Slide 1: 

Thank you very much for taking the time to contribute to the Kent Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan process, referred to as the KCWIP. In this video, we will provide a background to LCWIPs and an overview of the work that has gone into the KCWIP to date. There is an additional video on the Let’s Talk Kent site which provides some guidance about how you can engage with the development of the KCWIP.

Slide 2: 

Firstly, a quick description of what LCWIPs are: Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (or LCWIPs) are a new, strategic approach to identifying cycling and walking improvements required at the local level. They enable a long-term approach to developing local cycling and walking networks and form a vital part of the Government’s strategy to increase the number of trips made on foot or by bike. There is a link on the Let’s Talk Kent KCWIP page to the Department for Transport’s LCWIP guidance.

Such LCWIPs have been, or are in the process of development, by district-level authorities across the County. As these documents primarily emphasise cycling and walking trips made at a local level, it was deemed important to produce a plan that approached the future of Cycling and Walking Infrastructure in Kent at a County-wide level, considering both urban and rural areas, and shorter and longer distance journeys. These district-level LCWIPs have been at the forefront of thinking regarding the development of the KCWIP. The KCWIP is designed to complement these LCWIPs by connecting more localised routes proposed by LCWIPs with the longer-interurban routes proposed by the KCWIP. Where possible and appropriate, the KCWIP avoids overlaps between the routes and walking zones put forward in the KCWIP and those put forward in existing LCWIPs. The areas which have a completed or adopted LCWIP are as follows:

• Ashford 
• Canterbury
• Dartford
• Folkestone and Hythe 
• Gravesham 
• Sevenoaks
• Tunbridge Wells 

Slide 3: 

When the KCWIP is complete we hope to have developed a network plan for walking and cycling across Kent. A programme of infrastructure improvements will be put together and the evidence and methodology underlying these improvements will be set out in the KCWIP report, to be published in Spring 2024.

Slide 4:  

Here is a timeline, showing where we are in the six stages of the KCWIP’s development at this point. After a significant information gathering stage, we developed networks for both walking and cycling. These networks were then reviewed by key stakeholders, whose feedback helped to inform the networks presented in this consultation period. Prior to the publication of the final KCWIP report next Spring, we are looking to incorporate the insights of the public to ensure that the proposals are well-positioned to meet the needs of the local population. 

Slide 5: 

The initial stage of the KCWIP involved gathering local contextual information. It was identified where the current transport network is effective and where there are also gaps. Subsequent analysis considered factors like physical geography, future trip demand, and socio-economic conditions to pinpoint underserved areas and determine the need for additional active travel infrastructure.

Slide 6: 

Data analysis was conducted for each of the Districts in Kent, so that travel patterns could be understood at a more local as well as county level. Based on the analysis conducted, a longlist of walking zones was developed. Walking zones, a concept set out in the Department for Transport’s LCWIP guidance, are areas which normally consist of a number of destinations, for example rail stations or hospitals, located in close proximity- such as a town centre, or business parks.

Slide 7

For cycling a similar process was undertaken, but with a greater focus on the existing cycle network and cycling demand levels within Districts. The output of this stage was the longlist of straight desire lines. These desire lines indicate an origin and destination point between which there is believed to be existing or potential cycling demand.

Slide 8

After we developed the straight desire lines, districts were asked to provide their feedback on where their priorities lie and we received some really useful feedback which was then used in prioritisation of the desire lines

Slide 9

As you can see here, the longlist of desire line corridors were scored against a set of criteria that had been agreed with Kent County Council, including population and employment density, and several key health and environmental indicators. The desire lines and walking zones were then classified as either primary, secondary, or tertiary and based on their score.

Slide 10 

Here we can see the classified desire lines. Overall, there are 25 which were classified as primary. These are the ones which were taken forward to the route selection stage.

Slide 11

Following on from that, this slide shows how the desire lines fit into the cycling network in Kent, forming a cohesive network with the National Cycle Network and existing LCWIP routes. 

Slide 12

And this slide shows the classification results from the process for walking zones. Both the primary and secondary walking zones were taken forward to the next stage. The desire line and walking zone identification yielded 82 desire lines and 39 walking zones so consequently it was unfeasible to take all of these forward to the next stages of the KCWIP. Desire lines and walking zones categorised as secondary or tertiary remain significant; they simply received lower scores in comparison to the priority routes. Given that the KCWIP is an iterative, 10-year document, it will be updated in line with progress made towards the aims and objectives of the KCWIP, and if appropriate, consider the application of these lower scoring cycle routes and walking zones.

Slide 13

As I mentioned, there was an additional stage to the process for cycling as the desire lines required conversion into routes. This was done using the following methodology. Potential routings for the desire lines were reviewed using various online routing software. The routes were then virtually audited using Google Maps Street View and the most suitable route was identified using a combination of the alignments suggested by the routing software. 

Slide 14

This labelled map here shows the sort of considerations that we took into account when prioritising one route over another. Of course, the time taken to cycle, the directness, but also quality of road, volume of traffic, accident locations, connections with new developments and many other factors. 

 Key stakeholders were presented the initial draft of the routes. We received over 200 comments from stakeholders which were all taken into account. The feedback received was incorporated into the routes and amendments were made to ensure that, where possible, the routes reflected the priorities of stakeholders. The coverage of the walking zones was also adjusted to reflect the local conditions and stakeholder comments. 

Slide 15 & 16

The final stage is Route Prioritisation. This addresses the need to prioritise the development of improvements over the short, medium and long-term. High-level improvements to active travel infrastructure were developed for the highest-scoring 15 routes. Examples of such improvements can be seen on the slide. And walking zone improvements on this slide.

These are the routes and infrastructure improvements that we are seeking your local knowledge and insights on in this consultation period. This will support further development and more detailed design of the routes. Responses to the consultation will be reviewed and agreed amendments will be incorporated into the KCWIP document before it is finalised. 

It should be noted that the routes and improvements put forward in the KCWIP are high-level recommendations and further consultation will take place when detailed improvements are developed for routes included in the document.