LCWIPS

Tyre Lady
Posts: 170
Joined: 31 Jan 2019, 10:53pm
Contact:

LCWIPS

Post by Tyre Lady »

Hi All and Happy New Year

The lockdowns have enabled me to pursue campaigning and then leading a group to start developing an LCWIPs (Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan). Got a cross party set of councillors involved and the corporate meeting has just voted that 20K will be spent on getting experts in to develop the plans.

We are intending to keep a friendly foot in and would be interested to hear from anyone else who has got involved in developing an LCWIPs for your local council. Thanks muchly :D
Low carbon, zero waste running journey
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14648
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: LCWIPS

Post by gaz »

No involvement but here's a localish one which I feel has a distinct lack of ambition: https://ashford.moderngov.co.uk/mgConve ... 22lcwip%22. That said actually having a LCWIP is fairly ambitious by the standards of most Kent boroughs.

I'd suggest dropping an email to "hello at twbug dot org dot uk" who are currently working with Tunbridge Wells BC and PJA to develop theirs, I suspect it will be much better.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Tyre Lady
Posts: 170
Joined: 31 Jan 2019, 10:53pm
Contact:

Re: LCWIPS

Post by Tyre Lady »

Thanks so much.....

Interesting - Dft is saying it is a "test case" but LCWIPs have been developed up and down the country.
Anyhow well done who ever secured 500K from Dft

Why do you think it lacks ambition?
Low carbon, zero waste running journey
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: LCWIPS

Post by mjr »

Lynn is finally getting one. This month saw a presentation about it. Slides available at https://democracy.west-norfolk.gov.uk/d ... tation.pdf and recording linked under RD 172 at https://democracy.west-norfolk.gov.uk/i ... 4400&Ver=4

We took a county councillor on a hotspot ride and offered some comments but have not been greatly involved yet. Nonetheless, so far so good! Maybe our county is finally getting back on track after almost 20 years AWOL.
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.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14648
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: LCWIPS

Post by gaz »

Tyre Lady wrote:Why do you think it lacks ambition?

I tend to apply an "encourage" v "enable" test. There's an awful lot in ABC's LCWIP about encouraging active travel and very little about enabling it.

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, my judgement is clouded by seeing the results of decades of past encouragement and those results have not been good.

The LCWIP does at least have some metrics suggesting a target of doubling the proportion of journeys made by cycle by 2029. If they achieve it that would still be only 4% of all journeys.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
PT1029
Posts: 1744
Joined: 16 Apr 2012, 9:20pm

Re: LCWIPS

Post by PT1029 »

Agree with the "encourage" v "enable" test.
Ambition:
Does it comply with DfT LTN 1/20?
Does it somply with DfT "Gear Change"?
Will the plans allow a 10 or 12 year old to child to school on their own?

Many cycling/road schemes/plans/county (Highway Authority) policies actually help - in theory - deliver the above, but the implementation usually falls well short, and provides an alternative facility for those already cycling but don't entice non cyclists out onto the roads.

Once you have good policies/LCWIPs etc, you then need to keep an eye on plans, and what actually gets build from those plans (as many details get finalised on site and don't show on plans).

Tha fact tha the OP has started with a cross party group of Councillors suggest you have got off to an excellent start.
Well done!
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: LCWIPS

Post by Stevek76 »

I recall oxfords was fairly reasonable. (further down here: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/resident ... thy-travel )

WECA's is poor so ignore that one :?

Most of the published ones will have been developed prior to gear change & LTN1/20 though a forward thinking local authority shouldn't really need those documents to understand what is and isn't good when it comes to a walking & cycling plan.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Tyre Lady
Posts: 170
Joined: 31 Jan 2019, 10:53pm
Contact:

Re: LCWIPS

Post by Tyre Lady »

Ahh yes thanks all once again for your great support. With all this information, I think I could write the borough's LCWIPS :)
What I saw during lockdown 1 is that a lot of people were out on their bikes. When the lockdown ended, it seemed that many of these people became too scared to cycle due to the busy roads.

Gaz - I see what you mean. Agree "enable" is a better word than "encourage". Will have a meeting on the 1st Feb and will see if we can develop the first set of "enabling" initiatives :)

Thank you :)
Low carbon, zero waste running journey
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: LCWIPS

Post by squeaker »

As a member of the Adur & Worthing Cycling and Walking Action Group I 'assisted' in the production of the A&W LCWIP, despite not living in A&W (I used to commute through it quite a lot.) I thought Sustrans did a good job, and was impressed by the direct involvement of the council leader in the Action Group.
This contrasts significantly with the Horsham LCWIP (the district I live in) where I have been underwhelmed by WSP's efforts (but then I live 16 miles from Horsham town...). You may note that the identified routes in the Horsham plan do not join up :roll:
"42"
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: LCWIPS

Post by mjr »

squeaker wrote:As a member of the Adur & Worthing Cycling and Walking Action Group I 'assisted' in the production of the A&W LCWIP, despite not living in A&W (I used to commute through it quite a lot.) I thought Sustrans did a good job, and was impressed by the direct involvement of the council leader in the Action Group.

