Council Public Consultation Responses Response Lack of numbering of sections or pages makes referencing difficult. Vision and Objectives: Split objective 3 and include a specific box on cycle safety including that the Council encourages cyclists to use of helmets and high visibility clothing and that cyclists must use the Public Highway in observance of the law and the Highway Code (noted this is in S3.8 but deserves mention in main body, not just stuck away in an Not an appendix). objective Mention is made of filtered neighbourhoods. Under challenges against this include: ‘If diversion of traffic from filtered neighbourhoods causes increased congestion and / or has an environmental impact elsewhere mitigation of this will need consideration’ or words to that effect. Please edit : Review opportunities for extension of 20mph zones in residential estates

The in school programmes we carry out are under the banner of Eagle Eye and Bikeability. I’ve asked Ian Cook to review this section to make sure it is accurate. There is an issue in that the likes of Bikeability promote use of high visibility clothing and use of cycle helmets whilst the GM Mayor’s Challenge Fund promoters do not appear to want this to be encouraged. Keep as is Action Plan: S1.5 maybe include our east-west cycle route from Hazel Grove to Cheadle vis Bramhall Green Action Plan: S3.8 what are we doing to deal with riders of unlit cycles? Cycles either seem to be dazzlingly bright with flashing LED’s which put the Christmas lights to shame or No change totally unlit, wearing black and pretty much invisible. needed Action Plan: S6.1 odd use of colons: rd Education and promotion: Please remove the reference to Step Outside in the 3 sentence of the first paragraph and incorporate it as set out here: ‘ The majority of Stockport Primary Schools participate in Bikeability cycle training. In addition, Primary Schools receive Road Safety Education including Step Outside pedestrian training. Primary Schools are encouraged to look at increasing walking and cycling through initiatives such as Park and Stride.’

Education and Promotion: at the end of the first paragraph it says ‘In addition, most Schools participate in Bikeability’. This statement should be given more prominence and be incorporated in to the previous sentence to read as above. 1 I would have either ‘walking and cycling’ or ‘cycling and walking’ consistently throughout. I suggest the former as there are far more pedestrians than cyclists. The front cover has three photos with cyclists and one photo with walkers. I suggest equal numbers. And the walking photo shows ramblers rather than utility walkers, eg, people going to school. Agree Check 2 There are many abbreviations in the document. If the aim is to get the public to respond acronyms and and back the programme, we should not be throwing jargon at them. For example, the consider A6MARR – now that it is complete and open – is just the (recently extended) A555. potential Another example is TCAP. glossary 3 No page numbers are shown, but Page 3 has some data – in a confusing range of fonts – which are presumably intended to set the scene. So the page could be titled as such. Is all the data specific to Stockport – or is some national? 42.3% is amazingly precise and contrasts with ‘1 in 5’. 4 The ‘Potential Options’ sections really refer to potential actions to deliver the strategy. Reword Some of them are more than potential – they are on-going and won’t be stopped, eg, 'potential training. options' 5 I suggest a section early on saying that Stockport works with other GM authorities and This was with the GM mayor and TfGM’s/the mayor’s walking & cycling people. The joint working is already in there especially relevant for the Stockport Gateways and GM-wide actions such as Beelines. This but no harm to would be a good place to explain the various abbreviations and jargon terms. reiterate 6 The text refers to Appendices but I could not find any. * mentioning specific examples where a permeable neighbourhood scheme could be No change trialled or extended – the Heatons? – this would make it more concrete needed

this is already in the * committing to reviewing local centres for W&C, looking at routes, crossings, cycle actionplan - no parking, etc, in a rolling programme change needed * committing to reviewing routes to stations and other generators such as big schools etc. as above 1 walking pic and 3 cycling pics! Should be more equal. Walking pics should include utility walking, eg, to/from school or station, and not just hiking. agree Tab says 'Contents' but heading is 'Exec Summ'. p.2 Delete 'a', as it's 'networks' (plural) p.3 Is all data specific to Stockport? Or is some national? Sources? Dates? p.4 Drop the first three full-stops Council priority Obj 5. Why just the town centre? Surely for business parks etc as well. Also schools and is the town colleges. centre SEMMMS usually has a final S. But abbreviations are not self-explanatory! Glossary 'Potential' just means 'which could be achieved' 'LA' is jargon. Just say 'local'

Covered in the appendices under the policy section but no harm to include in the 'Made to Move' & 'Beelines' are not self-explanatory. main doc more Middlewood Way not rated as 'high quality'? p.10 This box is really about delivery methods - getting the job done, so, actions. No colon Only possible needed on heading. actions p. 10 'Undertake audit of' just means 'Audit'. Can reword whole point as 'Audit existing network to identify necessary improvements and prioritise in implementation programme.' agree p.11 We seem to go from Fig 1 to Fig 3 with no Fig 2. But we don't need Fig numbers as there is no more than one on a page. p.11 Insert 'at' before the Stockport Gateways p. 12 Meaning 2018?

Need to retitle these boxes but don't agree they are p. 12 This is about delivery - actions, not just potential options. actions p. 12 CUG and TPT are not self-explanatory. p. 13 This is about delivery and actions not just potential options. As above

Don't think this needs updating - extra words just to say what p.14 Permeable road closures, which prevent rat-running by motor vehicles while is already in permitting movements by pedestrians and cyclists there No change p.14 Invisible signs are not recommended. needed p.16 Pic does not show bike park in use - looks empty. Turn round and photo the stands at the station - better used. Agree No change p.17 Apparently S in S1.1 etc means short-term. needed p.17 Obj1 refers to maintenance but there is no action for it. Need to maintain & improve existing paths, preventing flooding, cutting overhanging vegetation, maintaining lights, preventing joy-riding etc. Agree No change p.17 S1.5 Existing canals - are there any proposed canals? needed p.17 S1.5 A6MARR is a scheme name but the scheme is now done and open. Just say A555. Agreed update p.17 S1.7 Oh dear. Principle. p.17 S1.9 The wording seems coded. It mainly means 'consider changing selected Update to footpaths to bridleways, along with physical improvements where needed'. simplify p.18 S2.5 Wordy. Just say 'to accommodate a' Agree update p.19 S3.1 Delete full-stop. p.19 S3.7 Work with enforcement opportunities? p.19 S4/5.1 Mapping and auditing do not create. Change 'create' to 'identify potential'. Agree update p.20 S6.1 Delete colons. p.21 M1.1 Design and cost? p.24 NHT means...? It is relevant p.24 National Travel Survey has a few thousand participants across the whole country. It data though won't pick up small changes at local level due to relatively small network changes or used by all publicity actions. authorities Remove the words "and to improve safety" from Objective 3 No - keep as is

This is already in there - no Use planning powers to ensure walking and cycling links in/to and from new development change needed The Peak District National Park Authority supports the aims of the Stockport Walking and Good - no Cycling Plan, to encourage more journeys by cycle and on foot to bring a wide range of changes benefits to residents of, and visitors to Stockport needed

Therefore, we welcome the commitment within the Plan to look at the routes that cross gateways into Stockport and to work with partners to ensure the continuity and quality of routes beyond the Stockport MBC boundary (Action 6.1). We appreciate that it is not always easy to encourage other authorities to deliver schemes that they see as bringing marginal benefit to their organisations. However, in the case of walking and cycling routes, the majority of local authorities recognise the benefit of active travel both in terms of health generally; and for improving air quality and reducing carbon emissions. A partnership approach can deliver benefits for both parties whilst sharing costs and Good - no opening access to third party contributions. The Pedal Peak II project clearly demonstrated changes the benefits and ability to draw down funds through partnership working. needed

I look forward to reading the final version of the Plan. I am aware that some of the Good - no suggested gateway routes extend into the Peak District National Park. Please contact me if changes you believe that the Authority can be of assistance in moving forward with such schemes needed Page 12, Potential Options – Derbyshire County Council offer cycle safety training for adults who live or work in Derbyshire (Derbyshire County Rider scheme1). This may be an option to for Stockport MBC to consider in order to encourage more cycling within the No changes borough needed

Page 15, Integrating with public transport – the Authority is appreciative of Stockport’s recognition that passengers may wish to transport their bikes on public transport. We are supportive of the Council’s approach of influencing transport providers in relation to this. This is of particularly importance to cycle tourism. For example, residents of Stockport may wish to transport their bikes into the Peak District to cycle. Where possible, it is better if such journeys are made by public transport rather than the private car. Similarly, with adequate carriage of cycles by public transport, Stockport could market itself as a base from which to explore the Peak District by bike, boosting both the Stockport and No changes Peak District economies. needed

Page 19, Action S4/5.6 – the commitment to investigate contraflow cycling on one-way streets, including driver education is recognised. However, it is also important to ensure that cyclists are also educated to ensure a safe environment for both, should this approach be taken forward. It is not unusual for cyclists to ride illegally in contraflow to an existing one-way system in the Goyt Valley. However, this is often at a speed and in a manner which makes it difficult for drivers to be able react either easily or with clarity. Where such a scheme is to be given legal standing, it should be carried out in such a way as to ensure clarity of behaviour on the part of both drivers and cyclists, to enable it to No changes operate in a safe manner. needed Page 19, Action S4.5.7 – please see above, whenever new uses are introduced there is a potential for conflict. The best way of avoiding this is to ensure that all users are aware of their rights and responsibilities in using an area of public space. The provision of a code of No changes conduct may be advantageous. needed Page 20, Action S6.1 – this is supported. Please contact the National Park Authority, if you Good - no believe that we can assist in delivering improvements to links with connections to the changes National Park. needed

Not in our control - we state that we will work with TfGM and operators to Page 21, Action M2.3 – this is supported but should include consideration of cycle carriage look at this. No on Metrolink and rapid transport proposals. change neede Page 22, Action M6.2 – this is supported but should include consideration of cycle carriage on Metrolink and rapid transport proposals. As above

The draft report has a very positive drive to look and address how improvements to the cycling and walking infrastructure within Stockport can be enhanced as part of current infrastructure improvements, new developments and future opportunities. The links to the existing strategic routes is also welcomed throughout the report, with specific reference to the Trans Pennine Trail. The referenced Apprentice Bike to Work Scheme is an excellent initiative. Trans Pennine Trail partnership would recommend is to further emphasize the commitment to accessibility throughout the document and the monitoring section provides specific targets in the monitoring section. The needs of all abilities should be reflected within the photo montage on the front cover. There is an obvious omission of wheelchairs or pushchairs. Agree

Executive Summary paragraph 1 – the benefits to mental health should also be included. It is in there Paragraph 4 – then inclusion of needs for all abilities is welcomed

The different styles and sizes of fonts can be difficult for readers with visual impairments. Agree best in Vision and Objectives: Inclusion of the visitor impact and should be included. These users monitoring are a vital source of increased revenue locally. section The opportunity to include wheelchairs and pushchairs and the challenges to increased size and charging stations for wheelchairs could be included. Social: Opportunities - This section should also include recognition of mental health as well as physical health. Challenges – Participation could also be affected by age and ability of Already in participants. appendices Social: Policy / Strategic – This section provides an opportunity to improve standard design No change of green infrastructure. needed Potential Options: Highways England – recommend including pedestrians and cyclists ‘of all abilities’ at the end of this sentence. Agreed Stockport Gateways and Links to Neighbouring Authorities: Should include a note that some routes will have bridleway status and routes of this status should be protected as No change part of its proposals. needed Education, Training and Promotion: The Apprentice Bike to Work Scheme is an excellent Good - no idea and those involved should be congratulated on this initiative. change needed

Education, Training and Promotion: Potential Options: Inclusion of the Trans Pennine Trail Nope - no is welcomed. change needed

Signage and Wayfinding:Potential Options: the use of cycling times can be detrimental to Agree. Remove those suffering from ill health and care should be taken when using this initiative. this option Signage and Wayfinding: The Trans Pennine Trail partnership would also note that directional signage (east / west) can be used to reaffirm those visitors from outside the No update area. needed No change Signage and Wayfinding: Electronic wayfinding sounds intriguing. needed No change Signage and Wayfinding: The use of square signage posts should be noted. needed

Picked up by Signage and Wayfinding: On the final point the needs of horse riders will also need to be ROWIP? No taken into consideration on certain sections of route. change needed Cycling and Walking Friendly Neighbourhoods: It may be worth mentioning Pegasus No change crossings as these will be in place at some locations but can also be used by walkers and needed - too cyclists. much detail Cycling and Walking Friendly Neighbourhoods: Potential Features: Point 8 – the word ‘accessible’ should be included to read: Aesthetic improvements including ‘accessible’ green infrastructure. Cycle parking facilities should also provide space for adapted cycles. Consideration should be given to include the needs for re-charging points for E bikes and electric wheelchairs / scooters.The third paragraph statement is welcomed by the Trans Pennine Trail partnership. Potential Options: Revise first point to read: Support and encourage provision of ‘accessible’ cycle parking. Promotion of cycle hubs should also include clear signage to these facilities. Agree changes

Agree changes although this is Integrating with New Development: The second paragraph could be written to include a planning fully accessible facilities and changing places where available. policy issue Integrating with New Development: Potential options:Second point should be re-written to read… provision of ‘accessible’ facilities. Final point should be re-written to read… ‘accessible’ green infrastructure. Agree

Good - no S1.2 & S1.3 – Note of Trans Pennine Trail welcomed. change needed S1.6 – improvements should all be ‘fully accessible’. Agreed S1.8 – Again, care should be taking when recommending times on signage. See above No change S1.9 – Bridleway status will need to also be taken into consideration. needed S2.5 Consideration should be given to include a review of access controls as part of the No change delivery. Include double buggies, tandems, adapted cycles, wheelchairs / scooters. needed No change needed - S4/5.1 – Infrastructure is taken to mean the inclusion of toilet facilities and Changing covered Places. elsewhere

That is the point of doing borough wide S4/5.4 – 20mph sections should be joined rather than provide short individual sections – approach. No this is very confusing for local communities. change needed No change M1.3 – Potential to include access control locations. needed

M2.3 – Suggest changing slightly: Ensure any wider Metrolink and rapid transit proposals are audited for ‘fully accessible’ walking and cycling opportunities as they develop. Agreed

This is covered - not in our control but we M2.3 Metrolink or Train/Tram developments to be encouraged to increase opportunities will work with for cycle carriage to encourage sustainable modes of transport throughout the Borough, TfGM on it. No both local and national change needed Accessibility M4/5.3 – Needs of disabled cyclists should be included. stressed M6.2 – Suggest re-word slightly… Integrate ‘accessible’ segregated walking and cycling routes as part of Rapid Transit Proposals. Agreed Action Plan – Long Term (>5 years): Objective - Include…. ‘accessible’ high quality cycling and walking connections… Agreed

Monitoring – Notes lots of improvements and increases but should provide real tangible This is difficult specific targets, eg, 10km of high quality segregated cycleways by 2014. to do.

