Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post Reply
TechnoTim
Posts: 6
Joined: 12 Oct 2017, 9:46pm

Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by TechnoTim »

Hi

I live in Sudbury Suffolk, some of you may know it, any of you familiar with the Dunwich Dynamo will remember it.

Our new MP James Cartlidge has decided that his legacy to Sudbury will be a new Western Bypass. A bypass that will cut through some of the most beautiful Countryside in the UK (made famous in Mr and Mrs Andrews by Thomas Gainsborough) and across some of our famous water meadows.

Meanwhile I have been, for years trying to get a campaign to get our off road cycle routes improved so they can be used by all Cyclists and use that as the basis of a network of cycle routes to achieve modal shift (our traffic studies and geography make it ideal).

The Anti-bypass Campaign quite rightly suggests that Active Travel Investment, alongside Public Transport investment and Subsidy as well as a raft of other measures can achieve as much and probably more than the bypass in reducing traffic while leaving the countryside and meadows untouched.

Whilst my Campaign, untouched would have sought the support of car drivers, I now find myself at odds with many, (but by no means all) drivers who think a bypass is the only solution.

How do I proceed?

I have a website ready to go, I have signed up for the Sudbury Vision anti-bypass group (had no choice really). I really need the support of Cycling UK to ensure Space for Cycling is pitched as part of the alternate Better Idea for Sudbury.

I hope I am not treading on any toes.

Any advice welcome.

Cheers

Tim
Last edited by Graham on 13 Oct 2017, 8:56am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: So . . . . So . . . . So . . . .
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by gaz »

In case you are not already aware Cycling UK do not consider the forum to be an official channel of communication. The upshot of which is that nobody at national level is likely to see your post.

Cycling UK campaigns through local volunteers, the right to ride network. There may already be an rtr rep for the area, there used to be a map but I haven't found one on the revamped website (yet).

AIUI support from Cycling UK is largely in the form of campaign briefings and factsheets to provide the data in support of your arguments.

There are many knowledgeable people on these boards who may also be able to guide you to sources of information and support.

In short you'll need to gather local support to oppose the scheme and promote active travel alternatives.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
TechnoTim
Posts: 6
Joined: 12 Oct 2017, 9:46pm

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by TechnoTim »

I have emailed Cycling UK campaigning team as well.

I just thought some opinions and advice would be welcome.

We have over 1800 Signatures and we have media and social media savvy people.

Regards

Tim
Barks
Posts: 310
Joined: 14 Oct 2016, 5:27pm

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by Barks »

I know Sudbury (I originally come from Ipswich) and just had a look on Street View to remind myself of the place. Looks pretty quiet to me (compared to where I live in green belt outside of M25) and fail to see why a bypass is needed at all. It has really good opportunities for one-way routing that can include plenty of space fir bikes especially if 20 mph limits were brought in. Encourage locals to not use their cars, those from the villages encouraged to park outside the main centre and make it unattractive to use as a through route and you will have a far more pleasant town. The last thing we need is to waste our money on in this country is more roads.
TechnoTim
Posts: 6
Joined: 12 Oct 2017, 9:46pm

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by TechnoTim »

Hi

Thanks for the feedback.

We have a major employer with a 700 place car park that could become a park and ride, on a major route in from Colchester/Ipswich.

We are denied 20mph limits as Suffolk CC will not currently place such limits on any A or B road.

The strategic Lorry Network could be rerouted to Colchester and the A134 or the A12 then A14 to Bury St. Eds and beyond. But politically this is beyond our politicians (who really don't seem to care). They could introduce a ULEZ and congestion charging with perhaps compensation for businesses who cannot get their vehicles up to Euro 6 standard fast enough. The could spend a fraction of £40m on Public Bus Services, we have none on Saturdays and only one timetabled service once a day from Sudbury/Halstead/Braintree and back. This has been allowed to happen.

There is so much they could do but won't, yet.

We are also considering a legal judgement forcing action faster than the bypass can be built, we have some good connections.

