“To assess the justification for a pedestrian crossing and its type we use a crossing justification assessment which effectively evaluates the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. This is a calculation that uses the number of pedestrians crossing and the volume of traffic. Most Local Authorities, including ourselves, use a crossing assessment taking into consideration the types of pedestrians, the different types of vehicles, the vulnerability of pedestrians plus community links etc. as detailed in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

For any type of crossing there needs to be a recognised requirement for people to cross the road throughout the day both on a relatively regular basis and in a focussed location, as opposed to spread along a length of road, for example where there are a number of well used shops or a community hall, library, school etc. However, we tend not to be able to justify crossings that are used by a few people sporadically through the day, especially signalised crossings.

Surveys were carried out on Allendale Road on 13/06/2019, within the vicinity of the existing dropped kerb crossing near the roundabout and the crossing assessment produced a result of 0.381 a value that is below the threshold for the provision of a pedestrian crossing facility. For a 'dropped' crossing we would be looking at a score of between 0.4-0.7, for a zebra crossing we would be looking at 0.7-0.9 and for a controlled puffin crossing we would be looking at 0.9 and above.

On Allendale Road off the roundabout there is a dropped kerb crossing with tactile paving and a central refuge which is in accordance with these results. We would therefore not be able to justify a controlled crossing at this location, an underutilised crossing can cause more issues for pedestrian safety than having no crossing at all and in this instance, this could be the case.

Another factor that would determine whether we would implement measures is the recorded injury accident history and there are thankfully no recorded injury accidents at this location on this stretch of road.

Our investigation has concluded that at this time there is no evidence to suggest that a controlled crossing facility should be provided at this location.

If pedestrians find it difficult and unsafe to cross at the junction, then they do have the option to cross further up the road near John Boden Way, where there is a dropped kerb crossing provided and visibility is better.”

• There is no sign that any research has gone into how you move the bulk of the population to take up the active travel option. This has been achieved on the continent using a carrot and stick approach. This strategy appears to be based merely on offering a very small carrot and no stick. To bring about a fundamental change we need to make the easiest option walking and cycling and taking the car the least convenient. This could be done at quite low cost by blocking routes to cars with simple gates/planters etc. as appropriate that walkers, cyclists, motorcyclist and mobility scooters can easily by pass. The gates would have locks that emergency vehicles could open and where there is a bus route rising bollards that could be lowered for an approaching bus or authorised vehicle with the correct technology.
• An easy and low cost measure would surely be a uniform 20mph zone for the central areas of Loughborough, Quorn and Shepshed.
• we are pleased that the corridor from the railway station to the town centre is included; this is a corridor with great potential for more active travel, but which currently has a very poor environment for cycling in particular. For the Ashby Road corridor, for which there certainly is great demand for active travel, the study appears to have ignored the potential of routes to the south of Ashby Road that connect the town centre to the University. Indeed, there is already a signed route for cyclists along minor roads, and if there are improved facilities to cross Epinal Way (which is also on the shortlist), these routes will become more attractive. The Forest Road roundabout is on the shortlist for improvement, but there are other roundabouts on the A6004, particularly at Shelthorpe and Allendale Road, where the existing cycle facilities are sub-standard or even dangerous, so should also be a high priority for improvement.
• Of the corridors in the long list: the A6 corridor, both to the NW and SE of the town centre, is currently quite a hostile environment for cycling, except for a few stretches where there are existing cycle facilities, and should be a high priority for improvement.
• The general thrust of the proposed improvements is good, but some of the detail in the Concept Designs appears inadequate; and it is important to note that a cycle route is only as attractive and effective as its weakest link. In particular, mixed traffic cycling on Nottingham Road and Ashby Road would be very unattractive to less confident cyclists; note that Section 7.1 of LTN1/20 (referred to in the LCWIP) concerns to streets with light traffic, which does not apply to Nottingham Road or Ashby Road.
• There are also several locations where it is proposed to take space from pedestrians to create cycle facilities, which could actually discourage walking and wheeling (as well as being a poor second-best as a cycling facility). A much bolder vision is needed, with space taken from motor traffic to provide attractive routes for active travel.
• The so-called Concept Designs seem to have a lot of detail already worked out; please consult Loughborough & District Cycle Users’ Campaign before any designs are finalised.
• Looking at the measures proposed, most are (not surprisingly) concerned with improving the flow of traffic. But where are the mitigation measure to help non motorised users? For example, at the "A6 / A6004 Signalisation of roundabout with bus gate and localised widening", the existing cycle crossing of Loughborough Road to Quorn will lose its central refuge, meaning you will have to cross the road in one go, despite heavier and faster traffic. Similarly the A46 between Wanlip and Syston appears to lose its existing cycle and footway to road widening. Surely it should be retained and brought up to LTN1/20 standards
• The text is full of talk about prioritising cycling, walking and wheeling, but when you get to the designs for roundabout improvements at the end, there’s nothing planned for the two worst roundabouts on the A6004, and the plans for the other roundabouts don’t help cyclists at all. The left turn bypass at Beacon Road / Epinal Way is a bizarre idea!