Cyclists have slammed Torbay council for scrapping plans for a long-awaited bike lane in Torquay after last-minute changes to move a line of trees closer to the roadside kerb, despite every illustration and plan regarding the scheme clearly showing a segregated cycling path until now.
Roadworks as part of a multi-million pound regeneration plan for a seaside resort had been undergoing in the Torquay Harbourside, and a brand-new cycle lane on the area known as the Strand had been promised by the council in the designs.
However, a press release published by the Tory-led Council earlier this month with updates about the roadworks mentioned “some amendments” to the design after essential utilities were identified in an area that was originally marked for underground tree pits.
“The revised design now sees the line of trees moved closer to the kerb line which has necessitated that cycling provision is now incorporated into the main carriageway. Cyclists will have access points at either end of the Strand to safely join the carriageway, which will be a dedicated 20mph zone,” the council said.
Cyclists have slammed this decision, with some claiming that it was taken without any consultation and then hidden away in a press release.
Isaac Frewin, a Torquay cyclist told road.cc: “The council have been very sneaky about this, with announcing the plans to scrap it only briefly in a press release about the wider improvement works (which the cycle track would’ve been a part of) on the Torquay Seafront.”
He also accused of the Council of having “terrible form” with active travel and cycling infrastructure. “They recently removed a pedestrianisation scheme of a shopping street in Paignton and also built a cycle path with steps 10 years ago. Since then, there’s been pretty much zero other new cycle infrastructure, even during Covid,” he added.
Beth Huntley, cyclist and campaigner from Safe, Sustainable Travel Torbay, wrote about the council going back on its promises on social media: “The design has been changed and the cycling infrastructure has been removed.
“Every illustration and plan regarding the scheme clearly show a segregated cycling path but now cyclists are going to be given ‘safe access to the carriageway’ due to the need to move trees closer to the carriageway. This is not acceptable, these plans fail to provide a safe cycling provision as this busy, single carriageway road will not give motorists the ability to pass cyclists safely.
“I am also very unhappy at the underhand way this major change has been hidden in a press release, no consultation has occurred and it doesn’t appear that any other options have been considered.
“These plans must be reconsidered – all road users will be frustrated with these arrangements.”
Speaking to the BBC, Huntley said the new scheme meant cyclists would be “in direct conflict with motorists” on the busy stretch of road in the centre of the resort.
She said: “Less confident cyclists and children won’t be able to use it and it will encourage drivers to close-pass.”
Meanwhile, Helen Morse commented on Facebook: “It’s sad that they don’t see the value of the segregated path. This could have been the start of a great family cycle route. Nobody wants to share space with cars so some people will naturally ride on the pavement because that’s where they feel safe. It just invites conflict with pedestrians and drivers. It’s a no win situation.”
Nick Huntley wrote: “An absolute sham. Every publicity photo has cyclists in it! And that this decision has been buried (until now) shows a complete disregard for the residents they are serving. This is our money and there should be a public enquiry as to how they can railroad this through without following the rules and regulations required by public office.”
Torbay Council states on its website that it is “working to improve the environment so that active travel is better supported by the infrastructure in Torbay over the long term”, however Huntley argued that this action didn’t support that view at all.
> Warning signs to be placed at “crazy” cycle route steps after 83-year-old injured in horror fall
The council said the water pipes were identified in an area that had been marked out for tree planting. Chris Lewis, the Conservative cabinet member for economic growth on Torbay Council, told the BBC it was a question of keeping the trees or keeping the cycle lane.
He said a new 20mph speed limit would be introduced and the road would be “a lot safer than before”, adding: “In the past the Strand was really a bus terminal, now it will be traffic running smoothly through the Strand which only stretches for about 200 yards.
“I think when the scheme is finished the cyclists will be pleased with what they see.”
In 2022, the Torquay Council came under fire after an 83-year-old cyclist who has been riding bikes for years suffered multiple injuries in the worst fall of his life — not while riding — but wheeling his bike as he descended steps built to improve access on a cycle route that climbs a steep rise.
The path, which runs behind Torre Station through Torquay woodland, cost £350,000 to build and includes a steep staircase where cyclists push their bike through a gulley while climbing or descending the 30 steps. It was opened in 2016 to offer riders a route away from the busy main road.
