Cycling UK Forum

caldini wrote:I am back at home in North Wales for christmas so I will ride the route and make some notes. Is there anything in particular you would like me to investigate?

Thanks Caldini. If you get around to it it would be good if you could assess the quality of the compulsory sections of the cycle route, east and westbound.

I still have somewhere a cutting from "Cycling" with the head line "Sandy Wins But Isabel Astounds." Its about a 12 hour tt in Scotland, won by Sandy Gilchrist. Isabel was 72 years young, and rode 212 miles. All this is from memory, but I don't think I'm far wrong. The 72 and 212 I am pretty sure about.

Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:The three bans Richard Fairhurst mentions do not include the section of the A55 under discussion. That section is Conwy Morfa westward, all sections mentioned are eastwards.

With the exception of Pen-y-Clip tunnel, where Sustrans has successfully campaigned for a cycle-friendly bridge to be installed over and above the Government's original design, can you point me to a source for this "cycle ban" west of Conwy Morfa please?

Richard, you are the source, don't you remember? When I first brought up the problem of cyclists being banned from the FOUR tunnels (two each way) you said that the cycle ban was "an artefact" of the nature of the road, and started all this stuff about it being a "special road". Now it seems as if we have been at cross purposes. Are you now implying that west of Conwy Morfa the road is not "special"?
I speculate that the two at grade roundabouts disqualify this section from "special" status.
To recap. Cyclists are banned from all four tunnels, and, if I remember correctly, the Penmaenmawr bypass section in between the two headlands where the tunnels are. You informed me that a bridge has been built since I went that way. The route I used to have to travel, (quite frequently) needed two crossings of the A55. Also a half mile walking, a narrow bridge over the railway also walking, and many other substandard sections, including a mile on the pavement with no protection from traffic which when cycling west is oncoming.
I then asked you whether this bridge, which you describe now as cycle friendly, is cyclable. I also asked whether the other uncyclable sections have been made into a cycle route, and whether the substandard stuff has been properly done. You have not answered these questions.
In view of your confusing the A55 east of the Conwy with the section with tunnels which is to the west of the river, I am beginning to think that you don't know this route from direct experience, and that the reason you can't answer questions about the rideability is that you have not ridden NCN5. I say again, it would take more than one bridge to make this cycle route acceptable as the only way for a cyclist to travel the North Wales coast from Bangor to Conwy.
I have looked up the route on CycleStreets and the route it gives is over the Sychnant Pass, avoiding the easterly headland and tunnels. Grimshaw mentioned this in his talk in Bangor. I hope that this is not now NCN5. The pass is a grand ride, worth doing for its own sake, but its a steep climb to 170 metres and not reasonable as a substitute for the original route. Please tell me I am wrong about it being the main NCN5.

As far as I can remember, the three sections Richard Fairhurst lists are new sections of dual carriageway, not adaptations of existing road, so as Third Crank points out, would not need an alternative route provided. So, they are irrelevant to the question we are discussing, except that they illustrate Third Crank's other point about incremental changes leaving the controversial bits till last.
Of the sections that Richard Fairhurst lists, Llandulas to Colwyn Bay, and Colwyn Bay to Glan Conwy are what I referred to as the Colwyn Bay Bypass, and Glan Conwy to Conwy Morfa is the tunnel under the Afon Conwy which I also referred to.
Richard has also failed to answer my questions about whether the new cycle bridges are anything like a decent substitute for the free use of this section of the A55, whether the rest of the road westwards is still cyclable and whether the other sections of the Sustrans route have been improved to make them an asset to cyclists, not a liability, as they were when I last saw them.
There are many problems with the Conwy Morfa to Llanfairfechan cycle route which I would want to see put right. Richard has not told us whether these have been sorted.
When a Sustrans route provides an alternative to a busy road for cyclists who choose to use it, because of comfort, competence, or age or because the cyclist is in no hurry and wants a more pleasant ride, then perhaps a substandard facility is defensible. When the Sustrans route is obligatory there can be no excuse. To withhold Sustrans endorsement is not a very powerful sanction to combat the Welsh Office, but that is not an excuse for proclaiming this mess a cycle route. At the time I felt that the cyclists' case was split and weakened.

Richard Fairhurst wrote:

thirdcrank wrote:Richard Fairhurst

I think you should reconsider your comments about the bike ban, unless you have the specific info about the what the Secretary of State signed. Or of course, point out the flaw in my interpretation of the law. (It would not be my first error in that field. )

The Special Road Orders were:

1984 - Llandulas to Colwyn Bay
1985 - Colwyn Bay to Glan Conwy
1990 - Glan Conwy to Conwy Morfa

So I continue to dispute Mike Sales' assertion that "The A 55 between Conwy and Bangor is a place where a ban has been made possible by the Sustrans route in approximate parallel" (my emphasis). The NCN didn't exist as an idea until 1994-1995. Even Sustrans' first long-distance route, the C2C, was only established in 1992. To blame Sustrans for the bike ban on the road simply doesn't fit with the chronology.

The three bans Richard Fairhurst mentions do not include the section of the A55 under discussion. That section is Conwy Morfa westward, all sections mentioned are eastwards. So you have not succeeded in your attempt at refutation. The alternatives to these sections are all on-road. It is round the headlands that the problem occurs.
When Dr. Johnson and travellers to Holyhead came this way the precipitous slope falling into the sea was a major obstacle. They had to walk, or cross the Lavan sands to Beaumaris.


I would spell it "goggs", it derives from "gogledd" meaning "north" as meic must know.

If walking is allowable I have reached about 13,000 ft. in the Alps. May I clain a special mention since this was leg powered all the way from Otley to the summit? Most of the mileage was by bike, of course.

Sorry about that. I seem to have pressed the wrong buttons. To clear any confusion, all from the start of my post to "we'll never know." is a quote from Third Crank.

thirdcrank wrote:Mike Sales

A very interesting post. I think you are wrong on one legal point - covered in my immediately previous post. As a motorway is a "special road" the requirement to provide an alternative for prohibited traffic is the same on this "special road" as it would be on a motorway.

Somewhere, presumably in the Welsh Office, unless roads have now been taken over by the WAG, there will be an order signed by the then Secretary of State for Wales, making this a special road and including a declaration that he is satisfied under section 18 of the Highways Act, 1980 either that there is adequate alternative provision or that none is needed. Without seeing that documentm, or hearing from somebody who knows what it says, we'll never know.

If you are correct, then when this dualling of the A55 took place it was not declared as a "special road", or at least only some sections were. As I remember it, at first only the west bound tunnels at Penmaenmawr and Penmaenbach, and the Colwyn Bay Bypass were denied to cyclists. The tunnel under the Conwy river was forbidden from its opening. Later other sections had a cycle ban. At the same time previously dualled lengths, such as that near Abergwngregyn were cyclable and remained so after the dualling of the Conwy to Llanfairfechan section and the tunnel bans. When I left Wales the A55 from the Bangor Bypass and on through Anglesey was still legally rideable.
This does not seem to accord with a "special road" status, which presumably could not be justified piecemeal.
Perhaps the bit by bit building up of sections of ( poor quality) cycle routes was a gradual working towards a farcility which would allow "special road" status. This would rather undermine any claim we should thank Sustrans.
I wish I could summon sufficient motivation for a FOI request in order to clear this up.
As usual, the signage of these detours was poor. I remember meeting two Dutchmen who had ridden through the tunnel on the "pavement". This was a section at the side of the tunnel roadway which resembled a pavement in form but I think was a duct for wiring.
Another memory. When I was hassling the W.O. about the ban I was told that the velocity of the fan forced ventilation air stream made cycling unsafe. I translated this into Beaufort strength to help me understand it. It was about Force 4. The wind around those headlands must very often exceed this.

Richard Fairhurst wrote:

goatwarden wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:The A 55 between Conwy and Bangor is a place where a ban has been made possible by the Sustrans route in approximate parallel. Otherwise one would have to ride to Bangor via Bettws y Coed. The Sustrans diversion involves cyclists crossing the mouth of a tunnel where one carriageway emerges. A cyclist has been killed here. It also involves a no cycling bridge and another crossing. This road is a motorway in all but name.

Or to be accurate: it's a "special road". 99% of these in the UK are motorways. The 1% are the Edinburgh bypass, the new bit of A1 dual carriageway approaching Edinburgh... and the A55.

The existence of the Sustrans route has nothing to do with the bike ban on the A55. The bike ban is an artefact of the type of road it is. I think you'll find that if it wasn't for Sustrans you'd still have the same bike ban, but you wouldn't have the bike bridges erected earlier this year after extensive Sustrans lobbying.

When this dualled A55 and its pitiful cycle track was inaugurated it was only the new tunnels which had a bike ban. Other sections were legally rideable. This "artefact" only progressed in step with the alternative cycle farcilities. The road itself did not change after opening, only the cycle route. The cycle bans advanced section by section. One new bit of cycle track undulated like the sea. Other sections had give way markings where field entrances crossed it.
The road is a standard Trunk dual carriageway. Even the new tunnels were cyclable and illegally ridden through. My impression is that the Welsh Office would have liked to make the whole thing a motorway but could not for two reasons. One, the old road especially has bends which do not meet motorway standards, and two, they would have had to provide a proper alternative for road users who are not allowed on motorways. Also, perhaps there was not the money to make all junctions grade separated, and to give access to all properties which previously had it.
If this route were a motorway would Sustrans have endorsed the substandard cycle provision?
Its interesting that before dualling the old, winding two way road was legally cyclable. That same old road became one carriageway of the new A55 but now we were banned from it!
I've not lived in Gwynedd for about four years so I was unaware of the new cycle bridges. For how many years between the road being "improved" and the building of these bridges did Sustrans carry on endorsing an unrideable cycle route? I would lke to applaud Sustrans's achievement, but the cynicism of experience leads me to guess that the route is still substandard. Are the new bridges cyclable? Are they the width recommended for two way traffic? Do they have 90 degree bends? Has the old, narrow footbridge over the railway (No Cycling) been replaced with a decent rideable bridge? For years using the route legally meant a walk of at least half a mile (from memory). Can one now ride the cycle route all the way from Conwy to Llanfairfechan?
It would be tedious to go along the whole route noting all the rubbish, but elsewhere the two way cycle track plus footpath narrowed to about a metre, separated from cars by a dotted line. Has this been put right? I used road next to this daily for years. When the Sustrans route went in I began to be hooted and shouted at.
I was the local RTR rep. when this all came about. Sustrans did not contact me, or any other local cycling group. If they talked to Godalming I did not hear of it.

meic wrote:It sounds as though my fears have been realised.

I think that i have made it clear that I dont agree.

The Council had/have their plans and Sustrans are mentioned when it fits and ignored when they dont.

Are Sustrans just useful idiots? Like Blair for Bush? In both cases the question is "what did the junior partner gain in return for their support?" Whether Sustrans can get better facilities for cyclists is exactly what is in question. If they can't then what are they for?
I suspect that in the case of the A55 Sustran's desire to put together a long distance route and claim kudos meant that they approved this and many other substandard farcilities. Its all good publicity.

meic wrote:"

I say again
"Most of Sustrans NCN is ON roads."

Of course it is, it could hardly be otherwise, ( part of my argument is that a full network is topologically or financially impossible). The off road parts are what gets the lion's share of money and publicity, so are much more significant in their contribution to the public's ideas about what cycling is and where one can ride.
Whilst I am remembering that public meeting where Grimshaw spoke in Bangor I begin to smile.
Grimshaw was making the case for a branch rail line to Amlwch (on Anglesey) which was about to close, being made into a cycling track. To be fair I should admit using often a similar track in mainland Gwynedd. In order to talk up the desirability of the proposed cycle track Grimshaw began to say that the alternative roads were poor places to cycle. I used to ride around there and know these lanes well. They are idyllic places to ride. Little traffic even when the coast is full of tourists. Winding, narrow, secret knobbly, unspoilt rural Wales' at its best.
I broke into his speech and said so. I precipitated a general descent in behaviour. Everyone joined in attacking Sustrans. I had not thought so many people agreed wih me.

Mike Sales

meic wrote:The A 55 between Conwy and Bangor is a place where a ban has been made possible by the Sustrans route in approximate parallel.

However the point I am making is that they did a similar ban on the A40 when there was no route, Sustrans or otherwise in parallel.
Sustrans didnt make the ban possible, it was just a justification after it was done.

Any other diversion than the route Sustrans gave its approval to would have been much longer and harder. From memory:- The A55 from Conwy to Bangor is about fifteen miles, and involves little climbing by Welsh standards. The only other option is via Bettws. The route to Bettws up the Conwy valley is about fifteen miles and involves rather more climbing than the A55. From Bettws to Bangor is about twenty miles and climbs to a thousand feet. When I was campaigning against the A55 "improvement" which made things worse for cyclists it was no help at all that Sustrans had approved this apology for a cycle route. At the least Sustrans should have campaigned, as I did, for a cycle provision equal in convenience, safety and quality to the road we were being banned from.
Last time I rode that way the cyclist route, approved as I say, by Sustrans, and only to be avoided by many extra miles and feet, involved twice crossing something like half a motorway, (but worse because the crossings are where the traffic emerges from tunnels so sighting distance is cut short), and also riding for a mile on the pavement facing oncoming traffic, if going west, without any protection.

Mike Sales

Mike Sales

I believe that a GPS calculates distance by making a series of fixes at discreet intervals. The interval can be changed on some units. On my marine chartplotter a straight line connects these points on the on-screen charts. I have seen the line on screen leading through harbour walls when the points fixed and plotted were either side. Of course, in fact the boat went round the end of the breakwater. The real track of the boat would have been somewhat longer than the line directly between fixes.
This could explain the discrepancies.
Mike Sales

Meic wrote:-

"Also past experience shows that councils' decisions to exclude cyclists from roads are not based on the availability of Sustran's routes and only where a Sustran's route exists nearby will they try and claim it as an alternative route. The decision was almost certainly made without considering the Sustrans route.

For Example, the Monmouth tunnel on the A40 is forbidden to cyclists despite there being no Sustran's option nearby."

The A 55 between Conwy and Bangor is a place where a ban has been made possible by the Sustrans route in approximate parallel. Otherwise one would have to ride to Bangor via Bettws y Coed. The Sustrans diversion involves cyclists crossing the mouth of a tunnel where one carriageway emerges. A cyclist has been killed here. It also involves a no cycling bridge and another crossing. This road is a motorway in all but name. The dangerous diversion was happily accepted by Sustrans. At a meeting I attended Grimshaw proposed a steep climb of several hundred feet over a pass as an acceptable substitute.

"So the possible threat of Sustrans being used as an excuse for them to do, whatever they are going to do anyway. Has led to the reality of cyclists being too busy fighting amongst themselves to do what is needed to stop them doing what we all fear."

So stop fighting for cycle facilities. It is difficult to imagine a cycle route system which could be an acceptable substitute fot te freedom of the road.

I don't think we are worried so much by specific bans like these as the encouragement of the view that we are safer off the road and that we have to have special routes. Sustrans literature is full of stuff about safe, traffic free routes. It's not a big step to obliging the recalcitrant road cyclist to stay off the road, for their own safety, of course. Was there not a case about this quite recently?

"Most of the specific allegations against Sustrans are true in the same way that they are true about our transport system, capitalist system, charity law and other aspects of British life in general."

The allegations that these aspects of British life institutionalise discrimination against the powerless by the powerful? Its best to leave this subject alone, I feel.

Mike Sales

""Richard Mann"]
2) Cycle lanes are supported as a sensible intervention by Govt authorities in several European countries, who've spent a huge amount more time and money investigating whether they work than you have."

Do you have any links to the results of these investigations? Especially the ones done by our own government?

Mike Sales