The sorry tale of the not so Smartcard

I have to commute from Sudbury Suffolk to Clapham every day. I have a long and complicated commute. I order weekly or monthly season tickets online which I use on a Greater Anglia Smartcard.

For those that don't know this is like an Oyster card for use on trains, tubes and buses. It usually works very well. Except when the system fails.

So last Monday I order my weekly season ticket online and some two hours later I am at Sudbury station, and the self service ticket machine is out of order. So I cannot get my weekly season ticket and, sans printer at home, cannot even prove I have purchased a weekly season ticket. I also have no way to traverse the. Tube and Buses.

I buy a Daily Travelcard to enable that days commute. Then I call Greater Anglia Smartcard customer service team to report the broken self service ticket machine and explain my predicament. The lady on the line  takes my email address and promises to a) refund my daily ticket and b) issue an authority to travel to enable at least part of my commute.

On Tuesday the self service ticket machine is still broken but the authority to travel I printed at work, at least gets me through the barriers at Liverpool Street and Waterloo and my dusted off Oyster card allows me to use the tube and buses. The barriers traverse takes three times as long as normal but I manage it.

Wednesday is the same except that there is no-one to let me through the barriers at Clapham Junction so I have to travel on my Oyster card all the way to Liverpool Street Station. But that is the least of my troubles. My authority to travel runs out that day and I have emailed and asked if I  can either get an extension authority to travel or swap the Smartcard season ticket for a paper weekly season ticket. I received no reply.

So armed with the Email that states clearly "I shall keep your case open pl so I can advise you of any update on this issue and if necessary issue you with another ATT until the end of your ticket. Alternatively you can request a paper replacement at the ticket office." I go to the ticket office at Liverpool Street Station and request a paper replacement as instructed.

On arrival at Liverpool Street Station ticket office I explained the situation and requested a paper replacement ticket. After a few minutes wait the ticket office manager arrives and adamantly refused to issue a replacement paper ticket. I ask again being more assertive and remind him and show him the email I quoted above. It cuts no ice. So I walk to the customer service desk and ask what I do now.

They cannot help either.

Somehow retaining some semblance of calm, I get on my train and call the Smartcard customer service team for advice. As I have no smartphone nor printer at home they can send me a new authority to travel but I have no way to use it. They suggested buying another daily travel card for the next days commute. This is a solution I am at that point resigned to using.

On the Marks Tey to Sudbury train I explain the issue to the conductor who patiently listens and tells me of another customer at Colchester Town station the previous week, who had had the same issue.

Overhearing this conversation another customer on the same train stated she had been having the same problem all week. We compared experiences, they were very similar and I showed her the email and the authority to travel I have been using. The conductor emailed his manager to explain this problem and see if his manager could suggest a solution. 

On arrival at Sudbury station we discovered to our unbridled joy(spot the slight sarcasm) that the self-service ticket machine was finally working and we could update our smart cards. I no longer need to shell out more money for this weeks commute. (the bill was currently £63.40 for a daily travelcard and £20 for buses and tubes for 2 days)

This whole sorry episodes explains exactly what is wrong with the Smart Card system. it has clearly been installed far too quickly and unlike all other electronic systems on the railway clearly has no redundancy built in. Redundancy for those who don't know, is where you have duplicate hardware and communications to ensure that computer systems work even when a cable is cut or a connection goes down.

Redundancy used on signalling, power and many other systems on the railway. Clearly Greater Anglia acquiring revenue through ticketing is not such a system worthy of redundancy, therefore there is only one ticket machine at Sudbury station and at Colchester Town station When those ticket machines go down, customers are frankly buggered and cannot obtain the tickets they have purchased.

I am sure several laws are broken here, relating to online selling and effectively refusing to supply the customer goods they have bought in good faith. But that is only part of the failings.

The questions I have about these failings are:

1. Why, when you are buying an electronic good tied to a photocard and an email, does it have to be collected at a specific Railway Station. The poor explanation I was verbally given is that it has to follow the same rules as collecting a pre paid ticket. Except that is nonsense as I bought a Trainline ticket at Christmas and collected it at the first Train Station I reached (in that case Bath Station). If we had been able to collect the electronic ticket at Marks Tey none of the delays and frustrations would have been necessary.
2. Why can't a smartcard season ticket be swapped for a paper ticket, they cost the same extortionate price and if the electonic system fails are an essential fallback.
3. Why in 2017 can you only buy online a season ticket if it is on a Smartcard, even when that system is not yet reliable enough to be fit for purpose?
4. Why is there this clear disconnect between the paper ticket system, conductors and Ticket Office Staff and the Electronic Smartcard system.
5. Why did the Smart Card Customer Service Team not know a self-service Ticket Machine was out of order and why can they not change the tickets to be collected to be collectable at a suitable alternative Station?
6. Why does the online ticket selling software not know that a Self-Service Machine is broken, I ordered my Weekly Season ticket at 5.40am, that machine was almost certainly broken then. When completing the transaction it should have stated that I could not collect it at Sudbury but could at Marks Tey. This is not difficult, assuming these ticket machines and the Greater Anglia systems (their website is in Drupal which I know is not the issue) can actually talk to each other?

Some answers would be nice and comments by anyone with similar experiences. I think some of us Smart Card users have been treated as Guinea Pigs (without the seeds and nuts either). The art of Beta Testing is learning what works and making sure the systems, policies and rules are flexible enough to work with the system, this is clearly not the case with the Smartcard system.

Belle Vue - a missed opportunity

The decision by Babergh Councillors on the Strategy Committee of Babergh, to decide that the preferred tender for the Belle Vue Regeneration is that by Premier Inn and Beefeater (Collectively Whitbread plc and hereafter referred to as the Whitbread bid), has been deeply unpopular.

Clearly the decision was not made for political reasons, nor it seems was it made for economic reasons. The other 3 bids, I understand would have been worth more money to Babergh and I argue would bring into the local economy, far more value.

One thing is clear though, the District Council did not look wide enough for alternate uses, they did not engage with a wide enough range of bodies, and did not look geographically wide enough for potential interest.

