I started the discussion with the local installer, Rewneable Heat, about a year before, and it took much back and forth via email with some phone calls and a couple of site visits to get the retrofit all designed. As I’d done the basic heat survey in a spreadsheet myself, they were able to use this as a starting point and saved them having to come out and do all the measurements.

We moved into the property 2 years before the install, and on moving in discovered there was an issue with the thin kitchen radiator leaking at the valves, so had to isolate it quickly as no easy way to fix it properly, combined with knowing we were going to install the heat pump which would require radiator upgrades, so no point installing something to be taken out within a couple of years. There was also no insulation above the kitchen at all, so within the first year I installed some sheep’s wool insulation called Thermafleece from Celtic Renewables, which made a noticeable improvement to the warmth in the kitchen.

The gas combi-boiler was over a decade old. By the time it came to install time of the heat pump we were starting to have reliability issues with the boiler. For example it had an odd setup for taking the condensate away, where there was a small container with a water level activated pump, which would pump the water to the drain. This pump was starting to run constantly in some cases. The system was also losing pressure, which meant that I frequently needed to top up the pressure but couldn’t see where the leak was.

A family member works for Mitsibushi in the heat pump department in Livingston (where they make the heat pumps), so going for a Mitsibushi seemed a no brainer. The local installer we chose didn’t normally use that brand, but were happy to go with it.

The heat loss survey suggested that we needed 6.9 kW, however looking at historical gas smart meter data for the coldest day over the previous couple of years suggested the maximum gas used over any hour was less than 6kWh, typically just over 5kWh, thus the heat loss survey was potentially over estimating the heat power we needed. Heat loss surveys over estimating the power needed is a known issue, as they take a bit of a worst case scenario with the amount of heat loss, and are unable to take account of some of the characteristics of the building which could mean there’s less heat loss compared to the calculation. There’s also some additional fabric or insulation improvements we can do to help reduce the heat loss, thus reducing the heat demand required. For example, we’ve recently had a water leak, which turned out to be the flat roofs about the bedrooms being end of life and needing replacing, with the replacement also including insulation (none before).

The cupboard that had the gas boiler is where the new hot water tank plus electrical sub board got installed. The Mitsubishi 170 litre slimline pre-plumbed cylinder just fitted in, and was likely the largest Mitsubishi hot water tank that would fit. It was a tight fit, and the installers did a neat job getting it all fitted in.

Most radiators were upgraded to larger radiators to allow a low flow temperature, and therefore more efficient system. Two of the radiators that weren’t upgraded were borderline needing upgraded to a larger size, however were difficult to do so due to the position and space available. We may come back and change them in the future, but thought we’d see how we get on first. With one of them, insulating the flat roof above should help (still to do), and would probably be the priority, which should reduce the heat loss and therefore heat requirements in that room. It’s also got the washing machine and tumble dryer, so when it’s cold there are other heat sources likely on too, reducing some of the need for a larger radiator.

In the kitchen we got the installer to remove the thin leaking radiator, capping the pipes in the ceiling. This was replaced with underfloor heating. The heating installer came in early week 1 to install the underlay and underfloor heating pipes. We then had just under a week to get most of the tiles stuck down, particularly in the cupboard that the new hot water cylinder would be installed. The installer used an insulated board with pre-cut grooves for the underfloor heating pipes. We then used the tile adhesive directly on the boards and pipes with the tiles on top, making it an easy process. The hardest part was trying to get the tiles level everywhere.

3 doors needed to have the bottom trimmed off due to the extra floor height. Easy enough done with the circular saw.

No concrete screed was needed, which puts the room completely out of use until it’s dry. It’s also quite costly and time consuming to install the concrete screed. With this backer board solution we could strategically lay the tiles to keep use of the kitchen whilst being careful where we stepped and leaning over at times.

Week 2 the main part of the install took 5 days, starting on the Monday.

Day 1 was mostly removing the old gas boiler, draining the system, and preparation work. The concrete base stands for the heat pump were created. The new electrical sub board for the heat pump was installed, with the house power off for a short time to connect this in. Once the boiler was out in the morning we had no water from the hot taps.

We headed across the road to the swimming pool for a swim, and shower in the evening. Rather handy having a swimming pool so close to home and a monthly pass. With the gas boiler out, I emailed Octopus Energy to start the process to remove the gas meter.

Day 2 was implementing the pipework changes and hanging some of the radiators that were changing. The external pipes and electrical cables were put in place, but not connected up.

Day 3 most of the radiators were hung by the end of the day, and the hot water tank was filled and connected up. The heat pump was moved into place and linked up. The hot water tank was filled (but not heated yet), so we could get water from the hot tap again. We were rather impressed that the pressure on the hot and cold taps was now equal, whereas with the combi boiler the hot water at the taps was noticeably lower pressure.

Day 4 was getting the system up and running, checking for leaks, bleeding radiators, learning the controls, connecting the heat pump to Melcloud (Mitsibushi’s cloud service), and then running the system overnight to start commissioning. With it being so warm, it was hard to keep the heat pump going all the time (on reflection, using a different mode from weather compensation, such as target flow may have worked better). With it being mostly new radiators, and the system being mostly clean anyway, it wasn’t too much of an issue. Once the heat pump was linked up to MelCloud I could also link the heat pump up to my Home Assistant install which runs on a Raspberry Pi. This meant I could record some details such as flow, return, and outside temperatures.

