Connect2



On Nov 30, 7:36 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> As for getting people cycling I'm still waiting for someone to come up
> with evidence that cycle facilities create a significant increase in
> cycling. It seems to be about as rare as the evidence that helmets save
> lives.
>

Well the un-gritted A14 bridge has led to a significant increase in
cycling between Milton and Cambridge. You may not chose to use it, but
many do. The full figures are on the link below, but here's a
summary.

The counts were taken on weekdays from 7am to 7pm and they show a
dramatic increase in the number of both pedestrians and cyclists. In
particular 175.5% more pedestrians used the route after the bridge
opened (507, up from 184). Cyclists also saw an increase of 67.7%
(from 566 to 949)

http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/opus949.html

I personally never used to cycle to work before it was built. Now I
use it and cycle to work (13 mile round trip) every day. Although I
agree with you and cycle on the road from Cowley Road in, as the
parallel path is dangerous and slow.

I vote for Sustrans

Jen
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > Indeed. That's why I've asked the council to give details of their
> > proposed Guild Wheel. I am not campaigning against cycle facilities, I
> > just will not vote for one's designed by an organisation with, in my
> > experience, a consistent record of outputting ****.
>
> if Sustrans /consistently/ produced **** then everything on the NCN
> would be awful, but there's a lot of really nice riding to be done on
> it, including on-road. Therefore their record is not consistent, which
> may be an argument in itself but it isn't the one you're making.

You are right: it's not the argument I'm making. You should note the
words "in my experience". I must admit, I ignored the perfectly decent
sections of B-road north of Preston which, apparently, Sustrans should
be congratulated for signing.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> That then begs the question, *Why are the routes so often
> inconsistent?*
>
> I would say that the reason is this.
>
> Sustrans hobbled together a network of cycle routes using very limited
> resources, I think £10 million was the original amount. To make such
> a large network quickly is was necessary to use existing roads and
> tracks and sign them as a cycle route. Now that stage has gone and
> Sustrans is now upgrading existing routes and building new links.

When Sustrans manage to show me evidence that they are capable of doing
this then they will get my vote. Unfortunately, the organisation has, in
my experience, a record of monumentally hasty ****-ups.

> It will be a great many decades until the network is at a satisfactory
> level.
>
> In the meantime, enjoy the bits which are useful, and avoid the bits
> which are unusable.

If the bits which are unusable were removed from the network until such
time as they were made usable, then the network would be greatly
improved. As it stands, I don't trust the signs to take me anywhere
off-road safely and sensibly.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Mark Annand <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > The City Council have big plans for a Guild Wheel (to be launched for
> > the Preston Guild of 2012) which should connect various parts of the
> > city.
>
> OT, but does Preston's replica tramway bridge across the Ribble serve a
> useful function now, and is it in fair condition?

The 'replica' tramway bridge? The old tram bridge carries a part of NCN6
between Bamber Bridge and Preston. That section is actually quite good
and provides a reasonable shortcut. It's unfortunate that it leads to a
section of Avenham Park through which cycling is prohibited but I can
see how some people who work in the city centre would happily use that
stretch.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bit late now, of course. But, you know, you could still contact them
> and put your case for how you think they can help cycling in Preston
> to develop. It's got to be better than sniping from the sidelines.

Perhaps, but I would have to trust them to do a good job. As I have
repeatedly mentioned, I've seen too many of the dangerous routes that
they like to produce round here. Frankly, I'd rather work with the
council who have a lot of public accountability.

It's not in my nature to 'snip[e] from the sidelines'. I'm a strong
believer, you see, that the silent majority should put up or shut up.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
On Nov 30, 6:37 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Clive George

> The Kirkpatrick Macmillan bridge, which is the one I'm complaining
> about, /should/ be useful too - if it wasn't so half arsed. Dumfries has
> really serious traffic congestion to the south of the town, where a single
> grossly congested road serves the only accident and emergency hospital in
> the region. The bridge should be exceedingly handy for people living on
> the Galloway bank to get to the hospital and the Crichton Campus. Except
> that you cannot get to the bridge from the places where people actually
> are. As it is at present, it effectively serves about fifteen or twenty
> households.
>

I was under the mistaken impression that people would live in the
built up areas. (Summerville, Maxwelltown,Troqueer etc. which are far
more than 15 or 20 households) So, with there being virtually no
habitation southwest of the bridge, having links in that direction
didn't seem like like it would make it to the top of the priority list
on a limited pot of funding. The congested roads you talk about are on
the south eastern side.

