On-street Parking in Cambridge City
Issues surrounding the effect on-street car-parking has on road space, pinch points, car-dooring, interruption of cycle lanes etc.
This section lists issues - problems on the street network and related matters.
Issues always relate to some geographical location, whether very local or perhaps city-wide.
You can create a new issue using the button on the right.
Listed issues, most recent first:
Created by Hester Wells // 5 threads
Issues surrounding the effect on-street car-parking has on road space, pinch points, car-dooring, interruption of cycle lanes etc.
New potholes have opened up around the drain covers on the eastbound A1214. They are on the "Straight On Lane" at the roundabout with Ropes Drive.
Created by Alistair // 0 threads
When exiting the cyclepath to join Anson Road you need to see the roundabout clearly (especially to see southbound A14 traffic turning left to join Anson Road. A large tree has overhanging branches which block the view. It's worse when it has leaves.
Created by Kevin Ablitt // 0 threads
To carry on towards Colchester Road or bear right into Belvedere Road is OK but if you are approaching the junction from Belvedere Road and wish to turn into Cemetery Lane northbound you must come right up to a blind corner and make a sharp turn into a narrow kerb edged cycle facility. This is quite a dangerous manouevre to carry out. It would have been better to have a lane entering the wide oad marked with stop lines and no-entry as it is further back from the blind turn. In fact some people may be tempted to do this, but it is both dangerous and illegal. Both the danger and the temptation to carry out an illegal manouevre could have been excluded at the design stage.
Created by MikeH // 0 threads
The contraflow on Museum St is not my favourite bit of cycle route, but given that it xcan be a busy and tricky bit, the white lines where it crosses Westgate St should at least be in good order, but they're not. An easily fixed problem you would think?
Created by Matthew Phillips // 1 thread
The main routes into the Arnison Centre are understandably pretty busy with cars and involve negotiating roundabouts. The quietest route in for bikes is via Abbey Road, the entrance in the middle of the south of the site, as used by the buses. However, the road is currently one-way. It would be good if it could be made an official entrance and exit for bikes. It lands you closest to the large rank of cycle racks outside Sainsbury's. There is sufficient width on Abbey Road to allow for cycle lanes to help connect with Newton Hall and Pity Me.
The County Durham Plan envisages another large supermarket and car-park being built immediately to the north of the Arnison Centre, across the other side of the main road, as part of the large housing development proposed. DBUG has objected to this as part of our response to the plan, as providing more local shops would encourage walking and cycling whereas these proposals will just further entrench shopping by car. The proposals appeared to include cycle access to the new housing site via an upgraded path to the west of the Arnison Centre (shown as a footpath currently) but failed to address access to the shops by bike.
The Arnison Centre could do with more cycle racks dispersed round the site, outside each of the shops. At present there is a very large number of racks, but they are all outside Sainsbury's.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 1 thread
The Durham City Integrated Transport Approach document, part of the proposed new County Durham Plan, states that it is the Council's intention to relocate the bus station in Durham and to remove the A690 roundabout by the railway station, converting it to an ordinary junction with lights.
The document can be viewed at http://durhamccconsult.
limehouse.co.uk/file/2679025 and the relevant sections are 3.49 onwards. The document mentions improving the area for pedestrians but neglects to consider the potential for cycling infrastructure improvements in the area.
The DBUG response to the County Plan (available at http://community.dur.ac.uk/m.e.phillips/cycling/DBUGResponse.pdf ) devotes a section to this matter (see pages 21 to 23).
Opportunities for better cycling infrastructure include:
* restricting vehicle access to North Road and allowing two-way cycling
* linking the station to neighbouring cycle lanes
* better connection to Framwellgate Peth and the north of the city
* remodelling the Milburngate roundabout also
* removing through traffic from the portion of North Road beyond the viaduct
We need to lobby not just for immediate cycling needs to be taken into account in the design for the new road layout, but also for future possibilities by bringing forward design of strategic cycle routes through the city, otherwise we risk losing a very rare opportunity to transform provision at a key city-centre junction.
According to the document, construction will commence in the 2014/15 financial year, with a timescale of 18 months. This means the plans must already be fairly fully developed.
Created by John Shead // 1 thread
When busy, crossing this junction is hazardous when negotiating with northbound vehicles at speeds of up to 40mph.
