Friday 5 July 2013

Cambridgeshire County Council Cycling Summit - my reaction

Met some good folk last night. Reacquainted with more good folk. Sometimes its nice to be reassured that most folk are, basically, decent. Also reacquainted myself with some who I try not to mix with very often. But hey-ho. Not many of those.

I'm talking about Cambridgeshire Cycling Summit, organised to bring together everyone with an opinion and knowledge on cycling in the county to discuss 'legacy' of the Tour de France coming here a year from now. 

Legacy, you ask? From a one-day visit of a cycle race, admittedly the biggest cycle race in the world but nonetheless a race that uses roads we've already got? Yes, legacy. We're going to have one. In austere times inspirational events can't just be that - they have to have legacy. Fair enough then.

You can see why the City and County councils here are so keen to reinforce this idea of legacy. While in theory Le Tour isn't going to cost Cambridge money, its clearly a hell of an upheaval for the city. We don't know where, precisely, it'll start in Cambridge but we can pretty much guess there'll be some picturesque aerial shots of colleges, the Backs, you'd think maybe the Gogs, and during this time major arteries into Cambridge will be closed and the town will be rammed full of 400,000 or more visitors. Traffic chaos all due to some bloody cyclists who think they own the road, I can see the headlines in the Cambridge News now. 

So this event then. Some talks from folk associated with the County Council to start with, who strangely thought that telling us they'd spent £16million in 5 years would demonstrate they care - in light of the £1.5billion announced for A14 I'm unconvinced (looking round lots of others were blinking in disbelief). Presentation from a teacher at Swavesey college talking about a rather good scheme to turn some waste ground into somewhere for kids to have fun on and learn to ride well, on some pretty damned solid mountain bikes the school has raised funding for... You know the kind of stuff. Some kind words, some cracking enthusiasm; a prelude.

Then the meat and drink of it - workshops for cyclists to bash out what they want as 'legacy'. Cycle campaigners, activists, enthusiasts and busybodies all basically want the same thing - safe roads to ride on, to get more folk out on bikes. The sporty folks think that more sporty things will encourage more people out on bikes - I agree, but thinking back to last years Tour that effect didn't really work as well as you'd hope. Lots of folk went and bought shiny new road bikes (bike shop folk told me blokes of a certain age were their main market) but they were mostly gone from the road by Spring. Other folk were saying lets have as a legacy a commitment to high quality infrastructure - my thought is that it could be branded 'Le Tour' quality with a minimum allowed standard for width, continuity, actually linking villages up to towns out in the County (point especially well made by Ely Cycling Campaign) etc. Getting kids safe routes to school, enthused others. Lets close roads to motorised traffic sometimes, a particular favourite from Jim Chisolm of Cambridge Cycle Campaign.

Lots of ideas all centred around the same theme - getting folk cycling is good, motorised traffic being too close, fast, unforgiving and just plain unpleasant is the main problem. I've got a lot of sympathy for the folk there really into racing and sport cycling - I agree that regular sporting events on the roads of this county would be a fantastic legacy, and its an achievable goal, but a lot of other folk there don't give a damn for the sporting aspect. Shame.

Will it happen? Probably not. I think what we'll get is the same local politicians who oppose good cycling infrastructure based on the lie that Cambridge hasn't got the space and that its making the same futuristic errors we saw in the '50s and '60s (I'm talking about you Colin Rosenstiel - a name cycle campaigners could use as a synonym for 'defeatist' were it easier to spell) continuing to give voice to those who will always put one extra parking space over the welfare of a hundred cyclists. I fear council officers (who clearly have fine  intentions) will end up pointing at yet more bad facilities telling us that its the most realistic result we can get. Folk like him are ten years behind the public debate on cycling - we've had the infrastructure discussion, we all now agree that safe routes to ride on are key. Catch up, Councillor - everyone, but everyone who has an interest in growing cycling in the UK wants safe routes to ride on now and that means good width, good surfaces, continuity and priority over side roads. Get with it or, with respect, get out. We're no further to answering the fundamental question - if here, now, in Cambridge we can't get the best facilities then where and well will we do so?

Closing remarks were from our Cabridge MP, Julian Huppert, who talks a fantastic game on cycling while just occasionally contradicting himself. He co-chairs the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, which gave us a finding in their report that A-roads need safe cycle routes along and across them, yet he's still undecided on whether this applies to the most contentious route into his constituency, the A14. Come on Dr. Huppert - and fight our corner for cycle access on the A14 before this issue discredits your stance on cycling. How can you argue that nationally while holding back locally? Why would anyone outside of Cambridge listen if you don't make the case here?

But all that said, this event takes us in a new direction - the intent they had was to engage. To hear us. Over the next few months we'll find out if they listened - I hope they did and I hope to see a step change in delivery on cycling projects in the county. Its possible. Its do-able. Maybe this was the start? Well, we can dream.

A worthwhile event? Yeah, I think so. I hope so. 

9 comments:

  1. I have to say, I'm not sure that a cycling route alongside the A14 is a great idea. An equivalent route, sure, absolutely needed and funded in same development. I think the work that's been done to create http://www.bhddmadcycle.com needs to be included and worked upon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems a no brainer to me. Looking at the map A14 is a straight line - heads straight off down Huntingdon Road to the centre of Cambridge at the end of it, heading right at the heart of Cambridge. Its also a route thats about to have a heck of a lot of dosh spent on it, whereas alternatives probably aren't.