So I really don't follow your argument as it seems to be counter to
what the map shows. I will have to defer to your local knowledge.

Now, it would be good to have a direct path to Mabie to avoid the
overly congested A road. That would allow Dumfries visitors convenient
access (it's less than 6 miles) to the MTB trails and would be a key
bit of tourism infrastructure. Not much cop for those who live and
travel in the town though.

The acid test though would be the usage. All this word bandying is
pointless without on the ground measurements.

...d
 
On Nov 30, 7:36 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>
> > David, I've possibly overstated my case here. Where a cycle route provides
> > a genuine saving of distance or of gradient or an alternative to a busy
> > and complex junction, /and/ is well surfaced and lit and swept to the same
> > standard as nearby roads, and there is a strategic reason for putting a
> > link there (i.e. a substantial population who could use the link if it
> > were built, whether or not they currently cycle), and where the link
> > crosses any existing roads at grade, there are traffic lights giving at
> > least equal priority to cycle traffic, then I'm happy to support it.
>
> You forgot to include the gritting in winter when its icy. Cambridge
> spent millions on a cyclist bridge but have said they cannot afford the
> costs of gritting it in winter. So in winter its left icy.

This is a recurring issue. They stick up silly gates and then use them
as an argument against gritting as it costs much more to have to hand
grit them.
We have ongoing battles at the local council to get the key commuter
routes gritted (and even pavements - the response I got last time I
complained was that they found it better to let the sun take the frost
off. I did point out that when most people were heading to school or
work, the sun was barely up. The roads are gritted early, the
pavements too late.

...d
 
On Dec 1, 9:51 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
A case in point, if I'm going to Broughty Ferry by
> bike and I'm in a hurry then I'll take the road, if I'm not in a
> hurry I'll take the Grassy Beach cycle track along the river front
> because it's a joy to ride along where the 4 lane main road is just
> a good way of getting there quicker.

Unless you are heading to the south side of Broughty Ferry or carrying
any kind of load. In which case the Grassy Beach track (now widened
and tarmac surfaced) is faster than the main road because it misses
out a not insubstantial hill. The vast majority of commuters from that
end of town come along that track. It is suitable for 20mph+ speeds
and is quite pleasant to ride on. A picture of the eastern end can be
found http://flickr.com/photos/davidmam/177066045/ with Dundee in the
background. OK, my load example was taking a welder and tools from the
sailing club back home. Getting through the Docks was not so easy as
the path has some silly bends and awkward security gates. Easy to get
onto the road though from the dock entrances.

There are of course missing links, and the council are gradually
waking up to getting their design improved. However, they are loathe
to spend big money unless they can justify it through use, so a pile
of people complaining about the initial implementation is indicative
of use and has beneficial results.

...d
 
On Dec 1, 2:32 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:

> If the bits which are unusable were removed from the network until such
> time as they were made usable, then the network would be greatly
> improved. As it stands, I don't trust the signs to take me anywhere
> off-road safely and sensibly.

If you removed all the non-ideal bits from the network you would not
have a network. It would be series of disjointed cycle paths and bits
of road.
So to go from A to B you would have to do the 'find a map and plan the
whole thing' game every time.

The modus operandi inside sustrans appears to be changing and the
emphasis, from what I have seen locally, appears to be more on quality
where there is an established route on the ground.

I find Tony's arguments strangely reminiscent of the 'a helmet saved
my life' ones. He, like myself, has seen numerous examples of poor
provision and simple cluelessness. He also appears to translate his
desires and expertise to others without regard for them being
different. For one claiming to take an evidence based view he has
quoted no data, merely anecdote. The hard data that has been quoted
indicates that even though he doesn't like the facility, it does have
a positive effect in increasing cycle use well above the national
trend.

