Cycling along a new Highways Agency scheme

Between 2011 and 2014, a relatively short 2.5 mile stretch of the A23 (the trunk road running between London and Brighton, on the south coast) was widened from two lanes in each direction, to three. This was a £79 million project – the plans for which are available here –  which brought this short stretch of 4 lane dual carriageway into the line with the six-lane nature of the rest of the road.  The A23 is now very much a motorway-style road.

Part of this upgrade included a properly separated walking and cycling route. Prior to the widening project, if you wanted to cycle along this stretch of the A23, you had to do so… on the carriageway itself.

The A23 cycling environment, in 2008.

The A23 cycling environment, in 2008.

This road carried (and still carries) around 60-70,000 vehicles a day, travelling at high speeds, so really, anything would be an improvement, compared to cycling in this kind of environment, which is only something the most hardcore nutters would even consider.

I’ve been told that the Highways Agency are proud of what they’ve done for cycling as part of this project – that they think it’s really excellent. So, my curiosity piqued, I headed out to have a look at it.

The first thing to say is, it’s much, much better than anything else I’ve seen built for cycling in this area. There aren’t any barriers along it, the path is smooth, and it looks like it’s been well-built (I guess it helps if motorway contractors are building it as part of a much larger scheme), and it’s reasonably direct. I’ve been passed comments by local cycling campaigners who have used words like ‘excellent’ to describe it, and ‘pleasantly surprised’.

To be fair, I was actually pleasantly surprised myself – it was better than I expected. But (and here’s the ‘but’) – ‘much, much better’ than infrastructure that’s been built in West Sussex is the definition of faint praise. It’s not really that hard to exceed expectations here, because the infrastructure is either non-existent, or dismally bad – even stuff that’s being built in 2015.

So while this section of the A23 is usable, and good by local standards, by Dutch standards – and by the standards we should be aspiring to – it’s pretty poor. It’s not of an acceptable width, and on the few occasions where it does have to deal with ‘technicalities’ (i.e. crossing roads and entrances) it fails dismally.

I’m reluctant to criticise the Highways Agency here. They have at least thought about designing for cycling, and done a reasonable job. But given that this was a £79m project, involving substantial engineering, basics like building the path wider than an (in my opinion, unsafe) width of two metres should really have happened as a matter of course. It would have cost next to nothing extra, in relative terms, set against the massive overall cost. But let’s have a look at it.

I cycled from south to north, and then back again; most of my photographs were taken on the northbound trip. I joined the scheme pretty much where it starts, at the ‘Warninglid’ junction, where the Cuckfield Road crosses the A23 on a bridge.

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.17.42

Looking north, heading down towards the A23, on the right of the photograph.

It was a little unnerving cycling down here, towards a slip road onto a massive trunk road. It just didn’t feel like somewhere you should be on a bike, given the long history of abandoning cycling on these kinds of roads in Britain. It’s the kind of environment I’ve approached in trepidation before, carefully assessing where I might need to bail out and retrace my steps. But sure enough, at the roundabout there were small cycling signs pointing in the direction of Handcross, sending me down a service road, marked as a ‘dead end’.

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.17.58

We really need to start putting exemption plates on these signs; it’s a dead end for motor traffic, but it isn’t for walking and cycling. It’s a route.

This turned out to be absolutely fine. The service road leads to two businesses – a car dealership, and a garden centre. That’s it. The entrances and exits to these businesses that used to exist on the A23 have been closed off, and the A23 is fenced away, on the right.
Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.18.09

I only met one vehicle going down this stretch of road. Perhaps the road itself it could be designed a little bit better. The limit is marked at 40mph, which seemed a bit too high for a cycle route, and given the likely volume of motor traffic here it might make more sense to adopt ‘Dutch style’ cycle lane markings on either side, and no centre line. But despite that I think it works – service roads like this can be good cycling environments if traffic volumes are low, and that appears to be the case here.

At the end of the service road, there is another set of (confusing) ‘dead end’ signs. If you’re walking or cycling, again, you have to ignore these, because the ‘dead end’ is your route.
Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.18.16

As the service road comes to an end, you are directed onto a 2m path, pretty close to the A23, but still shielded by a wooden fence. It feels okay, but (and this is my major quibble) it’s just not wide enough for a two-way path.
Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.18.27

The path then meanders around a spill pond, presumably designed to ‘capture’ run-off from the A23 to prevent flooding. This pond must requires motor vehicle access, because the path immediately widens to 4m.

