The new West Northants transport plan sets the direction until 2045, so it’s really important that we respond to the consultation by 17 October. Just email localtransportplan@westnorthants.gov.uk – feel free to use any of our text!
Read the West Northants page about the plan
Read the plan
Our response to the plan
We agree with the vision stated in the bold section on page 5 of the plan, and again on page 14. However, we believe that many of the policy objectives are too vague, and many of the proposed interventions do not match up with the stated vision.
We feel the balance of the interventions is heavily skewed towards road developments.
We note the level of detail specified in the proposed road developments, while routes for cycling and walking have yet to be identified.
This document provides our input on these proposed policies and interventions. We hope this helps the council to amend the draft plan to enable us to address CO2 emissions, illegal levels of air pollution, the obesity crisis, and chronic congestion.
Proposed Notable Interventions (page 8)
- Bus service improvements and enhancements. This is a vague statement that talks about “focus” and “vision” rather than what the council will actually do. It is not an “intervention”. We note that the 2012 Local Transport Plan made a very similar statement, but since then bus services have declined. We would like to see the Northampton bus services brought in-house.
- Northampton Bus and Coach station Upgrade. This is good – it will put right the embarrassing mistake made previously in building a bus station that was much too small.
- A45 Junction upgrades – this is very detailed and specific – “upgrades at Queen Eleanor Interchange, Brackmills and the Great Billing Interchange” are very clear interventions. Given that the priority is supposed to be on walking and cycling, why has the council got such a clear idea of exactly road improvements it wants to do? Why is this level of detail not present for bus services and active travel routes?
- A43 Dualling Phase 3 to Holcot/Sywell Junction – again, this is a very detailed intervention, apparently part of a planned series. Road improvements seem to be planned in great detail over many years, while little thought seems to have been given to bus and active travel routes.
- Mobility Hubs – the plan states that these will “bring modes together in strategic locations and support frictionless transfers. We don’t understand what this means, and if it’s important, we don’t understand why Northampton isn’t considered “strategic” as it’s not included here.
- Local Cycling and Walking infrastructure Plans. Considering walking and cycling are stated as the priority at the beginning of the plan, this proposal is extremely vague, promising only a “strategic approach” – that will “identify preferred routes…for future investments”. This is not an intervention – it’s a vague statement about identifying active travel routes, and then implementing them at an unspecified point in the future. Similar statements were made in the 2012 plan, and since then we’ve seen a decline in active travel routes.
- Measures to support decarbonisation of the traffic, bus and freight – but the plan doesn’t say what these measures are – again, this isn’t an intervention.
Transport Vision (page 14)
This states that “West Northamptonshire has moved rapidly to achieve a net zero emissions transport system by 2045. Working together with our communities we have made travel by active modes like walking and cycling the natural first choice for short trips, travel by public transport has become increasingly attractive and accessible, and communities are less dependent on private cars.”
Page 14 goes on to say that “[the plan] sets out what is needed in the medium and longer term, ensuring policies and ambitions are working together and effectively toward the 2045 vision.” We don’t believe this is the case – following this plan will not make “walking and cycling the natural first choice for short trips, and communities less dependent on private cars” as stated in the vision above.
The proposed interventions do not reflect the vision.
West Northants context
Page 25 para 5 states: “The LTP should recommend how funding for active travel improvements should be used, with the support of Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) recommendations to ensure investment is prioritised and an ongoing pipeline of high-quality schemes is delivered across the Council area.”
Unfortunately, the LTP does not do this – no recommendations are made – it just points to the LCWIPs, which should clearly have been completed before the LTP.
Page 25 para 6 states: “there are several junctions and roads within Northampton that lack safe crossings and the surfacing in many areas does not create a safe environment for cyclists. This creates additional challenges and obstacles for people with wheelchairs and mobility scooters.”
This should be changed to “there are many junctions and roads within Northampton that lack safe crossings and are dangerous for cycling, and the surfacing and road design in many areas does not create a safe environment for cyclists. This, plus a lack of dropped kerbs, creates additional challenges and obstacles for people with wheelchairs and mobility scooters.”
Page 29, bullet 4 refers to the “our sustainable transport hierarchy.” But the council does not have such a hierarchy (see below).
CONNECTING PEOPLE BETTER
Challenge statements (page 32)
Statement 1A – “especially out side Northampton” should be omitted – Northampton residents have extremely limited access to “alternative modes” (ie methods other than driving). Bus services to many areas are very poor, and all but a small minority are deterred from walking and cycling because of poor crossings, dangerous surfaces and badly designed junctions.
