In the consultation, 84% of respondents said they would like to see secure cycle storage, and this has therefore been included - presumably at the nearest place such a facility could be built.
That presumption is incorrect. There are several other locations that this hub could be provided, such as where existing cycle routes actually meet the "walking zone", not on the route they've not bothered to build into town yet (and we have no indication that work will start any time soon). Baxter's Plain, in between shops, restaurants, the forthcoming community hub (library+more) and a recently-approved mixed-use development at the Athenaeum would be my choice, but maybe the Transport Interchange (bus station) would be better as a first one. Both of those are on signed NCN 1.
And 84% of respondents saying they want secure cycle storage does not imply at all that they want to lose any short-term cycle parking as well, does it?
Further, if you read the action plan, what is actually stated is that :-
So - what is it exactly that is getting your knickers in a twist?
Slick marketing hiding the loss of short-stay cycle parking, contrary to the action plan's "suitable positions for cycle stands should be identified close to attractors". Next to the central crossroads on High Street is a very suitable position for cycle stands!
And I'm grumpy about inappropriate siting of the first cycle hub in a busy car park, on the far side of the town centre cycling ban (the N-S street parallel immediately east of the yellow route and the four roads east from it, basically) and difficult to reach from the existing cycle routes (the red one and the two green straights directly connected to it). Edit: here's my doodles on the map to show the absurdity of the SW cycle hub (purple rectangle) being the first built:
I should probably also have noted that you can't cycle out of the SW gate of the park with the X-shaped path layout under the "Only these three..." text and the street between the two southernmost "no cycling" street ends is one-way eastbound, so anyone wanting to reach the hub from the existing cycle routes will have to ride a few hundred metres and several junctions of A road. I know some here would, but it won't be for everyone.
More cynical people than me have suggested that Vision will spend lots of money on a building for the hub with minimal cycling-specific fittings, then plead poverty and never build the connecting cycle route, then say the cycle hub is under-used and convert it to some other use, with the money spent not returning to any cycling budget.
It all looks good to me, and I don't see that moaning about moving some cycle parking a few hundred feet is going to make a positive look for cyclists.
The current parking is not moving because the hub parking is a totally different thing. In the words of current government policy, "Short stay parking should be located on-street
rather than in hubs or shelters.". The short-stay cycle parking is being removed, as far as we know yet.
We've been told the companion edge-of-town hub will be access-controlled, pre-booked and so on. It may be pay-for: that's still undecided. We expect the centre hubs to be similar. Few cyclists who are currently comfortable using the short-term parking will prebook. I see the hub as more for the "I would cycle to work if only there was somewhere safe to leave my bike" market who work in nearby buildings, especially historic ones with no
cycle store or easy way to add one, plus maybe some tourism and (when at rail or bus stations) last-leg travel use.
But even if it was moving away, that would be a policy-busting discouragement of cycling: one reason why Norfolk's parking standards require cycle parking to be closer to shop/office entrance doors than car parking spaces is that it helps to make cycling faster than driving for more short journeys. You know, trip time = (distance cycled or driven) / (average vehicle speed) + (distance walked) / (average walking speed). Outside of rush hour, we do have a disadvantage of average vehicle speed being lower for cycling, but it is remedied a bit by making the distance walked lower for cycling too by putting cycle parking nearer destinations than car parking.
Anyway, thanks for your prompting to elaborate and set out in words more of the arguments, and thanks to everyone who responded to the call before the deadline. We've been offered a meeting and are trying to find a mutually-convenient date. I think we've also been told the under-threat parking will remain for at least 4 months.
le-parking-crisis/ with a link to the feedback form that closes on Sunday.
