The first 100 days of the Council's Environment Strategy is to be reviewed tonight along with their 20 pledges. I've much to say on the matter and will hopefully come back to that - but time limited now so wanted to pick up on the canal multiuser trail proposed for Brimscombe/ Thrupp into Stroud as a local resident just asked me about that...Photo: Not a local example of great cycle route!
I am pleased to say there is a commitment by the Council in their 20 pledges to ensure that 'the value of the canal Corridor as a green transport route is capitalised.' I have to say I am pleased as at one point it looked doubtful about the extent of support.
Indeed I enclose bits below of a letter I sent last November to the Cabinet member responsible. I still have concerns about the type of route we will eventually see but at least there is a very clear commitment. Here was my email:
I note there appears to be at present insufficient funding available or allocated to creating a multiuser trail along the canal suitable and safe for walkers, wheelchairs and commuting cyclists. From my conversation with you it appears that this is unlikely to change. I recognise there are huge difficulties in putting together a project like this, but we are very keen to see if we can find a way forward. Apols for delay in getting back to you but I've had the flu and am only just now resurfacing! Here are some thoughts.
As noted before it is the Green party's view that a multiuser trail is one of the key fundamental benefits of the canal regeneration. Many reasons like increasingly congested roads have meant fewer people cycling than in the past. Nationally the number of cycle trips has reduced by 20% over a decade (i). It is clear for many reasons, not least climate change, congestion and health issues, that we need to increase cycling (ii). The canal route being flat and following the valley into Stroud provides a huge opportunity. Cyclists could potentially make up one of the largest group of users of the canal.
Clearly this multiuser trail would also fit extremely well with the aims of SDC's environmental strategy and indeed many other strategies, both local and national, to increase cycling. Indeed the Local Plan already commits SDC to increasing cycle trips in the District.
I have now looked at the HLF bid and would agree with Cllr Martin Whiteside that a cycle route appears to be more than an aspiration. The HLF bid makes significant references to improved cycle commuting that would be a product of regeneration resulting from the bid (iii). If it had been only an aspiration I would have thought this would have been spelt out as such. Andrew Stumpf, Regeneration Manager (South) has also acknowledged that the HLF bid does promise a safe managed multiuser trail suitable for walking and cycling for leisure and commuting purposes - although he noted 'buts' and said the bid needs to be read as a whole.
Clearly the exact nature of the trail and where it goes is still open to interpretation. I do understand there is limited money. Delivery is therefore more than a tricky issue for the partnership. However I do not want to see this aim lost. I hope you agree.
In the light of all this I am therefore seeking ways forward. As a first step I am seeking assurances on behalf of myself and other Green party councillors, that:
1. The partnership, including BW, is committed to being transparent and inclusive about the difficult decisions that need to be taken due to the shortage of funds. That way we can build-up community ownership of the process, rather that disappointment and opposition - which may jeopardize future funding applications for further regeneration phases.
2. That a multiuser trail suitable for commuting by cyclists is still planned and that any work being done on the canal takes this into account. This will involve a number of issues like:
- how we can make the proposed track(s) safe and pleasant for the different users.
- where a joint trail isn't possible a braided route could be found in some of those cases.
- in some places creating 'an excellent standard track' may not be possible during the 1a phase. What are the minimum standards for 'suitablity for commuting' and how do we achieve them throughout (as well as suitability for other users)? How do we engineer the 1a phase so as to move up to 'excellent' as early as possible and with minimum additional costs?
- gates and other barriers have been suggested to deter high speed commuters and encourage them to use other routes like the A419. This does not appear to be the right way forward.
- a 1.2m multi-user tral is neither safe nor suitable for combined walking, wheelchairs, fishermen and commuting cyclists. In some bits it will be difficult to avoid this. However for much of the route it should be possible to do better with clever design, appropriate 'braiding', probably relatively modest additional expenditure and in some cases very limited additional purchase of land that has limited other use. We welcome that so far planning applications are for 1.6m but this will not be sufficient in many sections: what is best/safest/possible is clearly very dependent on the particular locality.
- the canal route re Capel Mill will have implications for funding: if a non-tip route is chosen more funds maybe possible.
3. SDC will ensure that the Partnership sees the multiuser trail as a priority for funding for any further development/next stage of development.
Andrew Stumpf has consistently said he wants community agreement before planning applications go in. I fully support this and much has been achieved already raising awareness in the local communities. However we still need to see how users can be more involved in planning. I am sure there are creative ways of achieving the best possible cycling and walking provision that will put together the successful results we all seek.
I welcome your thoughts on the best way forward. I don't believe this is an issue that will go away - there are many strong feelings about this - but I am very sure that if we work together we can have a better understanding of the current constraints and opportunities and come to solutions that are in the communities best interests.
Would a meeting be the best way forward? I am sure it will be useful to look at these issues with all parties including British Waterways, Cycle groups and others.
All the best - Philip
Cllr Philip Booth
Notes: (i) Dept of Transport: National Statistics 2005. (ii) It is worth mentioning new research published by sustainable transport charity Sustrans has shown the economic benefits of a number of local walking and cycling schemes demonstrate that every £1 spent on a route generates a benefit worth £20. This is compared to the slimmer average return of other transport schemes such as rail and roads, which is typically £3 for every £1 spent. Sustrans used the same appraisal process applied to road schemes, and found that cycling and walking schemes are far better value for money: See http://sustrans.org.uk/default.asp?sID=1158137684156 See other benefits at: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/default.asp?sID=1159797704234 (iii) The press release also makes reference to the multi-user trail: "Today's award, applied for by British Waterways on behalf of the Cotswold Canals Partnership, represents a major boost to the area and will act as a catalyst for inward investment and regeneration. The project will conserve 30 historic structures, including bridges and locks, and help to protect rare species including bats, water vole and crayfish. It will attract an estimated 215,000 extra visitors and create 600 jobs by 2014 and create a 10 mile trail for walkers, angler, cyclists, wheelchair users and pushchairs allowing a large and diverse number of people to learn and discover more about our waterways and their history."
No comments:
Post a Comment