Clevedon Seafront - Cycle track removal - Active Travel England

[rjb]

It's just been reported the council passed the bill to restore the seafront to its original state at a cost of £425,000.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... HTiWqsd54J

[Stevek76]

The so-called independent report has come from a large consultancy, AECOM, working mainly in the USA with no obvious claims to expertise in cycling infrastructure in the UK. I have examined their website and not yet found any claims to expertise in cycling, although they have done some pedestrian modelling in North America.

AECOM, like much of the civil engineering industry currently, is a multinational organisation. They do have a substantial UK presence including a reasonably large office in Bristol. Historically that was from an acquisition of Faber Maunsell, itself a merger of two british engineering firms. AECOM, along with WSP & Atkins had the local framework from 2020-2024, nominally managed by WECA but North Somerset with it's odd half in half out relationship can and does procure through it.

It seems likely that in this case their expertise is mainly in providing 'independent' cover for what politicians have decided to do anyway.

Sadly to greater or lesser degree yes this happens. Less so than with the 'big 4' accountancy firms who from what I've seen are awful for it, particularly when they dabble into more general 'professional services' areas they don't really have any expertise in. Without seeing the actual aecom report here can't really comment much further as to how closely the officer summary of it reflects the actual contents (which also can be a place where things are changed/misrepresented due to political pressure) but there's always the incentive not to annoy one's clients that sits in conflict with professional responsibility and people tend to draw that line in different places.

Regarding objecting to this, the main options are apply political pressure to local ward cllrs and/or submit a reasoned, evidence based objection to the TRO when that appears (if it hasn't already but I the council vote would normally precede this process)

published TROs are subject to a 21 day statutory consultation period where all objections must be 'considered'. Thus you need to do a best effort, concise, factual & reasoned in pointing out why the proposed change is wrong, ideally not as opinion but making specific points that, for example, it is in conflict with policies/law that trumps it. For example, does it go against the council's local plan, transport plan or climate change commitments? And/or that is a failing of the council's network management duty under traffic management act 2004.

Not sure if NS has any local walk/cycle campaign groups that might be worth talking to, however do not have multiple people submit identical, or very nearly identical objections to TROs as these will often be treated as a duplicates by the council.

[wjhall]

Not sure if NS has any local walk/cycle campaign groups that might be worth talking to, however do not have multiple people submit identical, or very nearly identical objections to TROs as these will often be treated as a duplicates by the council.

This is a point worth emphasizing, partly in relation to the earllier discussion of bullet points. Brevity and clarity are very desirable, but councillors do assess letters on the amount of individual effort put in, and in my experience will read detailed documents, possibly because they welcome anything that gives an alternative to what they get from officers, who drown them in bullet points. In the olden days this meant that postcard campaigns would be rated lowest. Bullet points are not too far above postcards, especially if they are too identical.

Of course objections are likely to cover the same ground. Objections to a TRO for this one will probably be focussed on the one way conversion and the contraflow lane. There is not too much scope for covering different ground, apart from reinforcing the basic points with a short description of the history.

I believe there is a North Somerset cycle campaign, who or where I have forgotten. As far as I can tell North Somerset no longer have a cycling officer. Some very strange things have happened recently in N. Somerset cycling facilities, some possibly reflecting a general lack of management ability that we observe only in the cycling sphere.

[MikeF]

Not sure if NS has any local walk/cycle campaign groups that might be worth talking to, however do not have multiple people submit identical, or very nearly identical objections to TROs as these will often be treated as a duplicates by the council.

This is a point worth emphasizing, partly in relation to the earllier discussion of bullet points. Brevity and clarity are very desirable, but councillors do assess letters on the amount of individual effort put in, and in my experience will read detailed documents, possibly because they welcome anything that gives an alternative to what they get from officers, who drown them in bullet points.

To whom??
Detailed documents yes, but your letter should not be verbose or opinionated.