I work in the Creative Industry, a growing area of the economy, (which is quite rare only businesses related to Property and Property Development are growing according to the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Office of National Statistics). . The industry is dominated by a few centres, London, Manchester, Bristol and Brighton. In London though, agencies are facing real problems, office costs per square metre are skyrocketing rendering renegotiations of leases on these unaffordable. Meanwhile their staff are faced with being unable to afford buying a property or indeed renting a property while on average earning twice the average salary in Suffolk. Many are now actively seeking a new base outside London.

But it is not as simple as just moving to somewhere like Sudbury they need other businesses and a creative community in place. Sudbury has a few small digital agencies, a fair number of freelancers, but no real digital community. Part of the Belle Vue Community Bid was what is called a Co-working space and community areas, these are essential to incubate new businesses and bring freelancers together. It would have been radical for Sudbury, but essential to create a digital community and attract Creative businesses and agencies to Sudbury. A quick calculation tells me that 20 creative people earning £40k a year plus office rental is going to raise £1m per year, that could easily be one agency. Bring in three more (and the move of one will attract others) and you have an industry bringing in £4m a year. The existing agencies will have to up their game to survive and pay their staff accordingly or lose staff and die. Local freelancers with the right skills will immediately benefit getting work from these agencies.

All this income will be spent in the local economy, whilst some will be spent in Supermarkets much will be spent in independent businesses which will see a boost to revenues. Of course the community bid offered much more than this, an expanded park, a new surgery for Hardwick House Surgery. All, apart from the Surgery, funded by a modest apartment developments in a part of the site currently unused. Everyone wins.

Here is one of the plans of the community bid.

 Here is an artists impression of what those plans would look like.

The plan encompasses Hardwick House Doctors Surgery (paid for by the NHS) which needs to expand would welcome such a move. The reuse of Belle Vue as a Community Space and Offices to let/co-working spaces and a business incubator for start-up businesses, the latter two are currently lacking in Sudbury and District. The expansion of the Park down to Belle Vue Junction with wheelchair friendly access to the park but also stairs and grass banks - a vast improvement over current access. The improvements to the park are paid for by two new Apartment complexes, one adjacent to Belle Vue House would be above Community event rooms and the Citizens Advice Bureau whilst the other much larger complex would be on a site currently occupied by the old pumping houses for the disused (and filled in Swimming Pool). The plan also ecompasses a bus stop on the corner of Belle Vue and Great Eastern Street which would be essential if the Bus Station moves to Girling Street.

But none of this will happen now, Belle Vue will resemble a business park with an unsympathetically designed Beefeater restaurant fronting it, large swathes of car parking (through which park users including children must navigate) with an off the shelf Hotel replacing Belle Vue House.

I was sent a photograph of one of the options for the plans for the Whitbread on Belle Vue Park. It's pretty dreadful if you know what the Beefeater/PremierInn combination usually looks like, it will in my view make the entrance to Belle Vue Park resemble any standard business park you find in Towns across the country. It is certainly not pretty, it is very very conservative and above all is dominated by the car.

Even if this is not the final plan some things are obvious, the Beefeater and the Hotel need lots of parking spaces and I can see no way that access to the Park will not be lessened by either or both of: closing the southern entrance (which goes straight to the playground) and having to cross a car park for a Pub to get to the park. The hotel and "Family Restaurant" will staffed by almost exclusively by minimum waged staff earning some £13k to £15k per annum. The boost to economy from employment will be minimal, the staff will be unable to afford to shop in anything other than the cheapest supermarkets, the profits will disappear into Hedge funds or offshore and the gain to Sudbury's independent businesses will be minimal, and in the case of pubs and eating establishments probably negative.

The councillors suggest a benefit to local tourism of a new Hotel, that the very presence of a Premier Inn will attract new Tourists. Sudbury really does not make the most of its tourist attractions, the traffic congestion is a burdening factor that would put off many, the town really is not pedestrian friendly and Tourists tend to be pedestrians once parked up, or arriving by coach or train. But there are no plans to resolve these issues.

A bypass (which even the most optimistic proponent would have to agree is 10 years away) will in all likelihood reduce traffic by just 8%, a noticeable amount, but with traffic levels growing will easily go back to previous levels, Chilton Woods Traffic Assessment suggest an increase in traffic from that development of 11% and this may well be before the bypass is built.

So I think it is unlikely that the presence of a Premier Inn will actually attract many tourists and those that may choose Sudbury will find it easier to travel to Long Melford and Lavenham and other nearby attractions rather than choke on the fumes of the traffic in the centre of Sudbury. Nor will Sudbury's restaurants, pubs and other eateries benefit, customers who use Premier Inn tend to be very price conscious so will be probably use the Beefeater restaurant for meals. So will a new hotel, and pushing the nearby Hill Lodge Hotel out of business, be good for Sudbury and attract Tourists anyway. Many people think not.

But if a hotel is needed, the Belle Vue site is not the only site available, the site of the old Tax Office could just as easily be used for this purpose. The problem with that is, of course, that the site is not owned by Babergh District Council and would cost Whitbread which owns Premier Inn and Beefeater much more than the £750,000 they have proposed paying for the Belle Vue site.

Surely the benefit will be in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy payments. As far as I can gather neither the Premier Inn nor the Beefeater will actually attract such payments, so the local area will not benefit from any such funds.

Why the Whitbread option was chosen is a mystery. The councillors responsible are currently hiding behind commercial confidentiality and will not reveal their business logic and rationale. I am sure they will never reveal it unless forced to.
 But a view of the scoping document http://technotim.co.uk/sites/default/files/uploadables/BelleVue-PreConcept-ScopingDoc.pdf may reveal their thinking.

In section 3, every option makes reference to a Hotel or Hotel and Family Restaurant. Clearly only one of the options ultimately considered included plans for a Hotel/Family Restaurant so on the basis of this document all the other 3 bids could be discounted. This is called Pro-bias, effectively writing the scoping document to ensure only one bidder meets the criteria. But this is meant to be an objective process and Pro-bias makes it non-objective, almost subjective in nature. We need to be assured that either a revised and unbiased scoping document was used or this document was not considered. Anything less makes the whole process unfair.

If they did use this document the decision was effectively pre-determined. So assuming they made their mind up already before the process began and this document was used brings up two other issues raised from the same document.

