed at either the bottom of the locks or just before a bridge where a narrow footpath to prevent people crashing into each other under a bridge.

    The chipped top level will be swept to a couple of weeks so should be better. I agree that I would have preferred the to have the tarmac surface, and I believe that was the original plan but it would have turned into a race track and people wouldn’t feel safe next to the canal.

    It’s a shared path after all.

    I’m more concerned by all the surface dressing thats been taking place on the roads around the canal recently

    May 2, 2015 at 7:43 am #843863
    0
    bikebot

    Wrong approach, and I’ve been
    Wrong approach, and I’ve been very critical of Sustrans for sometime. Despite that, they have delivered some good projects and there’s no equivalent national body to take their place.

    The better approach is to lobby Sustrans to improve their design standards, and where they’ve delivered rubbish complain about it.

    April 29, 2015 at 7:43 pm #843861
    0
    the little onion

    pamplemoose wrote:I agree

    pamplemoose wrote:
    I agree that Sustrans are generally bad at building cycling infrastructure, but in this case it’s the Canal and Rivers Trust you need to be angry at. Or possibly the City-Connect team for acquiescing to their demands. CRT wouldn’t allow the entire thing to be tarmac for ‘aesthetic reasons’. As if a man made canal is a natural feature that needs preserving or something.

    Canal and Rivers Trust told me that the design was done by Sustrans

    April 29, 2015 at 5:32 pm #843859
    0
    pamplemoose

    I agree that Sustrans are
    I agree that Sustrans are generally bad at building cycling infrastructure, but in this case it’s the Canal and Rivers Trust you need to be angry at. Or possibly the City-Connect team for acquiescing to their demands. CRT wouldn’t allow the entire thing to be tarmac for ‘aesthetic reasons’. As if a man made canal is a natural feature that needs preserving or something.

    April 29, 2015 at 9:31 am #843857
    0
    Leviathan

    “how about creating a
    “how about creating a petition so that the Department for Transport gives them no funding for cycling-related projects”

    Pop over to https://www.gov.uk/petition-government if you really feel like it, democracy and all that.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 13 replies - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.