[CyclistInTheDistance]

I have actually re-joined this forum to reply to this thread, having dropped away for a very long time. I have walked or cycled in Clevedon for much of my life.

For anyone new to the Clevedon sea front issue, its been running for quite some time in national and local papers as 'the planners' of the scheme have twice put in completely non standard road markings for the UK, once creeping back in the middle of the night to repaint them after the 1st flood of complaints, only to fail the public yet again. Look the the photos up in the newspapers if you want a laugh really, it will be fun to see, but is also pathetic and large numbers of Clevedon residents complained about the dangerous distractions newly painted on the road being a danger to pedestrians and cyclists. If you get as far as a map, the works in question are at the waterfront adjacent to Clevedon Pier where the The Bristol Channel is overlooked, not the river Severn.

But onwards...

The 30+ parking spaces will consume much of the current wide and popular promenade and create a busy road where avoiding manoeuvring cars will take priority over enjoying the seafront.

The Promenade there has always been wide, I have never had any issues passing other people even if they had prams, wheelchairs etc. For as long as I have any memory (I was born local) the parking spaces overlooking the water have been there and did not eat into the Promenade but were adjacent to it. The whole area there is fairly wide (Promenade pathway, nose in parking, 2 lane road, another pavement) as the winter storms kick up a lot, so the space between the front garden walls of the cafes etc and the sea front wall has always needed to have significant width, to help stop the buildings flooding.

The parking area in question is the only area I know of in Clevedon with a view of the sea from a car - the main car park further up being below sea wall level. People parked here for pretty much my whole life span, harmlessly.

there is ample free parking in nearby roads and there are plenty of seafront benches

None of these roads have a clear view of the water and they are all on hills or slopes, so very difficult for the disabled and the compromised. Clevedon has lots of hills.
Yes, there are benches on the seafront, if you are able to walk to them, if its not cold or raining, if you are well enough to cope with cold, wind, rain.


But my real area of issue are these comments :

you could look at the new design as encouraging walking as well as cycling.

implying people need to be given motivation to walk, as perhaps they are just intrinsically lazy...

the reintroduction of echelon parking to allow fat people to eat burgers in their cars, whilst looking out at the river.

This may be upsetting for some disabled residents and visitors but surely getting from a parked car to a bench merely 200m away is not impossible - or am I being too harsh?

"The clamour to arrange the parking so that people can sit in their cars and look at the river, presumably eating their own sandwiches, does not seem to be aimed at improving the trade of local restaurants."

Let me tell you about some of the people I know:

- My aunt died in her mid 80's. She had worked full time all her life. Was stuck down with an illness that damaged her lungs (non smoker, never worked a hazardous environment). She loved her garden and in the recent hot summers would struggle into her little back garden before 6am to water her (specially high containers, she could not bend) flowers, as she was too ill to do it when it was hot. She could not walk up her staircase due to oxygen deprivation. Covid killed her due to breathing difficulties.

- My friend worked full time with young people - autistic and other severe issues, not an easy job. He gave up, diagnosed with MS. He falls over a lot due to increasing lack of muscle control.

- My neighbours 2 doors up - both worked full time, he away often as a mariner. No occupational pensions so reliant on the UK state pension they had paid in years for, one of the poorest paid state pensions in Europe. Once a fortnight they go out as a treat to a cafe. They have a drink each but have to share a cake between them as they cant afford to buy a cake each. They have no extravagances and live in a small terrace house.

- An ex-collegue has Parkinsons, she previously worked full time in a very physical job. She cannot balance well.

- Another family friend is having her second hip replacement this week. She used to be a cross country runner, then a keen walker even going on walking holidays abroad with groups. She is desperate for this hip to be done, she has struggled to drive due to pain, has been finding it hard to walk at all and hard to sleep at night due to the pain.


