Appendix 2 - Engagement Report
Argyll and Bute Council · 3 December 2024
Back to Bute and Cowal Area Committee — 3 December 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project Stage 1&2 Combined, Engagement Report DATE: November 2024 REF: 501053 VERSION: Draft
Page 2
MARK RINKUS Managing Director Mark.rinkus@connectedtp.com Contents 1 APPROACH TO TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .............................. 1 2 STAGE 1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ................................................................................. 15 3 STAGE 1 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS ................................................................. 28 4 STAGE 1 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ................................................................................................ 33 5 STAGE 1 BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES ..................................................................................... 37 6 STAGE 2 – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 39 7 STAGE 2 - SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ............................................................................... 44 8 STAGE 2 - COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS .............................................................. 64 9 STAGE 2 - STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK .............................................................................................. 78 10 OUR LESSONS LEARNT .................................................................................................................... 83 APPENDIX A – PROJECT HANDS UP SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................................. 86 APPENDIX B – STAGE 1 AND 2 PUBLIC EVENT ATTENDEES LIST (EVIDENCE) ........................................... 87 APPENDIX C – ISLE OF BUTE NEWS SAMPLE EXTRACTS ............................................................................ 88 APPENDIX D – STAGE 2 SURVEY RESPONSES ............................................................................................ 89
Page 3
2 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com ` APPROACH TO TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Page 4
1 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1 APPROACH TO TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 1.1 Relevant Previous Engagement and Consultation This project seeks to improve pedestrian links into Rothesay Town Centre and to the Rothesay Pavilion making allowances for potential future active travel connections. The study is aligned with the 2017, Rothesay Town Heritage Initiative (THI), town centre spatial strategy and was identified by the community during 2016 Rethink Rothesay Charrette. Stakeholder Mapping A stakeholder mapping matrix was developed in conjunction with the design team's relevant experience. The stakeholder mapping aims to identify all stakeholders to be involved within the study and seeks to quantify each stakeholders forecast level of interest in the project and likely influence over the project. The stakeholdes mapping process was led by the council and supported by the community council using their knowledge of the community. The stakeholders were categorised into engagement tiers reflecting their engagement hierarchy using the mapping matrix (shown opposite). The process was collaborative with members of the study steering group including the community council helping to define the stakeholder mapping which evolved through the project lifecycle. 1.2 Engagement Planning A consultation and engagement plan were developed setting out the studies stage 1 engagement programme. The plan was used to identify all proposed activities, the activity order, potential audience and engagement method. Tiered stakeholder mapping developed mapping matrix
Page 5
2 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The plan provides a reference point to ensure that all parties were made aware of forthcoming actions and had a chance to contribute. This provided the opportunity to incorporate local knowledge and best practices. The plan identified a range of activities, which would support comprehensive engagement. A summary of the key project engagement activities considered in support of stage 1 is summarised as follows: Study Branding Identity. Project Press Release. Study Facebook Page. Regular Community Visits. Study Website Space. Engagement with Local Groups. Press and Media Support. Community Feedback Tool (CFT). Schools Engagement. Public Community Engagement Event. Community Group Meetings. Stakeholder Meetings (virtual and face to face). A summary of each action plan is provided in the remainder of this chapter. 1.3 Study Branding / Study Identity Whilst some active travel studies can benefit from the development of a bespoke study branded title and logo, it was agreed with the project steering group, at the project outset that no branding should be applied to this project. The primary reason being that the community council stated that the strong community ethos in Rothesay would help spread awareness of the project far better than any bespoke branding would and that the design teams time would be better spent working with the community. 1.4 Project Press Release (PPR) Public Notification The council’s Marketing and Communications (M&C) team was engaged for support. The PPR is typically authored by the lead council sponsor in conjunction with the M&C team. The resulting PPR would then be circulated internally to all council departments and issued externally to local press and media outlets. Councils’ Services Notification From our experience of other active travel projects, whilst the project is managed by Argyll and Bute Council (ABC) strategic transportation team, other council services have an important role to play in enabling active travel projects to progress. This means it is important that all council services which have a role to play or interest in the project are informed and engaged from the start of the project. ABC manage a portfolio of active travel projects, where all projects are advertised and communicated within and across the council. The portfolio
Page 6
3 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com supports the sharing of project information. The PPR was issued to this portfolio by ABC. 1.5 Facebook Study Page As part of the study lifecycle, a bespoke study Facebook Page was developed. Information was also posted on the Isle of Bute community Facebook page as the community council advised that it has a wide following in the community and to be the best way to raise awareness of the project. The design team posted updates that encouraged anyone with an interest in the study to engage. The Facebook page was effective with the community engaging to ask questions throughout the duration of the study. The page was used as a direct channel of communication between the design team and the community. Our study team managed the page to maintain responsiveness. The page was used to inform the community of upcoming project events, advertise the teams’ visits to the community and publish our visit itinerary. The page was also used to share post visit photos and videos. These were produced to provide a post event snap-shot of the design team's community interaction and to assist those unable to attend in person. 1.6 Community Visits A key ambition of the project was to ensure the community remained central to the project and would feel a strong collaboration through ‘face to face’ meetings. To achieve this aim, our engagement strategy centred around the design team being physically present within the community where appropriate. Using the community Facebook pages, we advertised our visits which included a day within the community where the design team invited and met with local groups, school and the community council. We advertised an itinerary of our visits providing an opportunity for the community to ‘drop-in’ to our evening public event. The Community Facebook page was well used to support the project
Page 7
4 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com To support the conversations, we used our digital ‘platform’ of materials. These included our pre-prepared constraints mapping used to record ideas and note comments, barriers and aspirations. The plan was then digitised, comments added to our Community Feedback Tool (CFT) and used as the foundation of the constraints mapping process and route development. The ability to demonstrate to the community how their comments had been considered is key to developing trust and engagement between the design team and the community. 1.7 Study Website To support the lifecycle of the project, a study webpage was developed and hosted within the Connected Transport Planning Ltd (CTP) website. The website utilised our project template which was personalised to reflect the project community using images of Rothesay recognisable buildings to assist in making the space familiar to the community. The website provided a key consultation tool for the community to access the project, designed to be accessible 3 weeks during the consultation time and not just a ‘bolt on’ point of reference. The site provided access to all public exhibition and materials, videos, a range of feedback tools and general project information. The site also incorporated a range of functions including a news feed, a Facebook link and an interactive constraints and option map from where a series of micro- animations visualisations could also be accessed. These animations were developed from local photos taken at key points along the study route and designed to present a vision to the audience that would assist their understanding of the project’s possible outcomes. The website enabled those unable to speak with us in-person to view and comment on any of the materials at any time during the consultation period that suited them. Noting the challenges of consultation with a busy community, the use of the website was a perfect tool to support wide-reaching engagement on Bute. Constraint mapping and face – face meetings were constructive
Page 8
5 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The website was open to access by the public for a period of 3 weeks following the stage 1 public event. 1.8 Survey Questionnaire A survey questionnaire was developed for the project to provide an opportunity for the community to share there existing travels habits and existing travel modes, requirements for a new route appetite for a route and improvements to active travel. The survey was designed using our experience of supporting similar projects, where we noted that to maximise community feedback, the survey should be less than 15 questions to minimise survey fatigue and maximise the chance of receiving complete responses. Using questions from previous studies as a reference, a bespoke stage 1 survey questionnaire was developed that would capture key respondent demographics and sought to learn how the community currently travel and their aspirations for any future improvement. The survey formed a core component of the engagement process and was the primary informant of quantitative feedback, used to support the design process. To maximise accessibility by all possible user groups and abilities, the survey was hosted online via the study website using QR codes, website URLs and by contact email. The survey also included links to the study website tools such as the Community Feedback Tool (CFT) which would assist the community in providing comments by location on a map. Physical copies of the survey were distributed at various locations including the Discovery Centre and the co-op noticeboards. The leaflets were also hand issued by the design team for a period during a day within the foyer of the larger Co-op Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier website including custom local images
Page 9
6 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com supermarket with a number of community representatives supporting wider distribution. 1.9 Media Support To raise the community’s general awareness of the study, the local press and radio stations that cover Rothesay were contacted, the radio station however did not respond after multiple contact attempts. The local newspaper in Rothesay; The Isle of Bute News were happy to assist in promoting awareness for the local community. The paper prints provided physical and digital advertisement of the study and was again used to advertise our contact details. ABCs Communications Team also promoted the study and consultation events on the Council's social media pages. The community Facebook study group was another source used to raise the community’s awareness. Around 1,500 event advertisement leaflets were distributed to advertise the community events. A number of the locations planned to post the flyers either couldn’t accept the flyer or were unable to display it. Notwithstanding, the flyers were successfully posted at various locations. These included: Various Victoria Street frontage businesses, Discovery Centre; Local residential properties; Co-op; Albert Pier businesses; Montague Street businesses. Flyers were also utilised to communicate a post-event ‘Thank You’ to the community and to continue the promotion of the digital feedback options offered via the project website. This approach meant that those members of the community unable to attend the advertised event would still have the option to provide feedback or ask the design team questions, enabling wide-reaching community engagement. Advertising leaflets were distributed across the community
Page 10
7 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Argyll Media Coverage of the study helped raise awareness
Page 11
8 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.10 Event Pop-Up To raise the community’s awareness of the project and consultation event, the study team set up a pop-up event within the foyer of the Co-op foot store. The event lasted for 3 hours within which the team issued advertising leaflets to shoppers, to raise awareness of the evenings public event that evening in the Discovery Centre. 1.11 Community Feedback Tool (CFT) Our bespoke engagement platform supports community feedback using a project map and comment pins. The tool allows comments to be added by location with comments visible to everyone. The tool was hosted within the project website and again used a series of QR codes, website URLs and a named email contact to support access to other feedback methods and information platforms. The CFT was pre-populated with comments noted by the community on the constraint plan. Community Feedback Tool (CFT) allows comments to be added by location Co-op Pop-up event was used to advertise to the public
Page 12
9 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.12 Schools Engagement Rothesay Joint Campus Rothesay Joint Campus catchment for Primary Schools pupils covers the southern section of Bute including Rothesay, while for Secondary School pupils the school serves the whole of Bute. The school role includes 240 primary pupils and 272 secondary pupils. The design team arranged to meet the Primary 6 pupils (22 pupils) for a 2-hour period to learn more about the younger generation's views and thoughts regarding walking and cycling. The timing of the meeting worked well as it developed on the classes ongoing theme of problem identification and solutions. Following introductions and a project discussion, an interactive Hands-up Survey (HuS) exercise was undertaken using stickers and travel mode pictures. The use of this approach ‘energised’ the primary and secondary school pupils to participate in the engagement discussion whilst also providing a visual result of their current travel mode decisions. The results show in Appendix A and show that the majority of the school pupils currently travel by car or bus to school and some also stated they walk and no pupils cycle to school. Following the HuS, the team discussed with the school pupils and teachers how they would feel about the project improvements. 100% of the pupils and 100% (1) teacher supported the proposal and agreed it would be a positive addition. A summary of the school children’s feedback about what they think is important in the design is also shown in Appendix A. With the children in ‘problem-identification mode’, the team utilised our bespoke primary school asset pack to work with the children to develop their own ideas for a streetscape and how they would solve the travel issues they had earlier identified. The children were then split into two groups and tasked with developing/exploring ideas using the kit, using drawings and plasticene to help people and animals move around within the space they had created. Some very creative options were explored and positive feedback from parents via the Facebook Page. Feedback from the Rothesay Primary School was positive
Page 13
10 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Engineers of the future? Rothesay Primary made great use of the asset pack to design a streetscape
Page 14
11 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.13 Parent Teacher Association (PTA) To maximise the reach of the engagement, the school was approached to advertise awareness of the project through communication with the local parents via the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). 1.14 Community Public Event Following the physical and digital advertisements, an event was hosted by the design team and ABC within Rothesay Discovery Centre on the 27th of February 2024. The event opened to the public at 17:30 to 20:45 with the start time set to maximise attendance. 10 large format, graphically designed A0 presentation boards were displayed to provide the audience with a story map of the study, process and consultation purpose. The event was made more visible to the community through the use of banners and bunting that was installed. The team also posted live Facebook updates. All attendees were given the choice of completing the project survey questionnaire or accessing our range of digital tools to provide feedback via QR codes and URL links. A key advantage of the digital platform is that the materials could still be accessed and commented upon at a time that best suited the consultees. This was particularly relevant noting the event took place on a dark winter’s weekday night with only 61 people managing to meet the team. A register extract presented as evidence of those attending the event is shown in Appendix B.
Page 15
12 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com A weekday dark winter night may have had an adverse impact on the community’s attendance at Stage 1 Public Event
Page 16
13 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.15 Micro-Visual Transition Animations To assist the public in understanding how and what an active travel route may look like within their community a series of transition animations and sketches of the future were developed. Each animation was based on a photographed viewpoint of locations along the route that the public would recognise. The transitions lasted 10 seconds and showed the transformation of the existing viewpoint to a proposed future vision. The animations were hosted as part of the study website experience and embedded within the large format constraints and options maps. 1.16 Community Group Meetings A number of requests to meet were issued to the various local groups within the community. Unfortunately, no responses were received from the groups noting their members may still have provided representation through the public survey questionnaire and online materials. Micro-Transition Animations were effective in showing what could be developed
Page 17
14 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
Page 18
15 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2 STAGE 1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 2.1 Sources of Community Feedback The multiple engagement platforms made available to the community supported them to engage with the project providing feedback both digitally and in person. A summary of the received feedback by the various engagement platforms used is summarised in the following table. Format Responses Received Survey (Paper) 5 Survey (Digital) 35 Community Feedback Tool (Digital) 5 Total Quantitative Responses 45 Community Public Event Attendees 61 Stakeholder Meetings 0 Total Non-Quantitative Responses 61 1https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/scotland/argyll_and_bute/S19002472__r othesay/ 2.2 Survey Sample Validation A total of 45 quantitative responses were received from Rothesay’s population of 4,4001 residents. This represents a sample size of 1% which is lower than the 10 – 15% aimed for. This equates to a total sample size of 0.7% when considering the population on the whole of the Isle of Bute which has 6,498 residents (c.3,328 households)2. The winter dark nights / changing of the season may also have impacted on the community’s appetite to attend the public event. 2 Census 2022
Page 19
16 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.3 Survey Participant Demographics 2.4 Participant Demographics This question was asked as it is important to capture the views of people with varying levels of life experience to assist in the design process. Of the participant responses received 32% were between 40-59 years old (26% Census 2022). 51% were aged between 60-79 (34% census 2022). 5% were older than 79 (8% census 2022). The results indicate that the survey was completed by a disproportionately greater number of over people between 40- and 79-year-old. Only 8% of participants were younger than 40 (33% Census 2022). 3% preferred not to say how old they were. These results highlight that the survey has not captured the views of the younger community (0% younger than 21-year-old). However, the school engagement event was well attended and their views have been recorded through less prescriptive measures than the survey questionnaire and are not therefore included in this summary.
Page 20
17 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.5 Participants by Gender Of the total respondents, 54% were women / girls (52% census 2022) and 41% as men / boys (48% census 2022). No respondents identified as non-binary and 5% of respondents indicated that they would prefer not to say. Overall, we consider the respondents reflect a reasonable cross-section of the community however the results are slightly skewed more towards the views of females, as data from 2022 census demonstrates there are 4% more women have completed the project survey. 2.6 Participants Relationship with the Area Respondents were asked if they lived in Rothesay. This question was relevant to ask as it is important to understand if the respondent is responding with longer term experience of the community or as a tourist/visitor. 100% of respondents are full time residents in the community and none of the respondents have either lived in the community historically, or visited at least once a year.
Page 21
18 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.7 Participants Health The majority of participants considered themselves to be able-bodied and did not have a health or disability that impacted on their everyday mobility (71%). None of the respondents indicated they did have some health or disability which limits their day-to-day activity a lot, 21% indicated their disability or health issue would affect them a little and 3% say they are limited a lot. 5% of respondents indicated that they would prefer not to say. 2.8 Participants Health Issues Of the respondents indicating they did have a health-related disability, 38% indicated their disability was related to mobility or stamina. 8% of the respondents say they have breathing or stamina conditions that affect them. 8% indicated a challenge relating to hearing. 8% respondents have mental health conditions 0% related to poor vision and 8% indicated they’d prefer not to say. These questions are important to ask as they assist the design team in designing for all user groups, including those with protected characteristics.
Page 22
19 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.9 Participants Employment Status Participants were asked to qualify their employment status. This question was relevant to ask as the design team will need to consider how the project would support economic activity and support the movement of people to and from places of work. 16% of respondents indicated that they are currently not employed. 24% indicated they were employed full time and 13% work part time, 13% indicated they were self-employed and 34% of respondents said they were retired or not applicable. 2.10 Results Comparison with 2022 Census 3 https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/scotland/argyll_and_bute/S19002469__rothesay/ To assist in understanding more about how representative the study demographics are, the survey results were compared with the 2022 Census for Rothesay3. The results indicate that the project feedback demographic by age and all genders is broadly comparable with the census analysis. The community has a marginally higher proportion of female to males and a mature population with 23% over 65 years of age. These results align with the survey feedback with a slightly more female responses be received than male. However, the survey results include a much larger proportion of responses are from more mature members of the community. Overall, the study results are considered to capture a good sample of the community, capturing the views of both able bodied and those less able, those in work and those unemployed.
Page 23
20 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.11 Views on Opportunities and Barriers to Walking, Cycling & Wheeling? Participants were asked how often they walked or cycled. This question is relevant as it helps us understand the popularity of walking and cycling within the community at present. 69% of respondents indicate that they walk or cycle daily, 11% roughly 3 times a week, 3% twice a week and 17% roughly once a week. These results indicate the community is relatively active and that cycling and walking is a popular travel mode. 2.12 Participants Travel Habits Along Victoria Street Following on from this question, participants were then asked how often they typically travelled along Victoria Street. Only 11% of respondents indicated that they travel along the road one day a week, 11% twice a week, 17% 3 times a week, 56% said they travel along Victoria Street more than three times a week, and 6% said they don’t travel along the road. The results of this question indicate that participants don’t travel along the road frequently.
Page 24
21 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.13 Participants Parking Habits Along Victoria Street Following on from this question, participants were then asked how often they park a car along Victoria Street. 3% of respondents indicated that they park a car along Victoria Street once a day, 21% twice a week, 26% three times a week, 18% said they don’t own a car, and 32% said they don’t park along the road. The results of this question indicate that participants don’t regularly park along the road. 2.14 Participants Travel Mode Influences Participants were asked to provide an insight into the factors influencing their travel mode decisions. Participants provided a variety of reasons they viewed to be barriers to travel by sustainable travel modes along the project route. To enable the processing and presentation of data, the responses were categorised into a number of themes. A summary of the themes is presented as follows: Road is too wide Animal Droppings Poorly Parked Cars Speeding Traffic Poor pavements Other Don’t Have Any Considering the responses received, the majority of travel barriers relate to the perception of traffic speed, poorly parked cars and the conditions of the pavements. Many of these issues are within the scope of this project design and could be directly addressed through design development.
Page 25
22 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.15 Future Opportunities to Improve Active Travel 2.16 Participants View of Concept Participants were asked to consider if they believed that the provision of a car free route within the project area would encourage them to walk or cycle more often. 9% of respondents believed that the provision of a route as described through the public engagement process would encourage them to walk and cycle more often and 91% said it would not.
Page 26
23 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.17 Participants Travel Corridor Preference To assist the design team in developing the most appropriate route corridor, the community was asked which of the route options is best suited between the pavilion and the ferry junction. 51% chose option 1, 3% chose option 2, none chose option 3. 3% chose option 4, and 5% chose option 5. The other 38% said that no improvement is required. 2.18 Community Route Preference The community was asked was, which of the route options works the best between the section of the route between the ferry junction and Albert Pier. 53% of respondents indicated that Option A worked best (Widen route and provide path on inland side keeping road as it is), 8% of respondents said Option B worked best (Widen route and provide path on coastal side keeping road as it is). None of the respondent chose option C (Shared use of West Princess Street then widen route and provide a path on inland side of road). 39% said that none of the options should be considered.
Page 27
24 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.19 Participants Views Regarding Front Green The community was then asked whether or not the front green should be improved. To which 35% of respondents indicated that an improvement would be welcomed, 58% of respondents said they didn’t want it to be altered, and 8% said they didn’t know.
Page 28
25 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.20 Participants Thoughts and Aspirations for Improvements Participants were asked about their thoughts, aspirations and considerations the proposed design should take cognisance of. To enable the processing and presentation of the responses, the responses were again categorised into a number of themes. A summary of the themes is presented as follows and shown in the chart opposite. Reduction in Parked Vehicles Don’t do Anything Everything Improved Lighting Cycle Lanes Removed More Crossing Points Return Fairy Lights The feedback from the community to this question provides a good level of insight into the challenges the design is required to address and highlights the challenges in maintaining a design balance that will address all the points proportionately.
Page 29
26 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.21 Participants View on Future Project Locations Participants were then asked whether there were any other locations on the Isle of Bute, the community think should be looked at for improvement. To enable the processing and presentation of the responses, the responses were categorised into areas. A summary of is presented as follows and shown in the following chart. The High Street Albert Pier No Kerrycroy Port Bannatyne Townhead
Page 30
27 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 1 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS
Page 31
28 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3 STAGE 1 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS Five initial responses were received through the Community Feedback Tool (CFT) followed by a further 21 which were added by the design team to capture the publics views following the public engagement. The responses were provided anonymously. Participant's comments were located along the route. In the majority, comments were positive with participants providing concerns relating to visibility, a lack of provision for pedestrians to cross with concerns that once the Pavilion opens, more pedestrian traffic will be generated. Some of the comments provided detailed summaries of localised challenges which will greatly assist the design development process. The stage 1 feedback received is presented by location and verbatim in the following figure and table. Each comment reference is shown in the figure.