Describing the steps as “crazy”, the cyclist called on Torbay Council to install a ramp to replace them, while suggesting that warning signs be placed at the entrance to the cycle route to help prevent future incidents
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
27 thoughts on ““Is this what anyone wants?”: Council goes back on promise and scraps cycle lane plans without any consultation to move “line of trees closer to kerb””
How about the ‘under ground
How about the ‘under ground tree pits’ become ‘over ground tree pots’ instead.
Indeed, or underground but
Indeed, or underground but manage the roots properly.
Like how they do in eg. NL where trees area very common feature around urban infra yet paths there aren’t broken within a couple of years by root damage. Clearly some UK path-bunglers feel that this must be due to some special property of NL, or perhaps they use druids…
I’m looking forward to how a
I’m looking forward to how a new cycle path round our way planned to co-exist with a bunch of London plane trees that have been wrecking the footpath for years is going to work out.
I’d be interested to see the
I’d be interested to see the service drawings that they apparently hadn’t consulted until very recently. If I lived there I’d be submitting an FOI on that, and what alternatives had been considered. Having the cycle path over the ‘essential services’ isn’t ideal as it will inevitably need to be dug up again in the future, but is that worse than no cycle path at all, or digging up roads?
How much would it cost to move these essential services that they didn’t know were there until very recently?
(I accept that sometimes the actual location of services is not where the service drawings say they’ll be, so it could be they just found out for sure after doing some exploratory work, but that doesn’t justify not trying to adapt the plans).
Depends on the type and
Depends on the type and number of services, but it usually adds millions to the costs of schemes to move them.
I’m aware – I’ve worked on
I’m aware – I’ve worked on projects where it’s been necessary.,
But without information on the type of services or where they actually are – who knows? We’re just trusting the council when they say the only option is to scrap the bike lane.
The way the cancellation of the bike lane was suppressed suggests they didn’t consider any other options and it’s all a convenient excuse to save money on the overall project. And appeal to the anti-cycling lobby.
At least £1,200 per metre,
At least £1,200 per metre, per utility, assuming utility depths in accordance with NJUG.
As soon as you go deeper than 1.2m, all bets are off as its classed as Deep Ex and specialist teams and working procedures are needed.
Oldfatgit wrote:
Thanks – I appread to have phrased my comment poorly. I wondering if it’s expensive to move infrastructure in general terms. I wanted to know if the council had considered various options – including this one. Without knowing which services are where it’s not possible for us to speculate on which other options might be viable or how much they’d cost.
The cynic in me thinks they didn’t even consider adapting the scheme, and while an FOI might not give a response that shows an alternative would have been easy, it would send a message that they need to show their working.
It can take 2 plus years to
It can take 2 plus years to move a gas main … at least a year of that is spent in the design, costing and tendering phase.
It can then take a year to get it to construction.
Then there’s the length of time it takes to do the work…
That’s just gas.
I’m sure telecoms, streetlights, LV and HV electric are pretty much the same … then you have water – who’s lead time seem to be your project urgency x 2566. And that’s not even getting to sewers [although they are normally deep, so not much of a problem).
Then .. you have the other issue that none of the utilities will use the same trench … and will only work at the same time in emergencies. This is due to the last one in the hole is liable for reinstatement and defects.
So cable [who is the shallowest] could be liable for potable water … who is significantly deeper. And that ain’t going to happen.
a ‘simple’ diversion job could take years.
Maybe the council know this already and don’t want to or have the budget to delay the works.
I know, thanks. As I
I know, thanks. As I previously indicated my line of work means I’ve worked on multiple projects where different utilities have either been moved or been worked around. I’m currently involved in a project where a medium pressure gas main will be relocated, but for the time being we’re working around it, and another where several km of electricity cables are being entirely rerouted.
I’m are these things can be both expensive and time consuming. But I also that projects can be redesigned, but that it’s easier and much cheaper to do that when you don’t leave checking for utilities until the last minute.
For clarity, I wanted to know what the council had considered before deciding to use the discovery of surprise ‘essential utilities’ as an excuse to scrap the cycle path.
Guess you’ll need to ask the
Guess you’ll need to ask the council.
Put in an FoI request.
As for late discovery, I’m sure you are aware that historic utility maps are horrendous and in many cases show incorrectly positioned utilities due to poor aslaid and incorrect digitisation.
