Dear Ms Wyer,

Thank you for your letter.

The work on the one-way system was undertaken in response to the concerns of residents who live in the area. The need for improvement to the gyratory had been highlighted in the 1998 Transport Plan and the 1999 Cycle Network Plan, both of them adopted plans. The favoured solution in both plans was to restore two-way traffic thus reducing traffic speed and volume (the first priorities when addressing the needs of pedestrians and cyclists according to the Manual for Streets and HCC policy). Why has this opportunity to really improve things been lost, and public money spent on ineffective half-way measures?

There was a petition for increased safety measures for pedestrians, wheelchair users and young families using prams and pushchairs who are close enough to walk to the town centre and  Samuel Lucas School but following a number of accidents around this area, there was a feeling that there were major safety issues regarding the speed of the traffic and the narrowness of the pavements around this area. See comment above

Improved pedestrian access between the Lairage and Elmside walk along to the sheltered housing complex and the Swim Centre was also an issue that needed to be addressed. See above.

There is a recommended hierarchy of use for road and pavement users and greater consideration has to be given to people who have little or no choice about the routes they use to access various amenities. In the recommended hierarchy set out in the Manual for Streets, shared pavement conversions come at the bottom of the list of options, to be considered as a last resort. They can actually increase the risk of hazard to pedestrians and cyclists, particularly if poorly designed.

I know that there has been extensive discussion between the officers and representatives of local cycling groups about these plans and the best way to deal with the issues over shared space.  This is what CTC representative Alasdair Massie has to say about the Bedford Road proposals: “Just in case people are thinking that it would be nice to have a cycle path next to Bedford Road, to get you out of the traffic, the CTC actually had no problem with that as a general principle. The problem is that once you take people off the road, you have to make sure that they can get back on it again, safely and conveniently. You also have to make sure that people can cross side turnings safely, ensure that there are no hazards or obstructions etc. None of this has been done. To get from the path into Oughtonhead Way you will have to stop and wait at three sets of lights, negotiate a sheep pen and ride down a narrow pavement. Sound good to you? It doesn’t to me, and since we had given Herts Highways detailed instructions on how to avoid creating the problem there is no excuse for it.” Herts Highways are not only putting into place a last resort proposal, but they are ignoring their own policy guidelines and expert user group advice in the design of it, resulting in a scheme of poor quality and dubious safety. This must not be allowed to go unchecked.

Regarding the cycling strategy, this will be discussed at the current working group on the Hitchin Urban Transport plan. The cycling lobby was well represented at the initial public meeting of this group last February and had the opportunity to put their views forward along with everyone else. The cycling lobby was actually considerably misrepresented at the HUTP consultations – I was on the same table as Alasdair Massie during the consultation and heard exactly what he said and what everyone else said. What appeared in the report findings did not reflect what was actually said: where individuals expressed certain views (views which to an outsider would seem to support the need for a bypass), those views were ascribed to the whole group in the report, but where other individuals such as Mr Massie expressed different views, those views were either not reported, or were described as minority views. A transcript of the consultation is now being sought which will expose this misrepresentation. Several others in other groups complained about similar misrepresentations and some have been successful in overturning the report findings. Not a very auspicious start to the process. Nor is the fact that next to nothing put forward in the last Transport Plan has actually been actioned over the last ten years, except the ‘improvement’ of the gyratory, which seems to have conveniently ignored the plan’s recommendations. Will the 2009 plan be treated in a similar way I wonder… What is to stop local authorities acting in defiance of adopted plans and consulted policy?

I  hope that you have found this helpful.

Yours sincerely 

 Cllr. Allison Ashley
Tel: 01462 450892