Draft GMSF 10.28 states ‘If walking and cycling are to become the natural choice for shorter journeys, then a dramatic improvement in the quality and extent of Greater Manchester's walking and cycling network will be required. New and improved routes will be needed, and the barriers that currently discourage people from walking and cycling will need to be removed. A high-quality walking and cycling network will also be vital in increasing the use of public transport, and so will need to be integrated with the public transport network.’ The test for the draft Stockport Walking and Cycling Plan is whether it will lead to this ‘dramatic improvement in the quality and extent of Greater Manchester's walking and cycling network’. In summary we welcome the publication of a draft Walking Good - no and Cycling Plan but... change needed Need to do a 1. The Plan is almost entirely focussed on cycling with ‘and walking’ often an final review to afterthought. check the balance

Pick up in 2. The plan does not identify which definite schemes the Council will take forward. covering Cabinet paper 3. It completely fails to consider the role of Station Travel Plans and station friends groups in enabling interconnection with public transport. There is no indication that the specific cycling and walking improvements already known as being needed at stations We can include have been considered when creating the plan. more on this

4. The Strategy has no insufficient analysis of how many people walk or cycle, for It is in the different purposes or why – without this, the rest of the document is much weaker. appendices 5. There is no analysis of existing walking or cycling flows or where people could most It is in the easily be persuaded to walk or cycle. appendices 6. No analysis of major traffic generators of potential walkers and cyclists (such as Covered by Stockport College) and what potential routes they might use. LCWIP 7. No targets either short or long term for walking or cycle use[1] in Stockport - without these, it is impossible to judge if the ambition of the strategy can be achieved As above 8. Monitoring proposals all are generalisations, not SMART and with no quantified objectives As above 9. No indication of the amount of resources that is currently spent on cycling, or how No change this might change in the future needed 10. No analysis of potential funding streams – there are a wide variety, including Community Infrastructure Levy and GM Mayoral

Monitoring not 11. No analysis of the performance of SEMMMS over walking and cycling – these were until a year major aims of SEMMMS, but there is no evidence that it was successful. post opening - no update needed 12. Health: no detailed analysis of potential health benefits. Greater London walking and cycling schemes routinely carry this analysis, so it should have been possible to do it for this strategy In appendices 13. Air quality: no analysis of potential AQ benefits and how walking and cycling could improve Air Quality Management Areas. In appendices 14. Appendices on the benefits of walking/cycling and on plans and strategies were not available as part of this consultation. It would be better to have an appendix that included some real data on walking and cycling in Stockport, and another on schemes the Council intends to take forward. In appendices

15. Overall it is unlikely to realise the ‘dramatic improvement in the quality and extent of Greater Manchester's walking and cycling network’ required by GMSF and therefore it Disagree - no does not support the planning and land-use ambitions of Stockport MBC. change needed The Council Walking and Cycling update September 2017 envisaged consultation from Nov 2017 to Jan 2018 making the plan already a year late. Given the current availability of finance, guidance and training from the GM Mayor, the overwhelming priority is to deliver some improvements for walkers and cyclists on the ground, now, with these resources. The plan should identify a definite list of the main schemes which Stockport intends to No change implement and at least some pilot local schemes - (S6.1 does not achieve this). needed

There is no consideration of the specific needs of walkers, as it is assumed that these are a sub-set of the needs of cyclists. This is only partly true, but the development of more shared routes increases the potential for conflict - there is nothing about how to resolve these potential conflicts and get more people using both modes. In some of the hillier Need to review areas of the Borough there are walking routes that are too steep for cyclists and in some at the end that cases stepped. They should not get ignored, while recognising that people less able to we have good negotiate gradients and cyclists also need to be accommodated. Similarly, severance (such balance as that caused by busy roads outside the entrances to rail stations) may require different between solutions for pedestrians than for cyclists, not least how built-up environments can walking and constrain the available solutions. cycling The test should be whether a 12-year-old can safely use a cycle route, and a mobility No change scooter a walking route. needed The low cost of walking is also an opportunity. Walking will cost most people nothing, and indeed may save money. Connected with this, the section on page 9 headed ‘Financial’ It is in there - should be re-titled ‘Funding’ as it about the financial impact on the Council not the impact no change on people and businesses. needed This section lacks ambition. It is not a new idea. It has been extensively trialled in northern Europe (where implementation is the default option) and Greater London (mini-Holland schemes and their successors). The Bee Network training course contained information on No change implementation. needed In particular, the strategy should be advocating 20 mph speed limits on residential streets throughout the Borough. The concept of ‘filtered neighbourhoods’ is good, but the concept has been watered down so it is all about the carrot of better walking and cycling infrastructure and not about deterring car access. The aim should be to ensure that sustainable modes are given safe, direct routes, making them the obvious choice for journeys, while cars are restricted to limited less direct corridors. The scope for doing this No change may be limited in some areas of existing development but should be built into all new needed - development. already in there

This is covered by objective 3 There should be a specific policy to increase walking and cycling to schools. The school run and we pick it is a major contributor to pollution, noise, road danger, severance and congestion. The up as a strategy says good things about School Travel Plans, but it should be up front as a policy monitoring objective. point This is supported – however why is a ‘new cycling and walking link to Stockport Rail Station’ not part of the current TfGM interchange plans, and why does it not form part of It is - no change the current planning application? needed No change Mobike has already failed in Stockport – this is not acknowledged in the document, and needed - bike another scheme is unlikely to be viable within 3 years. share still a GM Aspiration that we suppotr

But they are No case is put forward that cargo bike projects are either needed or feasible in Stockport, last mile… no and in any case, they don’t relate to ‘interconnection with public transport’ change needed It is not clear how this relates to ‘interconnection with public transport’ – in wrong section. In any case, ‘support monitoring and implementation’ is vague – not a SMART policy Vague, and not SMART – not obvious what if any actions would result from this policy. In the past this has routinely carried out by TfGM. Personal experience suggests that the key problem is local authority staff who veto ‘walking and cycling opportunities’ when they are identified by the promoting authority (TfGM) rather than the promoting authority No change that omits them. needed  Station Travel Plans will be supported and implemented (would of course need to be Agree we can a SMART policy). Hazel Grove was an ATOC pilot, and STP already exist for over ten include a Stockport Stations including Marple and Romiley. They contain a lot of information on reference to how many passengers access from where, using what modes; access routes including this in those that could be improved for walking and cycling; and potential interchange with Objective 2 other public transport. actions Identification of firm proposals to improve access to stations. The STPs already identify many improvements that are needed to improve walking and cycling access to stations, and that will directly support Objective 2. For example, both Marple and Romiley stations have significant safety issues for users crossing the busy roads outside, and it is already known that schemes are needed to provide safe and attractive crossing facilities[1]. As Agree but can't part of the Walking and Cycling Plan, the STP improvements need to be ordered by say we will priority, funding be identified, and delivery to be progressed. fund. Agreed we can  Station friends groups have the potential and links to encourage walking and cycling. add in to The Council will partner with these groups to encourage walking and cycling to stations. Objective 3 actions

 Specific campaigns should be carried out at stations with the most potential to Too vague - no deliver increased walking and cycle access. change needed ‘Training’ is mentioned 12 times. However, training for Council officer in design skills, appreciation of the needs of walkers and cyclists and the need to seek out and use best practice in both walking and cycling infrastructure would be the single most effective No change measure to encourage walking and cycling. needed Action S1.6 calls for better access across the M60 at Red Rock. The footbridge across the motorway here has reopened but ends in a steep flight of steps and a Pelican crossing to get across the town centre link road between the M60 and Red Rock. This discourages walking and, even more, cycling. The problem could have been avoided by extending the footbridge and including ramp access and there is plenty of space for this near the cinema. This should have been integrated into the building at the design stage). The cycle hub at Red Rock and some of the hubs at GM rail stations are poorly used, and lessons need to be learned and improvements made, including marketing, particualry if additional hubs are No change planned. needed Since NP policies are only applied to planning applications, we have several proposals that will need to be implemented through other plans and policies including the Stockport Walking and Cycling Plan. Cycling and walking offer an outstanding return on investment: No change at least £5.50 for every £1 invested. needed While Marple is hilly, a network of 3 (essentially level) canals meet in the town centre, and the Middlewood Way provides level and safe cycling to Rose Hill. Marple town centre No change itself is almost flat. needed

We have defined a core cycle network in consultation with the community (See appendix 1) that is roughly cross shaped following roads, plus the canals and the Middlewood Way. This is compatible with the principles of the Bee Network. The view of MNF is that walking and cycling routes: Already in the • Must be provided as an integral part of new developments. planning sction - • Significant developments must contribute to the implementing the network. no change • Development that makes walking and cycling less safe or convenient must be refused needed

Provision should be made for mobility scooters on walking routes where possible;

MCF bids must meet their criteria. Note that they are • New cycle routes should as a minimum follow the TfGM cycle design guidelines only guidelines • New or upgraded routes will be designed to give priority to pedestrians and where possible to provide a separate route for cyclist. No change • Routes should respect the environment and biodiversity. needed

• Use of the same space by walkers and cyclists leads to conflict, is inappropriate in most No change circumstances and should be designed out as far as is reasonably practicable. needed There is also a network of Bridleways and byways open to all traffic2 (BOAT) which No change perform an important role for transport on foot or cycle needed We have identified barriers to walking and cycling in Marple which include: • Lack of direct, safe, waymarked and well-maintained walking or cycling routes.• Narrow and poor- quality pavements unsuitable for pedestrians or mobility scooters.• Lack of facilities where it is necessary to cross busy roads.• Traffic dominance, particularly on Stockport No change Road deters walking and cycling. needed The Plan makes no firm proposals for Marple at all (or indeed any other area). It is No change therefore hard to judge what, if any action will happen to encourage walking or cycling in needed - pick Marple. It is essential that specific proposals are included either for implementation or up in covering development Cabinet paper Walking is currently the dominant active travel mode in Marple. While cycling may have the greatest potential, there must be firm and specific proposals to encourage walking, so this mode is not seen as an afterthought. A good design principle would be to design footways so that they are suitable for mobility scooters. This form of transport will become increasingly popular, and pavements suitable for these will also be suitable for No change other less mobile users. needed

Much of the hostile environment for walking and cycling in Marple has been created by highway design that prioritises car capacity. The biggest opportunity to encourage walking and cycling is to create a genuine design hierarchy – the Bee a Champion training course (Nov 2018) contained many practical suggestions to rebalance highway design. Appendix 2 contains a suggested practical road hierarchy to replace the current policy which claims to be pedestrian and cycle first but is always car-first in practice. Agreed

Footways shared between pedestrians and cyclist are inappropriate in Marple. These encourage conflict, bring cycling into disrepute and do nothing to encourage cycling. No change Despite this, they are still being implemented in Marple (in 2019 at Hibbert Lane). needed

Marple has a relatively older and increasingly ageing population. Increased active travel could make a significant difference to the health of Marple: the draft plan has no analysis of potential health benefits. Greater London walking and cycling schemes routinely carry this analysis, so it should be possible to do it for this strategy. In appendices

While Marple does not have any Air Quality Management Areas, air quality has been raised several times with us during consultation on our Neighbourhood Plan. There is no analysis of potential AQ benefits and how walking and cycling could improve air quality In appendices Note need for further There are no targets either short or long term for walking or cycle use4 - without these, it discussion re: is impossible to judge if the ambition of the strategy can be achieved. targets

Monitoring proposals all are generalisations, not SMART and with no quantified objectives As above No indication of the amount of resources that is currently spent on cycling, or how this No change might change in the future needed No analysis of potential funding streams – there are a wide variety, including Community Infrastructure Levy and GM Mayoral budgets. In appendices

11. The draft does not include a proper analysis of how many people walk or cycle or the reasons why they do. Without this it will not be possible to evaluate any desired outcomes. 12. There is no analysis of where people cycle or walk now, or of destinations to which people could most easily be persuaded to walk or cycle. Appendices The plan refers to appendices including on the benefits of walking/cycling and on plans and strategies. These were not attached to the consultation version of the plan, so it has not been possible to comment. Marple is relatively self-contained and an ideal place to trial Cycling and Walking friendly neighbourhoods. We believe that this section of the draft plan should be more ambitious. These ideas have been extensively implemented in northern Europe (where it is the default option) and Greater London (mini-Holland schemes and their successors). The Bee No change Network training course contained information on design and implementation. needed

In particular, the strategy should advocate 20 mph speed limits on residential streets throughout the Borough. The concept of ‘filtered neighbourhoods’ is good but has been watered down so it is all about the carrot of better walking and cycling infrastructure and not about deterring car access. The aim should be to ensure that sustainable modes are given safe, direct routes, making them the obvious choice for journeys, while cars are restricted to limited less direct corridors. The scope may be limited in some existing No change developed areas but can be built into all new development. needed

The draft does not include any targets for future walking or cycle use so it is not clear how it will be possible to judge outcomes. This is perhaps inevitable given the lack of background data in the plan on existing cycle and walking, attitudes to these modes and identification of either potential significant additional walking and cycling flows, or even any specific schemes. The monitoring proposals do not meet any SMART criteria. A success measure which is just increasing walking and cycling is meaningless. If one more person walks or cycles, is that success? Particularly if they would rather be using another See previous mode like car or train. comments The publication of a walking and cycling plan is welcomed. However, it needs better analysis of the current situation and firmer proposals for action. It could be significantly more ambitious and should demonstrate that best practice elsewhere has been No change considered. needed