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.18.46

The stingy 2m path instantly becomes 4m at the point motor vehicle access is required.

This was the best bit of the entire ‘upgraded’ route. The path was beautifully wide and smooth, and a good distance away from the A23 itself. Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.18.50We then meet Slaugham Lane, a minor country lane that used to have entry and exit slips onto the A23 – dangerous ones, which have sensibly now been closed, just like the direct entry and exit points for the garden centre, which is now only on a service road.

This is the right thing to do – it doesn’t make sense to have a motorway-style road butting immediately onto a small country lane, or onto businesses. There were some local objections to the loss of this junction, because they now have to drive further, but if you’re going to turn an A-road into something like a motorway, then that should also mean decreasing the number of access points. Motorways (and trunk roads) should be for long-distance trips, not for enabling short ones.
Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.19.04This ‘closure’ now means this country lane is completely separated from the A23 (except on foot and bike, of course), so it’s even quieter than it was before. This is definitely a positive outcome. We do, however, have to cross under the A23 (on the bridges in the photograph above), because the path switches sides and continues northwards on the other side of it, the east side.Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.19.09

Here we turn left onto the old entry/exit slip road leading back up to the southbound A23, which is now only an access to a farm and to the continuing cycle path beside the main road. (Annoyingly, it’s another misleading ‘dead end’ sign).

This section is, unfortunately, not as good – we’re back to a measly 2m. Meanwhile the farm has a nice and generous new 4m concrete road, as if to say, here’s what you could have won.Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.19.17

And it is very close to the road. HGVs come whistling past you a few metres away, as there’s no hard shoulder.Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.19.22

People commented on Twitter when I shared this picture that they would ‘take this’, given that it is on the correct side of the crash barrier, and that many UK A-roads don’t have anything like this, at all. That’s fair enough, but I don’t think our current low horizons and low expectations should mean being satisfied with something that is substandard. It can and should be better. In fact at this width I think this path is dangerously narrow for two-way cycling, given that this section of the A23 is on a reasonably steep hill.

This is what a path beside a major road should look like.

Screen Shot 2016-02-22 at 00.37.41

Wide enough to not have to worry about oncoming traffic. But clearly the people who built the path beside the A23 think, like me, that it is dangerously narrow, because there are six ‘SLOW’ markings painted on the path in the downhill direction.

Screen Shot 2016-02-21 at 23.28.43

It’s very easy to pick up speed here, given a continuous gradient of 6-8%. Just freewheeling on the way back down my speed quickly got up to 20mph, which felt very fast on such a narrow path. If I’d met anyone coming the other way I would have felt the need to slow down a lot more, and that’s really not good enough on a path built beside a motorway, designed for 70mph+ speeds. It’s the same basic template as the motorway – no bends, good sightlines – that should allow high speeds, but the width is so miserly ‘SLOW’ signs have had to be painted on it. That’s pretty embarrassing.

Slightly alarmingly the path is littered with debris from motor vehicles, particularly the legacy of HGV tyre blowouts. This reminds you just how close you are to the road, in case you had forgotten.

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.19.33

On the approach to Handcross, the northern end of this upgraded and ‘cycle proofed’ road, we encounter the one and only side road this project had to deal with. And it’s a big fat failure.

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.19.49

The cycleway quickly shows its true colours, reverting to footway-specific design, with sharp corners, no markings to indicate what you should be doing if you are on a bike (just like a pavement) and some tactiles to bump over.

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 16.20.11

This isn’t even really a side road; it’s just an entrance to a business, and not even a major one at that, just a chap selling vintage sculptures out of what looks like a a caravan. I suspect it would be quite easy to give cycling priority across the side road, given the very, very limited use of this entrance, and the fact it’s on the slip road, not the A23 itself. But priority or no priority isn’t really the issue. I wouldn’t have minded a two-stage non-priority cycle crossing. The real problem here is the ambiguity, and the lazy, easy (and crap) option of just designing a footway and then plonking cycling on it with a blue roundel, the kind of thing that is just so awfully typical in new ‘design’ for cycling in places that just don’t care. A two-way cycle-route crossing an entrance like this could be so much better.