Page 32
29 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stage 1 Community Feedback Tool comments by location
Page 33
30 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1 Narrow section of esplanade at this location 2 When leaving Mackinlay street to turn right into town, it’s really difficult to see past parked cars. This is very dangerous when driving, but while on a bicycle I have several times had to go far into the road in order to see both ways, once or twice being dangerously closely passed by cars which I couldn’t see were coming while further back. The curve of the road exacerbates this. Having lights there could help, and when the Pavilion opens, I would expect more pedestrians to want to cross from the prom to the Pavilion. 3 Intersection of ferry traffic lanes and road ignores the interests of pedestrians. The junction here is also hazardous for cyclists. In fact the whole section between the Pavilion and the pier is hazardous for cyclists (parked vehicles, vehicles negotiating the mini roundabouts, cobbled strips across the road, cars, lorries, buses all competing for space). Maybe reduce the space devoted to parked cars (there are underused parking spaces elsewhere in town, e.g. near the main co-op store). Maybe idealistic but there is an excellent bus service on Bute, it could be used more. Encourage people out of their cars, pedestrianise Montague Street, apart from buses, have a dedicated bike or bike/pedestrian lane right through from Prospect House to Craigmore. 4 I think we need a safe crossing at the ferry crossing for pedestrians. There is already a set of lights, it should have a ‘green man’ as well as the lights for cars. If this is not a suitable spot, then perhaps the raised areas opposite the Discovery theatre should be a safe pedestrian crossing, I believe it was previously one. 5 No provision for pedestrian crossing at ferry junction location 5 Waste of Money! 6 I am opposed to the plan. Money can be spent much more wisely and usefully. eg. designated lane for disabled users to get onto the ferry lift 7 Not enough parking as it is, so don’t prefer any option that cuts down parking, Option 1 takes least change to roads and uses a matured foot path that exists 8 There is no designated parking for disabled passengers who need to travel by car 9 Review pinch points - Ardbeg Po, Brechans, Gallowgate
Page 34
31 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 10 Spend money on Albert Pier to Glenburn road 11 There is not enough parking in town as it is, so option 1 route should not impinge on the road way 11a Option 1 preferred route 12 Option 1 preferred 13 Include Palm trees in the middle of the road 14 Putting greens and gardens must be maintained for attracting tourists 15 Could this not be extended to the end of Battery Place? 16 Flower beds in centre of the road 17 pedestrian lights wanted at Victoria street/ high street junction 18 So many eye sores around ferry terminal that it would be a real shame to lose the lovely areas around the winter gardens 19 Important to retain the coach parking at Albert Pier 20 Dangerous pavements here 21 Too many small Manhole covers on the pavement on Gallowgate 22 Pelican crossing in front of pavilion is preferable 23 Better curbs for wheelchair users
Page 35
32 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 1 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK
Page 36
33 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4 STAGE 1 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK To support the design optioneering process, a number of stakeholders identified within the stakeholder mapping were engaged with. A range of engagement methods were used for each group. Stakeholder Meetings The study team met with a range of stakeholders identified through the study mapping process. We utilised consultation mandates to plan 1-2-small group workshop sessions with key stakeholders to introduce the team and discuss the study. Stakeholders included: Key council staff; Key local groups; Local Community Councils; Other key stakeholders. The workshops followed a similar format providing an introduction to the study, setting ambitions, and introducing the team. ABC Network Management The team met with James Ross of ABC Network Management virtually to discuss the Rothesay project. Following a presentation of the project to date, a constructive conversation explored a number of topics including: Route alignment challenges, particularly relating to the sea defence impacts, minimising future maintenance obligations and Roads Construction Consent (RCC).
Page 37
34 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4.1 Council Statutory Consultees The stakeholders identified through the stage 0 of this project and noted within the stakeholder mapping were consulted as part of the project. A summary of the other stakeholder feedback received is summarised as follows. 4.2 Non-Council Statutory Consultees A summary of the non-council stakeholder feedback received is summarised as follows. 4.3 Community Groups Community groups have been engaged through the public engagement process. No direct response has been provided. 4.4 Traditionally Harder to Reach Groups / Individuals Engagement was undertaken with the residents of the community. The design team arranged a meeting with Bute Prides chairperson Angie Webb. As a keen cyclist within the community Angie was able to provide a great insight to the challenges faced by those less heard voices. A number of issues were identified including: The area is considered pretty safe already for walking and cycling when compared with other urban locations; Noted that for older less mobile people, a lack of dropped kerbs and coherent routes may limit travel options; Familiarity with the local area has added compliancy to accepting the issues; Tractors in the area are massive and can be intimidating when cycling along Victoria Street; The Front Green is noted to be ‘going downhill’ and would benefit from improvements. The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) was consulted and highlighted that there is no specific representation for Rothesay available to provide comment. 4.5 Landowners and Affected Parties The design team worked with the local community / stakeholder feedback to identify potentially impacted landowners. The Registry of Scotland (ROS) was contacted to obtain current legal land ownership details. These details were ABC Marine Operations Not consulted as no service impact ABC Fleet Public Transport Not consulted as no service impact ABC Outdoor Access Not consulted as no service impact ABC Youth Services Not consulted as no service impact ABC Community Development Team Not consulted as no service impact ABC Economic Development Not consulted as no service impact SEPA Not Consulted Scottish Water No Issue. Details to be provided SSE No Issue. Details to be provided
Page 38
35 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com included within our landowner engagement tracker and recorded within our stakeholder mapping and constraint mapping (shown in circles). The ROS confirmed that the study area is within the ownership of Argyll and Bute Council (ABC).
Page 39
36 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 1 BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNTIES
Page 40
37 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 5 STAGE 1 BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES 5.1 The Challenges to Active Travel The community engagement programme has identified a number of barriers to travelling sustainably. These have been categorised and summarised as follows: lack of lowered curbs; Dangerous pavements; Access to the ferry terminal limited; Protecting the front green is a concern; Lack of provision for disabled and minority user groups; Lack of pedestrian crossings; Vehicle speeds a concern; Dangerous road crossings at points; Improvements to pedestrian and cycle crossing on Victoria Street, at the ferry terminal junction and the pavilion; A clear preference for no impact on parking; Minimise the impact on Albert pier due to tourist traffic and coach parking; Why here and why such a short section of route; Limited support for investment or change;
Page 41
38 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 2 – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Page 42
39 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 6 STAGE 2 – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 6.1 Further Engagement Following the conclusion of the stage 1 consultation and completion of the stage 1 options feasibility report, option 2 (road corridor with route on coastal side) was shortlisted for further development and consultation. The decision to progress the design was partly due to the limited responses received during stage 1 and the anticipation that by providing an example of what could be achieved, a greater proportion of the public would engage during stage 2. The scheme was also extended from Albert Pier to Glenburn Road to address some of the stage 1 feedback regarding the useability of the route and concerns raised regarding developing short sections of route. To support the process, the engagement plan as described within the stage 1 section of this report was repeated. This included: A second public event was held on the 21st August 2024 at the Discovery Centre between the times of 16:30 and 20:30; A interactive discussion session with s4 pupils of Rothesay Academy to review the concept ‘fly though’ animation, capture views and test the engagement materials. A drop-in session at Rothesay Swimming Pool using the ‘Toblerone’ interactive podium. The event lasted 1 hour and captured the views of the community within the swimming pool foyer; Production of a 40-minute-long Project Podcast to explain the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). The podcast was hosted on-line within the project virtual room; A post public event Community Council public meeting was hosted by the council on the 26th September. Two one -hour long meetings were facilitated to present the scheme and allow further question and answers of the community’s concerns; The event was advertised by the Community Council utilising social media and leaflet distribution. The design team also advertised the event on social media; and Production of a 4-minute-long video infomercial to provide an explanation to the project and limitations to funding. The use of an video format had been developed successfully on other projects and supported more meaningful engagement with the community. Similar to the stage 1 event, 5 large formats graphically designed A1 presentation boards were developed to explain the project along with 3 x 1.5m x 2.0m long concept design prints. It was noted that during the stage 1 event, the public experienced some difficulty in working with the map-based images. To improve on the publics interface with the study materials a ‘fly along’ video was produced for stage 2 using a combination of Google Earth and the scheme concept design. The ‘fly through’ was projected onto the Discovery Centre wall using a large format projector and supported by narration provided by the study team.
Page 43
40 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The event was advertised to the community through the use of local press coverage in Appendix C (Isle of Bute News), local poster advertising and support offered from the Rothesay Community Council. The team again posted regular updates using social media in advance of the event. These updates being reposted by the community multiple times across the community’s own social media space including the Isle of Bute Facebook Page. All visitors attending the event were given the choice of completing the project survey questionnaire or accessing our range of digital tools to provide feedback via QR codes and URL links. A key advantage of the digital platform is, that even with the poor impact of weather on attendance, the materials could still be accessed and commented upon at a time that best suited the consultees. The event took place on a wet and rainy weekday night. A total of 110 people managed to meet the team (90% increase from the 61 attendees for stage 1). During the event, the majority of visitors were observed by the design team to bypass the project information boards provided and congregated around the ‘fly through’ video. A number of visitors attended promptly and prior to the completion of video / event set-up. Many of the visitors were noted to repeat the same questions regarding project funding, parking impacts and how the pavement parking ban would impact on their businesses. This information being available within the bypassed boards. The team struggled to manage the surge of visitors and the number and frequency of repetitive questions, with many being raised by new visitors joined the rear of the group. Due to the loud voices of a few, a number of visitors who were supportive of the project felt uncomfortable speaking up in public resulting in many of the louder and more aggressive voices dominating the event. A number of those in support of the project investment did reach out and engaged with the design team later during the event. It is noted, the value offered by the online engagement platform also allowing the islands community to still provide their feedback for a period of six weeks post event. A register extract of those attending the event is shown in Appendix B. Post event, leaflets and surveys were left on the counter of Rothesay’s Discovery front desk and the large format concept plans left on display for a period of four weeks, before being reused at the Community Council public meeting. The design team met and spoke with a number of people in the community, visiting the Rothesay joint campus and the Discovery Centre. All school pupils engaged in project conversation and either completed a survey response on their own or provided feedback that the team used to complete a survey on their behalf at that time.
Page 44
41 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 6.2 Event Advertising The advertising approach to stage 2 was similar to stage 1 with the key difference of scaling back the leaflet production following further advise and support from the community council and BUTE BID. It was agreed that the use of paper-based leaflets would have limited value within Rothesay as the island is more reliant on digital media (Facebook) and word of mouth. Accordingly, only 100 leaflets were printed for stage 2 and advertised through the town three weeks in advance of the planned public event. Leaflets were this time distributed by BUTE BID whilst the design team issued leaflets to the Library, town businesses, Discovery Centre and Co-Op. The study Facebook page alongside the community page were used to advertise the event with a number of post prompts issued in advance. A paid for advertisement was also take out within the Argyllshire Advertiser who subsequently printed a number of editorial extracts (weekly). During the design teams visit to the island the digital ‘Toblerone’ advertising totem was also deployed to raise community awareness of the forthcoming event and project. Rothesay joint Academy also agreed to circulate information to parents and pupils through the PTA and student council. The public engagement event was open to the public for comment for a total period of six weeks (two weeks in stage 1) to maximise the opportunity for public feedback. The consultation period was supported again through the use of virtual engagement room which had subsequently also been revised and improved.
Page 45
42 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Photos from August 24th Public and Schools Engagement
Page 46
43 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stage 2 Concept 3D Flythrough Extract
Page 47
44 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7 STAGE 2 - SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 7.1 Sources of Community Feedback The multiple engagement platforms made available to the community supported the community to engage with the project providing feedback both digitally and physically. A summary of the received feedback by the various engagement platforms used is summarised in the following table. Format Responses Received Survey (Paper) 22 Survey (Digital) 603 Community Feedback Tool (Digital) 85 Total Quantitative Responses 710 Community Public Event Attendees for stage 2 110 Stakeholder Meetings 4 Community Council Public Meeting Attendance 19 Total Non-Quantitative Responses 133 4 Census 2022 7.2 Survey Sample Validation A total of 710 quantitative responses were received from the island’s population of 6,498 residents (c.3,328 households)4. This represents a sample size of around 11% which is aligned with the 10 – 15% typically received on other similar projects. This equates to sample size of 16% when considering the population of Rothesay. The results are also higher sample rate than those received for stage 1 (45 responses - 1% sample). The higher stage 2 level of response is a positive reflection on the additional methods invested to engage with the community, the value of utilising an extended six-week consultation period and possibly the extension of the route to include Battery Place to Glenburn Road. These results are despite the event being undertaken during a wet and windy summers night which will have had an adverse impact on the community’s appetite to visit the event. An analysis of the survey responses received is provided in the remainder of this chapter. The free text comments provided as part of the survey responses are included in Appendix D.
Page 48
45 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stage 2 – Section A - Participant Demographics 7.3 Participants Age This question was asked as it is important to capture the views of people with varying levels of life experience and perspectives. Of the participant responses received: 16% were aged under 40 (16% census 2022). 40% were aged between 40-59 (26% census 2022). 33% were younger than 60-79 (34% census 2022). 2% were older than 79 (8% census 2022). These results highlight that not only have more people participated in the project but a wide range of age groups across the community have been consulted. The results indicate a slight over representation of 40–59-year-olds (40% project vs. 26% census). However, all other age bands are well aligned with the census 2022 for the Rothesay ward area. The under 40 years olds are now also better represented when compared with the stage 1 results (16% stage 2 vs. 8% stage 1).
Page 49
46 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.4 Participants Gender Of the total respondents, 52% were women / girls (52% census 2022) and 37% as men / boys (48% census 2022). 1% of respondents identified as non-binary, 0.50% were transman and 0.17% transwomen. 9% of the respondents indicated that they would prefer not to say. Overall, the results reflect a reasonable cross-section of the community and are broadly aligned with the census demographic split, albeit slightly less respondents identifying as men / boys. A key difference from the stage 1 results is that the views of females are better represented aligning well with the census data (52% project vs. 52% from 2022 census). 7.5 Participants Health The majority of participants considered themselves to be able-bodied and did not have a health or disability that impacted on their everyday mobility (72%). No person indicated they have some health or disability which limits their day-to-day activity a lot, However, 13% of respondents did indicate that their disability or health issue would affect them a little. 16% participants preferred to not say anything.
Page 50
47 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.6 Details of Participant Health Of the respondents indicating they did have a health-related disability, 20% indicated their disability was related to mobility or stamina but not breathing related. These questions are important to ask as they assist the design team in designing for all user groups, including those with protected characteristics. 7.7 Participants Employment Status Participants were asked to qualify their employment status. This question was relevant to ask as the design team will need to consider how the project would support economic activity and support the movement of people to and from places of work as part of ‘everyday’ journeys. 1% of the respondents indicated that they are currently not employed. 50% indicated they were employed either part time or full time, 30% indicated they were self-employed and 18% of respondents said they were retired or not applicable.
Page 51
48 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.8 Results Comparison with 2022 Census To assist in understanding more about how representative the survey demographics are, the survey results were compared with the 2022 census5 for Rothesay. The results indicate that the project feedback demographic by age and all genders is broadly comparable with the census analysis noting that the under 21 years olds is a small proportion of the community at only 3%. Overall, the study results are considered to capture a good sample of the community, capturing the views of both able bodied and those less able, those in work and those unemployed or studying. The results also show an improvement on the stage 1 results with the demographics presenting a more representative match with the census. This is partly due to the increased sample size. 5https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/scotland/argyll_and_bute/S52000547__rot hesay/ 7.9 Participants Residential Status Respondents were asked if they lived in Rothesay. This question was relevant to ask as it is important to understand if the respondent is responding with longer term experience of the community or as a tourist/visitor. 70% of respondents are full time residents in the community. 25% have either lived in the community historically, or visited at least once a year. The results indicate that ¾ of the respondents are commenting as longer-term members of the community.
Page 52
49 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stage 2 – Section B - Participant Travel Habits 7.10 Walking and Wheeling between the Pavilion to Glenburn Road All participants (residents and visitors) were asked how often they currently walk or wheel from the Pavilion to Glenburn Road. A summary of the results is presented below. 45% of the participants said they travel this section less than once a week or never. 39% say they travel this route more than once a week. 17% indicated they travel the route more than once a day. Overall, 45% of respondents do not walk or wheel the route regularly. With 39% using the route at least once a week and 17% using the route more than once a day. Overall, the route between the Pavilion and Glenburn Road is not well used currently by walking or wheeling modes as part of respondent’s everyday travel. It may be possible that part of the route is more popular but this would require further investigation through survey to qualify.
Page 53
50 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.11 Cycling between the Pavilion to Glenburn Road All participants (residents and visitors) were asked how often they travel from Pavilion to Glenburn Road using a bicycle. 85% say they never cycle this route. 13% say they travel this route more than once a week. 1% indicated they travel the route more than once a day. Overall, more than 85% of respondents do not own a bike or cycle the route currently. A further 13% travel the route less than once a week with only 1% cycling regular every day. The route is therefore not popular for regular cycling as part of everyday journeys. Similar to walking results from the previous question, it may be possible that part of the route is more popular but this would require further investigation through survey to qualify.
Page 54
51 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.12 Parking Along the Route at Victoria Street or Albert Pier All participants (visitors and residents) were asked How often do they park on Victoria Street or Albert Pier. 25% of the participants said they rarely park 12% say they don’t own a car. 9% said they park once a week, 9% also say they park less than once a week, 8% park two days a week, 8% park 3 days a week, 6% of the participants say they park on this route once or more a day, 5% park on the route 4 times, 5% times a week, 4% park 6 days a week and only 2% park along the route at the weekends only. Overall, a relatively small proportion of the total survey respondents parked a vehicle within the study area on a regular basis. This is relevant when considering in conjunction with the number of comments provided by respondents in relation to overall parking deficiency within the study area. These are qualified later within this chapter.
Page 55
52 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.13 Views if the Concepts Offers Benefit to the Community All participants (visitors and residents) were asked if they felt the proposed concept design suited the community’s needs? This question helps us understand the communities’ thoughts on the appropriateness of the design and their understanding of the project aims and funding limitations. Residents 95% of resident’s respondents who own a car or drive said ‘No’ and 5% of respondents said ‘Yes’. 2% answered ‘Don’t know’. These results indicate the community is overall unsupportive of the concept design and the value it may bring. This level of response, may indicate issues with the concept, concerns reading change or a lack of understanding of project aims and funding. Visitors Visitors to the island who also drive responded with 86% saying ‘No’ and 14% of respondents said ‘Yes’. These results indicate that visitors to the community are also unsupportive of the proposed scheme, but less so than the residents (5% residents support concept vs. 14% of visitors). The slight difference in positive opinion might reflect difference in opinion regarding the ‘fear of change’ with visitors more open to changes
Page 56
53 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.14 Views on Concept Community Benefits by Car / Non-Car Drivers The resident community (only) results were interrogated further to better understand how their views are aligned with their mobility habits. An analysis of residents (only) views on the concept designs benefit to the community based on their preference to own or use a car was examined. Non-Car Users A total 17 respondents (5/5%) indicated that they did not regularly use a car. This is lower percentage of non-car owners than the census 2022 (43%) and reflects that not all respondents disclosed their use of car. A total of 59% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community, with some expressing concerns relating to the design’s safety. A total of 41% of resident respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community and offered a welcomed addition. Car Users A total 292 respondents indicated that they did regularly use a car or park within the study area. Of these a total of 96% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community, with some expressing concerns relating to the value of investing in other more necessary improvements including additional parking. A total of 2% of resident car user respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community and offered a welcomed addition. Overall, it appears that the non-car users are more supportive than car users (non-car 41% support vs. car users 2%). The overall number of non-car users is however much lower than those regular car users reflecting a small sample. Additional surveying would be required to assist in qualifying any relationship between response and car use.
Page 57
54 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.15 Views on Concepts Community Benefits by Gender The resident community (only) results were interrogated further to better understand how their views relate to their stated gender. An analysis of residents (only) views on the concept designs benefit to the community based on their gender was examined. To aid in reporting, the multiple gender groups have been combined into two groups, female and male. Residents A total 205 respondents indicated they were women, girl or trans female. Of these a total of 95% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 3% of resident respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community and offered a welcomed addition. A total 165 respondents indicated that they were male, boy or trans man. Of these a total of 86% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 13% of male grouped respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community. Overall, it appears that the women grouped respondents are slightly less supportive than male grouped of the concept (female 3% support vs. male 13%).
Page 58
55 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.16 Views on Concept Community Benefits by Employment Status The resident community (only) results were interrogated further to better understand how their views relate to their employment status. An analysis of residents (only) views on the concept designs benefit to the community based on their employment was examined. Residents A total 148 respondents indicated they were not currently employed, retired or in education. Of these a total of 87% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 11% of resident respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community and offered a welcomed addition. 2% remain unsure and did not comment. A total 232 respondents indicated that they were in employment. Of these a total of 94% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 6% of respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community. A total of 1% indicated they were unsure. Overall, it appears that the employed grouped of respondents are slightly less supportive than male grouped (not-employed 11% support vs. employed 6%).
Page 59
56 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.17 Views on Concept Community Benefits by Age The resident community (only) results were interrogated further to better understand how their views relate to their stated age. An analysis of residents (only) views on the concept designs benefit to the community based on their age was examined. To aid in reporting, age bands have been grouped into 21 and under and 21 and over. Residents A total of only 8 respondents indicated they were 21 or under. Of these a total of 25% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 75% of resident respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community and offered a welcomed addition. A total 240 respondents indicated that they were aged over 21. Of these a total of 93% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 5% of respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community. A total of 2 % indicated they were unsure. Overall, it appears that respondents under 21 years are old are more supportive of the concept. However, with only 8 respondents, the sample size is noted to be small and potentially under representative. Those older than 21 are more likely to be employed and are less supportive of the proposed change.
Page 60
57 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.18 Views on Design Measures Supporting Future Walking and Wheeling The community (both residents and visitors) were asked, whether the concept measures are likely to improve opportunities for future walking and wheeling within Rothesay. The majority 90% think the design will not result in any increased walking or wheeling activity. The remaining 10% support the design and believe it will encourage more walking and cycling for the community. 7.19 Views on Appropriateness of Concept with Current Community Needs To help us understand how participants currently feel about the concept’s alignment with current community needs. Respondents were asked if they were overall pleased with the concept would address current mobility concerns. These concerns were raised by the community through the 2016 design charette. 90% of respondents said they were concerned and thought the concept was unsatisfactory. The remaining 10% indicated that they were pleased with the concept and that it would support the community’s current mobility needs.
