Landowners Blocking Cycleways?

[mjr]

I wrote in a cyclist down comment "it's sick that landowners are allowed to block cycleways, but if it was a motorway and only one or two landowners, it'd be compulsory purchased in a heartbeat". Between the two cities involved there, the Sustrans cycle route is 23 miles (and contains dirt and gravel sections) while the busy rural A road is 14. Parts of the A road have a sub-current-standards cycle track on one side, but there's a 7.5 mile middle section with nothing, not even a footway for much of it.

Riding directly alongside a rural A road is only slightly nicer than riding on it but it could be quick. As usual, there are tons of possibilities, such as: 2 miles of new cycleway along a farm track and byway to cut the 23 mile route to 17; 2.5 miles of parallel farm track upgrades to connect the A road cycle tracks into a 15 mile route; making 3 miles of parallel B road cycle-friendly (an 18 mile route); or simply filling the 7.5 mile gap, mostly within the highway verge (14 mile).

Loads of possibilities, but as usual, it seems like nothing has moved on since the 23-mile route opened in 2005.

As I understand this situation, a highway authority can make a Bridleway Creation Order under Section 26 of the Highways Act 1980, then make it up under Section 27 if needed - except that needs political will and there's compensation due under Section 28. An easier explanation is at http://microsites.lincolnshire.gov....-map/public-path-orders-ppos/creation-orders/

So do you know of anywhere using that power to create cycle routes, or does everywhere allow landowners to block cycleways?

 

[sheddy]

Where ? (suggest an edit to include more detail - post not clear when read in isolation)

 

[mjr]

The above is between Ely and Cambridge, but I'd be interested to know if ANY council is making Bridleway Creation Orders to override blocking landowners.

 

[Flying Dodo]

How many cyclists would actually cycle between Ely & Cambridge? That's the issue though. A council isn't going to spend lots of dosh trying to buy up sections of land for a very, very small proportion of the population. Sadly, that's the reality. That's exactly why Sustrans routes are often far longer than a direct route, as they have to piece together available sections.

Here in Bedfordshire, Central Beds Council do use Bridleway Creation Orders to add new bridleways, but they have to demonstrate there's a need for the new bridleway , in line with Section 26 of the Highways Act 1980, the gist of which is:-

The authority must have regard to the extent to which the footpath or bridleway would add to the convenience or enjoyment of a substantial section of the public or to the convenience of residents of the area. This means that an authority may choose to provide a route by means of a creation order if it is convinced of the need of either local people or the general public, and that such a route may be provided for reasons of convenience, utility or as a recreational facility.

 

[Spinney]

I imagine it's a vicious circle - in the example given, not many people cycle between Ely and Cambridge because the route is (choose any applicable)
- longer than necessary (for the Sustrans route)
- unpleasant (direct route)
- unsafe (subjectively, and possibly objectively) (direct route).

So it would be very difficult for the council to tell (even if they had the will) to work out how many would cycle if there was a pleasanter/safer/shorter route.

 

[mjr]

How many cyclists would actually cycle between Ely & Cambridge?

I think we don't really know. This is a widespread problem with planning cycle routes. Highway authorities just dismiss any requests by saying that there aren't enough current cyclists... but as they say, you don't judge demand for a bridge by counting the people swimming across rocky rapids.

And then, we don't even really know how many currently do it. http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/cp.php?la=Cambridgeshire suggests there's only about a dozen cycling on the A10 each day, but the obvious alternative routes cross no count points. Clicking the southern/central Ely blob on http://commute.datashine.org.uk/#mo...msoa=E02003735&zoom=11&lon=0.2561&lat=52.3223 suggests no-one was cycling to Cambridge for work in 2011, which seems surprising when there's 300 cycling between and within the two Ely blobs, or when you click the Waterbeach blob (the furthest north up the A10 with cycle-friendly connection to Cambridge) and see 88 cycling to Cambridge.

But we don't know how many would do it if there was a 14-mile tarmac route (so maybe an hour if built properly) instead of a 23-mile part-dirt-and-gravel one (maybe 2.5 hours on a good day). Adding numbers up from that datashine, about 2000 people commute from the two Ely blobs to the various Cambridge ones in total. Driving that route at peak time sucks and the trains are overcrowded (and starting work removing the Ely junction bottleneck has just been punted back at least 3 more years).

What modal share we could justifiably expect for an hour's cycle commute? Central St Ives is 15.5 miles away from Central Cambridge but has a fairly good cycle route (not perfect but the best I can think of in that area) and 7 out of 117 St Ives-Central Cambridge commuters cycle, which is nearly 6% - if that could be reproduced on Ely-Cambridge then that's 120. And then maybe apply the same multiplier to get from commuting to all traffic in general on the A10, where total was nine times commuters, so possibly a bit over a thousand cyclists a day!

That's exactly why Sustrans routes are often far longer than a direct route, as they have to piece together available sections.

I thought Sustrans routes are often far longer because they wanted to get 99% of population within X miles of one of their routes, but they don't have funding to signpost enough routes to do that while keeping a reasonably direct transport network, so the routes sometimes detour to "cover" more people. So we get absurdities for long-distance trips (Route 1 ignores the back roads and cycle tracks Lynn-Sutton Bridge-Long Sutton and goes 14 miles further Lynn-Wisbech-Long Sutton), for many local trips (Route 1 into Wisbech detours 2 miles onto a busier road then through West Walton and some of the worst housing estate cycle tracks I've seen in years, instead of entering on nicer roads via Emneth Hungate) and sometimes three routes multiplexing while a parallel route is left unnumbered (Routes 1, 11 and 30 multiplex into Lynn from the south), yet the A10/A149 cycle track is unnumbered.

 

[the snail]

Can't answer your question, but I suspect the answer is few or none. Councils are generally unwilling to go to court if they can help it because of the cost/time involved. Also a lot of off-road routes rely on landowners consent, which would probably be difficult to obtain if they think that it will lead to a compulsory purchase order if they change their mind later.It is annoying though, one of my favourite rides was the beautiful 3 miles or so to Lacock for a pint, now a no through route since a new landowner withdrew consent for the last 100 metres.
I'm not really convinced that these sort of routes really do much to increase modal share. The typical user type seems to be parent + kids on a weekend pootle, whereas the big growth in recent years has been the commuter/mamil types, who realistically are going to be riding on the road for the most part.

 

[mjr]

Can't answer your question, but I suspect the answer is few or none. Councils are generally unwilling to go to court if they can help it because of the cost/time involved.

And yet, they'll do it for motorists. There's a thread elsewhere on here grumbling justifiably about the diversion of almost £1m of cycling grant in Norwich to repave an area for pedestrians and remove a roundabout for buses, yet the local councils there have spent £10m on the northern bypass before any building work has started.

Also a lot of off-road routes rely on landowners consent, which would probably be difficult to obtain if they think that it will lead to a compulsory purchase order if they change their mind later.It is annoying though, one of my favourite rides was the beautiful 3 miles or so to Lacock for a pint, now a no through route since a new landowner withdrew consent for the last 100 metres.

I don't follow the logic in that - surely it would be easier to get landowner consent if there's a realistic prospect of a creation order and lower financial settlement from a land tribunal?

I share your pain on the loss of a permissive route. A stone road near me closed last autumn as a landowner withdrew permission, lengthening my route to the next town east by a mile. At least it's still possible without cycling on a rural A road, thanks to an existing gravelled bridleway.

I'm not really convinced that these sort of routes really do much to increase modal share. The typical user type seems to be parent + kids on a weekend pootle, whereas the big growth in recent years has been the commuter/mamil types, who realistically are going to be riding on the road for the most part.

Sure, these cycle tracks should be built as effectively mini-roads safe for 20mph cycling, so that they're useful for as a transport link.

 

[classic33]

It's one reason I posted this The Great Western Greenway, the law is on the landowners side over there, Ireland, so when such a scheme is carried out I tried to make it known.
We are fairly lucky in this country,at the moment, when it comes to accessing the countryside

 

[Drago]

What's the financial benefit to the nation compared to a motorway? While morally I'm with you in reality the bar for compulsory purchase needs to be set high or everything will end up being forcibly bought to meet the whim of every user group, hobby group or self styled militant minority.

 

[Saluki]

There a a few cycleways here - off road ones - where the farmer has a locked gate across with big signs saying 'private, keep out' on them. The cyclepath is clearly marked on googlemaps, I'm told it's marked on an OS but have not looked for myself as yet. We climb over and carry on along the cycleway. If the farmer starts yelling, we show them that the route is on our Garmins. We are polite and point out that we are doing no damage and only following an official cycleway. Not been chucked off the land yet.
Some farmers are just numpties and like to block footpaths, bridleways and cycleways for the hell of it. There are numpties in every profession.