Screen Shot 2016-02-22 at 09.42.24

So the ‘test’ of the one side road that had to be dealt with was flunked. That’s not particularly confidence-inspiring, if the Highways Agency think this a good scheme.

The path then goes up the slip road coming out Handcross village. Unfortunately the path stops halfway up the slip road, meaning you have to cross it (heading either south or north) just at the point motorists are accelerating towards motorway speeds, to join the A23.

Screen Shot 2016-02-22 at 00.12.00

Again, this is poor design. Cycling out of the village in the direction the photograph is taken, I have to look back through 180° over my left shoulder to see whether any motor vehicles are coming (at ever increasing speeds at this point) before attempting to cross, again on some bumpy tactiles that require 90° turns. ‘Box ticked’, in that some ‘cycle provision’ is here, but if this is the kind of thing that the Highways Agency are doing across Britain, then I think we should be concerned.

From what I’ve seen from this short stretch of the A23, ‘providing for cycling’ seems to involve putting a 2m footway alongside the road in question, designing it for walking, and then…. just allowing cycling on it. The sections of this ‘improved’ stretch of the A23 that are good – the service road, and the access road to the pond – are good simply because they’ve been designed for motor vehicles. If people weren’t going to be driving on these stretches, they would be the same 2m path as the rest of it. And of course the ‘cycle provision’ disappears at junctions, where you have to cross the road like a pedestrian. For schemes beside trunk roads – fast, arterial roads – that simply shouldn’t be happening.

The other problem – and this isn’t the Highways Agency’s fault – is that these schemes are built in isolation from the surrounding area. So while this section of cycle facilities – despite its faults – does allow people to cycle along the A23, it simply doesn’t connect up with anything else, because it is surrounded by roads and bridleways controlled by West Sussex, who are still living in the Dark Ages as far as cycling infrastructure is concerned. Really, the Highways Agency’s engagement with ‘cycle proofing’ has to extend to the surrounding network controlled by local authorities, otherwise it is pretty meaningless – you simply won’t be able to get to the roads that are ‘cycle proofed’.

So it’s a start. But there’s a huge amount of room for improvement.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Cycling along a new Highways Agency scheme

  1. Notak says:

    There are some No Through Road signs with Except Cycles, but it seems to have been something that was done back in the 90s and since then has for some reason fallen out of favour. I’ve never seen a sign indicate that No Through Road does not apply to pedestrians. By chance, at the weekend I was following a route plotted by cycle.travel, which is a pretty good website for finding quiet routes – though it does tend to lead you along muddy bridleways too – and I found myself on a gated road with NTR signs (and no exception). I trusted the route and it proved good.

  2. Paul M says:

    You kinda say that while not up to the best standards, at least they have done something. Lucky you. When we had a really major infrastructure project a stone’s throw from me, we weren’t so lucky.

    After decades of argument back and forth, the Highways Agency finally built the Hindhead Tunnel at a cost of £481 million, and it opened in August 2011 – in the nick of time for the Olympics, which was the driver for building it ( promise about connectivity between London and the sailing venues in Weymouth).

    The tunnel is prohibited to all persons and vehicles other than motor vehicles with an engine capacity exceeding 50cc. So no pedestrians, horses, bicycles or mopeds. As a public highway, the HA was obliged by law to cater for prohibited users who would otherwise have – and previously had – the right to use the route along its old surface track through Hindhead Village. Accordingly they had to provide a cycle path which follows alongside the line of the old A3, now the A333, then passes along a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) which had previously been tarmacked, connecting to what remains of the old A3 the other side of the Devil’s Punchbowl and is now “Punchbowl Lane”, a private road reserved for access to the handful of properties which nestle just down inside the Punchbowl itself (this has gates to close it to ratrunners, who would need to be driving a 4×4 as part of the accessible route is very rough indeed, but in practice this has so far not been necessary). A short stretch of perhaps 400 metres of hard surfaced path was laid to connect up the various bits, and this is bollarded to prevent motors accessing it and turning it into a rat-run.

    Sadly, HA did no more than they absolutely had to do. As soon as you rejoin the A3 dual carriageway proper at Thursley, the facilities come to a grinding halt.