Day 5 was finishing up the install, flushing the system and re-filling it, putting the thermostats in place, and completing the insulation of the pipes. As they were doing that they spotted a minor leak on the small ball valves to one of the radiators that wasn’t changed, so replaced those with straight pipe. My kids spotted that the smaller kids bedroom had a bigger radiator and found it strange, however this is expected due to the extra external wall, thus greater heat loss in the smaller room.

The warranty for the Mitsibushi heat pump needs the paperwork submitted by the home owner rather than the installer as with other manufacturers. This was an easy process with the only hickup being that they could couldn’t find the serial number I entered on the form. They kindly asked for a photo via email and 3 weeks later I had an email confirming the manufacturer’s warranty. This was different to other heat pump manufacturers that our installer use where the installer submits the warranty documentation and passes it on to the customer.

The EPC was completed the following Friday evening, organised by the heat pump installer. It was a quick process as the installer had passed on the install details, so it was a case of verifying and taking photos of the relevant details.

The EPC went from a mid E to a high D, only just missing out on the C rating by one point. Some more insulation, solar PV, and a battery should get that improved further.

With the EPC stating that we’ve got the heat pump, and the invoice, I could then send off to Home Energy Scotland for the funding payment having started the application process prior to the works starting (very important). The payment came through within a week or two, so was pretty quick, I was then able to pay this on to the heat pump installer.

The basic energy monitoring on the Mitsubishi isn’t particularly accurate, and is rounded to the down to the whole kWh. So I added a Shelly EM with a CT clamp to get some more accurate and live monitoring, and connected it up to Home Assistant.

A week after the install of the heat pump was completed, an Octopus engineer came and removed the gas meter, and capped the gas supply. Another week later and my account was updated that the meter was removed and final bill produced and sent a few days after that.

I found the pure weather compensation and dumb thermostat hasn’t worked so well, as it’s hard to find an exactly optimum heating curve, for example when it’s wet and windy I found a slightly higher flow rate was needed. I also got annoyed with the hot water occasionally heating up during the Octopus Agile peak time, so have setup Havenwise, which uses the energy tariff and weather to optimise the heating. This has produced a much more stable temperature, as it’s able to lower the flow temperature when approaching the set temperature, and raise it for example when the back door has been left open and let the cold air in, thus getting back to temperature much quicker compared to pure weather compensation. It reduces some of the cycling I seen in some weather conditions if I didn’t have the weather compensation right for that wind and rain condition. Having a cap of 45˚C flow temperature in the Havenwise system has really helped to avoid too high a temperature, and massively overshooting the target temperature. The design flow temperature is 45˚C at -5.6˚C.

So far, comparing our total energy costs to the previous year for each month has shown that we are saving some money. The original quote suggested we’d be roughly similar cost to before, so a small reduction in cost whilst getting a warmer house with better hot water is a lovely quality of life improvement. Still have the coldest months to go, to really tell how well it will work.

To confirm my direct debit for energy is set right I take the previous 12 months cost and divide it by 12, and can then tweak the direct debit also taking account of the current balance. At the point of the install in June the total prior year cost was £180 per month. Now at the end of December we’re at £153 per month. We’re on the Octopus Agile tariff and use Havenwise to time the hot water by the heat pump for the times that are cheapest, and set appropriate flow temperatures based on heat demand.

The alternatives to driving in the local area are walking, cycling, bus, and for longer journeys the train or coach. Let’s take a look at them in turn as to why they may not be so popular with some idea on how to improve them.

Walking

Walking to the nearby shops on the edge of the estate is reasonably pleasant, however going a littler further and you have to put up with really heavy motor traffic, difficulties crossing roads due to high levels of motor traffic, thus having to wait a significant time for a gap in the traffic. Some of the walking routes are signed as shared use with people cycling, which creates a conflict and discourages walking and cycling.

Some nearby main roads have had issues with getting the vegetation cut back, though that has become less of an issue recently, however once someones had a bad experience in an area they’ll avoid it longer term. Maintenance of vegetation is such an important thing that needs to be kept on top of, yet many councils and private land owners simply won’t, don’t have the funding to, or will avoid the cost. Often instead taking out the vegetations and putting in something that requires less maintenance, which then has other environmental issue such as poorer drainage and air pollution sadly happens.

Cycling

Ravenswood is a relatively recent development since the closure of the Ipswich Airport in 1996. It’s got National Cycle Route 51 through the estate, however it’s a very wiggly shared use, with limited connections to the housing it serves. It is also narrow, with the width of the cycle side so narrow you can’t pass another bike whilst staying within the cycle side so have to go on to the pedestrian side. Maybe the white line should be removed? Or the path made wider.

The key through route should also be made straighter. We don’t build motorways and similar such roads with sharp turns and wiggles, so why is cycle infrastructure built this way? The main road route being wiggly is fine, as we want to slow the cars through the residential area, however this discourages active travel use when applied to cycle infrastructure.

Bus

There are 2 bus routes that pass through the estate, they are the Ipswich Buses 1 and 2. They both connect to the town centre via partly different routes. In the other direction, the 2 goes round to the hospital, and the 1 stops at the nearby shopping area.

In terms of operating frequency, the 2 routes during the Monday to Saturday daytime (until about 7pm) they each run half hourly timed so that they are off set from each other making a roughly every 15 minute service on the parts of the route that overlap. In the evenings and on Sundays on the route 2 operates at an hourly frequency. The 1 doesn’t operate in the evenings or on Sundays.

This low frequency for an urban area isn’t going to encourage people to travel by bus. For a proper turn up an go service they need to operate at least every 10 minutes, ideally more frequently. Then you don’t need to consider the timetable as a passenger. At the hourly frequency it can often be faster to walk than to take the bus, especially when you have just missed one.