So it really is a case of trying to get hard data. Yes we know the
data that increasing conflict points by putting parallel cycle paths
alongside roads with loads of junctions is dangerous. The fault isn't
the parallel cycle path but the conflict points (as I'm sure he will
agree). Yes we know of areas where there are 'ideal' networks of off
road paths that are barely used. But to ascribe this to the paths
themselves rather than to the journeys as a whole is fallacious. There
is one part of the Grassy Beach path which is suspended over the sea.
Without that one part you would have a perfect cycle path, level, good
sightlines, but useless as it is not connected.

I looked at the Royston proposal. I don't see what Tony's problem with
it is, apart from a specious argument that it doesn't go where he
wants to go. It might be worth pointing out, at the same level of
argument, that it is just as useless for me in my daily commute.. in
Dundee. However, for people who do want to gothat way, does it add
utility? And are there sufficient people who would use it? For the
first, I can't see any reason why not. For the second, I am not
competent to judge, but it won't reduce the numbers cycling, that is
for sure.

I'm very much with Pete on this one. Maybe it is because we live in a
city that has been somewhat later on the uptake than the areas you
inhabit and has learned from the mistakes and errors. Whatever it is,
it is a hilly town and we have seen an anecdotally massive increase in
cycling in just the last five years, most of it utility cycling.

...d
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> So now I'm of the opinion that new cycle facilities need to have strong
> justification.

Absolutely agreed.

Although with Connect2 we have a starnge situation. It isn't "you
can 50 million for cycling, do the best you can", it's "you have 50
million for these specific infrastructure projects, or nothing at
all". I'd sooner have a not perfectly spent 50M than nothing.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> Michelin. And the same map takes you down to Carlisle.

We'vbe used them both, they're not the same. I have a sneaking
suspicion you havn't actually used a Sustrans map.

> I have never seen any sign on any NCN route which adds routing or direction
> information, which wasn't there before the NCN came into being.

Well, you'll have to shoot the pair of us because we have. We have
had value added by NCN routes and maps and signs and it has been
sufficient to have us getting more maps to cycle on more of ther
routes, so whatever amount of theroy you wish to spout saying it
doesn't hppen we know that in our case it does. I suspect we're
not /completely/ unique.

> Apart from that there's only the little square number signs, which are
> infrequent and intermittent, and if you miss one you're stuffed.

We've missed a few in our time, but don't appear to be budding
taxidemy models yet.

> But if you're claiming
> that the NCN signing as currently instituted is sufficient to prevent the
> regular need for a map, then...

We're back to this bloody silly all or nothing business. It
prevents some stops, some of the time. That is actually a Good Thing.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:40:26 -0000, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> AIUI Tom is achieving similar cycling results with his school
>> by active encouragement and I don't think he had a single cycle path
>> built to do it.
>
> Funny you should say that!
>
> My cycle training programme had an assessment recently by Cycling
> England. In the report I was described as a "one-man Bike It!". Bike
> It! is the cycle training part of Sustrans.

"Bike It!" is for England Only AIUI.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> So now I'm of the opinion that new cycle facilities need to have strong
>> justification.
>
> Absolutely agreed.
>
> Although with Connect2 we have a starnge situation. It isn't "you
> can 50 million for cycling, do the best you can", it's "you have 50
> million for these specific infrastructure projects, or nothing at
> all". I'd sooner have a not perfectly spent 50M than nothing.

I'm going to back out of this discussion. I hold to my general opinion that
Sustrans is a waste of perfectly good oxygen, but in the specific cases of
the Connect2 schemes those I've looked at do on the whole look sensible.