Appendices include a Appendix includes a key route map. variety of maps Exec summary should summarise the content of the main report - revisit this and include vision and objectives etc I would prefer to see a more balanced intro that puts equal weight on air quality and health. Congestion is a symptom of a broken approach to transport, but it shouldn't in and of itself be the driver for change. The actual introduction is much more balanced - the exec summary should summarise that. Agree amend commuting to transport (everyday travel not just commuting) Agree ENABLE instead of encourage Agree FIRST and last mile? ENABLE all groups to cycle and walk (remove 'consider') Agree designed to prioritise walking and cycling, as per the transport hierarchy How is this different from objective 1? Is it more about overcoming barriers to No change connectivity between neighbourhoods (as per Bee Network ambition)? needed on street green infrastructure provides services e.g. drainage, ambiance, air quality No change improvement etc needed off road routes are not always preferred options for everyday walking journeys, eg to No change access local shops and services. off road route not always felt to be safe needed remove this point (covered in infrastructure blow) Agree glossary remove or explain acronyms needed Can now Mayor's Challenge Fund for Bee Network - key opportunity to invest update This needs explaining include walking example e.g. crossing points

Keep as is - no 'encouraged' - this is vague - are schools supported/enabled in this? change needed GM walking festival, GM Moving programmes including Local Delivery Pilot and Walking City Region project Fine to update explain acronyms

Wayfinding is part of the Bee Network proposals - recommend speaking to TfGM on this Agree - no approach change needed No change consider raised crossing points, so pedestrians have consistent, level footways needed

Romiley has one of the lowest walking and cycling rates in Stockport and this plan offers no firm proposals for Romiley at all – or indeed anywhere else. While I welcome this consultation exercise and indeed anything which looks to get people out of their cars and on to two feet and two wheels, a meaningful plan would be much more specific about No change what will change, where and ideally when. needed I would like to see a firm commitment to improving the surface of the Peak Forest canal from the Paper Mill in Romiley all the way along to Tameside, and in the other direction to NO change the Marple Viaduct. needed

Despite Romiley only being four miles away from Stockport town centre, getting there is a pain in the bum. The bus takes an age, there’s no train and the cycle route follows a very busy road in places. As a confident and competent cyclist, I very rarely bike to Stockport because I don’t feel safe, so we have no chance trying to persuade nervous newbies to give it a go. The problem sections are the A6017 to Kingsway, and then Stockport Road west past Pear Mill. There is some sort of cycle lane on New Bridge Lane but I never use it because it’s on the wrong side of the road if you’re going to Stockport and stops and No change starts. In summer I use Dark Lane but ironically it’s off limits for me in the dark winter. needed On the walking front, I would like to see concerted efforts to encourage parents to let their children walk, scoot or cycle to school. Across Stockport, I would like the council to commit to exploring the implementation of “School Streets” where temporary traffic restrictions are used to close the road outside a school to traffic each morning and afternoon during pick-up and drop-off. This will not be possible in all schools because of their locations but many are on quiet streets or at the end of cul-de-sacs and this is a very viable option Significant new housing developments are planned across Stockport as part of the spatial framework and this consultation should emphasise that they must all come with top- No change notch cycling and walking routes and facilities, and not be built around the car. In Romiley, needed - there is concern that the walking route many parents use from the Cherry Tree estate past covered in Tangshutt Fields and up to the main road could be compromised by a new housing planning development called Hyde Bank Farm. section

Generally speaking, I want the plan to spell out what Stockport has bid for from Beelines/Bee Network/the Mayor’s Challenge Fund so far, and a clear indication of what Will pick up in has been approved. A long section of the A6 has been marked as the ‘big ticket item’ but covering has a proposal been submitted to Chris Boardman et al? Cabinet paper

It is certainly a timely document, coming after Chris Boardman's Made to Move report, and at a point when there appears to be a significant shifting in mind sets, in some quarters at any rate, about how best to tackle urban transport issues. The strong Good - no relationship with public health, air pollution and environmental quality are critical. update needed

Good - no The document contains a lot to applaud, particularly the Vision, and Objectives. update needed

When it comes to Challenges, it rightly says that some of the existing infrastructure “may not be up to contemporary standards”, though “is” would be better than “may”. As Figure 1 shows, most of the satisfactory infrastructure is in the form of off road routes. Stockport can rightly be proud of these, particularly now that many have good all weather surfaces. However, much of the on-road infrastructure is poor quality. “Challenges” identifies the widespread “negative views of walking and cycling safety, particularly on busy routes”. This is indeed the biggest discouragement to cycling – on busy roads, without protection, we know most people are put off even trying. Another issue, though, is perceived safety on off road routes, particularly at night, which is perhaps even more of an issue for No change walkers. needed

The most disappointing aspect of the report is that it lacks a clear analysis of the existing network. This is fundamental: a full knowledge of the extent and nature of the problems should come before any strategy. Instead, one the of the recommendations is to carry out an audit, though without any indication of how it will be done. There are widely accepted methodologies available, like the Cycling Level of Service - included in London Cycling Design Standards - and the Welsh Active Travel Design Guidance. Whichever is used, three things are important: the audit needs to cover the whole road network (not just the bits which are supposed to have cycle facilities), it needs to be done quickly in order to inform No change the strategy in a meaningful way, and it needs to involve local cyclists. needed When it comes to working up a strategy, it should be two broad aims. The first is action to create civilised neighbourhoods, and the Beelines initiative has set out a methodology which can help to achieve this and which the strategy would do well to adopt in its No change entirety. needed The second is to identify, agree and start to develop a network of safe, direct, continuous and comfortable routes to/from/through the town centre, and links between home, jobs, schools, stations, and all significant destinations. Off road routes can play a part in this, but unless they are lit, and feel safe to ride on, the reality is that they have limited all year round value. There is ample guidance about what constitutes good quality infrastructure; suffice to say that it doesn't include shared pavements (except in exceptional circumstances), or multi-stage crossings, which have often formed part of Stockport's No change schemes in the past. needed

The strategy will inevitably be long term and no-one expects it to create a satisfactory network overnight. But it needs to clearly set out an aspirational network, along with the resources that will be needed to implement it (and maintain it; all to often the absence of a revenue stream for this leads to rapid deterioration of provision), and a view about where they will come from. There also need to be clear targets, and regular monitoring of Covered by progress towards them. The draft report is light on this, with no quantified targets, and beelines - no apparent over-reliance on non-localised information sources for monitoring update needed

Most of all the Council needs to make it clear that its Cycling and Walking strategy sets out a real change in its transport policy, and that enabling active travel (along with public This is covered transport) will be prioritised over trying to provide for increasing general motorised traffic. in the exec The pay offs will be considerable – in terms of air quality, public health, congestion and summary - no environmental quality – and achievable with real political commitment. change needed

Page 2 Executive Summary: As a key supporting document of your Active Communities Strategy, it feels perhaps as though the physical activity agenda (rather than the congestion agenda) should be first and foremost in the Executive Summary. We also note that the summary doesn’t mention climate change/carbon. Given the major incentive Exec summary that this agenda represents to mode shift, we think it would be wise to mention it. needs updating

P4 Introduction: Where this makes reference to LCWIP we would recommend referring jointly to both the LCWIP and the Bee Network. Perhaps “.../ the Greater Manchester Made to Move Report and ongoing network planning work to develop both the Bee Network and Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIP)” Agreed P5 Why a Combined Plan?: We suggest referring here to the Bee Network, which is envisaged to be a combined network. But also to acknowledge that, in whilst it is a combined network, in many circumtances dedicated, separate provision for walking and cycling will be needed. Agreed Also please note that throughout we should be referring to ‘Bee Network’ and not ‘Beelines’ now. The only exception to this is if you are referring to the original June 2018 ‘Beelines’ publication (which was titled ‘Beelines’). Agreed

P6 Vision and Objectives: In the text of the vision, we suggest deleting the word ‘increasingly’. i.e. “To make walking and cycling the default options for all ages and…” No - keep as is

In relation to the objectives, we suggest it would be worthwhile including an additional This is already objective around new development, and the importance of taking opportunities to invest picked up in to ensure cycling and walking are the modes of choice for short journeys from new the planning developments. section P7 Strategy and Policy Context: Suggest including an additional bubble to reference the Made to Move Report and the subsequent Beelines document here (the one circumstance where we can use ‘Beelines’ as referred to above) Agreed

P8 Challenges and Opportunities: Under opportunities under ‘infrastructure’ suggest adding ‘Availability of funding through the Mayor’s Challenge Fund and Made to Move’: Agreed Under technological opportunities, suggest adding ‘Technological advances in network Agree to planning e.g. the Propensity to Cycle tool and MappingGM. update Under financial opportunities, suggest adding ‘Funding environment for cycling and walking now more favourable in Greater Manchester than anywhere else in the UK No change outside London’ needed

In relation to the financial challenges where the document refers to funding only being available for individual schemes, MCF is really seeking to change this – i.e. it is funding associated with a network, and funding can be secured to delivery whole areas of network which could be combinations of a number of individual schemes. This more holistic No change approach to funding could be listed as an opportunity. needed

Under the Policy/Strategic challenges we feel that “The Council’s wide range of policies require that compromise is necessary’ is a rather unfortunate phraseology! Perhaps “The Agree with need to balance the needs of all road users and policy areas creates challenges in relation proposed to allocation of both funding and road space”? change

P10 Existing Network Coverage: Overall we feel the wording here doesn’t really communicate the scale of change which is necessary in order to start to effect meaningful mode shift, particularly to cycling. This is not an issue unique to Stockport: it is common across all of GM, so it is not a criticism of the network specifically in Stockport, around No change which we know there is a long history of investment. needed

In particular, to say that ‘the current network is in many regards satisfactory’ really under- sells the level of change that needs to be effected over the coming years, and risks undermining attempts to secure funding. Across Greater Manchester, we need to move away from a mindset for walking and cycling of accommodating those that do it already, to a mindset of creating a network which is attractive to those who don’t currently do it, and drives mode shift. In this context, very little of the network in Stockport, or indeed in Greater Manchester as a whole, is ‘good enough’ at present. That is what the Bee No change Network is all about. needed Where the document talks about ‘segregated provision is often a desirable option’ we suggest being more specific about this, since in many locations it isn’t necessary: only on busy roads. Generally the cutoff we are applying, based on Dutch guidance, is 4,000 vehicles per day. Above that, in order to accommodate less experienced cyclists, segregated provision is needed. Ok The ‘Potential Options’ section should refer to the opportunities to deliver whole areas of the network through MCF, and recognise the above reference necessary step change in No change provision and network connectivity needed Agree update P12: Education, Training and Promotion: Under potential options, we suggest adding but not “Through MCF, work closely with TfGM to identify ‘activation’ opportunities for any new reference to infrastructure constructed to ensure benefits are maximised MCF P13: Signage and Wayfinding: We recommend here referencing that the proposed network of Bee routes in Greater Manchester includes a wayfinding package based on the Dutch approach to network development, and aimed at creating a single navigable network across GM. It will be important to work with TfGM and other GM districts to ensure that this is well integrated into existing wayfinding. P14: Cycling and Walking Friendly Neighbourhoods: This section sits very well with the Bee Network principles of making best use of existing infrastructure and connecting networks of existing quiet streets with new/improved crossing points etc. We recommend referencing the Bee Network approach in this section. Under potential options, you could include “Delivery of large parts of the Bee network through cycling and walking friendly neighbourhoods” Keep as is P15: Integrating with Public Transport: We recommend referring to the potential o cycling to greatly increase access to rapid public transport services in areas out of walking distance from stations. Agree Under ‘potential options’ we suggest adding ‘Integrate rail stations with the emerging Bee Network by identifying targeted infrastructure interventions to increase their cycle catchments’ Agree Agree - P16: Integrating with New Development: We would suggest that, in addition to although we referencing internal development layout and specific on-site facilities for cycle parking etc, think it is this section should also refer to the importance of external connectivity to the cycling and already walking network. Over time, the adoption of an agreed Bee Network should provide a covered in the policy hook to secure contributions from new developments specifically related to planning ensuring that new developments are properly connected to the emerging network. section

P17-20: Action Plan – Short Term (<3 years): Under Objective 1, we recommend including some specific actions around the schemes which Stockport already has programme entry for under MCF, and those which are recommended for PE approval in tranche 4. There are some significant infrastructure schemes in there which will see significant deliver in a 3- year period, so we should definitely be referring to them specifically. For example, a number of those schemes referred to in S1.5 as identified for ‘more detailed analysis’ are now funded, so we should be referring to their delivery rather than just looking at the Put in covering possibility in more detail. Cabinet paper

We also suggest under objective 1 that you refer to identifying promotional and activation opportunities, in conjunction with TfGM, associated with new infrastructure constructed, in order to maximise the benefits of that infrastructure. Agreed.

Regard S1.7, pedestrian countdown timers now have national authorisation from DfT, so we don’t really think we need to review the principle of them, perhaps more we should be Agree - remove working together to identify opportunities for their installation. this action

Under Objective 1 we suggest adding an extra bullet S12 as follows “Identify and deliver significant elements of the Bee Network through investment in better connecting existing quieter street routes and investigating opportunities for segregated cycle provision on some busier corridors, adopting the principles of Greater Manchester’s emerging ‘Streets No change for All’ Strategy. needed In relation to S2.1 on bike share opportunities we suggest adding ‘most likely as part of a No change wider Greater Manchester scheme’ needed Under Objective 2, we suggest adding a further item, S2.6, as follows: “Work with TfGM to identify a prioritised list of interventions to improve cycle access to rail stations and bring Agree - picks up these forward for delivery” (we are currently commissioning a piece of work which we earlier hope will assist with this by helping us better understand the cycle rail market in GM, so comments we’re keen to work with you on this). from Marple Under objective 3, we suggest adding an extra item, S3.9, as follows: “Work with TfGM to target promotional and activation activities related to maximising the benefits of specific infrastructure schemes” Agree

Already in there under plannign Under Objective 4/5, we suggest adding an additional item focussed on ensuring new section. Could developments are planned with walking and cycling as the default means of transport for be better shorter journeys, including obtaining developer contributions to cycling and walking reflected in the infrastructure schemes. action plan

P21-22 Action Plan – Medium Term (< 5 years): We recommend a key thread running through this section should be the ambition to have delivered substantial parts of a the Bee Network of fully joined up cycling and walking network over this 5 year time frame. So there should be a focus on identifying and prioritising schemes to bring forward for delivery which will deliver the greatest impact in terms of mode shift and getting people No change walking and cycling who don’t currently do so. needed Under M2.1 (bike share) suggest adding ‘most likely as part of a wider Greater Manchester No change scheme’ needed

P23 Action Plan – Long Term (>5 years): We suggest that the key long term action should be to ensure that, in line with the ambition articulated in the Commissioner’s ‘Made to Move’ report, over the lifetime of the Plan, Stockport develops a world class network for No change cycling and walking which will create genuine mode shift to active modes of travel needed Understood. In Integrating Suggest additional objective is added around development control process as per with New comment on page 6 Development Generally, we suggest listing objectives in the same order as the 6 listed above would make it easier to navigate. In the specific comments that follow I’ve used the both sets of number numbering for clarity. Agree We think it would be useful to do a logic map to show how each of the objectives/measures are expected to lead to the outcomes. The thinking behind it is there No change in the table, but it isn’t always explicit at the moment needed No change We suggest separating outcomes from metrics/indicators more explicitly needed In ‘how it will be assessed’, it would be good to include what aspects of the data sources No change will be used e.g. which metrics for each objective/outcome needed Agreed - There are some other sources which could be used for the evaluation that aren’t listed at include other the moment, for example TRADS and the Multi-Modal Network Principles (MMNP) survey opportunities (the intention is for the MMNP survey this to be repeated at least every two years so can providing we be used as a regular data source for monitoring). have accesss

Objective 1 (3 on p23): It might be hard to show that any changes in perceptions are due to the promotion/training (rather than for example infrastructure improvements). Would need to try to find out why perceptions have changed. Leave as is

Objective 2 (1): Might make sense to link back to the Bee Network and how much of this has been delivered. The current suggested outcome/metric only talks about length of provision not connectivity. MMNP also asks about satisfaction with facilities for cyclists No change and pedestrians so there could be some use for this here. needed

Objective 3 (4): Option to use TRADS for measuring number of trips. Might want to think about trip length within this e.g. look at trips under 2km. Might want to look at percentage rather than number of trips. Perceptions of the neighbourhood area are also relevant No change here. There might be additional metrics that could be used here. needed

Objective 4 (6): Not clear whether this refers exclusively to linking Stockport to local networks in neighbouring authorities. The outcome is rather vague and not linked to these cross-boundary routes, if that is what the focus is. Could maybe use a metric focused around the actual network provision instead as might be hard to get the data on satisfaction in this specific spatial/geographic context.

