Bristol-Bath cyclepath closure

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith posted ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Danny Colyer posted ...

> More notice would have been nice.

A weeks notice isn't enough, sheesh, what would be ?

Try shutting a through-route for cars (say, the M25)
with 2.5 days notice and see how you get on.

What do you think they can do except shut a cycle path if
it's being resurfaced ? It's not as if the cyclists can't
use the road, is it, so it's only like blocking a
specific lane of a road off .. which is often done, even
on motorways, with absolutely zero notice.

Not for routine maintenance.

As for 'it's not as if the cyclists can't use the road", it
may have escaped your notice, but in teh case of doing works
on teh M25, it's not as if motorists can't use other roads.

Quoted message said:

One day the whole motorway is open, the next there's only
two or one lane open .. with no notice given or expected

Again, not for routine maintenance. Furthermore, when works
might upset motorists then all sorts is done with
contraflows etc. to minimise disruption. In some cases they
go as far as to construct temporary new roads alongside teh
work site to take teh traffic. Nothing like this much
thought is ever applied to cycle facilities - it's just 'use
the road', regardless of how inconvenient that may be.

There used to be one decent off-road path near me - up teh
A24 between Dorking and Leatherhead. It's teh only
segregated facility I use locally. Someone's decided to
upgrade a water main, and for teh best part of a year teh
cycle path has been ripped to shreds and dotted with big
holes (as in 4m square, 3 or 4m deep). Construction plane is
parked over the path, in places they've ripped teh surface
up and left a sea of mud, and elsewhere there are great
stacks of steel water main pipes. So the poor hard-done-by
motorist doesn't get his two lanmes reduced to one, teh
cyclist loses the entire facility. Great.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Quoted message said:

It just seemed strange to me, given the amount of cycle
path knocking that goes on in this newsgroup,

There are paths and paths. This is a good one.

Bristol and Bath were linked by two parallel railway lines,
built by two companies. As one of them terminated in Bath,
whilst the other was the London-Bristol main-line, then the
spare line was quite sensibly Beechinged.

With hindsight, the ends of the removed line would now
have value as commuter feeders for both Bath and
especially Bristol. There's even talk of doing this at the
Bath end. There's a park and ride scheme at Newbridge,
about 2 miles out of downtown Bath. As part of the west
end riverside regeneration, there are serious plans about
running some form of tramway down the old railway route
out to the park and ride.

As a cycle path, this is a good one. It's an excellent
alignment for a cycle path, as all old railways are - flat,
reasonable width. It's also a good route. There's a lot of
amenity value in getting out of either city and into the
country or onto the Avon. In contrast, road cycling around
here is horrible - the roads are narrow, hilly and very
badly overloaded with traffic. I'll happily cycle the hills
South of Bristol, but I really wouldn't relish riding them
out towards Bath. Bristol-Bath is also an important commuter
run, and it's within cycling range for almost anyone (the
benfit of not having those hills).

Bad cyclepaths though are generally arbitrary. Paths that go
nowhere and have no function. Paths with no budget for
earthworks and so end up as miniature Ventoux. Paths whose
sole purpose seems to be to segregate cyclists from proper
modes of transport, because after all it's only a few
nutters taking their kids out for a jolly, isn't it.

--
Smert' spamionam

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:49:13 +0000 someone who may be Andy Dingley
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Bristol and Bath were linked by two parallel railway lines,
built by two companies. As one of them terminated in Bath,
whilst the other was the London-Bristol main-line, then the
spare line was quite sensibly Beechinged.

Neither line terminated in Bath. The line you are thinking
of went to Bournemouth and it was one of the silly Beeching
cuts to close it down. Not the most silly, but still silly.
The line that was closed served the northern part of Bristol
rather better than the one that was not closed as well.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Ian Smith posted ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith posted ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Danny Colyer posted ...
>
>> More notice would have been nice.
>
> A weeks notice isn't enough, sheesh, what would be ?

Try shutting a through-route for cars (say, the M25)
with 2.5 days notice and see how you get on.

What do you think they can do except shut a cycle path
if it's being resurfaced ? It's not as if the cyclists
can't use the road, is it, so it's only like blocking a
specific lane of a road off .. which is often done, even
on motorways, with absolutely zero notice.

Not for routine maintenance.

It wsn't for routine maintenance .. if you bother to read
the original post ..

Quoted message said:

As for 'it's not as if the cyclists can't use the road",
it may have escaped your notice, but in teh case of doing
works on teh M25, it's not as if motorists can't use
other roads.

er, I wonder what they did before the M25 then ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One day the whole motorway is open, the next there's
only two or one lane open .. with no notice given or
expected

Again, not for routine maintenance. Furthermore, when
works might upset motorists then all sorts is done with
contraflows etc. to minimise disruption.