By walking outside the area there are other routes and connections available such as First Bus through to Felixstowe. However the connections through to Felixstowe are now less frequent than they used to be. They used to be every 15 mins daytime and half hourly in the evening. Now it’s only every 20 mins daytime and then hourly in the evening.

For journeys between Ravenswood and the town centre the only cross operator ticketing that I’m aware of is the Plusbus scheme, however that is only valid if you have a train ticket for the same period. The lack of cross operator ticketing really reduces the flexibility for travellers, or means that they need to buy multiple period tickets or just buy singles for whichever bus comes along even if it would overall work out more expensive. Competition doesn’t work on local public transport services at the point of use.

Just outside Ravenswood is a major sports and gymnastics centre. The car park is regularly full to overflowing with capacity issues. There really needs to be questions asked what would get more people travelling there via alternative means. This would help to reduce the air pollution which can’t be good for the people, especially children, going to train there.

Train

There are direct trains from Ipswich to various places such London, Norwich, Felixstowe, Cambridge, and Peterborough. However still have to get to the train station without using a car. The buses require you to change bus in the centre of town, which is particularly painful due to the low hourly frequency in the evenings and Sundays, daytime is less of an issue but will still put people off due to the combination of infrequency and lack of cross operator ticketing – you have to plan ahead if you want to use a plusbus ticket as you can’t get them as a mobile of smart ticket, they are still paper tickets that need to be picked up from the station or from a train guard.

Another problem with the train ticketing is day trips to London often require splitting to get the cheapest fare in Colchester or Manningtree. Splitting the fare can save around £5. Fares need to be updated so that the splitting is no longer required to get the cheapest fare (ideally by reducing the rather high cost of fares for those travelling north of Manningtree).

You can take bikes on trains, however any intercity services between Norwich and London requires a reservation. Other shorter stopping services don’t require a reservation and are instead simply first come first served. Taking a bike on the train opens up many more journey opportunities, especially when there is no or poor public transport at the destination.

The new trains have made taking bikes on trains much easier, especially the Stadlers with the level boarding. Even young children can wheel their bikes on to the trains, unlike other trains which have a step up, thus requiring help to get on. This helps to make the boarding and disembarkation quicker and less stressful. All new trains should have level boarding.

The frequency and speed of journeys to Cambridge, one of the major employment centres in longish commuting distance is particularly long compared to driving. Driving to the science park can take around 1 hour, whilst taking the train would be a minimum of 1 hour 20 minutes plus time to get to the station and any waiting time, especially if you are making a connection to Cambridge North in either Cambridge or Ely. Granted you can work whilst on the train, however the low hourly frequency, long journey time, combined with other difficulties getting to the station will be enough to put many people off taking the train.

Coach

Limited services by National Express from the town centre to Colchester, Stansted Airport, and London; however have to get there, typically on an infrequent bus, find someone to drive you, or take a taxi. The main competition is the train in terms of public transport.

Conclusion

The alternatives to driving simply are not attractive enough to encourage people out of their cars and get using public transport, walk, or cycle. There needs to be a proper review and significant improvements to the alternatives to driving before any more road building or opening up of other accesses to the area is considered. This review needs to take account of local journeys on the estate, into the local area, and longer regional journeys. Potentially even international journeys for when people would take holidays or visit friends and family in other countries, or for work.

Having grown up in Edinburgh and lived for 4 years in London, I’ve probably been spoilt by high frequency bus services, which are a true turn up and go nature.

Footnotes

1. Sorry I’m a bit slow at completing this blog post. Joys of having young kids, and the bigger change of a house move over the past year.

The written responses to the consultation had over a third of the people who wrote a response for the open questions requesting additional cycling provision.

Item 2.7 on the report says:

The on-line consultation raised the concerns of not being able to cycle within the parks. To address the feedback, a communications campaign to encourage cycling where appropriate is being created.

Item 2.7 on the report to the Executive of the council

However in the proposed byelaws, similar to the current byelaws the rules are you can’t cycle unless there’s a designated area or route to do so:

Cycling

16. (1) No person shall ride a cycle in the ground except in any part of the ground where there is a right of way for cycles or on a designated route for cycling.

(2) No person shall cycle on any footway or carriageway in such a manner as to cause danger or give reasonable grounds for annoyance to other persons using the footway or carriageway.

Proposed byelaws for Ipswich Parks.

There are currently very limited routes though Ipswich parks where cycling is explicitly allowed. Many of these cycle paths are in parks which are closed from dusk to dawn.

How can the council promote more cycling in parks, when their byelaws explicitly don’t allow cycling, with a limited number of exceptions?

Are Ipswich Borough Council planning a further review of where people are allowed to cycle?

Why can’t Ipswich Borough Council change the default to allow cycling on all paths in parks, with a limited number of exceptions, thus turning the current rule on it’s head, and helping with the climate emergency?

In light of the above I’ve sent my ward councillors, and relevant executive councillors the email below in the hope that the default will be changed and more cycling will be legally possible in Ipswich’s parks:

Dear Councillors,

I’d like to raise some concerns around the upcoming changes to the byelaws and proposed publicity to promote cycling in parks that is planned and due to be discussed at the Ipswich Borough Council Executive meeting on Tuesday 11th January 2022 under item 8.https://democracy.ipswich.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=2594

I’m a parent of 2 young children, and believe there urgently needs to be more places in Ipswich for people to learn to cycle, and safer routes to travel without a private motor vehicle.
There is no mention of an Equality Impact Assessment having been carried out. These are required by the Equality Act 2010 S.149. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/149  Why is no Equality Impact Assessment available? Can an Equality Impact Assessment please be done prior to the park byelaw changes progressing further.

