Why are they allowed to block Cycle Route 1 and the Thames Path?

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 14:46:15 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Bertie Wooster considered Sat, 07 Jan 2012
13:01:25 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 23:24:09 -0800 (PST), Doug
wrote:

This has been going on for years now, various luxury-flat developers
and others have been blocking the path in the vicinity of the London
Dome and it seems to be getting worse with yet another blockage
actually by the Dome itself.

Is the path owned by various landowners or does it belong to the
general public? What is the point in having a National path that is
frequently blocked? If they did the same to the same extent to
motorists on roads there would be an uproar.

On the Sustrans website the route around the dome is shown as a dotted
alternative with no explanation but the TfL maps (2004) show it as a
solid line.

Greenwich Cyclists discussed this issue (yet again) at their meeting
on Monday. NCN 1 has been completely closed off, with no signed
diversion, overnight Monday to Friday, since April 2011.

I asked a public question about this at the Full Council Meeting on 4
December. The council responded that a diversion would cost £11,000
per week to run, and the cost was prohibitive.

I fully intend to submit a second public question on the matter for
the meeting on 25 January 2012.

Oh - and here's some more information about the closures of the
Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. In September a public question
was asked about the reason for the continued closure of the Woolwich
Foot Tunnel. The councils reply was that works have been delayed by
"hidden structures". A blogger then submitted a freedom of information
request about the "hidden structures", and they turn out to be the
underside of the stairs.

In my second question to the council on 25 January I intend to ask a
question along these lines:

===========Question===========
During World War II the Greenwich Foot Tunnel was stuck by a bomb and
was closed until repairs could be made. In the run up to the Olympics
the Woolwich Foot Tunnel was closed for "health and safety reasons"
which was later revealed to be due to "hidden structures", which a
freedom of information request revealed to be the bits of stair that
cannot be seen. How long was the Greenwich Foot Tunnel closed to
repair bomb damage, and how long was the Woolwich Foot Tunnel closed
to repair the "hidden structures"? Does the council feel that it has
been open and honest with users of this public highway about the
reasons for its extensive closure?
===========/Question===========

Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process

Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.

And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.

It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.

All good points, except possibly the last. One of the reasons for the
extensive works is to install a 24 hour lift service. The orignal
lifts were only operated 7am to 7pm and needed an operator.

On 07/01/2012 13:35, Jolly polly wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 07/01/2012 08:07, Jolly polly wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
...
This has been going on for years now, various luxury-flat developers
and others have been blocking the path in the vicinity of the London
Dome and it seems to be getting worse with yet another blockage
actually by the Dome itself.

Is the path owned by various landowners or does it belong to the
general public? What is the point in having a National path that is
frequently blocked? If they did the same to the same extent to
motorists on roads there would be an uproar.

On the Sustrans website the route around the dome is shown as a dotted
alternative with no explanation but the TfL maps (2004) show it as a
solid line.

Doug.


My sympathies at your frustration. I also get frustrated because parking is
allowed across cycle lanes blocking them (and more) completely, like you say
what's the point in having a lane then allowing it to be blocked.

Good point.
Abolish cycle lanes and restore sanity on the highway.
You know it makes sense.

have a listen to this from radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...nking_Streets/
it seems to support mixed traffic, even pedestrians

It's a point of view, though not one I (generally) share.

I suppose it's alright in short residential cul-de-sacs.

On 07/01/2012 14:46, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bertie considered Sat, 07 Jan 2012
13:01:25 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 23:24:09 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

This has been going on for years now, various luxury-flat developers
and others have been blocking the path in the vicinity of the London
Dome and it seems to be getting worse with yet another blockage
actually by the Dome itself.

Is the path owned by various landowners or does it belong to the
general public? What is the point in having a National path that is
frequently blocked? If they did the same to the same extent to
motorists on roads there would be an uproar.

On the Sustrans website the route around the dome is shown as a dotted
alternative with no explanation but the TfL maps (2004) show it as a
solid line.

Greenwich Cyclists discussed this issue (yet again) at their meeting
on Monday. NCN 1 has been completely closed off, with no signed
diversion, overnight Monday to Friday, since April 2011.

I asked a public question about this at the Full Council Meeting on 4
December. The council responded that a diversion would cost £11,000
per week to run, and the cost was prohibitive.

I fully intend to submit a second public question on the matter for
the meeting on 25 January 2012.

Oh - and here's some more information about the closures of the
Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. In September a public question
was asked about the reason for the continued closure of the Woolwich
Foot Tunnel. The councils reply was that works have been delayed by
"hidden structures". A blogger then submitted a freedom of information
request about the "hidden structures", and they turn out to be the
underside of the stairs.

