Cycle Rights Network (Farnham) response to Surrey County Council's consultation on the route of National Cycle Network Route 22

David Curl
Principal Engineer (NCN 22)
Sustainable Development
County Hall
Kingston upon Thames
Surrey
KT1 2DY

5^thJanuary 2004

Dear Dave,

Proposed National Cycle Network route 22

Thank you for your letter of 21^st November requesting comments from the Cycle Rights Network (Farnham) regarding the preferred route proposed by Surrey County Council (SCC) for National Cycle Network Route (NCN) 22.  We would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation of the efforts made by your team and the Surrey Cycle officers both in terms of consultation and on-the-ground leg work.

The development of NCN 22 represents a good use of public funds.  For a fraction of the cost of a single road junction (such as the £25 million A31 underpass in Farnham), SCC will be able to provide a new transportation route across the County.  Creation of NCN 22 will be an effective contribution to SCC's LTP targets for increased cycle use and cycle awareness at a time when Surrey is failing to meet its LTP cycle commitments (notably in Waverley Borough).  The cycle links between and within major population centres will promote sustainable transport, act to reduce social exclusion, foster independence for the young and encourage a higher level of physical fitness in the population as a whole.

The Waverley Borough Cycle Forum and the Cycle Rights Network (Farnham) strongly support the development of a National Cycle Network route in the Borough.  NCN 22 will provide a vital east-west transportation corridor in Farnham for pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair users.  The proposed route will be attractive and avoid the congested roads of the town centre whilst connecting many of Farnham's amenities (Guildford Road Trading Estate, the Health Centre, Farnham Hospital, Farnham Sports Centre, the East Street Development, Farnham Town Hall and the Maltings).  The route will also provide a coherent link from the town centre to south west Farnham, Wrecclesham and Rowledge plus a leisure route to Alice Holt Forest and on into East Hampshire.  To the east, NCN 22 will provide a strategically important, coherent, attractive and direct route from Farnham to south Guildford.  The existing direct route along the A31 Hogs Back is extremely hazardous and intimidating for cyclists.

There is also clear potential for the Guildford to Shalford cycle route to be extended to take NCN / regional routes through the heart of Waverley Borough to Godalming, and along the Downs Link and the Wey South Path. All of these are core routes in the Waverley Borough Strategic Cycle Network.

Before commenting on the details of the route preferred by SCC we feel that it is important to establish the terms of reference for NCN 22 and we would be grateful if SCC would adopt and publish criteria for route selection.  Without selection criteria we feel that it would be difficult to judge the suitability of route options. We would like to suggest the following criteria for NCN 22:

1. to link urban centres along the route;
2. provision of a safe and enjoyable route (appropriate for a 12 year old child to cycle unaccompanied);
3. to act as a spine for other links along the route;
4. to link facilities (schools, shops, stations and leisure centres) within urban areas.

In the Farnham area, CRN(F) is happy with the route proposed for the south westerly branch from the Hampshire county border in Rowledge to the A31 at Weydon Lane.  At this stage we are not able to comment on the route of the westerly branch towards Alton as a preferred route has not yet been decided by SCC.

We have strong misgivings about the SCC preferred route from Weydon Lane to South street along the side of the A31.  In terms of the Cycle Friendly Infrastructure guidelines on cyclist requirements (coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety and comfort) this route is:

• less direct than the alternative Red Lion Lane/Abbey Street route;

• far less attractive as it is pinned between a very busy dual carriageway and a steep embankment/flyover wall;

• too narrow for oncoming cycles to pass safely in the vicinity of the flyover with the Hickleys Corner crossing of the A31 being intimidating for less experienced cyclists;

• uncomfortable due to the pronounced undulations and poor drainage of the surface.
  

Our / Sustrans preferred alternative route along Red Lion Lane/Abbey Street would involve crossing the A287 on a double blind bend at the bottom of Firgrove Hill and an at grade crossing of the A31 from Red Lion Lane to Weydon Lane.  The A287 crossing will, in any event, need to be tackled to accommodate the westerly branch of NCN 22 towards Alton and (taking into account the movements involved for cyclists) simple mini-roundabout traffic calming might be appropriate here.  The A31 at-grade crossing is desperately needed to allow pedestrian, cyclists, wheelchair and pushchair access from south west to central Farnham.  There is a clear desire line at the existing uncontrolled crossing and a clear safety issue given the pedestrian fatality at this crossing in February 2003.  We understand that the cost of a toucan would deplete the NCN 22 budget but given the clear local need we wold suggest that cost sharing with the Waverley Local Committee allocation and even Farnham Town Council should be investigated.

With regard to the rest of the route:

• we are happy with draft route from South Street to the Shepherd and Flock Roundabout in Farnham;

• Moor Park Lane has a good surface but the potholes need to be made good especially where the lane passes under the A31;

• agree with the need for cycle lanes through Runfold on the Guildford Road where heavy lorries service the landfill sites.  We would also request that the lanes be made mandatory (more prominent) across the front of the St Georges Road and Crooksbury Road junctions;

• we feel that some measure is required at the junction of the Guildford Road in Runfold with Seale Lane.  This junction lies on a blind corner at the bottom of a hill and is currently be hazardous / intimidating for inexperienced cyclists to navigate eastbound;

• we are happy with draft route on road from Seale to Puttenham.

• the short section along B3000 at Puttenham would be improved by making a cycle/pedestrian off road route on East side of the road. This would be helpful for cyclists going West and uphill;

• agree with the route on the NDW between Puttenham and Watts Gallery, Compton.  Some minor upgrading of path useful in places;

• the farm track (NDW) to farm at 965478 OK with minor hardening;

• from this farm to where farm track joins Conduit Farm track at 973479 needs considerable uprating.  This would need to be done carefully to minimise walker conflict;

• if possible, use farm track (notionally a footpath) from here to end Sandy Lane at 980479, again to avoid conflict with walkers who use the attractive bridleway;

• content with Sandy Lane to Portsmouth Road;

• need to improve the crossing of the Portsmouth Road here traffic is fast and heavy;

• suggest improving the proposed St Catherines footbridge by wheel grooves making it easier to push cycles up;

• the footpath across Shalford Park needs to be upgraded as it gets boggy in parts (this would also benefit benefit local users).
  

Beyond Guildford, we agree with the other Borough and District cycle fora that the SCC proposed route along Combe Lane is unacceptable.  This is very steep (most cyclists will have to push cycles up), narrow, slippy and reasonably well used by car traffic.  The Combe Lane route also fails to satisfy the need for directness.  We support the suggestion that the best route from Newlands Corner to Shere is to use the verge on the south side of the A25 and construct off road cycle between Newlands Corner and Upper Street, Shere.  Although the use of two-way, side of carriageway cycle paths is discouraged in the Cycle Friendly Infrastructure guidelines (Section 12.1.2), in this case it would reduce the need for an additional crossing of the A25 as Shere also lies to the south of the A25.

The situation is not the same for the section of NCN 22 along the A24.  Here it is appropriate to follow the Cycle Friendly Infrastructure guidelines and ensure that a cycle path is provided to the east side of the road as well as to the west.

Yours sincerely

Thomas Lankester

Chairman, Waverley Borough Cycle Forum
for and on behalf of Cycle Rights Network (Farnham)

cc Alan Fordham, Cycle Support Officer, Surrey County Council
Waverley Local Committee
Ray Blackwell, Sustrans Regonal manager South East
Mark Strong ERCDT