Thursday 25th September 2014 was the day that “Plan B” (as it’s come to be known) was voted through by the members of the New Forest National Park Authority. Plan B is to replace the very comprehensive and innovative New Forest Family Cycling Experiences proposal to the Department for Transport and Sustrans Linking Communities Fund.
The original plan included the following proposals to encourage cycling in the New Forest:
- Cycling centre at Brockenhurst
- Bike hire network with docking stations
- Pedal bus network
- Signage improvements
- Improvements to existing cycle and cycle hire facilities within the National Park
You can download a copy of the original plan here.
The original application aimed to develop the New Forest National Park as a premier destination for family cycling experiences. There was even an inclusion of a 2020 cycling vision:
To be the UK’s premier family cycling destination, with cycling normalised as the key method of getting between the communities, transport hubs and attractions of the National Park.
Back in early 2014, those of us in the New Forest saw this as a very promising and exciting venture that would pave new ground in promoting cycling as a alternative to the car. If nothing else, the New Forest really does need to find an alternative to the car, ask anyone visiting in the summer and the comments will be about the horrendous traffic coming into the National Park.
All was going well with the plans until August this year, when the NFNPA members decided to ‘veto’ the original proposal and come up with an alternative instead. This alternative plan, plan ‘b’, has the hallmarks of a group of people against cycling in general. It’s a complete reversal of the original plan, to such an extent that the new proposal even suggests spending £300,000 on facilities outside the New Forest National Park.
The ‘Plan B’ document can be downloaded here.
Some key points of the new, revised Plan ‘B’.
Proposal to repair the edges of 6 miles of Rhinefield Drive at a cost of £1.275M
- This is not needed or wanted by cyclists
- Will only benefit cars
- Will not increase cycle trips
- It is road maintenance
- ‘Road widening’ by stealth is a big issue in the Forest
- The damage being repaired was caused by motorists in the first place
Proposal to invest £300k in Moors Valley Country Park
- Moors Valley Country Park (MVCP) is NOT in the New Forest
- MVCP plays a role in keeping cyclists OUT of the New Forest. The DfT guidance for proposals was to increase cycling within the area where funding was to be awarded – ie the New Forest.
- MVCP is a commercial venture funded by car parking charges. It has no cycling links from the New Forest.
Proposal to resurface 16 miles of Forestry Commission gravel tracks. Replacing gravel gravel. £140k
- This is maintenance
- Will not lead to an increase in cycle trips
- The cycle track network in the forest is currently disjointed and of little benefit to cyclists
- Perhaps it would be better if more of the existing gravel paths were opened up to cyclists, linking more areas with better maps / signage. There are around 300 miles of gravel tracks in the New Forest, but currently, only 100 miles of them are open to cyclists.
A35 Lyndhurst to Ashurst cycleway improvements
- Again, this is resurfacing (see a trend appearing!)
- The route will continue to deliver a sometimes unnerving cycling experience when faced with 60mph vehicles coming the other way with only a few feet to spare.
This new revised Plan B seems to fall far short of the guidelines as set down by the DfT, as the funding is there to provide new, innovative cycling assets.
The DfT document can be found here.
Plan A gave the New Forest a ‘Golden Opportunity’ to not only provide some great facilities for cycling, BUT to kick start the process of changing attitudes towards cycling and cyclists in the New Forest. Plan B will do nothing in terms of changing these attitudes.
Last week, the chairman of the New Forest National Park Authority responded to criticism of their new Plan B on BBC radio. You can hear the interview below. We would love to hear your response to this in the comments section on this page.
Our aim is to get the NFNPA to go back to their original, innovative proposal to the DfT and not let this golden opportunity go wasted. Please write to your MP to ask them to look into the issue. We have put a template letter together here.
Please comment if you would like to add anything to the discussion.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Mike Stead says
The ability of the Chairman to basically lie through his teeth during that radio interview is breathtaking. I wish the interviewer had pushed him on *who* was consulted on ‘Plan B’ – for example the CTC, Sustrans, cycling clubs in Hampshire/Dorset, etc. I don’t believe any of these organisations were asked for input. When he says ‘locals were extensively surveyed’ or whatever, he means that the parochial parish representatives were asked what their mates in the pub or horsey meeting wanted.
Their answer, no doubt, was ‘wider roads so we can drive faster and not have to pull over when facing opposing traffic’.
That’s the only outcome here: vehicles will drive faster because they will be able to. They will not have to pull over or slow down, because the shoulder will be smooth. This will make cyclists LESS safe.
Unbelievable. Here’s hoping DfT throw it out. Cycling will be better off with this money not being spent.
Paul M says
Crosthwaite-Eyre evidently needs to be challenged to produce evidence of the consultation of Plan B. He should be able to produce officer’s reports of meetings or engagements with consultees, or a folder of letters/emails from interested groups/members of the public, or the outcome of a formal survey, such as the one carried out for Plan A. I’ll wager he can’t produce one.
In any case, the residents’ response (allegedly hostile) which they cite for abandoning Plan A quite clearly does not derive form the formal consultation survey. It is fair to say that many respondents gave a thumbs-down to the cycle hire proposal, giving it a 1 for “strongly disagree”, but in fact as many respondents gave it a 5, for strongly agree, and a few gave intermediate ratings, so that the weighted average response was marginally below 3 (no opinion) in parishes close to the scheme, marginally above in the rest of the forest, and significantly in favour for visitors to the forest who responded. So, among residents, the response was basically indifference, and from visitors was enthusiastic. that is hardly consistent with the “significant opposition” cited by the NPA, is it?
As for Crosthwaite-Eyre’s performance on that radio package, his lies and evasions really should not go unchallenged.
Rangjan says
Agreed. However a 50/50 split on the scheme should not be characterised as ‘general indifference’.
CambridgeVelocipedestrienne says
I think this issue is of national importance to cycle campaigners. If the New Forest is able to get away with this, it’s basically telling every other authority in the country that they can apply for cycle funding and not spend it on cycling.
It means less money spent on cycling nationwide, while allowing the government to continue claiming it’s spending more on cycling than ever.
To be honest, I wasn’t massively impressed with the original plans. A cycling hub is less useful if there are limited traffic-free routes on which to cycle. Likewise a cycle hire scheme. You can already hire bikes in the New Forest as a tourist (I’ve done so myself), and if you have a good network of routes for cycling people will buy their own bikes for regular journeys. Never-the-less, it was clearly a cycling-lead initiative.