Butser Hill - proposed cyclepath for the missing link

[clandyfield]

Meeting to discuss this now appears to be scheduled for 31 March in Winchester.
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/councilmeetings/advsearchmeetings/meetingsitemsummary.htm?pref=Y&tab=1&item_ID=7294&cancel=n
If you look in the Documents section the increased costs details are there, together with the timescale - 4 months!

[bikes4two]

Thanks for that pointer - from the document:
-----------------------------------------------------------
4.1. The value of the original project appraisal approved on 9 September 2014
was £1,088,000.
4.2. The current estimated value of the works still to be completed as part of the
current tender is £1,565,523. This is an increase of £477,523 on the original
PA value, which can be funded from existing resources identified below.
---------------------------------------------------------------
And the duration of the work is estimated as 4 months from when ever the contractor can start (and the contractor will only consider a start date if the additional funding is approved I guess?).

So here's a project that is going to cost nearly 50% more than originally planned (to say nothing of the missed time-scales)- I presume job vacancies for the sacked project manager(s) will be posted on the HCC website soon? (along with the project managers responsible for the ASDA roundabout work in Leigh Park - what a debacle that is!)

[Graham]

Thanks for the link Clandyfield.

It makes a right-rivittin-read.
Now I have some understanding of the situation.
Perhaps they rushed the preparatory work in order to secure the initial Grant funding within the (short) deadline.
Negotiations with the Forestry Commission and (especially) Highways England appear to have been rather more protracted than anticipated. And they seem to have been negotiating whilst the actual works were in progress !

Assuming that the increased budget is approved, the contractors of the QECP ramp are estimating four months to completion from the time that they start it ( whenever that is ! ).

On a brighter note. I am expecting the Butser Cycle Route North will be a popular route for cyclists in a similar manner to the Meon Valley Trail ( MVT ).
The MVT has had a rather painful period of creation, but is now an absolute asset and jewel for all types of user.

bikes4two :
I have seen one of the rather terrifying maps of the ASDA roundabout and I'm rather happy that I will rarely be anywhere near it.
What has been going on there ?? Separate topic if necessary.

[bikes4two]

bikes4two :
I have seen one of the rather terrifying maps of the ASDA roundabout and I'm rather happy that I will rarely be anywhere near it.
What has been going on there ?? Separate topic if necessary.

The 18 month plan of works is currently running at least 3 months over schedule. The roundabout is a very busy one and in it's old form was most un-cycle friendly. The new layout should allow safe cycle/pedestrian transit via pedestrian crossings, but don't expect to get across in a rush

The work has taken a very long time due to the amount of services that run below the RAB and all have been upgraded whilst at it, but hey, it's taken ages and is an area to avoid even in a car!

[Graham]

Meeting to discuss this now appears to be scheduled for 31 March in Winchester.
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/councilmeetings/advsearchmeetings/meetingsitemsummary.htm?pref=Y&tab=1&item_ID=7294&cancel=n
If you look in the Documents section the increased costs details are there, together with the timescale - 4 months!

Despite searches, I cannot find any further info about the outcome of this meeting / approval.

The section between Buriton roundabout and the beginning of the old, disused A3 section is now commencing construction ( by a contractor - possibly Highways England ).

For anyone cycling south on the tarmac band alongside the existing A3. I have swept an area about 30 metres long at the northern end of the (closed) layby.
This was previously covered in smashed glass and was causing me some annoyance as is this is the cyclists' refuge of last resort.

[mjr]

For anyone cycling south on the tarmac band alongside the existing A3. I have swept an area about 30 metres long at the northern end of the (closed) layby.
This was previously covered in smashed glass and was causing me some annoyance as is this is the cyclists' refuge of last resort.

Thank you on behalf of anyone who rides there, even though I'm unlikely to. I have been known to resort to that when http://www.fixmystreet.com reports don't result in satisfactory outcomes. I'm contemplating getting some quick-set cement to do crude fills of potholes that are below "specified intervention levels" but still dangerous to cycles. It really shouldn't come to this

[clandyfield]

Despite searches, I cannot find any further info about the outcome of this meeting / approval.