In my second question to the council on 25 January I intend to ask a
question along these lines:

===========Question===========
During World War II the Greenwich Foot Tunnel was stuck by a bomb and
was closed until repairs could be made. In the run up to the Olympics
the Woolwich Foot Tunnel was closed for "health and safety reasons"
which was later revealed to be due to "hidden structures", which a
freedom of information request revealed to be the bits of stair that
cannot be seen. How long was the Greenwich Foot Tunnel closed to
repair bomb damage, and how long was the Woolwich Foot Tunnel closed
to repair the "hidden structures"? Does the council feel that it has
been open and honest with users of this public highway about the
reasons for its extensive closure?
===========/Question===========

Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process

What is a "reasonable time"?

I recall that the older M6 Thelwall Viaduct (only opened to traffic in 1963)
was out of action for a very long time (over a year, from memory), whilst the
deck was completely removed and replaced - twice.

Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.
And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.
It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.

Does that mean what you suggest?

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:28:27 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 07/01/2012 14:46, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bertie considered Sat, 07 Jan 2012
13:01:25 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 23:24:09 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

This has been going on for years now, various luxury-flat developers
and others have been blocking the path in the vicinity of the London
Dome and it seems to be getting worse with yet another blockage
actually by the Dome itself.

Is the path owned by various landowners or does it belong to the
general public? What is the point in having a National path that is
frequently blocked? If they did the same to the same extent to
motorists on roads there would be an uproar.

On the Sustrans website the route around the dome is shown as a dotted
alternative with no explanation but the TfL maps (2004) show it as a
solid line.

Greenwich Cyclists discussed this issue (yet again) at their meeting
on Monday. NCN 1 has been completely closed off, with no signed
diversion, overnight Monday to Friday, since April 2011.

I asked a public question about this at the Full Council Meeting on 4
December. The council responded that a diversion would cost £11,000
per week to run, and the cost was prohibitive.

I fully intend to submit a second public question on the matter for
the meeting on 25 January 2012.

Oh - and here's some more information about the closures of the
Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. In September a public question
was asked about the reason for the continued closure of the Woolwich
Foot Tunnel. The councils reply was that works have been delayed by
"hidden structures". A blogger then submitted a freedom of information
request about the "hidden structures", and they turn out to be the
underside of the stairs.

In my second question to the council on 25 January I intend to ask a
question along these lines:

===========Question===========
During World War II the Greenwich Foot Tunnel was stuck by a bomb and
was closed until repairs could be made. In the run up to the Olympics
the Woolwich Foot Tunnel was closed for "health and safety reasons"
which was later revealed to be due to "hidden structures", which a
freedom of information request revealed to be the bits of stair that
cannot be seen. How long was the Greenwich Foot Tunnel closed to
repair bomb damage, and how long was the Woolwich Foot Tunnel closed
to repair the "hidden structures"? Does the council feel that it has
been open and honest with users of this public highway about the
reasons for its extensive closure?
===========/Question===========

Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process

What is a "reasonable time"?

I recall that the older M6 Thelwall Viaduct (only opened to traffic in 1963)
was out of action for a very long time (over a year, from memory), whilst the
deck was completely removed and replaced - twice.

Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.
And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.
It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.

Does that mean what you suggest?

I a motorway a public highway? I ask because there are restrictions on
who may use a motorway.

On 07/01/2012 18:45, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:28:27 +0000,
wrote:

On 07/01/2012 14:46, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bertie considered Sat, 07 Jan 2012
13:01:25 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 23:24:09 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

This has been going on for years now, various luxury-flat developers
and others have been blocking the path in the vicinity of the London
Dome and it seems to be getting worse with yet another blockage
actually by the Dome itself.

Is the path owned by various landowners or does it belong to the
general public? What is the point in having a National path that is
frequently blocked? If they did the same to the same extent to
motorists on roads there would be an uproar.

On the Sustrans website the route around the dome is shown as a dotted
alternative with no explanation but the TfL maps (2004) show it as a
solid line.

Greenwich Cyclists discussed this issue (yet again) at their meeting
on Monday. NCN 1 has been completely closed off, with no signed
diversion, overnight Monday to Friday, since April 2011.

I asked a public question about this at the Full Council Meeting on 4
December. The council responded that a diversion would cost £11,000
per week to run, and the cost was prohibitive.

I fully intend to submit a second public question on the matter for
the meeting on 25 January 2012.

