TfGM - divesting themselves of some Cycle Hubs

[the dark lord]

Received this from TfGM

Dear Cycle Hub member,

We wanted to inform you that over the coming weeks there will be some changes at five cycle hubs which TfGM operate at Northern stations in Greater Manchester.

The week commencing 16 December, TfGM will hand over the following hubs to Northern:

• Oxford Road
• Eccles
• Salford Central
• Hazel Grove
• Ashton

There will be a short period of time when the hubs will be out of use, as Northern install their own security system to these facilities.

We would like to reiterate that these hubs are not being closed, but they will look different with new Northern branding in place and Transport for Greater Manchester’s (TfGM’s) card access equipment being removed and replaced by a pin-code system which will be administered by Northern.

In the short term, Northern will replace the card activated locks with pin entry locks. Access to these hubs can be obtained either from the station ticket office or by contacting Northern’s Customer Experience Centre on 0800 200 6060.

Northern will provide these facilities to its customers without a charge. As the hubs will be directly managed by the station owner, this means there will be 24-hour access available for customers.

Further details about how Northern will operate the hubs will appear on their website shortly.

We’re very sorry for any inconvenience this may cause, and any members affected can contact us at: cycle.membership@tfgm.com

Kind regards,
TfGM


Please note that enquiries about cycle hubs should be directed to customer.relations@tfgm.com or 0161 244 1000.

Any thoughts?

The bit that concerns me is the "Northern will provide these facilities to its customers without a charge"
What about none rail passengers, will we still be welcome to use the hubs? Without Charge?

Being in a bit of GM that the Metrostink serves i cant take my bike into the city via PubTra so end up using the hubs once ive cycled to town i.e. a an end point not a start point.

The fact that Northern Rail will be running the security troubles me too and a pin entry system that you can be given at the station counter by staff seems a downgrade/backwards step.

Really feels like TFGM are pushing cycling away at the moment.

[amaferanga]

How can you say that TfGM are pushing cycling away when they're working on the Bee Network? Walking and cycling schemes worth almost £500 million are being led and developed with help from TfGM.

They certainly aren't perfect, but TfGM employ folk with vast experience in successfully developing cycling and walking schemes (e.g. Brian Deegan, Dave Stevens, Catherine Osborn (Catherine worked on Waltham Forest before moving to TfGM)) so if TfGM are pushing cycling away then these guys are wasted there.

We should hopefully have a GM wide bike hire scheme next year so you might not need to lock your bike up anywhere anyway.

[the dark lord]

Ahh the Beelines...

I live in the North of Bury on the Border with Lancashire. I regularly cycle in the boroughs of Bury, Bolton and Wigan. (and of course Lancashire and Yorkshire which are of course outside of the scope of tfgm).

I attended a consultation event for the Beelines, I would have attended more but most of the boroughs seemed to keep it a secret. I also made numerous comments on the online map. I can only speak for the areas I know but I found some of the proposals were sensible, some impractical (new routes through houses etc), some made up clearly by people with no idea of cycling and some pie in the sky ideas. Which is to some extent fine that is after all what a consultation was about, inspirational but it was miss sold to some extent.

The Tfgm representative did make the comment that they had received perhaps more feedback than they was expecting and theyd not really got a grip on how to collate and develop the feedback at that point nearly 2 years ago.

The biggest issue I have with the proposed Bee Lines is maintenance. When asked directly if TFGM would be paying, or contributing to upkeep they shifted uncomfortably and replied that they (tfgm) are responsible for traffic siganls and would maintain them. When pushed further about "bricks and mortor" they eventually conceded that no, that would be left to the LA to maintain or rot.

This is an LA who, despite repeat requests over 2½ years are unable to repaint a painted cycle lane or ASL box at a key junction, due to costs - despite having repainted the centre lines not 50yards away and the lining costing pennies per metre. Other issues are vegetation encroaching on to the cycle portion of an existing segregated cycleway - LA say can't cut it back Mr L - No funds. I thus think the major physical infrastructure of the Bee network is doomed to failure. I'd much rather see less done and some money set aside for a 15-20 maintenance package.