By blocking lanes and such like, which because a cycle
path is so small they can't do can they ? Which was my
point .. which you conveniently snipped in the following
paragraph ...

"Most major road routes can operate using one less lane 'cos
tarmacing machinery is only built, normally, to lay one lane
width at a time. I guess a cyclepath, being normally much
less wide can't be 'coned off' in separate lanes, and is a
manual operation, so safety of the workforce is an issue on
such a narrow space."

Quoted message said:

In some cases they go as far as to construct temporary new
roads alongside teh work site to take teh traffic. Nothing
like this much thought is ever applied to cycle facilities
- it's just 'use the road', regardless of how inconvenient
that may be.

er .. yes they did make temporary cyclepaths in Nottingham
in certain areas, where it was feasible, whilst constructing
the recent tramway system.

Quoted message said:

So the poor hard-done-by motorist doesn't get his two
lanmes reduced to one, teh cyclist loses the entire
facility. Great.

Life's tough sometimes, the cyclist can, and perhaps should,
use the road while the cyclepath is re-done, the driver
can't use the cyclepath if the road is blocked .. 😉

--
Paul

(8(|) Homer rocks .. 😉

Quoted message said:

It wsn't for routine maintenance .. if you bother to read
the original post ..

As the OP, I will state that I regard this as routine
maintenance.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
Why I like OE6 - speedy5.freeserve.co.ukoe6.htmlOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

That said, there was one small area that I did find
unpleasant where the path went through Easton in Bristol,
and on my last days I took the road to avoid this part. I
witnessed a cyclist being physically attacked by a couple
of yobs on a motorscooter who had been racing up and down
the path and who had hit out at him with an umbrella. (I
ended up calling 999 and being a witness). It also seemed
that a bonfire had been lit on the path at the same point.

Was that 'physically attacked' as in knocked off his bike
and given a good kicking or just being hit with the
umbrella? Fortunately I turn off just before Easton every
day. The cyclepath behind the back of Lawrence Weston has
quite often had kids 2 up on motorscooters using it as a
racetrack when I've been along it but they seem
relatively harmless.

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith posted ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith posted ...

> Try shutting a through-route for cars (say, the M25)
> with 2.5 days notice and see how you get on.

What do you think they can do except shut a cycle path
if it's being resurfaced ? It's not as if the cyclists
can't use the road, is it, so it's only like blocking
a specific lane of a road off .. which is often done,
even on motorways, with absolutely zero notice.

Not for routine maintenance.

It wsn't for routine maintenance .. if you bother to read
the original post ..

Are you deliberately being snide?

Let's see, original posting:

"Essential maintenance works are being carried out between
the Avon Valley railway station at Bitton and the River
Avon bridge.

"This path will be closed to all users during working hours
whilst surfacing machinery is in use."

So what part of essential maintenance using resurfacing
machinery do you consider not to be routine maintenance?
I think it's you that should "bother to read the
original post".

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith posted ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith posted ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Ian Smith posted ...
>
>> Try shutting a through-route for cars (say, the M25)
>> with 2.5 days notice and see how you get on.
>
> What do you think they can do except shut a cycle path
> if it's being resurfaced ? It's not as if the cyclists
> can't use the road, is it, so it's only like blocking
> a specific lane of a road off .. which is often done,
> even on motorways, with absolutely zero notice.

Not for routine maintenance.

It wsn't for routine maintenance .. if you bother to
read the original post ..

Are you deliberately being snide?

Let's see, original posting:

"Essential maintenance works are being carried out between
the Avon Valley railway station at Bitton and the River
Avon bridge.

"This path will be closed to all users during working
hours whilst surfacing machinery is in use."

So what part of essential maintenance using resurfacing
machinery do you consider not to be routine maintenance?
I think it's you that should "bother to read the
original post".

Because surfacing machinery was being used, I thought the OP
considered it not to be routine maintenance as he also
specifically mentioned other 'patched' areas which may have
been routine maintenance. I thought he figured it was not
routine, but essential and fairly major, though I don't know
how far the works will extend, but certainly if it's more
than about 10 foot, I'd say that's not routine maintenance.

--
Paul

(8(|) Homer rocks .. 😉

In article <[email hidden]>,

JohnB said:

Slower?

Yes.

Or have they dipensed with pedestrians, dogs, "family"
cyclists, and the various barriers on the route (eg at each
road crossing)?

Or are you one of those cyclists who terrorises anyone
slower than yourself?

Or maybe it's both of the above, and inconsiderate cyclists
have driven everyone else off the path making it like those
roads where no pedestrians get killed because they don't
dare go there at all?

Quoted message said:

On the morning I left the path at Fishponds and took the
road into Bristol my average dropped to around 12 as
every set of traffic lights into Bristol seemed to be
against me.