Looking at section 2.1 of the document titled "Overarching Vision and Objectives"

1. Open up the Park and enhance links and accessibility with the town centre
2. Improve the pedestrian link through the park to and from the town centre towards Great Cornard
3. Enhance the park offer
4. Improve the main Gateway into the town centre
5. Enhance the potential / capacity for community provision within Sudbury
6. Enhance the Economic offer in Sudbury to maximise tourist and visitor economy and other economic benefits (job creation).
7. Enable delivery of a project which is financially self sustaining and will not require long term BDC subsidy.
8. Provide a long term solution in respect of Belle Vue House without Subsidy from BDC (Retain & Reuse / Redevelopment)
9. Provide additional facilities / offer not currently available in the town centre to help boost its destination status
10. Ensure the existing community users of BVH have long term security and enhanced /updated premises in Sudbury.
11. To ensure and new development establishes complementary uses to support the use and role of the park (existing and enhanced).

Clearly the option to build a Whitbread restaurant fails to meet all the points here especially 1), 2), 3) arguably 4) and 5). It meets the rest but does nothing to enhance the Park at all.

Section 2.2 has further aims

1. Better site access
2. Raise the asset of the park / open for longer hours for all.
3. Introduce catering opportunities to serve the park
4. Establish a multi-functional building
5. Enable use of the park for events to enhance the Night time economy
6. Relocation of the BMX facility and toilets
7. Car parking spaces provided to serve future on site use
8. Provide small conference centre facilities

I don't see how more than the last aim is met by the Whitbread bid. Access to the Park is diminished not enhanced, there is no multi-functional building and placing a car park in front of the park can not in any way be beneficial to the park. The park is used by children of all ages, accompanied and unaccompanied as it has for decades, it needs a safe pedestrian route from Belle Vue Junction to the Park, it is difficult to envisage how this will be achieved with the Whitbread bid On the other hand the Community bid actually ticks almost every box.

I have been asked many times, or it has been suggested to me, that the decision is in some way insidious, that something underhand was happening, as this and another decision by some of the same Councillors don't seem to make any logical sense. I may be wrong but I don't think so. You can see why the suspicions arise though, given the choice between the Whitbread bid and the Community bid (ignoring the other two bids which I am sure had their own merits but of which I know nothing), the former looks an odd choice. I think the decision process I outline above was sufficient for the Strategy Committee to make an easy decision and discount the other 3 bids quite easily.

So we are left with the overriding view that those who reached this decision did so on the basis of ignorance of what the value of the bids really was and a basic misunderstanding of a) the affection for Belle Vue House held by the people of Sudbury b) How Belle Vue could be the launchpad for expansion of the creative industry in Sudbury and c) How the park could become an attraction of benefit to all, accessible safely to all and become a Tourist destination in itself.

If the scoping document was indeed used, in it's entirety, as a basis for the decision making it renders the whole process moot as with only one bid meeting the requirements of section 3.  The result was, therefore, effectively predetermined. The process should have been open, the scoping document should have omitted Section 3 and wider research carried out. We should be told the truth, those who worked on the other bids deserve it and increasing numbers of Sudbury residents demand it

There was the opportunity to do something truly innovative in Sudbury, that opportunity was missed.

A Town, A village - a Traffic and Economic quandary

Me

• I don't live in a city.
• I don't even live in a Town
• I don't own a car.
• I don't drive.
• I get around by a combination of cycling (mainly), public transport and walking.
• I am in the minority though.

This is a blog about my Town and My village and the traffic and economic issues facing them. But it will I am sure resonate with many towns and villages throughout the UK.

Our Cities are being dealt with, slowly, our Towns and Villages are being ignored. I am certain that this is due to the simple expedient that millions of voters gain from changes in Cities whilst only thousands do in Towns and hundreds in Villages. This has to change

The Facts

• Most adults in my village drive a car,
• Over half of them drive to work, even if work is only a couple or more miles away.
• They all complain of the fact that the roads get congested when they want to go to work.
• There is insufficient parking spaces for all the cars that want to park.
• Over half of all vehicles on the roads of my village and local Town are diesel powered.
• The Local Town gets regularly congested.
• To avoid the congestion drivers use rural roads as rat runs.
• Limitations on free school buses means children are regularly taken to school by car.
• Congestion is worse during school term.
• The village I live in lacks even moderate scale employers, our largest are hotels.
• The local Town is losing retail outlets just to be replaced by coffee shops and charity shops.
• The local Town has at least one AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) and I suspect it probably should have two more.
• The local District Council seems to have stopped monitoring Air Quality in the AQMA.It has not published any since 2011
• The Supreme Court has ruled that the next Government must do something to reduce pollution in AQMAs by 2020.
• Public Transport by bus only serves the main villages and only starts at 7.30am and finishes by 6.10pm.
• Public Transport fares are inconsistent, the longer distances are expensive as are the fares between villages.
• The Railway links from my local Town start early in the morning and finish quite late.
• Many industrial estates have no footpath or pavement approach for workers to safely walk to work.
• The Local Town and Village where I live has no high quality cycling infrastructure and what there is is faulty and low quality and not fit for purpose.
• There is no organised and especially free education given to cyclists beyond Bikeability at some schools

The quandary

• The local District council have a duty to solve the AQMA.
• The county council control Highways and want to solve the AQMA and resolve traffic congestion issues
• The town council wants to resolve the AQMA, boost the local economy, encourage tourism and retail and encourage walking and cycling
• The people living in the town and the village just want a solution that works.
• The planners want to do something about this.
• The politicians want the planners to do something about this.
• The residents in the AQMAs want them both to do something about this.
• The Retailers want more footfall and more customers.
• The Drivers want less traffic congestion and a solution to the parking problems
• Cyclists want safer cycling conditions
• Pedestrians want a safer and cleaner experience and footpaths and pavements where they are needed
• The Supreme Court ruling once filtered down means that the Planners and Politicians will have to act.
• They would like to do this without negatively impacting the local economy
• They would prefer a solution with a positive return on investment

The only current proposed solution - A bypass for the local Town

• The politicians think building a bypass to bypass the local Town from outside my village to beyond will solve the issue.
• Many residents and drivers see it as the best solution
• The bypass would costs £50 to £90m.
• Repeat fact most commuting traffic is 2 miles or less.
• The bypass would not solve commuting traffic congestion.
• The bypass would not resolve the school run.
• The bypass would not promote the local Town's retail experience.
• The bypass would blight part of the local Town's beautiful water meadows.
• The bypass would be built almost entirely on greenbelt agricultural land
• The economic case for a bypass would at least in part by justified by industrial and retail (out of Town) infill development
• The bypass would reroute some of the HGVs away from the centre of the local Town.
• The bypass would reroute some diesel motor vehicles away from the centre of the local Town
• No current study can tell how much traffic would be rerouted

Other alternatives being considered

• Alternative: Reroute the Strategic Lorry route away from the local Town.

