Segregated, none-broken, cycle lanes on all A roads by 2020

[dellzeqq]

Quite.



Disgusting.

Really who on earth would want anything so horrible? Of course NL standard paths with thier associated upkeep should be the standard insisted on when segregated paths are built. Just imagine a lovely quite lane through the countryside, 'Dead End' ahead for motor vehicles as it comes up against a dualled A road, cyclists carrying on to join the wide, well kept, segregated cyel path for a mile or so before taking the cycle/pedestrian only bridge/underpass to join the next lovely B road. This journey avoiding 5 or 6 extra miles along mainly busy, built up A roads. Cycling Nirvana - for me anyway!

just don't ask me to pay or it.......

 

[tomahawk]

Non broken road surfaces would be a start. The ones in Winchester are crumbling at the edges.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

just don't ask me to pay or it.......

Nor me...

 

[GrasB]

and if they exist outside of segregationalists' worst dreams they would probably either ride on the A14 or find another, longer, route as I suspect, most of them don't mind going 'the long way round'.

\Actually the A14 is one of the few roads I think that does need a proper companion cycle way. Barhill, Oakington, Girton, Histon/Impington, Milton, Horningsea & Stow cum Que all have fairly long diversions to avoid the A14 &/or have appalling & flawed cycle infrastructure which needs to be upgraded (eg. the A10 bridge into Milton which isn't wide enough to allow two cyclists to pass without stopping & negotiation)

 

[subaqua]

well the little bit of segregation at bow roundabout was nicley Ice rink today . nice to see that boris can maintain a 25ft bit of segregated lane for cycling along . wonder what it will be like when all segregated.

 

[middleagecyclist]

just don't ask me to pay or it.......

Nor me...

Come on guys. You know we all pay for it now as it is. Trouble is we are generally paying for crap infrastructure and then moaning about it and not using it very much. I'm talking about cutting up the cake a little differently, giving higher priority to some, maybe fewer, cycle projects. Segregated paths being part of this mix along with some of the other decent stuff i mentioned earlier. These would actually be of some use and interest to a large number of cyclists (existing and potential). We should work for this and stop wasting money on miles of advisory cycle lanes where they are not required and fitting 'Cyclists Dismount' signs at every opportunity. That has to be good thing doesn't it? Come on. You know you agree with me really...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Come on guys. You know we all pay for it now as it is. Trouble is we are generally paying for crap infrastructure and then moaning about it and not using it very much. I'm talking about cutting up the cake a little differently, giving higher priority to some, maybe fewer, cycle projects. Segregated paths being part of this mix along with some of the other decent stuff i mentioned earlier. These would actually be of some use and interest to a large number of cyclists (existing and potential). We should work for this and stop wasting money on miles of advisory cycle lanes where they are not required and fitting 'Cyclists Dismount' signs at every opportunity. That has to be good thing doesn't it? Come on. You know you agree with me really...

I know I really don't.

I wouldn't vote for a party at national or local levels that made extensive segregated infrastructure a manifesto pledge. higher taxes on motoring, yep, traffic calming by way of widespread 20mph urban limits, yep, more widespread speed cameras, yep, et cetera, et cetera.

 

[middleagecyclist]

I know I really don't.

I wouldn't vote for a party at national or local levels that made extensive segregated infrastructure a manifesto pledge. higher taxes on motoring, yep, traffic calming by way of widespread 20mph urban limits, yep, more widespread speed cameras, yep, et cetera, et cetera.

Who's talking about extensive segregated infrastructure as a manifesto pledge? Wasn't me. I simply suggested the existing money could be better spent on larger, more useful projects - including but not exclusively segregated paths - rather than paying lip service to some percieved need for painted lines and warning signs. Am I right you would rather maintain the status quo?

 

[subaqua]

and at 5pm the bow roundabout segregated advance start bike lane was still covered in snow and ice. so i had to ride in the road. negating the reason the money was spent on the segregation in the first place.

we struggle to de ice roads in the UK so segregated cycle lanes will be right down near the bottom of the list when setting prioritiues for salting. whereas roads will likely be salted so i will ride on them .

