A new permanent two-way, segregated active travel route along the seafront in North Tyneside has been branded “disastrous” by local Conservative councillors, who claim the coastal path will lead to an increase in congestion and collisions, and “prioritise a small handful of cyclists over thousands of commuters”.

However, North Tyneside Council and supporters of the project say the protected walking and cycling route will create a “safe space” for families riding bikes, as well as improving air quality, boosting tourism, and “improving people’s enjoyment of an already beautiful space”.

Construction work on the first phase of the active travel “safe space” (link is external), which will stretch for eight kilometres along the seafront between the North Shields Fish Quay and St Mary’s Lighthouse in Whitley Bay, is set to begin next week, making permanent a popular pop-up scheme that was implemented in 2020 as part of social distancing measures.

North Tyneside Council say the revised scheme, which is expected to be finished by 2025, will provide “separate space for cyclists and other users of sustainable travel, while maintaining a two-way route along the seafront” for motor traffic, with the exception of a new 600-metre-long one-way system in Tynemouth.

The proposals, which have been financed by the Department for Transport’s Active Travel Fund and walking and cycling charity Sustrans, also include the introduction of various road safety measures and a 20mph speed limit.

A six-week public consultation carried out by the council, starting in October 2021, found that of the 11,000 comments made, 6,965 were in favour of the proposals, while 68 percent of the 1,500 respondents believed that they would travel more sustainably if the scheme was permanently implemented.

However, two Conservative councillors in Tynemouth hit out at the scheme in a recent meeting of North Tyneside Council, claiming it will cause chaos, disruption, and pollution “along our beautiful coastline”, Chronicle Live reports (link is external).

Speaking on behalf of councillor Christopher Johnston and himself, Tory councillor Lewis Bartoli said: “If the disastrous cycle scheme at Rake Lane has taught us anything, it is that prioritising a small handful of cyclists over thousands of commuters causes nothing but disruption and congestion and increases in accidents.

“I accept that the scheme is of high quality, but it will effectively turn Tynemouth into a one-way system and the path is not even continuous with a huge gap in the middle at Cullercoats.

“This hare-brained scheme will cause congestion, inconvenience, pollution, and chaos along our beautiful coastline.”

Bartoli also accused the Labour-controlled council of “spending other people’s money”, despite the funding being supplied by the government’s Active Travel Fund, and claimed that the original temporary scheme installed during the pandemic was unpopular, despite the results of the public consultation.

Responding to Bartoli’s criticism, Sandra Graham, the local authority’s cabinet member for climate emergency, said she was “rather surprised that Councillor Bartoli goes against his own government’s funding pots and priorities to promote more active forms of travel and against their own motion last month. In September, there was a motion for enhanced road safety across the borough, and here is a project that will help to achieve this.”

She continued: “The scheme coupled with raised crossings and other measures with a 20mph zone along the seafront will in fact make the seafront safer for all, making it a more pleasant place to be and bring greater tourism and visitors to North Tyneside.

“Road safety will be improved giving people space to walk and cycle and reducing speeds whilst giving people the confidence to take up and develop their cycling skills in a lovely setting with space for everyone.

“This will provide a very high-quality look to the public realm and it doesn’t cost council taxpayers one penny – what’s not to like?”

The scheme was also praised by Whitley Bay GP Sian Williams, one of the 50 local doctors and nurses who called on the council in February to press ahead with the project on health and environmental grounds.

“I’m really pleased to see the cycle lane start to become a reality,” Dr Williams said.

“I hope it will provide a safe space to encourage more cyclists of all ages as happened with the temporary cycleway when more children and families were out on their wheels.

“I hope that the traffic calming measures will make those walking or cycling feel safer as well as improve air quality for everyone and overall improve people’s enjoyment of an already beautiful place.”

https://road.cc/content/news/bike-path-prioritises-handful-cyclists-councillors-claim-304559

Peowpeowpeowlasers | 2 min ago
0 likes

Once, just once, I'd like to see a council support such schemes by saying "oh just fuck right off you miserable car addicted bastards. Fuck off into the sea and don't come back"

hawkinspeter | 3 hours ago
3 likes

I don't quite understand the logic involved. Pedestrians are more likely to be hit by drivers than cyclists, so surely increasing the number of cyclists and reducing the number of drivers will decrease the number of collisions and certainly the seriousness of any collisions.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bartoli also accused the Labour-controlled council of “spending other
> people’s money”, despite the funding being supplied by the government’s
> Active Travel Fund, and claimed that the original temporary scheme
> installed during the pandemic was unpopular, despite the results of the
> public consultation.

The government’s Active Travel Fund gets its money from…the taxpayer!
Hence, it really is ‘other people’s money’!

