The area will be the within the “old” inner ring with the boundaries being West Bar/Castlegate/Sheaf St/St Mary’s Gate/Hanover Way/Broad Lane/Tenter St.

Businesses will pay a levy (a proportion of their business rate) and in return there will be a BID company that will work with SCC to improve footfall, turnover and the ‘liveliness’ of the city through promotional activities and suggestions wrt to the development of the city centre.

CycleSheffield took an interest because we have views on shared space and pedestrian and cycle access and the BID prospectus claims that BID will improve bike access and parking.

The voting company directors will be mainly businesses and there are no votes for city-centre residents so there could be issues to do with democratic checks and balances of the city centre.  The BID will not have a huge budget so they will not be able to fund property developments but they will be able to act as a lobby group for business interests in the city.

We submitted the comments below on New Years Eve 2014 and have received a welcoming response so far.

CycleSheffield responses to BID consultation

Mick Nott, Chair, CycleSheffield, chair@cyclesheffield.org.uk

31 Dec 2014

A CycleSheffield welcomes a regeneration of the city centre.  It would like the BID leadership to note:

1. the development that has already been done with inspiring social and commercial spaces like Fargate, Cathedral Precinct, Tudor Square, The Moor, Peace Gardens, Sheaf Square, Howard St, and Barkers Pool;
2. the University Masterplan which promotes shared space, encourages cycling and walking and segregates vehicles into off street parking or away from meeting places and buildings;
3. the City Council’s Vision for Excellent Transport and the Move More! plan that puts walking and cycling at the heart of transport policy and seeks to improve citizen’s health and wellbeing and the city’s air quality by reducing the use of cars and promoting active travel;
4. cities across the world are promoting shared space, segregating motor cars away from work, shops and play, providing safe, secure off street parking for cars, and promoting & investing in inexpensive-to-the-user, high quality public transport;
5. shared space increases footfall in shops and public spaces, allows streets to be used for social interaction and ‘play’, increases the value of adjacent property and leases, and improves the quality of everybody’s life;
6. city centres need jobs other than those in retail, leisure and tourism (cf the legal sector in Sheffield).  These may be high-value jobs and the way to attract companies to relocate to a working city centre is to have attractive public space that allows employees choices about how they travel.  Good quality public transport and good quality cycling and walking routes are an integral part of those choices.

B We make the following suggestions

1. The inner ring road acts as a conduit for motor traffic but as a boundary for incoming and outgoing pedestrians and cyclists.  It needs good quality, well designed intersections for entry and exit, eg the Bridgehouses Gyratory deters both pedestrians and cyclists, BID should recognise that the University Masterplan should lead to improvements around Brook Hill, etc;
2. BID should note that the city already has clearly designated cycle routes through the city and around it both internally and on the Inner Ring Road (IRR).  Development should be sensitive to the routes during planning and any future construction works.  SCC is committed to developing and starting to develop a strategic network of cycle routes.  It has also set a target of 10% of all trips by bike by 2025 and 25% of all trips by bike by 2050.  The development of the city centre should be a key part of fulfilling those targets by ensuring good quality cycle routes are in place.
3. BID should support the development of cycle hire in the city which will need cycle parking stations as well as routes (NB the University (we think in partnership with SCC) will be introducing a bike hire scheme in 2015 and the cycle hub at the station already hires bikes on an hourly basis – available shop opening hours only)
4. the whole city centre within the IRR should be a 20mph zone, including Broad Lane/ Tenter St (no longer an official through route and centre of many new  developments, including student flats, and The Diamond).  Similarly Charter Row, Arundel Gate and Furnival Gate have been changed from motorways of the past to urban streets of the present by narrowing carriage-ways and increasing footway widths, but there are insufficient crossings and traffic is too fast and takes too much of a priority over people wanting to cross the roads.  Pedestrian and cyclists movement should be prioritized;
5. Any shared space needs to allow cycling as well as walking, eg the ‘Gold Route’ from the station to the university can be cycle as well as walked.  This is not the case for the ‘Steel Route’ from Castlegate to Moorfoot, but should be so.  It makes no sense to allow cycling across Barker’s Pool but not down The Moor
6. There is a need for undercover, secure bike parking. Any new car parking development should have a developers premium of building in bike parking,  [The Station Cycle Hub and the Eyre St/Moor Market Car Park already provide 24/7/365 undercover and secure bike parking. (One is free, the other requires a one-off £10 payment for a fob)]
7. CycleSheffield notes that the evidence indicates that removing moving motor traffic and parking from outside shops INCREASES footfall and spend in urban centres.  Urban parking should be off road.

C What CycleSheffield may offer.

