In late October/beginning of November 2013, SCC have painted a contraflow cycle lane on Cumberland St at the bottom of the Moor.  It runs from the junction with South Lane (corner with The Moorfoot Tavern) up towards Moore St and peters out just past Bishop St (at the back of Wickes).  At least if you won’t be able to cycle on the Moor then you can cycle across it.

The photo above shows how it starts. Note that you have to cycle over a drain because the island used to hold up the pole is so big. Notice that the white line is inside the width of the pinchpoint – intelligent, thoughtful work, eh?

At the start you have to cycle through a 1m wide pinchpoint (which has been there a while) onto the newly painted cycle lane. Note the cross hatching to guide oncoming drivers away from the island forming the pinchpoint(!)  Also note that the solid white line starts less than 1m from the kerb presumably to ensure that you are hugging it.  The photo below shows that the width of the lane to the solid white line is 0.92 m at this point.   (NB bike training guidance is to ride a metre from the kerb).

This is the signage at the entrance.  Although it is double yellow lines loading can take place before 8 and after 6.30.  There are no signs on poles to show it is a contraflow cycle lane and that bikes can enter but a bike sign is marked on the floor.
The width doesn’t change much until you get to where the Moor intersects with Cumberland St. There is a pinchpoint here so that pedestrians only have a single lane of road to cross. I presume that cyclists are allowed to continue on this newly laid asphalt surface (see picture below) and will share it with pedestrians who will be walking across your direction of travel in both directions.

Note in the photo above the uneven nature of the surfaces and the slope, a reverse camber, on the black asphalt. Shouldn’t cycle lanes be level-ish?

The black bit of pavement is 1.7 m wide to the kerb (see picture above). The cycle lane is at most 1m wide and the ball bollard at ground or wheel level must be there to guide you away from veering onto the road and ensuring you don’t take up more than 1m of width of the black asphalt, although you are more likely to collide with it whilst keeping an eye out for peds. Neat looking job eh? What a showcase of cycling facilities that will welcome cyclists to the redeveloped Moor and the opening of the new market!

As you go across the black asphalt at the pinchpoint you are guided by the second ball bollard at wheel level and re-enter the contraflow cycle lane on the road (photo above)
This cycle lane looks as narrow as the other one on the other side but is in fact 1.03 m from the kerb to the start of the solid white line (photo below). You’ve gained 11 cm of space but it’s still not 1.5m wide

Just after the YMCA the cycle lane, still against on-coming traffic, is marked with dashed lines so it becomes advisory because vehicles will need to have access in and out of the National Tyres depot and vehicles will be need to be able to come out of Bishop St and turn left into the path of cycles to go along Cumberland St to Moore St or turn right to go onto the on-coming cycles and into the tyre depot.
And there is a solo motorbike parking bay between the two entrances of the tyre depot on the left hand side of the cycle lane so they will need to go across the cycle lane in order to park and leave.
The cycle lane ceases just past Bishop St and you can make your way onto the Moore St cycle lane or take a right across oncoming traffic on Cumberland St to access the on-pavement cycle lane. See the map which shows a bus parked across it. This means, once you have cycled over the bus, you can use the toucan crossing to get across Charter Row to access Fitzwilliam St, if you can figure out which lane to use on which island.

What this cycle lane shows is:

• a lack consultation with cyclists before it was put in;

• a lack of of clear thinking about hazards, e.g the safe width of a contraflow cycle lane, lane markings for a contraflow cycle lane, the low-level bollards, the unevenness of the path at the ped pinchpoint, lack of adequate signage for cycle lane entry or for oncoming traffic to indicate a contraflow cycle lane

• no conformity with DfT guidance (contrary to promises made by SCC);

• poor workmanship – it looks crap as well as it is crap and carries the meaning that cycling can be treated like crap;

• promises made by SCC at CycleForum are not worth a thing and/or there is no clear leadership at SCC of what ought to take place and no management or monitoring of what is taking place.

