Conversion of major cycleway to a road.

[thirdcrank]

... traffic-free access that is already there apparently does not count!

I think the point is that there are rights of way. The most restricted r-o-w is the footpath, which gives rights to pedestrians only (altough the owner of the land can use any form of transport they like and give similar permission to anybody else.) There's no right to a traffic-free r-o-w as such. So, if a footpath becomes a bridleway, pedestrians still have a r-o-w, but they share it with equestrians. One step further is the byway open to all traffic (BOAT.)

IMO this is why Pete Owens' advice is so important: a cyclist's r-o-w is almost certain to be preserved so what happens to cyclists isn't much of a ground for objection, but it may be possible to get a better deal for cyclists than the usual shoddy shared-use farcility if the people responsible are canvassed at an early stage. (The cynic in me says that they will ruthlessly exploit cyclists' "approval" of their scheme, while coming up with nothing.)

[Rob Archer]

Reresentatives from CTC, KLBUG (the local cycling group) and Sustrans met with the council officer responsible for this project this afternoon. It would appear that the strength of opposition to it has taken them a bit by surprise. The office apologised for not involving cyclists earlier. We made it very clear that we would not accept anything that was less useful than what we've already got (a direct, safe and pleasant route). It was also abundantly clear that cyclists were seen as a problem to be overcome rather than as a solution to the problem - traffic congestion.

We've agreed to meet again and send a rep to any planning meeting should funding be granted from the govt's 'pinch-point fund'

The fight goes on.

[ZoeRPM]

Unfortunately, this falls foul of the 20-year rule but if you can stall the process for five years, you can establish the right of way as a Bridle Path (other than cycle lanes on roads there is no such thing as a cycle path under English law).

[thirdcrank]

Unfortunately, this falls foul of the 20-year rule but if you can stall the process for five years, you can establish the right of way as a Bridle Path (other than cycle lanes on roads there is no such thing as a cycle path under English law).

As I think I've posted above, the problem here is that no right of way is being threatened. All that's proposed seems to be extending the r-o-w to so called higher users ie motor traffic.

I thought that a properly established cycle track was a "cycle path" in this context, ie a route for cyclists where motor traffic was prohibited.

“cycle track” means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988 with or without a right of way on foot;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/329

[Elizabethsdad]

In our experience, once a council has decided to do something any consultation exercise is done purely for show and will have no affect on their decision - 'We have considered all the valuable opinions put forward and have come to decision to do waht we anted to do in the first place' In our case it was closing down our local swimming pool which they had been running down and not investing in for years so that they could claim thatit was no longer economic to bring up to standard. Private Eye has a page devoted to other such local coucil decisions which are beingmade in the best interest of the council or the coucillors themselves rather than the community they are supposed to be serving. I wonder how many other cycle routes built on old railway lines have already been earmarked to become minor roads which will then end up being dangerous rat runs for speeding motorists, the tow tunnels route in Bath? the viaduct near Winchester?

[The Mechanic]

In our experience, once a council has decided to do something any consultation exercise is done purely for show and will have no affect on their decision - 'We have considered all the valuable opinions put forward and have come to decision to do waht we anted to do in the first place' In our case it was closing down our local swimming pool which they had been running down and not investing in for years so that they could claim thatit was no longer economic to bring up to standard. Private Eye has a page devoted to other such local coucil decisions which are beingmade in the best interest of the council or the coucillors themselves rather than the community they are supposed to be serving. I wonder how many other cycle routes built on old railway lines have already been earmarked to become minor roads which will then end up being dangerous rat runs for speeding motorists, the tow tunnels route in Bath? the viaduct near Winchester?

I agree that Council consultation is a sham. Our local council consulted our village on a proposed development that would double the size of the village. At the consultation meeting, 208 people objected and 9 people agreed with the development. So the development is to go ahead. So much for "consultation".

[Rob Archer]

I've just heard that the funding for this hasn't been granted:

http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/business ... -1-5148603

I don't know if our (CTC local campaign rep & local cycle groups) letters to the DfT had any bearing on the decision - I'd like to think so, although the 'official' reason given was that the fund was 'over-subscribed'.

[gaz]

A temporary reprieve; the council will seek funding elsewhere, keep an eye on them.

I think the point is that there are rights of way.

Having just had a look at the relevant bit of OS map there may not be any existing RoW. NCN1 is marked but no footpath, bridleway or other RoW is shown along the line of the old railway.

...I thought that a properly established cycle track was a "cycle path" in this context, ie a route for cyclists where motor traffic was prohibited.

“cycle track” means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988 with or without a right of way on foot;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/329

A Cycle Track is a RoW as you have said but Sustrans use all manner of negotiations to obtain "permisive access rights" for pedestrians and cyclists over land that forms part of the NCN. As a former railway line there is every chance that Network Rail remain the landowner and Sustrans hold a "permisive access lease": if it's not a Cycle track there's no RoW.

The local Sustrans Area Manager* should know for sure.

*Titles for the position vary across the NCN but they will be a paid member of Sustrans staff rather than a volunteer, who primarily deals with the councils and landowners.

[Cunobelin]

Some parallels to the Gosport Rapid Transit Scheme? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20889

What has come out of the Gosport scheme was the way that we were able to pressurise the Councils into allowing for cyclists

From the start cyclists were excluded, and yet we now have what has turned out to be a brilliant cycle facility with far more cyclists using it than busses!

Do persevere, maximise attendance at meetings, and keep raising the profile of cycling on the route.

[Rob Archer]

"A temporary reprieve; the council will seek funding elsewhere, keep an eye on them."

We fully intend to! If, as I suspect, our input to the DfT had a bearing on the decision then I expect a bit of anti-cycling sentiment to come from a few quarters on the Borough Council. Having said that, the borough and county councils only have about £1m of 'their' (our!) money to spend on this so the scheme as proposed is extremely unlikely to be affordable in the current economic climate.

The land (as far as I am aware) belongs to the borough council, having been transferred from BR ownership in the early 1990s. I believe Sustrans were involved in this but I can't get a clear answer on the legal status of the route. Any solid info would be gratefully received!

[southamptonadi]

At last the govt seem to have made a good decision. But I did find the article quite funny

"West Norfolk Council and Norfolk County Council had applied for a share of the £170 Pinch Point funding stream to create a new route to the popular sports centre and ease congestion on Edward Benefer Way"

£170 no wonder they dident aprove it they couldent afford it.

[gaz]

I can't get a clear answer on the legal status of the route.

Who have you asked so far and what answers have you been given?

[Vorpal]

How is it shown on the definitive map? That should answer the question about legal status.

[gaz]

Unlikely to help, properly constituted cycletracks do not always appear on the definitive map.

[Pete Owens]

I think it is unlikely that it is any kind of right of way at all. It looks to be a disused railway trackbed, so there will not be any historic right of passage. The owners (presumably the council) will not want to create a right of way as this would prevent them developing the land for any other purpose at some point in the future - and why bother to go through the legal rigmarole of creating a right of way in any case. Indeed the existence of existing rights of way (mostly public footpaths) is often a major obstacle to creating cycle paths as in these cases the council would have to go through the legal steps in order to permit cyclists to use it. Of course in time (a long time), evidence of continuous unrestricted use of the path could establish a right of way.