CycleSheffield is willing to present and discuss the evidence for the assertions above.  Developers of city urban space across the world are recognising the social and economic importance of making cities attractive and ‘liveable’ for all, eg New York, Detroit, Seville, anywhere in Holland & Scandinavia, and in the UK, Sheffield has much to learn from London, Brighton, York, Bristol etc

[We suggest the BID leadership listen to this “pedcast” about how a transformation to an urban street in Hackney has made for a better civic life and how people care about their streets.  The  public need enjoyable public realm, like Barker’s Pool, by reducing traffic flow and stopping traffic conflicting with peds and cyclists. https://soundcloud.com/livingstreets/pedcast-nov14

Perhaps BID could consider signing up to Living Streets (national champions for the public on foot) and extend the public open shared spaces we have in Sheffield to create a vibrant welcoming city centre.  The example on this podcast could be applied to Pinstone St or Division St or both!]

Public Consultation on the future of Stanley Fields and Pye Bank Road, Woodside (S3 9PB)

From: CycleSheffield

We are commenting on the draft Planning and Design Brief www.sheffield.gov.uk/woodside.  We have been to drop-in sessions, read the documents and three of us have worked on these comments. Two of us live in the North of the city and use Pitsmoor Rd daily for trips.

• Local context

1.1 The redevelopment of Woodside and Stanley Fields is to be welcomed.

1.2 We understand and agree with the principle of the proposed land swap

1.3 The site has one of the four routes from the city into Pitsmoor and beyond. These are: Rutland Rd, Pitsmoor Rd, Brunswick Rd (cycle route only) and Spital Hill.

1.4 It is CycleSheffield’s view that the Brunswick Rd cycle route is not fit for purpose: it has a v steep section from the inner ring rd, it’s not overseen, it is fly-tipped and rat infested and goes through a neighbourhood that many may not want to use on their own. It will not be fit for purpose until it becomes part of a redevelopment around it.   Rutland Rd is a steep main arterial route with high passenger car units (pcu) p.d. and 40mph speeds, Spital Hill has the lowest gradients (its where the tram line used to be) it is slow but it is v narrow and very congested for many hours during the day.  Pitsmoor Rd has a short steep gradient from Bridgehouses to the top of Chatham St but after that the slopes are gentle and many cyclists use it to avoid the congestion on Spital Hill and connect with neighbourhoods along Pitsmoor Rd. and Barnsley Rd and to go to NGH.  It should be considered a cycle route (and vehicle traffic flow could be ‘persuaded’ to use Spital Hill and Rutland Rd).

Site Features

1.3 The site has attractive features in that it is hilly and many locations have fine views over the Upper Don Valley.

1.4 a. It is close to the city and the up and coming neighbourhood of Kelham Island and this makes it an attractive development site

1.4 b. There are short distances to Shalesmoor, Kelham Island, Neepsend, Parkwood Springs, Pitsmoor, Spital Hill, Wicker, & Castlegate via Nursery St, Snig Hill via Millsands.  It is a site through which many will commute and it is a site that it is well or could be well connected.

1.4 c. The railway tracks that border the lower boundary could be seen as either a hindrance or block or making the site on the “wrong side of the tracks” or they could be seen as a feature that provide a boundary that separates residential from industrial and commercial on Shalesmoor and perhaps the sound of the inner ring road.

1.4 d. The site is bordered by social housing that are remnants of the Woodside estate and could be considered to provide a continuity with the recent past.

• Urban Design

2.1 We agree with the principles in yr document under section 2.11

2.2 We agree that Bridgehouses is a Gateway point (yr Fig 3) and Bridgehouses is also a problem for walking and cycling. See http://www.cyclesheffield.org.uk/2014/10/06/10677/

2.3 We agree that the walk that runs beside the boundary wall by the railway track is a problem – it is not overseen or lit and is used for prostitution and drug dealing at the Woodside Lane end.  (It could be closed but may still need to be there for any future wall maintenance?).  There could or should still be access to the Stanley Fields site form the Woodside Lane end of this path – see the current desire lines worn on the grass.

2.4 We wish to point out that the site has access (unmarked on yr Fig 3) from Fox St.  This connects to Andover St and Rock St and hence to Spital Hill/Ellesmere Green

2.4 We bring to your attention to SCC’s Vision for Excellent Transport and the decision by Cabinet to incorporate cycling into that Vision see http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s14468/Cycling%20Inquiry%20Report.pdf.  One of the  policy recommendations is that Sheffield needs to develop as soon as possible a strategic cycle network.  Another policy recommendation is that all new developments start with walking and cycling audits.  These recommendations are relevant to this site and should not be overlooked

• Our principles for urban design

3.1 Your plans talk of green routes.  CycleSheffield think that SCC should talk of routes.  We believe that people should be able to walk and cycle to where they work, shop, rest and play.  We do not believe that cycling should be marginalised onto ‘green’ routes.  This is an urban location with access to suburbs and the city but also access to parks, eg Parkwood Springs, the proposed linear park.  Cycling takes place in both. By and large, monies for cycling infrastructure should go to urban routes, money for routes in parks should come from Leisure and Recreation monies.