The hazards do not stop there.  The main oncoming traffic is buses and taxis.  When I went to survey it, on Thursday 7 Nov, a bus had stopped to set down and pick up passengers.  But the driver had stopped the bus away from the kerb (for no apparent reason, the car illegally parked behind did not prevent him pulling in.)  Note that he is more ‘out’ of the marked bus stop (the yellow dashed line) than ‘in’ it.

This meant that buses and taxis overtaking his bus went into the cycle lane (visible on the left of the photo) even though it is marked with a solid white line.  Has anybody told the bus companies what has been installed on this road?

CycleSheffield requests that the person who designed this cycle lane comes to the next CycleForum (Tue 19 Nov 2013) to explain the rationale behind this design and discuss the principles of designing cycle facilities.  The proposed Cycle Schemes Sub Committee could look at a redesign as a matter of urgency.

And 7 months after what we thought was a ground-breaking CycleForum to agree to collaborate – cycle audits have not started either ….

Mick Nott

Chair, CycleSheffield

7 Nov 2013

The good news is that the gas generator has been fitted with no problem and the site is to stay open.  The other good news is that methane from the site has been tapped since the site was closed and capped off.  The gas-powered generator provides at least 1 MW of electricity to the National Grid.  CycleSheffield’s Sheffield FridayNightRide rode out there in 2010.

CycleSheffield also keep an eye on developments on Parkwood Springs and we know that dumping on this site is due to finish in 2016 and then it will be capped off. It is planned to capture the methane and have a gas generator at this site as well.  Parkwood Springs already has off-road cycling tracks, installed by SCC Parks and Countryside, which are popular.  There are plans for the landfill site itself to be left as green belt and have walking and cycling paths and routes.

CycleSheffield have asked if the Council knows if similar methane seepage problems may arise on Parkwood Springs and if there is a need to prevent something similar happening when landfill there ceases and gas extraction starts.  Our concern is that it could become a no-go area.  We have asked and we trust a response will be forthcoming.

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out–about/parks-woodlands–countryside/trees–woodlands/woodland-sites-and-projects/south-east-sheffield-woodlands-project/shire-brook-local-nature.html

http://www.sfnr.org.uk/past-sheffield-fridaynightrides/20100522-shirebrook-nature-reserve/

http://www.parkwood-springs.btck.co.uk/

What is going on with the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route?

CycleSheffield officers were phoned today (Friday 11 Oct)  by Sheffield City Council officers to see if they were responsible for some direct action.  Apparently someone had padlocked the internal gate in the yard of Virgin Active (VA) in Broadfield Park and it couldn’t be opened.  And it wasn’t a member of VA staff.  This branch of VA has recently left internal and rear service gates open so that its clients can drive in and out on Saxon Rd as well as Broadfield Park, and this has also allowed other drivers to use it as a rat run.

The Sheaf Valley Cycle Route runs up to and alongside VA.  Cyclists have to make a right turn onto a path or join oncoming traffic from the left.  Vehicles using the VA Saxon Rd gates cut across the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route in both directions and a Sheffield Council officer commuting to work has witnessed a cyclist being knocked off their bike by a car using the Saxon Rd entrance.

CycleSheffield has a vocal campaign to get the gates closed again because it is a hazard but the Council have been powerless so far and the manager, Phil Scott, of VA has no intention of closing them unless his head office says so or the Council direct him to do so, backed up by appropriate regulations or legislation.  When it was argued that he was negligent he refused to talk to cyclists and will now only talk with the Council.

CycleSheffield have stated that the padlocking was not their direct action but speculate that it may well be some disgruntled cyclist.  CycleSheffield does not renounce direct action but would always own up to it because publicity is one of the main aims of direct action. It has circulated details of the padlocking to its members but no-one has admitted to doing it.

The reason VA can leave the gates open is because VA never complied with its planning permission to put in bollards.  VA  put in a gate instead, and now allows all the gates to be open all the time.  Sheffield Council never ensured compliance and because over 10 years have elapsed, SCC can’t now enforce the planning regulations it set for VA in the first place.

