You may remember the new segregated cycle lane that was being built in Norwich with trees in the middle of it. Transport for Norwich has now filled in the pits in which the trees were planted, claiming that this had always been its intention.
The cycle lane has been constructed on the footway on one side of Prince of Wales Road, which runs between the city centre and the railway station.
Norwich Cycling Campaign said that the “inept design” with tree pits dotted along its length would make the city “a laughing stock.” Each tree bed stretched more than halfway across the lane.
The BBC reports that each bed has now been levelled off with asphalt.
A spokesperson for Transport for Norwich said: “It was always the intention for the tree pits to be levelled off to provide a suitable area for cycling and while this design would have been perfectly safe we can understand why some concerns have been raised around their appearance.
“Temporary repairs have been carried out to allow this section of the route to be opened while we look at a more permanent solution in keeping with the rest of the design.”
You can see the repairs here:
Jeff Jordan, of Norwich Cycling Campaign, said: “The tree pits have been filled in but the material used will crumble with use and tree growth – the trunks are expected to double in diameter.
“The material has no substantial foundation yet will form the cycle track surface. Tree roots could also lift the paving and break up the material.”
19 thoughts on “Norwich levels off infamous tree pits in cycle lane – claims that was always the plan”
However, there are still
However, there are still trees protruding into the cycle lane
Michael Scott wrote:
— Michael ScottAnd a vertical object that tall should be separated from the cycle lane by 50cm (or the track widened by the same amount) to avoid catching handlebars [LTN 1/12, DfT, section 7.46 Table 7.4], so the path — already reduced from 2m width to 1.5m because of “lack of money” — an amount now presumably wasted on planting trees, creating beds, tarmacing over the beds and in the future removing the trees again (hopefully) — is further reduced to one metre, which is half the minimum standard laid down by the London Cycling Design Standards document, which Norwich claims to be following.
“2.0 metres minimum for flows below 300 cycles per hour, 3.0 metres for 300-1,000 per hour and 4.0 metres for flows of over 1,000 per hour” where cyclists are completely separated from
pedestrians. [Section 4.5.5 page 64. See also p.53: “for very low flows, a 1.5 metre lane could be fit for purpose. Refer to the ‘collision risk’ and ‘effective width without conflict’ factors in CLoS…”. Very low flows implies a peak hour flow of less than 100 bicycles (Figure 4.12a).]
And that is before a few years’ growth means they block the cycle path entirely, or low-hanging branches take a cyclist’s eye out.
Tarmacing over the beds will have made the trees harder to see and thus even more of a hazard than before this ‘remediation’.
Why don’t they just plant the
Why don’t they just plant the trees in the road instead? Simples!
Look how they have either
Look how they have either removed or simply covered those edging cobbles, as if this was ever going to be the plan.
Keep digging…
Don’t worry,trees will sicken
Don’t worry,trees will sicken and die with no/little source of water/nutrition…
Bollox. There’s no way they
Bollox. There’s no way they would have done that blockwork if they’d intended to rip it up later. And that infill asphalt looks bloody awful. Council better hope nobody catches a handlebar on one of those tree trunks…..Unusable anyway – will be full of shoppers walking.
dobbo996 wrote:
The casual way they lie about that point really says something depressing about political culture.
Unless it wasn’t lying so much as ineptitude – whoever put the blockwork in hadn’t been told it was going to be resurfaced anyway.
Quote:
I call BS on that!
As the previous news item
NFN
As the previous news item
NFN
If there was true “planning
If there was true “planning for this all along” they might have put in those watering pipes, or this could be that permeable tarmac that lets water drain through, but then is very suceptable to destruction with a few freeze thaw cycles.
My commute along the thames was tarmacced after me using it for several years. I liked the hardpacked gravel right along the thames and the mud through the park. For a start dog walkers would wander over the grass, might as well grass or mud, grass, once tarmacced they stick to the path, slightly selfish from me I guess. But then both hardpak and mud are self leveling, it is now bumpy as hell, thin tarmac is succeptable to tree root growth. I have encountered a cyclist having recently been thrown from his bike by the nasty bumps. I did stop to make sure he was OK. And thin tarmac was heavily denouded everytime the thames flooded. Which happens there every few years. Tarmac need regular, repair gravel and mud stays gravelly and muddy.
“When in a hole stop digging”
“When in a hole stop digging” is something that Norwich Council have clearly never heard.
Jem PT wrote:
Maybe they’re taking advice from Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead…?
Within not so many years the
Within not so many years the tree roots will be destroying the tarmac and these already poor facilities will join the rest of the UKs crap cycle paths. Nottm council recently resurface a popular bike path, and I kid you not, it took about a month before it was sprouting through it. I think they only consider traffic weight in the ‘design’.
visionset wrote:
I’m pretty sure Bristol or BANES had to resurface a section of the Bristol & Bath Railway Path because tree roots were lifting all the tarmac. They then had to re-resurface it after they c0cked it up the first time…
I wonder if this weekend will
I wonder if this weekend will bring anything further to the ever continuing saga surrounding VeloLife? The past couple have been quiet.
plan
plan
noun
1. a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.*
*Except for Norwich.
I could use this stretch of
I could use this stretch of road to commute home on. Except I won’t, because it’s terrible.
i will now have to find another route, because I can’t cycle near this useless facility as that will involve lots of car horns because I’m not on the crap cycle lane.
it was better with no facilities.
I wonder why cycle lanes can
I wonder why cycle lanes can only be constructed in straight lines?
They do know that trees grow,
They do know that trees grow, right?
Oh, no