• This is considered difficult.
• It moves lorry routes considerable distances.
• It moves the route through other villages and not through the local Town.
• It involves politicians and planners persuading neighbouring authority planners and politicians to move the route when the residents of their authority may not benefit.
• It does nothing about pollution from non HGV diesel powered vehicles

• Alternative: Declare a Low Emissions zone in the Town

• It would ban over half of the motor vehicles from using the Town Centre
• It would probably be enforced by ANPR cameras and some form of charging
• This would be political suicide
• It would solve the AQMA issue
• It would have significant detrimental economic effects on the town
• It would reduce Traffic Congestion
• It would relieve Parking issues
• It may have a benefit for pedestrians and cyclists as roads would be less busy
• The retail effects would be unknown they may be positive, negative or neutral.
• The cost of implementation is unknown

Alternative: Improve one of the towns main junctions

• The politicians and planners are proposing changing a major junction in the local town so it works better.
• Most of the changes are cosmetic
• It may be a shared space scheme or it may be a roundabout
• They suggest it will attract visitors and shoppers.
• It is admitted will not reduce traffic levels at all.
• It will not reduce congestion or pollution.
• It does not provide safe routes for cyclists or pedestrians into town or even (according to plans I have seen) across the junction.
• It does not provide extra cost effective parking for visitors and those working in town.
• It is relatively cheap, cost is less than £1m.

A more radical solution

• Improve Public Bus Transport so it can effectively be used for commuting.
• Make public bus transport start earlier and finish later serving commuters and those travelling into town for entertainment
• Make public bus transport fares consistent so they are the same for the same distances travelled.
• Provide a ticketing mechanism so one ticket covers all journeys, like an oystercard
• Such systems pay for themselves by making the system cashless
• Such systems cut down boarding times
• Such systems makes usage monitoring simple
• Provide School bus services for all children who need it (because it is not safe to walk or cycle)
• Link up Public Bus Transport to Rail Transport so commuters can use Public Transport end to end alleviating parking pressure.
• Provide pavements on all approaches to Industrial areas where people work.
• Create 3 arterial routes around the town for cyclists.
• Link the arterial routes to schools, workplaces, rail stations and shops so cyclists have a safe route everywhere.
• Educate cyclists so they know how to ride safely on the roads with other road traffic and are confident enough to do so.
• Educate drivers so they actually know the latest Highway code rules and not those when they passed their test
• Enforce ALL speed limits for motor vehicles using Average Speed Cameras and Automatic Number Plate Recognition
• Introduce a presumed liability law to protect cyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable road users
• The cost would be higher than the junction but lower than the cost of the bypass, probably between £1m and £5m
• When the modal shift is strong enough introduce a Low Emissions Zone in the area covered by the AQMA

Why would this more radical solution work

• Where cycling and pedestrians have better facilities retail footfall increases and retail sales increase as well.
• Because cyclists and pedestrians cannot carry as much as they would in a car they shop more often and buy more.
• Public transport users also buy more as they don't have to waste time parking.
• Better Pedestrian and cycling facilities attract more people to walk or cycle to work, school or shopping. Experience everywhere shows this, there are no modern exceptions.
• If you move enough commuters out of their cars and get them to walk, cycle or use public transport to work it takes only 10% modal shift to have a significant change in traffic congestion. With sufficient investment up to 25% is possible
• Once you reach 10% cycle commuting the modal shift rates start to snowball and quickly accelerate
• Since Traffic congestion excaserbates Traffic caused air pollution this will start to solve the AQMA issue in the town.
• Once a certain modal shift level is reached, and the Low Emissions Zone introduced, the AQMA will be solved
• The modal shift will attract more retail businesses to the Towns and Villages
• A bypass will take a minimum of 10 years to build, this solution can be achieved in less than 5 years
• It will pay for itself through improvements in the retail and other sectors of the local economy and savings to the health service as commuters get fitter
• Additionally it will attract more tourists from Holland and elsewhere either cyclists or walkers.
• The benefits would be felt in almost every village near the town and probably farther afield due to increased tourism.
• Forget Boris Johnsons plans for London, This Town and Village need a lift and this would be one way, maybe the only way to do it. Make it attractive for people and they and investment will move in stimulating wage growth, whilst for many transport costs would radically reduce.

This may all sound pie in the sky, but exactly what is the viable alternative, a bypass cant be done in time and costs too much, rerouting all diesel vehicles would be politically difficult if not suicidal.

A Sudbury safe for Cycling

A Sudbury safe for Cycling

For anyone who, like me, regularly cycles in Sudbury and keeps up with the Cycling News they will not have failed to notice that, whilst the Times superb "Cities Safe For Cycling" Campaign is gathering pace and it looks like forcing change, their home town has been entirely left behind.

Sudbury has next to no cycling infrastructure to speak of, two Advanced Stop Lines at the Junction of Ballingdon Street and Ballingdon Hill, Some short stretches (and I mean short) around two roundabouts at the top of Gallows Hill (and even these are not complete) and a Toucan Crossing outside the new Sainsbury's. 

Add in the few Sheffield Stands in Sudbury outside the Library and HSBC and outside the Post Office and that, my friends is it.

So one wonders, why, when every other major town of a similar size as Sudbury in Suffolk has cycle Lanes and even, in Ipswich's case some cycle paths, does Sudbury have no coherent cycling Infrastructure and that which it does have has issues.

I asked two Town Councillors, they both stated that the there are indeed funds available to provide better cycling infrastructure but that they depend upon Suffolk County Council to agree and recommend the improvements and to carry out the work. Their problem is a) That Suffolk County Council will not listen to their recommendations and b) Nothing has happened at all.

