Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

“Cyclists welcome – just in the right place”: Coastal path upgrades set to be shelved over concerns about environmental impact and “speedy cyclists”

Campaigners say the plans “short-change cyclists who want to commute quickly”, fuelling tensions with walkers, and that a “more appropriate inland route” should be created

Plans to upgrade a popular coastal path are set to be shelved after local councillors raised concerns about the project’s environmental impact and the prospect of increasing tensions between walkers and cyclists riding “at speed”.

The proposed changes to the 20-mile-long greenway, which stretches from Holywood to Donaghadee along the picturesque Co. Down coast, include widening the path in certain places, resurfacing works, and the creation of two pedestrian and cycle bridges.

Supporters of the planned upgrades say the changes would enhance the health and wellbeing of the area as well as attracting more visitors.

A public consultation on the proposals, which form part of a broader plan to create a bike path network in North Down and the Ards peninsula, found that 76 percent of those surveyed were supportive of the upgrades, while 79 percent believed that the development would be “positive” for the area.

76 percent of the residents consulted said that they used the existing path, and the same amount said they were satisfied with it. Meanwhile, 85 percent said they would use the redeveloped path.

“This research shows that a majority of residents, and existing users of the North Down Coastal Path, are supportive of the council’s proposal to develop a coastal path/greenway from Kinnegar Holywood to Donaghadee,” a report from Ards and North Down Borough Council, the local authority behind the plans, states.

“If the coastal path were to be developed in line with the council’s proposal, the research suggests that there will be increased use among residents, with almost all current users saying they too would use the path.”

However, despite this broad support, the plans appear set to be shelved after the council’s two largest parties, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and the cross-community Alliance Party, both called for the project to be reconsidered this week.

Yesterday, the Alliance Party called for the planning application to be withdrawn, and claimed that the consultation process had been badly handled by the council.

The DUP’s Assembly member for North Down, Stephen Dunne, also criticised the scheme on Twitter, writing: “The North Down Coastal Path is a wonderful local amenity enjoyed by thousands all year round. Its uniqueness must be preserved. Council needs to think again and get a new way forward.”

Independent councillor Ray McKimm has submitted a proposal for the current planning application to be scrapped, to allow for significant changes to be made.

“What I am proposing is that we withdraw the application to incorporate changes that the public clearly want,” the councillor told the Belfast Telegraph.

“Due to the radical nature of the changes, tweaking the existing application is not an option. The democratic process must be followed and it’s important that people know that they have been heard.”

The opposition to the scheme within the council comes after a residents group launched a petition, which has so far attracted over 3,000 signatures, urging the local authority to “go back to the drawing board” and create a completely separate path for cyclists.

The group, ‘For Another Path’, say that the plans will damage the local environment, while also claiming that the widened path will encourage cyclists to travel “at speed” alongside walkers, increasing tensions between the path’s users.

“Ards and North Down Councillors are considering an application to widen and adapt our coastal path to enable greatly increased cycling numbers, encouraging cyclists to commute to Belfast,” the group said.

“Hundreds of walkers and leisure cyclists already share and enjoy the North Down Coastal Path every day, but these plans would destroy its natural character and have a devastating impact on the marine environment and the experience of people on the path.

“If approved, the planning application would widen the path by tree felling, increasing tarmac cover and adding costly concrete and metal bridges. Almost worse than this, it short-changes the cyclists it is meant to serve who want to commute quickly and safely by bike.”

The group continued: “The proposed route is long, indirect and cyclists will have to look out for and give way to pedestrians. Rather than delivering top-quality cycle lanes (as near Carrickfergus), the council has planned a fast ‘mini-road’ that will permanently spoil the spirit of natural wildness at the heart of the coastal path’s appeal to the community.

“Tensions between cyclists and walkers are already being expressed. Our aim is to reduce this and find a solution that works for everyone who loves the path.

“We are a group of individuals who love the path. Some like walking, some prefer cycling, and some do both. It is not simply a ‘route’; it is a place where people can replenish their mental health while taking gentle exercise.

“We believe a solution must have twin goals: to preserve the coastal path in all its natural beauty and to provide for cyclists to go at speed, unimpeded, on a more appropriate inland route.”

Despite For Another Path’s apparent concern for “short-changed” cyclists, a public meeting in Donaghadee on Tuesday concerning the proposals saw a number of opponents of the scheme refer to “speedy cyclists”, as well as the potential for “conflict” with pedestrians and dog walkers.

One local cyclist has told road.cc that much of the opposition to the council’s proposals stems from anti-cycling and NIMBY attitudes.

“Upgrading the path would have been a fantastic opportunity for a nice flat commute into Belfast from the Ards Peninsula,” road.cc reader Andrew said. “Unfortunately the NIMBYs have been out in force on this one.

“It’s funny because it’s people living in the big houses overlooking the sea complaining about a council wanting to do something good and make it nicer for everyone to enjoy.