The consequences of the failure to ensure compliance means that all the money and time Sheffield Council spent on designing the road layouts on Broadfield are wasted and all the money and time it spent on putting in the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route are not only wasted but the route itself is now knowingly hazardous.  Who is to blame?  Not the person who probably in exasperation has padlocked the gate but one’s ire should be directed at Virgin Active and Sheffield City Council.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Please find below the email sent to SCC’s interim Head of Planning today.

To Maria Duffy

Interim Head of Planning

SCC

Dear Maria

Sheaf Valley Cycle Route

We are writing again as a matter of urgency about Virgin Active.   The manager of the VA premises has made it very clear to us that he will only talk and negotiate with the Council, which is why I am writing to you again today.

It has been brought to our attention today that someone, other than VA staff, has padlocked the internal gate at VA.  I can assure you that this direct action is not on CycleSheffield’s part.  CycleSheffield would internally authorise and publicly admit to any acts of direct action it took.

We did ask our members for a status report yesterday and all reports confirmed that the VA access gates on to Saxon Rd are left open everyday.  It was also confirmed that the route through VA is being used as a thoroughfare or highway.

We have your own officers reporting somebody being knocked off her bike by VA ‘induced’ traffic.  SYP were not involved because the person did not seek A&E help and, as far as we know, has not filed an incident report to complain about the driver.  But we have evidence, and no doubt, that the gates being open is a hazard.

We repeat, it seems that SCC:

• need to discuss the situation with the CEO of VA , rather than the local manager;
• has a moral argument.  VA has stuck to the spirit of the planning permission for over 10 years by ensuring that the internal gate was always closed.  It has only recently been opened.  So they have changed the use from previous custom and practice;
• may also have a legal argument.  By opening the gates and allowing the traffic to use the car park as a thoroughfare by people other than their customers then VA has changed the use from solely a car park to also being a highway.  We find it hard to believe that somebody can just change the use from that of a car park to highway without some kind of permission.  It is not marked as a highway would be there are no Give Way signs etc – not that we want these but we want and need it closed.

We would expect our Council not to be craven and to use any means at its disposal to ensure that its intentions are upheld, i.e. the internal gate where the bollards would be is to remain shut unless it needs opening for service purposes.

 We asked to be informed of progress by the next Cycle Forum.  We think this matter is now urgent.  We would like to be updated on current actions and progress with this situation as soon as possible 

Regards,

Mick Nott

Chair, CycleSheffield

We have responded assertively and argue that:

• cycle access to Heeley Retail Park should be restored;
• the situation with the access gates on VA is hazardous and compromises both the cycle route and the traffic flow in and around Broadfield as it has become a rat-run;
• the officer who assessed the situation didn’t understand what he was looking at;
• we expect the planned number of parking places as specified in U-Mix’s planning permission will be in place

In addition we have argued that planning officers:

• should not trust developers to comply with planning permissions
• have wasted money and compromised traffic flow by not ensuring compliance with planning permissions;
• do not understand the difference between a road, path, lane and understand that a route may comprise all three;
• would be better off consulting with cyclists when collecting evidence.

Lastly we have argued that we are not impressed by telling us that many Council officers cycle so understand our point of view.  We have said we will believe that when we see evidence of it in their work.

Full detailed reply below.

==========================================================================================

To Maria Duffy

Interim Head of Planning

SCC

Dear Maria

Sheaf Valley Cycle Route

We have now considered your email of 20 Sep in response to our email of 2 Sep 2013  addressed to Richard Skelton. Congratulations on your appointment as Interim Head of Planning. I trust you are finding the post congenial. We thank you for the detail of your reply and we in turn are as detailed.  The devil is in the detail.

CycleSheffield has recently scouted the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route to corroborate what our members have been telling us.  We note what you said about the line of the route of the cycle path in the Heeley Retail Park.  The main point is that SCC will negotiate with the land-owner and accept that the main option is “the replacement of the steps with a ramp and reinstatement of the approved cycle route, sufficiently clear of Costa customers.”  We are pleased that this is so, although we worry about what the minor options could be.  We expect to hear what progress has been made, say, at the next CycleForum.

