The consultation for the Integrated Network Maps is now open, so it would be a good idea if as many of us responded to it as possible.
It is vitally important that all of you who are interested in seeing active travel, be that walking or cycling, get involved in this consultation. However, cycle routes are arguably far easier to screw up and we are focussed on cycling here after all.
To help you respond to the council we’ve taken a look at the form and attempted to distil as much of what we discovered in our deep dive onto it.
Walking or Cycling?
Obviously our main area of interest here is cycling, but if you wish to comment on walking routes as well, you may want to complete a second form.
This first section is an opportunity to say whether or not you think the lines are in the right place, or whether some should be removed (or added as we have).
Do you agree with the routes proposed in the draft integrated network map? Please provide comments below:
|Please provide details e.g. section of route along (name of road/street) etc||Route should be removed – please state why||Route should be realigned (please provide details)||Other comments|
|Adam Street to Pearl Street||N/A||Very indirect, consider routing along Moira Terrace, Planet St, Copper St, Clifton St||None|
|Allensbank Road||N/A||Allensbank Rd provides a more direct route to connection w/ Health Halt||None|
|Plas Mawr Road & Waterhall Road||N/A||Consider a route here to link St Fagans Rd with Llantrisant Rd||None|
|Your suggestions here…|
In this next section we need to look closely at the map to the proposed changes to junctions and stretches of road. On each of the maps you’ll see a boxes scattered all over it with a number to the left. This is the scheme reference number that you need to quote below.
Do you agree with the schemes proposed in the draft Integrated Network Map? Please provide comments about individual schemes below:
|Scheme Reference number||Comments|
|NS9||Option 1 preferred|
|NS39||Option 2 preferred|
|NS40||Option 2 preferred|
|NS27||Option 2 preferred|
|EW47||Option 1 preferred, but road width offers scope to be more ambitious here|
|EW48||Option 1 please|
|NS47||Road is very wide, should be able to offer protection|
In this next section we’re essentially mopping up after the previous two sections. Is there anything that concerns you that you haven’t addressed already?
Are there problems or barriers to active travel which are not addressed by the draft Integrated Network Map which you think should by included? Please provide as much detail as possible.
|Location||What is the problem?||How can it be solved?|
|Cowbridge Road East||Cycle lanes run under parked cars, therefore useless||Double-yellow lines|
|Rhiwbina to Ty Glas via Beulah Road||Proposed route involves crossing roundabout on Caerphilly Rd – this would be horrendous||Signalise junction|
|Manor Way||Shared paths on the shortest, most direct route to Cardiff…||Enough room for segregation using grass verges|
|Primary Route E/W – Sophia Gardens to A48||This road is very poorly lit||Improved lighting|
|Heol Isaf to Main Road||Road linking Gwaelod-y-Garth & Morganstown needs to be improved. Also, connect Radyr Comprehensive||A cycle lane|
|Your suggestions here…|
As we concluded in our deep dive, there’s a lot to be positive about in these plans but also some notable omissions, particularly around schools and other destinations.
There’s not a lot of useful data collected on anything but commuting by bike, which was included in the 2011 census. Trips to the cinema; to school; or to the Principality Stadium to watch Wales play rugby are not something there is a lot of data on, so we need to say if the planned route map isn’t going to facilitate the trips we want to make.
Take a look at part 5 of our deep dive and check that your frequently used places are catered for. If they’re not, you need to say. You are more than welcome to copy and paste any of the responses we’ve listed in the tables above if they are important to you.
We will be filling out a form of our own, but we doubt that hearing the same comments over and over can hurt.
Should you wish to add suggestions in the comments or on the social media channels, we will add them on and include them with our submission.
They want us to play their game of arguing detailed secondary routes when they have decided all money etc. will be put to their choice of just 4 radial primary routes – don’t meet the Active Travel Network criteria for a comprehensive network of high-quality commuting routes for existing main origins and destinations. The Enfys network aimed to do that; they promised to complete it (by 2018?), but did not allocate funding or officer resources to do it – while misusing a lot on the 100m of Cardiff/Canton bridge that does not meet minimum width standards (eg. to allow overtaking). The first thing to demand is completion of all the Enfys primary routes!