Overall conclusions comparison
ROWIP 2007 to 2012
Different kinds of users use the network in different ways. The key differences are:
- Walkers take short recreational trips directly from home
- Walkers also drive to places further afield for longer walks
- Runners and joggers tend to take short trips from home
- Cyclists make trips from home, but will also drive to points from which they can access the network
- Horseriders access the network regularly to exercise their horses. Most rides start from the place horses are stabled
- People with mobility problems use the network infrequently and have to plan ahead. Helpers often make a “dummy run” of the visit
Use of the network
- There is a significant demand for short to medium distance circular routes accessed from home, without having to use the car
- Walking and cycling to school is less common in Lincolnshire than nationally, probably due to the predominantly rural nature of the county
- Most walking and cycling to school, local shops and services takes place on pavements and roads
- The off-road network of rights of way is primarily seen as a recreational resource
- The off-road network is disjointed and fragmented for horseriders, cyclists and motorised users
- Litter and dog fouling detracts from people’s enjoyment
- Need more information in a variety of formats on routes and who can use them
Network provision and connectivity
- The distribution of access provision is uneven across the county
- Areas with higher levels of population do not necessarily have access to rights of way
- There are not many routes for cycling and riding, compared with those for walking
- The off-road network of public rights of way is fragmented, particularly for riders and cyclists
- The provision of rights of way from towns and villages is variable
- There are localised gaps in the network which make it difficult to make circular routes
- Routes are often severed by busy roads and development
Implications for Rights Of Way improvement planning
Local routes are very important to people, with routes directly accessible from home proving particularly popular. This suggests that route improvements for walking and cycling should be concentrated close to where people live whilst recognising the importance of the wider recreational network.
Horseriders keep their horses close to where they live and so improvements to the bridleway network should also be prioritised close to where people live.
People prefer short circular routes of between 1 and 5 miles. Typically people travel 2 to 5 miles for most trips. Access improvements should focus on the provision of circular routes of varying length, close to where people live.
Improving the network should concentrate on:
- Creating a better connected network of paths and trails – especially for cyclists and horse riders
- Better signing, waymarking and maintenance to encourage greater use of the network
- Providing more promotion and information in formats that people want
- Making the path network safer and improving crossing points on main roads for vulnerable users
Better engagement with local communities through information and assisting those who want to take a more active role in helping to maintain the network.
Draft ROWIP 2014
The Draft ROWIP 2014 reviewed the existing ROWIP 2007-2012. The statement of need principles and the network assessment underpinning the first ROWIP was still considered to be relevant and a fresh consultation was not deemed necessary as a result.
The following findings were included in the Draft ROWIP 2014:
- The scope of the first ROWIP was sufficient and the plan had been well delivered
- Better maintenance, enforcement and promotion have brought about significant improvements
- The final year of the first ROWIP was set against a backdrop of limited resources which affected the delivery of the plan
- Some respondents considered that the first ROWIP may have been too ambitious and care should be taken that the second ROWIP is realistic and deliverable.
- Reduction of resources led to a deterioration in the standard of maintenance and enforcement in some areas.
- The development of circular and linear routes to and from the Countryside had not been as extensive as anticipated
- We should deliver the second ROWIP within available resources and utilise the voluntary sector
- We should continue the course of action from the first ROWIP
- The standard of maintenance of long distance trails should not be at the detriment to maintenance across the rest of the network
- High demand for increased provision for horse riding and cycling, in particular more off road routes, road safety enhancements and surface improvements
- The rights of way network should not be considered in isolation and is interlinked with other green infrastructure plans and the LTP4