 

[mjr]

What's the financial benefit to the nation compared to a motorway? While morally I'm with you in reality the bar for compulsory purchase needs to be set high or everything will end up being forcibly bought to meet the whim of every user group, hobby group or self styled militant minority.

A cycleway

• is relatively cheap to construct (£320k/mile for the highest-spec we've built so far and that was in an urban area - rural sections have fewer junctions, signals and others obstacles, so would usually be cheaper),
• enables physical activity which improves public health and saves the NHS money in the long run, and
• usually removes single-occupancy light vehicles from other congested routes (the single-carriageway A10 in this case) which frees capacity for commercial traffic,
• enables people to travel on cycles which are cheaper than cars, on average, so enabling more money to be spent in local economies instead of sent away to mostly foreign-owned oil companies
• are relatively cheap to maintain well (not that we even do a realistic minimum just now).

whereas a motorway

• is very expensive to build (on average £30m/mile, according to the Highways Agency)
• enables pollution which harms public health and costs the NHS money,
• often severs communities either side of the motorway,
• has higher vehicle operating costs than general roads and
• has higher ongoing maintenance costs for the nation.

Cycleways seem a slam-dunk compared to motorways, yet the Cameron government is funding motorways and not cycling. The last-but-one round of the Cycle City Ambition scheme offered a Benefit-Cost ratio of £5.50 of benefit for each £1 cost despite things like the Norwich "omnishambles", whereas motorways still get built despite being at risk of falling below £1 benefit per £1 cost if oil prices rise again and barely above it if not. If we're willing to compulsory purchase for tiny-benefit motorways, we should be at least as willing to do it to provide good cycleways and footways.

 

[mjr]

And I guess that might be part of the problem. Most current motorists seem to welcome new motorways, yet most current cyclists seem against even cycleways which seem obviously better than the current nasty-or-indirect choices, despite being no more required to use them than motorists are to use motorways.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

For what it's worth, I'd cycle between Ely and Cambridge if it was like the guided busway path all the way and I could (for the majority of the route) avoid the A10. If they had a well-maintained path along the side of the rail track it would be great.

 

[sidevalve]

A cycleway

• is relatively cheap to construct (£320k/mile for the highest-spec we've built so far and that was in an urban area - rural sections have fewer junctions, signals and others obstacles, so would usually be cheaper),
• enables physical activity which improves public health and saves the NHS money in the long run, and
• usually removes single-occupancy light vehicles from other congested routes (the single-carriageway A10 in this case) which frees capacity for commercial traffic,
• enables people to travel on cycles which are cheaper than cars, on average, so enabling more money to be spent in local economies instead of sent away to mostly foreign-owned oil companies
• are relatively cheap to maintain well (not that we even do a realistic minimum just now).

whereas a motorway

• is very expensive to build (on average £30m/mile, according to the Highways Agency)
• enables pollution which harms public health and costs the NHS money,
• often severs communities either side of the motorway,
• has higher vehicle operating costs than general roads and
• has higher ongoing maintenance costs for the nation.

Cycleways seem a slam-dunk compared to motorways, yet the Cameron government is funding motorways and not cycling. The last-but-one round of the Cycle City Ambition scheme offered a Benefit-Cost ratio of £5.50 of benefit for each £1 cost despite things like the Norwich "omnishambles", whereas motorways still get built despite being at risk of falling below £1 benefit per £1 cost if oil prices rise again and barely above it if not. If we're willing to compulsory purchase for tiny-benefit motorways, we should be at least as willing to do it to provide good cycleways and footways.

Could be motorway carries several hundred thousand vehicles a week + freight + income from vehicle tax [no not the 'road tax'] the millions from fuel tax vehicle import duty and the hundreds of jobs the motorways provide. The vast majority [and I mean majority] of people want to use their cars - want to get their goods delivered and yes actually they are paying for it. Include reduction of pollution [less jams in city centres] less vehicle density in small towns/villages and saved time in freight deliveries. Communities are liked by underpasses /bridges [yes this even applies to farms for cattle movement] As opposed to maybe a hundred or so riders a week.
What next compulsory purchase of land for off road m/cyling ? Sound ok to me but it aint gonna happen. Horse riding courses - but no all that land being used up by compulsory cycleways might be in the way.
Add in the constant whines about I don't use cycle paths, ways, lanes and it's a dead end.