We wish to stress that ‘trunk’ cycle routes are important but are also pretty useless without ‘branches’ that are clearly signed and designed to connect to where people live, work and shop.  It would strike us that what Heeley Retail park is doing is closing down cycle access to their retail units.  We trust that SCC does not want to encourage or allow this kind of attitude or behaviour from developers.  Simon Geller has received an email from an officer suggesting an alternative link to Meersbrook via Little London Place that avoids entering Heeley Retail Park.  This suggestion does not negate the need for cycle access to the Retails Park via the path from Little London Road.  What it does do is take the connection to Meersbrook out of the Retail Park.  This is a helpful suggestion.  We will soon have a Cycle Schemes Sub-Committee as part of the Cycle Forum and this suggestion could be brought to and explained to this sub-committee, which in turn would report to the Cycle Forum.

With respect to planning in Sheffield we think the lessons are that

• all new developments (whatever their purpose) should have, as part of their planning requirements/conditions, good quality cycle access, cycle parking and links to cycle trunk routes.
• schemes for the development or alteration of cycle routes now has a formal forum to which we would expect officers to bring ideas, plans, TROs and so on.

We dispute your argument about the cycle route.  We think you and your officers have concentrated on the path, and ignored the designated route.  The cycle route is on a roughly north-south line along the road on Saxon Rd and is continuous with a shared-use path beside Virgin Active.  We are talking about a route which consists of a shared-use path and a road at the location in question.  Your argument misrepresents the situation.

Let’s be clear: travelling along the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route from the North to the South a cyclist leaves Saxon Rd by making a right turn, across oncoming traffic from the WNW direction on Saxon Rd, to continue on the route onto the shared-use path.  There is a ‘fillet’ of a cycle lane in the middle of Saxon Rd at this point to help cyclists with this manouevre and to flag to motorists that cyclists will be in the middle of the road.  Travelling from the South on the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route a cyclist leaves the path beside Virgin Active and has to join the traffic coming from the left in the WNW direction to continue on the route on Saxon Rd.

Now that VA has opened its access gates for access with Saxon Rd then vehicles leaving VA to turn left onto Saxon Rd will either come into conflict with north-travelling cyclists turning right, or south-travelling cyclists joining Saxon Rd traffic from the left. If the vehicles leaving VA join Saxon Rd to go North then there is not a conflict with the cyclists on the route.

Vehicles entering VA from the North from Saxon Rd may conflict with cyclists travelling South and cyclists travelling South waiting to turn right may block the field of view of oncoming traffic on Saxon Rd for these drivers.  Vehicles entering VA from the WNW direction on Saxon Rd may come into conflict with cyclists exiting the path to continue onto Saxon Rd.

This is represented on a map for your and your officers perusal at http://goo.gl/maps/nwlau.  The point is that this car traffic has increased traffic flow on Saxon Rd, created rat-runs that SCC did not want, drivers entering or leaving VA will be on to this junction before they are ready as there are no give way lines or signs within VA that it is a junction at which they have to Give Way or a hazard is present.

We think these are all unnecessary hazards and would be avoided if VA stuck with sole access via Broadfield Court which was the intention of the original planning permission. 

We note that VA did not comply with its original planning permission.  It installed an internal gate instead of bollards and now it opens both its internal gate and its rear access gate with the intention of providing ease of access and convenience to its customers.  We surveyed VA the other night for approximately 5 minutes where we could see rear gates and front entrance.  We noted two vehicles use it as a rat-run to make a journey from Heeley to Broadfield and a CycleSheffield member has had it confirmed by his neighbours that they use it as a rat-run too.  VA’s actions are confounding the Council’s attempts to control the flow of traffic in this neighbourhood.

We would be willing to go with the officer who reported back to you to the location so he can listen to experienced cyclists to ensure that s/he understood the difference between a route, a path and a road.