Regards

Tim
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20309
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by mjr »

Get in touch with Cycle Ipswich if you haven't already. They may be able to help with representation at county council meetings if needed.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by Steady rider »

It appears to me that this is taking the wrong approach. A bypass would take some traffic, especially HGVs, away from the main town, so conditions for cycling should be better. I would promote a bypass and also better conditions for cycling. Cycling usually forms less than say 5% of trips, so trying to use cycling to oppose a bypass, seems the wrong way round. The Dutch approach I think is to have HGVs separate from cyclists if possible.
TechnoTim
Posts: 6
Joined: 12 Oct 2017, 9:46pm

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by TechnoTim »

This bypass in whatever form is not the answer. It will do nothing to help cyclists, indeed having to negotiate one new roundabout and a spur off another would make cycling more hazardous, not safer. Suffolk have no notion of what constitutes high quality cycling infrastructure.

The route ruins beautiful countryside and the inevitable infill will destroy the remnants.

One idea is a new road from Braintreee to Bury St. Edmunds that would divert HGVs from Chelmsford/Braintree to the A14 and possibly, though not likely destroy no beautiful Countryside (even Essex has that).

Bypasses are a 20th Century solution to a 21st Century problem and the traffic levels can be mitigated and AQMA resolved by other means without resorting to construction carnage.

Regards

Tim
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by horizon »

Sudbury can either suffer from noisy, polluting, dangerous traffic or it can lose its river valley landscapes. It isn't negotiable. The £50m can be spent on a new road or nothing. The motoring/haulage lobby won't budge on this but is happy with a by-pass (loss of the natural environment is of no concern). Of course, this will simply shift the problem to the next bottleneck. Although there is a local campaign for a by-pass, the road isn't intended to be of local benefit and here's why:

Let's imagine (fantasy option no.1) that the town is offered £50m and the choice of what to spend it on. This won't happen as the resources are a consequence of lobbying by the roads lobby which includes of course the road construction companies.

Now let's imagine fantasy option no 2: the town is allowed to operate a toll, the proceeds of which go to improving the town in any way thought fit. The toll would also be intended to discourage traffic especially at busy times. Winners all round.

So it's a by-pass or nothing then.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Stevek76
Posts: 2086
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by Stevek76 »

TechnoTim wrote:We are also considering a legal judgement forcing action faster than the bypass can be built, we have some good connections.

Regards

Tim


In what sense? There will be a natural point for legal proceedings towards the end of the process when it actually gets planning permission and can (and these things often do) get taken to public inquiry. Before that I'm not sure what you can do that would fully torpedo the scheme.

By the looks of things this is pretty early on in the process, the strategic outline business case was published last March, this is the first of three stages with the 'outline business case' being next.

Essentially there's two main drivers for a scheme, the political will and the technical case behind it, without both it's not likely to happen (though occasionally political will can shove through a technically flawed scheme).

In terms of political will it really boils down to making it clear to your elected representatives that they're losing your vote (regardless of whether they had it or not in the first place, they don't know that), especially council members as they're the ones leading it, though MP never harms things. The next stage should involve a public consultation at some point so make sure that is well attended and that everyone submits responses (careful not to template responses as if its clear that has happened it can get considered as a single interested group rather than as individuals).

With the technical side of things, that will generally be trickier as while the current guidance might well be flawed in terms of not acknowledging fully the often futility of endless road building, that is the current guidance and if that is correctly followed then legally there is little grounds for challenging it. Until a national government on board with the concept of sustainable transport is elected and gets the DfT to change it, progress on that front is likely to be slow.

One possible angle of attack I can see though, is to challenge the assumptions on through traffic. Work done on the initial stage will not have been that detailed, nor does it have to be. However for the next stage it would be worth challenging this. Specifically have they chucked some ANPR cameras up and got a measure on exactly how much of the traffic is genuine 'through traffic'? It's easy for locals in small towns to blame congestion on such things but it usually only makes up a small proportion of the actual flow. Most of it will probably be either coming from or going to Sudbury or travelling within it entirely. Also as far as HGVs go there appears to be a reasonably sized industrial estate on the east of the town, how much is that contributing? A relief road isn't going to provide much relief if the bulk of HGVs are either servicing shops in town or going to/from the industrial estate!
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
TechnoTim
Posts: 6
Joined: 12 Oct 2017, 9:46pm

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by TechnoTim »

Thanks for the responses.