No indication is provided to motorists that there will be conflict.
A speed table with dragons teeth markings needs to be installed.
Created by Alex Oldman // 1 thread
Disused railway tracks on St Peters Dock provide short section of road surface that is dangerous to traverse from East to West by bike.
If you are avoiding crossing the tracks then you are forced into oncoming traffic.
If you cross the tracks, you are then potentially trapped between parked cars and the railway tracks, which can be dangerous.
The tracks are very slippery when wet or icy, and sections are often hidden underwater because there is poor drainage after heavy rain.
Ideally the tracks are totally removed, or the surface covered with concrete or tarmac.
Created by Andrea Bredel // 1 thread
this is one of many cycle lanes here in Ipswich that go on and off the road several times. This is very awkward for cyclists as they need to be very careful when getting back onto the road and most probably confuses drivers as well.
Created by Ned Harrison // 1 thread
Holywells Park has a section of cycle route 51 running through it, linking South East Ipswich to the centre with a pleasant and safe route down to the waterfront.
During Winter, the park is closed at dusk, sometimes as early as 4, meaning that just when the roads are most dangerous (dark and wet) cyclists are forced onto steep and busy routes either along Cliff Lane or up Bishops Hill.
The closures are largely at the request of the Park Friends group. I've spoken to them, and their concerns seem to be largely about what might go on after dark. It's not clear that there is any evidence for this, nor that the current situation of locking the main gates but leaving others would do anything to deter misbehaviour.
Keeping it open as a cycle route would ensure a legitimate presence in the park, and help provide less confident cyclists in the area with a safe route to and from town.
I'd propose either locking later, or for a trial period leaving the park unlocked.
Created by MJR // 1 thread
Discovered that this junction is "due for upgrade in the 2014/15 financial year. The budget for the traffic signal upgrade programme is essentially aimed at a like for like replacement scheme with new equipment. However we try to accommodate low cost improvements that can be implemented at the same time. ... There is scope to implement an advanced cycle stop line on Hospital Walk, although there would not be sufficient carriageway width for a lead in lane."
This is one possible way to improve westbound connectivity from the Walks and Chase through Millfleet to the town centre and southbound Route 1. The increased distance (compared to Broad Walk) is offset by light traffic, a 20mph zone and a potentially easier crossing - but at the moment, the lights make bikes exiting Hospital Walk wait a long time and then it lets hardly any out before turning red again.
Created by Shaun McDonald // 0 threads
Considering that this is very close to the National Cycle Route 51, I'm wondering why it's basically impossible to get to, on a bicycle without going on a major trunk road roundabout?
Cyclists may not be their target market, however service stations can be useful on longer cycle rides for food supplies. Also hotels can prove useful if a longer journey, touring, or realise your too tired on an overnight ride, such as the nearby Dunwich Dynamo.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 1 thread
Coming out of Durham down Shincliffe Peth on the A167, there is a pedestrian refuge at the foot of the hill, by the turning to the cycle-track which skirts the bottom of Maiden Castle hill-fort. You are expected to negotiate a 180 degree turn to access this track, at the same time as avoiding speeding cars and the pinch-point of a refuge. In the other direction, cyclists have to be cautious of using the refuge as the width of it is not sufficient to accommodate a tandem or a cycle with trailer or child tag-along attachment. Visibility is poor when crossing the road from north to south.
Improvements might include moving the 30mph limit to the foot of the hill, introducing speed cushions or a raised junction table. If the speed were reduced, the central refuge would not be needed and some of the difficulties might be avoided, but that may not be the best solution at this site.
Speed of the traffic is the main issue here, both for cyclists and the pedestrians who use the popular footpaths.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
From the bottom of Shincliffe Peth, past Houghall College, there is a shared use pavement on the south-west side of the A177, as can be seen from the map. However, if you are proceeding south-east towards Shincliffe, it is unclear what you are supposed to do at the point shown in the photograph. It is easy enough for cyclists coming the other way to leave the road as indicated, but going south-east should you cross to the other side of the road, or continue along the increasingly narrow footway, which is not really wide enough for pedestrians and cyclists to share? There is certainly no signage further along the path to suggest that cyclists are supposed to be there.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
On the north-east side of the A177 there is a short stretch of pavement cycle route which ends abruptly as shown in the photograph, with no dropped kerb back onto the road.