I took a look and it seems pretty good. As you wrote in the bit I deleted, it is a network, unlike some. The small grotty bit of route 2 I've ridden into Shoreham from Brighton direction appears to be up for replacement with route 200 along the main road, which would be a good move.

It dates from October 2019 and, as one may expect from Sustrans, there seems to be a lot of shared paths in it, including some in locations that I think are now discouraged from sharing since Gear Change, in favour of kerbed tracks like in Brighton, London or Cambridge. Do you know if there are plans to do a minor update to the LCWIP to bring it into line with Gear Change and LTN1/20 with the hope of making it easier to get funding from gov.uk?
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.
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: LCWIPS

Post by Stevek76 »

WSP also involved in oxfords (decent) and WECA's (not good), meanwhile even sustrans can be maddeningly positive about shared use, insisting that the better solution for the Bristol end of the BBRP is to widen to 4.5m shared rather than attempt to implement something that separates out pedestrians and cyclists. Across any of the larger companies good or bad work by one part is rarely an indicator of getting good or bad work from another part.

For something like the lcwips though that will be a relatively minor factor, the documents will be heavily influenced by council officers who in turn are operating within the constraints set by the leading politicians. Looking at WECA's again, the language in the parts relating to Bristol about shared use and endless caveats watering down any options with 'where appropriate' is something that has clearly come from the mayor('s office) who really don't like things that might obstruct the motorist from travelling or parking, there's very little that can be done in these situations unfortunately.

Tyre Lady wrote:When the lockdown ended, it seemed that many of these people became too scared to cycle due to the busy roads.


Safety (or more accurately the perception of it) is the key barrier to cycling for most. However it's vital that danger is not simply substituted for distance. For example, assume a trip is 15min by car and 10min by bike (not unusual where there's traffic) but in normal conditions the 'danger' factor turns that perceived cost of cycling into 30min for a typical person, they're obviously going to pick the car.

If you provide them with a safe route, but it's 2-3x as long because it's a useless wiggly quietway that constantly gives way to motor vehicles, you've still got a 15min cost of car vs a 20-30min cost of cycling and so little/no mode shift! This is unfortunately all to common and then people say rubbish like 'well we've provided a safe cycling option and still no one cycles so clearly cycling is just something the dutch do'. Routes have to be safe and direct.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Tyre Lady
Posts: 170
Joined: 31 Jan 2019, 10:53pm
Contact:

Re: LCWIPS

Post by Tyre Lady »

Steve - have now taught a couple of folk to cycle and now teaching them to ride on the roads and shown them short cuts to getting places. But you are right without me, they will not cycle on the road at the moment, especially when you get the odd car trying to overtake too close :(

@Squeaker - did you get much opposition from members of the public or did you only pull in people who were pro-cycling?
Low carbon, zero waste running journey
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: LCWIPS

Post by mjr »

Stevek76 wrote:WSP also involved in oxfords (decent) and WECA's (not good), meanwhile even sustrans can be maddeningly positive about shared use, insisting that the better solution for the Bristol end of the BBRP is to widen to 4.5m shared rather than attempt to implement something that separates out pedestrians and cyclists.

Long-memory readers will know that I have some sympathy with that for at least two reasons:
1. normal UK practice is for pedestrians to be permitted (legally) on the cycleway while cyclists are not permitted on the footway, and while there is a small difference in injury risk between walkers and cyclists, it is small enough that it doesn't stop cycleway-walkers and so this becomes effectively only a route width reduction for cyclists with the lurking risk of another Kristian-Gregory-style prosecution attempt;
2. even if the Traffic Regulation Order said pedestrians may not walk on the cycleway, it is vanishingly unlikely to be enforced and so would only really matter much in a collision and probably wouldn't stop the tabloids inciting a mob over it.

However, I think the current policy (Gear Change) and guidance (LTN1/20) say that it should be parallel cycleways and footways in most places, so if councils want funding, the LCWIPs should probably provide that.
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.
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: LCWIPS

Post by squeaker »

Tyre Lady wrote:@Squeaker - did you get much opposition from members of the public or did you only pull in people who were pro-cycling?
Several public consultations contributed to the LCWIP before it was adopted by AW. This is covered in the LCWIP itself. Sensibly, IMO, it is seen as a part of Sustainable Travel in AW, but the 'Adur & Worthing Walking & Cycling Action Group' ... is made up of representatives from local cycle groups, and other interested parties...'
HTH
"42"
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: LCWIPS

Post by squeaker »

mjr wrote:Do you know if there are plans to do a minor update to the LCWIP to bring it into line with Gear Change and LTN1/20 with the hope of making it easier to get funding from gov.uk?
I don't, but will try and remember to ask if I get a chance.
"42"
Post Reply