Page 61
58 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.20 Respondents Views Regarding Perception of Project Value and Intended Use The results of the survey feedback were further interrogated to better understand how the community have responded to the concept. Each survey response was interrogated to further understand how well informed the respondents are whilst providing feedback. The comments were varied in detail with some statements including excessive detail, negative slurs, personal attacks on individuals and the use of explanative language. These types of response are not typically associated with a civilised community. In some cases, and by contrast a proportion of responses included a copy and paste of a short statement with a clear indication of completing and submitting the survey as quickly as possible. From a review of the surveys a number of observations were made. A total of 1,686 individual comments were provided6 across the 603 surveys received. In the majority, most respondents when providing a comment noted they would prefer the project to be ‘scrapped’ or consider it to be a ‘waste of money’ (22% of all comments and 62% of all surveys received). 18% of the comments suggested changes that are beyond the scope or reach of the project. These comments would therefore indicate the respondents lack of understanding of the projects aim, limitation in how the 6 Users were limited to single use IP addresses. funding can be used. A number of comments referenced other general feedback which could also indicate the respondent is making comment through influence of others. It was noted through social media that a number of people within the community were influencing feedback either through provision of mis-information or seeking to increase their personal status as community contributors. These comments have been recorded by the design team as ‘project misunderstood’ and accounted for just over half of the feedback received. C. 51% of the total survey responses received. A total of 16% of the comments made indicated that the project was not needed or unwanted. These direct rejection comments accounted for just under half of the surveys received (45%). A total of 13% of comments indicated that respondents felt the project would not be used once complete. These comments accounted for 35% of all survey responses received. 7.21 Respondents Views on the Suitability of the Design Only 10% of all comments received related to views expressed (positive or negative) referenced the suitability of the concept design. These comments accounting for 27% of all survey responses received. Details of concept design suggested changes are summarised as follows.
Page 62
59 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com A total of 6% of comments indicated that the design was ‘too focused on cycles’ and /or would introduce potential safety concerns. These comments being mentioned in 16% of all surveys received. A total of 4% of all comments received suggests that the project would be best relocated elsewhere. Alternative locations were however rarely suggested. These comments accounted for 11% of all surveys received. A summary of the comments received by percentage popularity and a summary of comments received as a percentage of total survey responses received is presented in the following charts.
Page 63
60 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com
Page 64
61 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com
Page 65
62 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.22 Summary of when Responses were Received Analysis of the timeline of when the surveys have been received was also undertaken. This analysis is relevant as it can assist in understanding how the community have reacted to both the range of engagement methods used but also the strength of feeling of the respondents. It was clear from the stage 2 public event that a portion of the community did have concerns regarding the concept design and were very vocal to make their opinions known. Analysis of the survey entries shows that the majority of responses received were submitted within the first 48 hours. On the 21st of August 279 (34%) surveys had been completed on day one. A further ‘thank you’ Facebook post was issued by the design team to the communities group page ‘The Isle of Bute’ and ‘Rothesay, Pavilion To Albert Pier study page’ following the event. This increased the survey results by 387 (47%) to 81% within the first two days. It is observed following multiple social media public ‘call to action’ posts issued within the six week consultation period, only a small increase in surveys were received. Ongoing social media debate indicated a lack of support for the scheme which did not translate into additional survey responses. It is therefore concluded that the majority of the population ‘active’ on social media submitted a survey at the study outset within the first 24 hours with the limiting ‘one survey per IP address’ preventing repeat survey submissions. The results in combination with the low level of stage 1 feedback, indicates that the majority of surveys have been completed by a ‘group’ of the community active on social media and generally unsupportive of the project. The timeline analysis of response is shown in the following chart.
Page 66
63 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 2 - COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS
Page 67
64 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 8 STAGE 2 - COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS 8.1 Summary A total of 85 additional responses (stage 2) were received through the Community Feedback Tool (CFT) for the stage 2 consultation (110 total). The responses were provided anonymously. Participant's comments were located along the route. Comments covered a wide range of subjects including providing challenge on the detail of the concept operation with a focus on septic tank conflicts, parking and access to the church and approach to the project. The stage 2 CFT feedback received is presented by location and verbatim in the following figure and table. Each stage 2 comment reference is shown in the figure. Stage 1 comment reference are not shown in the following figure to avoid confusion.
Page 68
65 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stage 2 -Community Feedback Tool comments by location (all comments)
Page 69
66 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 24 The council already have a problem funding existing flowerbed. Introducing more flowerbeds beds will not be well maintained in the future. Getting the existing pedestrian infrastructure into good order should be a priority. The pavements and footpaths are dangerous especially in Montague Street. I wouldn't like to have poor eyesight when trying to navigate my way around bad paving slabs. 25 First this area is used by the fair every year, where is it to go. Second it is ideal for walkers with without dogs, cyclists and pedestrians do not mix. 26 As people get older, they tend to rely on wheelchairs or even mobility scooters to get around. Narrowing the pavement in this plan will make it more difficult for them and other pedestrians. I would be extremely surprised if such a proposal to narrow a pavement (which the pavement parking ban is trying to address) could pass any competent equality impact assessment. Narrow pavements are also a problem for people with prams. 27 Do not impose floating pavements - where pedestrians/ bus passengers have to negotiate the cycle path in order to get on/ off a bus. RNIB are running a campaign highlighting the dangers of these crossings for bus users - especially those who are elderly or have visual impairments. 28 There is definitely conflicting views about the track. Your plans on this site show the paths which are already round the promenade area and not the plans which have been produced for the front page of the local paper. Local people realise that this money is confined only to the Cycle Path but what about the condition of the pavements. Are you going to repair the parts where the track has to go and leave the rest in a bad condition? 29 Along this stretch of pavement local residents and holiday makers actually walk but you are making this pavement smaller - are parents/grandparents out walking with prams meant to walk in single file and not communicate to anyone along the cycle route? What about people with disabilities - are they meant to walk/manage wheelchairs for example next to cycles whizzing past? What about residents with hearing difficulties and accidentally wander into the track. Will you make bikes have loud bells on them? Please do not return the advice that people could walk on the prom part as if weather is inclement this is not viable: this part of the prom was blocked off to vehicles etc due to part of it being unsafe. This whole cycle route will be a disaster for residents and despite what you say you are not listening to residents. 30 You have omitted to change this since the last consultation where you were advised that the ferry terminal can be very busy and cars are parked to as near the road as possible, leaving enough room for pedestrians to cross. It was a pity that you were not here during the Highland Games to see the volume of traffic. If you put the cycle lane at this part where are pedestrians meant to cross or are you trying to make Bute residents cross where you, who do not live on the island or actually listen to the residents, decide we have to cross. 31 Council can make extra parking places here but there is a crossing which dictates how near cars can be to the crossing, unless you wish everyone to break the law. 32 Increased parking for coaches means you are reducing parking, which is at a premium, to cars. Where are residents meant to park? The other side of the road you intend to put in more parking places which is something the council could do as they will collect the money from car parking places. You are only talking about two extra spaces at the most at this location. 33 Where are pedestrians given the right of the pavement which they are entitled to? Are parents meant to keep youngsters on a short leash so they do not stray on to the proposed cycle path? 34 An overflow carpark for the pier should be considered but never at the expense of the winter gardens. This area has HUGE cultural significance to
Page 70
67 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com the island and it must never be used for anything other than recreational use. 35 With the increase in volume of motors on the island this year, when the pier is full cars are seen overflowing along Victoria street. The weekend of butefest saw motors cue to the pavilion. the narrowing of the road for a clue path will create more issues for island residents 36 Due care and attention is required around the town cenotaph. A cycle lane along front of this monument is a sheer mark of disrespect. 37 More Cobble stones should be installed as a traffic calming measure. 38 Removing parked cars from this pavement will certainly be more sightly. However, with homes and guest houses along battery place, homeowners will have nowhere to park. 39 Narrowing of road is not advised, even if cycle lanes were installed, road cyclists will not use them and will make road conditions more dangerous when overtaking. With the narrowing of the road along Victoria street, visibility will be worse for larger vehicles(tractors, HGV, bin lorrys, Emergency services) spotting pedestrians 40 Parking heavy buses on the seawall is not advised 41 Any new area of pavement created will require bollards to prevent pavement parking. 42 Create more car-parking (not less) for tourists bringing their tourist money to Bute. Formally permit pavement parking (permitted and tolerated for years) on the ocean-side pavement of E Princes St and Battery Place. Guest houses and hotels in Battery Place already suffer with inadequate street parking. This proposed cycle-lane plan makes it worse. Eventually, all Rothesay businesses will suffer when guest houses can't attract Bute visitors for lack of parking. 43 Pedestrianise Montague Street, reduce through traffic to residents/shopkeepers and deliveries with moveable bollard. 44 Victoria Steet should foster designs utilised in Montague street that work to subtly reduce speed of traffic. Road is level with pavement, reduces car priority, pavement is maintained across side streets to denote pedestrian priority. Ambiguity in road design can work well to encourage drivers to be more courteous and considerate. 45 The 3 coach parking bays on the harbourside would block the view to the harbour for local cafes. Additionally more difficult for coaches to manoeuvre in and out. 46 I think that Rothesay already IS a 20 minute neighbourhood, but even if it's not - I have a query about why the Promenade (broad, runs from Pavilion to Ferry Terminal) is not being utilised for this? Similarly, on the other side, there is the pavement at high level and a lower level path - can't one of them be utilised as cycle path. Narrowing the road (which is already pretty narrow) feels like the wrong option. 47 Speed bumps need to be installed or speed cameras . Daily witness vehicles r speeding along here . 48 Persistent inconsiderate parking long term by large motor homes block the pavement at Albert Pier just past the phone box. Albert pier also currently used as a dumping ground for unused trailers and the odd caravan when not being used. What is happening to the derelict building? 49 Taxi rank must be sustained to allow for 11 taxis (current level) 50 Make the lights pedestrian and traffic flow controlled. The crossroads are busy and getting across can be challenging 51 Toilets at Albert pier need demolished and for it to have proper spaces for coaches as they currently have to park up on the pavement
Page 71
68 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 52 Need to ensure enough spaces for taxi rank 53 Must allow for parking / pulling in to drop off passengers for when Pavilion reopens 54 Albert Pier area is a weed strewn mess. Any chance of sorting this building and getting the fences down? 55 Trying to cross the road at this roundabout is difficult. 56 Will Camper Vans and motor homes be moved off the pavement at East Princes Street 57 Ferry Traffic makes this side of the road difficult to cross. 58 The cobbled area at the pier side of Guildford Square is too difficult to negotiate in a wheelchair comfortably or safely. The zebra crossing kerbs need to be dropped more. Crossing most of the roads on the way along from the start of the town at battery place to the pavilion can be very difficult in a wheelchair and potentially unsafe as the chair can get stuck, the dropped kerbs are not dropped enough in some areas and as a result can be painful. There is also difficulty in accessing dropped kerbs due to drivers parking inconsiderately beside them. Please allow some dropped kerbs along the way on the opposite side of the road to the intended route for wheelchair users to be able to cross safely from. 59 If you want to promote cycling why not look at providing a safe cycle path from the Port to Ettrick? A very popular route and you could use the existing overgrown walkway 60 This is a waste of money as we have a wide promenade where you can cycle already or road is perfectly safe to cycle. 61 Cyclists that come onto the island will not use a cycle path as they will be happier on the road and will be travelling much further than the cycle lane and will be travelling faster than safety would allow. I’m not really sure who this path is designed to be used by? It doesn’t go anywhere and anyone accessing it will have had to ride on the road to get there…. Riding through Rothesay is not dangerous but mixing cycling and pedestrians is. 62 This entire stretch of Battery Place includes a large number of guest houses / B&Bs, and multi-story apartment buildings. Consequently there is insufficient parking on the inland side of the road, as a result of which many cars park on the wide pavement on the shore side of the road - not out of disregard for the law, but out of necessity. The proposed plan offers no relief to this situation, but in fact makes it worse, but turning the roadside half of the shoreside pavement into a cycle path, which would therefore make it doubly an offence for cars to park there. Thus the plan (debateably) enhances the experience of a tiny minority of cycle users, at the expense of a very substantial number of resident vehicle users. 63 How’s about making the taxi rank better looking and en outing for electric taxis 64 Argyll & Bute Council's prime consideration should be first and foremost for the residents before accepting external funds for a vanity project that benefits few but adversely impacts on the lives of residents in E Princes Street and Battery Place. For many years parking has been allowed on the ocean-side pavement where this proposed new few hundred yards of cycle track is to be. Despite the law prohibiting pavement parking that A&B Council will be enforcing by the end of 2024, it is quite within the power of the Council to legitimise parking on the ocean-side pavement so that residents can continue to live harmoniously instead of squabbling over few remaining parking spots. With government encouragement, over the years houses have been sub-divided into multiple occupancy. Where there was once a three-storey home with perhaps a maximum of two vehicles, there are now properties along Battery Place that have been sectioned off into 3, requiring parking for up to six vehicles. E-Princes St to the end of Battery Place requires and deserves parking both sides of the road. A&B Council
Page 72
69 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com have the power to do this instead of considering a non-sensical cycle track along this route and a ridiculous waste of tax-payer money to simply redesign the coach parking and car parkings and rip up characterful cobbled paving to replace with unsightly tarmac. Why is this plan also reducing the number of taxi stands from eleven to four? Are the taxis to double-park elsewhere? There are simply too many bad elements to this proposal. 65 I have a separate question which we need to start a community chat about. The question: Is Argyle and Bute Council the most incompetent Council in Scotland? From all the holiday resorts in Scotland I have been to the areas the council are responsible for looking after are easily in the worst state of repair. Any repair they do undertake is half finished and barricaded with Herras fence. Rothesay is becoming like a building site where all the Herras fencing will eventually join to encircle us! A resolution to an actual problem would be useful. Middle of the busy season or any other season for that matter is there any difficulty walking or cycling from the Glenburn to Rothesay? None I have ever seen. So what exactly is the problem being resolved here? The resolution of a non problem is clearly causing many actual problems for real residents and holidaymakers. Many roads have one pavement. Battery place has 3 and one of them is wide enough to fit a bus and still have space to walk and cycle on but somehow Battery place needs more space for walking and cycling. Have the designers been to Battery Place? There are very few side streets so no real alternative for parking. This proposal needs to introduce full parking both sides of the road all the way along east Princess Street and Battery Place and beyond. This affects so many businesses, residents and holiday makers. Hotels, B&B’s, cafes, working people. Some of the residents may be retained fire fighters for all these designers know. They need access to their vehicles! 66 The scheme appears to have limited thinking it neither adds to Rothesay being a contemporary destination with ease of access, nor does it add to the connectivity of the town. The current scheme ignores the awesome opportunity of integrating the promenade with a cycle path. the island has more mobility scooters and access to the promenade is a bit tortious in places, so any improvement would be a benefit. Overall the proposed scheme does not connect anything for people in town, what would be of benefit would be a cycle pathway from the ferry to the school, connecting the doctors, the hospital and the health center 67 Battery Place towards to Glenburn Hotel do not need a cycle lane to cost more space problem which is already has. As there is most B&B located here, business need the car park space. Passed weekend just between 3 B&Bs there are 40 car space needed on both side road plus car space for residents alone the road. This plan will not benefit anyone on Rothesay. The pedestrian pass along the seafront is enough and safe for people walk pass Battery Place. 68 Road is far too narrow for large vehicles passing or when cyclists who will use the road 2 abreast it will be impossible to pass them leaving 1.5m 69 I think extending the pavement in front of vehicle access to the pier and ferry will cause chaos. 70 Waste of money in my opinion. Will cause more problems than benefits. Bute is already a safe cycling zone and the distance you have proposed is ludicrous. 71 This whole scheme is not suitable for this area. It will cause congestion and difficulty for pedestrians to walk along this area. Emergency vehicles going to emergencies will also have difficulty passing this area. Where will people park their cars, especially guests at hotels and b&b’s? It is not required and a complete waste of money. It will also impede entrance to the ferry terminal. There are many more reasons not to go ahead with this proposal a
Page 73
70 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com main factor being none of residents living on the island neither want it or asked for it. 72 Parking is very limited as it is. Residents/businesses require parking that sustains all. 73 This is a complete waste of money. There is a high proportion of elderly people on Bute and narrowing the pavement and road for a cycle lane that would be seldom used at the expense of what is already there and adequate for prams, mobility scooters and wheelchairs is just virtue signalling at it’s worst. 74 Cars parked on one side of the road and on the pavement at the other side of the road. Cars continually speeding at ridiculous speeds along the road and it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed. 75 Not enough spaces for the amount of taxis that the island currently has 76 This junction is bad enough at the moment for near misses, it will only result in a few crashes if they make the roundabout smaller/ reduce sightlines 77 This whole scheme needs to be abandoned, the vast majority of the community are against it 78 Absolute nonsense. This will cause chaos at Battery Place and badly affect businesses there. There is approx 20 miles of safe cycling road on the island. 79 Loal residents and accommodation businesses need the parking that will disappear from Battery place. Note the word 'need', there are no alternatives. This section at least must be cut from the plans. 80 New roundabout is far too small for buses to turn around. 81 If the public transport service was better then perhaps less people would drive. This would lead to less cars on the roads and make it safer for cyclists without the need to cause enormous disruption to create a cycle lane where it is not necessary. 82 The town in general needs adequate parking. 83 The pavement between between Ettrickdale and Ardmaleish has been broken and extremely unsafe for years, this has to be addressed. 84 Public gardens and verges should be maintained to ensure the town is presentable to all visitors. 85 All railings along the sea front areas are in dire need of repair. They are not only unsightly but unsafe. 86 It's quite obvious from all the comments by residents and business owners along E Princes St and Battery Place that car-parking is a major problem. This needs to be addressed by Argyll & Bute Council. This proposed cycling path along Battery Place simply creates more of a resident problem with parking in favour of a minority of possibles that might actually use this cycle path before it evaporates at the Glenburn Hotel. Argyll & Bute Council, listen to your rate payers!! Bin this part of the cycling lane proposal along E Princes St and Battery Place and, instead, legitimise the parking on the ocean-side pavement (already wide enough to be shared by parked cars and pedestrians). Will you listen to residents? Or will you bulldoze through your vanity project? 87 This Rothesay Pavilion to Glenburn Road Walking and Cycling Project proposal appears to simply involve an expensive rearrangement of parking at Albert Pier without much gain (if any) in additional parking. The proposal for a cycling lane along the ocean-side pavement on E Princes Street and Battery Place is bad, ill-conceived and detrimental to residents in so many ways. It’s dangerous and is a huge waste of taxpayer money. Cyclists currently share the road with motorists. Over the past few years there has been wide publicity to ensuring cyclists rightly receive better courtesy,
Page 74
71 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com awareness by motorists, and protection to avoid collision with motorists to the extent that nowadays any cyclists sharing the road in Battery Place are given a wide berth when overtaken by motorists. This proposal now has cyclists sharing a dedicated path with pedestrians. Whereas before there was little chance of a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian, a dog or a child there is (by the very design of this proposal) an increased chance of this happening. This proposal continually touts increased parking as one of its benefits without referring to the fact that parking along the ocean-side pavement will be permanently lost for up to as many as 30-40 vehicles in high season. Yes, there is government legislation banning pavement parking, but Argyll & Bute Council has the power to legitimize parking for vehicles on the E Princes and Battery Place ocean-side pavement which would be consistent with what has been allowed for decades. Over the years various governments have encouraged the conversion of houses into multiple flats. This has occurred in Battery Place. Where there was a single house with a parking need for one or two motor vehicles, houses have been converted into three flats (for example) resulting in the parking need for many more vehicles at the same address. With no other parking available, residents and businesses have for decades been allowed to park on the ocean-side pavement along E Princes Street and Battery Place. The concerns of residents and businesses for parking need to be addressed by Argyll & Bute Council. It’s not debatable whether there is a need for parking on the ocean-side pavement along E Princes Street and Battery Place. The merits of this cycling path proposal are, however, highly questionable and debatable as to whether it should exist here at the expense of required parking. In Battery Place this vast pavement is 4.60 metres wide, certainly enough for pedestrians to stroll along shared with parked cars. A stationery car must surely be preferable to walk past for pedestrians than having to share the path with cyclists travelling toward them silently and at speed…often unsighted. It’s easy to envisage an infant or dog straying into the path of a cyclist with this proposal. A collision is inevitable. And how might a cyclist take immediate evasive action? Duck off the cycle path and onto the road into the path of an oncoming vehicle? If the avoidance of a potential cyclist/motorist collision is a prime motivation for this cycling path, why not have cyclists share the promenade with pedestrians. It is 3 metres wide and completely removes any possibility of a cyclist and motorist collision. But, is there really any need for a cycle path along this short stretch of road at all? The inevitable question that needs to be raised with this proposal as it affects the stretch of road along E Princes St and Battery Place is “Why?” A lot of taxpayer money is going to spent to achieve what? Are cyclists really going to benefit from a few hundred metres of cycling path that ends at Glenburn Road? Are pedestrians better off sharing the pavement with cyclists? Would pedestrians not be safer and better off sharing the 4.6m wide pavement with stationery cars than with cyclists? Would the residents of E Princes Street and Battery Place not be better off with formalized, legalized parking on this pavement instead of losing it? 88 Buses currently move into layby, thus avoiding congestion along Victoria Street. With this plan, a bus pulling in will cause the traffic to come to a halt. 89 People getting off the buses will be forced to walk across the cycle path 90 Must maintain Taxi Rank "As Is" to cater for all taxis on the island. Proposal is for 4 spaces, but there are regularly 5 taxis in place waiting for the ferry, and there are 10 licensed taxis in the town. Taxis are important to foot passengers, many of whom are either elderly or have youngsters with them 91 Would not want any changes made to the Winter Gardens or putting green area. This is a tourist attraction in a tourist town and should be considered a conservation area 92 I can see no provision for parking along this section of the proposed route. The council has not considered the needs of local residents
Page 75
72 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 93 I think for this junction, that pedestrians and bicyclists should not have a route across the ferry lanes; that is, the North facing side remains dedicated to vehicle traffic, and that the north-west and north-east edges get their walls extended to section off the ferry ramp from non-vehicle traffic. I am also not in favour of the access to/from the ferry lanes getting smaller. Then, the pedestrian/bicyclist/other get a route from the north-west corner across victoria street, across the high street onto the north-west corner of Guildford Square, and back onto the north-east corner of the junction. I think this helps focus Guildford Square as a starting/stopping point or a hub of travel on the route, along with it's other travel connections, and I think improving the separation between vehicle and non-vehicle traffic in the north facing area of the junction, without restricting ferry lane access is a benefit. 94 Difficult to see how the coaches parked here (according to the plan) will be able to U-Turn in order to return to the ferry, given that the proposal is to narrow the road to "Standard". Note that the coaches would also have to cross the cycle path and footpath 95 Putting marked parking bays in Victoria Street will encourage the introduction of pay and display or other such chargeable parking. This will make it expensive to visit the town. We don’t want it !!! 96 You said that you intended to narrow the road to a "Standard Width". Have you considered the wider vehicles such as tractors and trailers that regularly have to use this stretch of road from Argyle Street through Victoria Street and all the way out to the Glenburn? 97 How well will this be maintained afterwards? Who will pay for the ongoing maintenance Will it be allowed to decay like the pavements on Montague Street and Guildford Square? 98 Rothesay is supposed to be a designated Conservation Area - Are you REALLY going to dig up and remove the historic weigh bridge ? 99 How wide will the parking spaces be? The map doesn't seem to be to scale 100 Proposed parking spaces on this corner - Will they be wide enough for modern cars? 101 Increase the availability of parking spaces by enforcing restrictions on those who dump cars here, park trailers and caravans, carry out repairs. Employ a permanent traffic warden. 102 This extension appears to be a complete waste of money. There is a beautiful walk for pedestrians right along the sea front which could be improved. Improved parking for residents/island visitors staying at the numerous guest houses would be far more beneficial than a short length of cycle path to the Glenburn Road. The real danger is that you simply encourage people to park on the road further down therefore creating a much more dangerous environment for pedestrians and cyclists. 103 Move some of the taxi parking from Albert Place into this area 104 Reduce the unnecessarily wide, and poorly maintained, pavement area in front of the job centre and telephone exchange to provide an additional and legitimate car parking area. This would be extremely useful for visitors to the castle and relieve car parking pressure elsewhere near to the busiest areas of the town. 105 Where do all the other taxis park if there are only 4 spaces? 106 Making the roundabout smaller will make it near impossible for buses and larger vehicles to turn round 360 degrees as they frequently do without some element of reversing therefore creating a new hazard. 107 Would rather you spent the money repairing the pavement/railings along Ardbeg Road which was washed away in 2021. Temporary repairs are now
Page 76
73 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3 years old. This repair should qualify for the funding you are chasing for this monstrosity that the majority dont want
Page 77
74 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Summary of Respondents Views by Category In order to enable processing of the wide range of comments received, an analysis of the CFT comments received was undertaken. From an initial review of the comments a number of categories were developed to assist in categorising comments into a format that would assisting reporting. These comments reflect categorise the design team believe best summaries the points being raised in the comments. By grouping comments into categories, a better understanding of the communities’ overall views on the concept can be understood. Each individual locational specific comment will be utilised as part of any stage 3 design development. A review of the data indicates that: 43% of the comments made related too issues beyond scope of the project. This may include funding or considerations for a different route. These comments accounted for 28% of the total CFT comments received. The proportion of comments is noted to be broadly comparable to those received via the survey feedback and again indicates a lack of community understanding of the projects aims and limitations. 32% of the CFT comments related to parking concerns (21% of all CFT comments). 10% of the comments related too the concerns of the extended scheme to Glenburn Road (6% of all CFT comments received) 22% of the comments expressed concerns regarding road safety. 20% of the comments received expressed a concern for road geometry. Both these items accounted for 14% and 13% of the total CFT comments received. 11% of comments related to the scheme not being value for money whilst 14% of all comments received were related to congestion or operational concerns. This equates to 7% and 9% respectively of all CFT comments received. A summary of this analysis by reported category is provided in the following charts.