 

[dellzeqq]

Come on guys. You know we all pay for it now as it is. Trouble is we are generally paying for crap infrastructure and then moaning about it and not using it very much. I'm talking about cutting up the cake a little differently, giving higher priority to some, maybe fewer, cycle projects. Segregated paths being part of this mix along with some of the other decent stuff i mentioned earlier. These would actually be of some use and interest to a large number of cyclists (existing and potential). We should work for this and stop wasting money on miles of advisory cycle lanes where they are not required and fitting 'Cyclists Dismount' signs at every opportunity. That has to be good thing doesn't it? Come on. You know you agree with me really...

no I don't agree with you

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Who's talking about extensive segregated infrastructure as a manifesto pledge? Wasn't me. I simply suggested the existing money could be better spent on larger, more useful projects - including but not exclusively segregated paths - rather than paying lip service to some percieved need for painted lines and warning signs. Am I right you would rather maintain the status quo?

No.

I'd rather central and local government accept the view that;

• most current cyclists, and nearly all potential new cyclists, need a network for relatively short, largely urban journeys
• such a network already exists and is called "the roads"
• measures simply need to be taken to reduce the speed and volume of traffic on this existing network
• drivers need to be re-educated to accept the need to share the space they current feel they own on this existing network with slower moving, more vulnerable traffic, i.e. pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.

I'd rather existing cyclists, especially those who are activists and campaigners, accepted the view that:

• widespread segregated infrastructure treats the symptoms of the problem not the problem itself and is itself a symptom of the problem; the privatisation of public space.
• segregated infrastructure is a 20th century response to a 21st century problem
• leisure routes have naff all effect on modal share
• the vast majority of existing cyclists, and far and away most potential new cyclists, have no need, or desire to cycle on or alongside NSL DC's, which are largely rural, in order to incorporate cycling into their daily lives
• the needs of the vanishingly small % of cyclists, existing and potential, who need segregated infrastructure alongside NSL DC's need to turn their telescopes around and look at the bigger picture (and accept that they've made, and are making choices, about where they live, work, play, shop and travel that the rest of society simply won't choose to subsidise)
• the UK is not the Netherlands and London isn't Copenhagen.

 

[GrasB]

• the needs of the vanishingly small % of cyclists, existing and potential, who need segregated infrastructure alongside NSL DC's need to turn their telescopes around and look at the bigger picture (and accept that they've made, and are making choices, about where they live, work, play, shop and travel that the rest of society simply won't choose to subsidise)

Large scale infrastructure doesn't need to run along side a NSL DC to be an effective cycling alternative. The cycle path besides the GBW provides cyclists a genuine alternative to the A14 between Ely & Cambridge, linking many villages with a very pleasant route to cycle along right into Cambridge.

The annoying thing for me is that the GBW provides a good link where there is already an alternative to the A14. However, there isn't a viable option for people wanting to shadow the A14 north of Cambridge - Histon/Impington to Milton has no true route (the foot bridge over the A10 simply isn't suitable for cyclists under any conditions, you can't get to Horningsea from Milton & beyond without a significant diversion. To have a cycle route made to the same surface quality as the GBW cycle way would allow people to move between these villages easily & directly.

Cycling provision to Barhill is criminally bad for villages the south side of the A14 IMO. For a 1 mile journey to the local supermarket one may need to cycle over 6 miles depending on what type of bike they're riding & how much shopping they're carrying. A diversion down the A14 would be 2 miles or so.

Both of the examples wouldn't need to run directly besides an NSL DC but would shadow its general route & allow for much better access to the communities around Cambridge without having to add many miles onto the length of their journey to avoid the A14.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Large scale infrastructure doesn't need to run along side a NSL DC to be an effective cycling alternative. The cycle path besides the GBW provides cyclists a genuine alternative to the A14 between Ely & Cambridge, linking many villages with a very pleasant route to cycle along right into Cambridge.
.
.
.
Both of the examples wouldn't need to run directly besides an NSL DC but would shadow its general route & allow for much better access to the communities around Cambridge without having to add many miles onto the length of their journey to avoid the A14.