    There is a footpath, kerbed and in places separated from the road by a narrow strip of grass, which runs alongside the road for about a mile. It is designated shared-use, but it suddenly ends, in the middle of nowhere. There isn’t really anything there, to walk or to cycle to, and I suspect the path has more to do with providing somewhere motorists can safely walk (prior to mobile phones) to get hep in the event of a breakdown. You never see anyone on it now. Upgrading it even slightly, say widening it from 1 to 1.5 or 2 metres, and extending it so that it reached a point further along where you can pass under the road and access the village of Milford and then Godalming, would have costs a fraction of one percent of the budget for the tunnel itself. It would have completed a link along the A3 to connect Godalming, Haslemere and surrounding villages together by bike. Do you suppose the HA was interested in doing anything about it?

  3. Paul Mason says:

    Great post, Mark. Your text and photos illustrate the shortcomings of the path very clearly. And good for you for insisting we should not accept it as ‘better than the usual’ but always aspire to Dutch-standard infrastructure.
    Paul Mason of the Tunbridge Wells Bicycle Users Group

  4. Andrew L says:

    Another great post that is right on the money, as ever.
    Typical, as you say, of WSCC cycling – what does get built is, 99% of the time, connected to nothing else useful. So you can cycle safely from just south of Handcross to Warninglid and then…. nothing (i.e. back to the same old crap that was there before). Example – you still have to push your bike up a set of steps just a couple of miles further north, on the outskirts of Crawley.

  5. adoapplemac says:

    This scheme is far better than nothing and would allow me to cycle along this road, whereas I wouldn’t even have considered it before. However, like you said, the quality should have been a lot better.

    I think at least part of the reason for the poor quality is terrible design standards! They’ve built a footway that you’re allowed to cycle on, not a cycleway that you can walk on. The design they used across the side road is probably how the design standards say it should be done. If we want good schemes, the first thing we need is excellent national design standards that show in detail exactly how every element of a cycle track should be designed and built, including all the common junction types. As far as I know, not even the LCDS includes this crucial detail!

  6. Paul Luton says:

    From DfT Cycle Infrastructure Design 2008 :

    8.5.2 . A minimum width of 1.5 metres is recommended for a oneway cycle track. The minimum recommended width for a twoway cycle track is 3 metres.

    You would have thought that HA would adhere to DfT standards ( well OK not when it is about cycling)

  7. Clive Durdle says:

    I wonder if a clade diagram showing the ancestry, training and employment experience of highways engineers is needed. The comments about West Sussex apply to East Sussex, and are replicated nationally.

    It would be interesting to see which college curricula study Stevenage for example, and how much time and thought is given to disabled people, pedestrians, cyclists, and horses and how jargon ridden teaching is with for example nmu’s.

  8. Clive Durdle says:

    I am a professionally qualified fellow of the chartered institute of housing. I understand highways engineers also have professional qualifications. I am amazed that these types of poor infrastructure are continually being built, that it is possible to comment somethings are not to uk, let alone Dutch or Danish standards.

    It is frankly embarrassing , has to be illegal – I don’t remember highways being exempt from the public sector equality duty, and if eu funds were involved, very likely fails in audit terms.

    Buildings must have “design and access statements”. There are building regulations. Since highways are also part of the built environment, why do there not seem to be the same level of enforcement, and discussion of standards, as happens with riba, cabe etc?

  9. Clive Durdle says:

    Highways agency thinking that is an exemplar scheme is actually extremely serious. As any journey is only as good as its weakest link – EU transport ministers – this scheme actually deserves 0 out of ten. It is irrelevant that it is better rubbish than other rubbish. Does it achieve all ages and abilities?

    Sorry, feels fraudulent.

  10. And another thing to know is that the Dutch don’t usually put cycle routes next to motorways or what they call autowegs, or really high quality single carriageways or most rural dual carriageways built with very limited local access and usually 100 km/h speeds. They sometimes do, perhaps because building a single bridge over a river is cheaper, but it’s still pretty uncommon. It’s unpleasant due to the noise and smell. Even more so when most motorways are designed and limited to 120-130 as opposed to the 70 mph/110 km/h speeds Britain usually does.