The purpose of the sign and the route are unclear. From Google Streetview you can see that there is a path leading into the sports grounds: http://goo.gl/maps/ELHci -- if that is the destination of the cycle path then why does it have an "End of cycle route" sign, if the user is intended to continue into the grounds?
Even if that's the intention, a dropped kerb would be handy as cyclists may have taken to the pavement not realising that the route was going to finish again so soon.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
The picture shows Framwellgate Waterside, part of the national cycle network route through Durham which also connects with a major route to Newton Hall and the riverbank paths. Yet as a car driver you could be completely unaware that this is a major cycle route as there is no obvious cycling provision. Cyclists can be unsure whether they are meant to be on the road or on the footway by the river.
At the far end of the shot, the road disappears under the Gates shopping centre, where are located two car parks with a capacity of over 450 places. Despite this we have on-road car parking all along this stretch of road. Providing a fully-segregated bi-directional cycle path of decent width instead would send a much stronger signal that cycling is being taken seriously as a mode of transport. If the parking really is required, then when the passport office site is redeveloped the road should be shifted across to make more room for dedicated cycle infrastructure.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
In the area round Crossgate, the older section of Durham City to the west of Framwellgate Bridge, there are a number of one-way streets which make cycling inconvenient. In most cases the streets have been made one-way primarily to make it easier to provide car parking on narrow residential streets or to reduce through car traffic.
These streets should be reassessed, and where possible opened up to bicycles in both directions.
Some restrictions are particularly pointless, such as the one in the photograph. In theory, if a cyclist descends South Street, the only lawful option is to turn left and pedal up Crossgate. Just beyond the no-entry sign pictured is a two-way stretch of North Road that leads from Framwellgate Bridge to Milburngate, from which cyclists could access the National Cycle Network routes to Pennyferry Bridge and local routes beyond to Newton Hall.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
This section of NCN 70 from Claypath down to the side of Leazes Bowl roundabout has cyclists and pedestrians on separate halves of the path, rather than shared-use. This has the advantage that cyclists are more likely to be able to freewheel quickly down the hill without upsetting pedestrians. However, the cycle portion of the path is higher than the pedestrian side, with a kerb. As the path is not particularly wide, if you meet a cyclist coming the other way it is quite tricky to pass safely.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
This stretch of footpath / cyclepath by the foot of Maiden Castle hill-fort is narrow and tends to be very muddy. It's an extremely difficult site as the river banks had to be reinforced here recently. Whether any improvement is possible is hard to assess. In the meantime, it offers the full off-road biking experience on your way to work, should you so wish! There is a case for creating a through route on the other side of the river to avoid this stretch. See http://durhamuniversity.cyclescape.org/issues/897-improvong-route-from-university-to-belmont
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
Like the roundabout at the bottom of Potters Bank, the roundabout at Whinney Hill, the approach to Durham City from the south-east, is designed for high speeds and has no provision for cyclists. The new cycle lane up Shincliffe Peth ceases when it reaches the roundabout.