      Straight line connecting commuter spot to centre of Cambridge or all-round-the-houses? APPCG has correctly spotted that we want to go on the direct routes, so they've included provision by main roads. This is as simple an example thereof as you could imagine.

      Personally I can't get why its controversial - we're legal users of that route but its a murderous road. It oughtn't be in the slightest controversial that a primary design goal is safe provision for all legal users. This is when we find out whether Dr. Huppert is going to stand up for what this report says, or if he isn't.

      Delete
    2. At the very least, it needs to be possible to cross it safely and easily, and that absolutely should be within the A14 scheme itself.
      Current roundabout provision is horrible, and the provision for non-motorists end up making you look in more directions at once for fast traffic, while having no priority, than staying on a large double-lane roundabout e.g. Dry Drayton to Hardwick.

      Delete
    3. I agree - I don't know the road personally but I'll take your word for it that it is the most direct line - it would be, after all it is a road, innit?

      Point is, the land is already there, the 'dozers and diggers and asphalt layers will be passing close by, the engineers can simply modify their drawings, the cost would probably be purely marginal. Anything else woudl imply planning, land purchase, design and a lot more construction, and of course a lot more expense.

      Would I prefer to ride a peaceful country lane or cycle path, or with the roar of truck engines and tyres in my ears? The former, and I would probably accept a more circuitous route and a longer ride for that, but that is my personal view, and I am sure that if the route was SAFE, I would put up with a lot in terms of noise and exhaust fumes.

      Delete
    4. The A14 is the most direct line between where and where? The two biggest towns closest both to Cambridge and to the A14 are St. Ives and Newmarket. As this map shows, the cycle route connecting these two places would not use the A14. It would also be four miles shorter. (I am using the conditional form 'would' because this route is dependent upon the bridge over the River Cam being built as part of the new Science Park railway station.)

      South of the A14, as Radwagon explains, there are alternatives as far as Bar Hill. If this route could be extended as far as Boxworth, it looks like all the bases would be covered.

      I think Hester is absolutely right to say that the priority has to be crossing points over the A14. Taking on board Paul M's point, as I explain in my latest blog, a good source of income for cycling schemes is the funding made available for roads. As a general rule of thumb, you would put the road back differently if you dug it up. However, as I understand it, this would only really be done if the road was part of the cycle network. Before the engineers are encouraged to change their plans, it needs to be shown how this road would fit into the cycle network.

      Delete
    5. Bikemapper you've drawn a squiggly twisty line that runs, crudely, parallel with the a14. Why on earth would that be better than a straight, direct route? Why are you asking for an indirect squiggle? Why would a cyclist reaching bar hill on that route want to o all round the houses rather then on a direct line? Look back at your map, what's the straight line, the A14 from bar hill pointing straight at the middle of Cambridge, or this other route?

      Better question; why do you believe that demanding a14 route is somehow a statement we shouldn't also link up other villages? Why should this route be an exception to suggested guidance from appcg guidance?

      Delete
    6. Bikemapper you've drawn a squiggly twisty line that runs, crudely, parallel with the a14. Why on earth would that be better than a straight, direct route? Why are you asking for an indirect squiggle? Why would a cyclist reaching bar hill on that route want to o all round the houses rather then on a direct line? Look back at your map, what's the straight line, the A14 from bar hill pointing straight at the middle of Cambridge, or this other route?

      Better question; why do you believe that demanding a14 route is somehow a statement we shouldn't also link up other villages? Why should this route be an exception to suggested guidance from appcg guidance?

      Delete
    7. Cab, I am not asking for an indirect squiggle. I am asking for a 'network first' approach. Radwagon was the one who proposed this route.

      I looked again at the map, and thought the best thing to do would be to draw another one (here). As you can see the A14 route from Bar Hill to Cambridge is 5.83 miles using the A14 route, and 6.09 miles using the "parallel" route. This means the parallel route is about 4.5% further. My understanding is that cyclists are prepared to tolerate diversions of up to about 10% further if it makes for a more pleasant ride.

      You ask: "Why do you believe that demanding the A14 route is somehow a statement we shouldn't also link up other villages?" Sorry, I don't know what this means.

      Delete
    8. The A14 is as straight as an arrow connecting Bar Hill to the City Centre - its also a route thats about to be re-developed. The money is there - the question is whether we can spend a pittance out of the £1.5bn to get a safe cycle route along it - APPCG co-chaired by Julian Huppert advice is that we should.

      The alternative route you propose has how many bends and twists on it - two dozen? Its nowhere near a straight route - its more complex and, crucially, invisible to those who currently drive. They simply will not see it.

      If our goal is to get more folk on their bikes from Bar Hill and surrounding area there really isn't any question what we should do - straight, simple, direct and visible A14 improvement over this vague alternative that might happen at some point in the future but for which there is no money and no immediate probability of money.

      By all means, demand imrovements to that route as well. But lets not pretend its an alternative to the A14 - it isn't. Thats why the APPCG has given the advice that it has - we need the routes people actually want to use to be safe.

      Delete