The engagement of this project has ended
almost 2 years ago
Which is your preferred route option?
Route option A (along the old railway line)
What do you consider to be the current barriers to walking and cycling in this area?
drivers getting so close when they pass
Do you think the proposal to develop an active travel route in this area is a positive one?
Why is this your preferred route? You can make more than one selection
• Most suitable for vulnerable road users
• Away from traffic
How often do you walk or cycle (not including leisure activities)?
Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.
This route would rank low in VoG prioritisation if assessed against the AT goal of modal shift. Its choice was political and on perceived grounds of deliverability. The AT officers should have vetoed this for non-compliance with Welsh AT Act and Guidance.
Five or more days per week
Instead we propose: To accommodate an active-travel cycleway:
1. Do minimum: one-way cyclelanes marked on the roadway; this prescribes speed limit of 30mph. (vehicle flows <4000AADT - Table 11.1 – Cycle provision on links). Compliies with requirement to first consider reducing traffic speeds/volumes. Some users (leisure users) would continue to use the pavement. Continue outside the Sully Sports bus-stop pull-in. Facilitates 20mph active-travel cycling without stops/breaks.
2. narrowed roadway with new kerbs to fit in 3m paths with 2x0.5m verges on SE side to St Marys Well Bay Rd and on NW side from St Marys Well Bay Rd to Sully, Swanbridge/Beach Road junction. Costly construction. Causes cyclists to stop to cross the road (twice) so many would stay on the roadway.
3. New 2-way cyclepath on far side on hedge (westerly Cosmeston Park entrance to the Vineyard; Vinyard to Sully, Swanbridge Rd). Links well to Cosmeston Park (good for leisure cyclists) plus a 2-way cyclelane taken out of the roadway to the easterly (main) entrance to Cosmeston Park. May require CPO (some is in Council ownership). Avoid stopping cyclists at lights, as they access it with vehicles at the main entrance.
To summarise, the present proposals should be withdrawn as non-compliant with Active Travel design principles and new proposals brought brought forward including the required information and justification (prioritisation Table) plus the alternatives 1-3 above.
• None is acceptable for active-travel cycling; the use and need is too little to justify active-travel walking
• Segregated one-way cycleway along the roadway, keeping the active-travel commuting cyclists away from pedestrians. It minimises road crossings with delay and risk. Available in dark evenings - the path adjacent to a hedge has limited maintenance, quick-growing brambles and fallen branches are encountered, hazards for cyclists.
Lack of on-the-ground knowledge and experience in the Council; lack of interest in walking in the Council.
• None of these. No space for 4metre width without taking a strip off the roadway. Hazardous for pedestrians including kids and dogs, with fast cyclists coming from behind. It's contrary to Active travel guidance to have a non-segregated cycle/walk path. It flouts policy on biodiversity to describe the rich biodiverse stretch along the railway as "vegetation". Likewise to ignore the destruction of roadside hedges. The Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 require you to look for and assess less damaging alternatives.