“Anywhere else in the world would have done this years ago.

“It’s rickety old stone and gravel path, but listening to the public opinion at [Tuesday’s] meeting you would think they were wanting to flatten the Giant's Causeway!”

Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

25 comments

Avatar
mattw | 1 year ago
4 likes

The demand for a more modest project is one argument being used here (Notts) against local cycle infra Active Travel projects, which are specced (very ish and in someplaces way more dangerously) to the lower end of LTN 1/20.

Also fake green concerns are used, which is a little like the use of people with disabilities by anti-LTN groups as a human shield.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to mattw | 1 year ago
3 likes

Sadly this is a common argument.  Same in Edinburgh.  "Yes, we support this kind of thing but not here / not now".  The sudden concern for disabilities (when we've been rolling out fast / wide roads and an absence of dropped kerbs, illegal barriers etc. for yonks).  The environment - "but the cycle lane would be more tarmac / necessitate removing some trees" (they'd be flattened for roads / housing development for sure).  Declaring trains or buses (even if actually still diesel-powered) "green"?  Finally the "at these straightened times, we can't afford this" ... like, when has there been any spare money in the pot - except for ... expensive roads (or vanity tram schemes)?

* On disabilities - there is some nuance, people are rightly concerned because a) they're always the first to get stuffed by the system b) change can be a major issue if you're living with a disability c) road infra is mostly fairly standard and people have "learned" that whereas all kinds of non-standard make-it-up-how-you-like is the norm with cycling and even walking infra.

Avatar
Car Delenda Est replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
2 likes

With the disability argument it's important to note whether they're using it to call for improvements or just dropping the scheme entirely, because It's always the latter.

Avatar
ktache replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
0 likes

Concerns for the less than able, doesn't seem to count with the more than able waiting in the provided parking spaces. I mean they could wait on the double yellows, little further away, but they go for the more wrong, both legal and very much moral.

And the concern, but they have to drive, then if the able could walk or take public transport, and lessen the traffic and congestion for the less than able that have to drive.

Avatar
Mackadoo | 1 year ago
1 like

Judging from some Twitter comments it looks like the councillors voted to unanimously to shelve the plans. Pretty disgusted with that if true tbh. But I guess those of us who would have wanted/used it weren't vocal enough.

Avatar
binarybob | 1 year ago
3 likes

The main road (A2) into Belfast that runs ~1km inland is constantly busy for the Belfast/Holywood/Bangor/Peninsula commuters. I see very few cyclists on this road for good reason - it is treacherous with at least 1 death that I am aware of.

There is no other inland alternative with an array of small narrow roads and 3 (4 of you count D'dee) coastal golf clubs in the area between the coast and the A2. So little chance of a joined up path for cyclists. I think this is over. It will slowly disappear in red tape and be forgotten about.

Much like the planned extension of the very successful Comber Greenway into Newtownards (& onwards to Strangford Lough) along the pre-existing coastal flood defence. That was shut down pretty effectively too by local landowners and I haven't heard a single thing about it for over 3 years.

Avatar
giff77 replied to binarybob | 1 year ago
2 likes

I personally wouldn't go beyond Holywood on the A2.  It's a horrible road even in a car. Listening to the news tonight and the various rants from people who are happy to drive down to Crawfordburn for their annual dander was beyond me. The pathway is in dire need of upgrading in places and creating a safe, fume free route will be a tourism goldmine. 

Dad told me that in the thirties a cycle route was to be built between Bridgend and Bangor.  They also not got as far as Holywood before the war broke out. After that it was shelved until after the war. Then The Troubles kicked off. The Knocknagoney junction has underpasses dating back to then for cyclists and pedestrians safely join or leave the Belfast Road safely. 

Avatar
eburtthebike | 1 year ago
10 likes

Well justified concerns by this group, pointing to the terrible death rate on other shared use paths, with pedestrians, dogs and children being crushed under the wheels of the uncaring cyclists.  I believe that such paths as the Bristol/Bath path would be closed tomorrow if the public ever found out about the hundreds of deaths every year, hushed up by the councils, the police, hospitals and media, all to keep the cycling mafia happy.

Worldwide, the death toll from shared use paths must run into millions a year, far outstripping the paltry few killed by cars or lack of exercise.

To be serious for a second, I think it's time that Anti-Cycling Disorder was a recognised medical condition, and its sufferers treated with compassion and powerful drugs.

Avatar
mattw | 1 year ago
3 likes

What are thse "top quality cycle lanes near Carrickfergus"?

What even is a "top quality cycle lane"?

Can anyone enlighten me?

Avatar
leipreachan replied to mattw | 1 year ago
4 likes

yes
"not in the UK" ones

Avatar
mattw replied to leipreachan | 1 year ago
0 likes

Do you have an example and a link?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to mattw | 1 year ago
0 likes

I kind of agree!

