Bridget Clark

Member since 22 January 2021

All input submitted by this participant

There are 9 projects available.

Trending ideas have loaded.

Bridget Clark7 months ago

Bridget Clark7 months ago

Bridget Clark1 year ago

Bridget Clark7 months ago

Bridget Clark7 months ago

Bridget Clark7 months ago

Bridget Clark2 years ago

Bridget Clark2 years ago

Bridget Clark4 years ago Need for Cycle Network Plans and Planning processes to prioritise joined up networksThe previous guidance lacked infrastructure plans for Active Travel/cycle networks resulting in major developments being approved without joined up cycle routes. How do we avoid this outcome again and progress effective Active Travel infrastructure? With the Climate Emergency and over 50% journeys under 3 miles, Active Travel, particularly cycling, is a realistic priority in sustainable transport planning. E-bikes and powered equipment extend the range and abilities for cycling, and people will use safe segregated infrastructure off busy roads in both urban and rural settings – to cycle and wheel safely around and between their communities to get to key destinations.However Stirling Council still don’t have any strategic Active Travel plans with joined up cycle networks. How can developers, planners and transport staff discuss effective Active Travel routes without some agreed master planning? We need to progress this with local ‘experts’ – users with knowledge of best practice such as the Cycle Stirling network.We also need to include local ‘experts’ in pre-application discussions since it has proved too late for their input at the planning/objection stage. The new guidance is too vague and needs more priority and specifics for Active Travel.Eg 5.3 Policy 1.3b “new development must (not “should” or “wherever possible”) connect to existing, or provide new links to, active travel and other sustainable transport options.”Eg. 5.4 Policy 3.3 sets out a requirement for “necessary infrastructure”. This must include active travel/cycle infrastructure – in both urban and rural areas. People need safe segregated cycle routes between neighbouring communities.5.6 Supplementary Guidance Transport and Access for New Developments is worth spelling out regarding Active Travel requirements. These extracts are more useful and specific:- Pg 4 states that "the travel demands should be maximised by walking, then cycling, then public transport, specialist vehicles then lastly other motor traffic according to the hierarchy of travel." - Pg 4 states that "measures to improve wider networks may be required". - Pg 12 requires "safe cycle routes to destinations such as schools, shops, health centres, leisure facilities, employment centres, public transport, train stations, residential areas." - Pg 19 requires a Quality Audit "integral to the design and implementation and not a tick box exercise; assessment required may include a road safety audit, inclusive audit, walking audit, a Cycling Audit."Local network Improvements5.8, 5.9, 5.10 need to provide effective active travel connections. However the current planning practice is not to require joined up active travel routes from developments. Constructive advisory inputs into planning applications have not been heeded, and many opportunities for efficient development of active travel have been missed. There needs to be increased expectations and requirements to provide active travel links from developments to achieve a usable cycle network. Strategic Network Improvements5.13 Active travel infrastructure such as effective segregated cycle networks should not be classed as “minor measures” and need to be given more priority since there is an absence of safe cycle networks. They need proper planning and resourcing and provide higher cost benefit in contrast to more expensive roads.The interventions list Pg 34 – 36 needs clarifying what proportion is planned for active travel/safe cycling infrastructure? It just says promote walking, cycling? That is clearly insufficient and could be interpreted as just a leaflet.For Example;C6, C10 – Kildean and Craigforth requires this joined up Active Travel infrastructure;· A protected crossing point on A84 near Dobbies· Off road link between Charlmerston Road and North Kersebonny road· Repair of old Drip Road path under M9 bridge which is eroding into the river Forth· Widening narrow path beside A84 over M9 bridge· Upgrade of Pipe bridge core path to Carse Road, Bridge of Allan. This is very cost effective (a 10/15 minute cycle journey from Dunblane and Doune, walk from BoA) compared with building expensive road links to gridlock on the floodplain.· Removing the Riverside path steps at FVC.C4 – Springkerse/Forthside What cycle infrastructure is planned here? Recent planning approval was given for a car showroom and drive in fast food, whilst proposing removing the direct safe toucan cycle crossing and no joined up cycle routes. Priority must be given to building safe joined up cycle infrastructure rather undermining it.5.18 Pirnhall, South Gateway, Durieshill needs joined up segregated cycle routes to enable safe cycling to key destinations. The development plans do not achieve a coherent network plan yet.7.1 SG02 Green Network sixth quality “Easy to Move Around and Beyond, will be supported.”However there is no reference to active travel routes through green networks, which is an important opportunity to combine benefits.