That's the urban bit, and IIRC fishponds dumps you on a
slow/grotty road as compared to the A4. ISTR my time for
Bath to Brislington being 30-35 minutes for 9.9 miles on the
A4 (same as in a car, and maybe 25% longer than on a
motorcycle). That was my fastest commute in the area, 'cos
it was the only one without hills.

--
Nick Kew

Nick Kew said:

In article <[email hidden]>, JohnB

Quoted message said:

Slower?

Yes.

Not for me.

Quoted message said:

Or have they dipensed with pedestrians, dogs, "family"
cyclists, and the various barriers on the route (eg at
each road crossing)?

Or are you one of those cyclists who terrorises anyone
slower than yourself?

Oh FFS I thought this was a friendly newsgroup. I cannot be
bothered with this rubbish.

John B

Quoted message said:

I thought he figured it was not routine, but essential and
fairly major, though I don't know how far the works will
extend, but certainly if it's more than about 10 foot, I'd
say that's not routine maintenance.

It's 2km. However, I regard the resurfacing of a surfaced
route whose surface has deteriorated significantly over time
as routine maintenance.

I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in the original post,
but the purpose of the post was simply to inform any readers
who may have been planning to use the route next week that
they may not be able to do so.

Perhaps some history is appropriate. As you are no doubt
aware, the path follows the route of an old railway that was
closed by Beeching. Part of that railway has been rebuilt
alongside the cyclepath by the Bitton Railway Company
(actually ISTR they changed their name recently, I think it
may now be the Avon Valley Railway Company), which runs
steam trains in both directions from Bitton Station.

Over the last couple of years the railway has been
extended. It now terminates 2km South of Bitton Station,
where a new platform has been built (the idea being to
provide rail access to Avon Valley Country Park). To make
room for the platform, the cyclepath has been diverted
several yards to the West.

At either end of the diversion, the join between the old
surface and the new is of poor quality. At the Southern end
the path has had to be widened to make room for the railway
without sacrificing cyclepath width, but the added width
has yet to be surfaced. Presumably they're now ready to
finish the job.

The path along the intervening 2km has developed numerous
cracks and potholes over the years and would benefit from
resurfacing. For a distance of about 200 yards from Bitton
Station the surface is atrocious. This surface has been
patched in the past, and this is where patching has been
applied in the past couple of weeks. The council's statement
reads as if these patches were temporary and the entire 2km
will be resurfaced. I hope that this is the case.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
Why I like OE6 - speedy5.freeserve.co.ukoe6.htmlOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

AndyP said:

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

That said, there was one small area that I did find
unpleasant where the path went through Easton in
Bristol, and on my last days I took the road to avoid
this part. I witnessed a cyclist being physically
attacked by a couple of yobs on a motorscooter who had
been racing up and down the path and who had hit out at
him with an umbrella. (I ended up calling 999 and being
a witness). It also seemed that a bonfire had been lit
on the path at the same point.

Was that 'physically attacked' as in knocked off his bike
and given a good kicking or just being hit with the
umbrella? Fortunately I turn off just before Easton every
day. The cyclepath behind the back of Lawrence Weston has
quite often had kids 2 up on motorscooters using it as a
racetrack when I've been along it but they seem relatively
harmless.

It was at the back of the Easton Community Centre by Owen
Square Park. I was attending the first day of my Cycle
Training course which was being held there.

The cyclist was not on his bike but standing. The two on the
motorscooter (unplated so probably stolen) were racing up
and down a stretch of about 200 yards weaving all over the
path making it impossible to ride.

As they went passed him they held the umbrella out and raced
towards him whacking him as they passed. Something may have
been said, as they returned to him and continued to hit him
with the umbrella then thumped his head and he went down. He
was bleeding from the ear. A crowd had gathered and the yobs
disapperaed. The police arrived very quickly - in about
three minutes. I was still on the phone to their control
when they arrived.

Later that evening several police were walking in the area
checking undergrowth, I suspect for the scooter. There was
also a police cyclist patrolling.

While using the Centre someone else entered the building and
a mobile phone was stolen. It is clearly a problem area.
Because of this the venue was changed to another Centre.

John B

Nick Kew said:

Or have they dipensed with pedestrians, dogs, "family"
cyclists, and the various barriers on the route (eg at
each road crossing)?

Family cyclists are very rare during morning rush hour,
and during evening rush hour for most of the year. Dog
walkers generally don't come out when it rains, which
makes riding in the rain rather nice. The barriers have
been partially removed. There is no reason for the rider
of an upright solo bike without a trailer to dismount at
any point along the path.

For my commute the cyclepath is the quickest route because
it is by far the shortest route. For most of the distance I
could go faster on the road, but it would still take longer
because of the extra distance travelled.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
Why I like OE6 - speedy5.freeserve.co.ukoe6.htmlOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:32:45 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The two on the motorscooter (unplated so probably stolen)
were racing up and down a stretch of about 200 yards
weaving all over the path making it impossible to ride.

