Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post Reply
TallestTim
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Jun 2018, 12:39pm

Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by TallestTim »

Afternoon all!

On Monday 6th September , Hampshire County Council released 5 Local Cycling and Walking Plans for the following Boroughs:
Fareham Borough (https://farehamlcwip.commonplace.is/)
Gosport Borough (https://gosportlcwip.commonplace.is/)
Havant Borough (https://havantlcwip.commonplace.is/)
Eastleigh Borough (https://eastleighlcwip.commonplace.is/)
Southern Test Valley Borough (Romsey, Chilworth, North Baddesley) (https://southerntestvalleylcwip.commonplace.is/)

Each document is BIG (typically 160 pages) , so there is a lot of work - we're only just digesting them ourselves.

We want to raise awareness of these as much as possible, and while we're currently digesting them ourselves, we want to get as many voices heard as possible from the local areas, remembering that these are set for "transport" routes, not leisure/sport.

Please can you share these as wide as possible?

PS, if anyone has any experience in assisting in general members of the public reviewing these things, any pointers would be really appreciated!


The local groups I'm aware off would love your involvement:

Havant Borough:
Walk Ride Waterlooville (www.WalkRideWaterlooville.org.uk),
Cycle Havant,
Cycle Hayling (www.cyclehayling.org.uk)
Portsmouth CTC (www.portsmouthctc.org.uk)

Fareham - TBD
(May include Fareham Wheelers.)

Gosport -
Cycle Gosport
Clairion Cycle Club

Eastliegh -
TBD

Southern Test Valley -
TBD

If there isn't a group covering your area, and you'd like to join up with other local campaigners, please let comment below, or DM me and i'll see what I can do - For example i know a number of people within Fareham and Eastliegh, although there is not a formal campaigning group there.

Deadline is the 31st of October.

Ta!

Tim,

Acting Chair, Walk Ride Waterlooville.
basingstoke123
Posts: 168
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by basingstoke123 »

Thanks for these links.

If only you could walk on a strategy, or cycle along a plan, we would already have reached 'active travel' heaven!

No one has yet commented on these pipe dream / nightmare so called plans. I will try not to be too controversial, but hopefully this will get some discussion going. I am outside the affected areas, but within Hampshire, so have the benefit of the Hampshire County Council. Hampshire County is great for cycling. Hampshire County Council is not.

It would be interesting to hear about LWCIPs from other more pro cycling areas.

The basic framework or structure of the Eastleigh and Test Valley documents are almost identical. Usually word for word.

Good points:
  • Gives excellent justifications for the benefits of walking and cycling.
  • Includes a summary of the latest LTN 1/20. The forward does explain that the LTN1/20 was issued after these reports were completed, and so, the suggested potential improvements may need further development to meet higher standards. So, that's one positive reason not to worry about the CRAP (cycle route along pavement) designs. Perhaps.
  • Does not try to gloss over or minimise existing difficulties and problems faced by cyclists and pedestrians. But perhaps over does this? People do cycle.
Concerns
  • Involves HCC (who recently removed the Covid emergency active travel schemes)
  • HCC's underlying view is that cyclists do not belong on the road, should not be on the road, and that cycling has nothing to do with roads. Deduced from what is not said, and what is not done.
  • Roads are fundamental to utility cycling. But this is not acknowledged.
  • The only mention of road cycling is in 'low traffic neighbourhoods', and that is implied. And at road crossings - but I don't count this. Otherwise, roads are viewed as barriers to cycling. True, some are.
  • For any real progress is to be made, cycle infrastructure needs to be considered as part of the road network, thus be the responsibility of Hampshire Highways Authority, and not something separate and unrelated. For starters, ensure all road schemes cater for cyclists.
  • No recognition that different cyclists have differing abilities and differing confidences for cycling in traffic. Let alone that some cyclists will choose different routes depending on the purpose and conditions. Cycling to work, I want the quickest route (by time).
  • Only considers cycle trips up to 5km. This is unreasonably low. But it means that poor quality slow routes are then acceptable. 5km in 20 - 30 minutes is an impressive 6 - 9 mph.
  • The is no mention of road accidents or injuries involving pedestrians or cyclists.
  • While walking and cycling share similar benefits, they have very different requirements. "Share used" is feared by pedestrians and disliked by cyclists. Fortunately, LTN1/20 is against "shared use".
  • HCC is, in general, opposed to 20mph zones
  • No attempt at measuring or rating the quality (or otherwise) of routes.
  • The extensive list of examples of potential improvements are mostly Cycle Route Along Pavement. The forward does explain these would need to be revised to meet the new standards. Based on experience in Basingstoke with a Cycling Strategy published in 2015, not much will happen. (Sustrans were also involved. Basingstoke Council also took note of the consultation and made changes and improvements. Unlike HCC who ignored all feedback on its useless Cycling Strategy.)
Commitment & Plans
  • The is no commitment.
    See the "Implementation" section for a list of reasons nothing is likely to happen.
  • There are no plans
  • There are no priorities
£ Funding
Two examples of successful bids for funding from central government are both joint bids with Southampton are quoted. The first is for £5.7M, split as £4.4M for 3 Southampton cycle routes, which extend beyond Southampton, £1.3M for a couple Southampton bus schemes. That leaves £0 for HCC schemes. The second is for £57M, to be split evenly between £57M for Southampton and £0 for HCC.

