Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: Steve Gribbon on August 16, 2018, 08:22:28 AM
-
Good morning Forum Colleagues
I have been in touch with Council Officers about the recently constructed cycle route going from Chadkirk Park up to the Spread Eagle pub. The reason for this is that both sides of the road do not (in my view) offer clear guidance as to their use and as a result pedestrians are walking up the new pathway and cyclists are still using the roadway. Because of this I have asked for the following actions to be implemented:
Chadkirk park footpath-to be clearly defined with signs as a walking route only and for the pathway to reflect this with better housekeeping, trimmed hedges, etc so this hopefully adds width to the pathway.
New cycle route side-again clearly defined as such with cycles painted on the start of the route at both ends and also at a midway point to reflect this as just being for cycles.
I'm aware that this project is slightly out of my ward but this is highly relevant to our residents who I want to be able to leave and return to the area as safely as possible. I will be speaking to the Councillor who represents this area for support with these suggestions.
Constructive comments are welcome as always.
Thanks for reading this and stay safe on the roads.
Kind regards
Steve Gribbon
-
Thanks Steve for taking up the issue of Otterspool Rd. I took up this issue with Stockport’s Highways Department several years ago. The Highways Department’s reply was that a hew path was unnecessary as no cyclist had been killed so far - this was their guideline on what defines a dangerous road - I hope it’s criteria has changed and not that a cyclist’s life has been sacrificed.
Many cyclists want to use Otterspool Road but were deterred from riding uphill because they would be slow moving with the possibility of a wobble. The traffic is moving at 40 mph with a centre line that many motorists are unwilling to cross, leaving minimal space for the cyclist.
Some cyclists had taken to using the footpath but were warned off by the police, so one couple I know would ride from Overdale Rd into Romiley and down through Chadkirk just to avoid that section of Otterspool Rd.
I trust the new path isn’t intended to be bidirectional as this is almost more dangerous, and certainly more inconvenient than no path all. People cycling uphill do not want to have to contend with out of control cyclists coming downhill. The real answer is to have a proper 2 metre wide advisory cycle lane on the downhill side. Many cyclists going downhill will be travelling at 20 mph or more, so of little inconvenience to motorists who are often stationary on that road.
The obvious answer, and I am sure it was put at Stockport MBC’s Cycle User Group, was to create a cycle route up Bunkershill Rd. I don’t know if there is any reason this is not possible, but it is not unusual for Stockport MBC to ignore cyclist’s recomendations.
-
Thanks Steve for taking up the issue of Otterspool Rd. I took up this issue with Stockport’s Highways Department several years ago. The Highways Department’s reply was that a hew path was unnecessary as no cyclist had been killed so far - this was their guideline on what defines a dangerous road - I hope it’s criteria has changed and not that a cyclist’s life has been sacrificed.
Many cyclists want to use Otterspool Road but were deterred from riding uphill because they would be slow moving with the possibility of a wobble. The traffic is moving at 40 mph with a centre line that many motorists are unwilling to cross, leaving minimal space for the cyclist.
Some cyclists had taken to using the footpath but were warned off by the police, so one couple I know would ride from Overdale Rd into Romiley and down through Chadkirk just to avoid that section of Otterspool Rd.
I trust the new path isn’t intended to be bidirectional as this is almost more dangerous, and certainly more inconvenient than no path all. People cycling uphill do not want to have to contend with out of control cyclists coming downhill. The real answer is to have a proper 2 metre wide advisory cycle lane on the downhill side. Many cyclists going downhill will be travelling at 20 mph or more, so of little inconvenience to motorists who are often stationary on that road.
The obvious answer, and I am sure it was put at Stockport MBC’s Cycle User Group, was to create a cycle route up Bunkershill Rd. I don’t know if there is any reason this is not possible, but it is not unusual for Stockport MBC to ignore cyclist’s recomendations.
You wont meet anyone coming down hill its not used that mutch ..
-
Thanks for your reply CTCREP as always . I’m waiting to hear back because I’m really not sure as to how the cycle route is designed to be used, personally I’m ok with it being bi-directional but only if this is clearly defined by markings, as present there is nothing so it’s even more confusing. I will update accordingly when a reply is received.
Amazon- Ye of little faith! Give it time, I hope this will be well used once properly marked.