3.2 We propose that access close to dwellings should be designed with the principles of shared space.

3.3. We propose residential parking (residents and visitors) should be off-road and could even be in community car parks.  Cars should not come into conflict with pedestrians or cyclists close to housing.  Streets should not be an obstacle course of parked cars for pedestrians and cyclists.  This may also allow the establishment of play streets.

3.4 We propose that routes through and in and out of housing should be permeable so that pedestrians and cyclists do not have to follow the same routes as cars and they have direct routes that encourage walking and cycling.

3.5 Housing should have sufficient secure, covered bike parking either shared between dwellings or per dwelling. (There is no point encouraging and developing cycling if the infrastructure for storage is not built as part of all new developments)

• Specific Proposals

4.1 Chatham St should be closed to vehicles from above Swinton St to the jn with Rock St.  Its should be made into a two way cycle route and pedestrian route.  This would create a ‘safe’, pleasant space for peds and walkers as a gateway into Woodside.

Vehicle traffic at Bridgehouses should be advised “no through rd” up to Pitsmoor.  Chatham St between Mowbray St and Swinton St should have a two-way segregated cycle path and a single lane for up-coming traffic.  It would involve some reworking of Bridgehouses for cyclists but, hey, if it can be done for buses then it can be done for active sustainable travel.

4.2 A route through Stanley Fields from Chatham St to Wood Fold should be created.  This would connect to the path at Parkwood Springs across Rutland Rd from Woodfold.  This would then give the opportunity to create a walking and cycling route (part leisure/part utility) from Millsands and the proposed grey-green route on West Bar/Castlegate all the way up to the top of Parkwood Springs (possibly one of the best viewpoints of the city)

4.3 Woodside Lane provides access to the site from Neepsend, Kelham Island and Shalesmoor.  It should be a 20mph road and be car access for residents only.  It should be surfaced and lit to encourage people to walk and cycle on it.

4.4 The original connection of Woodside Lane to Wood Fold should be restored (currently within the factory site)  This would provide an alternative walking and cycling route to going up Rutland Rd and onto a route into Parkwood Springs.

4.5 Rock St is single alternate lane traffic across the railway bridge.  We presume this is a weight restriction imposed by Network Rail.  They are responsible for the bridge and it may be many years before it will be strengthened.  Meanwhile we propose that the half of the road currently closed is opened up as a pedestrian and cycling route onto Pye Bank Rd and a toucan crossing and/or cyclists lights put on the jn with Chatham St.

4.6 The road on the railway bridge across Pitmoor Rd is narrowed.  We assume this railway bridge on Pitsmoor Rd may need strengthening or the present arrangement was an inexpensive way to provide pedestrian barriers on the bridge.  At present cyclists set off from Chatham St going up Pitsmoor Rd, they are slow because it is a standing start and usually they are overtaken by vehicles before they reach the narrowed lane.  Vehicles are waiting in the opposite lane on the bridge.  However the up lane is narrow and vehicles can go through the Chatham St lights and squeeze past (fast) and put cyclists at risk.  This issue will still occur if traffic is coming up from Pitsmoor Rd (after the Bridgehouses bus scheme installed in 2015) We propose two solutions to this:

4.6 i)  put the stop line on the inbound lane on Pitsmoor Rd back on the bridge like it is for Rock St.  This will provide space for outbound vehicles to overtake outbound cyclists as the cyclists get to the other side of the bridge they should be directed onto a cycle way along Pistmoor Rd (see 4.7)

4.6 ii) start the cycleway and footway as a shared use path using the current footway at the town end of the bridge on the outbound lane.  This will take them off the narrow section of road across the bridge.  There is already a dropped kerb there with tactile paving and cyclists do use this as a route.

4.7 Pitsmoor Rd should have a cycleway and a footway along it.  The parking that is presently allowed there should be removed; it obstructs oncoming cyclists forcing them further out into the lane.  If the parking was removed then there is plenty of room for both the proposed cycleway and footway.  This route would provide active travel access to the proposed housing and also to people making trips to Pitsmoor, Burngreave and beyond.

4.8 We note one key crossing is proposed on Pitsmoor Rd.  We think this is too few.  Stanley Fields will be housing.  The land across the road will be a park.  There is housing on the other side of Pye Bank Rd.  Families will want to use the linear park and let their kids get to it.  The nearest primary school is Pye Bank School and that is up the hill off Andover St and Rock St so families will have to cross this road twice a day.  It is a long stretch of road.  If there is only one crossing then peds will just run across the road where it suits them.   We propose that the following should be considered – more crossings or sections of shared space that have roads and other routes delineated by with different colours and textures with level surfaces between all three.  Vehicles should be restricted to 20 mph for this stretch of road, eg narrow the lanes (between the railway bridges and, at least, the end of the development). As new housing is to be developed we propose that there should be bus route along this section of Pitsmoor Rd – and it should be a 20mph bus route

4.9 There is a path from Pye Bank Rd onto Pitsmoor Rd by the railway bridge.  This should connect directly to a toucan crossing across Pitsmoor Rd.  There should be a ped crossing at the other end of Pye Bank Rd across Pitsmoor Rd.  If you’re going to go with crossings there has to be at least one more toucan crossing between these two points than the one proposed.