Presumably HCC did not have any examples of their own successful bids?

Or have I misunderstood?

HCC is responsible for a very wide range of services, and is strapped for money. Walking and cycling are way down on their priorities (and most residents). Climate change seems to be a bandwagon that politicians were forced to jump on.

Finally, apologies for being too long.
MikeF
Posts: 4108
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by MikeF »

TallestTim wrote: 8 Sep 2021, 1:02pm Afternoon all!

On Monday 6th September , Hampshire County Council released 5 Local Cycling and Walking Plans for the following Boroughs:
Fareham Borough (https://farehamlcwip.commonplace.is/)
Gosport Borough (https://gosportlcwip.commonplace.is/)
Havant Borough (https://havantlcwip.commonplace.is/)
Eastleigh Borough (https://eastleighlcwip.commonplace.is/)
Southern Test Valley Borough (Romsey, Chilworth, North Baddesley) (https://southerntestvalleylcwip.commonplace.is/)

Each document is BIG (typically 160 pages) , so there is a lot of work - we're only just digesting them ourselves.

Is it? None of those links is 160pages.
All I can find is a complete load of waffle, but not 160 pages worth of anything. That's the only action (County) Councils normally do. Once a strategy is completed the the jobs's complete until the next review of the strategy.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
AndyK
Posts: 1052
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by AndyK »

MikeF wrote: 24 Sep 2021, 7:30pmIs it? None of those links is 160pages.
All I can find is a complete load of waffle, but not 160 pages worth of anything. That's the only action (County) Councils normally do. Once a strategy is completed the the jobs's complete until the next review of the strategy.
To see the full reports in each case you need to click on the "Have Your Say" link, then on the following page you need to click on the link beneath the line that says "You can read the full LCWIP report by following the link below:"
The Fareham one, for instance, is 163 pages long.

screenshot-farehamlcwip.commonplace.is-2021.09.27-17_15_58.png
screenshot-farehamlcwip.commonplace.is-2021.09.27-17_15_58.png (36.66 KiB) Viewed 383 times

screenshot-farehamlcwip.commonplace.is-2021.09.27-17_16_26.png
MikeF
Posts: 4108
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by MikeF »

AndyK wrote: 27 Sep 2021, 5:20pm
MikeF wrote: 24 Sep 2021, 7:30pmIs it? None of those links is 160pages.
All I can find is a complete load of waffle, but not 160 pages worth of anything. That's the only action (County) Councils normally do. Once a strategy is completed the the jobs's complete until the next review of the strategy.
To see the full reports in each case you need to click on the "Have Your Say" link, then on the following page you need to click on the link beneath the line that says "You can read the full LCWIP report by following the link below:"
The Fareham one, for instance, is 163 pages long.


screenshot-farehamlcwip.commonplace.is-2021.09.27-17_15_58.png



screenshot-farehamlcwip.commonplace.is-2021.09.27-17_16_26.png
Thank you Andy.
Is it my age or what? Why isn't there a simple link for that?
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
MikeF
Posts: 4108
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by MikeF »

Why are these plans nearly always "turgid" documents? All the waffle at the front needs removing towards the end. In the Fareham plan, for example, the map on page 31 needs to be near the front of the document together with a brief statement of what is required. Sustrans seems master of verbosity.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
MikeF
Posts: 4108
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by MikeF »

basingstoke123 wrote: 22 Sep 2021, 11:49pm Thanks for these links.

If only you could walk on a strategy, or cycle along a plan, we would already have reached 'active travel' heaven!

No one has yet commented on these pipe dream / nightmare so called plans. I will try not to be too controversial, but hopefully this will get some discussion going. I am outside the affected areas, but within Hampshire, so have the benefit of the Hampshire County Council. Hampshire County is great for cycling. Hampshire County Council is not.

It would be interesting to hear about LWCIPs from other more pro cycling areas.

The basic framework or structure of the Eastleigh and Test Valley documents are almost identical. Usually word for word.