    Also worth knowing is that many of the dual carriageways the UK builds to connect major population centres on very major trunk roads really should be motorways designed and limited to 130 or sometimes 120 km/h/. Add a hard shoulder, ban slow vehicles and create an alternate route for them. A few very important single carriageways that link county to county could be 100 km/h expressways, sometimes dual carriageways, that while not necessarily fully grade separated, would have a hard shoulder, generally something between the 2 directions, be designed and limited to 100 km/h, with some controls of access and no local access.

    Most of the Dutch rural single carriageways are 60 or 80 km/h roadways. 60 is intended for local access and for routes between villages and small towns and villages to cities and each other. These should be the shortest routes between 2 places, and closed off in some way to motor traffic to some extent so that they become pleasant for cycling next to. Cycle routes should be using these roads. 60 km/h roads may or may not have a separate pathway, it depends on the volume. Country lanes, often not even wide enough for 2 vehicles to be side by side, probably mixed. They have uncontrolled intersections, usually no markings, sometimes a broken white line on each edge, sometimes a red shoulder with a single lane in the middle, and raised tables.

    The more major 60 km/h roads should have a separate bicycle path, between 3 and 4 metres wide depending on the route for a bidirectional, 2-2.5 metres for a single directional, should have priority over side roads if the main road does have priority over side roads, and the main carriageway has a dashed white line on either side, and generally has priority over minor side roads though this is subject to change. 1.5 metres standard width, more where possible and 6 metres at junctions is preferable, of a verge, and sometimes kerbed median, makes it feel safe. The more the volume and the more the actual speeds, the more separation is required.

    City-city routes (large towns in the UK I guess) and regional routes would be 80 km/h routes, preferably with no local access and somewhat limited side roads. They should bypass towns and cities and go around villages. They should have a centre line, preferably double marked, (like a broken double white line. A broken double yellow like to a Canadian or American), with a dashed edge line and no shoulder, having priority over side roads, with intersections with other major roads usually being single lane roundabouts with cycle paths around it with no priority (same in urban areas too with the no priority), or traffic light controls if no other method is possible. A divide between the two directions is sometimes warranted. Cycle paths are required next to these unless they wouldn’t help cyclists at all, perhaps a bypass around a large city. Separated by at least 1.5 metres of a verge and sometimes curbs, with things like trees, plants, etc, makes it feel safe. More space is better though if you can find it. If there is considerable local access along the road, try using a low volume 60 km/h access road instead.

    If you absolutely have to put a cycle route next to what a British equal to an autoweg, or a motorway, then put it something like 10 metres back if you can, sometimes using a parallel 60 km/h route. Put everything and anything you can between the cycle path/60 km/h access road and main road, and a noise wall if you can, and if you can’t do anything else, a double sided guardrail or K rail (a large concrete vertical barrier) is needed to make it feel safe enough. And don’t route cycle routes next to these to the greatest possible extent. Remember, these are flow roads, not access roads.

    Villages generally have 30 km/h speed limits, and low volume, low enough that cycling is pleasant even without separate paths.

    Rural Britain is a good candidate for these measures. While the functionality of roads to determine access, distributor and through road categorization is needed, the Dutch have all the guidelines needed to make them work well, including for cyclists. And for drivers for that matter. Rural Britain is one of the most dangerous places to drive a car. More dangerous than going 80 mph on a motorway. Many smaller towns are plagued with traffic, sometimes traffic jams, and through traffic that really shouldn’t be there. You can only look for yourself to see how good it is and have a copy of their design manuals for perfect advice, but I hope I have let you know something about their standards.

  11. Jitensha Oni says:

    1. I have to join Clive Durdle here in wondering why the procedures have not been put in place for generating a fully coherent network. At best it screams ignorance of what could be achieved – at worst it smacks of a careless, unprofessional attitude (look at the transitions between styles here – bah). And as the OP’s penultimate paragraph implies, cycleways have not been given an identity of their own that the planners/builders have in their standard toolkit – why not after X decades of campaigning by cycling advocates? Weird.

    2. Regarding No Through Road signs – I like the Danish solution of putting a thin white vertical line above the red rectangle to indicate there is passage for active travellers (similar to the thicker one for motor traffic entering below the rectangle).

    3. Had a look on Streetview – given the inadequacy of the direction signage elsewhere – what’s this for?

    https://goo.gl/maps/E6LTXwwRLYA2

    Is it still there? If not, what on earth was it for? First it’s in the middle of nowhere. And second you’d presumably be hurtling past too fast to read it if going south. But third, most importantly, is there some reason why the signs can’t face the traveller?

    Paraphrasing Clive – sorry, feels incompetent.

    • Just replying to point 3 – that sign does kind of make sense, because there’s a footpath that comes down the bank there, and goes under the A23 with a new underpass (which is reasonably good). Unfortunately the path on the other side kind of gives up if you are on a bike – it’s just a muddy path across a field.

  12. Andy R says:

    I would suggest part of the problem is the time taken for road schemes to be implemented. Whilst it is right that everyone who has a view on a scheme is heard, it means the process takes years. I remember seeing proposals for a Handcross to Warninglid improvement scheme when I started work 20 years ago (and the plans looked like they’d been knocking about for a while even then).

    The timeline on the project website shows tenders being announced back in 2005 – 6 years before this blog appears to have started and even 3 years before David Hembrow’s blog – how many here were campaigning for Dutch infrastructure on a national level back then? As I remember the Forester/Franklin view dominated – how the Milton Keynes Redways showed how separation from motor traffic was the crazy option.

    Rather like 24-hour rolling news, the internet seems to give us a distorted view of time – again, looking at the project timeline (linked below) I would ask people to see at what point of the scheme’s development they became aware of a better way – the Dutch way- of doing things.

    Unfortunately, if a feature isn’t included for at the start – and certainly by the time land acquisition is planned (around the draft orders stage) – it’s unlikely to get in in the detailed design. Also, this scheme was being developed when schemes were ‘value engineered’ to within an inch of their lives. Meaning “Why do we even need the desirable minimum width when there aren’t any cyclists? Give them the absolute minimum – that’s a 0.5m wide strip of land saved over the length of the scheme”.

    However, Highways England assure us this attitude has changed since they became a GoCo – they’ve even got a cycling champion (sadly not Chris Boardman). Unfortunately, it is only with schemes developed from now on that you’re going to see improvements and provision above that ‘absolute minimum’ level.

    http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/a23-handcross-to-warninglid/

    • That’s all very fair – after all *construction* only started in 2011, before ‘Go Dutch’ was even a thing.

      My main concern, however, is that Highways England seem to think this scheme is excellent. It isn’t!

      • AndyR says:

        Well it’s excellent based on what they’ve done before, but yes, still along way short of what’s needed. As I said, it’s on schemes developed from now and going forward into the future that we’ll see if HE have got the message.

  13. meltdblog says:

    A 2m wide path can be adequate for low volumes of bidirectional users, but only when there is substantial clear space to each side. Its all there in standards/guides but it gets ignored.

  14. Simon says:

    Although I appreciate that the A23 path is a step in the right direction, how usable is it really?

    Cycling is a good short distance (say up to 10 miles) form of transport. For longer than that, the car does come into its own and cycling is more of a specialist activity. (And I speak as someone who cycles the 45 miles from Haywards Heath to the City of London once a week during the summer months.)

    So how much use is a cycle path which tracks a large, busy road designed to carry people long distances? It was telling in the photos that there appeared to be no other users of that cycle path.

    There are already routes heading from London to the coast that follow less busy roads and which I think would have benefited more from cycling provision. These routes are used quite regularly – not just the annual London-Brighton ride but all the other people cycling to the coast for the day.

    The typical route passes through Lindfield and Haywards Heath and I think Haywards Heath could benefit from some cycle provision. I can’t think of a single bit of cycling provision in the whole town, despite lots of people cycling to the station to catch trains to London. The road through Lindfield which then rises up through Haywards Heath is long and pretty straight – plenty of room for a cycle path which I would bet would be much more regularly used than the A23 one.

    • andreengels says:

      Looking at the map, I think you have a point. There is not much on the south side of this stretch that would count as an attraction for cyclists. The part to the north of this would be more useful, being part of the Haywards Heath-Crawley – although the rest of that route is still awful of course…

  15. LotharioLogistics says:

    How long will the path width stay at 2 metres when the vegetation starts to encroach ? Not long I would suggest. As noted above there are fences and other items in close proximity to the edges of the path.
    Does this new facility reward people for choosing to cycle ? . . No, its the usual subordination of non-motor transport.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s