Wiltshire council spent ten grand on a 17-metre cycle path

I also didn't realise this was a resurrected thread from 2 years ago. 

As Moist says above - this will absolutely have been S106 funds.  Now, a better question is why that figure wasn't £100k or £1m and then what could have been built?

By the looks of it this is a non story by those not understanding the process this came about by, the complainant or the councillor, who really should know better.

This will have been done as part of a Section 106 agreement between the developer and council, the housebuilder will have funded it as part of the conditions to build their site, the council probably do the work (unless the developer is known to be trustworthy and competent). If this didn't go ahead there would have been no £10k to 'waste'.  As John Smith points out, everything has a cost, the £10k (assumed, not actual value) covers design (yes, it needs designed - the lads on site need a drawing to know the width, levels, coordinates, spec etc of the path, the sign shop needs the TSRGD no's, class and size of the signs, theres the construction cost, the materials, traffic management and inspection). £10k sounds perfectly normal. Its about £3k in background costs to get you on site to put in a couple of sign posts.

This actually a useful bit of infrastructure, I use it daily on my ride to work. Previously I'd have to bunny hop two kerbs and ride a narrow path or take to the grass. This is better and certainly not pointless like some.

"paid for by local housing developments", = the planners making buyers of new homes pay the £10,000.

 I guess one could come up with some great names for a a strava segment:):):)

one of my pet hates in that picture - vehicular access crossing the ped/cycle shared path with nil visibility for drivers exiting what looks like a carpark because all obscured by the overgrown "hedge" and any visibility for the more vunerable is zero  - also the roadway appears continous implying vehicles have priority - my money is on none of the £10,000 was used to fix these recurrent issues

Lawks a-mercy, you can go six summers with neither hide nor hair mention of Wiltshire, then three come along in a matter of days.

It sounds ridiculous but unless you're local and know it, I'd withhold your opinion.  There's two streets I know that are linked only by a very poor footway, but loads of cyclists use it because it completely avoids a load of very busy A roads.  It really could benefit from some investment to upgrade it and make it safer to use, and it isn't far off 17 metres long either.

https://goo.gl/maps/iGkE7VazNRp

I'm sure lots of people would see £10,000 spent there as a waste, but knowing that route I can tell you it'd be a good idea.  And the path in the report may well be similar.

Unbelievable, somebody actually built marked 17 metres of cycle path. I suspect sustrans and UK Cycling are throwing a party at such an achievement.

So this £10k didn't actually cover building the path, just a bit of paint and a few posts?  Does anyone have the number of Wiltshire Council, I'd like to bid for a few contracts.

If that really is it in the picture, the money would have been better spent actually bringing it up to a respectable width.

“This path has been used by cyclists for many years, however we wanted to ensure it was appropriately signed and wide enough to be safely used by both pedestrians and cyclists – especially because it is now used more regularly due to the nearby housing estate".

Insert honest subtitles:

"It's all the non helmet wearing red light jumping cyclists that have murdered many many pedestrians fault and in no way linked to us giving permission for another housing estate to be  built by a company owned by our Councillor's third cousin Rupert and then supposedly spending a fortune increasing pedestrian safety. By the way, these affordable 2 bed semis start at £185,000 on a shared ownership basis so we can kick you out when you default".

Anyone know how much per metre cycle infrastructure should cost so I can calculate my level of outrage based on the disparity?

Madness

rest assured there is a box with a tick in it, we can sleep easy tonight.

Naah.  Surrey is spending £5.88 milions on "improvments" to a signle A road roundabout in the - and I quote - "hope" that it improves congestion.

Brown envelope anyone?

This just shows that whoever controlls the expedature in the local councils doesn't question the quotes for the jobs that go out for tender to local contractors.

These contractors must be laughing all the way to the bank.....and probably then all the way to the pub......

@ £10K - someone was ripped off.