4.10 There is the possibility to create a pedestrian and cycle route from Pye Bank Road over to Fox St.  It is still there as a (disused) ped route with steps.  We bring to your attention the cycle route between Shewsbury Rd and the Cholera Monument.  We believe some kind of similar devpt in this ‘new’ green space would benefit peds, cyclists and people with pushchairs or in mobility scooters.  It would provide access with Andover St, Rock St and Verdon St

4.11 We support a route through the linear park along the path of Pye Bank Rd that allows both walking and cycling (cf path through Norfolk Park) but if it is not lit and not overlooked we do not see it as a strategic cycle route.  It would be safer to cycle along a route alongside a 20 mph Pitsmoor Rd that is lit, paved and overlooked.

 The Award nominations so far…. nominations close 1 December

Cycling Initiative of the year

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Grassroots Cycling Initiative of the Year

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Sheffield media cycling story of the year

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Best Sheffield grassroots cycling social media

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Cycle Campaigner(s) of the Year

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Best Independent Bike Business

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Best Chain Bike Business

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Cycle Infrastructure awards

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Best act of kindness

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Closure of towpath Meadowhall to R’hm

• CycleSheffield understand from their colleagues at Cycle Rotherham that SCC have overall responsibility for these works

• Cycle Sheffield thinks the closure for 9 months is excessive and little or no attention has been given to making the alternative routes safer for cyclists.  For example, cycle lanes could be made clearer, rubbish in the gutters could be swept, advisory signage for drivers could be placed at pinchpoints or where HGVs have parking bays, the possibility of shared use of footways could be explored.

• CycleSheffield ask if there have been any risk assessments or cycle/walking audits done for the alternative routes along Sheffield Rd.  If they have we ask to see them.  (A cyclist was killed in a collision with a tipper truck at the junction of Sheffield Rd and Fullerton Rd in October 2103).

• CycleSheffield draw SCC’s attention to the assessment from TPT Rotherham Rangers (URL below) which advises cyclists to take whatever route or action they believe necessary to travel safely.  The sequencing and disruption of the contractors’ work is a hazard.  We ask SCC to ensure that the constructors take the same care with the general public as they do with their own workers.

http://www.rotherhamtptrangers.talktalk.net/downloads/Temp%20Closures/TPT-NCN%206%20Diversion%20-%20Canal%20Towpath%20(Rev%2014%20Nov).pdf

The map shows the extent of the closures and alternative routes

We cannot understand why reasonable requests have not produced the information requested

We are raising this as a matter of urgency at SCC Cycle Forum Nov 18 2014

 We have been working on this up to now and more will be disclosd as and when we find it and makes usre info is valid.

Chapeltown Greenway Route & Loicher Lane

A CycleSheffield member has been taking an interest in the Chapeltown Greenway.  He is very concerned that the demolition of the Loicher Lane Bridge is mooted or worse has been decided.  He has brought it to our attention and we are extremely concerned at what we think is proposed.

This bridge carries the Chapeltown Greenway over Loicher Lane.  If the bridge remains people using the Greenway will be able to cycle uninterrupted on a level path over Loicher Lane and not be in conflict with road traffic on the road (Loicher Lane) below.

Apparently the proposal is to be demolish the bridge and the plan is to put two ramps in its place entailing cyclists and walkers to descend to the road itself, cross the road, and ascend back up to the level of the Greenway again.

The reasons for doing this are said to be structural and financial.  It has been said that the bridge is in a poor structural state and the cost of repair and the commuted costs of maintenance are more expensive than the cost of demolition and the cost of installation of the ramps

Reasonable requests for details of the structural state of the bridge and a breakdown of the costs have been refused.  More worryingly there is an indication that an ‘agreement’ with a local landowner has been ‘negotiated’.

CycleSheffield have been in contact with the Sustrans who inspect the bridge and the opinion is that t​he bridge is structurally sound.  Both Sustrans and Railway Paths Limited who own the bridge see no need to demolish the bridge.  Retention of the bridge would be preferable to demolition to ensure the integrity of the Greenway.

CycleSheffield understands that the cycle/walking path (Chapeltown Greenway) is in a Bridleway Creation Order (and also put in a covenant for the deeds of that land when it was sold).