Maybe the people who wrote comments on this thread that either directly commented or implied anyone who sat in a car at Clevedon seafront was
- a visitor / non resident, so counted less as a person
- must be fat
- is lazy
- needs to learn to walk (be taught by those in authority or by those with the moral high ground)
- is too lazy to walk - its only 200 yards
- fully deserves the contempt / scorn of healthy people, just because they are not biking or walking

You might like to think on what I have written about the people I know.

- All of them look 'normal' when stood still, sat down or sat in a car.
- Many people are too poor to eat in cafes and restaurants and feel ashamed of that innocent poverty after a lifetime of hard work.
- I tried to help up a stranger a few weeks ago, she had health problems and fell. She was thin but floppy. It took 3 of us strangers in the end plus her disabled husband to lift her up and stabilise her balance again.

Shame on these smug thoughtless comments. Those who have commented without thought, you are so very very lucky to be able to cycle, when so many nice, brave people struggle physically to even to be able to leave their living space occasionally.

The removal of the parking was desperately cruel and I think the cycling and walking could have been easily improved (for I do support that) without such cruelty and without some of the horrible comments made here on this thread.

[Stradageek]

Hi CyclistinTheDistance

Having only enjoyed the seafront since the changes I cannot argue with many of your points and would definitely support making all the current parking 'blue badge' parking only - the new scheme has only three blue badge spaces.

I still think that a bicycle contraflow lane next to the pavement is dangerous and an upsurge in traffic seems acknowledged by the provision of a pedestrian crossing which is currently totally unnecessary.

The 'wiggly line' innovation to me is a great idea; drivers who see something unusual will slow down as a first reaction making life safer for everyone. This is the main reason I find recumbent riding so restful and safe.

So apologies for any offense caused but in common with - I think it was the council leader who fronted the scheme - I would have allowed at least a year or two for the scheme to 'bed in' before spending nearly half a million to scrap it.

[cycle tramp]

I have actually re-joined this forum to reply to this thread, having dropped away for a very long time. I have walked or cycled in Clevedon for much of my life.

You might like to think on what I have written about the people I know.

- All of them look 'normal' when stood still, sat down or sat in a car.
- Many people are too poor to eat in cafes and restaurants and feel ashamed of that innocent poverty after a lifetime of hard work.

Shame on these smug thoughtless comments. Those who have commented without thought, you are so very very lucky to be able to cycle, when so many nice, brave people struggle physically to even to be able to leave their living space occasionally[/i]. .

Indeed, and what about those people you don't know? Those who enjoyed walking or cycling but are now unable to because a collision with a car has left them with life changing injuries - perhaps in some cases because of a failure in the way the are road was designed. Not knowing them, isn't the same as them not existing.
The rights for those who are differently able (including those with mental health and neuro-diverse) should always be considered, and will no doubt come to the front of any council decision, whether its parking or restricting through traffic or even the type of vehicle that can afford to be run. Let us hope that the wisdom of Solomon prevails in all cases.
With NHS stretched to its limits, I would have to concour that the only possible way out is to motivate those who are healthy and well, to take up those practices which maintain those habits. And give a measure of protection for those who do. Otherwise those who are differently-abled will continue to see support from the health service and from social services diminished as more people clamour for its attention.
I am agreeing with Stradageek - if the provision of parking on the sea front had more restricted disabled spaces, it would be harder to make the argument against the changes, especially if it was paid by the local authority rather than a national body.

In regards to any offence given, I would like to extend my apologies. However, let us not be so naive that there are not those in our society who indulge themselves to such an extent they become a burden on the NHS services and divert its attention from those who have no alternative to use it. Those who are born with a perfectly functioning body which is then corrupted through gluttony and ill use - should society not seek to change these ways and encourage them to undertake more exercise, and a better diet?

Whether the above comment is assigned to the causal cruelty of my nature is indifferent to the fact that we are seeing a rise in obesity... and it may be a situation we as a nation is unable to afford.

[rjb]

Update from the local cycling group.
https://www.facebook.com/ClevedonAndWestonCycleRoute