I hope this doesn't end up needing a move to POBI.
Gloucestershire council applied for £10,284,500 and were awarded just £864,760. The government set out what they expected to see in the applications and explicitly stated what they would not fund. So the logical conclusion is that the Gloucestershire application must have fallen far short of the required standard. But did it? In my opinion no, it was much worse than 'far short'.
Here it is, all 8 pages of it.. So what does it contain:
- Gloucester to Cheltenham cycle link. This is a plan that's rattled around a long time. Work has been done on planning it and it's the only scheme in the application that includes a map. Allegedly most of it would be off road and two way but most sections have an alternate shared use option, it is not stated if this is shared with cars or pedestrians. £6.1m has already been identified for this locally, the EATF application asks for a further £5.4m.
- Central Severn Vale (Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans). This is a big pile of woo copy pasted in from earlier work. Touted as complementing the Glos-Chelt link there is next to nothing in the application but a link back to the Glos CC web site. £248.5k is asked for from the EATF to add to £688k already allocated for 'Implementing the Severn Central Vale LCWIP'. i.e just under a million to do the lot. Yet if you follow the link and look at the cost breakdown of the LCWIP it requires £4.7m. It consists mostly of crossings, paint, fixing broken signs and adding new ones.
- Tewkesbury Connections. Upgrades & extensions to the existing Newtown cycle link. I have no knowledge of this one and nothing is provided in the EATF, not even links to other sources. £225k is asked for here.
- Stroud cycling improvements. Two main elements are identified with some bullet point clues what they might entail. Naff all detail. £1.99m
- Rural connections. There's two schemes here, Lydney to Parkend and Moreton-In-Marsh. The first of these is very close to me and it is well needed. The FoD has excellent cycling facilities within it but not a single one safe route in our out. Every day at the weekend we have an influx of (at a guess) a couple of thousand cars, vans & pickups filling car parks & verges. Lydney is the nearest station and Parkend is well connected to the forest routes. This propoal would join them. From Parkend to Whitecroft there are a couple of off road routes that are not too lumpy. There is a pavement beside the road for pedestrians. One of the off road routes has been identified as best for upgrade and route signage. Between Whitecroft and Lydney there are two roads neither of which has a pavement. One is very hilly and the other twisty, a festival of close passes and blind corner passes every time I use it. I know of one off road route, it's pure MTB territory, very lumpy and dumps you a long way from Lydney town. The return starts with 2km steep slog up a nasty road. A new, entirely off and away from road route has been identified following roughly the line of the Dean Forest Railway so an easy gradient. It looks, from the scant details I've seen like it just might be bloody fantastic. So what does the EATF application say about this? Little more than listing a bunch of forest tourist traps that might benefit. I've given you more useful background in this post. This is probably in part because the plans are very new and under developed. £1.3m is asked for here. That might get it properly planned. I can't tell you anything about the M-in-M plan.
The government asked for school streets plans, Gloucester CC proposed none.
The government asked for LTNs, Gloucester CC proposed none.
The government asked for segregated cycle lanes, these exist in the proposals but for most there's no clue what sort of infrastructure is proposed.
And pedestrian inprovements, these exist in the proposals but as with cycling there's only a few instances where the proposal is spelled out by following links, not within the EATF application.
The government asked for plans to show how councils will consult with communities, residents, businesses and emergency services. Gloucester CC provided zilch in this respect. Not one paragraph, not one word.
The government asked for evidence to show appropriate consultation prior to implementation. The most advanced scheme listed above must have had some consultation done surely? As I said, it has rattled around for years. There's nothing in the EATF application.
Plans for monitoring the schemes 6-12 months after implementation? Zero here too.
I think, as a Gloucester resident, we did damn well in getting 8% of what was asked for. All the schemes identified that I have any info about are entirely worthwhile. A well put together application that met the government criteria could have got at least some of them done.
1/10, must try
much harder.
So how bad were your EATF applications?