Norfolk Transport Plan consults until 28 Feb

[mjr]

This consultation makes it difficult to see how to get more cycling into the plan, with some options worded ambiguously so they could be used against us, like the bit in the old plan about prioitising walking and cycling, then buses, then cars is used to set traffic lights to favour cars because it's a bus route and walking and cycling already have zebra crossings of other roads nearby so they have to give buses some priority somewhere or it was some twisted reason like that why walkers and cyclists always have to wait 66seconds for green lights at that junction.

Anyway, suggestions for creative subversion welcome! Cyclist responses good too!
https://norfolk.citizenspace.com/consul ... plan-2020/

[Psamathe]

I see they are claiming (in the consultation document) 2011-2019

We have also made significant improvements to walking and cycling.

I assume they mean they've done loads of surface dressing (keeping bicycles off the roads cars might want to use! (But I'm a cynic who is particularly unimpressed with Norfolk Highways - who can't even repair dangerous potholes in a timely manner).

Ian

[gaz]

A few thoughts based on ctrl f "cycl"and a quick skim.

3.6 We will look to maintain footways and cycleways to a good standard ...

'Good' is meaningless.

Policy 1: Maintenance To bring about an improvement in the condition of Norfolk’s highway network, maintaining the current asset should be a key priority for funding. Works should be targeted to ensure A and urban / inter-urban routes are in good condition. In market towns and urban areas footways and cycleways of local importance should be kept in good condition to enhance use.

As if to reinforce the point it's been watered down by a subsequent search hit to only apply to some cycleways, not all.
'Good' needs clear definition for both existing and new infrastructure, flush kerbs, surface materials, pothole intervention levels, vegetation encroachment, barrier removal/spacing, path widths.

Policy 6: Transport Infrastructure to Support Growth To bring about sustained growth priority should be on enabling public transport, walking and cycling from new development sites. Recognition should also be given to required improvements on the highway network at bottlenecks. These should be matched with sustainable travel packages or measures to encourage regeneration. Contributions should be secured to help mitigate any adverse effects of new development on the transport network.

I'd want to see something stronger about safe links between new development and existing destinations for people choosing to cycle. If the wonderful new network stops at the edge of the new development and dumps you back on to the hostile dual carriageway it's not much help.

I'd also like to see clearer commitments to a "Vision Zero" approach to road safety and the introduction of a default 20mph urban speed limit.

[Wanlock Dod]

How about making the main point one of addressing the air pollution problem, i.e. restricting vehicles in town and city centres, and taking the time to point out all of the other problems that would be addressed by doing so.

Here are a selection of challenges that they have identified that would be addressed at least to some extent by tackling the air pollution problem:

Managing the transport network to encourage the use of walking and cycling and public transport, whilst maintaining accessibility for car users and overall network capacity and reliability.
As transport networks become busier, they tend to become less reliable. That is, journey times become less predictable as even minor incidents can have disproportionate effects on travel. Businesses and the travelling public tell us that they would like shorter journey times, and also that these journeys should be reliable. However, there is a major challenge in being able to provide capacity for fast journeys at the same time as making sure that journeys are predictable.
Slow and unreliable road journeys for motorists and busses, especially on congested networks in the towns and cities.
There are issues with pollution from vehicles causing local air quality issues which can contribute to climate change.
There are higher rates of casualties on sustainable modes of transport, such as walking and cycling, in urban areas.

Air quality and climate change are both exacerbated by excessive car use, but to suggest that the causes of poor air quality (particulate matter and nitrous oxides) are causing climate change suggests a high level of naiveite on the part of the council.
Road traffic is recognised as the principal cause of air pollution in Norwich.
Any efforts to manage the air pollution problem whilst prioritising motorised modes of transport in urban areas have evidently not been able to address the air pollution problem, and there are various other issues identified as challenges in the consultation which could be addressed by taking a different approach, principally related to problems associated with congestion and slow journey times in urban areas.
A presumption against using motorised modes of travel in town and city centres in favour of walking and cycling would address all of these issues, as well as various other societal problems related to inactivity and poor public health. You could provide some reference to the numbers of deaths caused by air pollution in the area (if none are available a pro-rata estimate based on relative population from the numbers reported by the RCP would be a fair start). It will not be possible to reduce the use of cars and other polluting modes of motorised transport without making suitable increased provision for other modes such as walking and cycling.
There should be a presumption against using towns and city centres as through routes for any forms of motorised transport, with the exception of essential uses such as for the disabled, and making large deliveries etc..
Reducing traffic speeds and shifting journeys from cars to walking or cycling will also contribute to reducing the dangers posed on town and city centre routes.