Page 78
75 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com
Page 79
76 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com
Page 80
77 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 2 – STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK
Page 81
78 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 9 STAGE 2 - STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK Following the public engagement process, the emerging network was refined through a workshop with key stakeholders. A range of engagement methods were used for each group. These included: Face to Face meetings; Digital meetings; and Emails of proposals / details. 9.1 Project Consultees A summary of the stakeholder engagement action by group and feedback received is summarised as follows: Consultee Summary ABC Roads Four workshops / meetings in total concluding with no issues with resulting concepts as presented to the public. ABC Fleet Public Transport No known issue ABC Outdoor Access No known issue ABC Planning No known issue ABC Marine Operations / Piers and Harbours Consulted. Summary provided. ABC Youth Services No known issue ABC Community Development Team No known issue ABC Economic Development Consulted. Summary provided. Rothesay Community Council Consulted. Summary provided. Bute Bid Consulted. Summary provided.
Page 82
79 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 9.2 Argyll and Bute Network Management (Workshop 2) Due to carriageway construction and drainage arrangements, developing the route on the A844 route on coastal footway side was agreed to be the preferred route option. The operational carriageway width should be maintained at 6.5m in width (5.5m is standard minimum) to give extra space allowance for HGVs and Buses. It was agreed that reducing the road width to 6.5m would improve pedestrian crossing opportunities and help encourage lower vehicle speeds. Noting the potential impacts of the concept on the ferry queue area, the Harbour Master and CalMac operator should be consulted to understand better any operational impacts. Improvements to parking capacity along the route are supported. Any changes should consider seasonal parking impacts and the demand for coach and camper van parking where possible. Improved access options should explore the use of ramps and avoid the suggested gate in the sea defence wall. This will improve connectivity for cyclists and wheelchair users to access the winter gardens from the CalMac terminal. The trees located along Victoria Road should ideally be retained as the public may have concerns regarding removal. There is no limited to no scope to revert the roundabouts on the A844 to Priority T-junctions. The town operates as a one-way gyratory and noting the industrial activity to the north, the roundabouts must be retained to support industrial traffic access onto the A844 from Bishop Street. It was agreed that there is scope to repurpose road space to better accommodate different user groups. This should ideally avoid the need for the design to be widened into the front green / gardens. Any redesign of Albert Pier car park to maximise car parking capacity is desirable. Exploring the use of herringbone parking layout solution at parking area opposite Albert Pier should be considered. End-in parking is undesirable and should be removed through the design process due to safety concerns relating to vehicle manoeuvring. This will most obviously impact on the existing taxi rank. Based on the feedback received, the concept design was developed considering the above noted points. The emerging design was again subject to review by ABC network management and maintenance representatives. 9.3 Argyll and Bute Network Management (Workshop 3) A third stakeholder workshop was held to discuss the approach to review the emerging concept. The following points were noted: Due to limited road space, a cycle buffer strip width of 0.5m is promoted in lieu of the 1m required for the road speed limit. This change was suggested acceptable noting the majority of the route would be subject to parking restrictions which would limit cars parking adjacent to the cycle route.
Page 83
80 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The accommodation of the design within the existing carriageway kerbing is noted to significantly reduce drainage concerns and overall project construction costs. The proposed ramp solution at the sea defence wall just behind the Winter Gardens in lieu of steps will provide improved connectivity between the Esplanade and the CalMac terminal. The introduction of a drainage system is an option that ABC would support but would increase the overall capital cost of the project. Improved and formalised parking capacity was welcomed. The formalising of on-street parking is noted to be a benefit. The improved parking capacity at Albert Pier was noted to be beneficial. Parking impacts at Albert Pier should be subject to further conversations with ABC Economic Development team to confirm ABC aspirations to provide additional coach parking. The Scottish Water building within the Albert Pier car park must be retained. The design should be revised to include this. There is limited scope to resize the existing roundabouts but changes can be considered subject to vehicle tracking analysis to ensure access by larger vehicles can be maintained. 9.4 Caledonian Macbrayne Ferry Operations and ABC Piers and Harbours A stakeholder workshop was held to discuss the concept and proposed alterations to the ferry terminal junction and emerging concept. The following points were noted: Supportive of concept overall; Have not been involved in previous Ferry Terminal to Joint Campus route and have therefore not previous viewed the proposed junction design produced at that time; Would prefer to see introduction of overhead gantry drive information system also; No concerns raised regarding full time signalisation of all approaches; Noted the improved layout of the access junction is likely to reduce marshalling support necessary at peak times. 9.5 ABC Economic Development A stakeholder workshop was held to discuss the concept and proposed alterations to Albert Pier and Coach Parking. The following points were noted: Supportive of concept overall; Kiosk at Albert Pier is currently being demolished. No fixed proposal for use of space; Scottish Water building on the pier is to be retained;
Page 84
81 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Potential to increase coach parking from current 3 bays. No details yet available; Noted condition of the pier and structural integrity would need to investigated art next stage; Noted ambition to include public shower and changing facility within the pier. Details not available although it was agreed that the proposal will have a ‘small’ footprint and could likely be located within the concept. 9.6 Non-Council Statutory Consultees A summary update of the non-Council stakeholder feedback received is summarised as follows. 9.7 Community Groups Community groups have been engaged through the public engagement process. 9.8 Rothesay Community Council Three stakeholder workshops were hosted to discuss the concept. The following points were noted: Group is supportive overall of concept overall; Would like more time to consider Front Green opportunities within the project; Concerned regarding the use of the coastal side footway from Albert Pier to Glenburn Road during inclement weather and high tides as the footway can be flooded by waves and sea spray. Welcomed additional parking; Noted that peak season use of ferry terminal creates significant operational challenges. Concerns offered relating to increasing number of car-based ferry journeys and limited infrastructure to accommodate vehicle waiting to board the ferry. 9.9 BUTE BID Two stakeholder workshops were hosted to discuss the concept. The following points were noted: Supportive overall of concept overall; Unaware of Ferry Terminal to Joint Campus proposal; Concerned regarding impact of scheme on pavement parking from Albert Pier to Glenburn Road. There are many B&B businesses that rely on car base access and parking to operate; Would welcome additional parking; SEPA Not Consulted. No change to road surface area or water runoff are proposed. No change to existing watercourse. Scottish Water No response received SSE No response received
Page 85
82 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Concerned regarding the use of the coastal side footway from Albert Pier to Glenburn Road during inclement weather and high tides as the footway is regularly flooded. Noted that peak season use of ferry terminal creates significant operational challenges. Concerns offered relating to increasing number of car-based ferry journeys and limited infrastructure to accommodate vehicle waiting to board the ferry. 9.10 Traditionally Harder to Reach Groups / Individuals The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) was again attempted by phone. The resulting call confirmed that there is no specific representative for Bute available to discuss potential design impacts. It is noted that feedback received does include representation by minority groups and those with protected characteristics. 9.11 Landowners and Affected Parties It is noted that the scheme is located within the public adopted road.
Page 86
83 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 10 OUR LESSONS LEARNT During the engagement plan, records of each activity were maintained to assist in the evaluation of how effective the engagement process has been. The review process included a single design team workshop session, where the teams’ thoughts and ideas were shared to assist in ‘destressing’ and improving future engagement both during Stage 1&2 of this study but also all future studies. The summarised results of the workshop sessions are summarised in the following table. Observation / Issue Mitigation Face to Face meetings have been most effective in supporting feedback Maximise time within the Community Lack of engagement with traditionally harder to reach groups Work with care centres to capture views of older and younger community members including those with registered disabilities Under representation from younger adults Focused workshop with younger adults during Stage 2 Use of digital engagement materials, podcast, flythrough offers greater audience participation Progress service offers in the future using more interactive digital material Facebook and social media study page offers limited value to project feedback and are best reserved for use as event advertising Use community pages as alternative to study page Mis-information distributed via social media cannot be controlled if using community social media pages Minimise messaging and provide references. Social media also provides an "echo chamber" for views and can encourage some respondents to adopt views of the loudest voices rather than taking the time to fully understand the project for themselves Project materials note being effectively engaged with or understood Consider using easier to understand materials to assist the public to engage with the materials provided. Options include videos and infomercials as alterative to presentation boards Terminology including "active travel" and "wheeling" are not well understood across the whole community Consider use of project language. Avoid use of Active Travel and explain on wider mobility improvement in plain English Working with local press can influence the effectiveness of published information. Reporters will revert to ‘making up’ information to fill in blanks. Provide press information pack. Work with press reps direct Survey questionnaire design too long to be completed effectively. Reduce the number of free form responses to aid in survey analysis. This introduces a risk that the public perceive a ‘closed’ already decided survey. Open form format questions must be character restricted to 100 characters max.
Page 87
84 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com
Page 88
85 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com
Page 89
86 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX A – PROJECT HANDS UP SURVEY RESULTS
Page 90
87 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX B – STAGE 1 AND 2 PUBLIC EVENT ATTENDEES LIST (EVIDENCE)
Page 91
88 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX C – ISLE OF BUTE NEWS SAMPLE EXTRACTS Isle of Bute news front cover / Page 6 - August 23rd Isle of Bute news page 5 –October 4th
Page 92
89 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX D – STAGE 2 SURVEY COMMENTS Within the Stage 2 survey respondents were offered the opportunity to provide a free text comment to three questions. Each respondent had the opportunity to provide multiple comments to each question. How is the design aligned with the needs of the community? Very happy with the design I think this design is almost perfect just needing some changes I think this design makes it a way better experience for anyone on a wheelchair or just walking Creates a space for cyclists to ride without worrying about cars allowing more uneasy or scared bike riders to get out and ride. very good I'm really pleased with the design I like the design for the cycling route you don't need much space for cycling so yeah Key areas are hit, and will improve the speed of the roads. The cyclists are discouraged to cycle as drivers are a tad too reckless, this would boost the quantity of cyclists & decrease and no. cars on the road. im quite pleased with how to design is aligned erterged gfdgdsfgsdg Concerned that this short section doesn't sufficiently benefit the community, a sign making the prom shared between walkers and cyclists would cost the price of a sign and the money put towards the section up to school i would like it if there was more nature well done The community needs, stuff for young people to do, not a pointless late for 50 year olds in lycra Wasted money! Not needed Not needed, waste of money This will only add further pressure to the town and surrounding areas to park your vehicle It's just a con like the Simpsons monorail We have been fine for years why would you try and mess up a good system. Ohh I know to line pockets with gold Not needed This does not need to happen. Better more important things these funds could improve/fix Waste of time and money, the saying don’t fix what isn’t broken springs to mind Whoever is in charge has not contacted business at all to see how this would affect us
Page 93
90 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com It does not align with the needs of the community and you don’t seem to want to listen Yes, front needs to be improved and design will help develop a more pedestrian front There is no need for this project, certainly not bikes on the island to justify such a large cost undertaking This will not improve anything, will just include a huge cost and massive disruption to the island. ‘The community’ does not want, nor need, this. Utterly ridiculous, uncalled for, waste of funds. Not needed Not needed the pavilion to pier already has esplanade that could be used and all along battery place has a wide pavement and a footpath Consultant clearly not interested in anyone with an opposing view Totally unnecessary No Not needed There is already plenty of room for cyclists. We don’t need this crazy scheme. If it aint broke dont fix it. People have been cycling and walking the route for years without any issues so this would be a waste of money I am concerned that the views of the vast majority of the community are actively being ignored, Mark literally says in his video presentation that if 99% of the respondents don’t want it then is that really a reparation of the community, we can almost guarantee if it was the other way around he would say that that was conclusive to the community wanting this scheme. From my own research and understanding from the community of Bute that I have spoken to face to face and who’s comments that I have read online this is not wanted, and the fact that in his own words Mark admits that the community said they did not want it during the first consultation that it has gone to stage 2 is staggering and is telling the community that their views simply do not matter and that as a group you will do whatever you like. This is a democratic process, the community do not want it and so far you have been unable to legitimately answer concerns and questions raised. Mark has been quoted in the paper saying that it doesn’t matter if this will be poorly maintained it should still go ahead, this is an absolutely ludicrous comment to make and reinforces the reason for the scheme not to go ahead in the first place! This scheme will not be of any benefit to Bute or it’s community. No, we already have wide pavements right along the route, a prom etc that are away from the road that cyclists already use, this is a waste of time and much needed community money and resources. Again this is not needed! Please listen to our community and provide us with something that will benefit us. It's not need at all! The roads are great as it is for bikes amd the very wide pavement are all ready perfect for children to, bike, scoot, skate safely. Please use this money for something the community and locals actually need! Don’t need it Fix the prom and it will be good as it is Its not needed . Completely unnecessary The community doesn’t want this. Money could be used on other things
Page 94
91 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not needed total waste of money Absolutely not. It really is not necessary. There is a perfectly adequate walkway from the glenburn to the esplanade. The island needs other amenities before this nonsense. Other routes are required Roads in Bute are pretty quiet compared to other places so cyclists have no problem on the road for this short proposed route. I would onlt5reduce pavement on Battery Place to aliw Complete waste of taxpayers money as is the consultation process Total waste of time Completely uneccesary The roads are wide enough for both cars and cyclists and the pavements are wide enough for prams, wheelchairs and pedestrians Concerned enough that the road will be narrowed, basically there is no need for this Waste of money I am very concerned that this plan is even under consideration as it is totally unnecessary and unwanted NOT NEEDED Not required Rothesay has an elderly population many of whom require use of their own cars, also busses and taxis. The road is currently adequate for the tiny proportion of cyclists using it. These plans will destroy valuable car parking spaces in particular on Victoria Street & Battery place, and will also lower the number of taxi rank spaces to more than HALF the current required demand for daytime. It is not required. Butes residents and visitors have managed without a cycle lane where it is proposed for ever. There has never been an accident yet. This whole idea will impact travel, social care and emergency services in a very negative way. We don't want or need a cycle lane. The project is not required No one has thought about the locals only about the tourist side of things. The area is already designed for a safe walking space why do we need to waste more money on it, instead of improving the island in other ways Very concerned at the negative impact Waste of money. There is ample safe space just now for walkers and cyclists everywhere on bute my 9yr old does it regularly without any issues Project is primarly geared to making cycle lanes without any improvement to walking The community should have been consulted on what improvements could be made before appointing consultants to design cycle lanes then ignore initial feedback and launch a design concept Bute does not want this Not needed This is a total waste of public money, considering the state of the roads and pavements on Bute. The money could be better spent elsewhere. The public should have had far more say in this venture. Bute is already a great place to cycle and walk. We don't need this. No one asked for this to be added
Page 95
92 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The pavement is already 8ft wide and there is also the prominade No one asked for or wanted this We have an ageing population on Bute, most young people drive everywhere. No one will use this The concept of safe cycle zones is great but where you have positioned it is ridiculous. Make a cycle pathway from the schools. Or fix the road at Ardbeg to allow for both cyclists and pedestrians to walk safely. This plan is absolutely ridiculous and whoever was brought in to make these plans really has no grasp of what our community actually needs. I have brought up a family over the last 20 plus years and we’ve cycled, walked and ran from Craigmore to Port Bannatyne on numerous occasions without needing these suggested adaptations. We, as a family, have completed training for half marathons, sponsored cycle runs and raised extensive funds for charity. What we have on Bute currently is ideal for this type of training. It’s a waste of money Community do not want this It does not address the needs of the community one iota. Repairs to the sea wall on Ardbeg Road, doing something about the former Royal Hotel and The Pavillion plus an elderly care home on the island would actually meet the needs. Not this utter nonsense. There is already a good promenade for walking. Except at Ardbeg Road where the storm damage from several years ago has yet to be properly repaired. But you ate not interested in that!!! Not essential in the slightest Not required Absolutely no need to waste time and money on a stupid idea Our pavements and shore side walking are big enough for walkers cyclists belong on the road there is no real issue with heavy traffic on Bute This project is not required. I understand that if this money us not used for this purpose on Bute then the island gets none of it - that is preferable to the chaos that this ludicrous scheme will cause. The promenade and battery place to craigmore pavements have more than enough room to have a cycle lane painted - no need for any construction - Totally not required There are far better things to spend this money on Waste of time and money I think there are other projects that would benefit from spending this public money, no need to restrict traffic further with these plans Waste of time and money The community does not need this ! Total waste of tax payers money It’s really not needed and if it’s a way to get funding to include road repairs be upfront and say this is design is being used as a way of fixing the roads! There is adequate walking,cycling and mobility transport without this design. The community clearly doesn't want this Bin it We don’t want it. I don't think the pedestrian crossings near the ferry are safe.