Kind regards
Steve
-
I would imagine that, like Dan Bank, most people going down the hill will continue to use the road (although I have seen the odd school student going down Dan Bank on a bike) and most people going up hill will use the cycle path.
It makes no sense for experienced cyclists to cross the road at the top of the hill, go down the new Otterspool cycle path and have to stop at the bottom to then cross the road again and rejoin the traffic before they can continue over the bridge.
If I was going towards Romiley/Bredbury on my bike I would certainly use the cycle path.
I feel much safer cycling up the path on Dan Bank and no longer feel threatened by ‘close passes’. Pre cycle path I have held a number of large vehicles up while plodding slowly up the hill - particularly during rush hour! (but always got a thank you when I could get out of the way near the farm half way up).
-
Thanks for your reply CTCREP as always . I’m waiting to hear back because I’m really not sure as to how the cycle route is designed to be used, personally I’m ok with it being bi-directional but only if this is clearly defined by markings, as present there is nothing so it’s even more confusing. I will update accordingly when a reply is received.
Amazon- Ye of little faith! Give it time, I hope this will be well used once properly marked.
Kind regards
Steve
Sorry steve but my thinking is and i dont know which fund this money has come from .money like that if it has come from councill funds could have been spent better elsewere .like etherow country park its like a open stinking sewer near the cafe .health and safety comes to mind specially near a cafe .RANT OVER ..
-
Thanks for opening this up to debate Steve, all to often we’re given “cycle infrastructure” by SMBC and have to like it or lump it, so to be able to throw in some experiences and suggestions is really welcome. (I shouldn’t complain too much, neighbouring areas like High Peak don’t even know those two words can go together!)
I can see the point of making the new path cycles-only, absolutely - these kinds of segregated paths are what should be aimed for these days, where the space is available, as asking cyclists and pedestrians to share is often just creating another conflict while still unfairly prioritising space for vehicles. (Also pleased to see the new Neighbourhood Plan really agrees with this)
I never rode Otterspool uphill in the past, because I don’t have a death wish, but I have gone downhill and even that is really very intimidating when traffic isn’t queuing. Freewheeling down at full pelt to get to the Chadkirk junction with an impatient driver still right up your... :-X
Should the new path be bi-directional? I think that is SMBC’s aim and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be, if you want to use it that way, but would many people want to? It’s still fairly narrow for passing, especially with oncoming cars coming fast uphill right beside you, as you go fast downhill, on a long bend, and with a few lampposts/signs inexplicably placed right in the middle of the new path!
If you want to go downhill then across the Chadkirk bridge to Marple (because Dooley Lane still has zero space for cycling), this would require waiting to cross the road twice to use the new path and then back-tracking to the Chadkirk junction. Crazy.
My preferred option would actually be to just surface the full width of the current downhill footpath space, removing the grass verge, and make both sides of the road a shared path. While not always ideal, I think the pavement is more than quiet enough with pedestrians that it wouldn’t create too much conflict. Maybe rumble strips or slow signage could be provided to remind cyclists to slow if they have to pass anyone. This way, we suddenly have a fully-accessible mini network with no-one having to pointlessly cross the road several times just to avoid being close-passed by a car, or cycle towards oncoming traffic to get where they’re going.
As for uphill cyclists not yet using the new path, this is likely due to poor signage or inefficient warning. It’s made very clear at Dank Bank to join the pavement and I think everyone does. I’ve seen comments that the dropped kerb on Otterspool is too short or badly placed. And if you miss the dropped kerb, you’re locked on the road.
-
Sorry steve but my thinking is and i dont know which fund this money has come from .money like that if it has come from councill funds could have been spent better elsewere .like etherow country park its like a open stinking sewer near the cafe .health and safety comes to mind specially near a cafe .RANT OVER ..
"The estimated cost of the scheme is £280,000 and will be funded within the Growth Fund 2 Programme which is subject of grant funding from the Department for Transport."
Page 2 of http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s122819/Growth%20Fund%202%20Goyt%20Valley%20Improvements%20-%20Otterspool%20Road%20Main%20Report.pdf
The money ultimately came from a grant that was for this purpose. It would not have been possible to spend it on Etherow Park.
-
"The estimated cost of the scheme is £280,000 and will be funded within the Growth Fund 2 Programme which is subject of grant funding from the Department for Transport."