CycleSheffield thinks that:

• the proposed solution may not be the best solution for the safety, convenience and enjoyment of people using the Chapeltown Greenway (they will have to cross the road, the visibility of road traffic on this bend may not be good, there will, no doubt, be barriers to negotiate either side of the road, the gradients of the proposed ramps may be high, trips along the Greenway will be ‘broken’);

• the crossing of the road creates road danger and conflict with traffic for Greenway users that will be a significant deterrent for people wanting to use the Greenway;

• the proposed solution may not be the best economically and we would like to see the costs of both alternatives and reports on the structural state of the bridge;

• the structural state of the bridge is not secret or confidential.  The Greenway is owned by Railway Paths Ltd and inspected by Sustrans and, we think at the moment, maintained by SCC in conjunction with Amey;

• any plans for this important and nearly complete green route should have been brought to the attention of the Cycle Schemes Sub-Committee for monitoring and evaluation;

• an, as yet unknown, agreement seems to have been negotiated with a private landowner (we surmise that may be to expedite the scheme or to save money but we don’t know to whose advantage).

CycleSheffield want the work on this part of the Greenway to be immediately halted until the causes for concern above are addressed and the whole situation is clarified.

Dr Ian Mudway, Kings College – Every Breath You Take

Alan Andrews Client Earth – Clean Air in the Courts

Cllr Jack Scott SCC – Air Quality and Actions in Sheffield

We will circulate their responses to our members to help inform their voting choice.

To: David Allen, English Democrats,; Alan Billings, Labour; Jack Clarkson, UKIP; Ian Walker, Conservative.

Sir,

Cycle Sheffield has over 550 members concerned about the safety of cyclists and pedestrians and the pressing need for healthier forms of travel. To help them make their voting decisions we intend to advise our members and other interested parties on your policies for road policing.

We would be grateful for a statement from you on:

• the priorities for road policing and possible police actions to prevent death and injury on SY roads;

• the education and enforcement that should or could be in place to ensure that moving traffic offences and anti-social driving do not create unnecessary risks for all other road users.

We note that:

• 32 people were killed as victims of collisions on SY roads and 23 were killed as victims of violent crime in 2013;
• nearly 4000 people were injured in road collisions on SY roads in 2013 and disturbingly the proportion of pedestrian casualties that are children is rising;
• press reports on hit and runs in SY are depressingly regular and frequent;
• drivers seem unable to voluntarily change their behaviour (cf speeds on Normanton Hill where Jasmine Chan was killed);
• our members report regular and frequent traffic offences by drivers, eg obstructing cycle lanes and access to cycle paths, queueing in yellow boxes, stopping in ASLs, speeding in 20mph zones etc;
• Sheffield City Council wants to get more people cycling to improve health and wellbeing, reduce congestion, and improve air quality but the evidence to the recent cycling inquiry in Sheffield showed that most of the hundreds of respondents said that people were unwilling to choose cycling because they think it unsafe because of the behaviour of other road users;
• SY traffic collision data indicates that killed and injured figures overall are steadily decreasing year on year but national statistics show that people are travelling fewer miles in cars year on year so whether SY roads are becoming safer is a very moot point.

We also note that  4% of the total SYP budget spend is on road policing and 42% on local policing.

We believe that

• many collisions are the result of excessive driving speeds, particularly in 20mph zones;
• many collisions with vulnerable road users indicate driving that is inappropriate to the conditions at the time;
• ‘minor’ traffic offences are a severe risk to cyclists, eg obstructing a contraflow cycle lane, or queuing in a yellow box, and deter people who want to choose cycling;
• anti-social driving, eg tailgating, cutting-up, abuse, driving into ASLs, overtaking too close (the punishment pass), is a significant deterrent for vulnerable road users like cyclists.

(CycleSheffield is a cycle campaign group affiliated to the CTC with over 550 members who nearly all live within the city boundaries.  We regularly and frequently have discussions about cycling with SCC and we have also discussed cycling matters with officers in SYP Sheffield Section).

Monday December 15 2014

7.00-10.00pm

Burton’s, Burton St, Sheffield

 The Social will consist of a good quality buffet, cash bar and

CycleSheffield’s inaugural awards ceremony

There will be time to circulate and chat, swap tables, and generally be a good egg

£11.99 pp booked via EventBrite

or pay in cash at a CycleSheffield meeting

(Don’t forget to tell us any dietary requirements when booking)

How to nominate is below – read on….

The Award categories

Cycling Initiative of the year – private or public, eg station cycling hub, SCC Cycling Inquiry

Grassroots Cycling Initiative of the Year - eg inclusive cycling at Hillsborough, Sheffield Stars

Sheffield media cycling story of the year; print, news or radio eg Star Story from Colin Drury, item from Mark Ansell on R4E, items from Now Then?

