Sunderland LCWIP

Post Reply
Spen
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Jun 2021, 8:25pm

Sunderland LCWIP

Post by Spen »

If anyone's interested Sunderland Council have put their draft LCWIP out for consultation. At first sight it could have done with more proof reading and a shed load more imagination.

https://www.sunderland.gov.uk/LCWIP
Ron
Posts: 1385
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Sunderland LCWIP

Post by Ron »

This plan is too restrictive, focussing only on active travel modes. People select their mode of travel from various options, and if we want people to adopt particular options then we would need to consider discouraging other options.
Spen
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Jun 2021, 8:25pm

Re: Sunderland LCWIP

Post by Spen »

Pretty much my thoughts, another missed opportunity to produce a decent LCWIP
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Sunderland LCWIP

Post by Pete Owens »

The problem is that there is a seperate cycling and walking plan at all. The whole purpose is to offer a distraction to active travel campaigners to endlessly talk in great detail about a small amount of resourses notionally targeted specifically at walking and cycling - allowing them to quietly get on with spending orders of magnitude more of autocenentric road schemes.
Campag
Posts: 94
Joined: 2 Dec 2018, 8:04pm

Re: Sunderland LCWIP

Post by Campag »

To be fair to Sunderland Council, they have lost 50% of their budget since 2010 thanks to the Tory cuts. And as a result a lot of expertise including in planning. It's a big ask to expect a major culture change from what has been a very motor vehicle based approach for decades now. Support, funding and guidance from central government might help to overcome traditional attitudes and fear of being seen as anti - motorist but Bozza and his mates hardly seem willing to do that.

(I should declare an interest, I worked for the Council until made redundant a couple of years ago. The last ten years were quite difficult and depressing, seeing services being destroyed by cuts imposed by national government.)
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Sunderland LCWIP

Post by mjr »

Pete Owens wrote: 21 Oct 2021, 12:21pm The problem is that there is a seperate cycling and walking plan at all. The whole purpose is to offer a distraction to active travel campaigners to endlessly talk in great detail about a small amount of resourses notionally targeted specifically at walking and cycling - allowing them to quietly get on with spending orders of magnitude more of autocenentric road schemes.
I think I agree with most of that apart from "endlessly". The LCWIP process does at least have a defined end... but it remains to be seen if many of them will reach that end stage (the evaluation after "implementation") before the regime changes yet again and restarts the planning.

There is a fair argument that we should have mobility plans but how would we avoid the problem of Local Transport Plans where the autocentric highways departments defended all their new motorist-encouraging measures by ranking motoring parts of the LTP above the active travel parts for massively spurious reasons?

Here's one of my old favourites used to justify giving NCN1 very long traffic light waits crossing a main road (actually "stroad" in modern use) because buses use the main road: "[a policy to prioritise sustainable transport] can equally be applied to bus use which is actively being promoted" and of course, this policy prioritisation strangely didn't apply at a junction where buses share the cycle route and they have to wait with cyclists.

It's worth remembering that LTP funding went overwhelmingly on the motoring projects even though it was all one pot. Even with the maximum subversions (like resurfacing half a mile of A road where a downgraded toucan was installed), having a distinct cycling and walking funding stream has meant that at least some money has been spent on active travel projects!

So this particular problem with LCWIPs is not necessarily a problem with Sunderland's. They do tend to be a bit Pollyanna and focus on "carrots" for walker and riders. That's probably necessary to keep the motoring lobby in check. Tactically, I'd put any motorist-discouraging "stick" policies into the air pollution, noise pollution and "living streets" retail and leisure policies instead because they will find it harder to argue in favour of gassing children and stressing residents than arguing against giving protected street space for cycling.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Sunderland LCWIP

Post by Pete Owens »

Campag wrote: 21 Oct 2021, 12:54pm To be fair to Sunderland Council, they have lost 50% of their budget since 2010 thanks to the Tory cuts.
That is true for just about everywhere. All their plans as with all other cash strapped councils are effectively bids for pots of cash from central government. Very tiny pots of cash in the case of sustainable transport and very big pots when it comes to increasing motor traffic.

For campaigners the key thing is is not to get distracted by the little things and concentrate on the important things. Some examples from Sunderland:
https://www.sunderland.gov.uk/article/1 ... bid-scheme
https://www.sunderland.gov.uk/article/1 ... e-fund-bid
https://www.sunderland.gov.uk/CityWay
Do main cycle routes appear in the councils gritting strategy?
posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=1647960
Spen
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Jun 2021, 8:25pm

Re: Sunderland LCWIP

Post by Spen »

Campag wrote: 21 Oct 2021, 12:54pm To be fair to Sunderland Council, they have lost 50% of their budget since 2010 thanks to the Tory cuts. And as a result a lot of expertise including in planning. It's a big ask to expect a major culture change from what has been a very motor vehicle based approach for decades now. Support, funding and guidance from central government might help to overcome traditional attitudes and fear of being seen as anti - motorist but Bozza and his mates hardly seem willing to do that.

(I should declare an interest, I worked for the Council until made redundant a couple of years ago. The last ten years were quite difficult and depressing, seeing services being destroyed by cuts imposed by national government.)
I'm not sure how much input planning would have had, this reads like an engineering approach. No mention of producing a web site of walking and cycling routes, no desire, however remote the possibility is, to try to secure funding for adult cycle training. Worst of all is the plan to out cushions across the entrances t industrial estates and establish cyclist priority over them, not to mention the plan for the sea front, already announced, which will see the removal of two/three bus shelters, and where will people queue for the bus - in the cycle path, next to raised sections to assist getting on and off a bus. Gear change it aint!
User avatar
gazza_d
Posts: 453
Joined: 30 Oct 2016, 8:20am

Re: Sunderland LCWIP

Post by gazza_d »

I've read it too, and interested as I'm just over the border in South Tyneside and loop along the river and Roker coast often.
There still seems to be too much focus on cycling as a Leisure activity, and on putting cycling infra where it fits rather than where it's needed. It's full of good intentions but should on actions and if we could build cyclepaths out of strategy documents we'd have a network to rival the Dutch!

Certainly north of the Wear the existing routes suffer from a lack of visual continuity and just being visible.

The "route" along Washington road from the Nissan footbridge to Southwick and Witherwack is a good example of a route with poor visual continuity.

The three things really needed north of the river are:
1. A visible and direct route along A1018 into city centre.
2. A visible and direct route parallel to the A1231 to Washington, at least to Galleries. NCN7 darts to the south and the drop to the river and climb back up where the A19 crosses isn't fun. Ideally there needs to be a bridge at the A19/A1231 interchange although I accept this would be costly
3. Proper facilities along Ferryboat lane south from Nissan footbridge. The current shared use path is a a joke as it's used as a car park by the residents.

Having said that, the scheme south from seaburn where they removing the hatchings and replacing with a segregated cycling lane looks like they may be progressing. Previous provision has been patchy quality wise.
Post Reply