And I’m also sure, as you have indicated some knowledge of being in this line of work, it’s easy to blame the utilities… after all, *everyone* knows we’re shit.
Speaking as someone who dose this utility shit day in, day out, and has seen many multi-million pound projects overrun because someone didn’t appreciate that their urgency is not the same as *ours*.
Do you specialise in
Do you specialise in responding to people without reading what they say?
My initial comment was about getting the information from the council via FOI. I said that because I was already aware that they are the ones that would hold the information that was required to do the assessment.
I didn’t need you to tell me that moving utilities was expensive. I tried to politely make the case (more than once) that you didn’t need to tell me stuff I already know (more than once). Just because you work in utilities day in and day out doesn’t mean you need to keep on digging.
You don’t have to live there
You don’t have to live there to submit an FOI request. Just be prepared for stonewalling. A site such as whatdotheyknow.com makes the submission easy, and it also makes requesting an official review easy – for when the council either refuse to release the information or ignores your request.
I love how the newer picture
I love how the newer picture – the one without the cycle lane – looks like it was done in their lunch hour by someone using MS Paint to copy and paste bits of the paving. Very professional-looking
brooksby wrote:
It is to give you a better idea of the quality of the finished work!
brooksby wrote:
Particularly since they only seem to have removed the section of cycle track before the trees, and not bothered with the bit where there’s supposedly a problem.
Maybe they were too busy –
Maybe they were too busy – the microwave went ‘ping’ so they said, “That’ll do” and emailed it to their line manager 😉
This (below) is the best bit,
This (below) is the best bit, they’ve cut a cyclist from the bottom right of the original picture and just pasted him straight onto the road without even bothering to erase the cycle path on which he was (in the original) riding. Quality.
They missed the screaming
They missed the screaming children being pursued by a peloton of MAMILs, or wheelchair users repeatedly run over by pot-smoking electric motorbike riders??
Rendel Harris wrote:
It looks like some sort of standee, like you get in cinemas 😀
Also the car that appears to
Also the car that appears to be too wide for the space available for it, and the bicycle below that whose owner has been obliterated.
I prefer a 20mph limit rather
I prefer a 20mph limit rather than segregation as a cyclist, because I have the full width of the lane, junctions are easier and I can travel a bit faster. But 20mph limits need enforcing, with penalties for drivers who exceed the limit.
… and that’s the rub, isn’t
… and that’s the rub, isn’t it?
I cycle anyway – but most of the population don’t. Without exploring that exapansive rabbit hole I suspect even if drivers were all doing 20mph with today’s volume of traffic most people still wouldn’t be tempted to cycle on the roads with them.
If we significantly reduced traffic volumes – or rather reduced the amount of space that cyclists share with lots of drivers – that might make a difference.
We also need to fix junctions somehow e.g. make them safer. And get rid of some of the long waits at traffic lights (fewer traffic lights ideally, or different junction designs, or even just “smarter lights” e.g. with vehicle detection and clever phasing – at any rate less waiting)…
(There’s also a “but the streets/roads are great for cycling on!” Well … they’re paved surfaces so we can but for many decades the fact that cyclists can use them has been irrelevant to their design. They are in fact build for the needs of drivers of large motor vehicles. They’re now sub-optimal for cyclists for a bunch of reasons – not least that all the much heavier vehicles keep tearing holes in them which for cyclists are a major issue!)
a press release published by
a press release published by the Tory-led Council
Need we say more?
Quote:
‘Necessitated’ seems a bit strong there, it could have been incorporated into the non-carriageway space instead, so rather than being ordered:
why not simply:
?
There may be some reason like
There may be some reason like position of utilities – but in the UK there seems to be an idea that while a kerb is enough to “protect” pedestrians from cars it takes stronger measures to keep them safe from the menace of cyclists! (Except where we’re box-ticking and putting up a cycling sign on a pavement to “build” a cycle route…).
Or… could it be that we have to leave “overspill” space for cars? Can’t have people be stuck behind a stopped vehicle. Pedestrians and cyclists can always just go round them…
As the council dismissively
As the council dismissively points out, ‘it’s only 200 metres’. If that’s the case, I’m sure that drivers wouldn’t miss 200 metres of the entire UK road network, so give the whole lot to trees, pedestrians and cyclists. Problem solved.