Trust Pathways

The Trust Pathways group seeks a fully integrated cycle pathways network across Durham City and the wider area to encourage more people to cycle in safety, on dedicated cycle paths, segregated space alongside main roads, or on quiet roads with low traffic levels.

If you live or cycle in Durham, please join up! Our members are also represented in the Durham City Cycling Forum organised by the County Council, and in other local cycling groups.

See also the following links:

www.trustpathways.com/
www.facebook.com/DurhamBicycleUserGroup
www.twitter.com/DBUG_cyclists

  • Slow progress on the Belmont Viaduct link.

    Created by Kester // 1 thread

    The Belmont Viaduct is an essential sustainable transport link for the North Durham area. Trees were allowed to grow on it which would have eventually torn the structure apart. These trees have now been removed. More work needs to be done before it is suitable for general use.

    Opening this route will be a life saver for commuting cyclists.

    Please sign in to vote.
  • DfT Policy Paper - Inclusive Transport Strategy

    Created by Matthew // 1 thread

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-transport-strategy

    Lots of interesting stuff about inclusive transport regarding trains, buses, cars, public realm, streets and yes a bit about cycling too. Quotes:

    Shared Space:

    8.11 While we consider CIHT and DPTAC’s recommendations and how to take them
    forward, we are requesting that local authorities pause any shared space schemes
    incorporating a level surface they are considering, and which are at the design stage.
    We are also temporarily suspending Local Transport Note 1/11. This pause will allow
    us to carry out research and produce updated guidance.

    Objectives regarding Cycling:

    • Update Local Transport Note 2/08, which sets out the Department’s guidance to
    local authorities on designing safe and inclusive infrastructure for cyclists, to take
    account of developments in cycling infrastructure since its publication in 2008 and
    the responses to the draft AAP consultation and publish a revised version by early
    2019;
    • By 2020, explore the feasibility of amending legislation to recognise the use of
    cycles as a mobility aid71 in order to increase the number of disabled people
    cycling.

    Please sign in to vote.
  • North Road - narrow passes

    F. A. // 1 thread

    North Road is too narrow for both cycles and buses/lorries to circulate side-by-side when there are cars parked on both sides. As it is an uphill route cyclists travel fairly slowly and both buses and cars try to overtake passing very closely to the cyclists.

    It is not possible to dismount and walk on the pavement as there are some sections without pavement.

    Perhaps the City could remove a lane of parking and use that space to make a bike lane.

    Please sign in to vote.
  • Sniperley roundabout - danger crossing Southfield Way

    F. A. // 1 thread

    When Crossing Southfield Way in NE direction (from Whitesmocks towards
    Dryburn Park) pedestrians are unable to see if there are any vehicles approaching the roundabout because the crossing is located after a bend and the foliage on the SW side of Southfield Way blocks the view. It is equally worryingly that it is not possible for drivers approaching the roundabout to see if there are any pedestrians attempting to cross the road until only a few metres before the crossing, therefore
    giving drivers very little time to stop.

    Crossing Southfield Way in a SW direction towards Whitesmocks is also difficult for pedestrians and cyclists because the road markings allow two lanes of traffic to enter Southfield Way from the roundabout and there are vehicles that enter Southfield Way from the inner lane of the roundabout. Sometimes a lane can be stationary while the other lane can be moving. This is a busy junction in the
    morning and evening.

    Please sign in to vote.
  • B6532 roundabout - difficult to negotiate for cyclists

    F. A. // 1 thread

    Cyclists trying to cross the B6532 from either Dryburn Park or the Front Street are forced to enter the inner lane exposing them to passing cars on the outer lane at different speeds. Once they enter the roundabout there are cars coming from the B6532 at fairly high speed.
    It would be much better for cyclists if there could be a painted dash bike lane that would allow cyclist enter the roundabout from the outer lane - at least they would be protected on one side from moving cars!

    Please sign in to vote.
  • Durham Road - hazardous access to Aykley Head roundabout for cyclists

    F. A. // 1 thread

    Cyclists can face different problems when entering the roundabout.
    1) Cars do not leave enough room on the left for cyclists to enter the roundabout in parallel with motorised traffic. This forces cyclists to merge with all other vehicles and most of the times this results in a loss of momentum because the traffic queue waiting to enter the roundabout.
    2) As a result of the previous issue, when entering the roundabout uphill from standstill, cyclists are very slow and vulnerable to be hit by the cars that enter the roundabout downhill from the B6532 and leave the roundabout towards Aykley Heads. At peak times not many of these cars indicate that they are leaving the roundabout nor they use the outer lane when exiting the roundabout.

    Please sign in to vote.
  • Missing bridges on railway paths

    Created by Matthew Phillips // 0 threads

    There are many locations on the railway paths west of Durham City where bridges were taken out and there are steep gradients, sometimes with poor road crossings, to navigate from one section of the path to another. The worst one is near Broompark picnic area where it is very steep.

    Please sign in to vote.
  • No cycle parking at Sainsbury's

    Created by Matthew Phillips // 1 thread

    There is no cycle parking provided at the Sainsbury's on the A167 (former Pot and Glass).

    Current County Durham policy requires 1 space per 5 FTE staff, and a minimum of two spaces for users, with an additional space for every 400 sq.m over 100 sq.m.

    So I reckon it should have at least four. Were the policies in force at the time of the planning application for change of use? The previous policy was different, but stipulated a minimum of 4 spaces.

    Was there a planning application, which omitted to enforce this requirement, or was it permitted development?

    Please sign in to vote.
Spinner Please wait…
Back to top