Page 2 of http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s122819/Growth%20Fund%202%20Goyt%20Valley%20Improvements%20-%20Otterspool%20Road%20Main%20Report.pdf
The money ultimately came from a grant that was for this purpose. It would not have been possible to spend it on Etherow Park.
Thank you
-
Someone has to pay to police this, daily traffic wardens, police, cameras or vigilantes (which could get fun!).. it's all about being "seen to do something" but without spending any money and therefore justifying one's position as a council officer, councilor, MP or otherwise.
We could of course have saved thousands by not putting speed humps along Windlehurst, or spending circa £270k on a now leaf covered shared cycle lane on Otterspool Rd. But in all these cases, local Councillors/council officers had to be seen to do something so we end up with too many half baked solutions to try and please the masses, all of which are largely ineffective, are costly to maintain and are actually things that no one really wants or needs! ..... in my humble opinion :)
wii agree with you on the cycle lane that ive still not seen any one on ,
-
wii agree with you on the cycle lane that ive still not seen any one on ,
I have. Seen a few cyclists on it. Went on it myself once. It's a nice ride.
What it isn't, is obviously clear that it's a cycle lane. Needs some bikes painted on it.
I've also seen people walking on it. It is being used.
-
I have. Seen a few cyclists on it. Went on it myself once. It's a nice ride.
What it isn't, is obviously clear that it's a cycle lane. Needs some bikes painted on it.
I've also seen people walking on it. It is being used.
But it's use isn't enforced so cyclists still use the road for a variety of reasons, nor is it clear who should or shouldn't use it, (although signs at either end do show it as shared use). Most significantly in my opinion, it's a folly and a complete waste of £270k when one considers how many people actually benefit from it. It's intention (if you talk to the Greens) is that will have everyone cycling along it and remove any justification for a Hazel Grove/M60 bypass...... ::) ::) ::)
I feel we've stepped away from Parking at RoseHill issue and I'm already aware of another thread covering that topic so I'll stop my Thursday rant now :)
-
But it's use isn't enforced so cyclists still use the road for a variety of reasons, nor is it clear who should or shouldn't use it, (although signs at either end do show it as shared use). Most significantly in my opinion, it's a folly and a complete waste of £270k when one considers how many people actually benefit from it. It's intention (if you talk to the Greens) is that will have everyone cycling along it and remove any justification for a Hazel Grove/M60 bypass...... ::) ::) ::)
If I remember correctly, it was stated on this board funding came from a grant from central government that was specific to that work, so the council couldn't have spent it on anything else. And with a bit better signage, I'm sure more people would use it.
Ultimately there are big plans for the Bee Network in Greater Manchester with a goal to get more people cycling. Expect more cycle lanes, not less.
-
board funding came from a grant from central government that was specific to that work, so the council couldn't have spent it on anything else. And with a bit better signage, I'm sure more people would use it.
doesn't really matter where the money came from, it was from our taxes indirectly or otherwise. My point being, the net result of spending £270k is massively disproportionate to the benefits it's likely to deliver. Adding up all those £270k white elephants however and spending them more wisely could do something far more tangible.
-
I use the new cycle lane every school day to commute to work at Harrytown school and back to do the school crossing at Rose Hill. I have already had the council out to look at drivers parking on it and completely blocking the path.The path is ace for keeping me apart from the speeding wagons coming off the motorway although the spray from there wheels has nearly drowned me a few times.It doesn't get gritted. I have to use the road which is gritted sometimes.I'm not sure what the new cycle lane has to do with parking at Rose Hill School. it is quite hard to follow the thread.
-
I'm not sure what the new cycle lane has to do with parking at Rose Hill School. it is quite hard to follow the thread.
I agree @Lys and I've moved posts relating (mostly) to the cycle path to this thread.
-
But it's use isn't enforced so cyclists still use the road for a variety of reasons
It's not obvious that it's a cycle lane, and access is not easy especially if you come out of Chadkirk as there is no dropped kerb to access the cycle path. I'd personally use it every time rather than riosking my life with some of the drivers up that hill, if that was a route I needed to use (I don't my route takes me past Chadkirk chapel and under the canal)
Having said that, it's not a MANDATORY cycle lane - and in any case, MANDATORY cycle lanes actually mean that cars are nto permitted to use them, rather than that cyclists MUST use them. The highway code states where there is a designated cycle lane, cyclists should ‘Keep within the lane when practicable… Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills but they can make your journey safer.’ What I'm hearing from you is "bloody cyclists shouldn't get in the way of my important car journey".
