Norwich's £10k per meter cycle lane

[steveindenmark]

It seems everywhere Im driving in my local area at the moment, we are getting new cycle paths. Nice smooth tarmac paths. Not 10k a metre paths, but perfectly usable.

One of our local businessman donated some very nice wood to the Council to make a terrace next to a lake. They had some wood left over and so they used it to make a wooden bridge on a new cycle path. Its a real belter.

A really good example of how the Council and local business can work together to provide cyclists just what they need.

 

[glenn forger]

Continuing the story of the Avenues, is anyone else concerned that they've dug up the speed bumps and left us with 3 inch deep trenches?

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news...h_street_replaced_after_mere_months_1_4403222

 

[mjr]

[...] and some really useful cheaper parts of the cycling city ambition project - such as simplifying cycling through the pedestrian zones - have been cut to pay for it.

Two years later, they've now agreed to simplify cycling through the pedestrian zones: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politic...rwich-pedestrian-zones-at-all-hours-1-5203927

 

[mjr]

So in the second phase of the pedalways project, Norwich City Council seemed to have learned and built something on the Blue Pedalway in 2017 which wasn't awful and they actually left some money to remove some of the errors visible when this was filmed:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuVV66p5JeY


But instead of extending that to Brunswick Road or building the same on the other side of that road, they turned their focus back to the city centre just downhill of the £10k per metre mess that started this thread and instead of doing what worked on the Blue Pedalway, now Transport for Norwich is building another booboo:

Here it is on the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-49809139
and the original story at Norwich Cycling Campaign:
https://www.norwichcyclingcampaign.org/what-a-waste-of-money-trees-in-the-cycle-track/


One wheel moving forwards, the other moving back?

 

[Drago]

Is that a tree in the cycle lane? What a great idea- they should put them in the middle of roads as well.

Oh, wait a minute...

 

[mjr]

Is that a tree in the cycle lane? What a great idea- they should put them in the middle of roads as well.

Oh, wait a minute...

Oh sorry yes. That's a small tree with its planter taking up half the cycle lane, with the edging cobbles narrowing the tarmac to about 80cm. There are a number of them. The safety auditors say this is fine because it's uphill so cyclists won't be going fast (it's Norfolk - it's more of a drag than a hill - cycle.travel estimates 2.5% at steepest).

I guess either it will come as a surprise to the safety auditors when the trees get wider over time or they're expecting to be fired before that long!

 

[Drago]

Even at a moderate lick I'd be doing 12 or 14 up there, enough energy to make a mess if I came off. They clearly don't have a scooby doo.

 

[mjr]

Even at a moderate lick I'd be doing 12 or 14 up there, enough energy to make a mess if I came off. They clearly don't have a scooby doo.

I've long suspected we have some council officer lotteries going on, where it's just dumb luck whether any particular cycle lane is designed by someone who can has learned from past cock-ups or at least can read the current design standards and not get it completely bum about face... and then there's a bonus ball lottery of whether you get a safety auditor who thinks cyclists can turn on the spot, see through 270° simultaneously or should ride in the gutter or on the footway. (I objected to a council safety audit that described a cyclist turning right onto a bog-standard 2-lane town road as "needing to cross two lanes of traffic" - which would put them in the gutter or on the footway and I was never sure which the auditor thought cyclists should do.)

Eventually, we get enough councillors convinced or sane officers involved that most things get fixed eventually (most, not all) but it really shouldn't be this difficult and the AA and RAC don't have to waste time doing this shoot to get stuff to follow the design manuals!

 

[Drago]

I've an old fashioned idea. Perhaps they could consult with some cyclists?

 

[mjr]

I've an old fashioned idea. Perhaps they could consult with some cyclists?

Oh they do that. They just don't farking listen after Norwich Cycling Campaign (East Norfolk) or KLWNBUG (West) point out the mistakes - and usually the safety auditors get the designs changed after the consultations, so unless we keep wasting everyone's time making repeated FoI requests, we usually only get to see their sabotage when building starts.

 

[Pale Rider]

So in the second phase of the pedalways project, Norwich City Council seemed to have learned and built something on the Blue Pedalway in 2017 which wasn't awful and they actually left some money to remove some of the errors visible when this was filmed:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuVV66p5JeY


But instead of extending that to Brunswick Road or building the same on the other side of that road, they turned their focus back to the city centre just downhill of the £10k per metre mess that started this thread and instead of doing what worked on the Blue Pedalway, now Transport for Norwich is building another booboo:
View attachment 486701

Here it is on the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-49809139
and the original story at Norwich Cycling Campaign:
https://www.norwichcyclingcampaign.org/what-a-waste-of-money-trees-in-the-cycle-track/


One wheel moving forwards, the other moving back?

The path shown on the BBC website pics looks fine to me.

A competent cyclist keeping a careful lookout ought to be able to navigate it safely.

There's a section of Newcastle Quayside where the path is split by a row of ornamental lampposts and trees.

Same applies, it would be possible to hit one of the obstructions, but only if you fail to pay attention.

 

[mjr]

The path shown on the BBC website pics looks fine to me.

A competent cyclist keeping a careful lookout ought to be able to navigate it safely.

There's a section of Newcastle Quayside where the path is split by a row of ornamental lampposts and trees.

Same applies, it would be possible to hit one of the obstructions, but only if you fail to pay attention.

Right, got it, you're fine with 0.8m width (too narrow for some tricycles or trailers) and trees in cycleways.

I guess part of what makes this annoying is that bit of Prince of Wales Road is wide and used to be four regular lanes across at points in the 1990s. Even with the recent wider pavements, it had two regular lanes and two parking lanes until this latest project. So a 0.8m cycle lane is an insult.

 

[Pale Rider]

Right, got it, you're fine with 0.8m width (too narrow for some tricycles or trailers) and trees in cycleways.

I guess part of what makes this annoying is that bit of Prince of Wales Road is wide and used to be four regular lanes across at points in the 1990s. Even with the recent wider pavements, it had two regular lanes and two parking lanes until this latest project. So a 0.8m cycle lane is an insult.

There's room to trespass on the footpath when passing the trees for the no doubt thousands of Norfolk riders who use wide trikes on that stretch each day.

I'm afraid in this instance ridiculing the local authority will just set them up against you, and make you look like a bunch of unrealistic single issue campaign loonies.

 

[Jenkins]

They've now filled in the tree pits, what can go wrong?: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-49917781

 

[mjr]

We need an emoji of a rider hitting a needless approved-by-idiot-council obstruction. So for now imagine that this is a council officer: