New towns – designing for cycling

DaveGos
Posts: 275
Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 12:40pm

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by DaveGos »

I live in the Telford area , It was built with cycle paths but with a couple of exceptions they are not used, they have underpasses as weel so you do not need to cross busy roads .

Reasons

1) Most are not sign posted you do not know where they are or where they are going
2) They are not maintained last time I used one I got glass through schwalbe marathons
3) Culture while these days there are quite alot of roadies , they are really built for commuters , school kids etc and there is little culture of cycling amongst these groups in my area

No 2 is probably the most important, Councils like building things they do not seem to like maintaining things .
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by Steady rider »

http://www.telford.gov.uk/downloads/fil ... and_wrekin

Looks like not that many routes, not sure of scale of map, glass problems I would report, old town trying to add on cycle routes perhaps.
User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 577
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by Wanlock Dod »

drossall wrote:Make short car journeys awkward.


I think that this is at the essence of it, and should probably be first on the list. If we design for walking over distances of e.g. of to 0.5 km, cycling for distances of between 0.5 to 5 km, and cars for distances above 5 km, then cars can never get to be the priority mode of transport in the busiest places.

There is surely a world of difference between removing some of the barriers to not using a car for a particular journey, and actively prioritising a different mode of transport for the same journey.
Toffee
Posts: 151
Joined: 2 Sep 2014, 9:28pm

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by Toffee »

Wanlock Dod wrote:
drossall wrote:Make short car journeys awkward.


I think that this is at the essence of it, and should probably be first on the list. If we design for walking over distances of e.g. of to 0.5 km, cycling for distances of between 0.5 to 5 km, and cars for distances above 5 km, then cars can never get to be the priority mode of transport in the busiest places.

There is surely a world of difference between removing some of the barriers to not using a car for a particular journey, and actively prioritising a different mode of transport for the same journey.


While not disagreeing with you how would we do that? What is .5km for one person is 5km down the road for another?

Charging road usage by the mile using GPS would I suppose work. Higher rate for short journeys.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by Vorpal »

I think it is better to make some residential areas car free, and build new ones that way.

The Netherlands have been doing that since the 90s http://sustainableamsterdam.com/2016/02 ... ghborhood/
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 577
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by Wanlock Dod »

Toffee wrote:
drossall wrote:Make short car journeys awkward.


While not disagreeing with you how would we do that?
[/quote]

The way I see it this is easy, you simply put a few concrete bollards in the middle of the road strategically turning what were previously through roads in residential areas into no through routes for cars, but still accessible on foot or by bike. A careful identification of appropriate routes to close to through traffic would force vehicles onto larger, less residential, roads whilst having a limited impact on longer journeys which would have used the larger roads anyway and making some shorter journeys longer and more inconvenient if made by car.

There doesn't need to be any actual loss of access by cars to homes, businesses, etc. but by not making movement by car the top priority everywhere, and transfering that priority over to e.g. cycling and walking, they become much more obvious options. Everybody's threshold for what sort of distance is too far to walk, so they would cycle, or too far to cycle, so they would use a car or train will be a bit different, but for a population things are probably quite predictable. Also, lets not assume that somebody's threshold for as far as they are prepared to go either walking or cycling before betting in the car wouldn't increase if the conditions for doing so were improved.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by MikeF »

ChrisButch wrote: and a requirement in the section 106 agreements with developers for nominal-value sustainable transport 'vouchers' to be presented to the new residents.
The fact that cycling infrastructure so often seems to rely solely on section 106 funding is the reason nothing satisfactory is ever built. There's simply no commitment. Active travel is walking from the front door to the car and from a car park to a shop. Who needs a bicycle?!
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by thirdcrank »

In principle, new towns have the possibility of being different, in that they don't depend on the goodwill of developers to achieve their policies. In reality, I fancy that there's little appetite to restrain the motor car at any level of our society.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by Vorpal »

Developers' primary incentive is to make money. To that end, the least design changes between one housing estate and another, the better. Infrastucture is built to the minimum standard required to get planning permission, while design efforts concentrate on maximising number of bedrooms per floor plan, because that's what sells houses.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
ChrisButch
Posts: 1188
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 12:10pm

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by ChrisButch »

Some practical consequences that have occurred to me after the experience with the Tiverton Urban Extension which I described upthread, and in particular ways in which the planning process can be influenced.