Page 96
93 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not extensive enough. Build a pavement to the Eco houses at Loch Fad so children living there have a safe way to walk to school. There won't be enough car and disabled driver parking or coach parking or campervan parking in your scheme which will cause chaos! What a waste of tax payers money, if it’s not broke don’t try fix it, funds can be relocated and spent where needed, and 10 years to complete the proposal as quoted by mark is a joke Not required or needed Not rewuired Other areas need attention not just the front You. An only improve when base is solid As above, the roads need improved across the whole island to improve cyclist safety. Loose gravel clippings, uneven surfaces and potholes have caused me to damage my bike and skid dangerously. I must say that whatever this consultation costs, the salaries of those involved could maybe explain where Victoria Road is, there is a Victoria STREET but that’s not mentioned,. Reduction in main road through towns width. Will cause congestion at ferry terminal entrance at busy periods. Smaller roundabout recipe for disaster for larger vehicle. Don't think it will help at all, if you want to cycle uou would want to go further than Pavilion Rubbish idea,can't even get names right Victoria St not Road! A waste of resources Completely against community views The community has made it clear that this scheme is neither wanted or needed. Cancel waste of money The community want the money spent elsewhere What happens to the taxi’s you are now making redundant? There is only space for 4 taxi, on average there is 8 taxis minimum on at one time - all very busy, who will be responsible for these redundancies? How will these companies continue to provide a service with half the service ? Based on responses on Facebook group this is not a welcome development. This is not in the best interest of the community Pointless The roads, pavements and Promenade are absolutely adequate! Completely a waste of money and you know it We don't want it Completely unnecessary and detrimental. With our climate and number of aged people cycling is highly unlikely to increase to the extent required to justify this waste of public funds regardless of what virtual piggy bank it comes from. Very concerned Narrowing of road & roundabout and not enough parking which is required for overflow for ferry!! Sort the Promenade for all walking, wheeling, cycling to enjoy and mobility to enjoy
Page 97
94 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Perfectly good promenade that could be used Use what we already have a prominade Rothesay has a huge obesity and ill health issue the more we can encourage people to walk or be active the better We have to remember many people do not have access to a car or cannot drive the people shouting loudest here have cars This proposal is Not needed in Rothesay No consideration how removing parking spaces will impact the community as we will lose safe parking spaces in a town which is already struggling to accommodate the many vehicles you find on island particularly on weekends As stated before there is no need for this in a small island community. The distance proposed is miniscule and will not improve the experience of walkers or cyclists in any form. Who has proposed this and why?? There are more urgent priorities to spend money on. Need to put it on the prom not change road/parking No need for this, many more things in the town are needed or need repaired None The proposed design and measurment are a waste of money. They do not aligne with the needs of the community.The paths , pavements and roads are perfectly adequet for pedestrians and cyclists as they are. Meets no needs for the community Waste of money Total waste of time and money and especially when the pot holes on the road are always a temporary fix it’s a disgrace and to think we pay our taxes for this nonsense You only need to look at the cars parked o. The pavement it’s simple we need more parking for cars and viditord Don’t believe this is needed or wanted. Most cyclists don’t use these layouts, preferring to use the normal road network The real needs of the community are being overlooked here. Waste of money We have a prom for walkers, we need parking Insane idea What a complete waste of our council taxes - appalling stupidity Rothesay is a fantastic town to walk and cycle around at present The local need is not for upheaval to create cycle routes which will not be utilised to their fullest. Better planning of parking areas and development of the town would better serve the community It's not needed Not needed Not needed Definitely Not This is of No use
Page 98
95 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Doesn’t meet community needs, more an exercise in using funding Simple solution would be to enforce current parking restrictions Our community does not need a cycle pathway. We already have pathways and walkways. We do not need this project. As usual with these things, pushed through when more pressing matters are of concern, another vanity project Not needed See above What is there is already more than adequate and to implement this plan would be a waste of tax payers money which could and should be used wiser Can't see the need for this with the cost involved, has there been any accidents?? The island lacks In care for elderly and nothing to do for kids, why not address the things that matter These are so.e of the safest areas for cyclists, would be better spent for school road. The community of Rothesay and Bute as a whole has far greater needs elsewhere where funding is vital but lacking. Crumbling sea defences still to be repaired after three years, play spaces for children, social spaces for teens, care for those with disabilities, adequate care for the elderly, incentives for small business owners, restoration of derelict buildings, community wellbeing projects etc should all take priority over this project and be more worthy of the funding. There is no need for the project at this location. There is already ample space for walking, wheeling etc along the pavement, roadway and esplanade. It Isn’t Needed Or Wanted Whoever Designed It Is A Fuckin Idiot From young to old most are drivers on Bute not cyclists I hope enough people object to stop this from happening we don’t need it Not a requirement the islanders require Unuseful project Not aligned at all with community needs Waste of money I’ve observed, both as a driver and a cyclist, that most people are very tolerant of other road users, especially in Rothesay. There are very few accidents inRothesay. Statistics should be a considered as a measure of need. The community do not want these changes but they are being forced through by some mandate which is, no doubt, financially driven There is no evidence to support the need for change. Not much of a problem actually exists but you are generating plenty of new problems. Not much of a problem actually exists but you are generating plenty of new problems. Irrelevant Not interested A lot of nonsense and not required Waste of my tax paying money
Page 99
96 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com I believe my displeasure at the misalignment of your proposal with what this community needs have been clearly expressed already in this lazy, cobbled- together survey Read all comments already stated Not listening to the community Tell me why it's required? You are creating something just to justify your contract There is no need for this in our town we have adequate facilities This is not needed and should be scrapped This is not required , it will make walking more dangerous Concentrate on actually improving the town not wrecking it. Waste of time and money 11 Taxis on the island, the planners assumed 7 so 4 spaces on a rank is ridiculous Absolute waste of money. The current pavements need to repaired and more wheelchair friendly lowered curbs out in place. To improve safety for elderly, disabled and particularly sighted or blind. Would suit you better to fix the pavements for elderly and wheelchair chair users Please listen to our community - this would be a gross misuse of public money The ridiculous proposal of a cycle lane when it isn't required. Argyll and Bute council you are an absolute joke Money could be better spent elsewhere. Unnecessary. Last thing the island needs is this pathway This is a walking community already. Total waste of money. Not needed and not wanted The community does not need more routes for cyclists or walkers due to already having a pavement and road. I'm concerned that money is not funding the correct projects on Bute which would meet the needs of Bute. The design is not needed as the route is already wide enough for cyclists and walkers to be safe and its accessible. The money spent on design and consultation is already a waste of scarce resources. Proposed area is already very safe & pedestrianised to sea front Very concerned - disruptive & unnecessary If the roads, pavements and the prom was maintained properly We already have the facilities in place. You are going to narrow the access to the pier. On busy weekends cars are queued along Victoria Street waiting to get on the ferry. Examples Bute Feast and Highland Games, Bank Holidays. This is a holiday resort. Also an island that needs it town to be accessible and useable by all. Not hindered by fewer parking spaces and narrowed roads. You are going to affect the businesses in the town. Just because there is funding for this bike path dies not mean it is needed nir necessary. . Holidays. Nonsense Spend the money properly on something that is needed for the town
Page 100
97 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The town centre is in decline, mainly due to the state of the Royal Hotel and empty shops, this is the last thing money should be spent on. Plenty of space to walk no need for anything else Who will enforce parking on the pavement, it is not a police re4sponsibility and we have one traffic warden who only visits once a month People are going to get hurt need to walk on the road not the pavement Cyclists are already a nightmare whether you are a driver or a pedestrian, I don't see how they benefit me anymore than they do now whilst out enjoying walks with my dog and family Why waste money on this design, it would be better spent improving safety of children to and from the joint campus which is an absolute nightmare with the cheese factory too. It's dangerous and need improved urgently. This way kids could walk/cycle safely and maybe help parents feel safe for their child to do so. Not required at all ..cyclists cycle on the road there is more important things to spend money on I feel there are so many other ways the money is needed on the Island. This is a waste of money and time. The entire thing is not appropriate This is not aligned with any of the needs of the community!!! Not needed add a cycle lane to the promenade - if necessary. This is neither wanted or needed this is neither wanted or needed No need this is just ABC wasting money.. our island use to look beautiful NOT now. U pay a dog and traffic warden and yet our town is a DISGRACE!! None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. Absolute waste of funding. I used to cycle along the whole bay for work for years never had an issue along any of the front roads. Even as a child I felt safe cycling. This is really a wast of money and is going to affect the local community not help it. It is not necessary. This should never happen. It's a waste of money and not needed. I don't know what benefits the people working on this get for forcing it down our throats but Bute is NOT happy with this. You clearly have no idea what your proposing as it is an utter waste. I think our island lacks in parking spaces for vehicles and you close the street off for a cycle lane is ludicrous!! The worst idea yet. I'm sure the funds can be used on much more needed things to our island I think you need to rethink your ideas as our island is deprived enough let alone adding this to the situation If this is all you can come up with to improve our island, then there is something very, very wrong!!! Waste of money, use the money to provide essentials to the community that pays council tax. Not neede Not needed Fixing the current pavements and installing more dropped curves would be more beneficial Once it gets damaged you won't fix it, same as the current situation. No one in the community wishes this Worst project ever proposed pathments should e fixed and roads before this
Page 101
98 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com I’m concerned that this is being pushed through regardless of what the community wants, Not needed! We have many places to walk and cycle which are preferable to the proposed route. They is no issue so why change it Pointless You parked on a bloody footpath and have shown a lack in understanding of the highway code The roads are wide and quiet. The Lycra brigade will not use a new cycle route. Pedestrians will wander along oblivious to cycle markings listening to headphones . Money that would be better spent elsewhere on Bute will be squandered Cycling route and car parking provision is clear but not the other elements There’s already wide pavements along this route This project shouldn’t go ahead Ridiculous cycle route not enough traffic Rubbish idea Not needed What prat came up with the idea ANGRY that this money is being spent on something we do not want or need. There are many other things we are in need of in the island rather than a useless expensive cycle lane. We do not want this on our island There is no need to make this change. Community doesn't need this. If anything improvements needs making up high St for route to academy. Not along the front. Waste of time and money- upheaval to do works is not worth it Money is desperately needed elsewhere No need for it. Perfectly adequate Inverclyde set up a similar routes that cost thousands, to be only used by a handful of cyclists. This has increased congestion and reduced parking in allot of areas. It was classed as a very expense of verly little value in return. That the council and project manager are not listening to the community, and are hell bent on pushing this through. Just like the route from the town to the school, taking no account of the access through parts that would be unsafe in the dark winter months. Not needed in this area This is NOT needed on the island !!! Put the money to other much needed things It is an unnecessary impingement It is not needed Money should be spent in Other problems Money should be spent on other projects Waste of money some of the town is falling down Cycle lane not necessary, educate cyclists to safely move over when appropriate for vehicles to pass.
Page 102
99 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com If it's not broke, don't fix it. Leave Bute don't come back Wasted money Totally not about the community Cornc The community doesn’t need a walking/cycling track Access to the ferry terminal is problematic when demand is high and the ferry terminal is full. Cars currently queue ad hoc on / Victoria Street until space becomes available. The current width of Victoria Street allows this without any problems The only issue at the moment is the poor state of the pavements and roads (Pot holes and uneven paving), which is caused by poor / lack of maintenance. Resolve this, and walking / "wheeling" / cycling becomes much easier Not needed Not needed, we have l big wide pavements, this is a disgraceful waste of money It doesn’t improve what is there and is a waste of money The community has not been engaged and its requirements are not known. We do not need this, and it is Victoria Street. Don't waste money Waste of money Waste of money I don’t believe this is a good idea to the town as it’s cutting off more parking spaces and it’s leaving the taxi rank with only 4 spaces. Not needed not good for tourists parking not enough space to widen for a cycle path!! Rubbish not needed As above!!! Just LISTEN to local people LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS This would be an embarrassing waste of money Don't think it is beneficial Overall there is nothing wrong with what we already have. This design is not required for Rothesay. This is a serious miss use of funding when there are pavements roads and buildings falling apart all over the town centre. This is not a priority for the community and points of views should be adhered to as we the community need to live and use these areas daily Ban parking on the pavement at Battery Place once access to designated are on the Esplanade The whole point about cycle friendly roads should be the laying of decent tarmac surfaces, thereby avoiding potholes. Cery Won’t benefit anyone Nit at all needed Scrap it
Page 103
100 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not necessary. Probably take over 5 years to complete Extremely concerned that the planner’s have not did their research and assume there is only 7 taxis on the island and only 4 work at a time. There is 11 taxis in total. Where would the other 7 rank ??? There is ample footpaths for walking and cyclists will not use a path. This is obvious from what i have witnessed on the mainland Absolute waste of money. This will not benefit the community and the funds could be better utiliised in many ways This is a solution looking for a problem. Money could be better spent elsewhere. This is NOT wanted or needed. This is not necessary there is plenty of space for cycling and walking. Focus on more important issues Concerned for business which will be affected by the scheme There have been no cycling incidents on the island for years, most yous the pavements when necessary. It will loose the taxi company business and the business surrounded by shortening pedestrian crossing Waste of money & no one will use it I cycle all over the isle and there is simply no need for this consultation, it really concerns me that after the debacle that was the school walk cycle route you now plan to "enhance" and already sufficient route and seem to be pushing on in the face of public dismay. Your premise is flawed we do not want or need this enhancement and would rather see cash put into existing services that are being cut i.e, Police, lolly pop men, public conveniences, gardeners,,,,,, geeze this list could go on but you get my point, so please listen and stop! There is zero need to improve the already good service that exists This seriously is not needed on this island and is a complete waste of money. The most concerning point is I don’t know one person on the island that is for this yet it seems to be going ahead Money couldn’t be well spent elsewhere There is absolutely no need to do this to the front of the town. Just leave it alone, we don’t need it, don’t want it. It could affect business with the taxi rank and other parts along the route. Someone is profiting from this and there is no need for it at all Waste of space time and money Waste of space time and money There are no issues with the route currently Without exception anyone I’ve talked too is utterly bemused as to why this project is being funded. Its aims could be achieved by simply maintaining the existing route in an overall better condition. The Isle of Bute has far greater concerns than the road/pathway system we should be able to choose where and what the council puts investment into. If people aren’t currently walking and cycling on this route design won’t change things. It’s not a communities route. Why this route. It’s not the main route in the town. From the town to the campus would make more sense to focus on. It’s very busy during that e day and when children are going and coming from school.It needs to be made safer and cycle/walk friendly. Just a way for the fat cats to make more money regardless of the community's feelings There is no need to build something else, the payments we have already are suitable for wheelchair access and pedestrian walking. If maintained properly there is non need for this honest farcical proposal. All you br doing is creating more issues for something that would not benefit anyone. I cycle and have
Page 104
101 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com never encountered a problem that would require a separate lane. I also push my kid about in a pram along the proposed new walkways and again no issues doing so. There is no need to waste money here. This is an honestly terrible design and serves none of the intended purpose Public seem to be getting ignored by organisers Not needed and not practical The present if sufficient for walking and cycling Waste of resources Cyclists will not use it they prefer to disrupt motorists by blocking the road cycling 2 & 3 abreast Idiotic design! The amount of “give ways” on the cycle route that cyclists will take absolutely no notice of. If you observed the local zebra crossings you would realise that cyclists take no notice and pass through when pedestrians are on the crossings. The roundabout die to be reduced is already too small as coach drivers have to conduct a 3 point manoeuvre in order to turn. Concerned that this scheme is ignoring some of the critical issues already being experienced around standard of existing pavements etc in order to promote a 'blue sky tick.box scheme' Rather than looking to make more obstacles funding would be better served improving the pavements, roads, drop kerbs etc Community doesn’t want it Poor survey design there. Am more than concerned. Totally oppose it There are so many better things that could be done with this money. The traffic on Bute does not warrant spending this sort of money on a "solution" that probably less than 1% of the population will see any benefit from. I don't believe this will benefit our community at all a complete waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere such as play parks etc Typically cyclists use cycle paths to avoid pedestrians Again, not required Not needed Many in community agree change are a waste of money The road and pavements are already adequate 2 way cycle lane I feel would be more dangerous than what we have just now Are we suddenly going to get hundreds of cyclists coming over. The community is mostly elderly and getting older all the time. Not all will be able to cycle. We already have racing and many bikes that have enjoyed the island as it is. It will not meet the needs of the community The promenade is wide enough already. Not required. Cyclists have no problem as they weave where they want to anyhow There is absolutely no need for a cycling path on this stretch of road whatsoever. There is absolutely no need for a cycling path on this stretch of road whatsoever. I do not think it's needed Upheaval, mess and it's not needed As mentioned before most people ride their bikes along the seafront because let’s be honest that’s why they come to Rothesay. This is a pointless tick box exercise and a complete waste of public money which would be better spent elsewhere.
Page 105
102 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com As previously mentioned there is absolutely no need for a cycle lane here. It’s hardly Hackney. The road traffic is not high enough. Seems only to benefit a handful of cyclists Plenty room at the sea front for cycle route and pedestrians. Reducing parking spaces is detrimental to the town. Just why?!!! Roads and pavement wide enough Wast of money no need for a cycle lane Everyone is concerned, this is not aligned with the “needs” of the community in any way shape or form It will improve nothing Very poor and ill conceived with poor value for money Why not survey existing users and community ? Ferry users are notoriously friendly and a captive survey audience It will reduce parking & cause congestion How can it improve walking when the pavement is being used by cyclists. The community has made it abundantly clear that they do not see a need but they are being ignored by an unaccountable organisation that appears to do this kind of thing all over the country for no good reason. Well no good reason for the community but clearly it is profitable to Sustrans. Mega concerned Rubbish Money could be well spent on town Just going to cause trafic congestion which will increase accidents Not an appropriate idea at present for the town centre Esplanade as it is has always been able to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. I think the money spent so far has been a complete waste Whoever has come up with this project does not seem to know the island as a cyclist at all We don't need it. Money could be better spent elsewhere We have a perfectly adequate space available at present I see on average 6 to 8 cyclists / week in the height of summer. The majority of them tourists. Rothesay is a quiet town. If a cyclist is cycling along the promenade and people are walking, a simple ring of their bell currently works to alert the walkers. In my opinion, money would be better spent on improving the existing promenade surface and painting on a cycle lane I think repairing the current surface of the promenade and painting on a cycle lane (as Troon and Largs has done - which is extremely effective by the way) would offer the same benefits It will hinder drivers, hotel, guest houses, air b&b’s Leave our island roads alone. This is a waste of money I feel that the majority of the community prefer to use their car and won't see this as a benefit
Page 106
103 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Yes, within the proposed developement Scrap it There isn't a problem It doesn't need improving Waste of money Plenty of space on existing prom Population is mainly elderly people who do not cycle We don't need this We don't need this It isn't aligned to any relevant local transport priorities The community have been very vocal in not supporting this move, yet we are being ignored, even with our genuine concerns. It is quite clear that this is already going ahead regardless of what we say. It does look quite expensive given all the other priorities that we are told there is no money for. I think a slimmed down version would stand more chance of getting community support and funding. Not aligned with community Not needed See previous comment. The only complaints I've noted from cyclists have concerned the uneven condition of some of the island's back roads, well out of the town centre. The design is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Traffic volumes are low, cycle volumes are very low. Cycling/walking along the whole of the stretch is already both easy and safe. I think it will future proof the uskanx for future changes in transport I thinkbut future Bute is very popular with cyclists and has been for years. Groups come regularly and cycle round the island with no issues. This scheme has been dreamed up simply to tap into funding Totally ludicrous proposal If the surface and layout were improved this area already caters for pedestrians and cyclists especially if you remove parking in the pavement There are other places on Bute more in need of improvement No concern Will be excellent for community Plenty of paths already Making roads narrower and dangerous Not needed Already used by all the local community, no need to change anything. Not required on Bute.
Page 107
104 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com DThis has to be the most ridiculous project yet. I have seen the chaos of addding these cycle lanes have made to Aberdeen city. Fix Rothesay pavements In an aging community fixing pavements and walkways are uppermost. There is a wide promenade to cycle or road no need for cycle path This is waste of our money There are so many paths and ramps that these changes make zero difference. You have not taken on any of the negative feedback that the whole community has given you. its not broke so no need to fix it The current situation offers a great walk, wheelchair route, walked it all my years living here and enjoy it every time Feel like it’s a way of lining the companies pockets with absolutely no interest in the community It would help after looking at the drawings etc but the prom is already sufficient for cycling and walking This doesnt appear to provide enough parking for future pavilion demand. Mark out a route on esplanade and save a fortune Unnecessary Waste of money The amount of people using this area of footpath is very minimal. Most people use the promenade to walk on so to convert this is a brilliant idea Some of the ideas are good but not all Wasted money, address the problem with roads and pavements, money better spent. Waste of time and money Very much in line with parts of the community, including me. I see that only 1% of the resident population responded to the previous consultation. This was hardly representative. At this week's consultation, I noticed a few very vocal objectors. They don't speak for me. Yes. There needs to be better segregation of motor vehicles from pedestrians and particularly cyclists. Cyclists are currently very exposed riding in Rothesay. Nobody here has asked for a cycle path on the area you are proposing It's not needed Some absolutely stupid idea to waste money What a waste of time and money Community being overlooked again Going to be an absolute disaster Not wanted or needed by the local community Scrap it completely Money would be better spent elsewhere. The seafront and prom is crumbling and needs urgent attention more than this. As said previously Bute needs kids soft play or similar rather than this,I live and work in Bute and cycle daily with no worries or issues about my safety and see plenty of families cycling also Not necessary and waste of hard to come by money NOT NEEDED, SCRAPIT AND USE MONEY MORE APPROPRIATELY
Page 108
105 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Present facilities are adequate for everyone in every category mentioned. No I don't there will be any improvement Absolutely not. I am a walker and this would impede me from walking along this area, no room for prams and wheelchair users. I feel that this whole idea is a vanity project, ignoring the vast majority of islanders who have lived here for many years. It would impede on parking for emergency vehicles and care workers going to clients and emergencies. Walkers, wheelchair users and prams would have limited space. It is. It people friendly. We have a large elderly population on the island who do not and cannot use a bike, they depend on cars and mobility scooters to get from A-B. The wrong area for a bike lane Will cause more issues At the moment I find it difficult to use the pavements in my wheelchair as they are in poor repair and every bump can be painful when already in pain. The proposed changes just so happen to start near my house at 8 Mountstuart Road and as long as it’s easy enough for me to cross the road to access it, I’m hopeful that it will encourage me to get out more in my wheelchair which is much more sociable rather than needing to be driven For me personally I think it will make an improvement but I think people locally are concerned about the impact on parking spaces ‘Concerned’ doesn’t cover it - I’m dismayed and frustrated at this proposed waste of public money. As above. This is not needed, will not provide significant benefit and will make some areas worse (e.g queuing for ferries and parking at Battery Place) Concentrate on the prom. This is going to be a huge waste of money, why not upgrade the walk/path ways we already have going out towards the Glenburn and the pavillion? The island needs the money spent on a lot of other areas rather than a cycle path It’s not needed Not required As a non driver and a regular walker of this route I think the idea of needing a dedicated cycle path is ludicrous and has clearly been drawn up by pencil pushers who have likely never been to or spent much time on the island As Above As above Clearly, done by someone with no care for Bute. Totally agree with it. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, it impacts negatively. Try listening olease Will make life worse for the islanders Improving access on a route where it’s already good. Plenty other paths and routes need I lroved No requirement in that route for this there is in other areas of the town Absolutely flabbergasted at the fact that it has even got to this point. A shambles. Total and complete waste of money that could be used elsewhere. Will affect the roads that are already affected with heavy traffic when the ferries are busy. I have heard hundreds of people taking about this and all were against it. This has to be stopped. This project is not wanted nor needed. The money needs to go elsewhere Has the design team tried and tested this route. I think local knowledge has not been well enough considered regarding this work. Repair existing footpaths is more important than cycle lanes. Not heard any positive aspect of the inclusion of the plans
Page 109
106 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com As above. Please listen to the people who live here, this is not required or wanted. It is not safe to share a walking path with bicycles. What about the buses turning at the island, how is that going to work if you narrow the island. People who live and work here depend on current bus routes. Waste of money, not needed Please start listening to voters not activists Traffic on island isn't busy enough to fuss with this nonsense I think anything encouraging safe cycling on the island is a wonderful thing we have a great deal of selfish drivers but sadly my opinion will be in the minority as people here don’t walk the length of themselves never mind cycle if they can drive here I think it’s a start in the right direction too many drivers on a very small island Not sure why some people are objecting so strongly. The council still has the same duty to upkeep the roads and mend potholes, doesn't it? £6 million Money should be spent on prom roads that are horrendous on this islanDel Completely unnecessary Did whoever thought up this idea even visit Rothesay and look at what the town really needs ,ie the state of the Royal hotel, the empty shops,trees growing out of buildings and they think a cycle lane is the main priority then they should try living here There is very few who cycle in the town. It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters Don’t know who came up with idea but absolutely no need. No need for all this. The local community doesn't want this If this goes ahead in Rothesay it will be another example of the shambles of our council Your trying to fix a problem that’s not broke and improvise a change that is not needed No improvement. Will have negative impact for the residents. There was no box option for Displeased ! Please amend your survey Not needed Total waste of time Waste of money It is a waste of time and money and other things can be done. I cycle and have never felt it needed. Why is this even being proposed? Noone has asked for this. Seems to be a waste of time and some way of laundering money I'm sure. Despite what the community has said I am sure you are still going to do this as I'm sure some money has gone under the desk to make sure certain companies get the work. I even doubt you will read this. Rather than add this why not fix what needs fixed first We have other issues that should be dealt with 1st Action re pavement parking required Scrap it.
