Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Fwd: Greenwich LIP Response

Expand Messages
  • TERESA GRIFFITH
    Before the Greenwich Cyclists meeting tomorrow does anyone have any comments on the Local Implementation Plan?  Even if you are unable to attend the meeting,
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 1, 2011

    Before the Greenwich Cyclists meeting tomorrow does anyone have any comments on the Local Implementation Plan?  Even if you are unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to let us know your views so we can fairly reflect cyclists' views

    Kind regards
     
    Teri - rides coordinator
     




    -----


    Dear All,
     
    Attached is my draft response to the Greenwich LIP.
     
    Before Wednesday's meeting you may also want to read through some of the more relevant parts of the LIP document namely:
     
    Chapter 3 - p.45-47

    Chapter 4 - p.76

    Chapter 5 - p.100-102

    You may also be interested in the sections on Road Safety (p.108-111) and CO2 Reduction (p.112-114).

    The overall spending figures are on p.90 (Chapter 4).

    Best Regards,
     
    Gareth
     

  • gerhard_lcc
    Here my 2p: Mode share: Please double check that 3% really is the 2026 target and not an intermediate one, which is also often published. The 5% percent mode
    Message 2 of 3 , Mar 2, 2011
      Here my 2p:

      Mode share:
      Please double check that 3% really is the 2026 target and not an intermediate one, which is also often published.
      The 5% percent mode share target is across London. Crucial for London Boroughs is a requirement for a 400% increase in mode share. Greenwich's baseline is 1%, so a 400% increase happens to bring it to 5%. If they think it cannot be done, they have to explain why. Given the latent demand (I think about 50% want to cycle more) and the value for money cycling offers (£1.5-£3 for each point spent) I can't see what the reasons for not achieving 5% could be.

      Vulnerable road users: I think unprotected road users is the word these days :-)

      20mph default speed limit: You could remove the clause 'where possible'

      We like buses, but do we have to make the case for it here?

      HGV safety: It's a good start that Grenewich is FORS registered. We should ask to demand cycle training for council HGV drivers and contractors.

      Parking:
      Credit where credit is due, Greenwich seems to be one of the better boroughs when it comes to cycle parking standards and we should say so. You migh comment on how well this is reflected in real life.
      Suggestions could include: funding for secure estate parking (addressing the needs of the deprived areas mentioned in the LIP)

      All the best

      Gerhard

      --- In greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com, TERESA GRIFFITH <teresa.griffith@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Before the Greenwich Cyclists meeting tomorrow does anyone have any comments on the Local Implementation Plan?  Even if you are unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to let us know your views so we can fairly reflect cyclists' views
      >
      > Kind regards   Teri - rides coordinator
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      > -----
      >
      >
      >
      > Dear All,
      >  
      > Attached is my draft response to the Greenwich LIP.
      >  
      > Before Wednesday's meeting you may also want to read through some of the more relevant parts of the LIP document namely:
      >  
      > Chapter 3 - p.45-47
      >
      > Chapter 4 - p.76
      >
      > Chapter 5 - p.100-102
      >
      > You may also be interested in the sections on Road Safety (p.108-111) and CO2 Reduction (p.112-114).
      >
      > The overall spending figures are on p.90 (Chapter 4).
      >
      >
      > Best Regards,
      >  
      > Gareth
      >
      >  
      >
    • scarlgar
      Thanks Gerhard for these constructive comments So far as I can tell, 3% is the target for cycling modal share for 2026 - as stated on page 100 of the Greenwich
      Message 3 of 3 , Mar 2, 2011
        Thanks Gerhard for these constructive comments

        So far as I can tell, 3% is the target for cycling modal share for 2026 - as stated on page 100 of the Greenwich LIP document (in ch. 5), the cycling target is: "To increase modeshare of cycling from 1% to 2 % of modeshare by 2013/1[4?] and to 3% by 2026".




        --- On Wed, 2/3/11, gerhard_lcc <gerhard@...> wrote:

        From: gerhard_lcc <gerhard@...>
        Subject: [greenwichcyclists] Re: Fwd: Greenwich LIP Response
        To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, 2 March, 2011, 15:30

        Here my 2p:

        Mode share:
        Please double check that 3% really is the 2026 target and not an intermediate one, which is also often published.
        The 5% percent mode share target is across London. Crucial for London Boroughs is a requirement for a 400% increase in mode share. Greenwich's baseline is 1%, so a 400% increase happens to bring it to 5%. If they think it cannot be done, they have to explain why. Given the latent demand (I think about 50% want to cycle more) and the value for money cycling offers (£1.5-£3 for each point spent) I can't see what the reasons for not achieving 5% could be.

        Vulnerable road users: I think unprotected road users is the word these days :-)

        20mph default speed limit: You could remove the clause 'where possible'

        We like buses, but do we have to make the case for it here?

        HGV safety: It's a good start that Grenewich is FORS registered. We should ask to demand cycle training for council HGV drivers and contractors.

        Parking:
        Credit where credit is due, Greenwich seems to be one of the better boroughs when it comes to cycle parking standards and we should say so. You migh comment on how well this is reflected in real life.
        Suggestions could include: funding for secure estate parking (addressing the needs of the deprived areas mentioned in the LIP)

        All the best

        Gerhard

        --- In greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com, TERESA GRIFFITH <teresa.griffith@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Before the Greenwich Cyclists meeting tomorrow does anyone have any comments on the Local Implementation Plan?  Even if you are unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to let us know your views so we can fairly reflect cyclists' views
        >
        > Kind regards     Teri - rides coordinator
        >    
        >
        >
        >
        > -----
        >
        >
        >
        > Dear All,
        >  
        > Attached is my draft response to the Greenwich LIP.
        >  
        > Before Wednesday's meeting you may also want to read through some of the more relevant parts of the LIP document namely:
        >  
        > Chapter 3 - p.45-47
        >
        > Chapter 4 - p.76
        >
        > Chapter 5 - p.100-102
        >
        > You may also be interested in the sections on Road Safety (p.108-111) and CO2 Reduction (p.112-114).
        >
        > The overall spending figures are on p.90 (Chapter 4).
        >
        >
        > Best Regards,
        >  
        > Gareth
        >
        >  
        >




        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenwichcyclists/

        <*> Your email settings:
            Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenwichcyclists/join
            (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:
            greenwichcyclists-digest@yahoogroups.com
            greenwichcyclists-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            greenwichcyclists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.