Priorities (page 33)
- In spite of the stated vision, the first four priorities are detailed road improvements
- Abington Square study – we strongly support this – there is a lot of road space that could be removed, moving towards a pedestrianised square. Currently the busy pavements are very narrow and often blocked by bus queues – it’s a difficult and unpleasant approach to the town centre for anyone on foot, and highly dangerous for anyone on a bike – the junction of Kettering and Wellingborough Road is designed for vehicle speed.
- We don’t understand why there is nothing about urban walking and cycling infrastructure in any of the three columns. This doesn’t fit with the vision.
Sustainable Transport Hierarchy
We agree with most of the issues and opportunities listed here, and with the proposed Sustainable Transport Hierarchy. But this has to be a firm statement, not a “possible draft” – it’s not feasible to have a local transport plan without this hierarchy in place.
Component Policy Measures:
P01B:
What the plan says: Apply a sustainable travel hierarchy in line with the Movement and Place Framework to guide planning and design in different types of transport environments based on the most appropriate modes of transport for the given community, business, and wider network needs.
Our comment:
a) the plan doesn’t state what the sustainable travel hierarchy actually is – see above
b) the wording “most appropriate” is using the outdated model of “Predict and Provide” (see above) that the plan says it is dropping.
P1D – we agree!
P1E:
What the plan says: Ensure decision making frameworks for transport investment require consideration of all possible modes, including assessment of alternatives to traditional road capacity projects.
Our comment: This is too weak. The decision making frameworks should prioritise sustainable forms of transport, using a clearly defined hierarchy. “Traditional road capacity projects” should be a last resort if the vision is to be achieved – we should be stating that most of our investment should go into public transport, walking and cycling, not road capacity, which we know induces more private motor traffic, which this plan says it is aiming to reduce.
Connected and accessible networks
P02A: states: Ensure a balanced approach to the planning and delivery of road capacity and junction improvement projects in line with the sustainable transport hierarchy, for all users, understanding demand and cost effectiveness.
Our comments:
- We need to establish the sustainable transport hierarchy
- “understanding demand and cost effectiveness” sounds like someone is going to say “no one cycles here so it’s not cost-effective to provide infrastructure for bikes”. We should change this to “ensuring that sustainable transport infrastructure forms continuous routes, rather than just adding paths to new roads and junctions.” It’s well documented that you get what you build for. If you build good pavements and cycleways that connect places and feel safe, pleasant and direct, people will walk and cycle. If you build big roads and improve traffic flows, people will drive.
P02B: Identify areas with poor access to public transport and active travel networks, including where the network, interchanges, and associated facilities are inaccessible for people with mobility challenges such as people using wheelchairs or with pushchairs or heavy shopping / baggage. At these locations deploy measures to improve inclusive access, including other measures such as seating, water points, and toilets as appropriate
Our comment: We agree with this aim, and we are disappointed that these areas have not already been identified (why has priority been given to identifying areas for road improvements?)
P02D: Collaborate with key stakeholders to promote and incentivise walking/wheeling, cycling, and use of public transport for all or part of more passenger trips.
Our comment: this was also in the 2012 policy, but promoting and incentivising people to walk, cycle or take the bus only works when the infrastructure has been fixed. Otherwise it’s a waste of resources.
Improved interchanges and mobility hubs
P03A: Plan a network of strategic and supporting mobility hubs that bring modes together and support more frictionless transfer with more sustainable options for all or part of journeys.
Our comment: We see elsewhere in the document that the council doesn’t consider that Northampton needs a Mobility Hub. But good public transport to the train station is key to reducing traffic. Instead of building a hotel and apartments at Northampton station, it should be made into a bus hub, with regular busses going directly to key residential areas, paid for by increasing parking charges.
Buses
P04A: Work with operators to review bus and coach network coverage and routes, operating hours, service reliability, road and vehicle infrastructure to better serve communities and advocate for and support enhancements where appropriate, with interventions presented and costed within the Bus Service Improvement Plan and other relevant initiatives.
Our comment: in the medium to long term, we should be bringing buses back in-house.
