Agenda item

Paul Fishwick asked the Executive Member for Highways and Transport the following question:

 

Question

At the Annual Council meeting on 20th May 2021, a member question was raised by Councillor Rachel Burgess (item 12.6 refers).

 

In response to the question, Councillor Pauline Jorgenson stated “that the planned National Cycle Network 422 was built in phases and until July 2020 the entire length of the A329 met our standards and recommended best practice”.

 

However, Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design was published six years before the first phase was started, and in September 2012 LTN 1/12 was introduced.

 

The guidance issued in these two documents has not been introduced on the phased NCN 422 where the road space could have been reallocated to provide high quality safe cycling and walking routes.

 

Instead, the Borough Council has consistently delivered a sub-standard cycling and walking network and acknowledged by you in your response, and I quote “that the on / off road layout are less than ideal and unlikely to encourage new cyclists,” therefore spending £6m in the process has been poor value for money, with little change in modal shift to cycling would you agree?

Minutes:

 

Question

At the Annual Council meeting on 20th May 2021, a member question was raised by Councillor Rachel Burgess (item 12.6 refers).

 

In response to the question, Councillor Pauline Jorgenson stated, “that the planned National Cycle Network 422 was built in phases and until July 2020 the entire length of the A329 met our standards and recommended best practice”.

 

However, Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design was published six years before the first phase was started, and in September 2012 LTN 1/12 was introduced.

 

The guidance issued in these two documents has not been introduced on the phased NCN 422 where the road space could have been reallocated to provide high quality safe cycling and walking routes.

 

Instead, the Borough Council has consistently delivered a sub-standard cycling and walking network and acknowledged by you in your response, and I quote “that the on / off road layout are less than ideal and unlikely to encourage new cyclists,” therefore spending £6m in the process has been poor value for money, with little change in modal shift to cycling would you agree?

 

Answer

No, I would not agree.  The business case was independently assessed by the LEP who part funded the project to be good value for money and the infrastructure we have provided is significantly better than what was there before. 

 

The scheme was developed using the principles of our adopted Cycling Infrastructure Style Guide, which reflected national policies and Department for Transport’s Local Transport Notes (LTN) 2/08 “Cycle Infrastructure Design” and 1/12 “Shared Use Routes for Pedestrian and Cyclists”, and international best practice where applicable and also responds to research and publications such as the Manual for Streets, TRL and local cyclists.

 

This is effectively a repeat of the question I answered in May.  The documents you mention express a general preference for on-carriageway provision for cyclists over shared routes and states that “where it is decided to introduce a shared use facility alongside a road, it is important that the needs of cyclists who choose to remain in the carriageway are not ignored”.  This is what has been delivered.

 

As you will be aware, we have committed significant investment in cycling and walking infrastructure in the last few years including the Greenways project as well as providing infrastructure on our new roads, which at the time of inception was seen as progressive and ambitious.  The Council has committed to follow LTN1/20 wherever possible in our future schemes but upgrading all our existing cycling infrastructure will clearly be a major exercise and programmed over a number of years.  We will be reviewing our major active travel routes in the light of the guidance as part of our work developing a Borough wide Local Cycling and Walking Implementation Plan.  In addition, we have started detailed design of our first scheme based on the LTN 1/20 guidance, which will form a new route from Woodley to Palmer Park in Reading, this will help give everybody an impression of the level of infrastructure we want to deliver in future.

 

Supplementary Question:

I disagree with the response.  Greenways are not a strategic part of the network, and you keep repeating that in several answers which you have given to me.

 

My question is, so when will this Council put pedestrians and cyclists first in its Highways Design instead of the motorised vehicle?

 

Supplementary Answer:

We will agree to differ, I think.  Unlike some Opposition parties, we the Conservatives, believe in carrot rather stick.  We are working to make alternatives to the car more attractive and useable, rather than introducing anti car measures.  Recent experience with Covid is that reducing congestion not only reduces frustration but also reduces idling and roadside pollution.  We will continue to work to improve the cycling and walking infrastructure, and I am committed to that.