Good points:
  • Gives excellent justifications for the benefits of walking and cycling.
  • Includes a summary of the latest LTN 1/20. The forward does explain that the LTN1/20 was issued after these reports were completed, and so, the suggested potential improvements may need further development to meet higher standards. So, that's one positive reason not to worry about the CRAP (cycle route along pavement) designs. Perhaps.
  • Does not try to gloss over or minimise existing difficulties and problems faced by cyclists and pedestrians. But perhaps over does this? People do cycle.
Concerns
  • Involves HCC (who recently removed the Covid emergency active travel schemes)
  • HCC's underlying view is that cyclists do not belong on the road, should not be on the road, and that cycling has nothing to do with roads. Deduced from what is not said, and what is not done.
  • Roads are fundamental to utility cycling. But this is not acknowledged.
  • The only mention of road cycling is in 'low traffic neighbourhoods', and that is implied. And at road crossings - but I don't count this. Otherwise, roads are viewed as barriers to cycling. True, some are.
  • For any real progress is to be made, cycle infrastructure needs to be considered as part of the road network, thus be the responsibility of Hampshire Highways Authority, and not something separate and unrelated. For starters, ensure all road schemes cater for cyclists.
  • No recognition that different cyclists have differing abilities and differing confidences for cycling in traffic. Let alone that some cyclists will choose different routes depending on the purpose and conditions. Cycling to work, I want the quickest route (by time).
  • Only considers cycle trips up to 5km. This is unreasonably low. But it means that poor quality slow routes are then acceptable. 5km in 20 - 30 minutes is an impressive 6 - 9 mph.
  • The is no mention of road accidents or injuries involving pedestrians or cyclists.
  • While walking and cycling share similar benefits, they have very different requirements. "Share used" is feared by pedestrians and disliked by cyclists. Fortunately, LTN1/20 is against "shared use".
  • HCC is, in general, opposed to 20mph zones
  • No attempt at measuring or rating the quality (or otherwise) of routes.
  • The extensive list of examples of potential improvements are mostly Cycle Route Along Pavement. The forward does explain these would need to be revised to meet the new standards. Based on experience in Basingstoke with a Cycling Strategy published in 2015, not much will happen. (Sustrans were also involved. Basingstoke Council also took note of the consultation and made changes and improvements. Unlike HCC who ignored all feedback on its useless Cycling Strategy.)
Commitment & Plans
  • The is no commitment.
    See the "Implementation" section for a list of reasons nothing is likely to happen.
  • There are no plans
  • There are no priorities
£ Funding
Two examples of successful bids for funding from central government are both joint bids with Southampton are quoted. The first is for £5.7M, split as £4.4M for 3 Southampton cycle routes, which extend beyond Southampton, £1.3M for a couple Southampton bus schemes. That leaves £0 for HCC schemes. The second is for £57M, to be split evenly between £57M for Southampton and £0 for HCC.

Presumably HCC did not have any examples of their own successful bids?

Or have I misunderstood?

HCC is responsible for a very wide range of services, and is strapped for money. Walking and cycling are way down on their priorities (and most residents). Climate change seems to be a bandwagon that politicians were forced to jump on.

Finally, apologies for being too long.
Well that's a lot shorter than 160 or so pages and I would totally agree with all the points you make.
Roads are fundamental to utility cycling. But this is not acknowledged.
Indeed, but cyclists get in the way of more important vehicles and cause congestion.

I don't live in Hampshire but it's a county I'm not totally unfamilar with."Hampshire County Council is committed to delivering better environments for people to walk and cycle both for their day-to-day journeys, and when spending time in our public spaces."spouts a councillor. Same as the rhetoric from most councils, but unfortunately evidence is always lacking.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2097
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by Pete Owens »

MikeF wrote: 28 Sep 2021, 4:40pm Why are these plans nearly always "turgid" documents?
Deliberate obfuscation. Think of it like a magicians patter to distract you while he hides a card up his sleeve.

The documents you really need to concentrate on are the ones describing how they intend to increase the capacity of the roads to carry ever greater volumes of motor traffic. Of course the won't word it so bluntly - it will be justified in terms of reducing congestion and pollution - the increased traffic volume will be presented as some unavoidable fact of nature rather than the inevitable consequence of their policies.
UpWrong
Posts: 1312
Joined: 31 May 2009, 12:16pm
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by UpWrong »

I've made a couple of comments:

1. About the need to pave what is currently a Bridleway between Havant and Waterlooville
2. The absurdity of not having a safe north-south route through Waterlooville. Cycling down the High Strees is forbidden.
MikeF
Posts: 4108
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by MikeF »

UpWrong wrote: 5 Oct 2021, 6:24pm I've made a couple of comments:

1. About the need to pave what is currently a Bridleway between Havant and Waterlooville
2. The absurdity of not having a safe north-south route through Waterlooville. Cycling down the High Strees is forbidden.
Pave with what? Remember a bridleway is for horses (and pedestrians). Cyclists are secondary users.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
UpWrong
Posts: 1312
Joined: 31 May 2009, 12:16pm
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by UpWrong »

MikeF wrote: 6 Oct 2021, 9:25pm
UpWrong wrote: 5 Oct 2021, 6:24pm I've made a couple of comments:

1. About the need to pave what is currently a Bridleway between Havant and Waterlooville
2. The absurdity of not having a safe north-south route through Waterlooville. Cycling down the High Strees is forbidden.
Pave with what? Remember a bridleway is for horses (and pedestrians). Cyclists are secondary users.
Except I've never seen a horse on it and it is the only safe route linking two large population centres in the same Borough. But point taken, they could "dress" it rather than pave it to make it safe for cyclists.
jpennycook
Posts: 2
Joined: 2 Sep 2014, 9:41am

Re: Southern East Hampshire - Walking Cycling Plans Released for Comment!

Post by jpennycook »

In Wokingham Borough, they have used flexipave on byways and bridleways. It's good for walking and cycling, and I believe it's also suitable for horses. It's porous and robust too, so it doesn't turn to mud at the first sign of rain.
Post Reply