Many people are increasingly using bikes, adaptive cycles, hand cycles, or cargo bikes as a means to travel as it’s easier than walking or using a wheelchair. Some people find it very difficult to dismount from bikes. Many bikes don’t have a problem with falling over and can be pedalled at walking speed. Requiring people to dismount for users of cycles is a contravention of Equality Act 2010 S.20(3)(4), and constitutes direct discrimination under Equality Act 2010, Section 21. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20  This is one of the reasons considerate cycling should be allowed in parks by default, with exceptions where there is a very specific safety case for it.

It is good that the report recognises that there are many responses where people would like there to be more cycling in parks to support safer routes and places for people to learn to cycle. However the response to this is simply suggesting that there will be a publicity campaign to highlight that you can cycle in the parks, yet there are very few parks that you are allowed to cycle in currently, and of those there’s very limited routes that you are allowed to cycle on. Are there plans to increase the list of exceptions where you are allowed to cycle as part of these changes currently? As an example a very useful utility cycling connection for shopping and routes to school and nursery would be opened up if Bramford Lane/Marlow Road through to Castle Road/Broadway Lane had the no cycling signs taken down and replaced with shared use walking and cycling signs. There are many others where cycling in parks would open up more opportunities to alternatives to the car.

The upcoming Highway Code changes are introducing a hierarchy of road users which means that road users who cause the greatest harm bear the greatest responsibility to others. This means that cyclists and horse riders have a responsibility to reduce the danger to pedestrians, which will help with issues around conflict and any fears that allowing more cycling in parks will be a problem. Publicity around these Highway Code changes will be helpful in combination with the other adjustments to the byelaws and rules.

The current cycle infrastructure design guidance is LTN 1/20 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120 Paragraph 7.4.3 is very clear that access to areas that motor vehicles are not allowed should allow cyclists access unless there is good evidence that it will cause a significant safety problem.  The full text of the paragraph (VRAs=vehicle restricted areas):There should always be a preference for allowing cyclists to access VRAs unless there is good evidence that this would cause significant safety problems. However, the possible impacts on pedestrians, and disabled people particularly, must be considered carefully. Visually impaired people, in particular, may not feel comfortable sharing a pedestrianised area with cyclists – see Chapters 6 and 8. Where cycling is permitted, most cyclists will usually dismount when pedestrian numbers are greatest.

Both Ipswich Borough and Suffolk County Councils have declared climate emergencies, so therefore should be doing things that encourage less polluting modes of transport such as walking and cycling, whilst discouraging polluting modes of transport such as the private car much as possible. This includes providing shortcuts through parks and quieter residential streets for people who are walking, cycling, and using public transport, whilst discouraging the use of private motor vehicles, including closing rat runs and the removal of through motor traffic on residential streets.

Given the above, will paragraph 16. (1) of the proposed byelaws be changed such that the default is to allow cycling in parks? Or will there be a full review and significant increase in the places where there is a right of way for cycles or designated routes for cycling in parks?

Kind regards,
Shaun McDonald

I was looking for a photo in my collection of an Ipswich park which would represent cycling in a park to add to this post, and the first one I find is from last week. It’s an entrance to Landseer Park, effectively a link to National Cycle Network 51, which is visible in the background of the photo above. It was a day where I was on the bus rather than the bike, otherwise I’d have tried to get the cargo bike through. There’s a noticeable desire line to the left of the barriers where people have been avoiding them. Maybe it’s time to remove the metal barriers?

Thanks to Charlotte Moore’s article in the Ipswich Star for highlighting the item going to the Executive committee of the Council.

There are several schools and nurseries on or just off Bramford Lane and during the school run there is normally a large amount of traffic along the length of it, especially near the schools. Sometimes the traffic can come to a standstill in part due to the parking.

The roadworks are between Cromer/Eustace Road and Wallace Road, where there’s housing on one side and allotments on the other side of the road. The gas mains to properties are being replaced. All of the holes being dug on the side of the road furthest from the housing, with plenty of space to walk and cycle past most of the time.

The signage approaching the closure is saying road closed with a diversion at pretty much every side road along Bramford Lane. It’s nice to see that many of the signs are on the road instead of the pavement.

At the roadworks the closure is simply “Road closed”. Nothing about access still being open for or able to be used by people walking and cycling. The Wallace Road end is partially open so that residents have access to their properties, whilst the town end has the barriers closing it off more, requiring people to cycle or drive over the pavement to get past.

Occasionally there are vans parked or loading blocking the road, so having to cycle on the pavement, if it was The Netherlands, then cycle and walking provision would be standard through the roadworks in this scenario, with any vehicles parked in such a way to allow the walking and cycling to continue unhindered with the minimum of disruption.

Why should we emphasise that the road is open to people walking and cycling more?

• Suffolk County Council has declared a climate emergency, and as part of that they should be encouraging as much walking and cycling a possible.
• To help encourage people to walk and cycle shorter distances, when these temporary restrictions come up things should be done to encourage the walking and cycling of the shorter journeys, a bit like a trial for a low traffic neighbourhood.
• We should survey residents to see what they think about the reduced level of motor traffic and noise, would they like to have that more in the longer term? Could it be a way to start a conversation to get more low traffic neighbourhoods?
• Some diversion routes can be very long and inappropriate for people walking and cycling, yet they are rarely advertised, instead only have to guess if you can walk or cycle through, or review maps and other information for alternatives.
• Some people find it difficult to dismount and push their bike, they use the bike as a mobility aid and so need to stay on the bike.
• Bikes such as cargo bikes/trikes are often much easier to manoeuvre whilst sat on the bike with full control of the pedals and brakes, whereas pushing whilst on foot is a lot harder to control the bike.
• Alternative diversion routes will often be busier due to the higher level of motor traffic. This increases the road danger for people walking and cycling on the diversion routes, hence protecting infrastructure or alternative quieter routes should be found.