Page 110
107 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap it. No benefit to community Will not improve anything The community needed to be asked sooner, maybe even speak with the schools and local groups, Bute wheelers would also be a good starting place Don’t need this ! Not needed in my opinion We don't need a cycle lane, Utterly useless I’m gobsmacked that anyone with an ounce of common sense could dream up this ridiculous idea Not needed ar all, waste of money/ time Waste of money Needs of the community, come here and look for yourself, the last thing we need is thousands spent on a bike lane There is a pavement/ promenade....cyclist's will still use the road due to their sense of entitlement Not fir disability It will be a pain for drivers This can be easily improved if time is spent on bute to see practicalities of concept. Absolutely no one is backing this Sea wall falling to bits and roads in pavements are in shocking condition No. Firstly, if someone wants to knock over a cyclist, they’re going to knock over a cyclist, “safer” routes isn’t going to help that. Secondly, those pavements are of historical significance, just look at the Rothesay in days gone by Facebook, everyone’s granny has a photo walking along that pavement. Plus, everyone hates cyclists, that’s only going to get worse if you destroy the natural beauty of the town with a cycle lane They did the whole cycle thing in Greenock and wasted millions of tax payers pounds. This is a terrible, terrible idea. This would be Rothesay’s breast feeding mermaid gable end, don’t do it. Nobody even cycles on the island.. Look at The Real Isle of Bute Facebook Page, you’re not doing this for the people of the island, they don’t want this. Building a cycle lane isn’t going to get rid of the eyesore rotting academy on the hill or the catastrophic let down that is the pavilion renovation - finish that before you build cycle lanes. Total waste of money. The town needs regeneration, not a bloody cycle path! We have a promenade that runs from the town to the Pavilion. This is wide enough to accommodate all. It will NOT meet the needs of ALL the community. It will be divisive, causing frustration towards cyclists and traffic issues The route and proposed plans are not well enough thought out No communication with residents and the whole scheme is being pushed through with no care for what the residents want or need. The whole scheme will cause disruption and delays to motorists due to restricted width of the roads in places where changes want to be made. Total waste of resources Very concerned Access to pier for ferry traffic
Page 111
108 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Already plenty of opportunities around the island Narrowing the pavements for un-needed cycle paths disrupts walkers, parents with prams and strollers, and wheelchair users. Putting in cycle paths on the pavement areas will mean an extra set of kerbs for folk to trip on. The community doesn't need this change because there is no need for it - the pavements, the promenade, the pathways are all perfectly fine. The idea of reducing the size of the roundabout is absurd - how are the buses to negotiate it? the idea of reducing the taxi parking is inhumane - the taxis are essential for people who have no cars. Public transport doesn't cover the whole island, and elderly or disabled people coming back from medical appointments rely on having plenty of taxis available. They are also needed for the many visitors who come to Bute. There is no need to change anything - there is plenty of room for walkers, cyclists, wheelers, and anyone with mobility problems already. Misplaced plans to fix something that does not require to be fixed whilst simultaneously creating problems that didn’t previously exist and compounding those that did. That's an emphatic 'No' from me! Misplaced plans to fix something that does not require to be fixed whilst simultaneously creating problems that didn’t previously exist and compounding those that did. That's an emphatic 'No' from me! Lack of parking due to the cycling layout Need to revise the placement of the cycling lane. All the space on the promenade which is empty and not used. I regularly walk the route from the Gleburn to town. There are three separate paths which can be used and they are more than adequate. There are a number of dangerous flagstones and potholes in town, the money would be better spent repairing these and employing a dog warden to address the issue of dog fouling in this area! There was very little information or publicity about the initial phase of this plan, I don't feel the community has been adequately consulted or listened to regarding this. Good, but could be enhanced. In general yes. pointless exercise do not proceed with this I think the design is totally inappropriate for the needs of the community of Bute Very concerned. I can categorically say that at least 90% of the population of Bute are totally against this ridiculous proposal. Not really, it can all be done already, it is a small community Due to the fact that there ar 2 pavemented areas from albert pier to the glenburn ( one of which is a wide pavement) and already problems with parking on this road, this would be insane. For the route from albert pier there is again broaded pavements and the prominade, so again no need for this. I do not believe this is a good way to spend public money. Not needed, waste of money A 2 way cycle lane on one side of the roafd will create dangers for people like my sons who have learning disabilities. It will not stop cyclists cycling 3 abreast on lane and road. It will cause chaos for pier traffic, it will narrow the road , it prevents parking for residents. With the Highway Code hierarchy of road users this is not needed. Especially at a cost of 6 million.. 6 million !.. has the government this amount of money to spend!! The community does not want this wast of money and badly designed cycle path
Page 112
109 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com There is no issues in regard to cycling in these areas and as stated multiple times above it is a waste and does not benefit the community in anyway No it is an unnecessary waste of money which could be used to improve and fix the places we on the island already have available to cycle on ie the widest pavements ever the prom and the coastal path along battery place We do not need cycld paths It’s pointless Pointless Nonsensical concept Waste of time and money Apart from not being wanted or needed, this will be an absolute nightmare getting onto the ferry lanes, especially at busy times. If you were really interested in the needs of the community you would scrap the whole idea! The town would be losing much needed parking. Battery place is made up of flats and many b&bs, where do you propose residents nevermind visitors park? The taxi rank proposed isn't ample for what the island requires, where will they go? The ferry que is asking for trouble during peak times. Another point of where will the overflow go and wait? Unnecessary The demographics of the island are changing and over 55% of islanders are over 55years of age . Not the group who would take up cycling radio. The cycle route connects nothing in town for folk to commute too. The driving standards on the island are terrible so adding to the Absolutely ridiculous idea Extremely concerned Waste of money Car congestion Pointless waste of funds There are far more important issues that need addressing Not needed !! Waste of money We don’t need this ! Waste of money . Absolutely not, this is not taking pedestrians and families into consideration at all - does this mean cyclists have the right of way when people are attempting to cross? Vehicles going to and from the ferry? It’s quite frankly a lot of rubbish - build something people actually want! Extremely concerned. It's as if it's been designed with no forethought whatsoever to community. Which is shocking & disrespectful. No as previously stated there are already areas that can be utilised for these activities. A total waste of public money. The sooner this hare brained scheme is consigned to the rubbish bin, the more money will be saved by not paying over priced consultant fees. Therr is alot more needing money spent on than investiing in thist As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this concept We do not need this we should spend the money on something useful Don’t do this
Page 113
110 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Worst idea waste of money resources and more. The whole thing is unnecessary As above Why does it require 6 bodies ,who all will be taking their "cut " Our council tax can be better used. My vote is a big NO Existing system already works for us New system not required in Rothesay No. The design does not meet the needs of the community in any positive way. Designed by someone who does not know Rothesay Where is Victoria Road? I don’t consider cycling and walking paths should be the same pathway. It is not aligned with the needs of the community. Hugely disappointed that this has been given any time of the day stop the pen pushers making decisions for a community just ask them and deal with the answer instead of this farce we are going through This plan is terrible non local think he knows best ridicules I'm concerned that taxpayers money is not being better used. See comments above The Promenade along Battery Place already caters for walking, wheeling, cycling and future mobility This is another hardship foisted on Rothesay residents by Argyll & Bute Council which says it's open to feedback and then simply ignores residents' comments and imposes Council's will regardless. On any given day and night there are around 20-25 vehicles parked on the pavement along East Princes Street and Battery Place. There is nowhere else for residents to park their vehicles. Residents along these roads were hoping that the current tolerated parking on the pavement opposite would be formally permitted to counter the blanket ban on pavement parking enacted. Simply because funds are available for a project does not mean it should go ahead. This proposed change to create cycling lanes will pit resident against resident for the limited remaining parking. Rothesay guest houses (already) dwindling as a result of recent prohibitive changes will continue to throw in the towel and simply quit running guest accommodation. Not needed Use the prom Needs of the community are overshadowed by need to push through new but long term unsustainable ideas. Will merely increase hostility to the few cyclists who might use it. It's a waste of money They are no better than what is already in place As above. would need to get the full detail specs to fully support it. Maybe if funding limits ability to hit all details require for safe spaces, it would be better to forget bicycle lane and focus on creating a slower, better designed street through surfacing and planting. Cycling was my main mode of transport growing up here and living in Glasgow for uni, I am passionate about urban design and active travel, my dissertation was a critical analysis of bicycle infrastructure in Glasgow so i am familiar with many designs both good and bad. I think good street design really cracks into the subtle psychological cues to reduce driver
Page 114
111 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com priority and a powerful tool within that can be ambiguity! Overall something absolutely needs done about the towns streetscape and am fully supportive of proposals to make changes. Please don't let those who shout the loudest dissuade plans to make changes. Yes but the devil is in the detail with street design Do not take into account local knowledge and concerns. Worried local feedback is ignored as ‘free money’ available. Get grants to get Hanson to do something with Royal Hotel eyesore before pandering to nonsense. Please A waste of money , would be better making a completely off road cycle path adjacent to the tramway path. The roads in Bute are too narrow for any more space to be taken by extra lanes I think it will make it worse , there will be more accidents with people crossing the lanes, if there is a reduction in parking then this is not inclusive for disabled people , it will impact on local businesses if there is a reduction in parking so people can get into town. I don’t believe it’s needed I don’t believe it’s required Waste of money. Money could be spent better in the town . It’s not ideal either for those with mobility issues Not pleased at all. I think its a pointless idea. We haven't got a problem for cycling or walking in Rothesay so why change it? Just don’t see the need for change Not necessary. Promenades are quite adequate as they are. This could cause difficulties for cars turning onto the pier Im totally against this happening The upheaval this would cause to the town would be ridiculous LEAVE IT ALONE Taking the majority of space for cyclists from Albert Pier to the Glenburn and just leaving the narrow path on the seaward side for pedestrians who walk with dogs, prams, children etc is disproportionate and not necessary This appears not to have taken any account of the local community or their wishes. The design doesn't meet the needs of the community. Many more things need doing before this unnecessary design. The pavements and roads are already adequate Too much space used for cycling Plenty walking facilities on island and safer than the bottle neck that is going to happen in the town centre Waste of time and money The busiest street in town will be the most dangerous The majority of the local community don’t want this As mentioned before I don’t think this path is needed on the chosen route. I think the route that should be considered is to the school as it would benefit the kids (and parents/teachers) and give us a safe path to cycle. I don’t think the route chosen needs a dedicated cycle path as there is already a safe and adequate path in place. Terrible seems like a money making scheme for a few people. pointless project Think money could be spent on more urgent improvements such as roads/pavements and seawall
Page 115
112 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The person in charge MR rinkus just isn’t listening to my locals and very arrogant 1%of the population is pretty poor engagement in my view I dont think this is a particularly useful or cost effective way to improve either walking or cycling in this particular section of town. Pavements here are mostly already quite wide and conducive to walking. There is alrrady a walki g route on the promenade. Waste of money that could be spent usefully elsewhere. Not interested as this island is determined to be run to the ground Pavement parking at busy times in the Albert Pier to Glenburn section works well and costs nothing. Why spend public money to change it? This is a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. Walking and cycling on this section of the A844 is no more dangerous than on other roads in the town. Adding a pedestrian light to the traffic lights would be sensible, and perhaps a pedestrian crossing by the Visitor Centre, but apart from this the whole project is an unnecessary waste of public money. Existing measure only need improved Imposing on limited parking, existing taxi rank, roundabouts, entrance/exit ferry terminal Very happy with the idea. How does it relate/join to the active travel route up the High Street to the school? The community does not need nor want this. There is sufficient pavement space for walkers and wheelers in the proposed location. Cyclists can continue to cycle on the road like they already do with no issue Not needed Waste of money, not needed I'm pleased about this project as a start but I'd prefer if the route was more connected eg. to Mount Stuart, which have extremely dangerous and innacessible route for cycling and pedestrians especially out of season when gate at Kerrycroy is closed Many Bute residents are in capable of cycling or walking This design is seeking to address a central target as opposed to a local issue. I would rather the money was spent elsewhere. The more Absolutely not. The community neither needs nor wants this I cycle every day on the island and usually in Rothesay. There is absolutely no need for any change from what we have. There are many cyclists here and the vehicle traffic on the roads is used to them and patient with them. I have always felt safe cycling here and this would be a total waste of money. It would not be used and would probably just annoy everyone. I would rather the potholes were fixed so I don't need to swerve to avoid them. This is a virtual signalling exercise , nothing more The promenade has ample space to create cycle lanes This is going to create a lot of problems at the peir It’s ridiculous Waste of money Not in the slightest There is absolutely no need for this Pointless interference Spend the money on fixing potholes.
Page 116
113 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com No consideration for the local community. One size does not fit all. Lack of interaction with the community Absolute waste of time, resource and money. As a keen cyclist, pedestrian and motorist I see absolutely no benefit whatsoever from this project. Fix the existing walkways Just causes more upheaval for little gain & a minority of people The community didn't ask for it because it doesn't need it. The route is nonsensical. The money should be given to a town that would be improved by a cycle path. This is a really badly designed survey. Stop interfering with things that don’t need fixed This idea is a load of nonsense I object to the plans. This is a waste of time and money and upheaval and no benefit to the community or visitors. Why put a cycle path in a place where one isn't needed? The cycle changes could be made to improve access up High Street to the Academy. Improve the surface of the promenade and the Albert Pier area The path simply will be underused The whole project is pointless, unnecessary & a waste of money. Its a waste of communuty money when the park is a mess with the grass cutting being no lifted, theres no football goals, skateparks, the the kids parks needs a facelift. The prom wall is falling down, theres weeds growing everywhere. Understaffing the council in alot of departments. The roads are a mess and full of pot holes and lets not start on the pavillion and whats happened there. There is not enough cycling on rothesay to justify this Not needed fix all the other roads and pavement s Waste of money Taking over a large part of the pavement is not appropriate - are people meant to walk in single file along the pavement so they do no disturb the cyclists? Very concerned as it appears that no negative comments are being put forward on the other page. No, there is no barrier between cycle path and pavement - dangerous for pedestrians, narrowing the pavement also a hazard as is introducing floating bus stops. This plan will limit the number of people wanting to walk in the town and will reduce customers to local shops as they may decide to walk along esplanade instead. Not heard any voices in support of this plan Not needed As per above Unless I am mistaken? The plan is for people to cross a cycle path to get on a bus? Not acceptable This is a terrible idea and a total waste of money I think the design is aligned to the needs of the community, but the benefits to pedestrians and wheeled transport users could be emphasised more. At the moment, car owners seem to be directing their frustrations at cyclists, which seems to be missing the point... Not needed There are plenty of of walking pavements already
Page 117
114 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Leave as is and spend the money allocated in a more beneficial way. The volume of traffic particularly in the summer months needs more car parks. No need for a cycling line at all, for people walk pass battery Place there is enough space and safe areas. Cyclists also have enough space to pass on the normal road. We do not needed, by only think about the cyclist, the project would hurt all accommodation business along battery Place. Alos will make problems to residents to park up their own cars. It is unnecessary project for Rothesay The project is not a bonus to the island at all This area already has a very good pedestrian access Community don’t want or need this Don’t want or need this The plan does not allow connectivity within town now does it take into account actual needs of community - this is an aging community so mobility scooters are an issue The route does not connect anything that is useful for those that live on the island (wet and windy one). The connectivity is needed up the high street to the doctors, the hospital the sports center the cheese factory and school. Existing pavements require to be resurfaced and left as they are. I’m concerned that nobody will pay attention to what the majority want and that is to CANCEL THIS IDEA. The funds should be used to reinstate the pavements at the broken sea walls along Ardbeg Road, this would improve the walking experience for everyone. This would make walking into town worse as the pavement would be narrower. I don’t like walking along the prom! Don’t want or need it Don’t need it. I walk a lot I this area and don’t think it’s necessary No need to spend valuable resources on this. Do we really want to spend money on this? I think it is the wrong project for a town in decline All ready adequate for all of the above Waste of money the community does not need this money could be better spent elsewhere if it works then great. the parking and traffic flow needs sorting This really isn't a priority for the needs of the community. Please spent your money on something that is needed and benefit the residents The pavements are wide, mobility users cyclis twalkers all get along. This is not a big computer city town etc where it might benefit How on earth can this be justified when improvements are. Ended toTidy I do not believe a cycle track is needed through town, it goes nowhere, useful, and at the end of it cyclists will have to return to the road. It does not appear at all to be aligned with the needs of the community. The design will not improve the experience for walkers and will create safety issues.The design will not improve the experience for walkers and will create safety issues. There is nothing in this design that will persuade people out of their cars.
