Si wrote:Next problem: can we send it right from our start point to our destination? No we can't because the pavements are too narrow and crowded, and there is a narrow railway bridge we can't get under. We have had suggestions of making the road one way, of making it tidal, of cyclist contraflows, etc...all of which would work, but the council is made up of many layers, and although the planners working with us might suggest such things, further up someone will veto them.
And this would be the point where I would walk away and look for a flagship that's actually achievable. There's two big problems with continuing:
The obvious one is that there is someone further up a hierarchy who does not really agree with doing things to get people on bikes. If you need compulsary purchase for any of it, it's probably going to be blocked. If you want path permissions, it's probably going to be a slow process done with a low priority. The new route may be last in line for maintenance budget, leading to vegetation encroachment, poor surfaces and signs not getting replaced - I've seen that happen more than once. New street furniture will be installed in the middle of the path because someone doesn't care enough to stop them. Basically, even if you don't fail now, it'll probably be condemned to a slow lingering death later.
The second problem is that sometimes the "further up someone"
doesn't even exist and some people on the initial working group are just second-guessing in case they do. Propose the best solution first and if it gets knocked back, at least you find out if there is a "further up someone" who - in the long term - you need to get rid of. Then alter it to address the objections and try again.
Maybe I've misunderstood. If you proposed the best solution but had to water it down in the interests of getting something rather than nothing on a key route, there's less shame in that and at least we have another cycling capacity-expansion/improvement project ready to go when funding is available.