> https://road.cc/content/news/bike-path-prioritises-handful-cyclists-councillors-claim-304559

Oh…it’s road.cc reporting…again…

--
Spike

QUOTE: muhasib | 7 hours ago
0 likes

"I accept that the scheme is of high quality"

"This hare brained scheme"

If he can disagree with himself in the same article then his party is probably in even worse disunity than I had hoped for. ENDS

Quite so.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: muhasib | 7 hours ago
> 0 likes
>
> "I accept that the scheme is of high quality"
>
> "This hare brained scheme"

> If he can disagree with himself in the same article then his party is
> probably in even worse disunity than I had hoped for. ENDS

> Quite so.

What makes you two think that the two statements disagree with each other?

Anything at all can be a silly idea but carried out to a high quality -
they are not mutually exclusive.

We frequently read of cycle projects that are a good idea but badly
executed - the cycling media is full of whinging by cyclists over such
schemes, for example. Don’t you read the cycling press?

--
Spike

This is local to me.

The road in question is not a commuting route, its a destination. Its just a long destination. If you want to get from North Shields or Tynemouth to Whitley Bay theres a more direct route just inland - the A193. Its ammusing that some of the comments to the article state that this is the only alternative they'll have if the coast is busy - becuse having 2 direct options for vehicles obviously isn't enough... I would only go this way from Whitley if I happened to be on the east side of whitley - you go past the A193 to get to this road from the west. In Tynemouth the two roads start at the same place at the top of front street.

Commuting traffic is not huge making the full journey from one end to the other - at every town along it there is a spur road to the A1058 to get to Newcastle. The bulk of the traffic here is on a weekend from people either coming to the coast or just 'going for a drive' to look at the coast. (Surely traffic jams would be a bonus for them as they'll have more time to stare out of the window). ITs nose to tail most weekends already. The scheme is actually only taking a small amount of road space - and in the area its going down to one lane theres an alternative road around it to the North end of Tynemouth.

Any gripes about this is just the usual 'but cars'.

On 19/10/2023 06:55 am, Simon Mason wrote:

> QUOTE: muhasib | 7 hours ago
> 0 likes
>
> "I accept that the scheme is of high quality"
> "This hare brained scheme"
>
> If he can disagree with himself in the same article then his party is probably in even worse disunity than I had hoped for. ENDS
>
> Quite so.

It would be possible - even easy - to imagine your house, extended so as
to encompass a new marble bathroom with gold-plated taps, adjacent to an
Olympic sized swimming pool.

It could be of high quality. But it would be hare-brained.

Avatar
John Hgl | 4 hours ago
0 likes

When cycle routes are safe people will use them. Some routes, like Portsmouth are just dangerous. I messaged the council a year ago with no response. Messaged Sustrans and was told, not our problem, contact the council.
I found it safer to use the roads than the cycle route.

Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
> Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> QUOTE: muhasib | 7 hours ago
>> 0 likes
>>
>> "I accept that the scheme is of high quality"
>>
>> "This hare brained scheme"
>
>> If he can disagree with himself in the same article then his party is
>> probably in even worse disunity than I had hoped for. ENDS
>
>> Quite so.
>
> What makes you two think that the two statements disagree with each other?
>
> Anything at all can be a silly idea but carried out to a high quality -
> they are not mutually exclusive.
>
> We frequently read of cycle projects that are a good idea but badly
> executed - the cycling media is full of whinging by cyclists over such
> schemes, for example. Don’t you read the cycling press?
>
>

I know the road / area.

Crass stupidity.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is local to me.
>
> The road in question is not a commuting route, its a destination. Its
> just a long destination. If you want to get from North Shields or
> Tynemouth to Whitley Bay theres a more direct route just inland - the
> A193. Its ammusing that some of the comments to the article state that
> this is the only alternative they'll have if the coast is busy - becuse
> having 2 direct options for vehicles obviously isn't enough... I would
> only go this way from Whitley if I happened to be on the east side of
> whitley - you go past the A193 to get to this road from the west. In
> Tynemouth the two roads start at the same place at the top of front street.
>
> Commuting traffic is not huge making the full journey from one end to the
> other - at every town along it there is a spur road to the A1058 to get
> to Newcastle. The bulk of the traffic here is on a weekend from people
> either coming to the coast or just 'going for a drive' to look at the
> coast. (Surely traffic jams would be a bonus for them as they'll have
> more time to stare out of the window). ITs nose to tail most weekends
> already. The scheme is actually only taking a small amount of road space
> - and in the area its going down to one lane theres an alternative road
> around it to the North end of Tynemouth.
>
> Any gripes about this is just the usual 'but cars'.
>
>

The above is nonsense. The area has no shortage of housing and people
commute from there.

Whitely Bay is one of the ‘posh areas’. Referring to someone as a ‘Whitely
Bay Geordie’ suggests they are middle class.

Lozcan | 1 day ago
1 like

At least all the Tories will be dead soon.

On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 10:03:17 AM UTC+1, Brian wrote:

>
> Whitely Bay is one of the ‘posh areas’. Referring to someone as a ‘Whitely
> Bay Geordie’ suggests they are middle class.

As a local, you should know that it is called "Whitley Bay".