I’ve notice a change in the pattern of traffic along Bramford Lane due to the roadworks. There’s a lot less traffic along the length of Bramford Lane, however the motor traffic crossing Bramford Lane is much more noticeable

What can Suffolk County Council and other councils do to ensure that the roadworks are designed for active travel, especially when it’s other organisations who are doing the road closure?

1. Do you agree with the proposed new byelaws?

My answer: No

2. Are there any additional byelaws you would like to see included?

Please note that the MHCLG will not accept new byelaws without clear evidence to indicate an activity has been occurring over time and that it has a detrimental impact on the park and its users.

My answer: Cycling to be allowed in parks. There really needs to be a lot more safe space for people to learn to cycle. Parks would be ideal for this. There should be some way to allow more considerate cycling in parks rather than the current blanket ban, with a few exceptions.

3. Is there anything else you would like us to consider?

My answer: There should be playgrounds that are specifically designed for kids to use wheeled toys to learn how to travel and ride bikes. They could be used for Bikeability training. These exist in other places, so why not here in Ipswich too?

All of the playgrounds in Ipswich have “No wheels” or similar as the rules by the gate.

I would recommend responding in a similar way, best not to copy and paste, as lots of answers the same tend to be ignored. The consultation closes 11:59pm on Monday 13 September 2021.

There were 3 people there to help with the install, in past broadband installs it’s generally only been 1 person. An old hole through the wall from a long time ago that was for a previous cable install by a previous resident, was used for the new fibre cable.

The fibre cable is strung from the same poles as the phone cables, as CityFibre share the infrastructure with BT Open Reach.

The cable is noticeably thinner than the BT copper cables which have carried the PSTN, FTTC, and g.fast signals in the past. I’m sure longer ago may have also carried ADSL or ADSL2+, though that would have been before move in.

There’s a box on the outside wall that is a junction from the outside cable to the internal ONT.

On the inside wall there’s an ONT box on the inside that is powered by the mains. This is where the Fibre connection is converted to an ethernet connection via an RJ45 connection.

The work was all completed within a couple of hours.

Zen sent a new FRITZ!Box 7530 which just needed to be plugged in to get the new internet connection working. Which in a way was useful to show that the internet connection was working by the installers without having to fiddle around with the router settings. It did however mean that I had to setup the new one up with all of the right settings including moving over things like the DECT phones (I use A&A VoIP), port forwarding, and the WiFi network name and password (no point in spending time reconfiguring all the devices again).

One of the things that caught me out with the FTTP install is that IPv6 is NOT available, yet is on Zen’s other technologies, as I had it with my g.fast connection, though it still seems to only be a beta service. I’d have expected an ISP such as Zen to have fully rolled out IPv6 by now.

Of course the obligatory speed test screenshot on a cable. When done over wifi it’s not as impressive as my wifi equipment doesn’t get near the full gigabit, but still a lot faster than under the old g.fast connection. Even so I had a fairly fast connection before, it’s noticeable how much snappier and faster things load, particularly the uploads. Like the progress bar barely has time to show, blink and you miss it for smaller files.

Here’s some of my ideas of what could be done to reduce the carbon emissions in the region.

Local

The majority of journeys people make are short, under 5-10 miles, and so are ideal candidates for changing from private motor vehicles to walking, cycling, public transport, or other active travel modes such as scooters. It’s also one of the area that can have a huge impact with several things such as reducing carbon emissions, improving air quality and the health of people in the county. Just small reductions in motor traffic can have a big impact on congestion, you can see this by comparing the school term time vs school holiday traffic levels.

DfT stats on journey length, distance, etc.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Over the past decade with the introduction of the mobile phone and sat nav with dynamic routing, the level of motor traffic on minor roads and residential streets has doubled. Many new rat runs have been introduced with no consultation, with air pollution and road danger ever increasing on what should be quiet residential roads. Previously people would use an old style map to navigate, and in doing so would generally keep to the main roads.

As shown in the graph below, there has been an increase in motor traffic at the regional level over the past few decades, more detailed data analysis of the raw DfT traffic data, over the past few decades is required within urban areas. The partly rural nature is likely to mean that people are able to get on to the faster A roads much quicker, thus less of an increase is shown on local roads at the regional level, but could be more evident at the local level within urban areas, like has happened in London.

The count points can be seen in the map below for the Ipswich area:

In London the change in motor traffic is much more pronounced on minor roads showing a near doubling in motor traffic over the past decade. The level of motor traffic on A roads has stayed fairly steady, this is due to the though motor traffic spilling on to local residential roads. I see no reason why this should be any different in other towns and cities such as Ipswich. The main cause of the change is the introduction of the smart phone with dynamic journey routing in mapping apps. Sadly some of the optimisations are shaving a few minutes here or there by getting people cutting through residential streets.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are an excellent way to generate modal shift on short journeys from the private motor vehicles to more active and less polluting modes of transport. Research by Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman shows that low traffic neighbourhoods reduce car use, car ownership, and increase the levels of active travel. They are a key component to reducing the carbon emissions from transport.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, or to give them another name active neighbourhoods are not a magic pill that magically transforms them overnight. They take several months for things to bed in and people to get used to the changed layout of the streets and for a the modal shift to happen. There is some pain during the initial phase, however once implemented and in place for 6-18 months it’s rare to find residents asking for them to be removed.

There already exists some areas of Ipswich which meet the basic principles of a low traffic neighbourhood. I’m not aware of any campaigns to open up the streets to more motor traffic as people like to live on quiet streets. For example the area between Bramford Road and London Road only allows through motor vehicle access at one point, go the other direction, and you will have a significant detour in a motor vehicle.

On the other hand walking or cycling is much more direct.

Another similar example is Ravenswood in the south west of Ipswich, where there is only a single private motor vehicle access, with the other motor vehicle access being a bus gate. Occasionally there is a suggestion about opening the bus gate to motor traffic, due to the congestion at the single motor vehicle access to the area, however it’s quickly shot down as would just generate yet more motor motor traffic and pollution. The real solution is improving the public transport and active travel infrastructure as they are far more efficient at moving people around than private motor vehicles.

There is a significant cycle to school rate, in part due to the cycle route through the estate, however private motor vehicle usage is still high with complaints of congestion. There needs to be a review of what’s stopping people from using the bus, walking, and cycling for their journeys off the estate. Does there need to be protected cycle tracks implemented on nearby roads such as Nacton Road, Ransomes Way, Felixstowe Road, and fast direct routes into the town centre and to the railway station? This network of cycle tracks would make people feel safe to cycle with shopping and children, and hopefully provide the mode shift to reduce the congestion.

Kesgrave is similar, with there being no through access between main roads, and any access will take you back to the same main road, thus there’s no incentive to cut through. Kesgrave high school also has the highest cycle to school rate in the country. How can we replicate this across the rest of the region/country?

All properties in a low traffic neighbourhood is accessible with a motor vehicle. Each property is normally only accessible from a single main road, whilst people who are walking, cycling, or using public transport. Emergency vehicle access is maintained, and evidence shows that the response times get faster after a low traffic neighbourhood is impelemented due to the reduced delays caused by motor vehicles.

Breaking car dependancy

To reduce carbon emissions from transport one of the areas that needs to be looked at is the issue of car dependancy. For this section, I’ll pose a series of questions.

Why is it seen as ok that people need to drive for so many journeys?

Why is it seen by many to be able to park on the pavement?

Why is it ok to for dropped kerbs to go the full width of the footway, making a horrible sideways wiggle when using mobility aids or trikes (where it’s shared use)?

Why can’t children travel independently like the used to be able in previous decades?

Why is it seen as acceptable that children can’t play in their street any more or travel and significant distance from home on own their own?

Why is public transport so expensive compared to the marginal cost of using a car?

Why isn’t cycling seen as a normal mode of transport for short journeys like in places such as The Netherlands, Denmark, and various other towns and cities that are implementing cycling infrastructure and making it hard to drive short distances? (The answer isn’t culture).

Why are there so few bikes available in bike shop that are good for utility cycling and carrying luggage?

Why is walking or cycling a few miles seen as a long distance that’s hard to do?

Why do we allow the pavements, that are meant to be for people to travel, to be used for the storage of metal boxes on wheels?

School Streets

The number of children who are driven to or from school has dramatically risen over recent decades. This is making the roads outside schools to become dangerous in terms of road safety, and also in terms of high levels of air pollution. The lack of exercise is also causing issues in terms of obesity, concentration level, and attainment.

School Streets opens the street directly outside the school gates (and sometimes neighbouring streets) to people who are walking, cycling, scooting, etc so that the parents and pupils don’t need to cram on to the pavement, which is ever more important during the current pandemic. Motor traffic to the street is normally restricted to a very limited set of vehicles (such as emergency vehicles, buses, and residents) during the hour or two per day when the road is needed for the school arrival and departure.

Residents often prefer having a restricted time of access to their property during the school arrival and departure times to the chaos of parents and carers parking on the pavements and grass verges. When school streets were first implemented in Edinburgh, there were lots of complaints from parents with children in other schools that their school was being included too.

Sustrans info on School Streets

Publicity photos/videos

In the UK cycling is often seen to be a sport rather than a mode of transport for general getting around or utility cycling, and this perception really needs to change urgently.

Photos and videos that are used to show people cycling in publicity should include more normal people cycling without plastic hats and other advisory, but not required clothing. I’d also like to see more photos of cargo bikes, people carrying shopping, and children on bikes to help show that it’s normal to carry shopping and children on a bike, and that it’s possible to do these very ordinary things without a car. This would make more people think that they could start cycling as the people in the pictures look like them, and are doing journey that they need to do. Many cargo bikes are now available in e-assist variants which makes it a lot easier to climb hills or move large amounts of luggage or more children with ease.

Try before you buy

Some local councils are providing cargo bikes on a one month trial so that people who live, work, or study in the area can see how it works before actually buying one. This is a good way to support families who want to use a car less.

Car clubs

Sometimes it’s just easier to use a car for some journeys. Rather than having everyone own their own vehicle and having to deal with the storage issue, which is particularly difficult in the centre of towns and cities, there is an alternative, which is a car club. These allow the use of a motor vehicle at short notice, and with an automated system compared to normal car hire. Vehicles are usually positioned across the town so that they are close to where the people live and are hopefully within walking distance.

