Cycle path is a waste of money

2
Have your say

The recent shared cycle/pedestrian track established on King Edward’s Parade which cost the town £100,000 (yes, an eye watering £100,000) is a total waste of money as it is not being used by cyclists.

I live on King Edward’s Parade and have only seen half a dozen cyclists since its inception.

On the other hand, if one walks along the promenade it is used regularly by cyclists even though it is not permitted.

The pavement on the new cycle track is not wide enough to take both pedestrians and cyclists, and the proximity of street furniture, lamp-posts and cars jutting over the pavement makes it a high risk area for cyclists.

The signage is very poor – they are too few and positioned too high up for the public to be aware of them. Also cycle symbols should have been painted on the pathway.

I am sure that the Health & Safety Executive would not look kindly upon this travesty of a shared pathway.

I understand that the Council entered into a Section 106 agreement with Berkeley Homes with regard to the development of All Saints and that a financial contribution of £1.4 million was made by the developers to the Council for the benefit of Meads residents in particular.

I understand that although the first choice of the cycling organisations consulted was the lower path along by the seafront the council stated that the cost would be too great. Why couldn’t Berkeley’s contribution have funded it?

BARBARA GRANGER,

King Edward’s Parade.