What we are up against is that whenever a major scheme like this is first mooted, potential developers retain professional planning consultants who are briefed to intervene at all of the many stages of the masterplanning process with closely argued and lengthy submissions covering every detail: and in turn, when it comes to traffic and transport issues, commissioning trip and flow forecasts etc from transport consultants. The objective throughout, of course, is to minimise cost and maximise profit: and in that calculation there is inevitable weighting towards the familiar rather than the experimental, which is how a radical approach to road and transport infrastructure appears. They are aided by national planning guidance which is now weighted in favour of development, with planning authorities under constant political pressure from central government to meet regional housebuilding targets, and working in the knowledge that the slightest technical breach on their part is likely to result in refusals of consent to outline applications etc being overturned on appeal.

All this means that the cards are stacked against attempts to affect the fundamental assumptions of the process, as will usually be necessary if the changes in transport policy we are talking about stand any chance. What is required when the masterplanning process I've described gets under way is a combination of skill, knowledge of planning law and national planning guidance, diplomacy, determination and above all time if the continual barrage of assaults by the professional consultants is to be effectively countered. With the best will in the world, such a combination is rarely to be found in volunteer activists from local cycling groups. Occasionally we find the pure gold of a naturally talented campaigner, but that's too rare to be counted on. Occasionally, also, there are enlightened individuals of sufficient seniority within the planning authority itself - or even the retained consultants - who are on our wavelength: but again too few to have a serious impact. I don't want to knock the existing Cycling UK network of voluntary 'right to ride' advisers: but again their numbers are too few, their responsibilities too thinly spread and their non-professional status too limiting to make an impact on the sheer scale of what's going on nationally.

So what's to be done? Well, one area where I think progress could be made is at the strategic level in influencing the regular changes to national planning guidance issued by the DCLG, which is the 'bible' to which all local planning authorities must work. This is a tall order: but there is a recent example of a national charity like Cycling UK successfully doing this which is worth studying. The John Muir Trust, the charity dedicated to the conservation of the wild landscapes of the Scottish Highlands, has succeeded in getting the concept of 'wild land' formally incorporated into Scottish Government planning guidance, the existing areas of wild land officially mapped, and a requirement on planning authorities to include the impact on wild land as a material consideration in assessing development applications in the designated areas. This is a remarkable achievement. For all I know, Cycling UK may already be working on smething similar. I hope so.

Whatever happens needs to be done quickly. The increasing population, demographic changes and the relatively recent realisation by all major parties that housing must be a dominant political issue all mean that the radical transformation already apparent in greenfield development outside the major cities will continue to accelerate, and before long it will be too late to do much about it.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by Steady rider »

Interesting, DCLG = https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... government

One idea I raised was to try and have Parish Councils object to being bullied into having more houses. In my area East Yorks, the western part is taking the bulk of developments, in the eastern part houses are more difficult to sell. Within the York boundary and nearer to York, some areas have no development, but on the west side of York 3000 properties are proposes. These problems could be raised with members of the House of Lords, spoiling village life, with excessive developments.
http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/housin ... siege-2017

They could introduce limits on development to protect villages from over-development. Developments could be limited to an average over a 5 or 10 year period, not to exceed X%, without gaining a supportive local vote, from local property owners. In this way development would have to be more evenly spread unless residents approved a specific development. The X% would I assume relate to overall population growth over a 5 or 10 year period. Taking an example of a small town with say 10000 population, with 5000 properties, say whole population growth over previous 5 years, https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&s ... CGr8Fm0QAA
0.8% x 5 = 4% over 5 years.
Taking account of the vote to leave the EU based in part on having too many people coming here, assume 3% as a target for 5 years.
Limit for development over 5 years would be 3% x 5000 = 150 houses.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/NEWS/1465507 ... n/?ref=rss
Several developments are taking place in Pocklington, Stamford Bridge nearby has 314 properties being built, about a 20% increase.
I think it needs an MP and member of the Lords to speak up against excessive development for small towns and villages.
Building a small new town is a bit different in that new services and infrastructure would come with such a development and it could be designed to maximise cycling and walking. I would suggest a limit of 3% development over a 5 year period unless approached locally via referendum.
A petition could raised on the governments web site?
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by Steady rider »

http://east-riding-petitions.firmstep.c ... some-areas

East Riding petition needs more people to sign up, thanks if you do.
Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 2029
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: New towns – designing for cycling

Post by Richard Fairhurst »

Almere Consulting have done a very good how-to guide for the new "garden villages" being built:

http://www.almere.co.uk/uncategorized/g ... ve-travel/
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
Post Reply