They carried out a full traffic Survey in 2016 using ANPR and we have asked for all the data pertaining to it since 2016. We have been told that this is an unreasonable request and the case is with the Information Commissioner, that will take months to resolve. Figures from the early and late noughties suggest it will shift just 8% of traffic but infill building will create another 10% on traffic wiping that gain out. The data they are providing is incredibly sparse,
The relief road would relieve the key routes within Sudbury town centre, removing some 600
vehicles during the PM peak. There would also be a 60% reduction in the number of HGVs within
Sudbury.
There is no appendix actually quantifying how these figures are arrived at.

The petitions at this stage are politically motivated, we understand our MP James Cartlidge was asked by Jesse Norman to prove there was support for the bypass. So far our petitioning is proving otherwise.

We know there is zero political will within our District and County Council majorities and of course National Government to spend a fraction of the £50m on the alternatives. We also favour a ULEZ and congestion charge to pay for Public Transport and enhancing Active Travel, the County know partly what is required in the latter as they had a half decent audit of cycling facilities and suggested changes three years ago, but they have spent not a penny since and have as yet, no intention of doing so.

We just think if we kill this at this stage but then continue to ensure some action is carried out to mitigate the AQMA we can get something done.

We have one advantage, we have the knowledge of how to leverage modern media and will be making a video soon (including our own ex ITN Journalist) We are truly apolitical, obviously the Greens are in support but Labour are split and Tory Voters are on our side.

We have a barrister on board so every legal challenge needed will be made. It seems to be working, the MP, despite the Strategic study having a sort of route outlined is suggesting now that the Bypass route need not cross the water meadows and "Gainsborough" Landscapes. (If you look at Mr and Mrs Andrews by Thomas Gainsborough the bypass would bysect the background from right to left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_and_Mrs_Andrews)

So the next stage is to launch the Cycling Campaign as a low cost positive change for the better.

Tim
Stevek76
Posts: 2086
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by Stevek76 »

If you're asking for the raw number plate timestamp data then that would be unreasonable.

However I cannot see what would be unreasonable in providing the main processed data spreadsheet. Did they expand on what was unreasonable about the request? If it was a time/effort thing that's twaddle since it would simply be a case of emailing the sheet the survey company provided.

If it proves their case (ie that there are many through hgvs) it isn't a problem, if it doesn't then there's absolutely no point in hiding it. Were this to progress all the way to the inevitable pubic inquiry, I'm fairly sure they would then have to provide it if asked and if it wrecks the case they'll have wasted a couple of million on design fees.

Regarding the 60% reduction, this appears to have come from use of an existing traffic model of Suffolk county 'as is'. This is not necessarily a problem for a SOBC (for future stages one would expect rather more demonstration of how good the model's representation of Sudbury is, although tbh I'd really expect that here) but if they also have anpr data it is surprising that this not also referenced, the suspicious part of me thinks this if because it probably doesn't help the case for the scheme as if it did it would surely be referenced.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 2030
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by Richard Fairhurst »

mjr wrote:Get in touch with Cycle Ipswich if you haven't already. They may be able to help with representation at county council meetings if needed.

I asked Shaun McDonald (who's a friend involved with Cycle Ipswich) via Twitter and Tim, he suggests you drop them a line at info@cycleipswich.org.uk .
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
TechnoTim
Posts: 6
Joined: 12 Oct 2017, 9:46pm

Re: Fighting a Bypass using Cycling as an alternative

Post by TechnoTim »

Cheers Richard Have emailed them and Colchester Cycling Campaign. Will also contact Camcycle.
Post Reply