The Perils of cycling in Sudbury

It may not have escaped your notice that there are many more cyclists around, partly through the economics of running a car being unviable for many, especially for short runs and partly the so called "Wiggo Effect" The influence the success of Bradley Wiggins winning the Tour de France has had on people, notably in enticing them to take up this most accessible of sports.

With no infrastructure and more cyclists a KSI (killed or Seriously Injured) collision between cyclist and motor vehicle is becoming more and more inevitable. I hope it never happens but if the Authorities who have the power to act sit on their hands and ignore the issue, I'm afraid it will happen.

Cycling in Sudbury is no fun, the roads are narrow, there are too many lorries making it dangerous and too many car drivers drive like complete idiots, the number of times I have been "cut up" (when a car under or overtakes you then pulls in right in front of you with no consideration that the cyclist has to brake or manoeuvre to avoid a collision) so many times it now seems de rigeour for any sort of urban trip in Sudbury. I am so often forced to "take the lane" as the Department for Transport recommend cyclists do when they feel there is a hazard I cannot help feeling guilty for holding up drivers who might even respect cyclists. This is especially true on East Street, Friars Street and Cross Street where to avoid the "door zone" (riding 1-2m outside of parked cars in case the driver/passenger opens a door) entails riding in the lane for oncoming traffic. This is a recipe for disaster and makes cycling in Sudbury far too dangerous.

Ally this with lights that ignore cyclists entirely (a law abiding cyclist at the junction of East Street and Girling Street at an otherwise empty junction has to wait for the timings rather than triggering the lights to change),  or lights that change far too quickly, the lights on Station Road outside Roys change green to red in some 2-4 seconds, for a cyclist who may just have got up to speed they are forced to either emergency stop or jump the lights, if they are distracted by a life saver look or a bus turning right into their path the latter can happen too easily.

Cyclists behaving badly

Some Sudbury cyclists don't help themselves riding in poor light or darkness with no lights and as I have witnessed once, jumping Traffic Lights with no regard to their safety or anyone elses. But the majority do abide as far as possible by the laws of the road and drives witnessing the errant cyclists may lose some respect for the non-errant ones and therefore offer the latter less room as a result. The answer is obvious, wear hi-vis or reflective clothing (the latter does not have to be uncool) get some lights, (cheaper ones from Roys or occasionally Aldi or better from Torque Bikes, the Internet or Halfords) and try and abide by the law. I am aware that BMX riders don't have road legal bikes (lack of brakes being one issue) but they ride to and from the BMX track so being seen still applies.

Our cycle routes official and otherwise

We have the Railway line which is good for mountain bikes but next to useless for most of the year for any cyclist on a road bike, which makes travelling by bike to Ballingdon, Rodbridge Corner or Long Melford easier but very little else,

An awful lot of cyclists now use the pavements as de facto cycle paths, this is in most cases safer for them as they are separated from the motor traffic, but they run the risk of hitting a pedestrian in doing so, and besides it is illegal for anyone over 12 years old to ride on the pavement. But you cannot blame them for doing so, it avoids tangling with good and bad drivers and it avoids a sometimes lengthy detour round the one way system.

The new development of a Sainsbury's store on Cornard Road was the perfect opportunity to provide some cycling infrastructure on this link between Cornard and Sudbury. In truth some new infrastructure was provided, the Supermarket has lots of under cover Sheffield Stand bike racks and the junction with Cornard Road has a Toucan Crossing.

But, there are no cycle paths or lanes of any description so that a cyclist has to either cycle on the pavement to use the Toucan Crossing or ride with motor traffic. The opportunity was missed or bungled. So I asked Sainsburys

Subject: New Sudbury Store Junction makes cycling more dangerous
User's Comments: Hi, I recall in one of your leaflets or press statements that the new Store in Cornard Road in Sudbury would improve cycling infrastructure. This was to be welcomed and indeed I referenced this in a letter to the Transport portfolio holder for Suffolk County Council.Imagine my horror to find out yesterday that the new store has lots of cycle stands of the Sheffield type but no other infrastructure at all for cyclists. Indeed whereas cyclist could cycle easily past the entrance before now, if they are passing the junction west-east  they have to be in the middle lane with traffic passing on the inside of them and at risk from traffic turning right into the store. I am quite frankly astonished that this junction has a) no cycle paths on either side of Cornard Road to allow cyclists to avoid the junction, b) No advance stop lines at any element and no cycle paths from either direction into the store.
Why were the requirements of cyclists ignored whilst bizarrely providing sufficient cycle parking facilities? Was this a decision by yourselves, Babergh District Council or Suffolk County CouncilI look forward to your response.Regards

And got the following response.....

I’ve called the store and spoken with Mark Manning, the Duty Manager, who asked me to pass on his apologies.  He advised me that the management team within the store placed in the request for the bicycle stands but had no influence over what markings they could have incorporated into this. 

Mark advised me that if you would like to query about the bicycle paths, then please don’t hesitate to contact the Babergh District Council.   You can contact them by emailing them at, customerservice@babergh.gov.uk or you can call them on 01473 826622.  I’m sure they will be moiré than happy to assist you.

All well and good you might think so it was not their responsibility, so before contacting Babergh I thought I should check the relevant planning application and conditions of acceptance. It was illuminating in that at no point in the plans were any cycle paths even considered for the approaches to the site or the Toucan crossing. So it seems that cycling was safely ignored by Babergh District Council. But then if you read their own policy on this they defer to Suffolk County Council, so clearly SCC must have reviewed the plans and recommended what cycling infrastructure would be added. Realising that the traffic study skimmed over cycling activity (and was indeed based on out of date data) I realised the real issue must lie with Suffolk County Council.

Prior to contacting Sainsburys and at the suggestion of a Town Councillor I emailed Guy McGregor to put my own questions to him (and you will note from the following this is prior to Sainsbury's opening) Some are specific to East Street but would equally apply to Cross Street/Friars St/Church St.

Hi
I was given your name by a local Town councillor as you are apparantly portfolio holder for Roads and Transport in Suffolk County Council. There are a number of specific points I would like to raise and then general points about the lack of Cycling safety infrastructure in Sudbury.
Specific points.