However, I don't think money spent 'on cycling' which doesn't actually do
cyclists any good is a good thing in itself. On the contrary, the
politicians and the media will tend to feel that cyclists have had their
share, and we'll go back to the back of the queue. Which seeing that I
feel there is an urgent need for quality, free or low cost, road training
for new and returning adult cyclists, is something that concerns me.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Robert Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'
 
On Dec 1, 9:00 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
>
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> >> So now I'm of the opinion that new cycle facilities need to have strong
> >> justification.
>
> > Absolutely agreed.
>
> > Although with Connect2 we have a starnge situation. It isn't "you
> > can 50 million for cycling, do the best you can", it's "you have 50
> > million for these specific infrastructure projects, or nothing at
> > all". I'd sooner have a not perfectly spent 50M than nothing.
>
> I'm going to back out of this discussion. I hold to my general opinion that
> Sustrans is a waste of perfectly good oxygen, but in the specific cases of
> the Connect2 schemes those I've looked at do on the whole look sensible.
>
> However, I don't think money spent 'on cycling' which doesn't actually do
> cyclists any good is a good thing in itself. On the contrary, the
> politicians and the media will tend to feel that cyclists have had their
> share, and we'll go back to the back of the queue. Which seeing that I
> feel there is an urgent need for quality, free or low cost, road training
> for new and returning adult cyclists, is something that concerns me.

I would agree. I think the majority of the connect2 projects are net
benefits to cycling and therefore money well spent (as opposed to
regional attractions which will encourage more motor traffic.) I also
believe that we need to spend more money on cycle training -
considerably more than we do at present. It will clearly pay for
itself in health and infrastructure costs. But this pot of money will
not pay for training so it is unreasonable to criticise the proposals
for failing to do so.

...d
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> However, I don't think money spent 'on cycling' which doesn't actually do
> cyclists any good is a good thing in itself. On the contrary, the
> politicians and the media will tend to feel that cyclists have had their
> share, and we'll go back to the back of the queue. Which seeing that I
> feel there is an urgent need for quality, free or low cost, road training
> for new and returning adult cyclists, is something that concerns me.

Yes, indeed. I wouldn't have put in my vote for Connect2 if it had
just been to paint lots of pointless lanes and put up "shared use"
signs on pavements. The schemes it does seem to be going towards
are worthy of at least one, if not two, cheers. Not three, which
is a shame, but at least one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 07:19:36 -0800 (PST), David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> If the bits which are unusable were removed from the network until such
>> time as they were made usable, then the network would be greatly
>> improved. As it stands, I don't trust the signs to take me anywhere
>> off-road safely and sensibly.
>
>If you removed all the non-ideal bits from the network you would not
>have a network. It would be series of disjointed cycle paths and bits
>of road.
>So to go from A to B you would have to do the 'find a map and plan the
>whole thing' game every time.

There seems to be a bit of confusion over the National Cycle Network,
Sustrans' upgraded tracks and the Connect2 project.

The NCN has been cobbled together by Sustrans, small parts of which
are specifically built cycle tracks. The Connect2 project is all
about building or upgrading sections between communities, or within a
community primarily for use by walkers and cyclists.

In Northumberland one of the proposed connections is a ferry!
www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=13
 
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:25:42 -0800 (PST), David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Dec 1, 9:00 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
>>
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>> > Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> >> So now I'm of the opinion that new cycle facilities need to have strong
>> >> justification.
>>
>> > Absolutely agreed.
>>
>> > Although with Connect2 we have a starnge situation. It isn't "you
>> > can 50 million for cycling, do the best you can", it's "you have 50
>> > million for these specific infrastructure projects, or nothing at
>> > all". I'd sooner have a not perfectly spent 50M than nothing.
>>
>> I'm going to back out of this discussion. I hold to my general opinion that
>> Sustrans is a waste of perfectly good oxygen, but in the specific cases of
>> the Connect2 schemes those I've looked at do on the whole look sensible.
>>
>> However, I don't think money spent 'on cycling' which doesn't actually do
>> cyclists any good is a good thing in itself. On the contrary, the
>> politicians and the media will tend to feel that cyclists have had their
>> share, and we'll go back to the back of the queue. Which seeing that I
>> feel there is an urgent need for quality, free or low cost, road training
>> for new and returning adult cyclists, is something that concerns me.
>
>I would agree. I think the majority of the connect2 projects are net
>benefits to cycling and therefore money well spent (as opposed to
>regional attractions which will encourage more motor traffic.) I also
>believe that we need to spend more money on cycle training -
>considerably more than we do at present. It will clearly pay for
>itself in health and infrastructure costs. But this pot of money will
>not pay for training so it is unreasonable to criticise the proposals
>for failing to do so.

