Clevedon Seafront - Cycle track removal - Active Travel England

[wjhall]

North Somerset Life has just come out and contains a reference to the imminent council meeting on 27 March (1) to approve removal of the Active Travel England funded cycle track on the river front, and scraping together the funds to do it. It appears that Active Travel England (ATE) have agreed that a cycle contraflow lane is sufficient to justify spending the whole budget on road and car park repairs, and creating a one way road out of a perfectly cycleable minor road.

I am drafting a letter to the council to urge them not to waste public funds, and intend to send something similar to ATE to urge them to show some backbone and ask for their money back.



The draft is as follows:


I note that North Somerset Council intend to approve a programme of capital works intended to remove the Active Travel England funded cycling related improvements on The Beach, Clevedon and replace them with increased car parking. I object to this removal and suggest that councillors should not accept it.

I urge rejection of this programme, in my capacity as a regular visitor to Clevedon sea front and, since the works were funded from national taxation from my interest as a national taxpayer in avoiding waste and misuse of public funds.

I usually enter Clevedon along Hill Road, descending to the sea front along the beach. This is the only safe, direct way to cycle into Clevedon from the north and has the additional advantage of passing a range of useful shops on Hill Road. As far as the works in Hill Road, which are to be retained, are concerned they do not appear to have had detrimental effects on local businesses, it has never been easy to park in Hill Road.

For the works on The Beach, the only argument against the two way cycle lane and parallel parking could be effects on local businesses. There does not yet appear to be any conclusive evidence that local businesses have suffered, or that the restaurants will benefit from the reintroduction of echelon parking to allow fat people to eat burgers in their cars, whilst looking out at the river.

I never considered that the cycle works on the Beach were necessary; the road was quiet and, like most suburban roads conducive to careful driving and cycling. It was potholed and scruffy and I always suspected that the main aim of the cycle works was to use cycle funding for general road repairs and tidying. Removing the cycle track will mean that cycle funding has been used exclusively for general road repairs and resurfacing a car park. As the works are complete we now need to consider the proposed replacement, which will consume further public funds.

This is also not the section of the sea front roads that could most benefit from cycle lanes, it could have been justified as the first stage of Pier-to-Pier route related cycle improvements along the whole sea front, with the usual problem that councils will always put cycle lanes first where they are least likely to be noticed rather than where they are most needed.

The current state of the road, with the two way cycle lane does look much smarter than before, although there are odd features like the junction into the roundabout, and the bollards in the cycle lane at foot crossings that show a lack of understanding of how to design cycle facilities. It is unfortunate that being intended to accommodate cycles has caused an extreme allergic reaction among a vociferous minority.

Worse, although replacing the cycle track with a contraflow cycle lane is being presented as reallocation of road space to cycling it will increase the danger for cyclists. One way systems always increase traffic speeds, and instead of being equal users on a minor road with slow traffic cyclists will now be confined to a narrow strip with faster traffic being encouraged to pass closer. It is strange that Active Travel England are said to accept this painting of a white line as sufficient cycling improvement to justify spending the whole active travel funding on general road and car park repairs.

The so-called independent report has come from a large consultancy, AECOM, working mainly in the USA with no obvious claims to expertise in cycling infrastructure in the UK. I have examined their website and not yet found any claims to expertise in cycling, although they have done some pedestrian modelling in North America. It seems likely that in this case their expertise is mainly in providing 'independent' cover for what politicians have decided to do anyway.


(1) (1) https://n-somerset.moderngov.co.uk/docu ... ndices.pdf (for 27 March 2024)

[cycle tramp]

Although I appreciate the sentiments, possibility resist the temptation to include 'fat people in cars eating burgers' in the final draft?
It's been over 9 years since I last cycled through Clevedon, otherwise I too would have commented.

[Jdsk]

...
I am drafting a letter to the council to urge them not to waste public funds, and intend to send something similar to ATE to urge them to show some backbone and ask for their money back.
...

It's up to you whether you want to include the insults and the attributed motives or to stick to why it's a bad plan. I'd choose the latter.

Is there a local cycling or campaigning group with which you could work?

Jonathan

[mjr]

Is there a local cycling or campaigning group with which you could work?

If he's still going, Steve Kinsella would probably welcome the help.

Good luck. Such misuse of cycle funding for car park resurfacing should be called out whenever it happens.

[wjhall]

When drafting I was inclined to think that a bit of knockabout would liven it up, but perhaps I will write: "The clamour to arrange the parking so that people can sit in their cars and look at the river, presumably eating their own sandwiches, does not seem to be aimed at improving the trade of local restaurants." This is a dogwhistle version of the same message.

I am sure that any local cycle groups will already have noticed and made their contribution.

Since national funding is involved any UK taxpayer has standing to comment.

Active Travel England seem to be very slack. This cost something like a million, whereas the cycle facility as now defined comprises the white line defining the contraflow cycle lane, about an hour's work for a competent white lining gang. This is again a national matter.

[drossall]

I don't know the area, and I can't comment from knowledge. But I should have thought that the single most relevant comment is about one-way streets increasing speeds and therefore risk to cyclists. I'd move that to the start, and generally focus the letter on the specific proposed works. In writing this kind of thing, I'd always ask myself, "If someone stops reading part way through, will I have got across my most important points?", and, "Although this is a good point, it's one more thing for people to read; is it so important to make this in this particular letter that I'm not prepared to remove it, in order to ensure that readers grasp my other points?"