Skymarshalls are probably pointless on aeroplanes, but would
seem to be an ideal solution in such circumstances:-)

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:16:17 +0000, JohnB <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Oh FFS I thought this was a friendly newsgroup. I cannot be
bothered with this rubbish.

I reckon Nick hasn't seen the Bristol-Bath trail. With the
exception of the road crossings I like it, it is that rarest
of all beasts, a useful psychlepath. It's easy to understand
scepticism.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Try shutting a through-route for cars (say, the M25) with
2.5 days notice and see how you get on.

What do you think they can do except shut a cycle path if
it's being resurfaced ?

Unless there was an earthquake in Bitton last week that I
didn't notice, there wasn't a sudden need for this re-
surfacing.

For the last week, workmen have been trimming the earth
overlap at the side of the affected stretch of path,
clearly as preparation. Yet the signs didn't go up until
they'd finished.

--
Smert' spamionam

David Hansen said:

Neither line terminated in Bath.

Green Park station (which is still standing) was a terminus.

Quoted message said:

The line you are thinking of went to Bournemouth

There was a single line from this which branched off by
what's currently the gasworks site, then curved South and
ran over the top of the GWR main line. As part of the SDJR,
it did indeed go to Bournemouth, but it's hardly part of the
same line. The train would certainly have had to reverse in
and out of Green Park and apart from Summer excursions from
Bristol, I'd have expected it to be a change of trains.

Quoted message said:

The line that was closed served the northern part of
Bristol rather better than the one that was not
closed as well.

The line was built by the Bristol and Gloucester company and
headed North, splitting from the cycle path at Mangotsfield
junction (the platforms and some walls are still visible on
the path). One of the main reasons behind building it was
coal traffic from the many small collieries in the area. Its
link to Bath was somewhat incidental, although valuable, and
was always based on goods traffic rather than passengers.
The GWR line had minimal goods yard space and the Midland
was better placed to capitalise on this. With manufacturing
in Bath going seriously downhill in the '50s (there's no
Jane Austen out on the West side !), the small collieries
closing, and the passenger link being a duplicate of
another, then this line really didn't have any viability.

As a Fishponds resident though, I'd agree completely that
we could use a commuter link out this side of Bristol. It
would carry on North at Mangotsfield though, not curve
West to Bath.

--
Smert' spamionam

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith posted ...

Quoted message said:

So what part of essential maintenance using resurfacing
machinery do you consider not to be routine maintenance?
I think it's you that should "bother to read the
original post".

Because surfacing machinery was being used, I thought the
OP considered it not to be routine maintenance as he also
specifically mentioned other 'patched' areas which may
have been routine maintenance. I thought he figured it
was not routine, but essential and fairly major, though I
don't know how far the works will extend, but certainly
if it's more than about 10 foot, I'd say that's not
routine maintenance.

All surfacing wears out and needs to be replaced (with teh
possible exception of setts, I suppose, where the rate of
wear is such that you'll get a few hundred years before
it's noticeable, and possibly a few thousand before it
becomes unserviceable). Replacement of any modern road
surface is routine.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:43:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Dingley
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Neither line terminated in Bath.

Green Park station (which is still standing) was a
terminus.

Correct. However, that does not mean that the line
terminated in Bath. It continued to Bournemouth.

Quoted message said:

As part of the SDJR, it did indeed go to Bournemouth, but
it's hardly part of the same line.

I'm sure people using the Bristol - Bournemouth trains would
have been fascinated to be told that.

In terms of railway ownership the extension from Evercreech
to Bath was built by a separate company to the one that
built the line from Mangotsfield to Bath. However, when the
extension bankrupted the former company the latter company
took joint control. From then on it provided the moving part
of the railway, while its partner company provided the fixed
part of the railway. That arrangement continued until the
successors of the GWR were given control and started
deliberately running the line down for closure. However,
this is now really off-topic.

Quoted message said:

The train would certainly have had to reverse in and out of
Green Park

Reversals are a feature of a number of stations.

Quoted message said:

and apart from Summer excursions from Bristol, I'd have
expected it to be a change of trains.

Incorrect. The main service was the Bristol - Bournemouth
one. There were also some Bristol - Bath trains and a
handful of trains that started in Bath and went to places
south of Bath.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It was at the back of the Easton Community Centre by Owen
Square Park. I was attending the first day of my Cycle
Training course which was being held there.

The cyclist was not on his bike but standing. The two on
the motorscooter (unplated so probably stolen) were racing
up and down a stretch of about 200 yards weaving all over
the path making it impossible to ride.

I think the point where I turn off the cyclepath by the
railway bridge onto Russell Town Avenue is within sight of
that. I've only ever seen one or maybe two scooter joyriders
in 4 years of using it.