You might have read the recent post that Loicher Bridge in Ecclesfield, part of the nearly-completed Chapeltown Greenway/Blackburn Valley cycle route, is under threat of demolition. The plan is to replace the bridge with two ramps down to the road and a road crossing (an “at-grade” crossing”). CycleSheffield believes that demolition is totally unnecessary, the replacement will be more costly, and most importantly, the new crossing will be more dangerous.

This report by Brian Dalton, council officer, was presented at the Sheffield City Council Cycle Forum on Tuesday 18 November:

Blackburn Valley at Loicher Lane

The bridge over Loicher Lane which is part of the Blackburn Valley Green Route was built around 1860 and, at that time, Loicher Lane was twisted so the railway bridge could be as small as possible. This was all very well in the age of horse drawn vehicles, but, over the years this kink in the carriageway and the speed of traffic have developed into a danger to all users.

In the 1950’s a footway was created along Loicher Lane which crosses from the south side to the north under the bridge. This is to avoid making the kink worse and is positioned in such a way as to give pedestrians the best sightlines when crossing.

The planning consent for the cycle route through from Butterthwaite Lane to the Smithy Wood development, calls for an access point to the west of the southern bridge abutment. Using current highway standards, it is not possible to make this access safe with the existing southern bridge abutment in place. There is a choice, therefore, to use the bridge, while closing the temporary access, replace the bridge along with its southern abutment or remove the bridge and create an at grade crossing with appropriate sightlines.

I have costed a replacement bridge and I am in the process of costing an at grade crossing point. I have not come to any firm decision about what I will recommend but I am leaning towards the no bridge option. However, the costs involved in providing the safest possible at grade crossing may change that.

Despite what is said in the Cycle Sheffield note, I have the written support of the Railway Paths bridge engineer for the removal of this bridge. He added a caveat at the time that Sustrans should be consulted about the scheme for implementation. That would have been a given point in any case.

You may have noticed that things are starting to happen, the ski jump hump at Butterthwaite is gone, the redundant inline gates have been removed and the Chapeltown Park section is nearing completion. The path to the south of Loicher Lane is in design, but the crossing is a complex issue and will not be easy to solve, but I am determined to ensure that, whatever is implemented, it will give the widest population the greatest usefulness.

In addition to Sheffield City Council (SCC), a number of agencies are involved in the fate of the bridge: Sustrans (who will be responsible for the route); Railway Paths Ltd (a division of Sustrans, who will own the bridge – it is currently leased to SCC); and the Trans Pennine Trail – this route will form part of their network. Yesterday, CycleSheffield sent this response to these partner agencies:

A report about Loicher Bridge by Brian Dalton was presented to the Sheffield City Council (SCC) Cycle Forum on Tuesday 18 November. We believe that you have all now seen this report. We would like to challenge some of that report, have made another site visit and would like to make comments to interested parties.

We fundamentally believe that the retention of Loicher Bridge is essential to the coherence, continuity and safety of the Chapeltown Greenway/Blackburn Valley cycle route.

Loicher Bridge is structurally sound (“I am not aware of any defects that would make this bridge unable to carry the loading associated with carrying a cycle path” – Paul Thomas, Bridge Engineer, Sustrans / Railway Paths Limited (RPL); 18 Nov 2014). Inspecting the bridge today, there is no evidence of structural problems. There is no evidence of bridge strikes either on the abutments, or on the underside of the bridge itself.

We also refute the implication that Paul Thomas has “given written support … for the removal of this bridge”. In his email to CycleSheffield, Paul acknowledges there are two options: “I am keen to see this bridge either refurbished to create an appropriately robust structure for the cycle path or demolished as long as Sustrans agree that an acceptable solution has been found to allow public users to cross the road”, that both options should reduce RPL’s liabilities and future maintenance costs, and it is not his remit to make a recommendation in favour of either option.

Some minor works are needed to bring the bridge back to a state where it will not be a liability when handed back to RPL. This is now mainly removal of the wooden maintenance paths either side of the concrete bridge deck, and making safe the bridge railings. Plans for the refurbishment of the bridge to create an appropriately robust structure for the cycle path have been drawn up by SCC, some work (eg new deck) was completed, but then curiously abandoned before full completion. We would urge SCC to complete this refurbishment as soon as possible.

You will note from the report by Brian Dalton that the problem with Loicher Bridge does not lie with the bridge itself, but actually with the sightlines at the bottom of the temporary access ramp to the west of the southern abutment.

At the bottom of the ramp, sightlines for cyclists and pedestrians to the east (ie uphill) are quite poor – around 20 metres, though because of road position, traffic travelling downhill towards the bridge will have approximately double this – between 40 and 50 metres. Sightlines for all other directions are adequate.

