I have commented as below, but would be happy to pass on any comments others may have, or you can comment on specific aspects on their site via the "your say" section.
Thank you for sending us this.
It looks good and you have done well to keep it short and readable. I
do though have a few specific comments and a couple of more general
- Air Quality: I suggest you add some more local stats, as these are
available (e.g. 40 out of 41 km squares in Ipswich (98%) exceed the WHO
recommended PM2.5 level of 10ug/m3);
p.8 - final sentence in column 1 has a typo ("this") and seems a bit muddled
p.13 - This section seems to repeat things that have already been said.
generally, my first comment would be that the methodology lacks a clear
anchorage in a high level goal. So,whilst we can all agree about the
benefits on offer from active travel, as you set them out, there is no
indication of what we need to achieve in regard to these. I think the
obvious one is carbon emissions, but the same applies to air pollution,
health, road deaths and injuries and so on. Whilst I would accept that
this plan forms only one part of Suffolk's response to the challenge of
meeting the target of carbon-neutrality by 2030, it is significant
enough that we need to know how it fits in what the target is and,
importantly, how much mode shift is needed to meet that target.
is debatable whether you could realistically assess and measure such
targets on a route-by-route basis. However, I think you could and
should try to do it at a network level. As a starting point, the PCT
provides a range of what they call "scenarios" that yield varying levels
of modal shift (Census 2011, Go Dutch, e-bikes,etc.). These give a
scaling for how much mode shift you might get (y-axis), against a rather
subjective x-axis. They also quantify what these scenarios might mean
for carbon emissions. I don't think it is unrealistic to try to specify
what the points on their x-axis look like in terms of the active travel
network,both in general and by application to specific routes and
areas. You then know what level of interventions is necessary and can
measure progress towards the goals. On the other hand, if you don't do
this, the almost inevitable consequence is that the programme will lack
ambition and you will have little in the way of ammunition when it comes
to defending the plan when the going gets tough, which it will.
Positive BCAs are never enough.
general point is that the programme focuses almost entirely on routes,
which of course are an essential component, along with training,
publicity, cycle parking and so on. However, I think the routes need to
be complemented with area-focussed initiatives - LTNs, if you prefer.
As you know, we have given some thought to this, both in terms of what
is already out there and can be built upon and also where more needs to
be done. But generally, I would expect that people would only be
persuaded to make substantial changes in their behaviour if they can
meet most of their day-to-day travel needs on foot or by bike, rather
than (or in addition to) just having good commuting routes, which is
what the PCT deals with. This means making a range of systematic
changes in and around specific areas to cut out through traffic, deal
with pavement parking, dangerous junctions and so on and ensure
accessibility to a range of local facilities.
I hope this helps and I am happy, as always, to explain and discuss.