From the photograph, taken in the autumn, you can see from the leaves on the road how little of the width of the roundabout is actually required by cars and lorries. This would seem a great opportunity to try a Dutch-style urban roundabout, with a wide cycle lane all round the outside and cutting the entering traffic down to a single lane. The curves could be tightened to reduce speeds and to give pedestrians more direct crossings of the roads.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
Yes, most of the vehicles in the photograph are parked! Despite appearances they are not blocking a dedicated red-tarmac cycle path: there is in fact no particular cycling provision on Front Street. The width of the road, however, would lend itself to a wide bi-directional route being provided, segregated from the road and pavement and with priority over side-roads, with car parking spaces being retained in most cases. This would give an excellent direct route for cycle commuters from Pity Me and Framwellgate Moor, to the proposed Aykley Heads business park, the railway station, and the city centre. There may be parts of the route, such as by the Front Street shops, where this might not be possible, but on-road lanes could be provided. Currently much of the middle of the road is given over to white hatching and right-turn lanes. Some cycle parking by the Front Street shops would be good: there's plenty of car parking on-road but nowhere to lock up a bike.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
Where the on-pavement cycle lane comes to an end, the road markings which continue the NCN 14 and 70 on-road are worn out and patchy. The design of the lane to take you southbound onto the pavement is poor, because the adjacent parking means that the traffic is usually driving straight over the top of the dedicated cycle lane in the middle of the road.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
The exit from this retail park car park has two lanes. There are no road markings warning drivers to expect cyclists on the shared-use pavement which is part of NCN 14 & 70. This section of pavement was recently rebuilt. Why could we not have a raised table at the exit, giving priority to cyclists and pedestrians here? Why does the through-route for cyclists have to give way to the car park exit? While the shared use pavement is welcome, the lack of priority is what tends to lead to experienced cyclists taking to the road instead, as it can actually be safer as well as quicker. If cycling infrastructure is more dangerous or slower than the road alternative, it is not worth installing.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads
By the Tesco superstore off Dragon Lane, the road junction was recently rebuilt. On the west side of Dragon Lane is a shared-use pavement which forms part of NCN 14/70. While cars travelling north on Dragon Lane can go straight across on a single phase, cyclists are expected to dismount, and cross with pedestrians at a two-stage crossing. The object is to maximise the flow in and out of the Tesco superstore car park, which is the only purpose of this junction. Designing the junction to give greater priority and convenience to cyclists and pedestrians would help shift the balance back to sustainable living.
This map shows all issues, whether points, routes, or areas:
The most popular issues, based on the number of votes:
Created by Gingineer // 1 thread
I work near the station and the area out the front of the new building has short term cycle spaces for the shops there. These spaces are specifically for the retail units (ratios of this is in the planning application I understand). so the racks have to be installed and wont be policed by the retail units (such as the ones by Microsoft which are for employees) yet they fill with commuters who should be using the cycle park.
I have been thinking that Cambridge CC needs to agree a system (bye law?) to create short term racks. The colour should be different and signage provided but for racks that need controlling like this it is essential to stop antisocial cyclists piling up bikes.
Of course its difficult to police, and a heavy handed approach should be avoided but I see a growing issue across the city where racks for specific short term purposes are created but then filled with long term cyclists who should accept if they are parked all day that the extra 2 minutes walk for them to a proper cycle park is reasonable to expect. Otherwise this puts people off cycling the short distances as they fear they wont get a rack or will spend a lot of time scrambling for a spot.
Cyclists could be stickered and if caught again then fined. Or clamped to the rack with a fee to unlock (yes I know that sounds like it defeats the object but it should work after a while).
Created by jpennycook // 1 thread
Request for a screening opinion for the erection of a motorway service area
Land At O/S Grid Ref 460946 147950 M3 Basingstoke Hampshire
Basingstoke
Application reference : 16/02767/ENSC
http://pad.basingstoke.gov.uk/DocumentViewer/?DocumentClassCode=DC&Folder1Reference=16/02767/ENSC
http://pad.basingstoke.gov.uk/documents/4753/01/09/91/01099199.PDF
http://pad.basingstoke.gov.uk/documents/4753/01/09/91/01099197.PDF
http://pad.basingstoke.gov.uk/documents/4753/01/10/05/01100568.PDF
The route through Verulamium Park towards the museum was built to substandard width. There is a considerable risk that this will cause conflict between walkers and cyclists.
Route widening is not due until the Green Ring is built in 2015.
STACC will campaign for widening of the route to begin as as soon as possible since we see no need to delay waiting for the Green Ring.
Resurfacing of the Alban Way begins in September 2013- this project draws upon Green Ring funding so why can't Green Ring funding be deployed now to widen the Ver Park route?
Created by Sefton // 1 thread
The Lovers Loan shared path through the Grange has at least 5 very tight barriers along its length, and missing dropped kerbs - especially at the crossing of Dick Place. Removing barriers or widening them would make it much more easy to use for bikes, buggies and wheelchairs. Even some double pushchairs don't fit!
Created by Chris Peck // 1 thread
A long, tortuous issue, where no progress has been made, despite large amounts of effort. Godalming High Street was recommended for adopting as a trial two-way working for cyclists in 2001, thanks to Alec McCalden's excellent presentation to the Planning Inspector at the time.
