Chadkirk Park Cycle Route

[amazon]

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 ,

[amazon]

"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

[andrewbowden]

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. 

[rsh]

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... 

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.

[amazon]

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 ..

[Lily]

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).

[Steve Gribbon]

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

[amazon]

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 ..

[CTCREP]

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.

[Steve Gribbon]

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