Integrated public transport

The cost of public transport at the point of use is high and fares are complicated compared to the marginal cost of a car. There are multiple bus operators in Ipswich with minimal cross operator ticketing (primarily plus bus which also requires a train journey). Why can’t we have a tap and pay system with automatic capping, and the capping working across all operators?

Deliveries

Last mile deliveries in urban areas need to be moved to electric and/or pedal power similar to what Pedal me in London, and Zedify in several cities across the country including Brighton, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, Norwich, Southampton, and Winchester, have done already. Zedify operate under a franchise model, and have shown an interest in having a base in Ipswich.

Pedal me also support passenger carriage, and specialised cargo deliveries and contracts. They are very vocal on Twitter about highlighting their employee training, pay (hourly rather than self employed pay per delivery that many delivery companies have moved to), and highlighting the various items that they are able to carry including comparing them to other other modes of transport.

Cycle deliveries can allow for a larger delivery window for pedestrianised zones, with them being setup to allow the cycle delivery access.

Regional

There are some items such as rail and how to travel between towns which needs to be looked at regionally.

Rail freight

At the regional or longer distance transport level there needs to be more capacity to move more freight on to the electrified rail network. This needs a rolling programme of electrification starting with Felixstowe to Peterborough, which will allow for electrified freight to travel from Felixstowe to the East Coast Mainline and beyond without going via London.

Passenger rail services

There needs to be an increase rail speeds on routes avoiding London so that journey times are reduced. The journey time between for example Ipswich and Cambridge (comparing the rail stations) by rail and car is about the same. Door to door time from housing in Ipswich to the northern employment zones of Cambridge is significantly different and I see the journey time on what should be a reasonable commute (after the pandemic) as the biggest factor at stopping people from shifting from driving to public transport on this corridor. The frequency of services is also a factor with it currently being hourly, a higher frequency in the peak could help with some of the modal shift.

What needs to be done to increase the line speeds between Stowmarket and Cambridge and Peterborough?

The new Stadler trains have noticeably faster acceleration when operating using the overhead wires compared the diesel power. This can help to reduce the journey times.

National and regional cycle routes

Cycling between towns in the regions isn’t particularly easy, especially if you are on a non standard bike, have children with you, or are doing a cycling tour holiday. It’s frustrating that I struggle with the idea of cycling with luggage to the port of Harwich, yet on the other side of the North Sea, I’ll happily cycle any distance given enough time. This is all down to a lack of quality walking and cycling infrastructure on key routes, without big diversions.

Being able to cycle to the next town is one of the things that needs to be considered to be able to help break the issue of car dependancy and discourage car use for journeys in the 5-20 mile range, which are easily doable on a bike.

Sustrans over recent years have got a lot of complaints due to the poor quality of the national cycle network. We don’t build motorways or major through A roads which turn to mud in the winter, or have pedestrians wandering over them, why do we allow this for cycle paths? Recently they have dropped sections which don’t meet a minimum standard. This is a good thing. How can councils help to bring the reduced network up to the newer minimum sped, and to expand the network further meeting the newer standard.

Stop road building projects

Building more roads just induces more demand, and more motor traffic in the longer term. There is generally only a short term reprieve in the level of motor vehicle congestion. I would recommend no more road building, with the exception of access roads into new buildings, until the mode share of walking, cycling, and public transport for journeys under 10 miles is over 70%. If The Netherlands is anything to go by, dual carriageways can end up getting downgraded due to the low usage by motor vehicles. Other cities have been known to do this too.

One of the proposed changes is to make Bramford Lane a little more pleasant for walking and cycling by closing a rat run where Bramford Lane goes under the railway bridge. Bramford Lane is part of a local cycle route from the edge of the town centre (you’re left to fend for your self for the last kilometre into the real part of the town centre) from the Whitehouse area of Ipswich.

[osm_map_v3 map_center= “52.0690,1.1298” zoom=”14″ width=”100%” height=”450″ type=”cyclemap” map_api_key=”e5d95ebd2d824902801b7711baa41db8″ map_border=”thin solid ” post_markers=”1″ control=”fullscreen,scaleline” ]

Bramford Lane is currently a horrible road to cycle along (particularly on a cargo trike or bike with no suspension) due to the speed humps and the excessive car parking. Very few houses have off street parking which doesn’t help. It’s signed as a local cycle route, and a short section is part of National Cycle Route 51.

On the highway authority’s plan is to close Bramford Lane at the railway bridge, which is a good step in the right direction. This will help to reduce the number of people driving a significant distance along the road, and instead move them on to the main roads. I however think we should be going much further with a quieter neighbourhood scheme where every property is only accessible from one main road. This would make the whole area much quieter, making it more pleasant for walking and cycling. All motor vehicle journeys can still be done, however for short journeys they are likely to be longer by motor vehicle. If people switch to walking, cycling, and other similar modes then the short journeys become more pleasant based on evidence elsewhere.

In all cases this is an idea up for discussion, details of the exact locations blockades could be moved to have the same effect.

Working through the proposal from the town side.

A block on Bramford Lane between All Saints Road and Windsor Road. This creates a group of roads between All Saints Road, Bramford Lane, Norwich Road, and Chevalier Street. I’m not aware of rat running between Chevallier Street and Norwich Road, if there is, a possibility is a few short one way streets.

The next blocks would be Richmond Road (Norwich Road end), and between Surbiton Road and Kitchener Road. This would create a larger block that would only be accessible from the Bramford Road side. Richmond Road could have the the no through motor vehicle access at any point on the road, allowing access on to Norwich Road instead for that section of Richmond Road.