    East Street/Waldingfield Road which is where I live is seeing a vast increase in both Heavy Goods Vehicles and cycling. The two are incompatible and causing problems. The Lorries issue is now so bad that there is a real danger of damage to property from the vibrations caused by the HGV's and some of the buses. This has got progressively worse and many residents of both East Street and Sudbury are now deeply concerned by this. Since there is no industrial or Warehouse infrastructure adjacent to either East Street or Waldingfield Road there is no valid reason for any HGV's to use this road except for access (i.e. deliveries to residential properties and the buildings up Acton Lane such as Hazell Court, the Police Station and the Ambulance station. Therefore how do we get this road classified as unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles and how soon can this be done?

    Given the restricted nature of the road, it is narrow with parking on the North side and no lane markings, there is, given what other cyclists and myself reckon is a 100% increase in cycling in Sudbury in the last 12 months (as evidenced by all cycle racks being in constant use and regularly full when a year ago they were usually empty) a real danger of serious injury or death to cyclists due to the increase in HGVs and poor car driving and absolutely no cycling infrastructure (cycle paths or their poor relation cycle lanes) and at the junction with Girling Street no stop ahead provision for cyclists when clearly this would be a simple improvement. Given that a larger and larger number of cyclists are now using the pavement on the North and South Sides of East Street as unnofficial shared use cycle lanes it is imperative that this issue is addressed before someone gets killed or seriously injured.  What can be done immediately or in the next six months or in the future, to alleviate these issues.

    The Stop ahead zone from Brundon Lane into Ballingdon Hill is very poorly designed. It is a strain to see the traffic lights from the stop ahead zone as they will be at least parallel to the rider if not behind them, this is a safety issue since the cyclist can not do a lifesaver then pull off quickly before the light changes from orange to green. The concept is right but the delivery is not. There is also no stop ahead zone from Ballingdon Street heading south at this junction, when clearly there is room for one.

General cycling points on Sudbury Cycling provision.
     There are very few cycle paths or their poor relation cycle lanes on any of the major roads in Sudbury this why are is this so when Bury St Edmunds, Haverhill, Ipswich and other Suffolk towns have good cycling infrastructure. The ideal points where such provision would be an excellent idea would be Melford Road, Cornard Road, (clearly Sainsbury's have added some infrastructure but none exists beyond Ingrams Well Road and on the Bures Road) and Northern Road where cyclists again use the pavement due to the high incidence of Heavy Goods Vehicles. There is room on these roads for a proper cycle path but none has been provided. I would be interested in your thoughts on why Sudbury is the poor relation in Suffolk.

    An adult friend wished to take up cycling for leisure and commuting purposes and asked me to investigate Adult cycling training in the local area. Despite searching the Suffolk County Council website and British Cycling and bikeability all I could find was training for children. Who provides such a service for adults in the Sudbury Area?

    The Suffolk cycle route A uses the disused railway between Sudbury Kingfisher pools and Rodbridge Corner, yet the surface is only suitable for Mountain Bikes, this forces road bike and hybrid bike riders to use the roads to avoid punctures and excessive vibration. Can a section of the path not be paved or tarmaced thus providin a smooth cycling route for all cyclists from Sudbury to Long Melford and separating this traffic from motor vehicles which is the ideal scenario,
As fuel prices rise, more commuters will turn to the bicycle but one spate of serious injuries or deaths and this trend would be reversed, I gather you have £450.000 available for cycling infrastructure  and Norman Baker has today announced a further £600m pot of money available, can some or all of these suggestions be incorporated.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

So I expected an acknowledgement and a "We will look into it" response, neither was forthcoming, I sent that email on 18th October 2012. Two weeks later I followed up with

 Hello
I am deeply dismayed that you have chosen not even to acknowledge my email sent to you on the 18th October 2012 which I know you read on 18/10/12 as witnessed by the following

Your message was read on Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:13:31 PM UTC.

Final-recipient: RFC822; 
Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed
X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: fJu1Tw3pfkCyFE3BDsekaA==
Original-Message-ID: 
X-Display-Name: Guy McGregor

If you are too busy to answer it in full then an acknowledgement that it was received and will be answered in due course would have sufficed, but you clearly have chosen not to do so.

I also gather that the meeting arranged with Sudbury Town Council to consider cycling among other traffic matters has been delayed until January 2013 which further delays any opportunity to raise these matters in person.

Further to my original email I have just studied the cycling infrastructure provided by Sainsbury's in creating the new junction with Cornard Road in Sudbury. The infrastructure is in fact zero (apart from some sheffield stands) There is clearly enough room for them to have created a cycles-safe cycle path into the car park from the West (Sudbury Town Centre side) and a cycle lane or path past the junction from the East (Cornard side)  but neither has been provided.

There was clearly opportunities at the new traffic lights for Advanced Stop lines for cyclists (a common practice and highly sensible since this is part of Suffolk Cycle Route A) but these are absent. It therefore appears that none of the Section 106 money associated with this development has been used for any cycling infrastructure at all and I am wondering if it is cycling policy to ignore cycling in it's road safety policies when assessing new retail developments (or is this just in Sudbury).

So an opportunity to provide at least some cycling infrastructure and indeed a safe path for cyclists in either direction has been completely missed. I have spoken with a number of cyclists who understood that cycling facilities would be provided, it seems all these facilities consist of are a number of "Sheffield Stands" but zero consideration for how cyclists would reach these stands. It seems that Suffolk County Council and the planning Authority Babergh District Council are not taking cycling seriously in Sudbury and so Sudbury remains the poor partner in Suffolk in terms of Cycling Infrastructure.

Can you explain why Ipswich, Bury St. Edmunds, Haverhill and Lowestoft have networks of cycle paths and cycle lanes whilst Sudbury have very very few at all and none of any consequence on major roads and junctions? Can I ask when the last traffic Study was carried out in Sudbury and whether there are plans to update this information (given the massive increase in cycling in the Sudbury area and elsewhere).

I hope you can feel able to at least acknowledge receipt and eventual response to this and my previous email as advised by local councillors I have copied in the Leader of the Council

Regards

This time I got not one but three responses, one from the leader of the council who asked his PA to look into the lack of response to the first email and then one from Guy McGregor himself
and one from his PA both of which state that the matters are being looked into and that a response will be forthcoming.

That was two weeks ago. I am still waiting......