[Jdsk]

...
In writing this kind of thing, I'd always ask myself, "If someone stops reading part way through, will I have got across my most important points?", and, "Although this is a good point, it's one more thing for people to read; is it so important to make this in this particular letter that I'm not prepared to remove it, in order to ensure that readers grasp my other points?"

Very good.

I'd also include "How seriously will the reader take what I'm saying". And that includes "How seriously will the reader take me?".

Jonathan

[wjhall]

I rearranged it so that it started with a covering letter in which the main point was waste of public funds, the suggestion that the council has embarrassed itself enough without diverting funds from completely different programmes. Then I sent it to a selection of relevant councillors, at least one from each party.

It is true I could have added to the covering letter the statement that it will be worse as evidence of my standing as a user, but I doubt if a detailed design point like that really has much impact, especially as they have employed a giant consultancy to propose it, and claim that ATE have agreed that the contraflow will do. The detailed comments that follow the covering letter now have headings which help to catch the eye.

All your suggestions are useful, but life is short and poking the beast is better than thinking too long about poking the beast.

Now to rework it for the version sent to ATE.

I am not familiar with the political situation, it is quite possible that considering a report that says the removal would not be value for money, and lists the other programmes that would lose funding, whilst appearing to be in favour of removal may be designed as a way to allow councillors to wring their hands and say there is nothing they can do, in view of pressure from the people who would lose their funding. Or it might be that this will be proclaimed as a major fightback against fifteen minute towns, 20 mph limits and so on.

[Stradageek]

I know the area very well, my daughter lives about half a mile away and we regularly frequent the seafront cafes which have not suffered in any way, they are always packed. It is also a joy to be able to wander safely across what is now a very quiet road.

The new arrangement has deprived visitors of the 'sit in the car and gaze across the Bristol channel' option but as there is ample free parking in nearby roads and there are plenty of seafront benches you could look at the new design as encouraging walking as well as cycling.

This may be upsetting for some disabled residents and visitors but surely getting from a parked car to a bench merely 200m away is not impossible - or am I being too harsh?

[rjb]

Interesting mix of representatives on the council with a coalition in charge. ie all the disparate groups have joined up to oust the conservatives. Are these groups focussed on their own self interest at the demise of the big picture with global warming. My take on it is what a shambles and waste of public funds. Dont get me started on the long running ongoing saga of the Tutshill Sluice crossing. https://n-somerset.gov.uk/my-services/p ... r-pier-way

https://n-somerset.gov.uk/council-democ ... up-leaders

There are 50 seats in total.

Conservative Party and Independents Group - 15
Liberal Democrats and Independents Group - 12
Labour Group - 10
Green Group - 8
Portishead Independent Group - 4
Independent Group - 1
No single political group has enough seats to secure an overall majority, so a partnership administration has been formed between the following groups:

Liberal Democrats and Independents Group
Labour Group
Green Group
Portishead Independent Group
Independent Group
This partnership holds 35 of the 50 seats on the Council. Our Executive is made up of councillors from this partnership administration.

[MikeF]

I am drafting a letter to the council to urge them not to waste public funds, ...............

Your draft is rambling. You need to make your points concisely to make the letter readable - bullet points are good way to make them. By readable I mean that whoever reads the letter can quickly see your objections without reading an "essay". Remove unnecessary words, and your opinions - stick to facts. Essentially make them read it and not file it!

[wjhall]

I think you will find the as sent covering letter quiet brief enough.

As sent I also introduced section headings, which have the bullet point function, without too much resembling the platitudes of management speak. Some of the section heading could have been tuned. I forgot the bolding, which is also a useful technique.

You have to remember that at one level councillors only count the pitchforks, they do not trouble to examine the sharpness.

At another level, councillors do read things. I once sent something of at least this length, although better organised, I was younger then, to Bristol City Council, for circulation to the Downs Comittee, about the one way proposal for Circular Road that had floated up, and received a reply from the Executive Councillor responsible thanking me for a detailled contribution setting out the issues so clearly.

& That is enough of my time on North Somerset Council, on to ATE...


*******************

[Stradageek]

I agree with Mike, assume you are talking to Donald Trump (my brother as a CEO had the same issue) you need a few bullet points on half an A4 sheet, no more

My main worries are that:

a) The cycle contraflow will be dangerous for pedestrians crossing the 'perceived' one way road, especially from cafe to seafront and is likely to invite ire from ill informed motorists

b) The 30+ parking spaces will consume much of the current wide and popular promenade and create a busy road where avoiding maneuvering cars will take priority over enjoying the seafront.

c) Has anyone asked both those promenading the front and the cafe owners what they think?

[wjhall]

, assume you are talking to Donald Trump ...

c) Has anyone asked both those promenading the front and the cafe owners what they think?

What an insulting comparison for the councillors of England.

The council claims in the report to have been in close consultation with the cafe owners.

[Stradageek]

The council claims in the report to have been in close consultation with the cafe owners.

That's good news, but what did they say? And what did a survey of the promenaders say?

Just interested to know if I'm alone