Oh - and here's some more information about the closures of the
Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. In September a public question
was asked about the reason for the continued closure of the Woolwich
Foot Tunnel. The councils reply was that works have been delayed by
"hidden structures". A blogger then submitted a freedom of information
request about the "hidden structures", and they turn out to be the
underside of the stairs.

In my second question to the council on 25 January I intend to ask a
question along these lines:

===========Question===========
During World War II the Greenwich Foot Tunnel was stuck by a bomb and
was closed until repairs could be made. In the run up to the Olympics
the Woolwich Foot Tunnel was closed for "health and safety reasons"
which was later revealed to be due to "hidden structures", which a
freedom of information request revealed to be the bits of stair that
cannot be seen. How long was the Greenwich Foot Tunnel closed to
repair bomb damage, and how long was the Woolwich Foot Tunnel closed
to repair the "hidden structures"? Does the council feel that it has
been open and honest with users of this public highway about the
reasons for its extensive closure?
===========/Question===========

Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process

What is a "reasonable time"?

I recall that the older M6 Thelwall Viaduct (only opened to traffic in 1963)
was out of action for a very long time (over a year, from memory), whilst the
deck was completely removed and replaced - twice.

Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.
And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.
It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.

Does that mean what you suggest?

I a motorway a public highway? I ask because there are restrictions on
who may use a motorway.

It is nevertheless a highway. There are restrictions on users of all
highways, depending on mode.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
This has been going on for years now, various luxury-flat developers
and others have been blocking the path in the vicinity of the London
Dome and it seems to be getting worse with yet another blockage
actually by the Dome itself.

Is the path owned by various landowners or does it belong to the
general public? What is the point in having a National path that is
frequently blocked? If they did the same to the same extent to
motorists on roads there would be an uproar.

On the Sustrans website the route around the dome is shown as a dotted
alternative with no explanation but the TfL maps (2004) show it as a
solid line.

Doug.


Dunno, don't care.
I live in the superior north, not in your southern toilet.

On 07/01/2012 19:59, Mr Pounder wrote:
wrote in message
...
This has been going on for years now, various luxury-flat developers
and others have been blocking the path in the vicinity of the London
Dome and it seems to be getting worse with yet another blockage
actually by the Dome itself.

Is the path owned by various landowners or does it belong to the
general public? What is the point in having a National path that is
frequently blocked? If they did the same to the same extent to
motorists on roads there would be an uproar.

On the Sustrans website the route around the dome is shown as a dotted
alternative with no explanation but the TfL maps (2004) show it as a
solid line.

Doug.


Dunno, don't care.
I live in the superior north, not in your southern toilet.


At least down south we don't have a terrible speech impediment;

Summatsupeer - There is something strange about this
Gerritetten - Eat up all your food
Gerartnit - Kindly leave / you're joking, aren't you ???
'Samarrerweeim - Is something worrying him
Azeegeniter - Has he given it to her?
Iampgorrit - I do not have it
Geeit Mester - Give it to the gentleman
Eezgooinooam - He is going home
Asthagorritreight - Have you got it right?
Isthemumin - Is your mother at home?
Astagorritwithy - Do you have it with you?
Purremineer - Put them in here
Ayampteeardnowt - I have not heard anything
Thalaftergerranewun - You will have to get a new one
Shuthigob - Be quiet
Owzeenoe - How does he know?
Geeoreroarin’ – Stop crying
Geeitagoodfettlin – Give it a good clean
Thasagoodun – You are very kind
Amgoinaht – I am going out
Itsoretheer – It’s over there
Geeorewittlin – Stop worrying
Aberritinterze - I will bet you that she doesn’t own it
Itduntmarrer - It is of no consequence
Eesezeeantadit - He says he has not had it
Weerzgaffer - Has the boss gone home early again ?
Eenoze nowt abartit - He does not know anything about the matter
Lerrer gerrontbus - Kindly make way for the lady to board the bus
Astaseenimont telly? - Have you seen him on tv
Eezgorriz atooam - He has his at home
Lerrus gurrapikchers - Would you like to go to the cinema
Eesezitintiz burraaberrritiz - He says he does not own it but I would
bet you that it's his.
Lerrus gerrus andsweshed - Shall we wash our hands
Sumonemz gorragerroff - Some of them must get off
Nardendee wotdardooin - Hello there, are you busy?
Corferus arpastate intmornin - Would you be kind enough to call me at
8.30.am
Eedurnt purris eead undert watter - He is frightened to immerse his head
under the water
Ateldhim burreewunt lissen - I told him but he would not listen
Lerrim purrizaton - Let him wear his hat
Astle clowt thi iftha dunt geeoar - I shall hit you if you don’t stop it
Gerrarry tergithee andweeit - Ask Harry if he will help you
Thakkan if tha wants - You may if you wish to
Eez nobbutta babbi - He's nothing but a baby (he's a wimp.. or he can't
take a joke...)
Cantha kumter arrowse tunneet? - Can you come around to my house this
evening?