-
What I'm hearing from you is "bloody cyclists shouldn't get in the way of my important car journey".
What you're hearing is; if we've spent £270k to build a designated cycle lane, at least have the common courtesy to use it. This particular cycle lane is constructed in such a way that motorists on their important car journeys cannot use it, surely that makes it safer and it's use by cyclists something of a no-brainer, (assuming of course that they have one?).
-
What you're hearing is; if we've spent £270k to build a designated cycle lane, at least have the common courtesy to use it.
Oh chill out. nbt has made it quite clear he uses the cycle path. I have made it quite clear I have used the cycle path. I think we can safely say people are using the cycle path.
This is also not a totalitarian regime. No one can force anyone to use a cycle path if they don't want to. Cyclists who don't want to use it - for whatever reason - are not compelled to use it just to not annoy people in cars. Cyclists have as much legal right to use the road as any driver of a motorised vehicle driver does.
So perhaps instead ask why people might not be using it. And as has been said, perhaps the signage could be better. Or it could have better access from Chadkirk.
Put simply DON'T FIND PROBLEMS, FIND SOLUTIONS.
-
Good evening
I have spoken to the Public Realm officer about this situation, I have asked for the following: Cycles to be painted at both ends of the route on the ground and the same half way along the pathway. I have also asked for some housekeeping in the way of the hedgerow being trimmed to keep users nearer to the new fence.
Our Public Realm officer is excellent, any delay in this is down to me in sending in the request, but this is out of our area so I wanted some neighbourly consultation before the request was made.
I hope this will make things clearer to people using the path, obviously time will tell. In the meantime safe cycling/walking.
Kind regards
Steve
-
Thanks Steve. I would suggest we also need a dropped kerb opposite Vale Road - at the moment it is not obvious at all that due to poor implementation, cyclists are supposed to turn LEFT and use the crossing in order to use the cycle route up the hill. This is the view from Vale Road
https://goo.gl/maps/bVKxUjywDzQ2
-
Oh chill out. nbt has made it quite clear he uses the cycle path. I have made it quite clear I have used the cycle path.
Put simply DON'T FIND PROBLEMS, FIND SOLUTIONS.
Two cyclist then! Great use of a whole heap of tarmac and £270k that could have filled hundreds of potholes and made miles of roads safer for cyclists and motorists alike. As for creating problems, I think we can safely leave that task to Stockport's highways team!
-
Thanks Steve. I would suggest we also need a dropped kerb opposite Vale Road - at the moment it is not obvious at all that due to poor implementation, cyclists are supposed to turn LEFT and use the crossing in order to use the cycle route up the hill. This is the view from Vale Road
https://goo.gl/maps/bVKxUjywDzQ2
Thanks NBT
That’s a great suggestion, leave it with me and I will see what can be done, I will have to speak to Neighboring Councillors but there should be no problem as it’s a really good idea.
Kind regards
Steve
-
Hello Steve
Please check there is proper access to the path down by the bridge, also that there is proper signage. I suspect the ew cyclists (at present) using the path uphill are not aware that it is intended as a cyclepath.
-
Thanks Steve. I would suggest we also need a dropped kerb opposite Vale Road - at the moment it is not obvious at all that due to poor implementation, cyclists are supposed to turn LEFT and use the crossing in order to use the cycle route up the hill. This is the view from Vale Road
https://goo.gl/maps/bVKxUjywDzQ2
Absolutely agree with this. The cycle route is tricky to access at present unless you’re coming directly from the crossing or Mill Lane. There’s not even an obvious dropped kerb where you’re meant to join it coming from across the bridge either, unless you use the farm entrance or swerve on at the pedestrian crossing which doesn’t really feel natural. Dan Bank has a logical dropped kerb and an arrow with cycle symbol.
I also still feel it’s a shame the other side of the road (footpath) remains ridiculously narrow (too narrow for a wheelchair or pram surely) and has had “no cycling” signs put up. It would have made far more sense overall to widen the surface on this side too and allow cycling on both. It’s as unpleasant cycling down that hill as up and having to cross over to use the single cycle path is silly.
If the council could also look at making the pavement along Dooley Lane a shared path, widening it by rebuilding the retaining wall near where it meets Dan Bank, we’d suddenly have a quite fantastic and usable little cycle network between Marple and Romiley/Bredbury and beyond.