Good points, and typically of GrasB, well made.

So in our best guess world what numbers of cyclists, all other things being equal, in the various villages north of the A14 would use our 'shadowing' path, on a regular/frequent basis if it were available to them? What would the path cost to construct? What would the cost per journey be? Would the cyclists themselves be prepared to pay it by means of some form of toll path I wonder?

Now I'm guessing "not very many" and "quite a lot of money" but I'm interested in the opinions of others (becuase a vwery similar debate is being had in my back yard). I'm also thinking the folk in Barhill have some element of choice over where they live and where/how they shop and that maybe it isn't for the rest of us to pay to make their choices easier given other spending priorities.

 

[Richard Mann]

Large scale infrastructure doesn't need to run along side a NSL DC to be an effective cycling alternative. The cycle path besides the GBW provides cyclists a genuine alternative to the A14 between Ely & Cambridge, linking many villages with a very pleasant route to cycle along right into Cambridge.

The annoying thing for me is that the GBW provides a good link where there is already an alternative to the A14. However, there isn't a viable option for people wanting to shadow the A14 north of Cambridge - Histon/Impington to Milton has no true route (the foot bridge over the A10 simply isn't suitable for cyclists under any conditions, you can't get to Horningsea from Milton & beyond without a significant diversion. To have a cycle route made to the same surface quality as the GBW cycle way would allow people to move between these villages easily & directly.

Cycling provision to Barhill is criminally bad for villages the south side of the A14 IMO. For a 1 mile journey to the local supermarket one may need to cycle over 6 miles depending on what type of bike they're riding & how much shopping they're carrying. A diversion down the A14 would be 2 miles or so.

Both of the examples wouldn't need to run directly besides an NSL DC but would shadow its general route & allow for much better access to the communities around Cambridge without having to add many miles onto the length of their journey to avoid the A14.

I guess if you want people to subsidise your village lifestyle, then Cambridgeshire is probably one of the more likely candidates. But it's only on the radar because Cambridge is such a bike town. You have to start by doing something about the towns first (and, even in Cambridge, there's still plenty that needs to be done).

 

[GrasB]

Good points, and typically of GrasB, well made.

So in our best guess world what numbers of cyclists, all other things being equal, in the various villages north of the A14 would use our 'shadowing' path, on a regular/frequent basis if it were available to them? What would the path cost to construct? What would the cost per journey be? Would the cyclists themselves be prepared to pay it by means of some form of toll path I wonder?

A little local knowledge here is Critical. Milton hosts a rather useful Tescos & I regularly see cyclists struggle over the Milton <> Histon/Impington bridge with shopping draped over the handle bars or riding down Butt Ln. Horningsea has a rather nice LBS which ends up being rather inaccessible by bike in terms of quickly popping out to the LBS to get a few bits. That said Horningsea is quite a nice location to ride to if you have the time. For me a toll path for what is essentially basic transport infrastructure to local amenities to be reprehensible.

Now I'm guessing "not very many" and "quite a lot of money" but I'm interested in the opinions of others (becuase a vwery similar debate is being had in my back yard). I'm also thinking the folk in Barhill have some element of choice over where they live and where/how they shop and that maybe it isn't for the rest of us to pay to make their choices easier given other spending priorities.

People in Barhill are very well off for shopping, it's got a HUGE supermarket. The problem is if you're in villages like Dry Drayton, Madingley & Hardwick you've got a supermarket in relatively easy cycling distance but a pitiful cycle path to get to it. I my self went shopping for lunch bits one day & found I had to remove my panniers to get my bike through the barriers, despite the fact it's labelled as a cycle path. The alternative is riding over a completely unmade bridle path which hasn't even been beaten down to hard earth.