SHAPING HEALTHIER PLACES
Priorities for short, medium and long term (page 45)
Abington Active Travel Scheme WNCLTPLL0265
This should have been completed four years ago when the funding was received. The original Billing Road scheme was abandoned without any consultation and since then there has been indecision, delays and a complete lack of commitment. This does not give us any confidence in the stated aims of the Local Transport Plan.
LCWIP Interventions in Northampton– WNCLTPLL0272
This should be central to the Plan, and the LCWIP should have been completed before the Local Transport Plan was started. While this was being repeatedly delayed, the authority was engaged in identifying desired road improvements. This does not fit with the vision.
St Giles Public Realm
The council needs to provide to local businesses with all the evidence from other towns and cities of how pedestrianising an area and providing good cycle access is very good for retail and hospitality. This is an opportunity to reclaim part of Northampton’s architectural heritage that has been damaged by past decisions to allow cars to drive through it.
Active Travel Network (page 48)
We agree with all the points made here.
Component policy measures (page 49)
P06A: Work collaboratively to improve accessibility by active modes by removing barriers and obstacles to encouraging walking, wheeling, cycling, scooting and horse riding activity, protecting and supporting the most vulnerable users.
Our view:
a) We agree, but the plan needs to say what’s going to be done and where. Which physical barriers will be removed? Have they even been identified?
b) We should add a policy about adding new dropped kerbs and safe crossing points at all junctions that don’t have them.
P06C: Through Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans and other measures, set out, trial, deliver and monitor an ongoing pipeline of high-quality active travel schemes, working closely with Active Travel England to secure funding.
Our view: We need to be much more specific, eg: We will create at least one new LTN1/20 compliant active travel route of at least 3 miles into each town centre in the first 5 years, starting with the biggest town.
P06E: Ensure that new developments provide connectivity to existing communities and networks, and provide the necessary infrastructure such as segregated pedestrian and cycle lanes as well as safe and secure parking, in line with the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans.
Our comment: We totally agree. This will require a complete change to the current approach which builds in car dependency, for example at the old university site that should have it’s main links connecting with the walking & cycling routes through Bradlaugh Fields to Moulton Park and Kettering Road. Instead, these are blocked off, encouraging car dependency by forcing residents to use Boughton Green Road.
P06F: Explore options for the strategic ban of pavement parking in those locations where it is a recurring problem.
Our comment: Too vague – how is this going to be done. How about this: “Engage with schools and parents to find the most problematic pavement parking locations on school routes and take effective action to address this in at least 80% of all identified locations.”
P06H: Work collaboratively with education providers on both active travel infrastructure and behavioural change initiatives to encourage more people of different ages to walk, wheel or cycle, including provision of School Streets where this can be enforced effectively.
Our comment: Change “where this can be enforced effectively” to “using cameras to enforce them“. Cameras are used in many of the 500 school streets in London, and West Northants has the power to do the same. Also we need a specific target – eg we will create camera-enforced School Streets for at least 20% of Northampton schools in the first 5 years“
P07A: Continue to … secure the expeditious movement of traffic on our road network and the more efficient use of our road network
Our comment: The vision stated at the beginning of the plan is to reduce dependency on private cars. Focussing on “expeditious movement of traffic” is likely to lead to more traffic – improving the traffic flow simply encourages more people to use this route. This plan is an opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the past.
P07D: Align operations and maintenance practices with the Movement and Place Framework, ensuring active travel routes and public realm are well maintained along with highways.
Our comment: We totally agree. To make this happen will require a complete change to the current approach. Many routes are not swept or cut back, grass encroachment is not addressed, and poor surfaces are not repaired. Routes are often blocked for months, in spite of repeated reporting. Bridges develop steps on either side that makes them difficult or impossible for wheelchair/mobility scooters users buggies and cycles. We need very specific targets here.
P08D: Work across the Council to deliver a road safety programme to focus on reducing collisions involving the most vulnerable groups and improve personal security on our active travel and public transport networks for all users
Our view: Saying we want to “focus on” reducing collisions is vague – we need to have a definite target and say how we are going to achieve it. We should say: “We will become a Vision Zero authority, creating a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries. We will reduce annual deaths and serious injuries in West Northants to under 200 by 2030, under 100 by 2037, and to zero by 2045” (Vision Zero is an extremely successful approach used by authorities like London and Oxfordshire).
P11A: Monitor and take steps to manage and mitigate areas of air and noise pollution in line with legal requirements, ensuring where possible that transport associated with new developments does not contribute to thresholds being exceeded.