However, the trial was never carried out. Cyclists continue to use the street in both directions, as there are plenty of ways to get out of the way of oncoming cars.
The City of London has introduced dozens of contra-flow cycling schemes on narrow streets and lanes across the City. A third of all the cyclists are now using the contraflow. There has been 1 cycle crash three years post-introduction (there were 2 in the three years before). See here for more details: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/transport-institute/pdfs/Cheung_slides.pdf
Created by Charlie Halliday // 5 threads
Proposal to address Farnborough Town Action Plan reference CW39. Issue: Alexandra Road, safety, pedestrian and cycle links.
Consultation documents may be downloaded from:
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/transport-schemes-index/farnborough-alexandra-road.htm
They are also on view in the reception area at Rushmoor Borough Council Offices, Farnborough Road during the consultation period
Created by Anna Williams – Head of Campaigns & Engagement // 1 thread
St Neots is receiving some funding as part of the Future High Streets Fund - this could include investment in cycling and walking infrastructure.
Created by Anna Williams – Head of Campaigns & Engagement // 2 threads
Camcycle's time and energy is consistently taken up removing exclusionary barriers (e.g. Biomedical Campus, A14 active travel bridges, Warren Road). We need to consider long-term ways to prevent new barriers going in and remove existing ones which prevent people of all ages and abilities cycling.
Created by Fraser // 0 threads
Travelling along Fore Street from the East where it splits with Key Street there are several traffic calming patches and speed bumps that are difficult and dangerous to negotiate on a bike.
In particular the three sections of cobbles; as the street becomes one way just before Fore Street Pools, just before you cross Star Lane, and just after crossing Star Lane.
They are so ragged that as a cyclist you have to almost come to a stop, where as other road users can travel over them at ~20mph.
This makes them extremely dangerous as just after accelerating away from the traffic lights you then need to slow almost to a stop and weave your way through the cobbles while the traffic behind you is expecting to carry on and the street is too narrow for them to safely overtake.
The section of Fore Street between Star Lane and Eagle Street has better speed humps (still not great, but a dream compared with the above mentioned cobble sections!) with flat section at the sides so that bikes may pass them safely. However the flat sections are occasionally blocked by parked vehicles forcing cyclists over the speed humps.
The less said about the time it takes to negotiate these three sets of traffic lights the better!
Gallagher Estate, master planners of Orchard Park will soon hand over the highways for adoption by the County Council.
We won't be able to fix this car centric development, but within it there are many pavement cycleways, "cyclists dismount" signs, cul-de-sac signs and others which are wrong or don't apply. There are also issues with dropped kerbs etc.
I am looking for volunteers to audit Orchard Park, making a list of corrections we require before Gallaghers hands this project over.
Created by CycleSi // 2 threads
TfL are undertaking major junction improvements at several gyratory systems. All of them include protected cycle lanes/tracks, except Wandsworth!
The local London Cycle Campaign group is not campaigning and virtually defunct. We desperately need to organise local cyclists and campaigners all over London and beyond to challenge this bizarre scheme.
Oval, Vauxhall, Elephant & Castle, Stockwell, Archway, Aldgate, etc, etc are all getting extensive safe space for cycling.
TfL for some reason (I suspect the blame lies with the borough) have instead decided to claim that the awful shared footpaths and streets with no cycling infrastructure at all that have been designated as 'cycle routes' form part of a 'cycle network'. They are even planning to have Cycle Superhighway 8 run along Wandsworth High Street with not even a painted cycle lane - cyclists will be mixed in with extremely heavy bus traffic.
It seems like no-one is talking about this other than me!! Seriously-argh!!!!
Suggestions, ideas, offers to help campaign all welcome.
Created by Simon Nuttall // 1 thread
Is it legal or not to ride on either Christ's Lane or Milton's Walk ?
Always been a bit of a problem - worse for pedestrians than cyclists.
Detailed (re-)design is apparently underway.
Created by Colin Wing // 3 threads
This is the proposed route of Quietway 88 in Westminster. An alternative option uses the west side of Trafalgar Square instead of Cockspur Street.
