“Is this what anyone wants?”: Council goes back on promise and scraps cycle lane plans without any consultation to move “line of trees closer to kerb”

There may be some reason like position of utilities -  but in the UK there seems to be an idea that while a kerb is enough to "protect" pedestrians from cars it takes stronger measures to keep them safe from the menace of cyclists!  (Except where we're box-ticking and putting up a cycling sign on a pavement to "build" a cycle route...).

Or... could it be that we have to leave "overspill" space for cars?  Can't have people be stuck behind a stopped vehicle.  Pedestrians and cyclists can always just go round them...

... and that's the rub, isn't it?

I cycle anyway - but most of the population don't.  Without exploring that exapansive rabbit hole I suspect even if drivers were all doing 20mph with today's volume of traffic most people still wouldn't be tempted to cycle on the roads with them.

If we significantly reduced traffic volumes - or rather reduced the amount of space that cyclists share with lots of drivers - that might make a difference.

We also need to fix junctions somehow e.g. make them safer.  And get rid of some of the long waits at traffic lights (fewer traffic lights ideally, or different junction designs, or even just "smarter lights" e.g. with vehicle detection and clever phasing - at any rate less waiting)...

(There's also a "but the streets/roads are great for cycling on!"  Well ... they're paved surfaces so we can but for many decades the fact that cyclists can use them has been irrelevant to their design.  They are in fact build for the needs of drivers of large motor vehicles.  They're now sub-optimal for cyclists for a bunch of reasons - not least that all the much heavier vehicles keep tearing holes in them which for cyclists are a major issue!)

brooksby wrote:

I love how the newer picture - the one without the cycle lane - looks like it was done in their lunch hour by someone using MS Paint to copy and paste bits of the paving.  Very professional-looking 

It is to give you a better idea of the quality of the finished work!

brooksby wrote:

I love how the newer picture - the one without the cycle lane - looks like it was done in their lunch hour by someone using MS Paint to copy and paste bits of the paving.  Very professional-looking 

Particularly since they only seem to have removed the section of cycle track before the trees, and not bothered with the bit where there's supposedly a problem.

Maybe they were too busy - the microwave went 'ping' so they said, "That'll do" and emailed it to their line manager

This (below) is the best bit, they've cut a cyclist from the bottom right of the original picture and just pasted him straight onto the road without even bothering to erase the cycle path on which he was (in the original) riding. Quality.

They missed the screaming children being pursued by a peloton of MAMILs, or wheelchair users repeatedly run over by pot-smoking electric motorbike riders??

Rendel Harris wrote:

This (below) is the best bit, they've cut a cyclist from the bottom right of the original picture and just pasted him straight onto the road without even bothering to erase the cycle path on which he was (in the original) riding. Quality.

It looks like some sort of standee, like you get in cinemas

Also the car that appears to be too wide for the space available for it, and the bicycle below that whose owner has been obliterated.

Depends on the type and number of services, but it usually adds millions to the costs of schemes to move them.

I'm aware - I've worked on projects where it's been necessary.,

But without information on the type of services or where they actually are - who knows? We're just trusting the council when they say the only option is to scrap the bike lane. 

The way the cancellation of the bike lane was suppressed suggests they didn't consider any other options and it's all a convenient excuse to save money on the overall project. And appeal to the anti-cycling lobby.

At least £1,200 per metre, per utility, assuming utility depths in accordance with NJUG.
As soon as you go deeper than 1.2m, all bets are off as its classed as Deep Ex and specialist teams and working procedures are needed.

Oldfatgit wrote:

At least £1,200 per metre, per utility, assuming utility depths in accordance with NJUG. As soon as you go deeper than 1.2m, all bets are off as its classed as Deep Ex and specialist teams and working procedures are needed.

Thanks - I appread to have phrased my comment poorly. I wondering if it's expensive to move infrastructure in general terms. I wanted to know if the council had considered various options - including this one. Without knowing which services are where it's not possible for us to speculate on which other options might be viable or how much they'd cost. 

The cynic in me thinks they didn't even consider adapting the scheme, and while an FOI might not give a response that shows an alternative would have been easy, it would send a message that they need to show their working.

It can take 2 plus years to move a gas main ... at least a year of that is spent in the design, costing and tendering phase.
It can then take a year to get it to construction.
Then there's the length of time it takes to do the work...
That's just gas.
I'm sure telecoms, streetlights, LV and HV electric are pretty much the same ... then you have water - who's lead time seem to be your project urgency x 2566. And that's not even getting to sewers [although they are normally deep, so not much of a problem).

Then .. you have the other issue that none of the utilities will use the same trench ... and will only work at the same time in emergencies. This is due to the last one in the hole is liable for reinstatement and defects.
So cable [who is the shallowest] could be liable for potable water ... who is significantly deeper. And that ain't going to happen.

a 'simple' diversion job could take years.

Maybe the council know this already and don't want to or have the budget to delay the works.

I know, thanks. As I previously indicated my line of work means I've worked on multiple projects where different utilities have either been moved or been worked around. I'm currently involved in a project where a medium pressure gas main will be relocated, but for the time being we're working around it, and another where several km of electricity cables are being entirely rerouted.

I'm are these things can be both expensive and time consuming. But I also that projects can be redesigned, but that it's easier and much cheaper to do that when you don't leave checking for utilities until the last minute.

For clarity, I wanted to know what the council had considered before deciding to use the discovery of surprise 'essential utilities' as an excuse to scrap the cycle path.

Guess you'll need to ask the council.

Put in an FoI request.

As for late discovery, I'm sure you are aware that historic utility maps are horrendous and in many cases show incorrectly positioned utilities due to poor aslaid and incorrect digitisation.

And I'm also sure, as you have indicated some knowledge of being in this line of work, it's easy to blame the utilities... after all, *everyone* knows we're shit.

Speaking as someone who dose this utility shit day in, day out, and has seen many multi-million pound projects overrun because someone didn't appreciate that their urgency is not the same as *ours*.

Do you specialise in responding to people without reading what they say? 

My initial comment was about getting the information from the council via FOI. I said that because I was already aware that they are the ones that would hold the information that was required to do the assessment.

I didn't need you to tell me that moving utilities was expensive. I tried to politely make the case (more than once) that you didn't need to tell me stuff I already know (more than once). Just because you work in utilities day in and day out doesn't mean you need to keep on digging. 

You don't have to live there to submit an FOI request. Just be prepared for stonewalling. A site such as whatdotheyknow.com makes the submission easy, and it also makes requesting an official review easy - for when the council either refuse to release the information or ignores your request.

Indeed, or underground but manage the roots properly.

Like how they do in eg. NL where trees area very common feature around urban infra yet paths there aren't broken within a couple of years by root damage.  Clearly some UK path-bunglers feel that this must be due to some special property of NL, or perhaps they use druids...

I'm looking forward to how a new cycle path round our way planned to co-exist with a bunch of London plane trees that have been wrecking the footpath for years is going to work out.