CycleSheffield Matters for Cycle Forum Tue Sep 16 2014

Every couple of months we formally meet with SCC officers and other stakeholders in cycling at the Cycle Forum.

The next one is Tue 16 September

We have a standing agenda item, CycleSheffield Matters (which of of course it does!)

We raise items that may be technical but may also be about general policy and practice

Its all part of the diplomatic and political work that is part of campaigning.

We write it all down because then nobody can claim that they “had never heard of it”

In July we left a series of points, see item 4, for consideration at a Cycle Forum some time from this Sep to next July

It will give people involved time to get thinking caps on and hopefully bring some meaningful responses to the Cycle Forum concerned.

We report back on Cycle Forum at the next monthly CycleSheffield meeting and discuss and select items to raise for the next CycleForum after that

CycleSheffield Matters for Cycle Forum Tue Sep 16 2014

1. CycleSheffield would like SCC to note:

  1. we welcome the Cabinet’s endorsement in July of the Cycle Inquiry Report and the  incorporation of its principles into Sheffield’s Vision for Transport.  We hope that the recommendations in this report will be both targets and outcomes by which we can measure progress.  We also note that the plan is long term with an end-point in 2050 and hope that the cross-party support for this report will mean long term and stable support for cycling in Sheffield and the region.
  2. the new SCC Cycle Champion, Cllr Tim Rippon was welcomed at our last meeting to have a general discussion about his role and cycling in Sheffield.  We appreciate that Cllr Rippon will ‘open’ the CTC cycle campaigner training day to be held in Sheffield on Sat 13 Sep.
  3. we welcome the survey of incidents of cyclists and tramtracks conducted by SCC.  We trust there were sufficient responses to help the consultants evaluate the extent and severity of these incidents.  We await the consultants’ report.
  4. we welcome the chance to discuss plans for cycling in the city centre but felt that we were insufficiently briefed.  We now understand far better the limitations within which officers have to work and have genned up on intiatives like SCRIF and evaluation criteria like GVA.
  5. we have concerns about the traffic schemes at Bridgehouses and have formally objected.  We welcome the willingness of the SCC officer concerned to consider our concerns, respond to our queries and to meet with us to discuss these further,
  6. CycleSheffield has started work with its members on planning cycle routes in Sheffield.  We note that LAs in Wales have to do this as well and we are using The Wales Active Travel Bill guidance ( http://wales.gov.uk/docs/det/consultation/140430-active-travel-design-guidance.pdf) as a template for designing and evaluating routes.  We understand that Y&H Sustrans, who have been taken on as advisers/consultants for SY cycle infrastructure, also think this is a good document to use. We have had two workshops with over 25 people attending in all and plan many more and there is an open and welcoming invitation to SCC officers to attend any of these workshops to observe, advise and collaborate if they wish.

2. CycleSheffield note the discussions about reductions in gritting on Sheffield’s roads.  We politely enquire if there will be any gritting of shared-use and cycle paths, e.g. alongside the inner ring road, the cycle path past EiS, around Meadowhall?

3. CycleSheffield have noticed that cycle facilities are not being re-surfaced at the same time as the general road surfaces. Brunswick St for example has been resurfaced but the various cycle plugs have been left ‘as is’ and are in poor condition. See attached photos.  We would like to know why these have not been done.

1904121_10204192074578671_7146105208575676740_n 10636174_10204192075378691_7422677467608351272_n 10645055_10204192074898679_212820145000162501_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. At the last Cycle Forum we tabled the following items that we would welcome discussion on at later Cycle Forums.

May we have a response to and discussion about

item 05, which is still not fixed

and

item 03 which may be pertinent to any further discussions and collaboration about planning a strategic cycle network for Sheffield

 

  1. Secure storage of bicycles at Sheffield Homes.  We have some members who live in a block of flats at Jordanthorpe.  They are not allowed to keep their bikes in the stairwells or their flat, which is understandable.  However there is no provision of any secure storage for residents to keep bikes, and thus makes it difficult for any residents to choose to cycle.  May we invite someone from Sheffield Homes to the next Cycle Forum to discuss arrangements for residents to store bikes securely and under cover in their housing.
  2. Members have reported thefts of bicycles, both their own and friends and colleagues.  These are often stolen from premises which are supposed to be secure,  May we invite SYP to discuss at a later Cycle Forum whether there has been a wave of bike thefts, how bike thefts are treated, and how we can work with SYP to advise members to make their bikes more secure and recoverable.
  3. Cycle path by Virgin Active at Broadfield.  One of our members has been chasing getting the vegetation cleared as it is blocking this path.  We understand Virgin Active is claiming it has no responsibility to do this and that a Council officer is trying to sort out which landowner does have that responsibility.  May we have a discussion at a later Cycle Forum about the conditions under which developers or landowners assume these responsibilities and how long these responsibilities are supposed to last.
  4. Collision and KSI criteria that ‘trigger’ traffic calming action  CycleSheffield read the story of Jasmin Chan (a child killed by a hit and run driver on Normanton Hill)  in The Star.  We couldn’t understand, from the story, the criteria by which action is judged to be essential or advisory wrt to SCC taking with traffic calming measures.  May we have a discussion at a later Cycle Forum and an explanation of how many KSIs per km per yr trigger action eg which km and over which yrs how are these determined?
  5. Shoreham St/St Mary’s Gate Lights we understand work on this is now hindered by a member of staff leaving – is this incapability a result of general cuts or work not being re-allocated.  Isn’t Amey supposed to sort this out? NB this problem of synchronising bicycle traffic lights on the west side Shoreham St with the traffic lights on the east side of Shoreham St was first reported July 2012.
  6. Buses and encroaching on cycle lanes In the March Cycle Forum we reported on buses encroaching across solid white lines on contraflow cycle lanes.  The specific location was Castle St but it has also been formally and informally reported on Pinstone St as well.  Bus companies do not respond to these complaints in good time or appropriately. Bus companies do not seem to know the Highway Code advice which is: 140 Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8. Our view is that driving into these lanes is intimidating and unnecessary.  It will deter people from cycling which is not what SCC wants.  We asked if this matter could be discussed under within the Sheffield Bus Partnership but we fear that it hasn’t been done.  May we ask that representatives from bus companies and/or SYPTE discuss this matter at a later Cycle Forum

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.