Created by Simon Redding // 0 threads
The Jepson Road estate has great cycling infrastructure, but when you get to the west end of it, the path peters out and ends in a fence. Lots of cyclists then carry their bike over a fence and round the end of a culvert to Hartfield Close, but it would be better to just have a cycle gate in the fence straight on to Midland Terrace, which is likely to form part of NCN67 soon.
Created by Iain Lane // 2 threads
Press article in the post today: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Major-route-city-centre-overhauled-priority-buses/story-26177322-detail/story.html
Can't find plans just yet.
Since the changes to Mare St at Westgate St some vehicles travel past the children's centre in Triangle Road, at excessive speeds, to avoid the traffic light at Mare St . Can Hackney Council add a restriction in Triangle Road.
Created by Stephan Matthiesen // 1 thread
Cycle lanes in both directions needs urgent improvment. It's painted on but
- it is far too narrow, encouraging dangerous overtaking
- road surface in the gutter (=cycle lane) extremely bad, with deep&wide cracks, most covers have sunken etc.
- paint has faded
- parking (near the schools)
Many sections of Gilmerton Rd have hatching in the centre, wasting space; these sections would be wide enough for a segregated path (or wide lane protected by bollards/armadillos).
In the narrower sections, the existing bike lane should be removed completely because at the moment it increases the dangers (encouraging cyclists to be in the gutter between kerb and speeding cars).
Created by jennifer Kirner // 1 thread
I am bringing up the problem that cyclists and pedestrians have crossing East Road to get to ARU and the neighbouring residential area. It would be helpful have a discussion about how to create safe routes in this area and how to get them implemented.
When I am cycling, I find it dangerous and difficult to cross East Road from Petersfield or Bradmore Street and I resort to using the pedestrian crossings with my bike because it is.
This area that really needs addressing for improvements to safe cycling and I don’t understand why given the expansion of ARU this has not been addressed.
The junction of Mill Road/East Road is also pretty scary for cyclists and pedestrians. The crossing at the slip road at the corner of Petersfield is difficult for pedestrians because it has no traffic controls and cars come quickly round this corner making it dangerous for anyone who is not alert , who is not tall enough to see, or who can't move quickly. This includes the young, the old, someone in a wheelchair. I wouldn't fancy pushing a child in a buggy across either.
Basically, it seems to me that the Junction and East road are designed for motor vehicles and traffic flow not for pedestrians and cyclists. Can we try and address this?
Created by jpennycook // 1 thread
Erection of 40 dwellings to include 24 private homes and 16 affordable homes, associated parking, landscaping, amenity space and highway alterations
Land At Farleigh Road Farleigh Road Cliddesden Hampshire
Basingstoke
Application reference : 16/04690/FUL
Created by George Britton // 1 thread
Aldershot Urban Extension - Green Light from RBC
Created by Gregory Williams // 1 thread
Planning application Y12/0897/SH proposes the redevelopment of a significant portion Folkestone Harbour and surrounding land. The proposals include up to 1000 dwellings and up to 10000sqm of commercial landuse. NCR2 runs through the development area.
Created by jpennycook // 1 thread
15/04503/OUT | Outline application to include access to be considered, for up to 750 residential units with a mix of units, and a neighbourhood centre including principal community centre, private children's nursery, local retail facilities, indoor sports hall and three form entry primary school and ancillary development | Hounsome Fields Trenchard Lane Dummer Hampshire
Created by GG // 1 thread
For a long time I have wondered about a crowd-sourced cycleability map.
In this, people cycle along a link (accepting the first question of how to define the beginning and end of this) then give it a thumbs up or down. After enough people do this, then others can see how popular it is.
Some people wonder about subjectivity but I think this should be less of a problem with more voters.
The reason I am asking is because this method could apply to a potential commercial project for a Council which wants to drive around 100km of rural roads and use a panel of 4 experts to grade meaningful segments on a 1 to 7 scale according to their suitability for HGV movements.
Any views on whether this is already done within an app I am not aware of, or could be it done by anyone as an add-on to something else, or is it something CamCycle could offer as a commercial package (there may well be more than one local authority looking for this sort of thing)
POSSIBLE Cycle Route Between Lowedges Rd/Chesterfield Rd + Bradway Fire Station Sheffield S8........using existing 8ft wide pavements by upgrading to "shared use".........This could connect to the new cycling "on + off " road routes being developed in the Meadowhead School area