Nottingham is tops!

[dellzeqq]

http://www.guardian....t-car-dependent

A fascinating article - not least because it places Milton Keynes a miserable 20th and last out of a selection of English cities (you have to buy the paper to get the map with the dots on).

Reading the article you come to a conclusion that isn't, perhaps, the one cyclists want to come to - that cycling is only part of the package, and maybe not the most significant part.

As for dear old MK....well, cycle paths, eh? A whole heap of crap. And, having been yelled at by a Two Ton Tessie O'Shea tribute act driving a 4x4 'get on the cycle path' I can well understand why cycling is so marginal in a town that claimed to be the most 'cycle friendly' in the country.

I was surprised by the high ranking given to Brighton, but the bus service is brilliant (some of you will have been handed a medal by Roger, the Chairman of the bus company), and the Council have done their best to keep traffic out of the town centre. Cycling along the Old Shoreham Road isn't fun, though.

 

[iAmiAdam]

I don't use the tram, I hate it.

 

[mcr]

It's no surprise about MK - it was built around the car, with everything - housing, businesses - deliberately spread out.

I have to say, though, having always been a cycle-path sceptic, I've discovered the redways this summer and have found the bits I've used quite useful - pleasant even. I live about 10 miles from the place but often pass through its south-western suburbs on a pootle, and sailing along the wide, empty path parallel to the A421 is a treat, swooping under the roundabouts unhindered. OK, they don't always go the way I want to go, and some of the newer ones through residential streets are a pain with their typical stops and starts, but given that most of the main roads are 60/70mph with frequent roundabouts and traffic lights, it's nice to have an alternative.

I should add that I'm almost exclusively a country-lane cyclist and usually avoid encroaching on urban areas at all cost (I used to live and cycle in London in the early 90s and was glad to get away).

 

[2Loose]

The trams and buses in Nottingham are first rate - along with the way that shops are all grouped in the city centre means that it is often easier\faster\cheaper to travel into town by public transport than your own car.

Cycling provision is only so so to be fair.

 

[dellzeqq]

The trams and buses in Nottingham are first rate - along with the way that shops are all grouped in the city centre means that it is often easier\faster\cheaper to travel into town by public transport than your own car.

Cycling provision is only so so to be fair.

and are the tram tracks are a bit of a concern for cyclists?

 

[e-rider]

I lived in nottingham for 4 years a few years back.

The public transport is indeed very good and relatively cheap. There are plenty of useable cycle paths and the Tram is excellent if you live in that part of the city (2 more lines are planned but after the first line blew the budget so much I doub't they'll be built anytime soon)

I would agree that it's a bike/public transport friendly city - just don't forget to wear your bullet-proof vest!

 

[Bollo]

I read this in today's Gruniad (you're not missing much with the dot map).

It had me thinking about the contrast between my two 'urban' stomping grounds - Basingstoke for work and Winchester for home. Basingstoke is definitely of the MK stamp - a newish anonymous town sprawl that has undergone massive, car-centric development in the last 30 years. But despite that, it's ok for cyclists. Not great, but ok. One of the key elements of this seems to be the availability of space. With little or no pre-car infrastructure to get in the way, the roads have been built wide and, to keep those pesky cyclists and peds out of the way of king car, there are lots of opportunities for dedicated cycle ways. These opportunities have been royally f***ed up in places, but at least they're available.

Winchester by contrast is a swine of a place to ride a bike (back me up here Kaipaith!). Get out of the town centre and I think you've got some of the best riding in the South, but the city centre is a dog. The medieval street plan doesn't lend itself to motorised traffic, but the motorist must not be denied. Consequently, we've got a city centre frequently jammed by cars with, of course, bits of public transport wedged in. The space is so tight, even negotiating the road space that's left is a trial. The central road system acts as a one-way gyratory around the centre, with few concessions for cyclists. This leaves two options if you want to get anywhere by bike - brave the traffic bunfight and do a good chunk of climbing to end up not very far away from where you started or bully your way through the pedestrian centre, where you really shouldn't be.

My conclusion - the new towns like Basingstoke and MK seem to be an opportunity missed for cycling, but with some remedial work could support Dutch-style facilities. For the old stuff like Winch, the only real solutions are the radical ones, keep the car out and support the centre with effective and affordable public transport.

 

[Flying Dodo]

I'm sure Adamski would be able to comment about Nottingham's cycle facilities. I've only cycled there once!

I'm much more familiar with Milton Keynes though, and the issue there is entirely down to trying to remove cyclists from the roads. The Redways are fine for meandering around but of course suffer from lack of cleaning, de-icing in winter and general maintenance.

 

[marinyork]

I think Sheffield's assessment is fair enough but for the wrong reasons although for questions like A2 you can clearly see why it got clobbered. The Lib Dem administration is very pro-car, the bus service has declined to a very sorry state in terms of use, routes declined and sky high prices. Some of the arterial roads choke like crazy. The whole thing's summed up by a multimillion pound scheme to regenerate a shopping area, narrow the road and add bus lanes. The Lib Dems now are spending millions to undo some of it to appease the car lobby - what a mind-bending waste of money.