The Executive decision has been made - see document(s) linked in my previous msg.
Quote:
"The decision:
1.1. That the Executive Member for Environment and Transport approves the revised Project Appraisal Update for Petersfield to Queen Elizabeth Country Park Cycle Route as outlined in the supporting report.
1.2. That the Executive Member for Environment and Transport gives approval to procure, spend and enter into the necessary contractual arrangements for the implementation of the improvements to the Petersfield to Queen Elizabeth Country Park Cycle Route, as set out in the supporting report at an estimated total cost of £1,565,523, representing an increase on the original estimate of £477,523, which can be funded from existing identified resources.
1.3. That authority to make minor variations to the design or contractual arrangements be delegated to the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment."

Phew!

[Graham]

Thanks Clandyfield.

Phew indeed !! Thankfully, abandoning the incomplete route was not a viable option - as it broke the terms of the original grants. ( In which case they would have had to refund the grant money. )

I do hope they are not going to present us with some (more) nasty surprises.

Nasty surprises to date :-

1) Cyclists Dismount signs alongside the narrow footpath on the railway bridge.
2) The undrained, mud&debris-pool just north of the railway bridge.
3) The alarming cross-slopes on the crossings of Mapledurham Lane.

[clandyfield]

Nasty surprises to date :-
1) Cyclists Dismount signs alongside the narrow footpath on the railway bridge.

To be fair, the exceedingly narrow footpath at the northern end of the railway bridge is governed by the badly executed roadway and so, in the absence of a "Cyclists take really extra care" sign, the dismount one is the best compromise. Any cyclist losing control there is in real danger of being wiped out by a car coming up behind them on their side of the road. So dismounting is possibly the best idea anyway!

Are we going to start a sweep on the Opening Date for the path? My 4d worth is September (but I'm not prepared to state which year).

[Graham]

I'll stick my 4p on - sometime before winter Solstice 2016 ?

[gaz]

To be fair, the exceedingly narrow footpath at the northern end of the railway bridge is governed by the badly executed roadway and so ...

There were options.

Redesign the roadway so that it is no longer badly executed.
Engineer reductions to traffic speed so that it is safe for cyclists to mix with motor vehicles on the carriageway across the bridge.
Build a new cycling / pedestrian bridge alongside the current one.
Stick up the two fingered sign that is "Cyclists dismount".

I don't think the last option was chosen because it was fair. I think it was chosen because it was cheap.

[Graham]

I don't think the last option was chosen because it was fair. I think it was chosen because it was cheap.

Definitely the lowest cost option and probably the only politically acceptable one.

Imagine the howls of protest, from the motorists, if any road space had been taken to facilitate a better quality cycle route.

Combine that with the significant cost overrun and much-delayed completion date. Councillors and officials would have to take a lot of pressure.

Some members of the public around here are already incensed that such a large amount of money has been spent "on a few cyclists".
I have my work cut out trying to persuade them otherwise.

Since section 1 has been open I have seen 2 cyclists use it. I have seen many more continue using the road - which is what I do.

If the quality of experience, on a cycle path is less than the quality of experience, using the road then it is likely to have a very low usage.
This message continues to escape those who commission, design and build them.

I wish that they had stuck to the original plan - to leave section 1 until last - concentrating on the A3 severance issue.

[manybikes]

A good proportion of the people I work with over at QECP are already incensed that such a large amount of money has been spent "on a few cyclists".
I have my work cut out trying to persuade them otherwise

That's an interesting view as members of the local CTC had been campaigning for years without success to get this link (or a similar version) and Rod Green (dec'd) of QECP senior staff was a very keen supporter of the route. When we tried again more recently and raised the required number of signatures senior management at QECP were again very supportive, lending their premises to assist, citing the very positive advantages to the park in spending money to get cyclists into the park from the north. Perhaps those staff whingeing about the few cyclists need reminding of that broader picture and that more visitors helps retain existing functions in the park?

[Graham]

It wasn't the QECP staff who were foaming at the mouth.

It was others, who would not dream of cycling anywhere.

[manybikes]

Graham
Thanks for the clarification - I don't know how a reader was supposed to know you were referring to non staff.
I think my point about seeing the broader picture still stands though - they can still benefit from increased usage of the park by those arriving on cycles from the north.
I went past the end point today and continue to be amazed that the authorities have prevented any of the path being used because the last section is incomplete as they could at little cost have provided a short section of (perhaps walking) temporary route from where the new surface ends to just over the bridge. I know the Elf & Safety brigade will claim it leads cyclists into a false sense of security in riding the route and them dumping them by the bridge but that is so much safer than expecting them to ride on the A3 over the Butser Cutting , a much longer distance, with no protection. They already have signage from the start indicating a cycle route so cannot claim they are not encouraging cyclists to head south that way.