Objective 5 (2): The outcome isn’t linked to the objective in that it doesn’t relate to integration with PT. This might be something which data from TRADS could assist with. Agree Objective 6 (5): Cordon count data would also be relevant here for trips into the town centre by bike and on foot. Note that we only have this for Stockport town centre itself, No change and not for other smaller centres in Stockport. needed

The consultation fails to recognise that there are those who run to a place of employment. Infrastructure / provision for such an activity along the A6 corridor ranges from poor NO change (north of Stockport town centre) to very poor (south of Stockport town centre). needed

I question why 'improve safety' is in the promotion and training section. I worry that this will turn into giving out hi vis vests and encouraging helmet use for cyclists which promotes the idea that cycling is a risky activity . Targeted training delivered to drivers who park around schools or no pavements and driving dangerously. Giving support to behaviour change in drivers (eg perhaps in combination with GMP's operation close pass) is much more likely to deliver safety and encourage more cycling and walking and is a NO change good idea as outlined in s3.8 needed The Rights of Way Improvement Plan was recently reviewed at Marple local area committee.and readopted. Since its concept we have seen little improvement in High Lane Stockport other than cycle tracks going to the airport and via the Middlewood from Marple to Bollington, Nothing that connects routes going towards the town centre and poor signage to off road footpaths . On Middlewood there are significant problems with speeding cyclists and there disregard for walkers and horse riders. High Lane on the A6 has a vehicle congestion problem with high levels of pollution this area should be a top priority for walking and cycling but very little has been undertaken since the above policy and no doubt will continue to be the case for many years. Infrastructure for walking and cycling should come first before development not afterwards at the expense of NO change communities, needed Segregated cycle lanes / surfaced with good drainage with kerbs or other means to protect from vehicles would be the gold standard ( not resorting to just a painted cycle lane ) . This would encourage people out to cycle as they would feel safer and lessen cycling / pedestrian accidents . Also make parking in the designated cycle lanes illegal No change subject to fines needed Doubtful about the assumed shared needs of cyclist and walkers. we need a segregated, protected cycleway (like the London cycling superhighways) along the full length of the A6. Other, local cycle facilities will naturally feed into that, but it will provide a safe "backbone" that will do a lot to encourage more people to cycle in No change Stockport needed

You could introduce a shared pavement on the A6 between the A6 bypass and High Lane. It’s rarely used by pedestrians. Cycling that stretch is worrying. Widening the pavement and narrowing the road would help. Enforcement of parking restrictions in Heaviley No change during peak times would help as there are often illegally parked cars. needed No change Not much for South of Stockport all bases around North. needed No change Why only provide electricit bicycle for the lower income it should be for all. needed

Much of the "network" is substandard, dangerous and fragmented (especially for cycling), including many of the new additions, which are often nothing more than a bit of paint, often building in conflict zones and blind spots. Barriers need to be removed (physical and metaphorical), especially width restrictions intended to prevent motorcycles, but also impede standard cycles, and prevent non-standard cycles and wheelchair users. Cars are still prioritised over other forms of transport, which needs to be changed (my household of 2 people has 3 cars, so this is not coming from someone who is against cars), we need continuous footpaths and subsidising for ebikes. Cars should be banned from more of No change Stockport town centre. needed More physically separated cycle-only lanes like those on the A560 are required, shared No change paths are not the solution. needed There needs to be an increased focus and funding for initiatives to get children into cycling. With specific reference to girls. Schools start Cycle awareness training too late. (no time for mop ups). Cycle awareness needs to be followed up in highschool, where the rate of girls riding to school drops dramatically, helped by draconian school uniform policies. Trousers on girls are discouraged from wearing trousers, even M&S for teenages Reference this focus on tight slim leg trousers which apparently will turn young mail heads all a dither but in the options are more practical for riding to school. I would love to see some of the UK top female section for this cyclists, doing a tour in our schools to push this. If they ride to school they are more likely area but not in to ride as adults. the objective Improve the infrastructure , that includes roads footpaths, cycle lanes etc. The air quality No change needs to be dramatically improved along the local road systems. needed Unfortunately, I think unless you have really good cycle lanes, people will not use their No change bikes to cycle short distances. needed Parts of the A6, where quiet, could possibly have shared pavements, priority pedestrian No change and cycle crossings at traffic junctions. needed Large lorries should be banned from town and city centres during the day, deliveries No change should be planned for night time. needed

Make walking safe make cyclists aware of walkers, dog walkers, also old and young walkers, cyclists need to have more respect for other users of paths, also the speed they No change travel at, if they have ear phones in they neither see or hear you needed Walkers dont hear them coming at speed a lot of cyclists shout at walker who havent got No change out of there way needed We need safe cycle paths to link paths, for example Haz Grove & High Lane to access Middlewood Way or A555 have to negotiate an over congested dangerous A6 and No change therefore are under used needed Allow much accessibility to middlewood way for horses so they don’t have to walk down No change busy roads. They slow traffic and it isn’t good for the horses. needed

I agree that encouraging cycling and walking is a good thing, but not sharing the same pathways, unless they are wide enough. From experience the two often clash and can be dangerous when combined. This is especially so along the canal towpaths, as they are too narrow and don't allow pedestrians and dog walkers enough time to move out of the way of cyclists, who are usually in a hurry to get from A to B. Cyclists should be restricted to No change the Middle wood Way and designated cycle paths. needed

Not everyone will have access to bikes and walking may take some considerable time. No change People traveling into the Borough to work may find this difficult to contribute to. needed

I am concerned by the “all groups” to consider cycling and walking. Thepollution on the A6 No change is so profound that I am now actively avoiding walking anywhere along the A6. needed Need Exec Summary to be more explicit that cycling and walking is only one element of the Councli's transport strategy - refer I can not see how you could make cycling and walking safe for the populace until you - as a back to priority - instigate electric, free, frequent public transport that will suit the needs of SEMMMS elderly people. Refresh

This is already Affordability of equipment may be a barrier for some groups and it would be good if there picked up in were cost reduced incentives on bicycles/walking gear etc by local shop/businesses to the challenges support the strategy. section

The major issue with stockports roads is the amount of traffic and lack of safe cycle lanes making it dangerous and unhealthy from the pollution levels. As for walking and running in the area I'm increasing having to take to the road to avoid cars, vans etc being parked No changes on the pavements and overhanging vegetation. needed It would be great to have an online tool to plan off-road bike journeys including No changes topography. needed

I agree with the suggestions for walking and cycling but as with many of these proposals the needs of horse riders are not included. This is especially concerning when these routes No changes include currently accessed by horses e.g. the Transpennine trail and other bridleways needed Please advise why these thoroughfares appear to be limited to walkers and cyclists when horse riders are desperate to get if roads and are specifically included in the government No changes strategy? needed

The proposals are standard. I am pleased the penny has dropped and the fundamental need for infrastructure must now be addressed.

The only way you can quantify and we will get people out of their cars is through segregated infrastructure. No amount of aims or objectives will replace a promise, with cash on the table, to get them built. Lets implement the Beelines strategy as a minimum.

We must widen the Trans-pennine trail between Parrs Wood & Stockport Town Centre and make it a proper throughfare and integrated cycle lane. More signage needed. No changes Lets get it built now. There's not a day to lose. needed Please ensure you include horse riders. The government's walking and cycling strategy included vulnerable road users and includes horse riders. It would be discriminatory if you do not include them. Horse Riding and carriage driving is a form of transport and a very No changes important leasure activity for all including disabled people. needed.

I am a keen cyclist ( I wonder how many of the writers of this strategy are ). We already have an extensive cycle network - it is called the road network. Creating a separate network is costly and unnecessary. We simply need to add a cycle lane to every road - a simple line painted on the road. And we need to let motorists know that they have to slow down and respect cyclists. A separate cycle network misses the point. Maybe it is all about making life easier for motorists not for cyclists. Having cyclists and pedestrians share the same space is not fair on the pedestrians who already resent cyclists speeding past them - with good reason. Pavements should be for pedestrians. Roads are for wheeled vehicles. Simple. the so-called cycle route to the airport involves carrying the bike up and down steps over a footbridge! Why do that when there is a road nearby? the cycle route through Rusholme is very dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists alike - it is quicker and safer to cycle on the road. The new cycle lanes at Lancashire Hill on the pavement are a nightmare for cyclists and pedestrians alike. I guess these schemes seek to get cyclists off the road and make life easier for motorists. The surface of a cycle lanes is always crumbing and rough compared to the road and you also have to negotiate getting off and on to them and crossing all the side road. Please encourage cyclists to use the roads. If every single road in Stockport had a cycle lane this would encourage cycling and cost a fraction of creating a completely separate cycle network that simply makes life No change easier for motorists. needed There is no mention of Bridleways? What about the other vulnerable road users, horse and rider? You need to provide access and suitable surfaces for horse and rider. My No change daughter is 14 years old and is in danger on the roads. needed

Horse-riding (and carriage driving) are important leisure activities for the largely neglected demographic of women 35-60+ as well as for children and the less able-bodied. Safe off- road multi-user tracks with a surface to suit all users are more and more vital to horse riders and carriage drivers as traffic becomes more dense, impatient and less considerate of vulnerable users. Horses on the roads are vulnerable. They may be a minority transport and leisure activity but they need safe places to go. No change Please include them in your otherwise positive plans. Thank you. needed

Why does this only talk about walkers and cyclists, and not horse-riders, who are a recognised vulnerable road user group. In addition, horse-riding is an activity that is often enjoyed by women, especially in the younger and older age groups, both of which are under-represented in other physical activities. There are plenty of examples of multi-user No change paths being developed elsewhere in the UK with shared use between walkers, cyclists, needed - riders and carriage drivers. Indeed, this happens already on PROW bridleways and perhaps refer restricted byways. There has also been recognition at government level recently that more strongly horse riders are vulnerable road users and should be included in such strategies. to ROWIP? To make the cycling networks effective, there must be a secure location for the bicycle at NO change the end of the journey. needed Regarding "Ensure that neighbourhoods and district centres are "cycling and walking friendly" to encourage local trips by bike and on foot" - consideration also needs to be given to anti-social behaviour that pedestrians and cyclists may experience e.g. as a pedestrian I find it very intimidating to walk in areas where anti-social behaviour e.g. drug taking is rife. As a cyclist, I am often subjected to aggressive behaviour and/or verbal abuse by motorists. These aspects don't appear in the document except for the point that No change increased walking and cycling can make areas safer, reduce anti-social behaviour. needed

As a regular walker and cyclist in the Heatons, you need to make roads safer for cyclists around rush hour, and to improve air quality. Weight and speed restrictions on residential No change roads eg Mauldeth road should be priority too, outside rush hour needed

See above comment re: update to Exec To "encourage 'last mile' cycling and walking", you *must* improve the public transport. Summary re: Eg, the last 42b from Manchester leaves the city centre in the late afternoon. Throughout wider transport the day the buses are also infrequent and unreliable strategy

Not workable until current bicycle path network is better maintained (too much broken glass, rubbish and uneven tarmac), Also rude drivers - driving unsafely and/or while on No change their mobiles. Need more DRIVER education not cyclist initiatives. needed

Action on the ground and enablement of cycling in particular has to be the key - no amount of surveys, mapping or stats will increase stats, but seeing where the gaps are already highly evident will. The list of routes (eg A6, Peak Forest Canal, Middlewood Way) No change give plenty to be getting on with already - just go for it and the wave will begin! needed

The A6 in particular has to be absolutely key - the Beelines proposal of a segregated cycling space along its full length from High Lane would be absolutely transformational on so many levels - both to people WANTING to use that route by bike already but scared to death of it and everyone living along its length. The space is there, just make sure it's used No change for the right causes. needed

I would also hope that the council's recent work in shared pavements is classed as a "0.1" version of a real cycling network, and that with the help of Greater Manchester and Beelines we now move into a 1.0 or 2.0 network of genuine cycle routes without No change pedestrian conflict and fully connected to where people want to go. needed

In terms of mapping, Google Maps is now beefing up its support for marking cycle routes and this could perhaps be the best way to go. Signage is generally quite poor across the borough for cycle routes, but this isn't really something I would want to see prioritised or funded before more actual routes themselves are completed. Get the essential network No change in, then think about these "nice to haves". needed No change needed - picked up in Lighting on the A555 would have made it more user friendly MCF bid I don't see the challenge here:Ensure that employment, residential, retail and leisure activities in the town centre are accessible by bike and on foot. You can say that has been achieved already - what is needed is that a person's first choice of transport will be on foot No change or bike. needed There is nothing about improving footpaths to make them easier for people with pushchairs / inability to get over stiles - many of the green space footpaths are inaccessible to people who cannot step over a stile - yet can walk on uneven paths for NO change miles. needed