Links to rotherham are very poor but I'm a bit mystified why sheffield's marked down for that. We don't have all these useful urban stations that some other cities have. I don't think it's particularly bad for walking and cycling but I can see how C1-C4 got it pretty low ratings.

"A2 How many people can get to a hospital within 30 minutes by walking or public transport?" Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Not sure I quite see the hype of trams in Nottingham, rather like here they seem to go very few places and eye-wateringly expensive. For cycling in between the tracks they have a better surface but harder to spot. Rather like here some rather bad planning in the Hyson Green area knocking out key cycling roads.

 

[Crankarm]

I wouldn't like to cycle in Nottingham as one would be too much at risk of receiving a puncture, ie being shot as it is the gun capital of the UK AFAIK. It's bad enough driving around the place let alone cycling. It's full of loons and ganstas.

As for Brighton and Hove LoL!!! Cycling is only good if you want to cycle along the sea front although I am sure there are restrictions prohibiting cycling at any time, but if you want to cycle around the town, go further afield east to Rottingdean or north to where ever then there are some pretty serious hills to cycle up. Even cycling up to the train station from the Old Steyne or up to Seven Dials there are pretty big hills to contend with iirc. Somehow I can't see the average lardy southerner taking this energetic option.

Peterborough is a pretty good city for getting around by bike as there are lots of dedicated cycle paths. Much better than Cambridge IMHO.

Who compiled this report as it appears to be cack ................... ?

Oh, it's from an article in the Grauniad which explains a lot.

 

[summerdays]

But the report wasn't entirely about cycling, other things such as bus price etc were taken into account, so Bristol did badly partly due to high bus prices and on-going problems about the Rapid Transit system. And there was one statistic about whether you could get to the centre by bus or walking in 15 mins (can't remember the exact statistic) but that is impossible too, and even by bike I would find Bristol too large to get from the furthest points to the centre in 15 mins.

They are just a statistic ... which will mostly be forgotten about soon apart from some councillors in the top locations dragging out the report to justify their transport plans. But we all like statistics that support our point of view.

 

[rich p]

I wouldn't like to cycle in Nottingham as one would be too much at risk of receiving a puncture, ie being shot as it is the gun capital of the UK AFAIK. It's bad enough driving around the place let alone cycling. It's full of loons and ganstas.

As for Brighton and Hove LoL!!! Cycling is only good if you want to cycle along the sea front although I am sure there are restrictions prohibiting cycling at any time, but if you want to cycle around the town, go further afield east to Rottingdean or north to where ever then there are some pretty serious hills to cycle up. Even cycling up to the train station from the Old Steyne or up to Seven Dials there are pretty big hills to contend with iirc. Somehow I can't see the average lardy southerner taking this energetic option.

Peterborough is a pretty good city for getting around by bike as there are lots of dedicated cycle paths. Much better than Cambridge IMHO.

Who compiled this report as it appears to be cack ................... ?

Oh, it's from an article in the Grauniad which explains a lot.

Crankers old bean. I have agreed with you on this elsewhere on a similar thread but don't diss The Guardian or I may have to recant!

 

[davefb]

It's no surprise about MK - it was built around the car, with everything - housing, businesses - deliberately spread out.

dull MK 'fact' ( well I saw it on tv a few years back)... When it was designed, it was a tossup to make it 'public transport' centric, with lots of integrated stuff,, OR assume everyone will have cars and it'll be ace.
the did the sums , and it made far better sense to be around cars,, cheaper , more efficient etc.. so they start building it..

THEN,

it was the oil crisis..

If time had been different, and the sums had been done , POST oil crisis, MK would have been much more 'integrated transport'...

next lesson,, why we removed the trams and what ww2 had to do with it

kudos to nottingham planners though i guess

 

[GilesM]

I couldn't find a more up to date survey, but Nottingham isn't really tops according to these reports, obviously all depends on what's important to you, but being able to get some where shite quickly by bus does not really make a place tops.

http://www.channel4.com/4homes/on-tv/best-and-worst/index.html

 

[Bokonon]

dull MK 'fact' ( well I saw it on tv a few years back)... When it was designed, it was a tossup to make it 'public transport' centric, with lots of integrated stuff,, OR assume everyone will have cars and it'll be ace.
the did the sums , and it made far better sense to be around cars,, cheaper , more efficient etc.. so they start building it..

When originally planned, there was a serious proposal to put a monorail system in MK. As it happens, the road system was laid out with large medians and verges with the potential to provide space for additional transport structures, though these green spaces are now very much part of the character of MK and are starting to get filled with mature trees which do a good job of keeping the air clean from all the crap coming out of cars; it would almost be a shame to lose these spaces to public transport. There is a routing problem for public transport in MK though - whilst the grid system is very efficent at moving private vehicles from point to point, it is difficult to run buses that serve multiple popular destinations.