Meanwhile the Town Council requested a meeting on the subject with Guy McGregor, this was pencilled in for 21st December but has now been delayed until the New Year. Not that I have been informed about it of course or even if it is a closed or public meeting.

Meanwhile Sudbury cyclists continue to do what they do and avoid getting killed or Seriously injured by the traffic with home they are forced to share road space.

I was reminded the other week that Cars, Vans and Lorries have only dominated our roads since the 1950's or 60's and that before the dominant forms of transport were horse drawn or bicycle. The argument being that Cyclists "lent" the roads to the cars. vans and lorries, now we would like them back.

Oh and if anyone should care to respond with "Cyclists don't pay Road Tax" they may consider that unless they are 92 years old and still driving they have never paid a penny of Road Tax either, Road Tax was abolished in 1937 and replaced with a tax on ownership of motor vehicles currently called Vehicle Excise Duty which is not only not related in any way to spending on maintenance or upgrade of roads but is based on emissions from the vehicle. Since a cyclist has no emissions (well not ones unrelated to digestion) they would pay zero Vehicle Excise Duty, the argument is therefore fatuous.

I think since doing things officially seems to be a dead end (perhaps Suffolk County Council do not know why we have no infrastructure or perhaps are embarrassed by the fact)  I feel it is about time the cyclists of Sudbury did something to highlight the issue. To this end I am starting Cycle Safe Sudbury. a campaign to raise awareness of the issues and pressure SCC into doing something to alleviate the issue.

I urge all interested cyclists in Sudbury (and surrounding areas of course) to join the campaign and support activities aimed at raising the profile of cycling in Sudbury.

I will be launching a facebook page and website soon.

Aestival 2010 a festival review

So what was it about?
Clearly the inspiration of the departed Festinho sowed seeds in the minds of the children of the Phillips family at Kentwell Hall. The site, as ably demonstrated by Festinho is just made for festivals. So with the aforesaid festival departed to pastures new, they decided to have go at running their own. Any profits to go to Barnados.


Another festival, what made this different?

The concept was an invite only produce your own festival, a team drawn from friends and acquaintances put the infrastructure together, a few mistakes were made but they did most of the basics right. The festival was limited to 500 bodies, simplifying licensing and lowering costs a bit. But every punter paid a mere £30 and then volunteered for a shift in one role or other, or just performed.



Did it work?
Having a pool of 500 people to draw on (less kids and babies of course) meant that Stewards had one two hour shift each, Similarly the bar staff, first aiders and other shifts were taken up with what looked like 100% success. Ironically the supposedly professional Security failed to fulfil their contract. But also at the end about 50 (maybe more) people helped with the take down, all the decor was down in an hour, all the tents, marquees and lighting dismantled in 2 only the Sound systems remained plus the stuff to be taken away and stored. A really interesting idea as a result, imagine getting a percentage of a festivals crowd to don a tabard for two hours and put something back into the festival, it worked, was successful but was maybe hardest on the volunteer organiser. Good lesson to learn.

Did that leave time for fun and games
Too bloody right it did, the Woods were again used for what they are now infamous for, dancing, with an added stage. The excellent and professionally procured sound and light meant it all worked nicely, as for the fun, a mad hatters tea party and a dream based fancy dress theme added to the good time feeling. Everyone partied like it was going out of fashion.

The Hackney Colliery Band on Friday Night















So what didn't work?

Classic festival mistake, listen to the advice of the toilet supplier, book too few and no emptying = almost disaster. Thankfully flush toilets in the stables saved the day. I was unable to get involved at the planning stage, and I knew roughly how to do it or would have phoned a friend. But hey ho, that's the learning curve.
Lighting. The woods looked great but LEDs and glowsticks just don't cut it for actual seeing where you are going. Thankfully the kids were asleep and the adults were happy to bump into each other.

And the music, what about the music?
Well an eclectic mix of artists gave their time for free. Highlights were the Hackney Colliery Band on Friday, Blanco, Pixelh8, Public Service Broadcasting, BangStrokeBlow and Amy's Ghost on the Saturday and a host of smaller bands and DJs on three stages. A few programming mistakes but again hey ho.

Public Service Broadcasting
Amy's Ghost













Drink, Drink Show me the drink
The bar was stocked with local ales, cider and lager at £2.80 a throw, plus spirits and cocktails. Needless to say it was busy.

Keyboard player of the Blanco Collective
Bleeping local superstar Pixelh8
















Will it happen again?
It was a success, it looks like it raised money, but the hard long hours on preparation was a bit of a shock to the organisers. We shall see. Having said that the timescale for organisation was only a matter of a few months, so such a timescale probably made it harder.


Conclusion
You can produce a festival that is successful in a short time scale, if you have enough energy, enough time, enough bodies and enough ideas. It did have a Big Chill feel to it, it did work and it was fun. Interesting to note that if you organise something sort-of spontaneously make sure the bogs and lights are factored in, and everyone gets involved in one way or another.

2009 - A year to forget or a year to remember

I am torn, was 2009 a good year or a bad year for me, or for anyone for that matter?

Personally I spent the greater part of the year on the dole. For someone who has worked all but eight months for the previous twenty five years or so this came as a shock. Sure I had most of my rent paid, but the dole leaves you almost unable to live. My outgoings exceeded my income every month. I got some part-time work in the Summer but that extra money just got taken away four months later when it had all been spent anyway.

This has necessitated a few changes in lifestyle. I have become a professional happy shopper, with Tescos too far away to walk I have managed on using Somerfield, Aldis and Waitrose. You may wonder about the latter, Waitrose as a happy shopping venue, what can you get there that is cheaper than elsewhere, does my essential shopping list include Smoked Salmon, Stinking Bishop and chantrelle mushrooms? Well no, but Waitrose are value for money for some items and their essentials range has become, well, an essential. Pasta, Pesto, Coffee, Marmalade and Washing Powder are all cheaper at Waitrose and good quality too. Even the Dingle yesterday decided the coffee was adequate and he is such an instant coffee snob as to be unbelievable.

I have been priced out of going to football to a large extent. The pressure to have a competitive team requires higher wages and the bean counters at Ipswich Town increased the ticket prices when many clubs are cutting or freezing theirs. Attendances have fallen as a result. This is sad on two levels. One I love my football and Sky Sports News is no substitute for being there, and secondly as a member of Section 6 my voice is clearly missing at some matches. Sad Days when your number one hobby is denied you by Capitalism.