--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:24:19 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

Bertie Wooster considered Sat, 07 Jan 2012
18:45:11 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:28:27 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 07/01/2012 14:46, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bertie considered Sat, 07 Jan 2012
13:01:25 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 23:24:09 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

This has been going on for years now, various luxury-flat developers
and others have been blocking the path in the vicinity of the London
Dome and it seems to be getting worse with yet another blockage
actually by the Dome itself.

Is the path owned by various landowners or does it belong to the
general public? What is the point in having a National path that is
frequently blocked? If they did the same to the same extent to
motorists on roads there would be an uproar.

On the Sustrans website the route around the dome is shown as a dotted
alternative with no explanation but the TfL maps (2004) show it as a
solid line.

Greenwich Cyclists discussed this issue (yet again) at their meeting
on Monday. NCN 1 has been completely closed off, with no signed
diversion, overnight Monday to Friday, since April 2011.

I asked a public question about this at the Full Council Meeting on 4
December. The council responded that a diversion would cost £11,000
per week to run, and the cost was prohibitive.

I fully intend to submit a second public question on the matter for
the meeting on 25 January 2012.

Oh - and here's some more information about the closures of the
Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. In September a public question
was asked about the reason for the continued closure of the Woolwich
Foot Tunnel. The councils reply was that works have been delayed by
"hidden structures". A blogger then submitted a freedom of information
request about the "hidden structures", and they turn out to be the
underside of the stairs.

In my second question to the council on 25 January I intend to ask a
question along these lines:

===========Question===========
During World War II the Greenwich Foot Tunnel was stuck by a bomb and
was closed until repairs could be made. In the run up to the Olympics
the Woolwich Foot Tunnel was closed for "health and safety reasons"
which was later revealed to be due to "hidden structures", which a
freedom of information request revealed to be the bits of stair that
cannot be seen. How long was the Greenwich Foot Tunnel closed to
repair bomb damage, and how long was the Woolwich Foot Tunnel closed
to repair the "hidden structures"? Does the council feel that it has
been open and honest with users of this public highway about the
reasons for its extensive closure?
===========/Question===========

Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process

What is a "reasonable time"?

I recall that the older M6 Thelwall Viaduct (only opened to traffic in 1963)
was out of action for a very long time (over a year, from memory), whilst the
deck was completely removed and replaced - twice.

Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.
And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.
It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.

Does that mean what you suggest?

I a motorway a public highway? I ask because there are restrictions on
who may use a motorway.

No, it's a "special road".


Is that in the same was as you, Porky, and Simple are "special needs"?

On 07/01/2012 21:19, Phil W Lee wrote:

Bertie :
Phil W wrote:

Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process
Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.
And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.
It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.

All good points, except possibly the last. One of the reasons for the
extensive works is to install a 24 hour lift service. The orignal
lifts were only operated 7am to 7pm and needed an operator.

I'm mainly referring to the complete absence of any alternative
provision.

So far from there being a "complete absence of any alternative provision",
there is in fact plenty of alternative provision. Whether it is fully
acceptable and available at the price the user prefers to pay is another
question (and not much to do with the topic).

For instance, a cyclist who had wished to walk/carry his bike through the
Greenwich *Foot* Tunnel can divert via Tower Bridge (on the bike). Or he can
divert to Dartford and use the Thames Crossing there. He and his machine will
apparently be carried in a motor vehicle across the bridge or through the
tunnel at no charge to himself, ie, at the expense of toll-paying users of
the Crossing.

Or he can use the Rotherhithe or Blackwall Tunnels on the same basis, except
that he will have to contract and *pay* for carriage in a motor-vehicle (just
like other users of those tunnels).

Alternatively, and bearing in mind that many users might not be prepared to
pay for safe carriage, they could - as long as it is between certain hours of
the day - use the Woolwich Ferry, free of charge.

So let's recap on the alternative provsions:

(a) Tower Bridge, as a cyclist, FOC.
(b) Dartford Crossing, as a passenger and goods, FOC.
(c) Rotherhithe Tunnel, as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).
(d) Blackwall Tunnel(s), as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).
(e) Woolwich Ferry, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

Yet someone or other says there is a "complete absence of any alternative
provision".

It truly takes all sorts.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:34 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:


******s.





--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.