Torfaen2 logo

Torfaen2

11 comments on Pontypool

about 1 month ago

1) Did you take part in Torfaen's on-line active travel engagement in 2020/2021?

Yes

2) Are we correct in our assessment of routes that already meet the agreed standards (existing routes)?

No

2a) If you answered no or maybe to question 2, which route assessments do you think are incorrect and why? ​

The canal towpath is too narrow and too heavily used by dog walkers, runners etc, to meet the standards of a cycle path.

3) Do you think the network of proposed (future) routes shown on this map will encourage you to walk/cycle more for everyday journeys?

No

3a) If you answered no or maybe to question 3, what else would help you change your current short car journeys to walking and cycling?

I already make most local journeys on foot. But most of the "new routes" seem to be existing routes I use already.

4) Are there routes missing from the proposed network that would help you make every-day active travel journeys?

Yes

4a) If you answered yes to question 4, please provide details

Need a route between New Inn to Cwmbran. There is no safe cycling route at present.

5) Do you have any additional comments regarding walking and cycling facilities or active travel policy that you would like Torfaen to consider? ​

1. Also need to enforce parking regulations to keep pavements and road junctions clear so that pedestrians have safe access.

2 people agree

about 2 months ago

1) Did you take part in Torfaen's on-line active travel engagement in 2020/2021?

Yes

2) Are we correct in our assessment of routes that already meet the agreed standards (existing routes)?

No

2a) If you answered no or maybe to question 2, which route assessments do you think are incorrect and why? ​

3) Do you think the network of proposed (future) routes shown on this map will encourage you to walk/cycle more for everyday journeys?

No

3a) If you answered no or maybe to question 3, what else would help you change your current short car journeys to walking and cycling?

Better maintenance of cycle and walking routes. Stop letting developers damage these routes beyond repair. New developments constantly adding roads through. Look at the path down by Bevans lane - the path is uneven, raised drains, awful surface. It must be HORRIBLE for someone in a wheelchair or mobility difficulties to use it or someone with a pram. Likewise the canal

4) Are there routes missing from the proposed network that would help you make every-day active travel journeys?

Yes

4a) If you answered yes to question 4, please provide details

5) Do you have any additional comments regarding walking and cycling facilities or active travel policy that you would like Torfaen to consider? ​

Stop pussy-footing around with developers. There is no need for MORE roads through cycle paths. Paths they do destroy they would be made to return to or improve its original condition including a properly maintained surface. What we currently allow at TCBC is shambolic

2 people agree

about 2 months ago

1) Did you take part in Torfaen's on-line active travel engagement in 2020/2021?

No

2) Are we correct in our assessment of routes that already meet the agreed standards (existing routes)?

Yes

2a) If you answered no or maybe to question 2, which route assessments do you think are incorrect and why? ​

3) Do you think the network of proposed (future) routes shown on this map will encourage you to walk/cycle more for everyday journeys?

Yes

3a) If you answered no or maybe to question 3, what else would help you change your current short car journeys to walking and cycling?

4) Are there routes missing from the proposed network that would help you make every-day active travel journeys?

No

4a) If you answered yes to question 4, please provide details

5) Do you have any additional comments regarding walking and cycling facilities or active travel policy that you would like Torfaen to consider? ​

Maintenance of the cycling and footpaths seems to be inconsistent. Also, whilst you can't always control littering, I had to pick up a smashed glassed bottle from the pontypool cycle route yesterday

1 person agrees

about 2 months ago

1) Did you take part in Torfaen's on-line active travel engagement in 2020/2021?

Yes

2) Are we correct in our assessment of routes that already meet the agreed standards (existing routes)?

No

2a) If you answered no or maybe to question 2, which route assessments do you think are incorrect and why? ​

NCN 466 is not even shown on your complex mapping system. Are you sure your team has the skill and knowledge to appropriately complete this consultation?

3) Do you think the network of proposed (future) routes shown on this map will encourage you to walk/cycle more for everyday journeys?

No

3a) If you answered no or maybe to question 3, what else would help you change your current short car journeys to walking and cycling?

Promotion of available routes. Maintenance of those routes which would include regular litter picks both for the route and adjacent areas. When reporting fly tipping along these routes, the response from Torfaen CBC often states 'Not our Land' but it's alongside, in view, and contaminating that route/walk/view. More needs to be done on such reports.

4) Are there routes missing from the proposed network that would help you make every-day active travel journeys?

Yes

4a) If you answered yes to question 4, please provide details

A better link from Pontymoile through Pontypool Park (get rid of the absolete bye law that prohibit's cycling in the Park) up to NCN 492. At present the current route is a long challenging loop.

5) Do you have any additional comments regarding walking and cycling facilities or active travel policy that you would like Torfaen to consider? ​

A number of comments seem to reflect a growing animosity between walkers and cyclists. This is very sad as most cyclists want to enhance the experience for all users of such routes. At key points, such as where there are distance posts (could we have these marked in miles too?) could there be gentle reminders about 'Sharing the pathways -dropping the speed-being aware of other users etc. Walkers with headphones can be a concern, as can be dogs on long leads or indeed, no leads. I can't see why such issues cannot be tackled by the TCBC Newsletter..raising the profile of these routes along with gentle reinforcement of the message that these pathways are indeed shared pathways.

2 people agree

about 2 months ago

1) Did you take part in Torfaen's on-line active travel engagement in 2020/2021?

Yes

2) Are we correct in our assessment of routes that already meet the agreed standards (existing routes)?

No

2a) If you answered no or maybe to question 2, which route assessments do you think are incorrect and why? ​

PO-FR-40

3) Do you think the network of proposed (future) routes shown on this map will encourage you to walk/cycle more for everyday journeys?

No

3a) If you answered no or maybe to question 3, what else would help you change your current short car journeys to walking and cycling?

Its not what would help me change from car journeys to walking. I already walk a lot what makes it less enjoyable and therefore less motivating is that the really nice routes are walking and cycling routes and it is always the walkers who have to give way to the cyclists and thats makes me not choose these routes so therefore I am limited to where I can walk.

4) Are there routes missing from the proposed network that would help you make every-day active travel journeys?

Maybe

4a) If you answered yes to question 4, please provide details

5) Do you have any additional comments regarding walking and cycling facilities or active travel policy that you would like Torfaen to consider? ​

Please see my comments to 3a I think cyclists are given priority over walkers which can be dangerous and unfair.

1 person agrees