Best Sheffield grassroots cycling social media: blogs, fb, twitter feed eg Ellen Beardmore’s blog, Ride Sheffield fb group

Cycle Campaigner(s) of the Year – eg person who has made a significant (for her/him/them) contribution to the promotion of cycling in Sheffield, eg someone who has set up a BUG, promoted stuff like Sky Ride above and beyond the call of duty

Bums on saddles: most inappropriate example of cycling behaviour in Sheffield this year, eg that character who cycles through people queuing at the station tram stop

Best Independent Bike Business - bike business which has made or continues to make significant contribution and/or service to cycling in Sheffield eg Cycle Hub at University, AE Butterworth for services to the universe

Best Chain Bike Business - bike business which has made or continues to make significant contribution and/or service to cycling in Sheffield eg could be on service, prices, Edinburgh Bike Coop, Decathlon, Evans, Halfords (name branch)

Cycle Infrastructure awards – two awards, one for best, and one for worst eg

Best act of kindness – eg as it names suggests, even just fixing a puncture, loaning some lights, train operator allowing more bikes than the rules on board,  etc

Nominations and criteria

CycleSheffield members and enterprises may nominate contenders and/or themselves

A panel of members will choose the nominations that get recommended and winners.

Nominations may be short and must be no more than 250 words/one side of A4

Criteria: Nominations should specify who the nominees are and explain why the nomination and or the nominated matches the award title eg what is it that makes it/ her/him/them the best (or worst)?

There are no hard criteria but the judges will be considering

• its impact on people involved/touched?

• its inclusivity or appeal?

• its originality?

• its quality/VFM?

• its contribution to the community/cyclists?

Nominees can also be the nominated and in others we may need to inform someone of the nomination!

Nominations could fall into more than one category

 Pls email nominations to cyclesheffield@gmail.com either in the body of the email or as an attachment

Deadlines

Nominations are open now

Mon 1 Dec 2014 Nominations close (Nominated to be informed during nomination process)

Mon 8 Dec 2014 Decisions made week beg Mon 8 Dec and nominated re-informed

Mon 15 Dec 2014 Awards announced at CycleSheffield Social

Awards will have no monetary value; there will be a certificate for keeps and display, and a award trophy.

Judging will be organised by the CycleSheffield Committee.

CycleSheffield welcome the opportunity to comment on the Masterplan.  We recognise that the University has really supported cycling for students and staff

We understand that routes through the University will be open to the public.  We welcome that as these routes are already used by the general public and would help all vulnerable road users avoid the ring road and other busy roads

We understand the priorities of the Masterplan are these

1. ​Complete Durham Rd multi-story car park which will give space to get car parking off the university site  (access to new car park via Clarkson St, exit via Glossop Rd​(?))
2. Put in two surface crossings on Western Bank as per drawings (UoS would like to get rid of crossing on Western Bank next to Brook Hill roundabout but SCC may want to keep it as pedestrians from Netherthorpe flats use that route​)
3. Pedestrianise ​(make car & bus free​) ​Hounsfield Rd, Leavygreave Rd from Upper Hanover St​ ​to Portobello and Gell St from Leavygreave Rd to Glossop Rd​
4. Improve Upper Hanover St crossing at University tramstop to ease flow
5. Explore with SCC (and hopefully put in) one way gyratory up Western Bank, down Clarkson St, down Glossop Rd back on to Upper Hanover St

We make the following comments

A. Cycle Hub

We welcome the plans for a new cycle hub adjacent to the Hick’s Building.  We trust that will also be a priority.

B. Air quality

Air quality in Broomhill is a public health issue and the major cause is motor traffic.  We trust that the charges for the multi-story car park will make walking, cycling and public transport attractive choices for all who visit, or work and study at, the university.

C. Consideration of displaced parking

We are concerned that parking may be displaced elsewhere.  For example, we draw your attention to the car parking on cycle lanes at peak times on Clarkehouse Rd by both NHS and UoS employees which is abuse of cycle facilities.  We trust that the big employers in Broomhill can work with SCC Traffic enforcement on this issue.

D. Gyratory

1. We understand the reasoning for a gyratory and the effect this could have on the Brook Hill roundabout.  However, gyratories are not always cycling-friendly and in London many are being  removed or adapted, for example, to allow cycle contraflow at key points.
2. Currently there is a cycle lane going up Clarkson St and it may be a good idea to keep this as a mandatory contraflow cycle lane.   Otherwise/cyclists heading from Glossop Rd (city bound) to Weston Park/Children’s Hospital would have to go round the gyratory.
3. Currently Glossop Rd is a relatively busy cycling route (inbound in the mornings/outbound in the evenings).  Consideration should be given to providing an outbound route from Upper Hanover St (and the junction with Wilkinson St) and access for cyclists from Clarkson St to Glossop Rd (outbound).
4. If there is a gyratory then access to Durham Rd for cyclists needs to be considered.  Will Durham Rd also be one-way, ie Clarkson St to Glossop Rd?  At the moment cyclists exit the campus via the Octagon and can turn left and right onto Durham Rd and cyclists can enter Durham Rd from Glossop Rd to access the campus via the Octagon.  We would appreciate these routes being kept open.
5. If there is a gyratory then we are uncertain as to what the flow of motor traffic would be for access in and out of the Durham Rd multi-story and whether this would create jams and queues at busy times of day.  Jams and queues can block access or go across cycle facilities and may make traveling more hazardous for cyclists
6. Every opportunity should be taken to provide dropped clearly signed kerbs/surface access points in and out of the campus for cyclists from Western Bank, Glossop Rd, Clarkson St, & Upper Hanover St see section on crossings below.
7. Plans for the gyratory are sketchy, but consideration could be given to a mandatory cycle lane around the campus on the road