Page 118
115 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com I don't have faith that this scheme brings any benefit to the community. In fact I think it will actively harm pedestrians that will be expected to use poorly thought through floating bus stops. A good idea, but I would rate as a higher priority the dereliction of Albert Pier and the old Royal Hotel and the dilapidation of some of the seafront buildings. These badly need the speedy attention of ABC. This is a crazy idea Very concerned, dangerous and stupid idea More pressing issues Not listening It will cause problems for cars entering the ferry terminal and lanes. People will not be able to walk safely in this area due to less pavement. You cannot walk and cycle in the same lane. People with poor mobility, wheelchair users and prams users would not be able to get out of the way of cyclists. Feel like the community are being totally ignored Not needed Only considers cyclists I believe some aspects of the design are damgerous to the public. Not pleased as it isn't aligned with the needs of the community It really is not required. Not required as there are parallel paths. It is all very well saying it is ringfenced for such purposes - fine, spend it somewhere where it will be of benefit, don't waste it here. I truly do not think there is any problem with existing pedestrian, cycling or motor traffic through the town Rothesay does not need a cycle lane. Traffic is light and there's ample room on the prom for kids to ride their bikes safely. No actual feedback from people who use this daily. The reduction in car parking will harm the town as it’s already a struggle at times - especially busy periods for those waiting to get into the ferry queue when it’s full. Narrowing the road here makes no sense whatsoever. Reduction in parking for taxi’s also ridiculous - four spaces are not enough for them. Plenty of walking opportunities currently. Plenty of cyclists use the area with no complaints other than the roads need resurfaced in places. There are better ways this could be done and the lack of understanding by those delivering these meetings is unbelievable. It’s been done with no community interest. No cycle path required in town No cycle path required in town whole project is not required on Bute you are over engineering a problem that doesnt exist and I will be monitoring if the community oppositions are noted in this ‘survey’ response It will actually cause more harm when visitors are trying to leave the island, the pier is also destined to cause accidents This has absolutely no place on Bute as we have an adequate promenade for this already Very concerned. The scheme appears to have ignored public opinion from the stage 1 consultation, and the proposed design is out of touch with local views. The design does not offer any value for money and completely ignores far more practical, and less damaging options to create the scheme which are permitted under the design guidance. Cycle lane not required
Page 119
116 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com No requirement for cycle lane The community have very loudly said that they neither need nor want this project There is plenty of room at present for walkers and cyclists to move between the Pavilion and the Glenburn areas. The community have made it quite clear that the proposal is not needed and that there are far more pressing areas in need of funding. In an ideal world fine. We’re not in an ideal world, so put the money to better road and traffic management use. In my local experience, Bute cyclists will continue to cycle where they want to. Unnecessary. I don't recall a local petition requesting this, but I do see a lot of opposition to it The consultation exercise appears to be biased in favour of going ahead with it, regardless of local opinion No-one asked for it and very few want it Overkill. No thought has been given to residents needs a much needed investment and well considered project. Well done in trying. I think part of the difficulty with any proposal for change in Rothesay is the lack of community feeling. Pedestrians and cyclists, but particularly pedestrians and those with mobility needs, are poorly served by the current provision of pedestrian crossings. The lack of pedestrain crossings and the lack of control on traffic speeds means that people have to cross roads at dangerous locations. As with a lot of these schemes, whilst trying to improve provision for walking/cycling there is an adverse effect on the day to day routines of local residents. Putting pedestrians and cyclists side by side does not make for a safer environment in this instance. Given the nature of the area around the discovery centre/ putting greens a lot of people will find themselves crossing the cycle path rather than walking along it and therefore increasing the likely hood of a serious accident between pedestrian and bike. Moving the cycle route along the seafront where there is far more room would minimise this risk. I only found out about this by accident, I don't do Facebook etc so I fear many people have missed out on the opportunity to participate in the consultation hence the low turnout so far. I think it's very hard from the provided material to get a good grasp of what outside the largest features are. I You receive a negative response on the required question because I'm required to provide on Put these lanes in a bigger town Sort the roads and pavements out first please as a cyclist i have no safety concerns for present cyclists on the road. I would not use this proposed cycle path. to focused on bikes. Why would anyone use it? it's too short and goes no where. maybe a better idea would be to use the funding to create a safe path up to the school. Walkers will be vulernable to being hit by a cyclists and dog walkers too are at risk. Better using funds for potholes All residents and visitors need access to shop, amenities and services in rothesay. Some need it to park on the front street and infact their homes and residentsies Improvement is not needed in this town
Page 120
117 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com What changes would you prefer the design to include more of? More crossings to benefit wheelchair users All looks great Pedestrian access, parking bays The marking of parking spaces, as normally people don't park correctly taking up too much space Pedestrian crossings, Parking bays increase taxi spaces, make some kids park or something on the green more space for the taxes maybe more things for people and tourists to do, maybe adding better and bigger parks and dog parks and maybe more to do i have no more ideas but 1) Narrowing of the road will consequently reduce speed of the cars, I see this as an additional gain of the project. 2) Pedestrian Crossing is low more will boost use. more taxi spaces hn kjjjjjjjkjhijh clarity on crossing priority crossing at the roundabout from Honeyz cafe side to the Fyne Homes side. Some sort of junction to make it easier to then go up towards the High Street. Lights which allow bikes to go first at junctions cycle rute to the school ,more nature , . Spend the money on more important things Not needed! Not needed Not applicable It’s not needed No cycle lane on the pavement or over the pier to Albert pier. Just use the promenade it's been used as a cycle root for years and is perfect. Not happen at all! More road less cycle lane There is no need for this scheme The drawbacks far far outweigh the positives Parking along battery place Nothing, waste of money and resources. Space for existing road users. No cycle paths None, whole thing is an unnecessary waste of money and will make life worse for most. Not needed
Page 121
118 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Do not go aheaf Cancel the proposal Nothiing To stop wasting taxpayers money on non useful plans such as these. Car Parking We don't need this Don’t need cycle path Cancel Things for children to do Spaces needed for taxis, there’s normally 8 operational during the day. Not needed Nothing. Ridiculous idea. It is not required on our island. Cognisance of areas without already well defined routes Stop it completely Sc the design Absolutely no need for it at all. Waste of money!!! Spend money on I.proving pavements pedestrian crossings and drop kerbs None, total waste of taxpayers money Waste of money that could be spent elsewhere There should be no need for change as it should not be built. Bin the whole design I do not endorse this design at all Nothing. This is ludicrous Less cycle space Implementation of bute community and residents concerns Safe crossings I would prefer the town left as it is Not too happen 20mph limited Do not go ahead with the design It is not required, scrap the whole idea. Create more parking as a bus stop should not be beside a roundabout We don't need a cycle lane Scrap the whole plan, spend the money fixing potholes instead
Page 122
119 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrapping the design An alternative cycle path in another area. None, it is totally ludicrous to suggest that any intervention is needed to the current layout Don’t want the route to happen at all. Complete waste of money. A lot more important things needing done for the community first I think it is a waste if taxpayers’ money Not needed , No changes. Whole thing is a joke I think it is a preposterous decision to put that into place on a small island Not Stupid idea No need for cycle path Use of areas already accessible to bikes Waste of money Disabled parking The wide pavement from the Albert pier to be made into car parking bays. Cancel. waste of money. None. It’s a lot of shite that’s not wanted. Prioritising pedestrians. Not safe to have crossings next to hatched yellow areas near the ferry terminal as traffic often waits on the hatched areas. Use the prom as a cycle route Anandoned Controlled car spaces The money would be better spent improving the roads for cyclists. I’ve buckled 2 tyres on the potholes recently! Funds to keep the gardens along the prom in a good condition as it used to be Scrap it Scrap the whole idea Think it should be scrapped waste of money Move the cycle lane to the prom Leave pavements and roads as they are Better parking Pavements are for peoplem not bikes. Cancelled waste of money No cycle lane required Parking Routes for families / children ie to schools
Page 123
120 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Keeping children safe first at the schools Car parking Parking Absolutely none of what you are proposing! We don't need any changes in this area! Leave it as is Don’t think it is necessary for our island Status quo Nil Parking More car parking for short term stops No change Better existing path surface Consideration of safe parking spaces for cars Money going to other local projects and repairs to existing buildings and the promenade. No need for money being wasted on cycle lanes. The pavements are adequate and the traffic are courteous of cyclists not to require a lane. Parking N/A None,I'd prefer the proposed design to be rejected. Sack mark rinkus Parking for cars I don’t see what benefits to the community will be released through this scheme Parking Drop the design completely as a waste of public money Improved parking around town in particular for residents of areas of flats Abandon this ridiculous idea which will only make things more difficult for the town and for the elderly inhabitants It's not needed Don’t need it , total waste I money Scrapped all together ad other things need attention first Scrap it Enforce parking restrictions round Albert Pier Leave as it is not needed No to introduce e it at all as not necessary and redirect the funds somewhere more needed e.g fixing the broken storm wall in Ardbeg. Not to happen
Page 124
121 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com More relevance to the community’s needs. Need A Decent Car Park Not A Cycle Path Rothesay needs a car park not a cycle route Call the roads their correct name in order that survey may be completed correctly, there is no victoria road on the Island!! To not happen at all Not needed Cancellation None – it’s a waste of money. Better signage, ie road markings, NO vehicles parked on the pavements. Nothing, I don't want it A resolution to an actual problem. Middle of the busy season or any other season for that matter is there any difficulty walking or cycling from the Glenburn to Rothesay? None I have ever seen. So what exactly is the problem being resolved here? The resolution of a non problem is clearly causing many actual problems for real residents and holidaymakers. Many roads have one pavement. Battery place has 3 and one of them is wide enough to fit a bus and still have space to walk and cycle on but somehow Battery place needs more space for walking and cycling. Have the designers been to Battery Place? Not required It's not needed at all Spend the money repairing the sea wall Scrap it Money spent on an area for kids The design is not required, just because money is available to do something does not mean you have to do it. We don’t need it Leave route as it is,no cycle or walking lanes as not needed Scrap this nonsense Cancel it Scrap the idea The promenade can be used for walking and cycling and the pavements are perfectly suitable for walking More consideration of busy traffic route - you shouldn’t narrow it Spaces to sit Unnecessary There is already a perfectly good pathway between both sites already No changes needed here No change at all None Nothing
Page 125
122 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Cancel the plan Parking To use the existing paths that are already there. The prom, the wide pavements. Absolutely no need for this. I wouldnt because it is not needed Don't do it None, leave as is Left as it is Repair properly the damage done by the ?Nov 2022 storms to the Ardbeg Road pavement & railings, and infrastructure. Just leave it the way it is Taxi spaces for visitors, 4 is nowhere near enough. Spend money more wisely Don’t know Not required at all I think there are better ways to spend money on the Island. There is no need for this so scrap the whole design Scrap the idea! Many more needed improvements should take precedence!! it's not needed Parking None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. Change to be no route. It’s not needed. No renovations. Cycling lanes are NOT needed. A taxi rank is. Not to go ahead Scrap said Proposals altogether. Waste of money Fix the pier Cancel the plans Scrap this plan, not needed Fixing the currently pavement I think this is a terrible idea I would spend money on better free parking We don’t need this! STOP this ridiculous proposal! Scrap it Forget the idea We don't want it Not needed Wider cycle routes
Page 126
123 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Complete segregation of bicycles from pedestrians. If you can’t do that, scrap the idea and put cyclists back on road It isn't clear in the drawing how access and mobility will be improved for disabled people and wheelchair users Not to waste money on doing it in the first place Cycle route not needed Scrap the plan. It's clear that nobody wants it. You're looking at these results right now trying to figure out how to spin it into a positive (I've been there), but this is a glaringly obviously loss. Scrap it Bin it Not bother leave everything as is currently make no changes Scrap it and use the funds else where Print on soft paper to wipe my derriere Route is not suitable going through the town, use the promo along the sea wall as this is understandable used. Plans to scrap the idea It should be abandoned Please spend this money on maintaining existing paths, roads and railing Total waste of money Spend the budget for this more wisely. Don't happen More of leaving this area as is I don’t want the cycle track Keep road current width in order to get past delivery vehicles No changes Not needed The project is not necessary and money could be better spent elsewhere. Improved road conditions for pot holes and surface of the road Don't do it to begin with Don't start it No need for it, do not waste any more money Scrapped More parking Not needed Not needed Nothing Just repair existing roads and pavements
Page 127
124 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com None The layout there is sufficient space along the sea front Scrap the plan as designed None ludicrous idea Money spent on more pressing matters Fix the pavements on both sides of Victoria Street Leave it as it is. It's not needed. VICTORIA STREET not road No need for a cycle lane Scrap this ridiculous idea. Not needed or wanted. This is not necessary there is plenty of space for cycling and walking. Focus on more important issues No cycle lane None, it shouldn’t happen It not to happen No design no projects Don’t do it Don’t do it None Just don’t do it Do not think it is needed NA More parking None. I see absolutely no benefit in this scheme Update the promenade for walking and cycling.keep pedestrians away from cars. As little development as possible. This is not needed on our island It should not happen at all Spend the money elsewhere it is not needed None Don’t feel this is required traffic isn’t such an issue on Bute Cancel Scrap the idea Walking space needs to be priority over cycling. More people walk this route and squeezing the walking space down to 1.5 is not a good idea Do not believe it is needed
Page 128
125 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Repairs to existing pavements Not required Free parking As opposed to architecturally changing Bute perhaps a wee bit of paint along the super wide pavements to create a non invasive cycle path might be more cost effective None No changes to layout Not to waste money Move it to the prom Parking Fix the potholes on the roads Nothing 1. Why do you need to place it there. It’s a ridiculous location. There is the seafront to cycle along. Parking. Not needed No cycle lane wate of money Scrap the project Keep existing Greater use of existing infrastructure, to reduce costs and provide more impact . Scrap the idea, won’t work & cause congestion Abandone what is clearly a pointless waste of taxpayer's money that has ZERO local support. Use the esplanade for overflow pier traffic and extra parking if required Could do other things on bute None Common sense Pavements levelled out for better wheelchair acces. Planning Parking spaces in town centre N/A None we do not need it Expand to the whole island Nothing wrong with what we have More thought for what the people of the island actually want Road
Page 129
126 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not required None, Great Plan From the marina to Glenburn Road, the shore pathway is in need of resurfacing and repair Scrap the whole ridiculous project and spend the money on something useful. More parking Existing infrastructure is good Reduction cycling/walking lanes We don't need this Cancellation None of the above. The path towards port Bannatyne or Ardbeg seawall would be more useful Improved safety for cyclists using the road - for some reason drivers have a problem giving way to cyclists on those two roundabouts. A lot of cyclists are heading into the town so still need to use the roads. More money spent on repair of Albert Quay Coach parking Spend money on something the town ny More parking along Battery Place Look to increase car parking spaces as much as possible on Albert pier Total waste of money to impose this nonsense on a rural island community Good surface for walking and cycling None N/A More parking for cars .. Keep pavement as it is perfectly ok. To extend it up to Ardbeg or Port bannatyne. None Don't need a cycle path. There is the promenade to cycle if unsure on road for this stretch Cancel the whole thing. just drop some pavements Money spent elsewhere Don't think we need one More Car Parking Spaces I would prefer this not to be spent in this but on routes to the school Scrap it No cycle tracks
Page 130
127 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com In different areas such as port bannatyne Where is money coming from Not needed More parking for cars A longer length, e.g to 'the fountain' aka Prospect House Pier is too rich for turning now especially with Commercial vehicles We do not need a cycle path there we can use the promenade Scrap the plan for cycle lane Parking on Battery Place pavement Cars Scrap it completely It isn’t needed at all, this question is rigges More parking for residents Nothing, money should be used on other things in the town. We don't need a cycle lane Not to happen at all. As it will take away valued pavement for eg walking, wheelchair users and prams No changes. The idea is useless and will cause more risk of bike accidents This cycle path is not wanted and not needed Most important no 1 This is not needed, and is a waste of money. The promenade and pavements are already wide enough for walking, push chairs, wheel chairs etc. We don’t have a major problem with space for cyclists - our roads are not hugely busy. Cancel the idea I would scrap it Pedestrian crossings Wouldn’t have it at all. Waste of finances when plenty of open space to cycle a long prom already. Not required at all For the idea to be scrapped but instead for the money to be used to fix the prom as this is where people regularly walk and cycle anyway N/A The design should be scrapped. Scrap it and where exactly is Victoria Road on Bute ? Use promenade Use existing wide walkways at shore side Common sense Not to happen
Page 131
128 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Repair of existing pavements/pathways Increased and improved parking facilities within the town centre More design with trees and some style, bike parking, markers with every kilometre/ mile Pavements should be for pedestrians only. There is already plenty of paths in existence. Cyclists have no issue using existing roads. I would be too frightened of using a path shared with cyclists.This is a waste of money and will cause a huge headache for residents. Don't want it Where possible use existing sea path, just do a cycle lane, it’s wide enough and put signs Stop forcing active travel on unwilling voters Extend to full blown cycle lanes on island More taxi parking places perhaps Nothing money would be well spent on other things More parking More parking It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters No changes just scrap the idea Cancel the project This area is already wide for bicycles so not needed in this area. Ardbeg to Rhubodach would be far a more useful route to change. The ferry entrance on this design will NOT work with cars, trailers, HGV’s trying to navigate a very sharp narrow turn As a regular cyclist, I say scrap it, not needed or wanted Not needed Fix pot holes More spaces for taxis as I’m a taxi driver and we have 11 taxis on the island and not just the 4 you’re making space for Repair Ardbeg Road. Speed control measures especially from roundabout out towards Battery Place None Scrap it. No benefit to anyone The route is wrong, this area isn’t an issue for cyclists, roads are wide enough for people to overtake We don’t need this . Period . Funding go to other community needs Car parking None I would prefer it to be scrapped altogether More parking
Page 132
129 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Don't bother, redirect the money where it's needed Don’t do it at all not needed Should be cancelled N/A Stop it Parking for cars Short term parking. Taxi and coach parking ( more users per vehicle). People with additional needs. It shouldn't go ahead None Not being there Cancel it completely More consideration for ALL locals and tourists No alterations to road layout Scrap it Stop wasting money on a useless idea Don't do it Design is not the issue. We have a prom why not utilise that? Would prefer it not to go ahead These roads are already safe for cycling I would prefer the design to leave Bute and take itself to where it is needed, like some dangerous roads in Sandbank for instance. SCRAP THE PLAN.Misplaced plans to fix something that does not require to be fixed whilst simultaneously creating problems that didn’t previously exist and compounding those that did. That's an emphatic 'No' from me! Car parking availability Not to spend the money on a cycle route that isn't needed. More pedestrian crossing points. common sense Leave as it is pavement could do with a repair in places do not proceed with this I would prefer the existing roads along the shoreline of proposed ludicrous development to be properly repaired Parking spaces I don't want 20 min neighbourhood No bike lane Use of the promenade Waste of money
Page 133
130 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com We don,t need any changes to the walkway from pavilion to Albert pier Scrap it Actually listening to the community and locals who do not feel this is necessary Vehicle parking More ambitious. A cycle path is required along the flat from Port Bannatyne to Kerrycoy. The roads are not safe for cyclists. Cycle route not needed Sensible removal of concept 1 We do not need it! Remove the cycle lanes, they're unnecessary To make more use of the under utilised space on the Promenade Total waste of money Stop the consultation. The proposal is not required Scrap the design sounds the money on more useful stuff Parking Parking spaces Abandon it None of proposed Shared Cycling area on prom instead Proper car parking spaces in Battery Place Notjing as its a waste of time and money No cycle roads and paths fixed and maintenance As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! None Not needed Nothing Don’t do this I don’t feel we need this None, money could be spent on more essential things No changes needed Work on the promenade and seawall at Arbeg . Try walking on the sloping pavement between th sailing club and Arbeg. Money needs to be spent there The "design" is all wrong! Here is sufficient infrastructure at present and we'll maintained pavements to allow walking, wheelchair use on this route. Some pavements could be lowered and additional parking space offered No design required at all I would rather there was not such widespread changes to the town.
Page 134
131 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Nothing, spend the money on the war memorial which is in a disgraceful state. Leave things as they are No parking by drop kerbs as a mobility scooter user this would help me enormously No More spaces for coaches. Is this area still one way? North to South direction or West to East means exit from bus appear to exit at the seaside meaning restricted space to disembark Scrap it What a prodigal waste of time and money thought up by someone who has to come up with change of some sort and can’t think of anything else. The route is already used for cycling in three ways. First the road then the existing pavement and also walkway along the bay and two of these ways are already used for walking. If there must be a cycle lane, use the promenade and either widen the road along Battery Place to allow car-parking both sides of the road or allow dedicated car-parking on the pavement where the cycling lanes are proposed along Battery Place Totally unnecessary No bikes More use of existing promenade rather than roadway. Fix the sea wall on the Ardbeg Road Your centres Don't do a cycle lane No changes Raised surfaces on carriageway to denote pedestrian priority, would like to see this from Albert Pier to Pavilion ideally, but definitely at area between guilford square and pier and at designated crossings It’s unnecessary for the volume of cyclists I would like more parking for cars More room for cars to park on coastal side from Albert pier to Glenburn by reducing size of pavement, with cycle lane nearest gardens. I do y believe it’s necessary Cancel the idea in the first place Signage for cycling in the countryside and not the town No changes to present situation required Im against the bike route our town has problems that need money spent on them first N/A Better parking both locals and visitors on the island I don't like orthink Bute needs this design or rout Safe parking Not needed scrap it cause more congestion
Page 135
132 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Proper consultation with locals. Reject: what benefits to the community Unsure Just don’t do it the people of Bute don’t want it bin it N/A Working public toilets None it’s not suitable Pedestrian crossings Fixing sea wall None Visitor parking Proper separation of cyclists from pedestrian routes. Joint user routes, even with white lines, are increasingly dangerous. Improved pavements More parking on Battery Place Like many others in the local community, I do not want this project to go ahead Extend route to entire island or at least to Port Bannatyne It's not needed Not needed Visualisations of core changes from pedestrian view No comment Unnecessary We don't need any changes. Waste of money. Scrap Why not use the existing promenade Don’t bother with it This whole idea should be scrapped Sustainable maintenance costs for local council We need more car parking not less. We have an ageing population, I would inmagine they would find it difficult to cycle to the shops everyday. Parking is hard enough None - scrap it is it not needed Abandon this project 1, Don't want it I think the whole idea makes no sense.
Page 136
133 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Fix various steps down to beaches None of it No cycle route necessary - improve the prom instead Not to be built Scrap it and use fund elsewhere Fix roads The cycle path be rethought as it will not enhance the Isle of Bute Put the cycle path on the esplanade No need for it Make roundabout bigger.Make sure cycle path is not in front of a bus stop. Do not make pavements narrower. Consider sight and hearing impaired N/a Ensure that the cycleway is safer and faster than using the road. This means clear delineation between the cycleway so that pedestrian users of the promenade, road crossings and bus stops do not stray into the cycle lane. Reduce pavement to allow vehicles easier access for parking in battery place Safer pavements to walk on and not to be cycled on. More parking spaces made available. N/A Scrap the project It’s not necessary A more imaginative scheme that includes the sea front walk so it can fully integrate walking and cycling. I would include COMMON SENSE! I would NOT go ahead with this idea! The design is a total waste of taxpayer’s money. Leave Don’t do it Don’t think this design is necessary More car parking, less electric charge points, less taxi parking space None a cycle path isn’t required some of it looks good. something needs done No "floating bus stops" Don’t build it it’s not wanted or needed This is a waste of money and not needed Leave it as it is I would like more consideration to be given to the safety of pedestrians with consideration in particular to those with disabilities More consideration of pedestrians using the proposed floating bus stops - which are dangerous and difficult for the elderly / disabled / wheelchair users / prams / visually impaired impaired individuals etc.
