That is all lovely, except:

1. why doesn’t the Council now know what exists in terms of cycling?  I have been writing to my Council reps and my MP for years about what exists and what is needed;
2. nothing will be improved unless there are dedicated, ring-fenced funds to pay for the people and the materials.  

Adding comments to the interactive map seems a waste of time.  The cycling infrastructure that I want, and that I suspect all bicyclists want, is what now exists in northwest Europe (Denmark, Netherlands, Germany) and cycle-conscious parts of the United States (Portland & Eugene, Oregon, parts of New York City, etc).  We want the design of the transport system to put the needs of pedestrians and cyclists FIRST and the needs of automobilists and the transport industry (e.g., lorries) second. 

Currently, all transport planning in the UK is the other-way-around.   Everyone needs to realise that roads were not built for cars or lorries.  The road system we now use was lobbied for by bicyclists of the late 19th and early 20th century.  Motorists hijacked the roads and pedestrians and cyclists have suffered ever since.  This has been carefully documented by Carlton Reid in his book ‘Roads Were Not Built for Cars: How Cyclists Were the First to Push for Good Roads & Became the Pioneers of Motoring’.

The Leicestershire County Council does not have to start from scratch on this – which is the way the published documents make is sound.  There are UK national groups, such as CyclingUK and Sustrans, that have effective programmes in place and knowledgeable people on staff. 

1. ‘Why doesn’t the Council now know what exists in terms of cycling? I have been writing my County, Borough and Village reps and my MP for years about what exists and what is needed.’

   The County Council recognises the importance and value of seeking feedback to help inform its plans, which is why we are undertaking significant engagement throughout the development of each Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). In the case of LCWIP development, this is not just about finding out what additional things people might wish to see but also finding out peoples’ views on existing facilities. All feedback is then considered alongside the evidence and data obtained through the LCWIP development process, as defined by the Department for Transports guidance.

   As part of our stakeholder engagement work to help shape the LCWIP’s, we contact many stakeholder organisations, which includes CyclingUK and SUSTRANS, asking for their feedback on the plans. There will also be further opportunities to feedback on the final draft LCWIP documents next year, which will be publicised through various channels, including our ‘have your say’ page. We welcome any further feedback you may wish to make as part of that engagement.

2. ‘Nothing will be improved unless there are dedicated, ring-fenced funds to pay for the people and the materials.’

   As you point out funding is key to the delivery of future improvement schemes. As highlighted in the autumn Leicestershire Matters publication, and on the LCC website page, the authority faces significant budget pressures as the lowest funded county council under the Government’s funding system. As shown in the table below taken from the LCC webpage, the authority faces significant pressure on its limited resources requiring it to focus on those statutory services that protect and care for the most vulnerable.
   

Notwithstanding the above, the authority is dedicating funding to improving active travel focused on encouraging and enabling, through behaviour change programmes under our Choose How You Move brand as detailed here, and secondly on developing LCWIPs for county towns and the urban fringe surrounding Leicester City, as set out in our cycling and walking strategy (CaWS).

LCC’s CaWS is closely aligned with the Government Gear Change plan, and latest cycling design guidance LTN 1/20, which takes many influences from Dutch design principles and as such LCWIP and resulting schemes will be designed in consideration of these design principles.

LCWIP are the mechanism by which to secure external funding from sources such as land developers and bids to central Government. Government has made it clear LCWIP or similar evidenced plans are required for LA’s to be eligible to bid for future active travel funding. However, it should be noted that Active Travel England (the new agency responsible for allocating active travel funding to LA’s) has a budget of £500m for the next three years for the whole of England, which is unlikely to be sufficient to deliver all LA’s aspirations, given the cost of infrastructure schemes. Nonetheless, LCC remains committed to encouraging and enabling active travel in Leicestershire and will continue to maximise opportunities to secure future funding to deliver improvement schemes set out in the LCWIPs once approved.