Consider and what is meant by 'ensuring that adjacent areas of Stockport are fully integrated' are rewording but you referring to Stockport town centre only or are you suggesting that you use energy and cross boundary effort to improve neighbouring boroughs when there is so much improvement needed travel is within Stockport borough essential

My objection is this: the whole strategy is based on there being a good public transport network in the first place to allow the 'last mile' idea to work. I live in Cheadle village. We have no public transport out of Manchester after 6.30pm. I have raise this issue time and See earlier again with anyone who will care to listen and yet nothing changes. How can we walk the comment re: last mile when the first 8 aren't even covered? Exec Summary I'd love to cycle more, but there is no secure cycle parking at Gatley; provision at Stockport station is extremely limited. I'm not going to leave £500 worth of cyxle out in the street all day, hoping a few chains and a CCTV camera will deter the scallies; we need proper cycle hubs such as those at East Didsbury or in Piccadilly by the bus station in Manchester city centre. Agreed

To get more people cycling and walking, junctions need to be improved. In too many places (by Morrisons in Cheadle Heath; at the Stockport Road/Manchester Road junction in Cheadle and at the Kingsway/Gatley Road intersection in Cheadle) the road layout and associated priorities create a hostile environment for those travelling on foot. This is No change before we even get to the subject of unenforced pavement parking offences. needed For people like me, walking the last mile of a journey is easy. For someone who is older, frailer, disabled or with very young children or lots of shopping that last mile is impossible No change to cover on foot or by bike. needed

Finally: while the Enterprise car club scheme in Stockport town center and in Manchester is excellent (I've been a member for two years) the fact that there are no cars in places like Cheadle where we have terrible public transport means that going without a car is a hardship; I should know, I've done it the past two years! More incentives are needed to discourage private vehicle ownership or at least discourage households from having No change multiple vehicles. This will only happen when the incentives are there in the first place. needed - Please work with companies such as Enterprise to extend the car club scheme to the covered places where it is needed: miles away from Stockport station. elsewhere So far as part of the Town Centre Access Plan you've actually made walking from Heaton Norris into town much worse. The pavement has been reduced in width down the A6 and a blind corner crossing has been installed next to the entrance for the car park for Red Rock which takes too long to change causing people to make risky crossings instead. You've also authorised a giant sign covering half the pavement. Then, the new cycle paths and walking paths through Heaton Norris park end abruptly before the hill to the bridge across the motorway which is lethal when it's been raining. And the new crossing you've installed at the end of the bridge, again takes way too long to change and has already No change been the cause of one fatality. needed

The SEMMS project has increased traffic. Around the world best practise recognises reducing road space increases traffic speed. I would reduce A6 to single lane with permanent bike / bus lane and speed limit to 20mph across the borough. Cars rarely travel No change above this speed. Ban Free parking anywhere. Be bold needed best thing to aid this would be to prosecute all drivers who park on partly and wholly on the pavement to make all roads directly near schools a car free area between 8/9 am and No change 3/4pm car free in less residents needed

Whilst there is a note regarding interconnectivity between authority areas i.e. "Improve and maintain high quality cycling and walking connections with local networks, ensuring that adjacent areas of Stockport are fully integrated.", such an ambition will not deliver substantial benefits unless the vision and objectives primarily consider commuting routes as defined by a "city region" given a number of such sustainable journeys are between No change council authority areas. needed

It's important to ensure that initial construction is done to a high standard, which has not always been the case. Contractors don't always do their job well unless monitored closely. Consider including a I'd like to emphasise the importance of maintenance, which includes cleaning as well as point about repairs. Some cycle paths are poorly maintained. maintenance.

I see little in here about enforcement of current traffic rules, such as speed restrictions, or reducing pavement parking, both of which are currently woefully under-enforced or not enforced at all. As well as filtered neighbourhoods, where walking and cycling becomes the default choice for shorter journeys, creating fully segregated 'Dutch-style' cycling routes along major corridors such as the A6 is an absolute must, and if not part of plans, No change nothing much will change. needed

Clearly it is understandable that a positive outcome of this work is improvements in air quality it should be considered that there is a challenge here. Poor air quality in areas Covered in currently results in people changing from active transport to motorised transport. An appendices but objective should be around public health more broadly that active commuters are safe need more in and well and not likely to suffer worse health through active commuting. exec summary Little on what constitutes good quality and how you can safely and easily cycle along direct routes, for example cycling in from Gatley the provision is poor and I see little in the No change plan that will improve this needed No change There is a distinct lack of timings on the proposed plan. The objectives should have a time needed - the plan attached to them for completion. action plan is split into Increase safe cycling for travelling to and from work, not just last mile for public transport. timeframes

Agree - include Need to be clearer that his represents a major shift in transport policy, prioritising active in amended travel modes. exec summary. ' ABILITIES' needs to include those with limited mobility and breath. There needs to be 'resting places'. These can be suitable seats or ornamental structures to lean/sit on - at various places so people can pace themselves (On modern developments these are too No change low) needed The emphasis should be on increasing the amount of connected cycle lanes which are physically separated from roads so that motorists cannot enter them. Motorists often cross over painted lines so there needs to be a physical barrier between the road and the No change cycle way rather than a painted line. needed 'Create and maintain high quality and fully connected cycling and walking networks within Stockport.' - Whilst this is a great vision unless additional funds and priority is given to cycle routes this will remain a vision and not become reality. There are many instances where existing cycle paths (particularly those marked on existing roads) are not maintained and are in a state of disrepair to the point that they are best avoided for safety No change reasons. needed Summary of the benefits Might suggest explicitly tying into environmental and public health benefits. section

People don't want to cycle or walk a mile in bad weather, which is most of the time No change around here. More bus routes and frequencies are needed--maybe smaller busses. needed In Objective 1, what is the connectivity and network vision refered to, and/or how will this No change vision be developed? needed Objective 3 isn’t strong enough. Promotion isn’t sufficient, because engagement is what’s going to be needed in order to succeed. It isn’t enough to ‘encourage all groups to consider cycling and walking’, it needs to ‘convince’ them to do it as part of an active No change lifestyle. needed The objectives don’t have measures associated, which can be tracked in any quantitative No change manner. needed Opportunities – Infrastructure doesn’t make mention of the proposed Stockport Transport Interchange. Surely this has got to be the biggest upcoming opportunity for increasing No change active travel. needed No change Opportunities – Infrastructure doesn’t make mention of bus services and train/metro needed - services which are surely the best enablers for Objective 2. And the related challenges of picked up poor frequency, coverage, and capacity being compromised because of cut backs. elsewhere Not clear on Opportunities – Social doens’t provide any information or reference to ‘street satisfaction what this refers index’. What is this? to No change Challenges – Policy/Strategic is unclear about what ‘compromise’ is being refered to. needed The whole action plan is about mitigating those How will the challenges listed be overcome or mitigated? Doesn’t there need to be an challenges. No action to develop mitigation plans? change needed

Existing Network Coverage – Potential Options doesn’t indicate the decision making No change process for selecting options. Why not do all of these in some logical order? needed

Education, Training and Promotion – Potential Options doesn’t indicate the decision making process for selecting options. Shouldn’t this include incorporation in active communities implementation as the first option? Continuing with historic promotion mechanisms may be advisable, but these haven’t had significant impact on cycling take up in Stockport to date so are these going to be re-invigorated? A key promoter is take-up itself and successes should be publicised. Take-up is a motivator for more involvement of residents and can create a virtuous circle over time, so thought could be put into route No change proposals which will significantly increase take-up quickly. needed Signage and Wayfinding – Potential Options doesn’t mention A6MARR where it’s a No change disgrace that signage is incomplete and this should be fixed straight away. needed

It talks a lot about encouraging and training but in reality actual physical change is what's needed. The training needs to target drivers too. You can be the best practicing person on a bicycle in the world but it doesn't matter if people drive badly around you. So either change how people drive or use changes to the roads to prevent them from putting people on foot or bicycle in danger. Training the cycling or walking people, well, we've No change already taken that as far as we can. needed Vision: A friendlier way to say 'default option' might be 'natural choice' . Objective 2 and 3 - use word ENABLE instead of encourage. Objective 4 - replace 'cycling and walking friendly with 'designed to prioritise walking and cycling, as per the transport hierarchy'. Objective 6: How is this different from objective 1? Is it more about overcoming barriers to connectivity between neighbourhoods (as per Bee Network ambition)?

Agreed

Yes. I would like the first objective to create, maintain and protect the cycle lanes and pavements. We have a huge network of pavements that have become blocked by cars parking on them. Can we aim to have pavements again? It’ll make walking safer. And No change nicer. Can we afford not to make our pavements passable? needed

I’d also like to see an objective that covers information. If a cycle route or pavement is closed it’d be nice to know before you get there and are forced into a busy road. I’ve Already in never been given a signed,safe alternative route as a cyclist. there? And I need to know if paths are gritted if you want me to go out. And a map of where the cycle hoops are - you can plan a lovely route to cheadle but can you find a hoop so you No change can shop? I found one but two other people found it first. needed If there’s an accident and a cyclist is hurt I’d like to see the outcome in terms of assessing No change the safety at a junction or police action if there is an assault. needed So in general it’d be great to have an easy to access info point. You can access info on No change trains and driving really quickly. needed The vision is good, but would be better just saying 'the preferred' than 'increasingly the default' which sounds a bit hollow and the timescale is too vague. Do we want to achieve this in 10 years or 100? The action plan suggests you expect significant progress within 10 years? The objectives are laudable but they are not sufficiently focused to make walking and No change cycling the preferred local travel option. needed No change It is not practical to make walking and cycling the default for all ages and capabilities. needed You mention older people once only but don't seem to recognise that the elderly find it more difficult to walk/cycle. You don't mention a complimentary public transport policy NO change for the elderly and disabled. needed

Picked up in SEMMMS I think there needs to be a renewed push to make business move freight by rail rather Refresh - no than road to reduce pollution and congestion and damage to roads. change needed You talk about showers but more importantly you need to bring back public toilets so No change people who are outside walking and cycling can relieve themselves. needed. i like to walk wherever possible but when are you going to tackle cyclists going through red lights and adults riding on the pavements. i am sick of having to pull either my No change children or my dog out of the way of cyclists on the pavements! needed

Objective 2 - encourage and enable not just encourage. First and last mile not just last. Objective 4 - Designed to prioritise walking and cycling Objective 1 and 6 are very similar - maybe needs to be clearer what the difference is. Agreed

In the plan, a lot of the objectives are things you are already doing, as far as I am aware, so No change to some extent, it doesn't really feel like there is a lot that is actually "new" or radical. needed The executive summary talks about delivering a step change and requiring a shift in how. The rest of the document then talks about 'promote' and 'more popular'. These phrases need to be 'advocate, stimulate, develop' and 'normalise, popularise' otherwise we will No change not achieve that step change. needed I feel more work could and should be done around school runs by car. I feel there should be an exclusion zone around schools to keep the motorised traffic away during the pre and after school runs. I don't think providing cycle lanes and pavement is going to encourage people to change habits. I get that that's the carrot but can't see things No change changing without also having a stick. needed Some of the objectives seem to be unambitious. I would like to see some hard infrastructure changes within the 3 year time frame. Cycle parking provision around current housing. Like the provision of on street resident's cycle lockers like those in Waltham Forest on narrow streets would put cycling at the heart of communities and No change solve a major barrier to many who live in terraced or narrow streets around the higher needed - pick density areas of the borough. I think this should be prioritised to within the 3 year time up in covering frame. Cabinet paper Similarly experimental layouts for walking and cycling friendly neighbourhoods egM4/5.2 need to be delivered early so that these can be taken into consideration and impact, as No change soon as possible. on ongoing changes to housing and road planning. needed

The biggest problem with cycling in Stockport is very bad road surface and bad driving. Also the pinch points Stockport Council keep putting in roads contribute to a lot of close passes on cyclists No change needed No change Walkers need the issue pavement parking to be addressed. needed The actions are generally welcome, but still in the old-fashioned general mindset of starting from the old-fashioned question "Where can we easily put cycle/walking infrastructure and should we do so?" rather than embracing more modern question (typified by the Beelines strategy) "Where do we need cycle/walking infrastructure and No change how are we going to put it there"? needed There needs to be a more strategic approach, identifying where quality active travel routes are most needed and then providing them, where necessary even at the price of taking road space away from motorised traffic (as MCC has done with the Oxford Road No change corridor, for example). needed Having teenagers I want to make sure they are safe when using these facilities therefore I No change feel cctv is must to ensure this needed Air quality team and highways in the council. Improving air quality and congestion in High No hcange Lane would help encourage cycling. needed Cycle share schemes do not work. They are massively open to abuse, as witnessed by the No change recent bike rental scheme in Manchester. needed

The greatest need is for dedicated cycle routes alongside the main arteries to Stockport No change and Manchester. Commuting to work via bicycle along the A6 is currently very dangerous needed Priorities should be joining the paths we have to form continuous link, seems to be a lot of No change time and energy spent on reviewing rather than doing... needed The canal towpaths should not be encouraged for cyclists. The paths are too narrow and it's dangerous when cyclists speed through the bridges, around blind bends and approach behind walkers, dogs and children. They also increase the damage to muddy potholes and No change wear away the surfaces. needed Because you are going all out and focusing on cycling and walking, rather than getting more vehicles off the road by getting people to use electric and free public transport. Until you prove to people that they actually don’t need their car then they will think it is much easier to use their car than walk/cycle. You HAVE to sort out the number of vehicles on the road and their toxic pollutants FIRST No change before you can then encourage people to cycle and walk. needed No change The problem is that the vast majority of cycling infrastructure in Stockport is currently very needed - it is bad and this action plan fails to acknowledge it. recognised There are almost no physically segregated cycle paths in the whole of Stockport (paths No change shared with pedestrians, dog walkers etc. do not count). needed Many of the on road lanes are too narrow, in door zones and continue through 'island' sections - giving the impression that motorists should overtake with far less than 1.5m of No change space. needed So whilst I think it reads like there are lots of good ideas (particularly the filtered local centres), the complete lack of acknowledgement of the poor state of existing facilities No change means I have no confidence Stockport council will deliver anything useful. needed

Also its intriguing to note that in 'challenges' there is no mention of the appalling Difficult to aggressive driving of motorists that frequently maims and kills pedestrians and cyclists. word this

I would like to see Supermarkets involved. Many car journeys are taken to purchase groceries by people living within 2 miles or maybe even less, mainly as they need to transport heavy bags of shopping.

