Should BC object to the latest legacy plans?

[Plurien]

...was only won by users after a massive struggle with the outcome hugely delayed from the time in 2004 when the LDA were told by users about its suitability and availability.

Funding for this facility ends in 2012 - as has been confirmed by the CEO of the ODA in writing.

Besides, the facility is only intended as a relocation and not as a legacy. It is too far from Eastway and is not there to replace what has been taken. The legacy phase was to replace the road and mountainbike, with Velodrome and BMX to be be added.

If a facility like Hog Hill can have separate sustainability, what's being done about the many many more cycle facilities which should be being planned for the country now?

A place like Bedgebury was planned to have 40,000 visitor episodes in year 1. In the first 9 months of its operations it has attracted 140,000 visitor episodes. It takes an hour to drive from London to get there because it's over 40 miles away.

So shall we stop arguing, because there really is no need to think of cycling as a minority sport or leisure pursuit. It isn't and it needs a lot more facilities of all kinds. A site like Stratford in E London could support the full range that was planned - that's what the feasibility studies said.

Eastway was well used and the people that used it are due a replacement and maybe, since there's the games, they can have a bit extra in the form of a velodrome and legacy BMX too.

[JohnC]

When the Eastway velopark was announced http://www.sportengland.org/news/press_releases/velo_park.htm the estimate for annual users was 88,000.

How many of these were for the velodrome? So by their own figures, there is a great demand for a legacy road/off road competition facility.

Do those who say Hog Hill for legacy actually know where it is? This is London - it's bigger than everywhere else; the quickest way to get across London WITH and bike is ON a bike!

Surrounded by 8 million people, not to push for an Eastway style legacy Velopark in the post Olympics period is a dereliction of duty by BC, let alone the issue of planning conditions.

[hunterbark]

Lets base it on the figures, I seem to remember it was over 20 riders per hour that were quoted by the EUG, so lets be conservative at 20 riders per hour average.

12 hours per day (Manchester is used more, so being conservative) = 240riders
360 days (I''l be conservative again and take off some holidays) = 86,400riders.

Has nobody bothered to do the velodrome sums before or am I missing something, it hardly an insignificant number now is it? I'm only pointing out that the velodromes impact will be huge.

[Plurien]

....but possibly not as great as the loss of the road and off-road provision which is absolute right now.

[Ridley]

[KJ]

So!
Keep considering the velopark as a complete entity and stop with the track versus road, bmx and mtb.

[marc burden]

[Plurien]

Does Ridley mean that if Hog Hill were to be made permanent that he would tolerate the loss of Hillingdon?

Come to that, does the inclusion of a velodrome make it more or less likely that Herne Hill will close?

- This 'London Strategy' of viewing London facilities as a whole only ever gets used to the advantage of the money-people who want to show that they can chop facilities here and there because there's always somewhere else to ride at instead.

Those who propose the argument on the forums only ever do so in a way which is not going to see 'their' facilities chopped. Also, they tend to forget that for someone who's coming into the sport - and we all need more of them - the mere bagatelle of a 25-mile drive through or 60 mile drive round London to get to Hillingdon may be a bit of a barrier.

[Plurien]

More BBC Coverage again today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/03/19/eastway_cityhall_feature.shtml

This issue really won't go away. In fact it seems that people are now understanding what's been done here and they really don't like it because of what has actually happened - removal of a sport facility from E London - and what it implies for the way the whole costly development has turned into something else entirely which has very little to do with sport.

And, BTW those who thought the £9bn price tag was the end would do well to watch this report as well
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/03/19/olympics_landcosts_video_feature.shtml

[Ridley]

[KJ]

I guess London is a special case.

Are you aware of how far people drive or travel to train or race in places other than London..or how many facilities have been lost outside the capital or how hard people have worked to get new, or improve existing facilities outside London?

Do you care?

I suggest that we all agree that facilities should be as promised for the Olympic Velopark and its Legacy but we are, on this forum, getting a little tired of the tunnel vision exhibited by some of the EUG posters.

[Ridley]

[Billy Boy]

[Plurien]

Actually you'll find that the people who are making the issue of Eastway's loss such an agenda-forming episode do care about the provision of cycle facilities everywhere and have always travelled a lot to events. Many of us have also organised a lot of events.
Fundamentally we should all object to the loss of any facility, but the irony of losing the country's finest and most accessible closed road circuit and the venue for the country's largest weekly mtb series because of an Olympic Games can't be allowed to go unremarked.
If Eastway has established the precedent that facilities can't be taken without replacement, that the NGB needs to be more on the case and that riders realise they are doing a popular and accessible sport which can win political backing - even when the NGB is sitting on its hands - doesn't that make it a lot easier for anyone anywhere to make the case for more provision and no losses of facilities?
In the last 12 months I've travelled to events in Scotland, Wales, SW, NW, NE, Midlands, NL, France, Belgium.

If you're saying you want the emphasis on provision in your area, the way is open for you to do just that.

[ldncycle]

[quote="KJ"]I guess London is a special case.

Are you aware of how far people drive or travel to train or race in places other than London..or how many facilities have been lost outside the capital or how hard people have worked to get new, or improve existing facilities outside London?

Do you care?

I suggest that we all agree that facilities should be as promised for the Olympic Velopark and its Legacy but we are, on this forum, getting a little tired of the tunnel vision exhibited by some of the EUG posters.[/quote]

Actually, yes I do care. I took note of the previous posting of the facility in Cambridgeshire. and take note of the others.
If you want support, publicise it and guarenteed you'll get support here.

The tunnel vision here is because time is very very limited to actually have an impact on the long term planning of cyclesport provision in London. And that local users are not happy with the manner in which the governing body is representing them.
I certainly am not saying I don't want a velodrome - it will be busy and probably oversubscribed and great to watch. At issue is the LOSS of the mtn biking and the serious downgrading of the road, all which were fought very hard for to be kept in the legacy plans.
Surely we should be protecting as much open space for sport (and in particular cyclesport) rather effectively endorsing removal for other purposes? Seems fairly straight forward to me.

[KJ]

[Ridley]

[KJ]

[JohnC]

Well don't waste time on here. If you see Eastway on the title, don't click. Sorted.

[Ridley]