Gateshead cycling provision

[Steady rider]

Minimum passing clearance required perhaps? On the A167 separate cycle paths are needed.

[Mark1978]

Minimum passing clearance required perhaps? On the A167 separate cycle paths are needed.

I suggested that Durham Road was a prime example of somewhere which could be given the full 'Dutch' treatment as the road being the old A1 is more than wife enough for its entire length to a accommodate this. The response? It's not wide enough.

[Steady rider]

Could you ask for precise measurement details? and in which parts it may not be wide enough?

[pwward]

If anyone is interested this is Gatesheads cycling forum http://www.gatesheadcycling.org.uk/. You get the idea of the councils' philosophy from Neils postings. Gateshead doesn't have a cycling officer but Neil sort-of has the role. Gateshead firmly believes in cycling farcilities well below the national standard and isn't scared to say so.

My overall impression despite this is that the council isn't any worse or better than average in Britain. A sad state of affairs.

[Mark1978]

At least Neil is prepared to go online and state this. For whatever good it does...

[Mark1978]

Posting on that website above.

With regard to the proposed P&R scheme, which itself seems like a good idea and is tied into the 'improvements' in Durham Road.

He seems to think people would cycle to the P&R, then park up their bike in 'secure parking', then get the bus into Gateshead / Newcastle. I can't help thinking this is a silly way to think about thing. You aren't going to go to the hassle of parking your bike and getting on a bus for the sake of 3 miles flat terrain. Better to concentrate on getting people to park their cars there, and then cycle in.

Although with the half assed way they've dealt with Durham Road I think that's dreaming too.

[Mark1978]

Could you ask for precise measurement details? and in which parts it may not be wide enough?

Well I was referring to Low Fell shops, where it's potentially at it's narrowest, you can see here. http://goo.gl/maps/swjyi

I wrote

Actually Low Fell isn't very narrow at all, if you look at the distance between the property frontage from one side of the road to the other, it's quite wide indeed. So if the council wanted to encourage cycling they could reprofile the street to give a road, parking, pedestrian paths AND cycle lanes on both sides.

If you still think there's not enough space for that, just look at anywhere in the Netherlands

Gateshead councils reply

While the road is not narrow it certainly is not wide enough to set out the road as you suggest . To provide two general traffic lanes together with cycle lanes and parking spaces would require a road width of 14.6m

Keep in mind that there are two large car parks in Low Fell, about 2 minutes walk from this location, so I'm not sure why they need parking right outside. And while the street isn't miles wide, with a narrowing of the carriageway, you can easily install proper cycle lanes here, as well as pavements; and you could do this all the way to the Tyne Bridge, there's more than enough physical space. It's just narrow minded thinking and a lack of vision.

[gaz]

Keep in mind that there are two large car parks in Low Fell, about 2 minutes walk from this location, so I'm not sure why they need parking right outside. And while the street isn't miles wide, with a narrowing of the carriageway, you can easily install proper cycle lanes here, as well as pavements; and you could do this all the way to the Tyne Bridge, there's more than enough physical space. It's just narrow minded thinking and a lack of vision.

"..you can easily install proper cycle lanes here.." is a throw away phrase in this situation. There is nothing easy about persuading the council that such a scheme would be worthwhile. There is nothing easy about the planning process. There is nothing easy about securing funding. There is nothing easy about persuading the shopkeepers that they will not loose trade as a result; especially the four take-away establishments within that 200 yard or so stretch. There will be nothing easy about enforcement should the scheme go ahead.

The council merely reflect the narrow minded thinking and lack of vision of their electorate, present company excluded.

[pwward]

It's a good point Gaz.

When we try to persuade councils and fail it's often because they represent the local majority view. As cyclists we remain an 'out' group with little political leverage.

[Mark1978]

Chicken and egg as usual. In Chester-le-Street I see quite a lot of cyclists. Probably about 75% of them on the shared use paths.

There's a big demand for traffic free paths.

[Mark1978]

The Bowes Railway path has been impassible for quite some time, due to the path basically being washed away in places - mostly because they refuse to surface it properly in the first place.

