London Road Burpham (image Google)

From Terry Newman

chairman of the London Road Action Group

In response to: Fire Breaks Out in Town Centre Flats, Occupant Taken to Hospital for Checks

Local democracy reporter Chris Caulfield opens his report with a statement that appears to suggest that it has been confirmed that: “A £6 million active travel scheme … would have helped Surrey hit net zero targets in Guildford”.  This issue was repeatedly raised during the public engagement: “how was, or is, this assessed, and please could the data be disseminated?”

Regrettably, since it seems to be water under the bridge now, it might have been useful if Surrey County Council could either have presented supporting data or simply said that it was an inference that the trade-off between increased active travel and the reduction in vehicle journeys would prove a positive step.  As it was, it came across as an unprovable claim, and led to an impression that it could not be verified and might not be accurate.

I’d also like to make clear that the statement I made at the Cabinet meeting was not, as the article implies, merely a personal opinion.  It was taken, as I said at the time, from the guidance document that all cycling schemes use:  Cycle Infrastructure Design – Local Transport Note 1/20.

In full the paragraph says: “Too much cycling infrastructure is substandard, providing little protection from motorised traffic and giving up at the very places it is most needed. Some is actually worse than nothing, because it entices novice cyclists with the promise of protection, then abandons them at the most important places. Poor cycling infrastructure discourages cycling and wastes public money.”