New Thames bridge funding.

[Rob Haynes]

Just seen the piece in the Oxford Times about the new funding for a bike bridge.  

 http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/11826377.New__bridge_over_Thames_will_provide_off_road_cycle_link_after_Government_puts_up_cash/

Hard to be sure, but it seems like it'll go from the West end of Jackdaw Lane to just south of the University College Boathouse.  

Do I have that right?  And if I do, that's utterly bizarre, it seems a gift for those trying to *avoid* Oxford, rather than those trying to reach it.  It seems like almost all the decent infra in Oxford seems fixated with going around the City whereas almost all the actual demand is to cycle into it and out of it.

-- 
Rob Haynes

[dan....@bt.com]

Yes it is bizarre.

Cyclox objected to the application, because almost its sole objective appears to be to create something that won’t disturb the traffic.

 

It is pathetic.

 

Dan

--
--
Please 'LIKE' our Facebook Fan Page - it really helps.
https://www.facebook.com/Cycloxfanpage
 
not a member yet? Do join online at http://www.cyclox.org/join-us/
.............................
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Cyclox-Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cyclox...@googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cyclox-forum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cyclox-Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cyclox-forum...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Danny Yee]

It seems to me that the biggest beneficiaries of this will be
tourists, who will now get a nice loop walk down the Thames towpath,
across to Iffley Rd, past the Roger Bannister record, and back to
Magdalen College.

I wonder if we can get Christchurch to nix this one - doesn't this run
over their land? I will make enquiries...

Danny.

[dan....@bt.com]

Which is not of course a bad thing, but to pretend that cyclists are the beneficiaries is disingenuous.
If there was an infinite amount of money, then this would be a good scheme. But as £3m is rarely come by, it is an appalling waste.

Dan

[Richard Mann]

I'd be interested to know the forecast speed and volume of cyclists, particularly just south of Folly Bridge, and what other users of the path might think about that.

If they mean it to be a major cycle route, you are probably talking about 5x the current volume of cyclists.

[rob haynes]

I agree with Richard on this.  Much of that towpath section is already congested much of the time and there seems no simple way to widen it significantly.  

This seems to be primarily about removing cycles from the roads, regardless of the fact that it's mostly not where the cycling demand actually is, or where it's practical to put them.
-- 
Rob

On 3 March 2015 at 12:22, Richard Mann <richard.man...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd be interested to know the forecast speed and volume of cyclists, particularly just south of Folly Bridge, and what other users of the path might think about that.

If they mean it to be a major cycle route, you are probably talking about 5x the current volume of cyclists.

--

[dan....@bt.com]

If it where I think it is, the bridge on the towpath over the smaller  Thames stream is going to be a bottleneck.  It is difficult at the moment with just a few cyclists and walkers.

 

There are also potential conflicts with rowing coaches.

 

But no cars will be affected, so all is well……

 

Dan

--

[Richard Mann]

I don't think it's primarily about keeping out of the way of cars. It's more about trying to justify building a bridge over the Thames 150m from an existing one.

[rob haynes]

There are two proposed bridges, yes?  One at the Kidneys and one by the ice rink.  Do I understand right that they're both part of the same package that was just approved?

And yes, the one by the ice rink is insanely superfluous.

On 3 March 2015 at 13:06, Richard Mann <richard.man...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think it's primarily about keeping out of the way of cars. It's more about trying to justify building a bridge over the Thames 150m from an existing one.

--

[Richard Mann]

No, there's only one bridge. The one by The Kidneys (aka Jackdaw Lane) is an aspiration for later. Unless someone's found some loose change down the back of the sofa and not told me.

[Elise Benjamin]

Richard is correct.  The Jackdaw Lane one is not being funded.

Elise

[rob haynes]

Ah, ok thanks.  The newspaper piece wasn't clear.

So, even stupider than I imagined, then.

[dan....@bt.com]

We should be grateful for a bridge we don’t want, in a place we don’t want it, to get from a place we aren’t to where we don’t want to go.

 

Money well spent, for sure.

Dan

 

 

 

From: cyclox...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cyclox...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of rob haynes
Sent: 03 March 2015 14:32
To: cyclox...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cyclox-forum] New Thames bridge funding.

 

Ah, ok thanks.  The newspaper piece wasn't clear.

[rob haynes]

And meanwhile, the newspaper piece remains misleading and the shallow end of the gene pool is fighting to the death in the comments section over the pros and cons of the other bridge that's not funded and won't even be built.

Splendid.

[dan....@bt.com]

I can think of quite a few places where a bridge would be helpful.  For instance, Bablock Hythe /Eaton;  Radley/Nuneham Courtney.  Jackdaw Lane

 

 

But alas not in this case.  And nobody asked Cyclox or CTC or Sustrans or anyone else for a view.

