2012 Legacy & Hog Hill Updates

 

HOG HILL USERS GROUP MEETING, 22ND NOVEMBER 2007

At the recent Hog Hill consultation group meeting, it was agreed that a small working party is set up to consider the ideas for modifications to the circuit layout. This group, consisting of Vincent Bartlett from the London Development Agency, Dave Cockram from British Cycling and Michael Humphreys (EUG) met representatives from the contractor Fiztpatrick, and the LDA's professional team, on the 22nd November 2007.

The site was extremely wet, and the challenges of building a cycle racing facility on steep slopes were very apparent. The geology of the site is London clay, and in the areas where the topsoil has been stripped the ground was very difficult to walk on, and it was very difficult for the contractor to operate plant without churning the ground into a muddy morass. This is fairly normal for construction at this time as earthworks in a wet November are always going to be a problem, and it may be that progress in certain areas will be dependent on drier ground conditions.

The British Cycling and EUG representatives were in agreement about what needs to be done to the Hog Hill layout. Several modifications to the layout were suggested, which were accepted and will be designed in detail, except in one area where the modifications suggested pose difficulties from an engineering and planning point of view.

The accepted changes are to the corner at the low point on the Indy Loop, which will have its crossfall increased to 1 in 30 to allow for higher corner speeds. The top part of the Indy Loop will be realigned to give a longer circuit in the temporary situation before the site is fully opened. Permanent modifications to the Indy loop at the very top of the hill will be made so that it will be possible to make a turn at the top of the main climb without the need to use the top part of the main circuit.

The contractor and the LDA outlined the difficulties in realigning the top of the main descent by tightening up the left hand turn and moving the circuit downward leg closer to the hedge line. There are major engineering reasons why this is difficult. To turn a road into and across the slope of a hill means a significant build up of fill material on the outside of the turn to avoid adverse camber, and there is a real risk that the build-up will slip down the slope in the future. There are also planning considerations related to ecology.

 

Also there is the need to accommodate the two legs of the MTB trails between the road circuit and the site boundary. These facts combine to make a solution difficult but the LDA agreed that the contractor and its' designer would do some further analysis to maximise the width between the up and down legs of the road circuit and to tighten the turn as much as possible. The LDA agreed to investigate the provision of a safety barrier, which will probably be a hedge, between the up and down legs of the circuit to alleviate the very real risk of riders crossing onto the upward leg in the event of an accident.

The meeting was very positive, and whilst it is impossible to change the Hog Hill terrain, British Cycling is confident that the modifications will make the circuit as safe and enjoyable as possible for all levels of ability.

LEGACY VELOPARK MEETING 22ND NOVEMBER 2007

This was the second in a series of three consultation meetings hosted by the ODA to discuss the Olympic Legacy Velopark.

Represented were the ODA, Hopkins Architects, LVRPA, BC South East, Central and Eastern Regions, British Cycling HQ, EUG

The first meeting on 14th November, looked at the setting out of the road circuit in plan, but left unresolved the issues of vertical profile. It was clear that there was not yet a consensus amongst the user about the amount of climbing and descending to be incorporated into the new circuit, and Hopkins agreed that once the requirements were finalised, then they could look more closely at the detailed design of the circuit vertical profile.

Hopkins were asked to provide details of their proposals for the Off Road provision in the Legacy Velopark.

Mike Taylor of Hopkins gave a very impressive presentation of the proposed trails, which have been developed with the help of renowned trail builder Dafydd Davis and Hopkins own staff, who were regular Beastway competitors.

Among the feedback from the meeting were comments that the Hopkins proposals were excellent, and would provide a significant addition to the Velopark. There were also comments that because the new trails were constructed specifically for MTB, rather than having simply evolved from an original Cyclo-Cross course, they would be provide a much more challenging MTB experience than was present at the old Eastway.

There was a shortfall in the presentation with regard to Cyclo-Cross provision in the Velopark. Cross is similar to MTB in many ways and can use some of the trails, but there is a need to provide different types of challenge and terrain on a 'Cross course. Hopkins agreed to give more consideration to the Cyclo-Cross provision and report back to the next meeting.

The legacy BMX track is to be provided by reconfiguring the Olympic track from its Supercross format into a traditional layout. British Cycling stressed that if the legacy track is to have a role as a venue for major BMX events then some spectator provision is necessary. This need not be permanent, but as long as there is sufficient space around the track that can be temporarily converted into grandstand seating then the venue would be capable of hosting major national and international events.

Cycle Speedway provision was discussed and it was generally felt further consideration of the layout is required. Hopkins agreed to re-examine the Cycle Speedway provision, but the compact nature of the site limited the options somewhat.

The car parking for the Velopark was discussed at some length, mainly with regard to its location in relation to the Velodrome. British Cycling understands that it is impossible to construct a venue in London with large car park provision, and we accept that 150 is probably the maximum number of permanent spaces possible. Manchester Velodrome operates on a day to day basis with a comparable number of spaces, and only struggles to meet car parking demand on major event days.

Track riders bring large amounts of equipment to events, and they like to park their cars as close as possible to tracks. We have some concern about the location of the car park shown by Hopkins, and asked that the site be re-examined to determine whether it was possible to move the car park nearer to the Velodrome entrance.

British Cycling also has concerns about the amount of "back of house" space provided for the legacy velodrome. Events like the World Track Championships and the World Cups have many more competitors, support staff and equipment than the Olympic Games, and it is necessary to have some secure hard-standing space adjacent to the velodrome to accommodate teams and their equipment. Manchester Velodrome uses steel containers, which are a quick solution but they do take up considerable space. Again Hopkins agreed to examine the site layout to see what could be provided.