The “kink” in the carriageway mentioned by Brian Dalton has the positive effect of slowing traffic travelling downhill. Part of the current SCC proposal is a 30mph limit from Jumble Lane (M1 bridge) – down from 60mph – together with point reduction to 20mph around to bridge, and we feel these will have a further positive effect, and should be introduced regardless. CycleSheffield would suggest further measures: Loicher Lane and Jumble Lane are narrow country lanes used as a ‘rat-run’ between Ecclesfield and Thorpe Hesley, and we would suggest weight limits on this route of preferably 3 tonnes, or certainly 7.5 tonnes.

If these measures are insufficient for sightlines at the bottom of the ramp, we would suggest:

• a build-out in the road to the east (uphill) of the southern abutment with give way in favour of traffic travelling uphill. A solution frequently used by SCC elsewhere in Sheffield.
• widening the footpath to the west of the southern abutment and creating a shared use path. This would require a fillet of land (approx 50m x 3m) acquired from Abbey Power Generation, currently a grassed slope with a stone wall that is collapsing into the footway in places.
• Investigating acquiring land to the west of the northern abutment to create a new access ramp. This land is currently advertised as for sale.
• Finally, and least preferred, closing the access ramp. Access at this point is obviously desirable, but alternatives are available and it is a relatively isolated spot. Retention of the bridge is far more important than access to the ramp.

We find it ironic that access to a ramp to a cyclepath has become the main driver for the demolition of a bridge carrying that cyclepath and hence severely compromising the cyclepath’s coherence and safely.

Sustrans, Railway Paths Ltd and Brian Dalton from Sheffield City Council are meeting on-site tomorrow to discuss the proposals. We will keep you updated with developments at Loicher Bridge.

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.

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

This has come to our attention over the last week.  We cannot understand why cyclists have not been consulted on this matter at all

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.

There was a notable conference held in Sheffield last month..A couple of CycleSheffield members went.  
CycleSheffield uses the issues about the need to improve air quality in its arguments to promote cycling and opposes some traffic schemes.
Please find below YouTube videos from each key speaker.  They are dense but the figures and the arguments are worthwhile knowing and understanding.

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

CycleSheffield has sent the following email to the PCC candidates.

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).

Comments from CycleSheffield re University Masterplan

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.

Polly’s rides
Sunday 5th October
Ride to leave Barkers Pool at 9.30 am
Reply to: polytone@doctors.org.uk (I don’t think Polly ‘does’ fb or the website)

1. a women-only social ride
2. an inaugural ‘mixed gender’ social ride (there are a few men who would love to do the same sort of ride as our women-only rides.)
So, women can choose which ride suits them best!

Both groups meet at Barker’s Pool to leave at 9.30am
Riding the same route, although in separate groups, to Millhouses Park.
You can join the ride at Millhouses if you prefer; we aim to arrive at the cafe about 10.15 and leave about 10.30.
After that the groups will diverge.

The mixed group will follow the shorter ‘Parks and Woodlands’ route through Ecclesall Woods to Whirlow and push up to Whirlow Farm cafe for a cake stop before going on to cross Ringinglow Road and then swoop down to Forge Dam and back to Barker’s Pool via the Porter Valley parks; about 12 miles altogether.

The women-only group will do the ‘lollipop route’, so named because the stretch to Millhouses is like the ‘stick’ and the following loop up beside Beauchief golf course to Bradway then through Totley and Dore (where we’ll pause for a bring-your-own picnic snack) to Ecclesall Woods and back to Millhouses forms the ‘lollipop’ before we return down the ‘stick’ again to Barker’s Pool; about 15 miles altogether.

The Parks and Woodlands route is fairly flat (apart from the lane up to Whirlow Farm, which is too rutted to ride comfortably even if you can manage the climb, so will be walked). The Lollipop route is more challenging with a couple of steep pulls, but we will – as always – take it gently and can push when necessary. We aim for everyone to be back at Barker’s Pool for 1.30pm.

Tony (Cornah), Polly’s partner, will lead the mixed group with Kathy (Baillie) as back-stop. Pam and I, with Jenny (Biltcliffe)’s help, will organise the women’s ride.

Importantly, there will be flapjack for both rides!!

Please do let us know (polytone@doctors.org.uk) whether you will be coming along, and on which ride, so we can ensure there’s plenty of flapjack and also so we can let Whirlow farm cafe know to expect us (although last time it took ages for us all to get served even though they were forewarned, but it allowed plenty of time to relax and chat!)
We’ll send out a reminder nearer the time as well and look forward to seeing lots of you on 5th October.

The University launched it’s consultation on the Campus Masterplan today: