Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
-
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm
Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
For anyone living in or near Basingstoke & Deane: the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan is out for consultation, with one month left to make comments.
https://basingstokelcwip.commonplace.is/en-GB
Deadline midnight 4 September 2022
https://basingstokelcwip.commonplace.is/en-GB
Deadline midnight 4 September 2022
-
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm
Re: Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
As a former resident of Old Basing this will be a gripping read..Thanks
-
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm
Re: Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
What did the lads decide?
-
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm
Re: Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
AFAIK Nothing so far. It has only taken 5 years for HCC to produce these 'plans' (or rather, pay consultants to do so).
Ah - just found the following summary of the various Hampshire County Council LCWIPs on line:
https://www.hants.gov.uk/transport/stra ... strategies
It says: "The engagement survey on the draft LCWIP closed on 4 September 2022 and responses are currently being considered."
I see that the LCWIPs for several other local authorities within HCC were formally adopted on 7 Nov. Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Havent, New Forest (Waterside), Test Valley.
Has anyone compared the final versions with the draft versions to find if anything was changed, beyond adding maps showing the low numbers of responses? Based on previous HCC experience, unlikely.
In the Decision report, para 15 states:
ATE = Active Transport England.ATE recently carried out an audit of the capability and ambition of all Highway Authorities in England with regard to cycle infrastructure. Hampshire County Council has been assessed as level 2, which is described as “strong local leadership and support, with strong plans and emerging work”.
This doesn't match my experience. Although perhaps things are changing?
Re: Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
In a burst of openness, HCC actually published their response to the ATE audit questionnaire online, though they didn't draw attention to it - I only became aware of it because ATE replied to an FOI request by providing a link to the document on the HCC website. It's slightly more honest than I expected.basingstoke123 wrote: ↑24 Nov 2022, 11:17pm In the Decision report, para 15 states:ATE = Active Transport England.ATE recently carried out an audit of the capability and ambition of all Highway Authorities in England with regard to cycle infrastructure. Hampshire County Council has been assessed as level 2, which is described as “strong local leadership and support, with strong plans and emerging work”.
This doesn't match my experience. Although perhaps things are changing?
https://documents.hants.gov.uk/transpor ... Travel.pdf
ATE declined to reveal any further correspondence between itself and HCC, quoting "section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000". There's an explanation in its response to the FOI request here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ng-2146360
Re: Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
I spent a summer there as a lad working on a farm, lovely part of the country.
-
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm
Re: Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
Used to stay at YHA,Overton.
-
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm
Re: Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
Very interesting link. Thanks.AndyK wrote: ↑25 Nov 2022, 9:33amIn a burst of openness, HCC actually published their response to the ATE audit questionnaire online, though they didn't draw attention to it - I only became aware of it because ATE replied to an FOI request by providing a link to the document on the HCC website. It's slightly more honest than I expected.basingstoke123 wrote: ↑24 Nov 2022, 11:17pm In the Decision report, para 15 states:ATE = Active Transport England.ATE recently carried out an audit of the capability and ambition of all Highway Authorities in England with regard to cycle infrastructure. Hampshire County Council has been assessed as level 2, which is described as “strong local leadership and support, with strong plans and emerging work”.
This doesn't match my experience. Although perhaps things are changing?
https://documents.hants.gov.uk/transpor ... Travel.pdf
ATE declined to reveal any further correspondence between itself and HCC, quoting "section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000". There's an explanation in its response to the FOI request here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ng-2146360
So, Level 2 is out of 0 (bad) to 4 (best).
Obviously, it is the respondent's job to make HCC rate as highly as possibly. Based on my experience in Basingstoke, I think Level 1 would be a better rating. HCC does seem to be improving, but is not jet at Level 2.
Evidence:
Level 1 includes:
Level 2 includes:My authority does not have a significant track record on road space reallocation schemes, but other schemes have been delivered
HCC (at least, in Basingstoke) does not have a track record of compliant schemes. It's probably too soon to measure against LTN 1/20, but even using the previous LTN 2/08, HCC falls short. Even following the introduction of LTN 1/20, HCC has continued to deliver infrastructure that is substandard against the older easier standards.My authority has a track record of completing ambitious, LTN 1/20 / MfS compliant active travel schemes
My authority has a small number of road capacity reallocation schemes
I am not aware of any road capacity reallocation schemes.
20 Section 4 - Schemes Delivered
From the options given, I would rate HCC as Level 0, bordering on Level 1, but certainly not Level 2, which requires:
In Basingstoke, we now have one LTN 1/20 compliant scheme of low complexity, and so far, no medium complexity schemes. Are there any such schemes anywhere within the HCC region?My authority has delivered a high number of LTN1/20-compliant low complexity schemes
My authority has also delivered a small number of medium complexity schemes
The answer to Q23, ticking "My authority has delivered a high number of LTN1/20-compliant low complexity schemes" is optimistic. But at least, is honest in not ticking "My authority has also delivered a small number of medium complexity schemes".
Q39 answer claims that "Over the last few years this has included new distributor roads, with associated active travel infrastructure, in Stubbington (completed in 2022) and Bordon (2019 including the award winning Green Loop), upgrading the A27 with dualling and capacity improvements at key junctions (2018) and capacity improvements at major junctions in Basingstoke (2018 and 2021)." While Basingstoke has had several major roundabout capacity projects, these have failed to include improvements for pedestrians or cyclists (usually no provision).
Q40 answer (supporting evidence):
Examples include the new Brighton Way segregated pedestrian / cycle route. This is by far the highest standard for any cycle & pedestrian route built in Basingstoke for 50 (?) years. And Cycle Basingstoke did commend it (we should give praise, where due). But, it was only 350m, and is 'basic'. It will join the routes around the Brighton Hill Roundabout, once that work is finished (as £20M capacity upgrade to a large roundabout).
But we have also had a similar length of the typical 'cycle route along pavement' built just 1 1/2 miles away. And the new Hounsome Fields estate (on the A30) has had its first houses built and occupied but the proposed (shared use) cycle/footpath has not been built.
Q21
(OK - not in order)
Was this anything to do with HCC? Beyond agreeing to schemes in neighbouring areas that just happened to cross the border into HCC land.Delivery: Since 2019 HCC have been delivering corridor-based active travel and public transport improvements in Hampshire worth over £35m, as part of the Portsmouth and Southampton city region TCF projects.
Re: Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
The respondent is a county council officer and is basically saying that he and his colleagues see insufficient support and leadership from the elected members, specifically the cabinet. As a former HCC officer myself I have to say that's sailing closer to the wind than I'd expect.basingstoke123 wrote: ↑5 Dec 2022, 12:08amObviously, it is the respondent's job to make HCC rate as highly as possibly.
TCF funding was for the Southampton city region, which extends beyond the bounds of Southampton city council into Hampshire County Council areas - in this case Eastleigh, Bursledon and Waterside (Totton/Hythe). Similarly for the Portsmouth TCF schemes, which extend out to Fareham, Gosport and Havant. There was also £10M for IOW council to do stuff in Ryde.
No LTN 1/20-compliant schemes at all here in Winchester as yet... unless you count the fact that we've managed to get a housing developer to reposition a planned row of bollards to LTN 1/20-compliant spacing. It's a start, I guess.
-
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm
Re: Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
A good account of grass-root politics.
-
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm
Re: Basingstoke & Deane LCWIP
I see that the Basingstoke and also the Rushmoor LCWIPs were approved on 9 March 2023:
https://www.hants.gov.uk/News/20230310B ... CyclePlans
And the plans can be found via:
https://www.hants.gov.uk/transport/stra ... strategies
https://www.hants.gov.uk/News/20230310B ... CyclePlans
And the plans can be found via:
https://www.hants.gov.uk/transport/stra ... strategies