I would like to see the promotion of the use of personal shopping trolleys. Our grandparents would use these to carry shopping home in the past and unfortunately many of us see trolleys as an item to be used only by the elderly. This perception needs to change! Supermarket car parks are often full and overcrowded and many of the users could walk if No change they were able to carry their shopping home using a trolley. needed The Action plan should be extended to horse riders, local groups including the British No change Horse Society and Stockport Bridleways association needed Please include the BHS so they can advise how to incorporate horse riders so you can No change cater for all vulnerable road users needed Horse Riding and carriage driving must be included as agreed in the initial stages and No change agreed in the government strategy. needed Please include horse riders and other non motorised users. The government's walking and cycling strategy included vulnerable road users and includes horse riders. This is a failure No change on your action plan and discriminatory. needed There is no options for other vulnerable road users, horse and riders. Please include this No change in your action plan. needed

It's very unfair to exclude horse riders and carriage drivers from these plans when they are presented as being for everyone. There need to be parking facilities and access points for horse transport, too. Horse riding and driving are just as important as other leisure and sporting activities and should be included, with consultation with all groups. Stockport could lead the way in No change making co-operative accessible routes for everyone who needs them. needed Please ensure there is provision for horse riders. The contribution to the local economy is No change millions. Also take into account health benefits. needed

You should also include horses as part of your Action Plan. They use the bridleways so No change often and it would be a shame for those routes to be replaced with tarmac. needed Bridleways. This is also important and there are less and less of them around and no No change provision seeming to be made for this important activity needed In the Action plan there is no mention of horse riders despite the Trans Pennine already attracting alot of riding. So any maintenance of this track should include local BHS access officer as a key stakeholder. I have ridden it myself as part of a three day ride and have to say it was very good at the time. It is this kind of infastructure that should be used on all mulit use tracks, the TPT is proof that horses, cyclists and walkers can all use the same No change track with no problems. Leaving the roads to cars keeping everyone sager. needed

It’s unsafe roads, vehicles that pass too close, lack of simple signage and badly placed drainage gates that keep us from being serious cyclists. Netherlands/Denmark - much No change better.... also, legislation re hitting a cyclist should be much tougher needed

There seems to be a focus on Stockport Town Centre - the busiest centre in the Borough - as cyclists and walkers are 'put off' by traffic - why not start with the quieter centres - the measures such as:Review potential impact of walking and cycling signs showing times (instead of or as well as distances) as part of Town Centre wayfinding strategy should be considered for all the local areas - preferably on all Stockport rights of way paths - the signage at present often just is a symbol of a person - no information as to where the path No change is going to - this information may give people the confidence to use the paths. needed When I visited Belgium 20+ years ago and stopped in a village there was always signage showing 3 walks in the area - 2 miles / 4 miles & 6 miles - all marked with signage - so No change there were looped walks available for any visitor to follow. needed Also consider the needs of runners as well as walkers - especially with the huge increase in No change running as a hobby in recent years. needed No change Consider making all rights of way open to walkers / cyclists and horses (as in Scotland) needed

Consider - although more Consider using volunteer groups to put up new walking signage in ROWIP? No change Most of the actions appear to be writing reports - very little action .. needed Objective 6 for example is incomplete (or seems to be as it implies it's listing routes No change to/from but only shows the too section). needed

20MPH neighbourhoods plan has already been proven to be more dangerous then the current 30MPH that's in place and has been halted in various boroughs across Greater Manchester. It might be better to spend time and money putting better traffic calming measures in place, reducing the width of streets and removing off-road parking which is said to naturally reduce peoples speed without the need for speed limit changes. You Not the case - could also take the scheme from Poynton town centre and use that in more places, as a no change driver it's horrible, but it does work in slowing people down. needed

Objective S3.4: Just make people feel safer cycling and walking and they'll do it by default. People I've talked to consider the A6 a death trap for cycling for example as they have to share a lane with buses and up some of Stockport's very steep hills, buses can be quite inconsiderate during heavy traffic to cyclists. Also make sure cycle paths actually go somewhere, the one on Travis Brow is a perfect example, it just stops randomly after the No change bus stop with no, nice, off road way to continue. needed Objective S3.6: Yes, very much so. While the new link road to Travis Brow is being built it's been a nightmare to walk down the A6 into town. Vehicles regularly parked in pavements, inconsistent road surfaces. Random removal of crossings with no reasonable No change replacements. needed

You could add an objective to better integrate cycling into the railway station, making it Already in easier to take bikes on trains or including access to the cycle hub for free if you have a there - no season ticket? change needed

Greater priority should be given to "City region" based objectives which create linked routes throughout different local authority areas. There is little benefit in improving Already in connectivity along the A6 heading north to the borough boundary when there has been no there - no improvements for cyclists on reaching Levenshulme and Longsight. change needed

For me there needs to be an emphasis on safety of off-road paths in darkness hours, especially relevant in winter (adequate lighting, other measures to deter muggings, etc.) No change The Fallowfield Loop, although not in Stockport is a case in point. needed

Also the provision of affordable, safe cycle parking is very important. If you have nowhere Already in to park, it's a deterrent and current provisions are severely lacking. There is mention of there - no cycle parking in the plan but nothing about affordability that I have seen. change needed Friends of Woodbank Park. There is plenty of ‘brown belt’ land which could be turned into cycling areas I.e the old No change Offerton high school land. needed It’s hard to tell at this stage - would be good to see the next stage with some plans of how No change it will be implemented. needed Uncertain on the quality of the provision many routes are of poor quality in running surface or are difficult to use with having to give way every junction if on a shared use path. I am uncertain about the commitment to developing cycle facilities (and walking) that are to a proper standard that users will wish to use and feel safe and get to the destination efficiently and directly. Most of the action plan seems like aspirations and No change words rather than commitments needed

I think S3.8 needs to be given a higher priority. Safety is one of the main reasons I hear against cycling and the danger to cyclists mostly comes from dangerous moter vehicle drivers. For example every day I see drivers distracted by mobile phones, make-up and No change food. Unless this can can be solved cycling will only ever be for the brave. needed Civilise local neighbourhoods; adopt GM Beelines methodology Define network of longer distance quality cycling routes into & through Stockport centre No change from all directions, and linking homes, jobs, schools, etc. needed Part One - the document has no page numbers. I guessed that the tabs in grey were the pages referred to.

Part two - It was completely unintelligible to a normal human who was not familiar with Local Authority and National speak.. Consultations need to be intelligible to those responding Noted Two main areas of focus, firstly a willingness to prioritise the needs of cycle traffic over the ease of access by care. Currently car is king, and unless we change the culture of car access first, we will never see cycling truly flourish. currently we see investment in cycling as long it does not interfere with car travel. Secondly is bike security. Bike storage cannot just be about a bike rack. Ebikes are expensive and easy to steal. Unless we invest in top No change line security and priories bike theft, we will not reach our potential. needed I think pulling in advocacy groups is great but I'd be interested in seeing what the actual No change output of this would be. needed

Making cycling and walking easier is a great idea, but what we need is more public transport. I use the free shuttle several times a week and so many riders are elderly, No change disabled, etc. It's not feasible for them to cycle or walk a mile. needed There needs to be actions related to achieving outreach to an acceptable number of residents, employers, and other relevant organisations such that their engagement is achieved. Agreed Consider updating and There needs to be actions to establish an implementation and action plan with engaged refer to parties which could perhaps be part of the active community implementation. Perhaps Neighbourhood Local Neighbourhood Forums would be another avenue? Plans Section S1.5 does not have any description of what each bullet point is about and the respective benefits of each. Benefits could be textual initially, but at sufficient level to No change enable prioritisation. needed Section S6.1 does not have any description of what each bullet point is about and the respective benefits of each. Benefits could be textual initially, but at sufficient level to No change enable prioritisation. needed No change I’d like to see something on pavement parking. needed

I would like to see concerted efforts to encourage parents to let their children walk, scoot or cycle to school. Across Stockport, the council should commit to exploring the implementation of “School Streets” where temporary traffic restrictions are used to close the road outside a school to traffic each morning and afternoon during pick-up and drop- See above off. This will not be possible in all schools because of their locations but many are on quiet response to streets or at the end of cul-de-sacs and this is a very viable option. this comment

In addition, significant new housing developments are planned across Stockport as part of the spatial framework and this consultation should emphasise that they must all come with top-notch cycling and walking routes and facilities, and not be built around the car. In Romiley, there is concern that the walking route many parents use from the Cherry Tree See above estate past Tangshutt Fields and up to the main road could be compromised by a new repsone to this housing development called Hyde Bank Farm. comment It would be clearer to have short, medium & long term actions grouped together under each objective. It would also help to sort them by expected impact, to highlight the most Happy to effective, high impact ones. consider Objective 1. The proposed network, including all walking and cycling friendly neighbourhoods needs to be clearly mapped in the same way that a map of the Bee Network is emerging. People need to be able to see where they can (or will be able to) confidently walk and cycle without fear of traffic. Signing on the ground also needs to reflect this, so that there is no confusion as to where high quality and walking is available. I suggest all local infrastructure mapping and signing should be consistent with the No change emerging Bee Network standard. needed Objective 2. Encourage is vague and useless. This should be "Enable 'last mile' cycling and walking to provide interconnection with public transport". Agreed Objective 3. Promotion and training should be used to support the other objectives, but should not be an objective by itself. Remember - "Build it and they will come". We can Disagree - no promote it when we've built it, if we need to. change needed M 3.2. Car free events have been shown to be popular. Build on these now. Five years to review the opportunities is just too long. Agreed

S 3.5 is crucial and should be used widely as part of objective 4/5, not hidden away here. Agreed

Objective 4 & 5. These are the key ones to achieving the vision. Combine them, since they share the same actions. Eg. 'Ensure that neighbourhoods and district centres are cycling and walking friendly and that activities in the town centre (employment, residential, retail Disagree - no and leisure) are accessible by bike and on foot'. change needed S 4/5.2. W&CFNs need to be rolled out fast. It needs widespread filtering and 20mph neighbourhoods. It also needs neighbourhood 'gateways', where vehicles must cross any parallel cycle and footways in order to enter all side roads, clearly showing that they do No change not have priority in these areas. needed

One pilot in 5 years is not enough. The strategy will stand or fall on this. Use lots of trials with quick evaluations ie. a temporary, 'Pop Up' W&CFN. It is the same principle for play No change streets, school streets and car free events. "Close it and they will come". needed I am for reducing pollution but for it to be successful you need to consider: Aged/Disabled Already mentioned in previous section. You must have a complimentary public transport policy . Families with school age children/Education To complimemt this you need to ensure all schools have affordable if not free of charge before and after school clubs. If parents work, and a thriving economy is working parents, then to allow them to accomodate the increased eco travel time which I estimate as around 4 x slower walking then their children need something around that. Otherwords you may negatively impact diversity and equal opportunities. Employers Employers are expecting employees to be more agile and carry their laptops with them rather than have a dedicated desk. So that needs to be carried with them. This adds an extra burden to disabled or people with a short or long term condition and it could negatively impact diversity and equal opportunity. It is very rare for even large employers like my own to have sufficient changing/shower facilities to support this. You could influence this by ensuring new builds have this in their plans. For this to succeed you do need to make the cycle lanes large enough and also securely seperate from traffic so women feel and are safe. Please refer to all the research on The Netherlands and this https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/women-cycling No change needed

Already These could be much more ambitious. For example lets just roll out 20mph to all covered with residential areas, off main arterial routes. At present, it is too hit and miss and therefore proposed confusing. One road near me, starts off at 30mph, goes down to 20mph for about 100m borough wide past a school and then goes back up to 30mph. You would get better compliance if there appraoch - no was less ambiguity about what the speed limit is and 20mph was just the "norm". change needed No change needed - Regarding new Rapid Transit schemes etc - it is essential that these do not prevent people picked up in from taking their bikes on routes where it is currently possible to do so. Replacing a train SEMMMS route with Metrolink (which doesn't currently allow bikes) would be a retrograde step. Refresh

No change Re bike parking at stations - lets get some secure facilities within Stockport Station - there needed - cycle is plenty of room on the platforms for a couple of these. hub provided

A greater deal of focus needs to be given to measuring the effectiveness of school and business travel plans, and for penalties to be made where planning applications have been No change dependent on these plans and they have not been effectively managed. needed

Signage on quiet routes needs to alert motorists to the presence of walkers and cyclists, No change and the priority of walkers and cyclists in these areas needs to be clear. needed Priority needs to be given to walkers and cyclists moving across side road entrances over No change cars leaving/entering side roads (especially 20mph zones) needed No change Car free areas around schools should be included, to facilitate walking and cycling needed No change Good quality infrsstructure for walking and cycling makes a big difference to participation. needed Provision or specific consideration for those who commute by running to a place of No change employment. needed

Stockport has good signposting but it could be much more ambitious. Strangers to town may well be willing to walk a surprising distance to get to somewhere but don't know how. Signage mostly seems to give destinations only 5 - 10 minutes walk away, the walking signs really need to be ambitious on behalf of people. As you rightly say, a lot of things end at the boundary, particularly cycle routes, that shouldn't stop you being able to have signs giving cyclists the starting point for travel to Marple, New Mills, Poynton etc. It would be good to have some minimum standards for cycle routes. Little things like must No change not involve steps. needed No change Possibility of providing space for bikes to travel on bus and train services (without prior needed - booking) for multi-modal travellers e.g. having racks on front/back of bus for carrying already bikes. covered I didn't see much about promoting cycling for disabled users (might fall under other parts of plan). As part of network review, need to make sure cycle paths and gates are usable by Consider specially adapted & recumbent bikes. Would be good to have a lending library or adding to subsidised/free hire of specially adapted bikes to make cycling accessible to disabled challenges residents. section

Bike sharing/hire schemes are mentioned, but I would like to see free or heavily subsidised No change bike hire particularly for low-income families, to make it accessible. needed