I have met people high up in the Cycling England hierarchy. It is my
understanding that a great deal of money is to be put into cycle
training over the coming years. The issue seems to be recruiting
sufficient instructors of a high enough standard to manage groups of
children.

Most training providers in London work on a ratio of one instructor
for every 3 pupils. This is prohibitively expensive for most London
Boroughs.

The model I am working with Cycling England and Transport for London
to develop is one of a partnership between the schools and
instructors. One or two staff (usually teaching assistants) from each
of the partner schools go on a two day course as assistant
instructors. They work with dedicated and highly trained cycling
instructors, preferably with class teaching experience, who are
responsible for cycle training at a number of schools. That way cycle
training soon becomes embedded in the schools' PE curriculum and the
schools have a financial interest in the training. Furthermore, there
is a possible career progression for good assistant instructors to
become the next generation of full-time instructors. Through the
partnership, the cost to local authorities for providing the
instruction is cut to about a third.

The target is that by 2010 every child in primary school in London
will have to opportunity to have on-road cycle training. But it is
essential that the quality of the training is consistently high, and
that the target is not rushed if standards, or safety requirements,
cannot be met.
 

> Most training providers in London work on a ratio of one instructor
> for every 3 pupils. This is prohibitively expensive for most London
> Boroughs.

This is prohibitively expensive full stop.
Public funded schemes will not be viable at this ratio.
It will have to be increased to above 1 to 10 at least.
Although many in the treasury would argue it would have to be 1 to 30.

> The model I am working with Cycling England and Transport for London
> to develop is one of a partnership between the schools and
> instructors. One or two staff (usually teaching assistants) from each
> of the partner schools go on a two day course as assistant
> instructors. They work with dedicated and highly trained cycling
> instructors, preferably with class teaching experience, who are
> responsible for cycle training at a number of schools. That way cycle
> training soon becomes embedded in the schools' PE curriculum and the
> schools have a financial interest in the training. Furthermore, there
> is a possible career progression for good assistant instructors to
> become the next generation of full-time instructors. Through the
> partnership, the cost to local authorities for providing the
> instruction is cut to about a third.
>
> The target is that by 2010 every child in primary school in London
> will have to opportunity to have on-road cycle training. But it is
> essential that the quality of the training is consistently high, and
> that the target is not rushed if standards, or safety requirements,
> cannot be met.

I am all in favour of cycle training for children tho.
Tam
 

> In Northumberland one of the proposed connections is a ferry!

In Germany and Holland there are several little ferries that only take
pedestrians and bikes.
The ones I have used are low environmental impact types.
There is a little pier only a few feet long and about 5 feet wide.
The ferry has an opening in the side and you just wheel on-they can take
wheelchairs to.
Tam
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I have met people high up in the Cycling England hierarchy. It is my
> understanding that a great deal of money is to be put into cycle
> training over the coming years. The issue seems to be recruiting
> sufficient instructors of a high enough standard to manage groups of
> children.

Tom, I don't in the least wish to undervalue the work you do with children;
it's superb and very important. But I do think we're beginning to get the
message through on training for children, and that's no longer such an
urgent need.

If we're to deal with congestion and health now, we need also to train
adults. Unless there's a basis of cycling culture, when the children reach
driving test age most of them will just follow cultural norms and drive.
And currently there is extremely limited provision of training for adults.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

((DoctorWho)ChristopherEccleston).act();
uk.co.bbc.TypecastException: actor does not want to be typecast.
[adapted from autofile on /., 31/03/05]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Connect2 phone voting
Replies
37
Views
785
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
M
Sustrans Connect2 projects, vote early vote often!
Replies
7
Views
482
UK and Europe
MJ Ray
M
Top Bottom Back