Our comment: Saying we will “take steps to” reduce air and noise pollution is not enough – we need to have a definite target and say how we are going to achieve it. eg “reduce urban air pollution throughout the authority to below the legal limits by 2030 by restricting traffic in high pollution areas, starting with Cheyne Walk to improve air quality at Barratt Maternity Home”. At the very minimum we should be committing to obey UK law, which already allows pollution that is four times higher than the recommended limit set by the World Health Organisation.
MOBILITY ENABLING PROSPERITY (page 58)
Challenge Statement 5B on p58 implies that businesses and employers in town centres currently have access to active travel connections. This is not the case. Northampton has practically no safe cycle routes into the town centre.
P14A: Ensure robust guidelines are developed and deployed for ‘decide and provide’ planning including effective monitoring and delivery approaches to how we want developments and resulting travel to function, rather than merely forecasting based on previous trends alone. This will include a more robust travel plan regime with bonds secured linked to effective monitoring and delivery.
Our comment: we agree, but shouldn’t the guidelines be here in the plan?
P14B: Ensure all planned developments and areas of growth such as Northampton’s urban centre, are developed with and are well connected to public and active transport networks to ensure sustainable travel choices are embedded and reduce congestion on the wider network.
We strongly agree with this – but it’s been difficult to engage with the council about active travel networks in and through the town centre – there seems to be a great deal of reluctance.
P14D. Review the Council’s parking standards to ensure that new developments align with our Local Transport Plan, other policy objectives, and best practices
Our comment: To fit with the vision, this needs to include parking standards for bicycles. Practically all local groups of shops in Northampton currently have no cycle parking at all, but almost always have car parking spaces. Providing cycle parking at these locations is a good example of how we could make a start with the new “Decide and Provide” approach.
Monitoring Framework for LTP Objectives (page 82-88)
Page 82
- Indicator: Percentage of population within 30 minutes of a major employment site by cycle
- Direction of travel: increase in percentage.
Our comment: The indicator should include “by a safe cycle route” in order to be meaningful. There’s no benefit to theoretically being within 30 minutes of an employment site if you would not dare to undertake the ride.
Page 85
- Indicator: Total number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents per annum
- Direction of travel: Decrease in total number.
Our comment: this not ambitious enough – see our comments above about Vision Zero.
Also on page 85 active travel is missing from the perception of safety statements. We need to add:
- Indicator: Perception of safety of cycling into the town centre
- Direction of travel: Increase in percentage of ‘very satisfied’ responses to personal safety
Page 87
- Indicator: Number of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)
- Direction of travel: Reduction in total number
Our comment: we need to be much more ambitious, with near-term specific targets of when the whole of Northampton will be within the UK law, with the long-term aim of reducing pollution below WHO recommended limits (see comments above).
Page 88
- Indicator: Number of miles of cycleway
- Direction of travel: Increase in number of miles of cycleway
Our comment: This is insufficient – of course there will be more miles of cycleway, because we’ll be building more roads, which will have a cycleway next to them. If we’re serious about making walking and cycling the natural first choice, the target should be: “The increase in LTP1/20 compliant urban cycleways in each town will be at least 50% greater than the increase in miles of roads in that town.”
Other comments about the plan
Proportion of spending
- To align with the vision, there needs to be an ambitious statement about spending. We need to spend at least 33% of the seven-year Local Transport Fund on Active Travel, 33% on improving bus services, and 33% on roads.
- Each town (Northampton, Daventry Brackley, Towcester) has been allocated the same funding (up to £500k )to implement the LCWIP). But Northampton is almost 10 times bigger than Daventry, and 10 times bigger than Brackley and Towcester combined. Northampton also has the greatest problems with air quality and health, caused by overuse of private cars. The budget should reflect these factors.
20mph
The UN and WHO state that 20mph should be the speed limit in residential areas. We know this not only saves lives, but it also makes it more likely that people will walk or cycle. This should be part of our Local Transport Plan.
Sifting duplications – page 133
WNCLTPLL0375 Park to Park Strategy has been sifted. We don’t think this is duplicated anywhere – the LCWIP does not include park to park routes.
Balance between urban and inter-urban active travel routes
While we are in favour of creating inter-urban routes, we need to focus on priorities and impact. Clearly urban routes have much more potential impact than inter-urban ones. We’re concerned that inter-urban routes have been included because they are easier to implement.
Living Streets Northampton 