I have been jobhunting but it has been a fruitless task, agents are mostly arse, full stop. Every job appearing on Jobserve, Jobsite or Jobs24 involves an agency. The agents get inundated with applications and CVs and it is nigh on impossible to get yours to be put forward even if the job fits your CV like a glove. Add in that they make daft comments like "I didn't put you forward because I thought the job might bore you" or "I will not put you in for this job because your salary demands are too low" Hello, which bloody planet are you on, there is a recession, my salary demands are low because I want to be competitive and quite frankly let me decide if I will be bored, not you on the basis of my CV. Arse I tell ye the vast majority are arse. Unregulated, untrained, unknowledgable about IT, why are they allowed to decide who gets their CV put forward when theirs just reads Salesman or Saleswoman.

On the other hand 2009 has been a good year for me socially and artistically. I have improved friendships with many good mates and made some really good new ones. One friend called Steve May is trying to resurrect his sort of Jazz Combo called Trancethon. He used to have a 12 piece band, now it is just him. So having met him last year we sat down and recorded backing tracks for him to use of some of the other parts of his music. Then using Ableton I live Mixed it for him at Eddyfest at the Edwardstone White Horse in August. It worked it went down very well and we are aiming to take this onwards. So I now have an artistic and musical outlet I previously did not have.

I returned to cycling. Given my mate Malcs old bike I have cycled around Suffolk most of the year. I have obviously got fitter, except when I crashed and broke a rib and it "only urt when I larffed" But good to get back on a bike again.

The Brewery Tap has been the bedrock of my social life. The number of times I have been in other Sudbury pubs in 2009 can be counted on two fingers which is incredibly apt. It is a real local, full of real people, not alcoholics, not fighting drunk, just nice happy people and wonderful ale. So many thanks to so many people who have bought me pints in 2009. When I get a job in 2010 I will repay your kindness.

Then there was Festinho. What can I say. I wished I had turned up a day earlier to work there, I enjoyed it so much, there was hassle for sure, but also so much fun. The crew excelled themselves, exceeded last year. Festinho came of age, it became a fully fledged festival and one that Tom, Simon, Ru, Charlie, Mikey, Caro, Piers, Jasper, Susie, Matt, Ben and anyone else in the crew I may have missed can be rightly proud of. I look forward to 2010 already, the time is diaried as time off whatever I am doing. I continue to spread the word. My aim is twofold, to secure the services of enough volunteers to make it all work and work to sell all the Sunday day tickets.

There was a sad moment, the tears I shed for the mighty memory of Sir Bobby Robson was the worst. It was truly like losing family. So very sad.

So what do I hope for for 2010. Well a job obviously. I need gainful employment so shameless plug, if you know anyone who needs a Network Engineer or all-round support person, get them to contact me.

I also hope we get a good government, I sincerely hope the Tories fail to gain a majority as their incompetence will destroy the limited good work of the last 12 years and I would not employ George Osborne to open my piggy bank let alone manage a developed economy. Maybe we will get the electoral reform this country so desperately needs to breathe new life into politics.

Clearly I want Ipswich Town to improve, climb the table and in an ideal world make the play-offs. Not that I really want to see Premiership football that much, it really is overhyped too expensive and quite a dull experience. Roy Keane is really growing on me though.

I would love to get more involved in music making. There is a lot that could be achieved, we just need the luck, hard work and determination to make it happen.

Oh and I wish all my friends family and acquaintances a fun, happy, prosperous and auspicious 2010 and decade. It this next decade going to be held in a bivvy bag or a Marquee as it will be "the Tenties"

Simon Cowell and his famous dancing machines.

I am no fan of the X Factor, in fact with a few exceptions I am no fan of any band or artist doing cover versions. Hence the X Factor is not my cup of Tea.

But the X Factor goes deeper than that. If 16 million people do indeed tune into this drivel then the world is in a sad state. There are so few music programmes on TV that promote and play original music, Channel 4 does it's bit as does the Culture Show and Jools Holland, but that, sadly is about it.

The problem is that the influence that the X Factor has on it's audience in accepting musical drivel as entertainment, and worse still going to pubs and clubs and expecting more of the same. I notice that clubs now have X Factor nights, karaoke is in, and a whole generation of teenagers will see this as what entertainment really is. That will be really bloody sad.

RIP Real Music, RIP originality and RIP most sadly the long tried and tested route to market for so many bands and artists, namely gigging. There are so many venues that only ever book tribute and covers bands, many but not by any means all of whom do imitations of the original songs and usually without any passion. Now add to that the X Factor nights and karaoke boom and there are precious few places to play.

Simon Cowell is upset. He says the campaign to get Rage Against The Machines "Killing in the Name of" to the Christmas Number one is stupid, he argues

These three people, who under normal circumstances would find it really hard to get a recording contract, suddenly have got a shot.

as some kind of warped justification for one of the three winners getting a Christmas Number One.

Simon let me fill you in on a few truths, the reason that none of these people would get a sniff of a recording contract is simple, they are simply not good enough. Pete Waterman puts it more succinctly.

I haven't ever seen any of the finalists. I haven't heard them sing. But I can guarantee they all have decent but unremarkable voices, no discernable personalities - and some heart-rending tale to tell about a granny who's died, a distant cousin with a drug habit or some other such sob story.

That from a man who "manufactured" the likes of Rick Astley in the 1980's. He knows how cynical the music industry is and especially how brazenly cynical the X Factor is. Not that every talented and original musician gets the success and fame their work and talent deserve, indeed there are bands out there who will forever stay on the periphery, but most if not all have a loyal if small following, and most persist, hoping for a break, sadly none of these acts would ever get near the X Factor, original music is out, covers by rote is in. How sickening.

I turn to the words of an always original musician, not averse to a few covers, who was a maveric critic of the music industry, that goes some way to explaining why the X Factor is so successful, I give you the words of Frank Zappa RIP.

Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.

and from the same source.

Music is always a commentary on society.

In the last quote lies some semblance of hope, which will be reflected if Rage Against the Machine get a Christmas Number 1.