The following section would be a closure on Bramford Lane between Springfield Land and Putney Close, making Kitchener Road and Springfield Lane only accessible for motor vehicles from Norwich Road.

The last section to the railway bridge would only be accessible from Bramford Road. Putney Close could be accessible from either Norwich Road or Bramford Road depending on the where the block would be placed.

On the west of the railway bridge to prevent rat running and through motor vehicle access from Bramford Road to Norwich Road, I’d close Cromer Road between Bramford Lane and Westbourne Road. The Bramford Road side of this split would be a cell that would cover up to just before the junction on Marlow Road.

The next section becomes more difficult due to the bus routes. It’s possible for a split with only 3 further closure points. There’s a lot of fast traffic on High View Road, thus a closure on High View Road between Diamond Close and Bramford Lane is needed. Marlow Road next to Ulster Avenue is the second point. Finally Bramford Lane to the east of Ulster Avenue is where the bus gate would go.

Lovestofts Drive and Bramford Lane would get a reduction in traffic making it far easier for parents with kids and kids on their own to be able to cross the road to school.

Ulster Avenue probably needs cycle tracks added. Waterford Road could become one way for motor vehicles, northbound same as the bus route, and a cycle track added for southbound people cycling.

Marlow Road has 2 schools, and urgently needs school streets too. I’d also include Galway Avenue in the school streets. School Streets are where a group of roads around a school are closed to motor vehicles with some exceptions (primarily residents on the specific streets and blue badge holders) for around 30-60 minutes around the school arrival and departure times. School streets have been very successful in Edinburgh and other locations, with parents in other schools asking for their school to be included too. Most children don’t need to be dropped off right at the school gate, they can either walk or cycle the whole way to school, or be dropped off a few streets away to then walk the final section. Deliveries can be schedules outside of the school arrival and departure times, a cargo bike used, or parking the van outside the zone and walking the last bit. It may add to the cost, however the safety of children should be the priority.

To support the above, I’d also add a closure on Jovian Way near Bramford Road as there’s a lot of rat running through this residential area instead of using Sproughton and Bramford Roads.

20mph should be introduced on all of the residential roads to make it safer and quieter for residents.

Throughout all of the above walking and cycling would still be possible, making short journeys much more pleasant when walking and cycling. Motor vehicle access to every property would still be possible, with minimal difference for longer journeys. The main roads would get a little busier for a while, however as modal shift happens, the motor traffic would evaporate way, as short journeys are less likely to be done by motor vehicle.

I realise this is quite radical, however it’s the sort of things that’s really required to reduce air pollution, obesity, inactivity, concentration of workers & school kids, and motor vehicle congestion.

I used the most direct crossing possible, following the pedestrian crossings, to be able to get across the main road from the walking and cycling route that runs past the hospital from the walking routes from the back of the hospital and Greendykes, to the Moredun/Craigour side of Old Dalkeith Road.

I’ve recorded a video walking across this road (just the crossings):

Is 5 minutes too long to cross a main road? I think it is. Is it any wonder why pedestrians walk across roads without waiting for a green man when it take so long? Edinburgh is investing in active travel, though I’m sure reducing the time it takes for pedestrians to cross main roads would be a cheap and cost effective way to improve pedestrian safety and make walking and cycling more desirable. Maybe more people would walk places if the waiting time wasn’t as long?

Maybe it’s time car drivers had to wind down the window and press a button several times to get through junctions like this?

For the eagle eyed, after completing the crossing I reported the red men on the crossings as not working via the Clarence hotline.

Many shorter distances season tickets are only worthwhile buying if you are travelling 4 or 5 times per week on the same route (or anywhere between those 2 stations). Any less and it can be cheaper to buy tickets on the day, especially if you are a shift worker and some tickets are off-peak, for example with late shifts. Some longer journeys can be worthwhile getting a season ticket if you are doing the journey only 2 days per week, as the working pattern has already been taken into account in the pricing.

Many of the rail franchises have been required to roll out flexi season ticketing. Some operators have special business travel carnet tickets. Both of these can have restrictions meaning that they are only valid on one train operator, unlike the normal season tickets which are normally valid on any operator on the route. There’s some season tickets which are cheaper due to being operator specific where there is competition, partly due to the revenue not being split between operators when going through the Rail Settlement Plan.

Is the recent drop in season tickets number in part due to the move to Flexi season tickets with people moving to part time commuting? Do the Flexi season and carnet tickets need to be included in the season ticket numbers or have their own category to show the trend of the switch of ticket type?

I’m also of the view that the Flexi season tickets need to be standardised such that they are available across the whole country to and from any station, and have the same standard rules of validity as ordinary daily and season tickets. We are hopefully now at a turning point where there has been enough trials about how the Flexi season tickets should work, that a wider rollout could be done.

On the pricing of the Flexi season, I’m thinking they should they be a standard multiplier from the standard anytime daily ticket prices meaning that you can easily buy the tickets from any station to any station, rather than them only being available on a limited number of routes.

Another option to reduce the desire or need to Flexi season tickets, would be to reduce the cost or multiplier for season tickets by making season tickets cheaper, especially considering many people are no longer travelling to work 5 days per week, and longer route specific point to point season tickets in the UK are often more expensive than the whole country Bahn Card 100 in Germany. Is it time for a UK equivalent to the German Bahn Card 100 as a means to encourage more public transport use, and reduce private motor vehicle congestion and pollution?

Being a part time commuter (rest of the week working from home), Flexi-tickets are of particular interest to me, including their interoperability across operators since my commute generally involves multiple operators.