You say, “Officers have investigated the planning permission for Virgin Active and the approved plans show a line of bollards across the access at the side of the building which would have prevented vehicles accessing the front.  Unfortunately, Virgin did not put the bollards in place and this has only very recently come to light because until a short time ago, the existing gates were kept shut allowing access for service traffic only.

Virgin have now been operating for more than 10 years and, unfortunately, planning legislation does not allow the Council to take any enforcement action to force Virgin to put the bollards in place.  We will however write to Virgin Active, pointing out the hazard and seeking their agreement to restrict the use of the gates for servicing.”

One of our members has written to VA and we received a surly, curt response and notification that they will only deal with the Council.  We trust you have more luck than we did.  It seems to us that this may be an issue you need to approach the CEO of VA about.  But it does seem to us that you have a moral argument.  VA stuck to the spirit of the planning permission by ensuring that the internal gate was always closed.  It may also be a legal argument of something like custom and practice and we would expect our Council not to be craven and to use any means at its disposal to ensure that its intentions are upheld. i.e. the internal gate where the bollards would be is to remain shut unless it needs opening for service purposes. Please let us know of your progress on this matter by, say, the next Cycle Forum.

Lastly we want to express our weary disappointment that nobody seems to ensure that developers comply with planning regs.  For a development of this size, think how much could have been saved by a visit early on to ensure the bollards were in place.  For the lack of a small amount of time enforcing compliance the Council is now left with both a flagship cycle route and expensive plans and developments of traffic flow in the neighbourhood compromised.  As you say VA has been there over 10 years so the reason for lack of enforcement can’t be shortage of staff brought on by Government cuts.  We think they are the result of poor, if not incompetent,  management and monitoring of developments.  Officers should be ashamed at this waste of money and degradation of facilities.

If you want more evidence of rat-running through VA and you are short of staff then we could discuss collecting it ourselves.

With respect to planning in Sheffield we think the lessons are these:

• do not trust developers to comply with planning permissions.  Compliance is an essential part of the planning process too and compliance must be actively monitored by officers and if necessary enforcement must be done.
• ensure when discussing items like cycle routes that officers take the time to know and understand that words like path, road, lane all have different and complementary meanings and routes are most often combinations of all three of these elements.
• officers whose expertise may not be in cycling or understanding cyclists’ perspectives should consult with cyclists to check on what they are reporting.

We note what you say about the alternative parking provided for U-Mix.  We are delighted that this is being used and it is clearly signed.  The original planning permission was specific about the number of parkings spaces that should be available.  I think we would like confirmation that this number is now in place.  Please let us know of your progress on this matter by, say, the next Cycle Forum.

We note that you say, “There are full parking restrictions along Asline Road in the form of double yellow lines and there is also an issue of enforcing these restrictions separate from the planning issues.  We will be exploring the possibility of better enforcement of the parking restrictions.”  We have met the police commissioner about cycling matters in general and as a result we are meeting with a Superintendent in Sheffield to discuss cycling matters. The police directing football coaches to park on the Asline Rd cycle path will be one of those matters.  We will be providing feedback at the next CycleForum  Please let us know of your progress on this matter by, say, the next Cycle Forum.

We thank you for detailing who is looking after this case and we trust you share this correspondence with them.  We note that you say, “ …a number of my planning and highway officers use the Sheaf Valley Cycle route themselves on their cycle commute to and from work and that gives them a good understanding of the problems you have identified.”  That may well be but until the responsible officers: put cycling higher up the planning agenda; read, internalise and enact Council policy and action plans; consult with cyclists as they ought to; train themselves to do cycle audits, as they should have started to do in 2006; then we do not see how their personal cycling experience informs the quality of their work.

With respect to planning in Sheffield we think the lesson is one’s personal experience and attitude does not necessarily match one’s professional experience and attitude. Don’t confuse the two.

 We would find it helpful to meet with you and John Bann the Head of Transport ,Traffic and Parking Services to discuss matters in general and perhaps we can look at arranging a meeting after the next CycleForum where we can assess progress made and knock some ideas about.

Regards,

Mick Nott

Chair, CycleSheffield