snippets from the April campaign meeting:
* Cobden Avenue: Plans to reshape the junction at St Catherine’s Road plus a pedestrian island. Early days but if you have opinions do contact the council to express them.
* Tebourba Way: Plans for a crossing Oakley Road → Tesco; plans for a crossing at Romsey Road with cycling link to Percy Avenue
* Burgess Road: Possible cycle lane from Glen Eyre Road towards Boldrewood. Again, early days, contact the council with *your* opinions.
* Lower High Street: This is a proposed redevelopment of the lower High Street area. You can view the plan as a PDF as a PNG image. Please send your feedback to kevin.jenkin@southampton.gov.uk or write to Kevin Jenkin at the council.
* Hill lane: This is to be one of our campaigning issues for the near future—extending the Hill lane cycle lane all the way to the station and improve safety at the turning near Wilton Avenue. Please write to the council to tell them you would like to see these improvements
* Lover’s Walk: The lights are on; the common/Lovers’ Walk has been added to the “Night Scouting” scheme in which regular checks are made and defective lights recorded and repaired. The annoying boards have also gone from the path between Winn Road and Westwood Road. We are considering inviting Lin Hand and John Dyas-Slade to a meeting to try and find out more about their plans for the common and discuss how they can take the needs of cyclists into account (this might avoid a repeat of the Lovers’ Walk lighting fiasco).
Don’t forget – elections coming up in the next couple of weeks. Now is a good time to make sure your councillors know what you want from them …
Keep an eye on the events calendar: lots of events coming up in the next few months; Uni Transport Day and Enviro rock this month, Social ride in May, Bike Week in June …
Next meeting: AGM!
Latest newsletter is now online.
This one is not directly related to cyclists, but hot on the heels of the lovers’ walk fiasco comes the blackout of 400 street lamps on a Romsey estate. A local resident claims “There has been more crime over the last few weeks.
“Cars have been damaged, gardens have been damaged and we’re frightened that as time goes on, it will get worse because people know there’s no lighting in the area.”
Hampshire is evidently determined to get its lights out somehow!
read the article on bbc news.
portswood.info reports that
The Common has been receiving a face lift over the past few days. White lines on paths are being touched up, and warning stickers are being replaced on lamp posts.
As part of this effort, prominent No Cycling symbols have been applied on several paths where cycling is not permitted. The confusion comes because this symbol is a change from the one that Common users have been used to seeing. The old sign showed a bike with a diagonal line through it. However the Department for Transport sign now in use is a red circle with a bike in the middle – no diagonal line.
Some walkers, unfamiliar with the rules of the roads, are already expressing confusion as to the status of paths, and are concerned that cyclists may also not understand the rules.
story with pictures.
This follows December’s saga concerning light switch-offs for safety (which were postponed till the Spring), which resulted in the council’s cycling officers being added to the Common team.
To express your views, you can use writetothem, email Dale Bostock (cycling officer, be nice to him) or Lin Hand (common management); contact Lindsi or come along to a cycling campaign meeting.
Councillor John Hannides has backed calls to abandon controversial plans to switch off street lighting along Lovers’ Walk. The Daily Echo reports:
The cabinet member for leisure and culture said he would like to see improved lighting, enhanced CCTV and shrubs removed along the designated cycle path that links Burgess Road with Highfield Avenue.
Realistically, if the discussion at the SCC meeting in December was anything to go buy, this is extremely unlikely to happen…
Read more in the Daily Echo
Some assorted documentation—communications with the council—for the Lovers Walk issue can be viewed here:
Scc PeteBrunskCommnLights071127
petetina2
petetina1
LoversWlkLightsoffSCCbrief 191107
johnheath
Some points from last night’s meeting
* the light switch-off has been delayed
* the council are meeting with the university on the 17th to discuss a way forward
* but the lights probably will be switched off for a trial period
It was suggested that the lighting issue is something of a red herring to the real issue, which is about creating good routes around the university and university sites, and to the schools in the area. Even with lighting Lovers’ Walk is not a great route as it is. Practically, widening it and removing the vegetation is not going to happen, nor adding white lines to mark the path edges – as I understand it this is to do with its status as an SSSI. During the switch off the council hope to sign alternative routes, and monitor their usage.
You can contact Lin Hand at southampton.gov.uk to make suggestions and express your views. University members should contact university security to express their views on this issue.
* Lovers Walk: if you’re on facebook and you’re interested in cycle paths around the university, check out the Campaign for Better Cycle Paths and Footpaths group. There is also a petition you can sign. This is not specific to the lighting issue on Lovers’ Walk but of general interest to people who walk or cycle to the university, especially at night.
* People’s Millions: Phone voting is now open. Phone 0870 24 24 602 to vote for Sustrans Connect 2. Visit the website to read more about all four projects and to cast an online vote.
The Council, through the Common Management, are proposing to switch off the lights along the length of the Lover’s Lane path in the NE corner of the common from 10th December until March 2008 as a ‘pilot’ scheme for increasing users’ security. They already intend to remove (the few) lamps along the stretch of gravel footpath behind houses on Burgess Rd where this approach has already “been very successful”. But this is an entirely misleading comparison to use to back their contention that simply deterring pedestrians and cyclists from using the path will prevent attacks and muggings after dark. It might well, if no-one uses it, but if they do venture along there will be the additional hazards of slipping off the steep edges or colliding with unseen pedestrians to contend with in the darkness! They seem to have completely overlooked the fact it will not only greatly inconvenience people but more seriously, cyclists will be forced to resort to alternative local very busy roads where they will be exposed to far greater danger than the risk of a rare attack on the path—only two attacks have happened on this path in a year. They have, by their own admission, not consulted cyclists or cycling organisations but have since apologised for this. The minimum we have come to expect is notice of such proposals through the Cycle Forum or the Cycling Officer and at least a decent period of consultation, not just two weeks. Lindsi will be requesting that cyclists are represented on the Common Safety and Security group in the future.
Please read
their case [pdf] (
[word doc]) and if you are concerned to give an opinion please either contact Lin Hand (in charge of Common management) direct on T: 023 8067 1921 or email :
lin.hand@southampton.gov.uk or the Campaign through
Lindsi or come to the next Southampton Cycling Campaign meeting on Monday 10th December to express your views so that we may formulate or response as a body.
It is also important to copy in or contact Dale Bostock (Dale.Bostock@southampton.gov.uk) or Peter Brunskill (Pete.Brunskill@southampton.gov.uk) about this too as they are very concerned about this as they were not consulted either! You can also contact or write to the Cabinet Member for Housing and Neighbourhoods Councillor Philip Williams (e: councillor.p.williams@southampton.gov.uk) who is responsible for the Open Spaces section which is in charge of the Common Management Unit.
[Daily Echo article]
[File: loverswalk.pdf loverswalk.doc]