[Richard Mann]

I think we should ask them to divert the money to the Oxford Cycle Strategy instead.

[dan....@bt.com]

Cyclox did suggest alternative plans.  So did I as an individual.

 

But it was – so OCC said – important to get the bid in rather than get the right bid in.

 

Dan

 

 

 

From: cyclox...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cyclox...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Mann
Sent: 03 March 2015 15:31
To: cyclox...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cyclox-forum] New Thames bridge funding.

 

I think we should ask them to divert the money to the Oxford Cycle Strategy instead.

--

[Richard Mann]

I don't think it is too late to get them to change, if enough people complain. Clearly, they couldn't complain in advance, because it was kept secret. 

Indeed, people might reasonably have expected them to bid for funds for the Oxford Cycle Strategy, because they *have* been consulting on that.

Richard

[dan....@bt.com]

I wish I shared your optimism..

 

As I keep on saying, the main benefit to OCC in this scheme is that it doesn’t disturb motor traffic.  Hence requires no thought or effort or selling by OCC to voters.  And if we complain, then they can withdraw the application and we get nothing apart from opprobrium.

[Richard Mann]

Those of you on twitter may like to retweet this one (calling on the County to switch funding from the bridge to the Oxford Cycle Strategy):

https://twitter.com/ParadiseOxford/status/572786767734181888

[Danny Yee]

A Jackdaw Lane bridge isn't happening any time soon - I had a chat to
someone on the Christchurch governing body and no one has talked to
them about it at all.

So the article is confused, it's just the Oxpens bridge that they're
asking for funding for.

Danny.

[Elise Benjamin]

A bridge from Jackdaw Lane would mean cyclists going through the Aston's Eyot nature area which is managed by local residents so it would have to be done very sensitively.  I would also be concerned about cyclist safety beacause of the large (scary) vehicles that go to and from the scrap yard at the end of Jackdaw Lane.  There have been calls for a bridge connecting Iffley Road and Abingdon Road for years to stop cyclists having to double back by either cycling to Donnington Bridge or into town.  But the cost of a bridge over the Thames would be significant and there are problems finding a suitable crossing point.

I spoke to Ian Hudspeth on Monday about the bridge funding and he says that this is new money and they had to get a bid in very quickly so there was no time to consult.  If the money has been awarded for a specific project it's probably ring fenced.

Elise

[dan....@bt.com]

“I spoke to Ian Hudspeth on Monday about the bridge funding and he says that this is new money and they had to get a bid in very quickly so there was no time to consult.  If the money has been awarded for a specific project it's probably ring fenced.”

 

 

 

And what a surprise that the specific project is one that doesn’t affect the roads (and so needs no major consultation) and that wasn’t discussed with cyclists’ groups.  There is a flaw in the central government process but an even bigger flaw in the Oxfordshire County Council processes.  

 

The other successful applicants for this funding – such as Bristol and Cambridge – don’t seem to have found it necessary to promote a wasteful and unnecessary scheme.

Dan

 

 

 

From: cyclox...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cyclox...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Elise Benjamin
Sent: 04 March 2015 11:52
To: cyclox...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cyclox-forum] New Thames bridge funding.

 

A bridge from Jackdaw Lane would mean cyclists going through the Aston's Eyot nature area which is managed by local residents so it would have to be done very sensitively.  I would also be concerned about cyclist safety beacause of the large (scary) vehicles that go to and from the scrap yard at the end of Jackdaw Lane.  There have been calls for a bridge connecting Iffley Road and Abingdon Road for years to stop cyclists having to double back by either cycling to Donnington Bridge or into town.  But the cost of a bridge over the Thames would be significant and there are problems finding a suitable crossing point.

[Richard Mann]

I think two things have combined to create this situation: 

Firstly that the govt requires a business case, which means that the bidder has to be fairly clear about what they want to do and what the benefits are. This is a lot simpler to do for a single large project rather than a package of lots of small projects. This requirement for a formal business case is pointless, because all these projects are likely to have an excellent business case, it's just a case of spinning the numbers. I think the govt would be wise to drop its requirement for a business case where the level of spend is less than a threshold of (say) £100 per existing cyclist on a route.

Secondly, there is a requirement for match funding, so schemes have to latch onto another source of funding (presumably the Westgate development in this case). It's easier to get agreement from the co-funder if the scheme is close to the development. Again this tends to favour isolated big projects, like bridges. Certainly it would have been a bit harder to get the co-funder to agree to a dispersed package of small projects that isn't finalised, in the time available.

Can it be changed: probably yes if DfT and the co-funder agree. DfT is unlikely to stand in the way of such an alteration, if it has local support. Don't know about the co-funder, but I think it's worth a go. Any which way, I don't want them devoting all their attention to a pointless bridge for the next three years.

Richard