Having said that cycle lanes do exist even in the most advanced cycling nation - worth quoting:

bicycledutch wrote:

The topic of cycle lanes is one I generally avoid. That is because I want to promote the good things about the Dutch cycling culture and cycle lanes are not exactly that. Cycle lanes don’t really fit in the current Dutch traffic policies of Sustainable Safety. Under these policies you either mix traffic completely, on streets with low volumes of motor traffic and a speed of 30km/h, or you create genuine separation.

So while existing ones are sometimes kept I'd suspect that they're at the bottom of the list of interventions when building new / up for reconsideration where they exist.  And not that everything there is great either of course.  Just most things and high quality, connected, consistent infra is standard everywhere.

Avatar
giff77 replied to mattw | 1 year ago
0 likes

They need their heads felt. The infra into and around Carrick isn't great. Here's a link to the Sustrans document for the Mid and East Antrim proposals and their thoughts. https://www.midandeastantrim.gov.uk/downloads/Cycling_Routes_Masterplan_...

Avatar
mattw replied to giff77 | 1 year ago
1 like

It's notable that the people saying the beautiful cycle lanes of Carrickfergus are the same people who were complaining about not enough car parking in local villages.

Avatar
crymble | 1 year ago
3 likes

The people who rejected it know that there really is no other inland option for this path anyway. The roads inland from there are already very narrow and incredibly dangerous for cyclists. No way there is space to build a new path all the way through by buying land either as that stretch must be the most expensive land in all Northern Ireland so the coast is the only real option. 

It's crazy as the majority of it is already ridable on any bike, with only a few parts that really need bigger tyres (gravel bike would be fine.) I was actually talking to my son about riding to Bangor this morning along there, then getting the train back to Lisburn, would be 30 odd miles with pretty much all of them on bike paths. 

 

Avatar
brooksby | 1 year ago
4 likes
Quote:

Campaigners say the plans “short-change cyclists who want to commute quickly”, fuelling tensions with walkers, and that a “more appropriate inland route” should be created

"...because why should those bl00dy cyclists get a nice view!"

Avatar
Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
5 likes

Typical anti cyclists gazing into their crystal balls and seeing the end of days.

Funny how the flimsiest of excuse is always enough to withhold any infrastructure that benefits the poor.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
3 likes

"Cyclists are welcome... just Not In My Back Yard"

Avatar
alchemilla | 1 year ago
0 likes

Cyclists and pedestrians should ideally be on separate paths, as specified in LTN 1/20. Both groups of users will get in each other's way if they have to share a path.

Avatar
Car Delenda Est replied to alchemilla | 1 year ago
4 likes

Yes but we all know that the cycle lane will be forgotten once the pedestrian path is done

Avatar
mattw replied to alchemilla | 1 year ago
4 likes

The experience of the Bath and Bristol Railway Path - 3m wide, shared, and many times the trips being made, suggests that it will be fine.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to mattw | 1 year ago
0 likes

Hmm... fine for the UK.

I also benefit greatly from my local network of repurposed railway paths.  I think in some places they're even wider (3.5m).  They're "good for the UK" (because network) and the council has actually improved drainage and lighting and does gritting / some leaf clearance.

However it doesn't take a great increase in pedestrians (with dogs / children!) or cyclists for it to be inefficient for cycling and unpleasant for either mode. It's not "good enough" if we want any change e.g. people choosing active travel over the car.  But in the UK it's normal to engineer in the current minimal active travel levels - and conflict - and only ever aim for the "minimum widths" (or even "absolute minumum").  That's where we do anything for active travel at all of course.

What's the issue with space?  Surely we can "work it out" and get by?  Question: why do cars, buses, trains, planes etc. have seats next to each other?  Not just for efficiency - fundamentally people like to travel side-by-side.  If we want people to cycle (and walk!) there must be space for this normal, social way of getting around.

Cyclists and pedestrians can co-exist safely.  It "works" where numbers of users are low overall and normally one mode is more dominant.  Example: Dutch countryside - they may only build a cycle path since not many people overall and very few pedestrians.

Here's how they do it in NL - almost always clearly marked separate spaces for walking and cycling.  One way cycle-only protected path - minimum 2m wide - but if it's busy 2.5m.  I think 2-way paths (again - without pedestrians) require 3.5m but 4+ is advised.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
0 likes

Aside: 3.5m or thereabouts is "standard road lane" width (but at least in Edinburgh there's often much more space - which we don't see because "parking").  So you can have passable 2-way cycling - allowing for comfortable sociable cycling if not too busy - for the space of one single vehicle lane.  (Of course in reality a bit more is required to allow for e.g. a high kerb not yet fixed / parked cars which may open doors / foliage / needing space separating from motor traffic etc.)

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
3 likes

So how many people responded positively to the original public consultation?   If it's more than 3000 - fuck this lot.

Avatar
mattw replied to Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
1 like

Something like 75%-85% supported the proposals according to the article.

Latest Comments