[PeterW]

PaulOckenden, on 16 May 2011 - 08:00 AM, said:

Saw the blokes working on Saturday morning - the new block surface looks bloody excellent - they've made a fantastic job.

P.

Tarmac would have been cheaper.....
And why did they block pave the upper part of Church Street ?

[PaulOckenden]

PeterW, on 16 May 2011 - 20:10 PM, said:

Tarmac would have been cheaper.....

I'm glad I live somewhere where 'cheaper' isn't always the determining factor.

P.

[PeterW]

PaulOckenden, on 16 May 2011 - 22:51 PM, said:

I'm glad I live somewhere where 'cheaper' isn't always the determining factor.

P.

Personally, I dont think that paving this part of East Street will enhance this area. There's too many charity shops etc. Its not exactly an area where one would go window shopping and stop of for a coffee while your there.
I would have preferred the road opposite the church to be pedestrianised and paved. If traffic flow was considered, then that would have been a better option.
Perhaps new business will move into the road as a result of the changes.
Its only my opinion. I rarely go there anyway.

[PaulOckenden]

PeterW, on 17 May 2011 - 10:31 AM, said:

I rarely go there anyway.

If you did go there more often you'd find that the charity shops are still there, but they are being joined by a number of 'higher class' (for want of a better description) shops. Olive Tree, Harold & Lilly, etc. So it's a good mix. Besides, there's nothing wrong with charity shops - you might not like them, but many shoppers do.

And as for stopping for a coffee, that's exactly what people are doing, hence the four places (Galleria, Beach Cafe, Teddies, Toast) all within a short distance of each other.

I think it's going to be lovely when finished.

P.

[jimbo1981]

I think it will look excellent, though I'd like to see some sort of provision for cyclists. Since they re-routed all the one way systems it's a huge detour to get onto the High Street. From Buckingham Road, you have to go down Taramount Lane, then onto the A259 down by the Duke of Wellington, then back on yourself down to the High Street.

I normally cut the wrong way down the end of East Street and through the Church path onto Church Street as it saves a good 3-5 minutes cycle, but it's not ideal. A little cycle path down East Street across to the church path, or thinning the pavement out along East Street and including a path down there, then routed down the back of Church would be good.

Or, of course, I could just get off my bike and walk it up to the high street....but I'm too lazy for that.

[PaulOckenden]

I thought cycle facilities were a big part of the scheme?

Although having said that, I posted a moan on Facebook at the weekend, after seeing two cyclists riding side by side on a busy road, completely ignoring the perfectly good (and wide) cycle lane just a few yards away. And I got thoroughly jumped on by a couple of very militant cyclists who say they refuse the use cycle lanes and have just as much right to use the road as cars / pedestrians. Which, I suppose is within the letter if not the spirit of our current laws.

If that's the case, I'm not convinced that we should be spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on facilities for cyclists. If they are just going to ride on the road anyway, what's the point of cycle lanes?

P.

[Spinalman]

PaulOckenden, on 17 May 2011 - 16:19 PM, said:

I thought cycle facilities were a big part of the scheme?

Although having said that, I posted a moan on Facebook at the weekend, after seeing two cyclists riding side by side on a busy road, completely ignoring the perfectly good (and wide) cycle lane just a few yards away. And I got thoroughly jumped on by a couple of very militant cyclists who say they refuse the use cycle lanes and have just as much right to use the road as cars / pedestrians. Which, I suppose is within the letter if not the spirit of our current laws.

If that's the case, I'm not convinced that we should be spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on facilities for cyclists. If they are just going to ride on the road anyway, what's the point of cycle lanes?

P.

I could not agree more. yes, the Station to Ferry Road cycle route was all part of the big, expensive Sustrans scheme (not that cycling that route was ever a problem anyway - until now).

Cyclists not using the cycle ways? Why? presumably because they are often full of debris and go between destinations that no-one really wants to go to. Cycle ways are the money pit scourge of this country. In Guildford we have £100,000 spent on cycle lanes that no-one uses (like up the A3) and tons of state the obvious signage, and silly 6 foot lanes and kerbs full of bushes and litter.

Ironically cycle lanes are one of the things that are part funded by the EU. I just wish we spent money where people want it rather than trying to fix a problem that isn't a problem. No-one desparately needs a cobbled street, and it will take an awful lot of extra coffee customers to recompense for the 6 months of loss of trade to retailers.

maybe we should have a sweepstake on how long before they dig up the cobbles for BT, Gas, water, safety inspection .... I'll say October 2011.

[PaulOckenden]

Spinalman, on 17 May 2011 - 16:40 PM, said:

Cyclists not using the cycle ways? Why?

Well, here's a few of the comments from my Facebook 'friend':
"Ah diddums. Were you delayed by 30 seconds? 30 seconds you got back once you got past. There's no obligation to use cycle lanes - which is just as well because many of them are positively dangerous."

" I won't use one. Ever. Their very existence is dangerous - you only have to ride on the road in Holland to see that. And, whether other cyclists had, indeed, campaigned to get hundreds of thousands of pounds to have a short sliver of cycle lane added to hundreds of millions pounds of road, doesn't mean that cyclists smart enough not have campaigned for them have to use them. And, either way, I'm standing by the fact you weren't inconvenienced in any meaningful way apart from an affront to your sense that being in a car means you own the road."

etc. etc. etc. - The thread went on for 44 messages.... Quite a monster for Facebook.


Incidentally, www.facebook.com/PaulOckenden, if anyone wants to 'friend' me there (although using the word friend as a verb makes me feel dirty!)

P.

This post has been edited by PaulOckenden: 17 May 2011 - 16:55 PM

[Spinalman]

ah the joys of Facebook.... unfortunately "friend" as a noun has been devalued to the new definition: "a person or organisation that may or may not be the gender stated, identified under a pseudonym, that has established a tenuous link to an individual via a third party for the purposes of boasting, spamming, trolling or genuine friendship (intent unspecified)"

[Ferryman]

Fangio, on 16 May 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:

It certainly seems highly technical and a strong specification.
Those channels down the sides? Are they for the gas/water/leccy etc..which would seem sensible; save digging the whole lot up.

no, they are for drainage

heard a rumour yesterday from a guy who works for clancys that there are plans to take it all up again for electricity cable replacement in July!

[Spinalman]

Ferryman, on 22 May 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:

heard a rumour yesterday from a guy who works for clancys that there are plans to take it all up again for electricity cable replacement in July!

Does that mean my prediction wins the sweepstake?

[Fangio]

Spinalman, on 22 May 2011 - 22:38 PM, said:

Does that mean my prediction wins the sweepstake?

Ok, if you win it's worth a couple of pints at my expense; though somehow I feel I have already lost

[Ferryman]

I find it strange that they have put down thick concrete and are putting paviars over the top. Every other time I have seen paviars put down, they go down on compressed MOT.

Especially, considering it doubles the time for any work when they need to access the underground cables etc.

I think I just answered my own query