On Friday (July 30), the DfT announced the allocations for the most recent round of grants from the Ability Fund, with none presented to the city’s put together authority until they gained even further reassurances as to the authority’s dedication to energetic travel.
The ending of the short term cycle lane on Crescent Bridge seems to be to have played a big portion in the decision and had enraged Peterborough’s Cycle Forum.
The team has also criticised the authority and Peterborough City Council for disregarding the advice of its own doing work team to shut the cycle lane and instead use the second tranche of energetic journey funding to generate a entirely kerb-segregated cycle lane connecting Longthorpe to the Thorpe Wooden Business enterprise Park and South Bretton.
Users of the discussion board assert that the new lane will be portion of an upgrade of the A1260/A47 Soke Parkway junction, which is currently being funded by the put together authority a declare the council has disputed.
The cycle discussion board has now prepared a letter to the DfT to praise its determination to withhold the funding and encourage them to give scrutiny to the area’s vacation strategies, which they say is not going on regionally.
The letter explained: “The Peterborough Cycle Discussion board welcomed your conclusion on Friday to pause active travel funding to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.
“Your announcement said that you need further assurances ahead of funding is verified and we thank you for delivering this scrutiny, which is not getting furnished locally.
“The Peterborough Cycle Forum stands by our letter on July 16. The Crescent Bridge plan should really have been designed lasting and the very last minute decision to transfer the Energetic Journey Fund funding to the Junction 15 (A1260 Nene Parkway/ A47 Soke Parkway) scheme is an unacceptable use of the Lively Vacation Fund.
“The Junction (A1260 Nene Parkway/ A47 Soke Parkway) scheme:
“- This is a major road developing ability scheme. Funding for biking provision should not will need to come from the Lively Travel Fund, it ought to be element of the significant plan.
“- Peterborough Metropolis Council were 1 of the initially Community Authorities to adopt LTN1/20 as policy but this plan is not LTN1/20 compliant through, in certain the footbridge.
“- The proposed cycling interventions will enhance a brief area, which will sit in glorious isolation with no LTN1/20 grievance connections at either conclusion.
“- This route is not in Peterborough’s Area Cycling and Strolling Infrastructure Plans (LCWIP) and is not a precedence. Forum users manufactured this clear to council officers back again in February
“- It is not in an space of deprivation or with lousy overall health results.
“- Due to these factors, there are uncertainties that this scheme will convert limited motor vehicle journeys to biking and the amount of individuals to advantage will be very low, in contrast to the unique Crescent Bridge and Thorpe Road plan.
“- There is no tough of the standing quo with this plan, all it will do is increase auto dependency.
“We urge you to evaluate the council’s first prepare for the Lively Travel Fund- the Crescent Bridge and Thorpe Highway plan (which was picked by the council’s Cycle Champion and cross-social gathering performing team to commence).
“To repeat the fantastic phrases of the Secretary of Point out:
Schemes will need time to be permitted to bed in, will have to be examined versus additional usual targeted traffic problems and have to be in location extensive ample for their rewards and disbenefits to be correctly evaluated and recognized.
“We have no curiosity in necessitating councils to hold schemes which are verified not to perform but that evidence ought to be introduced.
“This has not happened in Peterborough.”