E. Crossings

1. We welcome the plans for the surface crossings on Western Bank.  We hope that these can be surface crossings, ie at the same level as the footway, but we acknowledge that this may not be possible.  We ask you to look at the crossing on Arundel Gate from SHU to Surrey St.  This is a toucan crossing with dropped kerbs on both sides of the road that enable cyclists to exit Arundel Gate to access the crossing and cycle routes, eg down Howard St.  We trust that similar (toucan crossing, dropped kerbs) could be installed on Western Bank at least on the crossing planned for the desire line to and from the Arts Tower.
2. We think the crossing on Upper Hanover St near the tram stop should  be a toucan crossing. This is the crossing on the gold route and it is the main route for cyclists from the NW into town (it basically provides the best link from Crookes Valley/Arts Tower/Concourse/Hounsfield/Leavygreave to Leavygreave/Portobello etc into town.  It is the safest, most convenient, quickest route for many cyclists daily and it follows an obvious desire line). At the moment it is a dog-leg with ‘sheep pen’ fencing to stop people falling into the ring road.  It needs to be wider and access from the Leavygreave Rd side needs to be widened for the projected number of pedestrians let alone any cyclists (has the University bought the Henderson’s site yet – it still shows up as the same old building in the drawings?). The crossing should enable cyclists to keep on the gold route without getting off and pushing one’s bike.  (If the tram company object on safety grounds then just point out the open access across tramlines from Castle Square up the High St where pedestrians and cyclists can travel across, uncontrolled, not just tram lines but also lines of traffic and the junction with York St)
3. The crossing from the campus between Hounsfield Lane and Brunswick St, which allows two way cycling, should also be a surface toucan crossing with appropriate access for cyclists from Glossop Rd so they can get in or out of campus and cross the road,
4. We are very concerned that there is little mention of the crossings on Bolsover St/Winter St and access for cyclists off and onto the campus from these roads.  This is hazardous and known to be a collision spot especially for cyclists, and in particular the issue of the R turn into the Uni Arts Tower car park after the Star and Garter. The access to Weston St complicates the situation. This could be a good chance for the Uni and SCC to work together and provide a safer option. See Appendix A for suggested options.  Winter St then becomes Crookesmoor Rd, and cycling up to and from Harcourt Rd can be hazardous. We refer you to a member’s comments on cycling this route (Appendix B) and his suggestions for what should or could be done to improve the situation

F. Pedestrianisation

1. We welcome making areas traffic-free.  We trust that essential deliveries can be facilitated by considering hours of delivery and/or designated places for delivery vehicles to park so that pedestrians and cyclists do not have their travel impeded
2. At the moment the official inner city cycle route is along Victoria St parallel to Gell St. If Gell St is to be made traffic free then it may make more sense to make Gell St the cycle route.
3. Pedestrianisation of Leavygreave Rd could ensure a continuity with Portobello for pedestrians and cyclists.  However the motor traffic from Regent St to St George’s Terrace will cut across this.  We think the priority at this junction should be for the pedestrians and cyclists and motor traffic from Regent St should give way.  We also refer you back to E2 above; the crossing should mean a clear gold route for cycling.
4. We are concerned that there seem to be plans for steps from University Sq to  Upper Hanover St on what is now Leavygreave Rd.  This is the gold route and we would like to keep that a shared pedestrian/cyclist route as it currently is.  There does not seem to be any suitable detour for cyclists to get back onto the gold route on Leavygreave Rd on the other side of Upper Hanover St at all.  These steps will not accommodate mobility scooters or wheelchairs either. They may look nice but their inclusion shows a lack of consideration of cycling (or the infirm, disabled and visually impaired).
5. The same consideration as in E3 for prioritising walking and cycling could be made at Portobello/Mappin St/Portobello St intersection with low cost, ie traffic travelling along Mappin Rd from Brook Hill should give way.
6. Pedestrianisation of Hounsfield Rd should entail clear cycle access from and onto Glossop Rd/Upper Hanover St.