Possible consideration of introducing some kind of congestion-zone type charge, or No change increased car parking fees in tandem with increased walking/cycling facilities. Limit the need - picked number of private hire vehicles and the activity of companies like Uber in the city centre. up elsewhere Please please please can we not have cycle routes that go over cobbles? I know they look No change nice but my undercarriage suffers greatly. Thanks. needed Is there a public consultation planned where it would be see the plans on paper and to No change discuss your plans face to face ? needed Do not let anybody who has previously been involved in road design in Stockport anywhere near this as most of the problems are what they designed.(just look at what you did to High Lane, Windlehurst Rd junction. Its now scary to ride up there because of what you designed and built)!! Physically speak to cycling commuters and ask them whats best.(yes i know that means leaving the office) There are many cycling clubs in Stockport, have you asked them? No change needed Massive police/council crackdown on drivers using mobile phones,speeding, illegal parking No change and close passes on cyclists needed

Well-meaning , and useful, but I'm afraid I struggle to read and 'take in' this sort of multi- faceted plan, although I know it's what the authorities require. I'm sceptical about the publicity and training side - although I have no car and use the bike for shopping and other No change local trips, many people will not accept that it is safe. needed Sadly, many motorists and walkers believe that cyclists are a nuisance - and in many cases they are right. What can be done to address this and win public support? I have no idea No change how this can be achieved. needed Any significant reduction in car traffic is going to be very hard to achieve by creating No change 'shared paths' which only work when cyclists are only occasional users. needed A safe, protected (properly segregated, not just paint on the road) cycleway along the full length of the A6, from Hazel Grove to the Manchester boundary. That will do a great deal No change to tempt more people to cycle instead of driving. needed

No change It would be good to see Stockport Council appoint a "lead councillor" for cycling and needed - being walking (and preferably one who actually cycles). looked at As discussed above, the vision is excellent but the short-to-medum term actions lack the No change ambition required to achieve the vision. needed

Even as a motorist, I understand that we cannot go on prioritising convenient motorised travel over active travel. Air pollution, climate change and ill health caused by a sedentary lifestyle are all national emergencies, and we need the most radical possible measures to No change address them. If this means it is harder for me to drive my car, so be it. needed The new a555 has drawn more traffic on previously more quiet routes we used. Torkington lane and threaphurst lane and windlehurst road routes taken to access middlewood way. No consideration as to these issues and cyclist safety on these lanes. Other than useless No change quiet lane signs. needed

Security (cctv) overlooking at least one or two cycle points in the town for those leaving No change bikes for several hours. Also, getting employers on board to provide changing facilities and needed - secure cycle parking for employees. already in there

To tackle the issue of providing continual cycle lanes and routes, could the council consider building some tunnels which could for example provide a continuous pathway across a roundabout junction. Cyclists hate having to stop and start again at traffic lights and junctions and this would help boost cycling popularity because it really can be faster than using the car by beating the traffic lights and roundabouts. Another idea to help solve the steep terrain issues in Stockport could be to build some circular ramps... Rather like a helter-skelter in reverse which the cyclists and walkers can make use of a shallow gradient as it climbs. Then allow for some exit spots at different heights where the walker or cyclist needs to exit from the "helter-skelter". Could the council even build a cycle super highway that is elevated right across the town? Again with various exit ramps to descend down in to town which solves having to cycle or walk up steep hills. Extra bridges built across the river mersey to access the trans pennine No change trail would be very useful too. Are these ideas just too mad and futuristic? needed I read recently that the Dutch were financially rewarding the public to cycle in order to further increase the popularity of cycling. They were paid a small amount per mile of their journey to and from work. Just a thought... No change needed Overall a good plan that needs implementing with conviction. Cycling in Stockport during busy periods is dangerous and a great deal of cars use the rat runs to avoid traffic - these No change back streets are the only solace that cyclists have. needed

Existing walkways and pavements have overgrown grass and are narrowing the pavement by the Middlewood way. This is an accident waiting to happen as children use this footpath to walk to school and currently have to walk on the road against on coming NO change trucks going 40 plus MPH I think you need to address these issues firstly needed Unfortunately, I think unless you have really good cycle lanes, people will not use their No change bikes to cycle short distances. needed Parts of the A6, where quiet, could possibly have shared pavements, priority pedestrian No change and cycle crossings at traffic junctions. needed Large lorries should be banned from town and city centres during the day, deliveries No change should be planned for night time. needed No chang Safety of walker on shared foot paths needed Not change Speed limit for all cyclists on foot paths needed Distance in time would be good. Making a legal requirement for minimum distance No change vehicles have to give cyclists as they do in France needed No change Better access to middlewood way ! needed Could include in options Community walk schemes that are supported by local employers. section The left turn out of Windlehurst Rd, onto the A6, has a pedestrian crossing with lights which causes holdups if the lights change to red and stops the traffic flowing, slowing the exiting of traffic from Windlehurst.

It would be useful if the section of the A555 from Brookside Garden centre up to High Lane had a sign advising traffic to get into lane, ready to either turn left towards Stockport, or right towards High Lane. This may help to stop the aggressive behaviour of drivers, when cars try to 'jump the queue' to the lights at peak times. The A6 in High Lane is LETHAL due to the toxic pollutant emissions.

The council has a moral and ethical duty to protect it’s citizens from this by making our borough’s public transport system a countrywide benchmark. Once the roads are less congested and less noxious then people will be far happier to walk and cycle.

A preliminary plan for ensuring as many people as possible use public transport. Tackling the barriers to cycling/walking such as cost of purchasing equipment or hiring out bicycles etc for some groups in the area. This could be subsidised by incentives offered by local businesses maybe?

Acknowledgement of the poor quality of the existing cycling infrastructure (almost no segregated cycle routes, routes with stairs on! etc...) Acknowledgement that the dreadful behaviour of motorists discourages people from walking and cycling (and spending time in local centres). Although I'm impressed and encouraged by the contents of this plan I've no confidence in SMBC's ability to implement any part of it. Your track record in this area is appalling. Just take the Middlewood way - 2.5 miles in SMBC's control and it's taken 40 years for you to do any sort of maintenance. For years you left it as a muddy, overgrown and neglected pathway. What confidence do we have any new path will be maintained if delivered in the first place. Middlewood station within Stockport boundary has no safe and usable access. This would be an easy win if SMBC were capable and willing to improve pedestrian access to public transport. The canal towpaths are underwater when ever it rains. Why not work with the C&RT to create mud free towpaths on all the boroughs towpath. It's not hard for SMBC to achieve some positive improvements to safe cycle and pedestrian route. So instead of wasting time and effort in creating plans, blueprints etc get out there and do something practical and a benefit to your taxpayers and residents You mention but I don't think you emphasise sufficiently the need to separate cycle routes from motor traffic - the only safe option. You don't specifically mention identifying where pavement space is wide enough or can be widened to allow separate cycle and walking lanes. In this case, notices and careful junction design are essential to avoid pedestrian danger of walking into the path of fast moving cycles.

(There is a bad example of this risk in Manchester at the road junction by the City Arms on the way to First Street; and Munich makes great provision for cyclists - very commendable - but pedestrians stepping off pedestrian crossings are in danger of being crashed into)

The needs of horse riders are not included. This is especially concerning when these routes include currently accessed by horses e.g. the Transpennine trail and other bridleways Please consider the needs of horse riders. Riding on roads is becoming increasingly dangerous and safe off road routes are needed. these can easily be combined with walking and cycling and other users

Any mention or consideration if equestrians and their pressing need to get off the roads. Promises to build the segregated infrastructure and cycle lanes now. It cannot be an aim or a vision. It must be ACTION. There are too many Low cost points on there, we need big ticket infrastructure which will get folk out of their cars and keep people safe that ride. The town is made for it. Horse Riding and carriage driving are important activities and very important for the local and national economy.

Include horse rider and where possible carriage driving. Do not tarmac the whole width. A 50.50 split grass and hard surface work best for dog walkers and all vulnerable road users. There are many examples of the best practice surfaces.

Horse Riding and carriage driving is a very important leasure activity and carriage driving is a very important leasure activity. This enables disabled people to access the country side.

Horse Riding and carriage driving are important to the local economy and play an important role in the health and wellbeing agenda. They are also vulnerable road users and need to be included in your plan, this was agreed in early consultation. Simply add a cycle lane to every road in Stockport - especially the A6. Roads are for cyclists. Simple. Cost effective. Access and off road bridle tracks for horses and riders. Please can you consider Horses and riders in your objectives. We do not want to use the roads they are far to dangerous, but you are not providing us with anywhere else to go. To co exist with cyclists and walkers, speed limits can be put in place for both, left and right side riding on the tracks for passing. This can work, it needs to be implemented for the safety of all. The inclusion of horse riders. Please dont think that equestrians are unruly and gallop about. In any element even cyclists you will find uneducated rude people. But equestrianism is a booming industry. Please include an intelligent and all-inclusive consultation for all potential users before committing to this highly exclusive plan. Yes, getting the less able out on electric bikes is a good idea, too, but there are RDA and carriage driving groups, too. If Stockport genuinely wants to address the needs of all, then it should do so, and include horses wherever possible.

I am truly astonished and disappointed that such an exclusive plan is being discussed at such a late stage. Why were disabled groups, such as the RDA, not included? And the BHS can't have been consulted? Why not, when there has been so much publicity recently about deaths and injuries of riders, carriage drivers and horses on the roads? This plan is not addressing the true needs of Stockport's residents now or in the future. That horses should be considered in this plan and it would be a shame for the routes, that are also bridleways, to be replaced with tarmac. A complete disregards for horse riders who ( and I don't think this is sexist just the truth) are a group primarily made up of women and children whereas cyclists are by the majority men. Lets keep the women and children safe also. A major barrier to cycling is the level of aggression shown towards cyclists by motorists, this is not tackled by the plan. The aims are good, success hinges on how the plan is implemented. More ideas on how to tackle driver aggression/hatred of cyclists!

Actions aimed at reducing anti-social behaviour along cycle routes e.g. I recently cycled along one of the cycle paths in Stockport alone and felt very vulnerable as a lone female cyclist as drug abuse was taking place under a bridge on the cycle route - this does not encourage cycling, probably especially for people travelling alone. I agree with your comments that more pedestrians and cyclists travelling on routes is likely to reduce this but I think this might need more targetting intervention e.g. local police involvement, ways in which pedestrians/cyclists could easily report this type of behaviour.

I think the plan is very positive and welcome the ideas to reduce road congestion, encourage physical activity and improve air quality/reduce carbon emissions. It is very good that finally the link between active transport and tackling obesity is being recognized. It is better to encourage physical activity through walking/cycling rather than what seems to have been recommended to people in the past i.e. drive to a gym to take exercise thus increasing air pollution/congestion and costing a lot for individuals. I'm pleased to see that cycling is being made more accessible for those on low incomes and that walking/cycling have been identified as lower cost transport options. I only skim read the plan but wholly support the improvement of quality and quantity of cycling lanes. These cycle paths should inter-connect as many areas around stockport as possible. Perhaps a shorter, snapshot view of the plan would encourage more people to read it and feedback. The measurements of success seem a little unambitious e.g. 'there will be an increase in'. How much of an increase? By this, one more cycle lane or one more person cycling counts as a success?

Improvement of Didsbury road to encourage cycling. Enforcement of no parking on pavement and in cycle lanes. Increased facilities for secure sheltered bike parking around suburban and town centre locations, eg railway station, shops.

Commitment to maintain pavement and cycle lanes re ice and leaf clearance, litter etc. So pleased you are tackling this. Very best wishes. Oh , maybe some pumps around the place? More could be done about public transit. Both in terms of provision and cost. Lots of the ideas seem very good (as a pedestrian), but if I were a driver I'm not sure it would encourage me out of my car. Streets need to be cleaner and have better lighting. I walked to a local church for a meeting this evening (everyone else drove) ... it was dark, the pavements had litter on them and the street lighting was dreadful.

This seems like a waste of tax payer £££ .... just fix the cycle paths and clean up the broken glass from the streets. Need better signage too.. AND - maybe a real way to get people cycling would be to start a pilot for mums/dads ... rent out electric cargo bikes for the school run. This would be the proper way to get people cycling.

Stockport currently lacks a facility to report defects to non-highway paths and rights of way online. While I can report a pothole online and see it filled in by the end of the week, the only way to report a footpath fault is apparently to phone the central switchboard - and I doubt anything would happen as a result. If you can be so proactive over keeping highways in good condition, the same attention needs to be given to rights of way, which are usually much more crucial for people to actually move around.

Some better way of following Stockport's cycling and walking developments would be welcome. I can't usually attend the user groups, and the Cycling User Group minutes in particular are rarely ever updated properly online (and there seems to be no archive available). A Twitter feed would be great to not only share the latest developments in improving cycling and walking in the borough but to promote what a great place Stockport is to enjoy these methods of travel.

Finally - regarding canals, I hope the council can work much closer with the Canal & River Trust to improve these towpaths. At the minute I'm not aware of any interaction between the two parties. In Tameside, they used Cycle City Ambition Grant funding to transform the towpath of the Peak Forest Canal there. I desperately hope Stockport could do the same to the stretch through Romiley and Marple towards New Mills, it would provide such a boost to active travel and in fact, tourism and town centre vitality. Don't destroy green spaces/cut down trees etc to put in cycle routes. Exercise is good and should help people to become more healthy but sadly encouraging more walking and cycling won't significantly reduce traffic and pollution which is the big problem particularly at rush hours. The plan needs a greater focus on the needs of walkers/pedestrians. At the moment there is too much consideration of how cyclists who should be on the highway are pandered too. Teach them how to ride in traffic. Teach the traffic how to deal with cyclists and return the pavements to pedestrians. Pedestrian crossings should be direct crossings not lots of little hops that leave you getting wet in the rain The pedestrian facilities would be improved with better drainage of the roads so that you were not splashed by cars all the time when using them. Its not just about accessibility its also being safe for all to use Make sure the cycleways are safe for all to use with adequately lit pathways for females unlike the A555 which has no lighting Just get on with the signage - don't just write another report. Use volunteers / ramblers / cycling clubs to assist in signage Remove stiles and replace with pushchair / buggy / dog friendly gates - increasing access to the countryside.

Considering widening all footpaths to make them buggy friendly and open to cyclists All recommendations for Stockport Town Centre are probably relevant to local centres - where people may be more open to considering walking / cycling You need to make more use of filtered neighbourhoods - it's crucial to eliminate rat runs and slow down traffic in redisential areas. For instance, I live in Reddish, and cycling in residential streets is very dangerous as cars speed down them to avoid the Gorton Road/Longford Rd West Junction. Your plans won't work if people are too scared to cycle on their own streets.

