Sustrans Wins the £50m Lottery Millions

[StuartDH]

Sustrans has just won the competition to get £50m funding from the National Lottery's 'People's Millions' project. They have received funding to improve local travel in 79 communities by creating new walking and cycling routes for everyday journeys across the UK

[Billy Wobble Dagger]

I know nothing about this organisation, but I do hope they spend the money on the 79 communitee projects and not on red tape. As I said on another thread I'm sure the 47 wildlife trusts could have spent a million pounds each on worth while projects, and still have change.
I look forward to a nice new cycle path to use some where near me.

BWD

[jimbeaux]

Excellent news! They got my vote over the weekend and I think they thoroughly deserve this funding award.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Billy Wobble Dagger

I know nothing about this organisation, but I do hope they spend the money on the 79 communitee projects and not on red tape. As I said on another thread I'm sure the 47 wildlife trusts could have spent a million pounds each on worth while projects, and still have change.
I look forward to a nice new cycle path to use some where near me.

BWD

THe red tape shouldnt actually cost sustrans much as most of the cost of cycle path creation orders etc will fall on the councils / highway agencies concerned - with sustrans mainly putting the money into route improvement on the ground and also promting the new routes

my only doubt about this is that I hope they apply some common sense to what they try to designate as cycleways as I have seen some projects where people (not necessarily sustrans) tried to create cycleways by redesignating footpaths that are too narrow for the purpose.

[Jez]

I find that Sustrans do have common sense and what they have already achieved over the past 10 years is absolutley tremendous as a charity! It's the whether the councils have the common sense to put work with Sustrans make these endeavors work. Brilliant news-Well done Sustrans once again!!!!!

[Paul mabbott]

I wasn't aware of this competition - I'm not a telly person ...

Great stuff if it's creating new tranport facility although I sometimes worry that Sustrans might be taking the pressure off of motorists and authorities to make ordinary roads usable by cyclists.

Can't be bad though ....

[Jez]

Fair point!

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

IGreat stuff if it's creating new tranport facility although I sometimes worry that Sustrans might be taking the pressure off of motorists and authorities to make ordinary roads usable by cyclists.....

Paul's point is spot on - I was a keen cyclist for many years (racing and recreational, as well as commuting to/from work on an average of 3 days per week for 10 years and in all weathers).

There's no doubt what so ever that as off-road cycle paths have become increasingly common (and, as Pete says, with many of them being poorly designed and even more dangerous than the roads), the attitude of many motorists - especially the so-called 'professional' drivers (eg. taxis, buses and lorries) towards any cyclists having the audacity to use ordinary roads has become much more aggressive.

Whilst cycling I have suffered both verbal abuse and many near misses as a result of such aggression and this eventually resulted in my decision to give up cycling completely several years ago.

Cycle paths do little to improve Road safety - if only motorists respected cyclists rights to use the roads, gave them adequate room when overtaking and perhaps even gave them similar respect to horseriders, then our roads would be a much safer place for all concerned and then we wouldn't have to spend so much money trying to get cyclists off the roads completely.

Jeff

[Jez]

Originally Posted by JeffH

Paul's point is spot on - I was a keen cyclist for many years (racing and recreational, as well as commuting to/from work on an average of 3 days per week for 10 years and in all weathers).

There's no doubt what so ever that as off-road cycle paths have become increasingly common (and, as Pete says, with many of them being poorly designed and even more dangerous than the roads), the attitude of many motorists - especially the so-called 'professional' drivers (eg. taxis, buses and lorries) towards any cyclists having the audacity to use ordinary roads has become much more aggressive.

Whilst cycling I have suffered both verbal abuse and many near misses as a result of such aggression and this eventually resulted in my decision to give up cycling completely several years ago.

Cycle paths do little to improve Road safety - if only motorists respected cyclists rights to use the roads, gave them adequate room when overtaking and perhaps even gave them similar respect to horseriders, then our roads would be a much safer place for all concerned and then we wouldn't have to spend so much money trying to get cyclists off the roads completely.