Looking at the Beelines map today, shows very little has been achieved in Bolton and Bury. Bury in particular has just got a some Toucan Crossings confirmed and a small amount of minor upgrades. Bolton has at least listened to the criticism of the awful Chorley Old Road avoiding route and improved it a little. Wigan seems to be fairing better, but I am not sure how much of the confirmed network has been started, built or was already in hand.

All that said, I think the Beelines project is likely to have much more of an effect in the city - lets just hope it is better than Portland Street.

Perhaps you are right with the likes of Deegan, Stevens and Osborn being wasted i cant help but wonder if much time and money will be lost with the push and pull between TFGM and the LAs.

It has always seemed the CTC has been very quiet on the subject of The Beelines.

[amaferanga]

The LAs are the ones that are failing to progress Bee Network schemes. Chris Boardman and his team basically said "here's the money, here's some training for every LA on how to build high quality infrastructure, now design schemes that are up to standard and will form part of a GM network and we'll pay for it". If you felt it was kept secret, that's a failing of your LA, not the Bee Network programme.

Some LA were on it - e.g. Salford and Wigan. Others, like Bolton and Bury dragged their heels and continue to do so. The good news for both is that Tranche 6 which will be signed off today (I think) have schemes from both. I can only speak for the Bolton schemes, but except the low quality Tranche 1 quiet route, these exist because of the work of the residents and the Bolton Active Travel forum. One member designed and did the majority of the Mayors Challenge Fund submission for two schemes, another member did the same for the other scheme that we expect to go through at Tranche 6. We did this for free. We shouldn't have needed to, but it became clear that Bolton Council didn't have the desire to assign resources to this so we just got on with it. If the Tranche 6 schemes are successful, that's nearly £17 million of infrastructure schemes provisionally secured by 2 residents. Now the council can progress the business case and detailed design for the schemes at no financial risk. We made it even easier for them.

So if you look around your area and see nothing in the pipeline, get involved and do it yourself. If you're not bothered enough to get involved then don't complain if your area gets nothing. Nick Hubble would be the guy to make contact with for Bury.

I do agree with you on maintenance - this needs yo be properly funded, but I say let's get on and get it built first. There's no network to worry about maintaining yet. I'm well aware of the lack of maintenance across GM (I cycle through Bolton, Salford, Wigan, Trafford and Manchester LAs regularly) and all of them prioritise cars over bikes still, which is particularly evident in autumn and winter.

On the Bee Network map - its nothing more than an indication of what a joined up network might look like. It certainly can't all be built for £1.8 billion when up to and including T6 is already at £500 million. And there's stuff in there that just doesn't make sense. But when a LA comes to preparing a Bee Network submission, if the roads they want to address are shown on the map already it helps the submission somewhat.

[Pete Owens]

How can you say that TfGM are pushing cycling away when they're working on

... increasing the number of dangerous farcilities that have long characterised Manchester's complete contempt for the safety of cyclists:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/111508/

[amaferanga]

How can you say that TfGM are pushing cycling away when they're working on

... increasing the number of dangerous farcilities that have long characterised Manchester's complete contempt for the safety of cyclists:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/111508/

Again, this is Local Authorities, not TfGM (Manchester LA is still as car centric as any other area of GM with ongoing schemes to increase the car capacity of roads into the city centre). There is an issue currently that LAs are designing high quality when it's Bee Network funded (because they have to), but installing dangerous crap like this like they always have done when it's not Bee Network money. That definitely needs to be addressed and apparently all LAs have now agreed (again!) that they'll prioritise walking and cycling in ALL schemes.

One example from Bolton is a road that was recently resurfaced, with no painted cycle lane for several weeks. Anyone who rides the road regularly could see that people in cars gave people on bikes more space without the bit of paint on the road, but the council eventually reinstated the painted lane. Instantly, people on bikes got less space and many more dangerous overtakes. The really frustrating thing is that not painting the lanes would have saved the council money.