I also think you really need to bid for Beelines funding for segregated cycle lanes on Reddish Road and other key main routes into Stockport. I'd love to be able to cycle into town, but am put off due to the very poor existing infrastructure - therefore I always drive in, adding to existing traffic. The money is there, it just needs to be bid for. It doesn't feel like it emphasises integration with other transport methods enough, it mentions cycle hubs around communities but less around other points such as bus stops (as I'd be more likely to cycle to a bus stop and want to drop my bike off then just in a random place). It also doesn't really seem to mention how if Stockport is my final destination, how I would then switch to cycling to complete my last leg, just that there should be an emphasis on that. Also, it doesn't really feel like it's making town planning walking and cycling first. There's lots of talk about selling the idea of walking or cycling places, but I would expect more of the plan to be about ways of improving the places to walk and cycle before you'd be looking at advertising them. Also it doesn't really mention about personal safety and how the infrastructure might be improved in that aspect to make people feel safer walking about out of peak daylight hours. *Don't* keep doing what you're doing at the moment whatever you do. I walk from my house to the train station for my commute and over the last twelve months I feel less safe and less like the council wants to encourage me to continue that walk. All the recent Town Centre Access plan decisions feel like they've not been thought about from the point of view of a pedestrian and it's just been tacked on at the end. Only that default car is the wrong way - vision to join GMPT like Greater London And completely integrates bus and train travel pedestrian safety waste of tax payers money

Consider a segregated cycle superhighway system similar to those which have been created to date aside the main primary road arteries around Nottingham and those additional which are planned around the city and surroundings. Creation of a safe, segregated cycling route and consequently reducing vehicle capacity on the highway becomes an impetus for a greater use of sustainable transport. Perhaps even consider a local business tax on town centre business premises private parking spaces i.e. as has been the case in Nottingham city centre for a number of years. Such a tax has reduced the number of cars journeying to business premises during each working day and hence has "promoted" a cheaper alternative - using the new cycle superhighway infrastructure.

For cycling to work, it needs to be at least as convenient and safe as the car, and have an advantage over the car. I have not sufficiently studied the plan to form an opinion on whether I think it will deliver that for sure, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. Consideration for the natural beauty and wildlife of the Park, and a total lack of stopping off road motorbikes. Invest in proper cycle lanes on the main arterial road networks.

I support the development of segregated cycle paths where appropriate, but they are expensive. On carriageway routes can be effective if maintained properly, clearly demarcated and where parking is prohibited. Over time, the lines marking out cycle lanes and advanced stop lines wear out and then motorists ignore them. I strongly support development of strategic cycle network routes that link together to provide reasonably direct routes, rather than those that meander around side roads, lengthening journey times.

Consider adoption more widely of 'considerate cycling permitted' paths and signs where shared paths are not wide enough for pedestrians and cyclists to have separate lanes.

Advanced stop lines (S3.8) are useful but too often ignored by motorists, who seem ignorant of the law. Better enforcement and education would be helpful! I think sometimes people have to be given little choices in certain instances. We all know traffic is vastly reduced when schools are off. I live opposite a primary school and the amount of cars is staggering, i know lots of people that won't walk half a mile to school. These people are a nuisance, they speed, park on pavements, it's an accident waiting to happen. There should be no parking around the schools so they are forced to walk the remainder. Acknowledgement that off-road cycleways are impossible to use for much of the year, because of icy conditions, or because they are unlit, seems to be missing. If it's not suitable for a 12 year old child to use on their own, it isn't cycling infrastructure. It might be nice for leisure trips in the summer, but it won't get people out of cars for 99% of journeys. So any off-road infrastructure must be complimented by on-road but safely segregated cycleways. There needs to be a radical shift to waking and cycling for most local journeys if were are to have any change of averting climate catastrophe and want to make Stockport a more pleasant and healthy place to live. Be bold. Better air quality routes for walking and cycling linking the key localities. Eg heaton chapel / moor to stockport. Avoidance of A6 and improved provision. It is very tame - unlikely to result in the step change suggested. Bahaviour change is very difficult - very few areas mentioned in this plan are new.

More emphasis on the potential of the Bee Network - this is a huge opportunity for funding. Neighbourhood schemes will be key and should look to examples of Waltham Forest and the way Levenshulme have developed their funding bid. Bigger highway schemes will be necessary too but don't forget about the other approaches such as the filtered neighbourhoods/mini Holland's

A plan giving an indication of actual schemes and improvements - where are the focusses - what are you proposing to do in the various time frames etc. Would be easier to comment and understand what the various aims actually translate to. A list of improvements along some corridors is provided but little new in how to achieve the aspirations No real substance ? It talks about improved signage and some improved routes but nothing that will great a modal shift or say you will provide routes that are useable, safe and direct to allow me to leave the car behind. I will becoming from the Gatley area and am very disappointed with the plan. I hope it can be implemented quickly and completely.

Clear assessment of existing network. This needs to precede a strategy, not be part of it. Action to improve walking must include tackling parking on pavements. Consideration for those unable to walk distances and provision of resting places. Those with agorafobia may have a view and those in areas rich in cars need provision for those without cars and cycles

The places that are more than a mile out where walking is hard as there are no pavements two main areas of focus, firstly a willingness to prioritise the needs of cycle traffic over the ease of access by care. Currently car is king, and unless we change the culture of car access first, we will never see cycling truly flourish. currently we see investment in cycling as long it does not interfere with car travel. Secondly is bike security. Bike storage cannot just be about a bike rack. Ebikes are expensive and easy to steal. Unless we invest in top line security and priories bike theft, we will not reach our potential. Details. I understand that this is a vision document but I'd really like to see some concrete plans that are bold particularly around traffic segregation. I've cycled to work for the past 4 years and the cycle lane alongside the A6MARR has made a massive difference to my commute in terms of feeling safe. If we want more people to cycle they have to feel safe in doing so. Most of the 'hard core' cycle commuters in my place of work have been involved in road traffic accidents over the past 4 years. I'm really glad to see the the council are taking this seriously, but it goes without saying that to be successful this is going to require money and some ambitious plans if it is to be successful.

Understand this is a vision but would really find it helpful to have a case study or two if possible to get a sense of where some of this work might be seen on the ground

Would just stress that air pollution and congestion is definitely an issue day to day and would welcome all efforts to improve these issues

Increased public transportation. Is anyone actually using the cycle hub near Connect church? I only ever see one bicycle in there during the workday, if any at all. GM Police involvement

Education / discussion / information for drivers of motor vehicles

Really delighted there is a good plan.

It's noticeable that there isn't much in the way of segregated and joined-up cycling infrastructure along most of the A6, in and around central Stockport and between Manchester and Stockport.

I particularly welcome suggestions to improve walking and, in particular, cycling, along the A6. Nearly all of the cycling I do is my commute between Great Moor and Stockport Town Hall. The A6 is by far the most direct route. However, I do try to avoid it, especially at peak times, as it does not feel at all safe, particularly in heavy traffic (including HGVs and buses). The amount of potholes and sunken drain covers at the side of the road are a further deterrent (particularly when puddles form and it's harder to gauge depth of holes, or even know they're there).

Looking at the map of cycle routes, there does seem to be a particular gap in the centre of the Borough where there are no cycle routes. I would therefore welcome any measures to make the centre of the Borough more accessible to cyclists.

There is nothing in the plan about political leadership. There has been a gap in councillor involvement in cycling for at least 3 years. Cycling seems to be catered for “under the radar”, rather than something which needs to be actively driven. Also, how is ‘active communities’ going to be driven politically? The creation of a high quality portal on the Stockport website which would provide a consistent, coherent and comprehensive information resource about cycling and walking in Stockport to which this plan applies. At present information is sparse and it’s only by being made aware of various consultations that one can get part way knowledgeable about what might be going on. The portal should contain an index of every consultation imminent or underway, which is relevant to current activities together with tracking information on implementation progress. It should provide guidance on the best or intended cycling routes across the borough as these evolve.

If I want to cycle into Stockport town centre it should be easy for me to find cycle parking places on-line, together with indication as to whether these are secure.

The section on monitoring doesn’t give any quantifiable outcomes. The first objective should include measures for engagement. Where are the reports for assessment kept and these should be made visible on a portal on an ongoing basis.

In the appendices it shows that cycling take up is greater in Trafford than in Stockport. Why is this? And what could be copied from what Trafford have been doing? In the Executive Summary it states this is a fundamental part of the Stockport Active Communities Strategy, but doesn’t point to any documentation – I’ve never seen this so how would I know how this plan fits in?

In the introduction it talks about “a whole systems approach to active communities” but I’ve no idea what this is because there’s no reference to any information on this. It also talks about “and includes cycling and walking as a key programme” without reference to what that wider programme consists of. There is nothing in the actions section about inter- linkages with the active communities programme, surely walking and cycling shouldn’t be implemented without being part of the bigger implementation plan?

I think that thought should be given as to who the audience is for this document. At one level it’s not got enough detail for experienced cyclists, and at another level it requires a deeper knowledge of the area’s facilities or proposals than a casual reader might have. How would newcomers to these subjects be sufficiently knowledgeable on the various external activities and plans? How has this plan been publicised, how is it being measured as sufficient, and how will the level of engagement be measured? If this hasn’t reached the target audience for active communities, then what’s the chances of it getting a high level of support from residents?

The maps in the documents are too small to read e.g. Figure 11.9 and Appendix 5. These need to be in a format that can be panned and zoomed interactively. The existing network looks disjointed and unsatisfactory to meet the needs of an active community. Also how does the network measure up against Chris Boardman’s measures or being fit for a 12 year old to cycle on their own? I liked the diagram of gateways to neighbouring authorities even though I couldn’t read all the detail, but what’s missing is the linkage to action plans. Its been seen elsewhere, e.g. Bristol, that it’s the diagrams which get people enthused once they can see where the routes are that they could use. Despite some of my comments appearing critical I do like the document and fully support the plan being followed up on. Page numbers! You refer me to pages 17 to 23 but the pages aren't numbered! The short term plan doesn't do everything it could in terms of signage. It talks about local signs, really close to destination. It needs signed routes to get people from A to B where A and B might be two miles apart from each other. It would be such an easy win, it needs someone to look at where people might want to go, figure out a safe back roads route and signpost it. Like you do with the racecourse estate which is fab. Just more.

This is a golden opportunity for Stockport to address the high pollution levels from vehicle traffic, by enabling people to use other forms of transport. And people will only do that if they feel safe doing so. If we provide safe cycling infrastructure, many more people would use their bikes for short journeys to work, to schools, to shops - but it must be SAFE

Particular areas of concern are the crossing of the A6 at the end of Heaton Moor Road and at the cross roads on Manchester Road and Broadstone Road. Also the corner of Mauldeth Road near Thornfield Park. Both these junctions are very poor for potential cyclists. 1. There is no mention of pavement parking which makes it hard to walk on pavements and often forces people to walk on the road (often with buggys).

2. It is impossible to plan journeys on a bike if the cycle path is closed but you only find out en-route, forcing you onto busy roads. I have never been given a signed, safe alternative route. Can there be an easily accessible place I can check to see if my route is closed? This is easy to check if I drive or take the train.

3. Itd be good to see other cycling info so I can see where the accident/cycle theft hot spots are so I can avoid them. Id like to see what action is taken after accidents by the police or the council to see if things can be made safer. This also applies to attacks on cyclists - you hear about them and if nothing is done it seems dangerous to cycle on off road paths. And a map of parking hoops. You can plan a route and then get to cheadle and find you can’t stay and shop cos there’s only one cycle hoop and it’s popular.

4. It’d be nice to have the paths safe in the bad weather. Can these be gritted? It seems unfair that people in cars can move around but people not in cars can’t.

Please see the previous answer. Plus I want the plan to spell out what Stockport has bid for from Beelines/Bee Network/the Mayor’s Challenge Fund so far, and a clear indication of what has been approved. A long section of the A6 has been marked as the ‘big ticket item’ but has a proposal been submitted to Chris Boardman et al? I also think the plan is far too general. I live in Romiley, which has one of the lowest walking and cycling rates in Stockport and yet this plan offers no firm proposals for Romiley at all – or indeed anywhere else. While I welcome this consultation exercise and indeed anything which looks to get people out of their cars and on to two feet and two wheels, a meaningful plan would be much more specific about what will change, where and ideally when.

A clear goal. eg. All Stockport neighbourhoods should be walking and cycling friendly and connected to the local high quality C&W network and Bee Network within 10 years. The plan clearly recognises that walking and cycling should replace cars for most shorter journeys, identifies plenty of opportunities and proposes lots of actions that could help. However it does not focus on the real barriers to walking and cycling and how these need to be removed systematically in order to achieve the vision.

Walking or riding needs to feel like the Safe, Easy and Normal choice. In our currently hostile traffic environment they often feel like none of these. All actions and interventions need to score well against the Safe/ Easy/ Normal criteria, for significant numbers of people to prefer walking or cycling over the alternatives.

There are extensive examples of good practice that make active travel safe, easy and normal, both nationally and from abroad. Unfortunately, many of our interventions address only part of the problem and are not effective. For example, we may provide a safe crossing over a busy road, but it involves a lengthy detour, riders dismounting and pressing a button to request to cross then a long wait for a green light. So while safe, the intervention fails because it is not easy (convenient) and makes walkers and riders wait until the 'normal' road users have passed through in their vehicles. Too often, walking or cycling are simply not valued compared to the alternative. Therefore, they will not be most people's preference.

Walking and cycling need to be equally or more attractive than the alternatives. Achieving this will involve high quality interventions that prioritise (or at least equalise) walking and cycling and often make local driving less convenient. While the plan contains lots of good stuff, I don't think it provides a coherent strategy to achieve the vision. Awareness, reference and links to wider GM work such as GM Moving Local Pilot and the Walking Region Ambition A pedestrian will walk if they want to walk regardless . What you are doing to Abney is pure vandalism on a small green lung in the area . To achieve the step change required then the walkers an cyclists need to be prioritised over motorists. If we can make the local neighbourhoods (20 mph zones), local centres, and areas around schools a priority for walkers and cyclists then that step change can be achieved. The cycleway on the A6MARR saw some compromises which weren't made on the highway part. of the build. It is interesting to read in this report that steep gradients in the borough may act as a barrier, when one bridge on the A6MARR cycleway imposes a very steep gradient with a sharp corner.