Sefton Council have just informed Qlocal that there are more slots available next Tuesday October 19th for the 'Have your say' on the Liveable Neighbourhood proposals.

Excellent news for those who could not book a slot yesterday evening as the initial allocated was full.

Register HERE

Earlier today we reported:

After yesterdays morning tweet by sustrans and reporting here on Qlocal the 'Have your Say' event for Tuesday October 19th was quickly booked up.

The event was split into 10 min slots from 15:30 to 19:30 but by 6pm there were only six slots left.

Many people have reported on social media that they were too late to get a slot where clearly demand is exceeding supply.

Qlocal have asked Sefton Council whether this one day 'Have your Say' event will be expanded.

Register HERE

Will the online responses to the Liveable Neighbourhood questionnaire be made available for viewing? I attended the online video sessions and at no time was I aware of any expressed desire for a full or partial closure of Portland Street. I fear this is a social experiment and a more nuanced attempt than the last one to turn this busy and needed thoroughfare into an unwanted and un-needed pedestrian/cycle route only

It seems that relevant businesses that need passing traffic to be sustainable have not been adequately consulted and such matters as courier deliveries to residential addresses will become a significant concern

The use of Sustrans to host the on-line video consultations and convoluted log-in procedure to attend the meeting on October 19th may suggest to many an attempt to smuggle the whole concept past the public. At the very least an easily accessible public presentation of the detailed plans should have been considered at, say, the Atkinson or some other local venue for an extended period

Finally, do we have any idea of the costs to ratepayers of this scheme?

Originally Posted by Kritou

I attended the online video sessions and at no time was I aware of any expressed desire for a full or partial closure of Portland Street. I fear this is a social experiment and a more nuanced attempt than the last one to turn this busy and needed thoroughfare into an unwanted and un-needed pedestrian/cycle route only

Portland Street is an essential part of the only East-West cycle route that the people of Southport and visitors have. The route was intended to enable bikes to travel safely to/from the Promenade, right through via Newlands to beyond the back of town, where it ultimately connects with Birkdale Cop Road.

However, ever since its inception the route has always suffered from problems associated with motor traffic along the Portland Street portion of its length. As is the case on many roads, cyclist numbers have never risen to any substantial level, due to peoples fear of sharing tarmac with general traffic. Ending the dominance of the car along Portland Street is essential if that situation is ever to improve.

Let's not also forget, that hundreds of small kids make their way to/from the neighbourhoods primary schools every day. A number of them have no option but to cross Portland Street en-route. How anyone can think it's a good idea to have these kids cross such a dangerous street on foot or bike, is beyond belief. I therefore welcome the proposals wholeheartedly and look forward to the schemes completion.

Originally Posted by The PNP

Portland Street is an essential part of the only East-West cycle route that the people of Southport and visitors have. The route was intended to enable bikes to travel safely to/from the Promenade, right through via Newlands to beyond the back of town, where it ultimately connects with Birkdale Cop Road.

However, ever since its inception the route has always suffered from problems associated with motor traffic along the Portland Street portion of its length. As is the case on many roads, cyclist numbers have never risen to any substantial level, due to peoples fear of sharing tarmac with general traffic. Ending the dominance of the car along Portland Street is essential if that situation is ever to improve.

Let's not also forget, that hundreds of small kids make their way to/from the neighbourhoods primary schools every day. A number of them have no option but to cross Portland Street en-route. How anyone can think it's a good idea to have these kids cross such a dangerous street on foot or bike, is beyond belief. I therefore welcome the proposals wholeheartedly and look forward to the schemes completion.

I will start with your second piece of stupidity ie the emotive phrase “hundreds of small kids”. I guess you have only just thought that one up! The schools, parents, police and planners do not appear to share your concerns as there has been no requests for “lollipop” or pedestrian crossings along Portland Street - you will have to try harder …

As to your other piece of crass conjecture there never has been an essential need for visitor or local cycle access across the town. Nice to have maybe but the vast majority of residents rely on vehicular access for transport and deliveries, be it private or public. Your thinking and fascist dreams of a cycling utopia are shared by you and you alone

I write this as a non car owner who cycles daily along Portland Street and is a resident of this “liveable neighbourhood” - your circumstances are … ?

Originally Posted by Kritou

A) I will start with your second piece of stupidity ie the emotive phrase “hundreds of small kids”. I guess you have only just thought that one up! The schools, parents, police and planners do not appear to share your concerns as there has been no requests for “lollipop” or pedestrian crossings along Portland Street - you will have to try harder …

B) As to your other piece of crass conjecture there never has been an essential need for visitor or local cycle access across the town. Nice to have maybe but the vast majority of residents rely on vehicular access for transport and deliveries, be it private or public. Your thinking and fascist dreams of a cycling utopia are shared by you and you alone

C) I write this as a non car owner who cycles daily along Portland Street and is a resident of this “liveable neighbourhood” - your circumstances are … ?

A) The schools concerned do have lollipops - in the immediate vicinity of the schools. But with pupils fanning out and crossing Portland Street at multiple points, it's impractical to cover all bases. Pupils cross wherever they like, inc popping out into the roadway between the many parked cars of Portland St.

B) Disagree. Motorists can cross town in safety East to West at many points, whereas cyclists cannot. Let's not forget, not all cyclists are thick-skinned adults who can stand their ground in traffic. E.g. there are many youngsters who have bikes that need to make trips. Presently, few will risk it/or be allowed to do so. That has to change.

C) My circumstances are: I'll ride anywhere (and heaven help the motorist who cuts me up if I should reach them at the next set of lights - they'll get a lesson in road safety that they won't ever forget!). So schemes like this aren't about me, as I have learnt to take the heaviest of traffic and bolshiest of motorists in my stride. After years of abuse, being spat at, having obscenities shouted at, cars turning around for a second go at me etc, I'm pretty much bomb-proof.....It's about making safe cycling possible for anyone (inc those of a nervous disposition) who simply wants to get on a bike, without carrying the constant worry of being knocked off with them.

Originally Posted by The PNP

A) The schools concerned do have lollipops - in the immediate vicinity of the schools. But with pupils fanning out and crossing Portland Street at multiple points, it's impractical to cover all bases. Pupils cross wherever they like, inc popping out into the roadway between the many parked cars of Portland St.

B) Disagree. Motorists can cross town in safety East to West at many points, whereas cyclists cannot. Let's not forget, not all cyclists are thick-skinned adults who can stand their ground in traffic. E.g. there are many youngsters who have bikes that need to make trips. Presently, few will risk it/or be allowed to do so. That has to change.

C) My circumstances are: I'll ride anywhere (and heaven help the motorist who cuts me up if I should reach them at the next set of lights - they'll get a lesson in road safety that they won't ever forget!). So schemes like this aren't about me, as I have learnt to take the heaviest of traffic and bolshiest of motorists in my stride. After years of abuse, being spat at, having obscenities shouted at, cars turning around for a second go at me etc, I'm pretty much bomb-proof.....It's about making safe cycling possible for anyone (inc those of a nervous disposition) who simply wants to get on a bike, without carrying the constant worry of being knocked off with them.

IF and I’ll repeat, IF this statement is true, I would say it’s far more likely to be because you are you, as opposed to you being a cyclist.