Meeting the Highwaymen - Hints and Tips

[Vorpal]

That sounds better than many meetings I have attended!

[mjr]

HE have basically been designing to TA90/05 as they view the scheme as remodelling the existing roads and feel IAN195/16 is for new highway.

IAN 195/16 clearly says on the front page that "This document supplements and amends the cycling specific information provided in the following documents, [...] TA 90/05" - in other words, it amends TA 90/05 where they disagree. HE must not be allowed to keep using the unsafe TA90/05 unamended! But who can stop them?

[gaz]

I expect the "get out of jail free" card that they were exercising was this one:-

1.4. Scope
...
This document does not cover design of shared use facilities for pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists; information on this type of provision is covered in TA 91/05 Provision for Non-Motorised Users [1] and in Local Transport Note 1/12 Shared use routes for pedestrians and cyclists [2]. The default position along the SRN where cycle traffic will normally be travelling at speed is for there to be a separate footway where pedestrian demand is high enough to justify it. Where new or upgraded facilities are being provided on or adjacent to existing roads with existing physical constraints, a shared route for pedestrians and cyclists may be provided.
...

Everything currently in place is simple shared use, much of what lies between the two junctions is thorougly sub-standard. HE don't want to consider improving NMU routes within the Development Consent Order zone unless they are actually being disturbed by their works. Where they are being disturbed they have broadly been looking at like for like reinstatement, frequently quoting existing physical constraints.

[mjr]

Everything currently in place is simple shared use, much of what lies between the two junctions is thorougly sub-standard. HE don't want to consider improving NMU routes within the Development Consent Order zone unless they are actually being disturbed by their works. Where they are being disturbed they have broadly been looking at like for like reinstatement, frequently quoting existing physical constraints.

That doesn't seem like a credible position. Also, are the physical constraints real (cliffs or rivers or whatever) or manufactured (carriageways and bridges)? Can a local cycling campaign call their bluff in the press and with a write-to-your-MP campaign?

[passing the junction]

IAN is yet another infrastructure guide, most of the elements of which have been in one cycle guide or another over the past 20 years. What is disappointing, as it's a HE document, is that it doesn't transparently explain what in the eyes of HE makes cycling facilities value for money - and almost always, it's the time saving that cycle facilities offer drivers. Eg if an existing at-grade crossing is converted to grade-separated then that might be worth a lot of money in terms of driving time saved. Depends on the scheme but sometimes you are talking about justification for cycle facilities worth millions.

IAN, if one of its aims is to help cycle scheme advocates have informed conversations with HE reps, is a failure. In fact, it's doubly disappointing given all the long-in-the-tooth 'cycle campaigners' listed as authors.

I know there are exceptions but my tip would be that the engineers you meet don't want to build half-baked cycle facilities for fun, it will be more that they think spending money will adversely affect the whole scheme's value for money. So my hint is just to ask them about the financial dimensions and try to explore the options.

[gaz]

Welcome to the forum and thank you for your contribution.

The meeting has been and gone, I've posted a little initial feedback to the forum and I'm waiting for the minutes.

Funding is an interesting discussion.

Works within the Development Consent Order area have to be funded from the scheme budget. The scheme budget is already set and will only provide for minor NMU works at the junctions.

There was some mention of Designated Funds (Cycle Safety and Integration and others) as a way to fund improvements outside of the area covered by the DCO.

This introduces a Catch 22 to many of the improvements that are required to existing NMU routes. The scheme budget is insufficient to provide high quality improvements to NMU routes that lie within the DCO area particularly between the junctions, Designated funds cannot normally be used to make improvements within the DCO area.

[MikeF]

I can't help thinking that the new term ("buzzword") NMU routes is now being used instead of "walking and cycling infrastructure" as the latter sounds rather grand as if something needs to be constructed or done! eg LCWIP (Elsie Whip!)

[gaz]

NMU routes include (or at least consider) provision for equestrians. Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Assessment and Review (W-CHAR) has been part of the scheme development process.