However Gateshead council said they aren't going to fix it as it would cost too much. So it's just going to be left. It used to be a popular route with cyclists, not any more.

[tomb353]

Bowes path is a scheduled ancient monument which is why they can't Tarmac it and it keeps getting washed away.

The Durham Road scheme is a funny one. It was designed as a bus scheme, Gateshead then lost the funding, split the scheme into phases. Sustrans DfT Links cash offered to Gateshead for two phases without really realising this. Then basic incompatibility of Sustrans criteria and bus scheme gradually realised by all.

Fumbling series of polite compromises between Sustrans (towards the end of the process led by me) and Gateshead who have worked together too long to want to fall out over a scheme where we should probably never have tried to collaborate in the first place.

End result is to put it mildly not what I am personally looking to achieve in future schemes. However only two of six phases built so difficult to judge overall impact. If you like to cycle with buses then you'll probably love it.

Some local authority officers do struggle with the idea that the DfT use Sustrans to administer grants and we then apply our own standards and criteria. However in general the end result on the ground seems on average better than when some LA's work in isolation. Sustrans have a reputation for getting things done which is difficult to argue with and there is not currently any other body out there to spread knowledge / practice between regions. In general Sustrans tends to work with a limited number of councils where the working relationships have been built up over a long time.

[Mark1978]

Bowes path is a scheduled ancient monument which is why they can't Tarmac it and it keeps getting washed away.

Given up on that one really, best to pretend it doesn't exist and the council would be better off to do that too.

The Durham Road scheme is a funny one. It was designed as a bus scheme, Gateshead then lost the funding, split the scheme into phases. Sustrans DfT Links cash offered to Gateshead for two phases without really realising this. Then basic incompatibility of Sustrans criteria and bus scheme gradually realised by all.

Fumbling series of polite compromises between Sustrans (towards the end of the process led by me) and Gateshead who have worked together too long to want to fall out over a scheme where we should probably never have tried to collaborate in the first place.

End result is to put it mildly not what I am personally looking to achieve in future schemes. However only two of six phases built so difficult to judge overall impact. If you like to cycle with buses then you'll probably love it.

Some local authority officers do struggle with the idea that the DfT use Sustrans to administer grants and we then apply our own standards and criteria. However in general the end result on the ground seems on average better than when some LA's work in isolation. Sustrans have a reputation for getting things done which is difficult to argue with and there is not currently any other body out there to spread knowledge / practice between regions. In general Sustrans tends to work with a limited number of councils where the working relationships have been built up over a long time.

Interesting. It's no surprise it's aimed at buses, it does seem that most changes Gateshead make to the road network are aimed at doing things for buses.

My main issue with it isn't so much that you cycle with buses, but rather that you do a bit of footway, bit of road, bit of footway etc. Then Gateshead say it was done this way because Sustrans wanted off road sections - which is madness because your average off road cyclist isn't going to be interested in a 200 metre section on a pavement connected by bus lanes, and neither is your dedicated on road cyclist. So it's all a big mess.

Of course Durham Road is a prime candidate for a *real* Dutch style proper width fully segregated path, it's more than wide enough for it's entire length. But the Council has no desire for that.

[tomb353]

basic problem with the durham road are the motorway style bits at either end that continue to funnel traffic into it.

Best way of achieving segregated tracks in the long run might be to first have through traffic other than buses removed from Low Fell shopping area, a lot of other opportunities on the road would then stem from that.

[Mark1978]

basic problem with the durham road are the motorway style bits at either end that continue to funnel traffic into it.

Best way of achieving segregated tracks in the long run might be to first have through traffic other than buses removed from Low Fell shopping area, a lot of other opportunities on the road would then stem from that.

I'm not sure that work work really. As it's the best through route in the area. Otherwise you'll have traffic using Kells Lane which isn't ideal, or along the bottom of the park.
There's plenty of space for cycle paths really, especially in the centre of Low Fell, they just need to remove the roadside parking. Given there are big car parks in Low Fell roadside parking isn't required.