G. Speed limits

1. The speed limit on the inner ring road is 40mph.  However the average speed of vehicles through this section of the inner ring road is much lower because of queuing, lights-controlled crossings on Netherthorpe Rd and Upper Hanover St, and traffic lights.  The projected speed limit according to the City Masterplan inside the inner ring rd will be 20 mph. We think the speed limit between Netherthorpe Rd and Glossop Rd should be dropped to 30mph in the belief that it will be a lot safer for vulnerable road users, more pleasant without racing traffic, will be a smaller drop or raise in speed for traffic turning in or out of the city centre, and make little difference to average journey time.
2. We think the speed limit on the gyratory should be no more than 30 mph – for the same reasons as in the para above
3. We think that UoS and SCC should work together to look at slowing all the traffic down around Brook Hill and the gyratory by designing the roads so that traffic, instead of stopping and starting with racing in between keeps moving but at a steady slow pace, cf Poynton roundabout.

Appendix A- improving cycle access to/from Bolsover Street

Options could be:

1. a Left hand drop kerb ‘cycle run off’  after Weston St to deliver cyclists to a new Toucan crossing over to the Arts Tower entrance. (Prob where Pelican is now?);
2. and for more experienced/confident cyclists who will not want to spend ages ‘Toucanising’ then install a red right turn ‘haven’ strips or ‘fillet’ in road centre, just prior to the toucan;
3. both should lead a cyclist over to a dedicated cycle entrance lane, separate to the ped one, going into the Uni, avoiding cycle/pedestrian conflict as you leave the  crossing/road.

(We know these strips, like the Glossop Rd R turn into Brunswick St aren’t to everyone’s liking.  They also exist on Woodseats Rd for a turn into Ulverston Rd, and Saxon Rd for a turn onto a cycle path alongside Virgin Active.  They provide the more experienced cyclists with a R turn option instead of using the toucan crossing.  However we feel the the toucan crossing is important for less confident cyclists.  If  money/DfT guidelines dictate these 2 options conflict, then go with toucan+dedicated cycle entry point and the rest of us will have to take our chances turning right as we do now.

Appendix B- improving cycling routes to/from Crookesmoor/Walkey

In the morning traffic queues from around about Harcourt Rd as far as the roundabout. As a cyclist you have a pretty free run down the bus lane until the pinch point at Mushroom Lane where the bus lane ends for about 50m, before starting again at the Star and Garter. It’s always a tricky decision here, which side of the queue you go down. I believe accident stats show that this area as a hotspot.

Cyclist entering the University from Bolsover St. Well known issue, no official filter / crossing for cycles. Depending on traffic I’ve often seen people go through the Geography car park, along the pavement and on into the concourse. It’s not ideal as it has a potential conflict with pedestrians and involves bunny hops over kerbs, but I guess it’s safer than standing in the middle of traffic trying to execute a right turn.

In the evening, a queue builds up in the opposite direction. This can be more tricky to deal with as it’s a moving queue, by which I mean its rarely stationary but crawls up the slight gradient at 5 – 10mph. Cars leaving the car park at Bart House will often go left down the hill, then U-turn via Geography back into the uphill stream as it’s a quicker way in, but not really recommended for a cyclist.

Once in the queue most cyclists take the LHS by the kerb and undertake as far as the pedestrian crossing, some hardy souls go out right but you need to keep up to 20mph to do that. The queue isn’t uniform which means you can get halfway up it then meet a vehicle that way over to the left that you cant get by it. Then you still get the odd numpty who deliberately moves over to block cycles on the LHS.

As you get further up the hill you reach the pedestrian crossing and the Harcourt Rd junction, both of which have been recognised as dangerous (Harcourt road safety scheme still on hold due to spending cuts, probably incorporated into Amey work in 2017)

Once you get past Harcourt Rd the traffic thins out considerably. Harcourt is the main rat run, and you get far fewer vehicles turning left at the Crookesmoor Rd crossroads. From this point you are clear of what might be considered part of the University area.

From many years of cycling this way I find once you’ve cleared the Harcourt Rd / Beanies area then traffic is less of an issue and Barber Rd is officially a clearway evening and mornings

From the master plan drawings I see a major pedestrian crossing is proposed at Weston Park lower entrance / Arts Tower and another crossing point appears to be marked outside Bartolome House where the car park is eventually to be removed and turned into a green space (5-10 years). I can’t see a lot of detail in my print out.

My suggestion would be use these crossings to remove the pinch point for cyclists and provide a safe joined up shared route from the end of the bus lane on Crookes Valley downhill as far as the concourse. This would also incorporate a safe route into Weston park as this is a desire line for pedestrian, I see dozens everyday waiting outside Bartolome House trying to cross there rather than walk down the hill to the crossing past the Star and Garter (if only Mushroom Lane had been downgraded to Ped / cycle route this would have been easier)

Uphill, I know some have said we cyclist don’t need anything new but after years of riding it a proper uphill cycle lane, Dutch style using the large amount of available wasted space (I guess it was once a grass verge) up to a completely redesigned junction at Harcourt Road, taking into account the needs of the pedestrians on that crossing (light controlled) and then allowing cyclists to move across the Harcourt Rd junction with right of way before reaching Beanie’s where the traffic thins out considerably.