All posts by franktompson

Cleveland Pools – Consultation – Cycle Parking

As some people may be aware a community led project is currently underway to bring the Cleveland Pools in Bathwick back into use by early 2018. Until 6 May 2016 a public consultation exercise is being conducted seeking views on current plans.

Due to its location it will not be possible to drive a car and park at the site, and a green travel plan is in place setting out other options, including cycling. However, although initial outline discussions have been held with BathNES Council about the potential for a small number of cycle racks outside, the current design makes no recommendation for secure on-site cycle parking. Some of us think this is a hugely missed opportunity. Should you agree you may wish to consider submitting your thoughts via the short online survey on the website. (The free text box at Qu 15 may be easiest.) Please use you own words, but to assist you may wish to consider something along the lines of:

“I look forward to cycling to the Cleveland Pools when complete. I note, however, that no provision is made in the current design for secure on-site cycle parking. I support the proposal for 20 cycle stands (enabling parking for 40 bicycles) to be installed within the site to ensure sufficient to meet demand.”

Another one for the ‘cycling safety’ pot

On the Rydon hoarding on their James St West development in Bath. Note that you may have to wear all this clobber to ‘stay legal’. But they make a fair point I think because if you don’t you could get seriously hit by one of the many speeding vehicles on that road which has had the cycle lane removed because of their work….  (PS – Be careful if you want to go and read this poster in situ as you have to stand in the road to do so. Wearing something hi-viz (and a helmet) might be advisable.)

Cafes and Pubs Around Bath – Updated

See Cafes and Pubs Around Bath page

Range now extended from (approx) 12 to 14 miles from Bath centre!

20+ cafes added in the location list and interactive map. Next stage to update the pubs…

Thanks to those that have added suggestions for new entries all of which have been incorporated – please keep them coming…. (Remember, they might be hidden away in garden centres, supermarkets, community centres, visitor attractions…..)

B&NES Budget 2015/16 – Headline Numbers for Cycling

From the key cycling items I could identify are:

Page 11 – £100K to meet the costs of the Council hosting cycling events in 2015/16 including the City Cycle Race Series

Page 20 – £100k of the Corporate Supported Borrowing funds cycling schemes identified from the Sustrans review of cycle networks within the city as outlined in the Getting Around Bath Transport Strategy. The further £1m of Corporate Supported Borrowing will fund additional pedestrian schemes (£400k), additional cycle schemes (£400k) and 20mph scheme adaptations (£200k) Continue reading B&NES Budget 2015/16 – Headline Numbers for Cycling

Roseberry Place Redevelopment Proposal

For the uninitiated at present this is a light industrial site that lies north of the junction of Bellotts Road and the Lower Bristol Road. Environmentally it is currently pretty uninspiring.

For cyclists the proposal effectively provides an opportunity to start extending the Two Tunnels route to the north, and on Wed 14 Jan 15 myself and two TT committee members attended a presentation given by Deely Freed (DF) in advance of them submitting an outline planning application.

The DF team were all well aware of TT and the Bristol-Bath path and some of them use them on a regular basis. While the footprint they are directly responsible for developing lies inside both paths they are recommending infrastructure that will allow additional elements to be built if and when later development takes place.

In particular:

a.     a toucan crossing into the site from the north end of Bellotts Road
b.     space for ramped access (and steps) up to the approach to the old Midland Rail bridge
c.     a link across Windsor Bridge into the Western Riverside development when the opportunity presents itself.

They were also cognizant of the potential to utilize the wide path across Windsor Bridge which could link in to the riverside path opposite the new Tescos on the Upper Bristol Road (UBR), although they had some reservations about its width. (Evidently no-one knows who owns the bit of path from UBR to the Riverside path which doesn’t entirely help.)

Within the site a pedestrian/cyclist shared use path would run round the back of the site thereby avoiding most vehicular traffic. A bit roundabout but would lead to a nice area overlooking the river. A more direct route would also be available via an access road (for the occasional bin/delivery lorry etc).

The site in question does not include the buildings that abuts north to Windsor Bridge (including BBC Audio Books) which evidently have leases running for another 4 or 5 years and would be part of a later development stage.

According to DF the move of Homebase to this site as a result of the Sainsbury Green Park redevelopment has not been a consideration: draw your own conclusions about Sainsburys Green Park.

All in all we came away fairly happy.

e-images of the display boards and a record of Q&As are being provided which I will post up when I get them, although I’m not sure when that will be.

See also

Victoria Bridge cycle push-up/down

1. I have been pursuing access to/from Victoria Bridge from the riverside path for some time, so this is my take on things and responds to various recent ‘tweets’.

2. Originally I lobbied for a ramp which would meet everyone’s requirements. B&NES Council Design Team produced an initial (ie not detailed) design a copy of which is attached. Victoria bridge rampTC8503.100.GA

3. As things progressed the Council Major Projects Team rejected the ramp option for two reasons, quote:

a. “it would have to run partly along the towpath, and would have reduced the towpath width in that area leaving a less than ideal arrangement for pedestrian and cycle traffic to safely pass one another.”

I can see some logic here (although arguably the ramp width could have been reduced).

b. “it would have had an unacceptably detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the listed structure. Bear in mind that the most obvious linkage route between the towpath and upper level that of the steps, lies within the curtilage of the Grade II listed structure.”

My interpretation is that English Heritage rejected the ramp, so that was that. (I have views on the power of EH but that’s another matter.)

Anyhoo, the ramp was history and I was told that a cycle ‘push-up’ would be incorporated.

4. When I, like others, saw what was in situ, I wasn’t doing cartwheels down the path, so I contacted Major Projects and have had an exchange of correspondence with David Reynolds which is currently continuing. I pointed out that the cycle push up/down (on the left-hand side looking up) caters for left-handers pushing up or right-handers pushing down, but would be quite awkward for ‘the reverse’.

5. Given the reality that the concrete is poured and what is in place is not, effectively, going to be able to be substantively changed, I suggested that the ‘flat’ section on right-hand side of the steps also be utlised as a push-up/down. Although it’s tricky to judge from outside the fence, it looks as if, with a few bricks and a couple of buckets of cement, the two sections could be joined by building in a rising curved section between them. Not perfect, but better.

6. The reply advised that the design had “been detailed as per the SUSTRANS standard detail. A channel is not proposed for the other side of the steps because we do not believe there is a need for two channels to cater for handedness – certainly I’m not aware of any design guidance which requires this – and we want to maximise the width available for pedestrians, which would reduce further with a channel on the other side.” In my recent response I highlighted: – the last page 8.7, ‘Wheeling Ramps’, which states: “Ideally the ramp should be placed on both sides of the steps as this will cater for both left and right handed cyclists.” ie if you’re starting from scratch, this is what you should do.

7. Thus, I remain of the opinion that appropriate consideration should be given to implementing the proposal I outline at para 5 above. It won’t be perfect but, given where we are, I think it would represent a pragmatic and achievable improvement for not much effort.

8. Comments here or on Twitter are welcomed (althoughI request they be of the ‘constructive’ rather than ‘ranty’ nature :))

Frank Tompson