Footbridge crossing Leck Beck

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
pwa
Posts: 12488
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Footbridge crossing Leck Beck

Postby pwa » 7 Jul 2020, 8:57am

drossall wrote:I think it's an interesting example. I'm still wondering about it. As I understand it, at some overbridges, the cycle route, on a lesser surface, rises to meet (and probably give way at) the side road, while the road passes underneath.
  • As a matter of principle, traffic on the main route has priority at junctions, and bikes are being asked to make an "unnecessary" climb in order to cede that priority
  • More important is practicality. It's a major route, likely to be sought by those trying to travel distances. If I'm trying to get somewhere, and therefore at the limit of what I can manage owing to either fitness or time, repeatedly encountering that kind of thing makes a real difference.
  • It's also a statement of priorities. Roads are for people, and what they use to travel on them is secondary. That doesn't rule out cycle facilities any more than it does motorways, but try building a motorway that gave way at every B road while the parallel A road sailed through.
  • What happens where the main road does have a turning? Do cyclists have to give way there as well?
I'm not anti-cycle-facility in principle. On some rides, I'll use one facility and not another. And sometimes there's a swings and (sorry) roundabouts effect, where cyclists sail through some other junction in an underpass while motorists have to give way. But I don't think we'll ever get anywhere (literally) while facilities expect cyclists, who, as above, are travellers on the main route with notional priority to match, to give way at every minor road.

I haven't quite worked out what they have done with the A4226 road / cycle route combo, but I think the cycle route rising up to the level of the bridge that crosses the A4226 may be a good news story. The A4226 was a horrible road with a terrible safety record and cyclists avoided it. There was a place, and I think the bridge may be at that place, where there were attractive quiet lanes on either side of the main road, but the cross roads was staggered with perhaps 100 metres of nasty road to deal with to get from one side to the other. I think the bridge may be linking those two lanes without the need to go onto the dangerous road. If so, that will be great news for those who ride the lanes in that area. Cars accessing those lanes from the main road will have a longer and less convenient way of getting to them. When does that ever happen?

I am also guessing that the cycle route uses the surviving sections of the old road, with new tarmac path where that does not exist. All the cycle surfaces are tarmac. The rough surface in the pic is work in progress, just before the compacted stone and tarmac went in.

MikeF
Posts: 3859
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Footbridge crossing Leck Beck

Postby MikeF » 7 Jul 2020, 9:05am

arnsider wrote:I agree. Maybe the landowners involved would be better to place a sign asking cyclists to dismount through their ground.
But often, people are perverse, and only want to be contentious and actually revel in their ability to chastise rather than to seek accord.
It's interesting to speculate that while rural road maintenance budgets are slashed to the bone and country dwellers increasingly drive rugged 4x4 vehicles, we may see whole networks unadopted and groups enforcing tolls.
You are very confused about what "adoption" means. There can be a right of way whether the path is adopted or not. The two are completely different. You need to establish what the right of way is eg byway, bridleway, footpath or whatever.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

arnsider
Posts: 242
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 12:44am

Re: Footbridge crossing Leck Beck

Postby arnsider » 7 Jul 2020, 1:11pm

I am in no way confused my friend.
I spent my career as a Land and Engineering surveyor, often dealing with way leaves and easements.
I have checked the Lancs County MARIO map and the route from the bend in the road at the beck side , north to the A 65 juction is shown as unadopted with NO PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, either by foor, horse or vehicle, whereras from the north end of the footbridge to the bend in the road is marked with a footpath number.
I'm also aware that in some instances, a right of way can be claimed if a route has been used without contention over a period exceeding twenty years in duration, though I do not know the letter of the law on that.
The whole thrust of my post is to try to highlight a need for a safe route throughout this corridor and this particular pinch point serves to remind us of the fragility of such.

drossall
Posts: 4880
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Footbridge crossing Leck Beck

Postby drossall » 7 Jul 2020, 1:27pm

pwa wrote:... I think the cycle route rising up to the level of the bridge that crosses the A4226 may be a good news story...

Clearly that kind of local consideration is important and my post didn't take account of such things. Looks as though it's a win for cyclists wanting to travel across the road, although provision of the cycle route suggests that significant numbers want to travel along its line, and I'm still not sure that the approach to that reflects their rights as full and equal road users*, or the need of any road user for an efficient route. Fair point on the surfacing not being finished, of course.

* Of course there are safety considerations, but fixing those by making the vulnerable keep out of the way, and go round at difficult bits, has never been ideal.

arnsider
Posts: 242
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 12:44am

Re: Footbridge crossing Leck Beck

Postby arnsider » 10 Jul 2020, 6:53am

I have scanned Sustrans website for any details of progress on any aspiratiions they may have to take over the disused Ingleton-Lowgill railway as a cycle way.
I ended up e mailing them and I got a terse reply accompanied by a small scale schematic diagram that is totally devoid of detail.
Sufficient to say that the old railway is just an aspiration and is on the back burner.

pwa
Posts: 12488
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Footbridge crossing Leck Beck

Postby pwa » 10 Jul 2020, 8:00am

arnsider wrote:I have scanned Sustrans website for any details of progress on any aspiratiions they may have to take over the disused Ingleton-Lowgill railway as a cycle way.
I ended up e mailing them and I got a terse reply accompanied by a small scale schematic diagram that is totally devoid of detail.
Sufficient to say that the old railway is just an aspiration and is on the back burner.

Perhaps the "aspirations" exist as simple dotted lines on a map and are based on the Local Authority's development plan. When those are drawn up a lot of long term aspirations appear on a map as a sort of wish list with no funding package and no expectation of anything happening on the ground for a decade or two, if at all.

arnsider
Posts: 242
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 12:44am

Re: Footbridge crossing Leck Beck

Postby arnsider » 10 Jul 2020, 8:11am

Correct

thirdcrank
Posts: 29081
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Footbridge crossing Leck Beck

Postby thirdcrank » 10 Jul 2020, 10:42am

Around here there's a hierarchy for those types of plan.

If it's to "improve" a road, it then it's planning blight.

If it's to provide a cycle route, it serves to alert local councillors that they need to be alert to protests from all affected residents.