Jeff

the trip into town though on route 45 where i live is quieter less aggressive far more wildlife to be seen and you can do it at your own pace. The point i was making is that cyclists could be giving over to the ever increasing car numbers and been rammed off the roads=the Co2ers to shine.

[glsammy]

If it's anything like the so called cycle paths around here, it could end up being a right waste of money. Our wonderful Councils brilliant cycle path scheme is to paint a line down the existing walkways, dividing them in two.
The hilarious parts on one stretch is they suddenly change sides, so for half a mile your cycling on the right, then you're supposed to cycle on the left for the rest. Of course, there's no barriers between the walkway and the cycle path, so it's a really clever safe plan.

If you detect a certain bitterness in my post, I assure you it's nothing to do with the fact that MY pet scheme, the Sherwood Forest regeneration plan, lost!

[Billy Wobble Dagger]

Originally Posted by glsammy

If it's anything like the so called cycle paths around here, it could end up being a right waste of money. Our wonderful Councils brilliant cycle path scheme is to paint a line down the existing walkways, dividing them in two.
The hilarious parts on one stretch is they suddenly change sides, so for half a mile your cycling on the right, then you're supposed to cycle on the left for the rest. Of course, there's no barriers between the walkway and the cycle path, so it's a really clever safe plan.

If you detect a certain bitterness in my post, I assure you it's nothing to do with the fact that MY pet scheme, the Sherwood Forest regeneration plan, lost!

The other great cycle routes are the ones on our already crowded roads where the council paint a line about 18" from the kerb and call that the cycle lane. The road hasn't been widened so cars generally have to drive in the "cycle lane" to allow for two way traffic. I'm sure because it's called a cycle lane the council have probably qualified for some sort of green refund or an EU grant.
I'm all for cycle routes along disused railway lines, and we sure have plenty of them. But painting lines on pavements or roads in book don't qualify. I look forward to seeing how this grant money is spent and how long it takes to get these routes up and running.

BWD

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by glsammy

If it's anything like the so called cycle paths around here, it could end up being a right waste of money. Our wonderful Councils brilliant cycle path scheme is to paint a line down the existing walkways, dividing them in two.
The hilarious parts on one stretch is they suddenly change sides, so for half a mile your cycling on the right, then you're supposed to cycle on the left for the rest. Of course, there's no barriers between the walkway and the cycle path, so it's a really clever safe plan.

Its actually contrary to the highways act 1980 (and subsequent updates)to put put a cycle path creation order on a footway (a footpath that runs paralel alongside a road), unless the path is widened to allow safe access for walkers and cyclists - the foot element needs to be at least 100cm (3ft3 in old money) - just painting a line doesnt cut it unless the path is wide enough to accomodate this

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by eeyore

Its actually contrary to the highways act 1980 (and subsequent updates)to put put a cycle path creation order on a footway (a footpath that runs paralel alongside a road), unless the path is widened to allow safe access for walkers and cyclists - the foot element needs to be at least 100cm (3ft3 in old money) - just painting a line doesnt cut it unless the path is wide enough to accomodate this

In that case the've clearly broken the law. No widening of the pathways, although it was quite wide to begin with, I'll have to get my tape measure out!
They did put in solid posts, right in the middle of the divide, with the signs showing which side your supposed to walk, I can just imagine some cyclist running into them. Litigation heaven.

[Blackbrook Eye]

We have a 'cycle path' through the village which is to say the least sparodic, it appears and dissipears as you travel along the roads, it is none existant on the narrow parts and reappears on the wider parts, that is if you can find it beneath the parked vehicles, leaving the village it runs along the narrow footpath beside the busy main road to Loughborough, at junction 23 of the M1 it stops, and then starts again on the other side when the dangerous part is passed, and continues down the footpath which is in a sorry state, crumbling and pot-holed. Having reached the outskirts of Loughborough it starts its 'now you see me now you dont' phase again, until the roundabout at the University where it stops again until the dangerous part is passed and then joins with the conglomoration of footpaths and bus lanes into the town. If some of the proposed spending improves stretches like this, then I am all for it but I wont be holding my breath.