Page 137
134 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Unnecessary plan A longer route to go along to Ardbeg. Ridiculous idea Not required Object to any changes Don’t feel there’s any need for it Prefer it not to exist Better ease of parking and access for larger vehicles Car parking More parking spaces for vehicles as the island had an elderly population. Evidence that it is needed. The design is ill thought out and will cause considerable difficulty with access to the pier. There will be restrictions in parking too and as owner of the Veterinary Surgery in Argyle Street this will cause difficulties for clients accessing our surgery with ill pets. You do not seem to be interested in the views of the Rothesay business community who will be seriously affected by the creation of this and the consequences. Discarded Consideration for existing users of this route We don't need a cycle lane. It's a complete waste of time and money Additional parking along Battery Place Pavement extended to Kerrycroy this project is not needed or wanted and you are ignoring people’s feedback Stop trying to force what is clearly not wanted The current proposals do not offer socio-economic value to the local community. Don’t want cycle lane To not happen Using existing space such as esplanade/pier etc plus ground signage etc rather than wasting money on whole new construction. I do not think the proposed route would be used anywhere near enough to justify the disruption and inconvenience to others. More money spent on the buildings that are empty More car parking spaces for Battery Place Unnecessary design. Maintain parking on the section along Battery Place towards the Glenburn Car parking pass along Battery Place front green should be included More traffic speed controls
Page 138
135 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Complete ban on parking along Gallowgate (enforced) and enforced short term loading only. This is the most dangerous section of road for pedestrians and cyclist alike and the traffic regularly blocks the roundabout due to illegal parking here. Enforcing parking resections would help to improve safety far more than this scheme. ██████ Not needed here Cars parking along the side of cycle path can open doors onto cycle path and can put cyclist endangered Pavement area for walking Scarp it Total segregation of walkers and cyclists . More parking Consider an area that needs improvement and not the front of Rothesay Use the prom
Page 139
136 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com What changes would you make to the design? None Covers for cycling lanes, more parking Add more parking space for taxis as in somedays they're needed a lot, so instead of 4 spaces i would say that 5 is a better5 option Covers for cycling lanes, More Parking none a place for skateboarding nothing really rain cover for bikes more room at ferry terminal's sfghsfghfshg improved clarity of crossing points The part that goes parallel to the prom could be omitted and make the prom shared pedestrians/cyclists. I also am a little concerned about what happens to get on and off the cycle lane - if you needed to cross with your bike. I find in other places that it's the transitions that cause problems. cycle rute to the school ,more nature . Scrap it Scrap design Not beeded For it not to go ahead It’s not needed Scrap it No parking box outside bed shops yard needs to be at least 2 metres each side to allow swing for vans and vans with trailers enough swing to use the yard as it’s used daily Scrap it No money spent on it. The discovery centre needs to be saved and the facade of the front is in ruin. Do something that will actually benefit the community instead of this box ticking exercise Better pedestrian crossings Scrap it, see above Cancel it completely No cycle paths None, scrap it. Not needed Not needed Cancellation x 3
Page 140
137 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com I wouldnt start it Cancellation of this idea. Scrap it it’s not required and not wanted by the community, this is plain to see online Please don't waste the money and get something the island needs Don’t do it Cancel Island doesnt nees a cycle path on the prom when the prom is a perfectly good cycle place as it is Give it up completely and spend the money on something better. Cancel all Scrap the whole lot. Scrap it. Scrap it.scrap it. Change route to includes areas without already well defined wide spaces for active travel Scrap it I would scrap the design Scrap it all together Scrap it Traffic not heavy enough and not enough cyclists to warrant a cycle lane No change don’t build it The whole design is not needed Cancel the whole plan Scrap it As above All of the above Remove all together I would cancel the whole thing Not too happen Scrap cycle track Cancel it As question 5 None don’t agree Scrap it Scrap the whole design, waste of time and money Making any changes as this is an unnecessary waste of money
Page 141
138 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The whole concept. You have taken the safest area on the whole island when there are many more places like the high St for instance that would benefit from a cycle path. Scrap these plans Don’t want this to happen Scrap it Scrap the whole designe and project , waste of public money The lot. Scrap and spend on other things Drop the whole design Not Scrap it No need for cycle path Less destruction of green land Scrap the design Quite happy with the existing design that has been there for over 100 years. Not to proceed with it. Scrap it If it was put in the bin I'd look at sea defences first. No point in introducing new scheme until the sea defences eg next to the prom are repaired. Global warming will cause more extreme weather in the future and protecting sea defences is the main priority. The hole thing Abort Not to extend to glenburn road More parking is needed for cars. We do not need a bike lane and I’m a regular cyclist. Not really needed Scrap it Of little or no use to the community as a whole. Expensive mistake Scrap plan Where do you cycle after the pavilion Do not do any of it More parking and seperate area for tour buses scrap it completely. Cancelled waste of money No cycle lane required I wouldn’t implement the design without being sure that there is an actual need for something like this.
Page 142
139 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com For it to not exist None, waste of time and money For the design not to exist Scrap it, Get rid of it, not needed Scrap it altogether Shred it Not installed Parking Wouldn’t have the proposed path , there is more needing done to the town than this path None Scrap it8 Shelve the idea altogether Delete the design. No need for it. Cycle lane on existing prom/path N/A Reject the design . Buy paint for the royal hotel instead More parking for cars Make more use of the prom space. There is already wide pavements & prom from town to pavilion Cancel it not what the town needs Abandon completely I don’t feel that this design meets the needs of the island Bute generally is great for cycling at present as someone who cycles regularly on the island The whole scheme is a ridiculous white elephant Discard it Stop the process now! Scrap all together other things need attention first Leave it . See no point in this if parking restrictions are not enforced Do not agree with this design not needed See above Scrap it Relocation of the project to a location more in need.
Page 143
140 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap It Change it completely invest in parking space, support locals encourage tourists No route for cycles required Not have it happen Cancel it Cancellation As for Q5 Good surfaces Do nothing there is ample space for safe travel and the accident records prove that. Concentrate funding on actual problems. Railings, poor buildings on front, fixing damaged pavements. Not required It's not needed at all Leave as it is Listen and take heed of the opinions clearly expressed on local social media pages. Delete Revert to main housing to school routes Scrap the design and put money to better use Scrap it Scrap the design Cancel it Abandon it! Scrap it altogether Move it Don't build it. Waste of money Use the money elsewhere. Scrap it,scrap it,and scrap it Get rid of it Spend the money elsewhere Money to be spent elsewhere Scrap it Cancel it completely – it’s a waste of money that (in the Scottish government didn’t ring fence stupid spending) could be spent on more pressing problems. No scheme needed - proposed area is very safe already for pedestrians Scrap it Not needed better things to spend money on
Page 144
141 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Throw in the bin None, leave as is Stop the cycleway from the peir to the glenburn Scrap it altogether Just leave it the way it is Take away cycle lanes, they won't stick to them anyway. Want to spend money on fixing pathways None Not required I wouldn’t have it in the first place. Forget it! Forget it!! Forget it!!! See 5. it's not needed It's not needed None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. For the idea to be scrapped I wouldn't use it. Not to go ahead None, scrap it and do something more beneficial for the community and visitors alike! Fix the pier Cancel the plans Change it so that it doesn't happen Maybe have someone that listens to the local voices head it Cancel it I’d scrap it altogether! Scrap it Bin it Just spent the money on fixing out roads u know the potholes Don’t do it Wider walking/cycle route Replace painted separation lines with kerbs and a different surface to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from using same space Location of dropped kerbs for wheelchair or other mobility aid users There’s already wide pavements between these two locations on the sea side of the road Cycle route rubbish idea
Page 145
142 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap the plan. Bin it I’d put the design in the bin As above not bother doing the work Scrap everything Make paper planes Scrap the project Abandon the idea I would drop it Please spend this money on maintaining existing paths, roads and railing Scrap it Just improve the road and pavement surfaces we already have. Rip it up and burn it Scrap it I don’t want the cycle track Am concerned about the proposed width of access into the ferry port for HGVs / Coaches / Larger Vehicles coming from Victoria Street. Proposed access seems very small and it appears that drivers would need to "Double Back" on themselves Scrap it Not needed Scrap it Improve existing road for driving Don't do it to begin with Rip it up Don't do it Scrapped Keeping the taxi rank as it is Not needed We don’t need it Scrap it Ditch design and repair existing walkways Get rid of this numpty. Move it completely it won’t be useful to the community Scrap it To abandon idea
Page 146
143 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Money spent on more pressing matters Scrap it Scrap it. Cancel the plans SCRAP IT Removal of the cycle lane See answer to q.5 This is not necessary there is plenty of space for cycling and walking. Focus on more important issues Scrap it None – shouldn’t go ahead Cancel this before you waste more public money on a pointless scheme Erase them all and fix potholes Don’t do it Don’t do it Scrap it Just don’t do it For it to be shelved I’d leave the existing ‘route' exactly as it is More free parking Cancel it Move it to town to School campus route. This route would improve things for the school,college,sports centre, health centre and hospital. Scrap it completely Scrapp it Cancel it, already a very safe route along the promenade Cancel it Na Cancel the project Scrap it Prioritise space given to walking path. 1.5 is far to.narrow for families to walk together. I am a cyclist and would not use the path underhand circumstances. I have had experience with this sort of design. When the walking space is squeezed pedestrians simply spill over into the cycle path often causing it to be unavailable or increasing the risk of collision. Young children especially jump low barriers or use them as climbing entertainment. I have had a few near misses so simply would avoid them Don’t implement any of it Scrap it and spend the money where it's actually needed and would benefit more people
Page 147
144 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com N/A Nothing really as I haven't seen the design Personally, I’d throw it in the recycling bin. None Cycle lane not needed Scrap it Move it to the prom which will give more space and not impact vehicles Rip it up There is absolutely no need for a cycling path on this stretch of road whatsoever. Scrap it Move it elsewhere it’s not required. Scrap the whole thing - a waste of money Move rout to seafront. Get rid of it No cycle lane Give up with this stupid idea Scrap it Consult the community in advance of proposing a solution to a problem that the community and visitors do not consider to be a priority Scrap the idea & use on other area that would benefit from wider pavement like between Port Bannatyne & Ettrickdale that frequently gets used by pedestrians & some cyclists prefer to use the footpath rather than the road but the footpath isn’t wide enough for pedestrians & bicycles Cancel it Scrap it Spend it on a play park Scrap the plans The placement of the route heavy volumes of traffic around the pier are dangerous enough without adding to it! None. The route, the pier is extremely dangerous with the constant heavy flow of traffic adding more to the mix will be sure to result in an accident! Put cycle path on the Promenade not the road Cancel the project As above Scrap the whole project Nothing wrong with what we have Resurfacing of the existing promenade Disregard whole thing
Page 148
145 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap and start again Not required on island None. As above Sack the guy with the white BMW who had the check to illegally park his car at the presentation Scrap it Leave the existing infrastructure. Abandon it all We don't need this Scrap The loss of parking fir taxis. Parking removed from cars on Victoria Street, the extended pathway will lead to congestion Make more use of existing infrastructure eg the prom Abandon Lose the cycle lane Not required Discard the narrowing of the vehicular access to the ferry lanes Incorporate some more parking around the pavilion Scrap it Not sure Make it longer in the future N/A Scrap the lot Scrap all of the proposed idea. More spaces for taxis None No design not needed I'd stop making changes that aren't required. none Just not do it Leave as it is Reduce cycle lanes Not to proveed Scrap it Scrap it
Page 149
146 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com None Unsure Scrap it Don’t do it Extend length, 2, 3 Scarp it all The design Scrap the plan Parking on Battery Place pavement Scrap it Scrap it completely to not move ahead with it and use the money elsewhere Waste of time and money as not needed Scrap it altogether, waste of time, money and effort. We don't need a cycle lane running through our town Stop it all together as it is an unnecessary project and a complete waste of time and money. Have no bike lane Scrap it completely Plenty of dropped kerbs and disabled parking bays as there is a shortage of both then people park illegally in them Drop the whole thing. This is going to have minimal positive benefit and numerous negative effects Cancel Scrap it Keep bishop st roundabout same size I would better invest the money in a cycle path in the countryside similar to the West Island way. Scrap the plans For it to be binned N/A Scrap the whole idea. Scrap it and don’t come over here parking on pavements and double yellow lines, telling us what is best Cancel whole design. Not required. Don’t do it Cancel the whole plan. Scrap the plans Scrap it. Cycling lanes are seldom used.
Page 150
147 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Don't agree with the design and would not include a designated cycle lane Make like Poland which shares cycling and pedestrian use This is simply not needed or wanted by us who live here. None, not wanted at all See above Buildouts are pointless with this level of traffic None Could it not go along the prom in places where the prom is very wide? Scrap it Scrap it Scrap it It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters Scrap it completely Stop stop stop now The location, Ardbeg to Rhubodach makes far more sense to offer cyclists a path. Forget the changes at the ferry lanes if the location isn’t changed. Don’t take away car parking on Victoria STREET I’d scrap it completely Put it in the bin Fix pot holes in road More taxi space. No cycle lane as won’t get used Don't do it, utterly pointless and has no benefit to community ? No commented derelict building at pier None Scrap it. Don’t do it Scrap the whole thing, it needs to be totally reevaluated It’s waste of our money ! Cancel it Scap it Bin it Scrap it Bin in Don't bother , redirect the money where it's needed Scrap the whole idea
Page 151
148 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stop it altogether Abolish it Cancel it Parking for cars Battery place pavement should be parking area. Taxi rank needs more spaces ( huge user group on bute ). More drop kerbs lined up on both sides for wheelchair users. Spend the money elsewhere Spend the money on something more essential It not being there Rub it out! Lose the traffic congestion areas Scrap the whole idea Scrap it Don’t design it Don't do it See anove Would not go ahead Take away the cycle path as these roads are safe I would erase it and leave things as they are. SCRAP THE PLAN: LISTEN TO THE MAJORITY. Bigger entrance to ferry lanes Listening to the community and not going ahead with the cycle route. Pedestrian crossing with 'lights' where you cross over to go to and from the ferry terminal (over the bridge). scrap it Just don’t need it scrap the idea do not proceed with this Reject the proposal and fix the roads and pavements on Bute Parking spaces Completely unnecessary No bike lane Abolish it Not needed Project is a waste of money Scrap it
Page 152
149 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Get rid of it there is no need for wasting money on something so unnecessary Do not want cycle paths Extension of cycle path as above. Scrap it and spend the money on something more important Scrapped totaly Don't do it Make the cycle lanes on the promenade that's already more than wide enough to facilitate them Place the cycle route on the prom and improve the signage and sight lines for the elderly drivers on the island For the money to go to better use on the island Scrap the design Scrap the whole thing More parking Cancel this pointless project Scrap it Complete waste of money LISTEN & actually do as community wants & not waste money & cause unnecessary upheaval for islanders. Scrap the whole ridiculous scheme Srcap the whole idea Reject it As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! Improve the existing road and pavement surfaces None Scrap it All off it Don’t do this I don’t wish for any of this Scrap it No changes needed Abandon it I think it warrants full reconsideration Design not required at all. Leave roads and pavements as they are I would use the money to improve the promenade and walk ways already present on the island Scrap it. Don't change anything leave as is None
Page 153
150 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Put Attention to parking at Battery Place Make more parking for cars and free If taxpayers money is involved I would advise that this unnecessary project should be reviewed. Abolish the project. Simply because central government is throwing funds at Council is not good enough reason to impose an unwelcome plan on residents. Not needed Scrap it Move all cycle traffic to existing prom area. Keep existing wide access to ferry queuing. Sack ‘consultants’ to save taxpayers money Scrap it and do something that's actually beneficial Scrap it Don't do it No changes Coach parking in albert pier away from harbourside Scrap it. As above Not sure I don’t believe the proposed is needed, maybe for a very few Cancel the idea in the first place Scrap it. Its not needed and will cause a lot of problems and accidents. Unfortunately most, not all cyclists now seem to think they have overall ownership of the highway. They are silent, and dangerous. Leave the roads as they are The council should be ashamed of themselves if this is allowed to happen N/A Scrap it - the number of Glenburn guests using bicycles is negligible. The money should be used for more pressing needs in the town No need for separate cycling lane Nothing scrap it Scrap it By tearing it up or shredding it and putting it to recycled into something useful like a blank sheet of paper. I think the location is wrong. I would rather see a route to the school via the meadows. Don’t do it bin it N/A Working public toilets
Page 154
151 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap the idea isn’t suitable for the island Dont think it is necessary for this area. Clean up the Island first Didn't want it at all The narrowing of the entrance to the ferry queue Remove cycleway between pavement and bus stop. The prosed plan would create more danger than it would prevent Motor cycle parking Make sure the roundabout is big enough for buses to do a complete turn on Scrap the entire plan None Wouldn't have it done Scheme not need3d Extending the route to Mount Stuart and/or to Ardbeg Assuming getting rid of the design is not an optionssue seeing my answers below Scrap Scrap it. We don't need it. File it away, not needed Not reduced access to pier STOP Stop it Take a black marker pen and scrub it out Scrap it. Exclude cycle path put in zebra crossing at discovery centre None - scrap it is it not needed Abandon this project Scrap it & use the money for something useful I would scrap the whole thing. Scrap the cycle lanes Object to it - no need for this work Spend the money improving Albert Pier parking area Scrap it now before wasting more money Is this the best way to spend the money when the rest of the town is a mess Don't I would take it back to the drawing board and listen to the residents.
Page 155
152 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap the plans entirely - complete waste of money and a danger to pedestrians Don't waste money on Make roundabout easy for buses and Lorrie’s to use. Scrap it Think about the ends the the cycleway. Too often the cyclist is just directed back onto the road at an inappropriate or even dangerous place. What about cyclists who are travelling in the opposite direct (Glenburn to Pavilion)? How will they be encouraged and enabled to cross the road safely without interruption to their journey? Could the cycleway continue on the promenade as a dual-use track shared with pedestrians beyond the Glenburn and Pavilion? Scrub the hole idea Do away with a proposed cycle route as cyclists already have use of the road. There is no need a cycle line for battery Place Not to go ahead Use the budget for something we need Re routing the cycle lanes to fully integrate the sea walk promenade SCRAP IT! Scrap it in its entirety. No changes Don’t do it Would not implement this to start with Already stated I’d scrap the entrance to the pier, is it too small I'd scrap it. I don't see any need for it and I'm a cyclist of many years. Don’t do it x3 This project is waste of time and money Scrap it now Clear signage to mark the end of the route and a safe route back onto the road I think the design as a whole is a "solution looking for a problem" and as such I think it should be scrapped. We have a perfectly adequate multi-use esplanade that covers the majority of the route. Cyclists and motorists should be able to share the short stretch of roadway as it exists. Cancel the whole scheme The taxi rank probably needs more spaces. Your design shows 4 spaces only. Don’t do it There is not enough car parking Object to the whole design. Scrap it
Page 156
153 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com None. Bin it Vehicle entry to ferry terminal too restricted especially for large vehicles Scrap it Scrapping it. Scrap the idea, observe the existing traffic through town, and acknowledge that the idea is needless. N/a .. I would cancel altogether We don't need a cycle lane. It's a complete waste of time and money Remove the pathway from Victoria Street – it’s not needed Pavement extended to Kerrycroy All of it. This is not a required project Where are the other 4 taxi rank spaces? Whilst the proposed scheme appears to offer no benefit to the community, the design also fails to consider the opportunities available under the Cycling by Design Manual. Almost the entire route could benefit from utilising existing footways on the sea-side of the flood wall along the whole route, by developing them into a shared cycle and footway, as per chapter 3 of the manual. Don’t want cycle lane Cancel See 5 Findings that were undertaken to justify this proposal should be made public - how many people are in favour of it? Put money into the places that need attention Do away with whole project Cancel whole thing. Maintain parking on the section along Battery Place towards the Glenburn Abandon the scheme altogether more taxi spaces Although probably not possible at this stage (but could be something for the future), and if opposition meant that the section along Battery Place was abandoned, it would be good to extend the scheme as far as Port Bannatyne. This would give a connection between the two communities and, also, provision for pedestrians who frequently use the northward route from Rothesay for exercise. Improve the existing footpath along the sea front at Battery Place and provide proper parking on the coast side of the road to separate pedestrians. This would also make it safer for cyclists. Victoria Street - High Street - Ferry terminal junction: No pedestrian island nor bikelane across the north facing side. Leave ferry lane access alone. Route pedestrians/bicyclists in a U shape around the junction, and section off the north-west/north-east edges to discourage non-vehicle traffic crossing the ferry lanes. Not needed here
Page 157
154 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Cycle lanes on road and not pavement Leave the bays same size and not obstructor traffic at chapel hill area Scarp it Put the cycle lane on the road Forget the plan More parking Forget it, Scrap it Scarap it . none none idk idk more taxi bays traffic lights unnecessary fgshsfhf sghfsghfsgh cycle rute to the school more nature Scrap design Scrap design Not needed Not needed Cancel the project See above Fire all in charge Not to do it Just scrap the idea The taxi rank would be to small for the 10 plus taxis and buses would struggle to get round a smaller round about Scrap it And again, scrap it Scrap it As above As above
Page 158
155 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com No cycle paths No cycle paths Not needed Not needed Use money elsewhere Please give the island something that will improve it, as this is not it. Please listen to the community of the isle of bute Don’t do it Don’t do it Not required Not suitable Fix Ardbeg Road shoreside it’s an eyesore. Fix the towns eyesores. Cancel Cancel Sack whoever’s idea this was. Set fire to the plans. Improve the parking bays and introduce more zebra crossings Narrowing the entrance to the ferry lanes will create traffic jams, especially if the road has been narrowed Spend the money on fixing the esplanade As above As above Scrap it SCRAP IT Like into something for youths Put the money elsewhere Impose 20mph limit improve parking Making any changes as this is an unnecessary waste of money Making any changes as this is an unnecessary waste of money There is already a safe area for bikes and pedestrians that requires no crossing of roads, so literally all you are doing is paying to put down paint. Use the money to put in safe zebra crossings at all the schools Listen to the public on Bute Stop spending money unnecessarily
Page 159
156 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap it Scrap it Na Na Spent money wisely in the town Happen To Scrap it Scrap it Finish projects already started Fix roads Use of areas already bike and walk friendly ie the prom Scrap the design Scrap the design Why not use the existing promenade and widen at battery place . This would save money on the grass cutting.!! Also other councils have made exemptions to pavement parking why can’t Argyll and Bute council enforce this ? As above Wide pavement made into car parking bays Bin it Bin it Improving road safety, but no point in trying to do this if enforcement just means the occasional visit from a traffic warden who doesn't patrol around much of Rothesay let alone the rest of the island. You've not allowed for enough parking. Adult cyclists prefer to cycle on the road. Disabled pedestrians will wall on the area closest to them even if it becomes designated as a cycle lane. Parking on Albert pier for coach’s won’t work when people can’t park properly Abort Abort Parking to be monitored Sort out paths so not trip hazard Scrap it Scrap it Scrap plan Leave taxi rank as it is Stop plans
Page 160
157 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com More taxi rank space as you seem to have reduced it Public toilets so tourists actually want to walk around and explore Cancelled waste of money Cancelled waste of money Children Elderly and burn it! rip it up Do it somewhere else Leave it alone Don’t build it It’s not needed or wanted Bin it Just maintain existing roads and seafront eg storm damage in Ardbeg Road untouched for 2+ years Nil Nil Parking Parking As above Sort roads and pavements we already have Scrap the plans. To be scrapped. Not to lose parking N/A N/A As above As above Fix the pot holes Fix the potholes Parking for card Public toilets Cancel it Cancel it Provide covered bike storage in town
Page 161
158 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Spend the money in other areas on the island where it’s needed such as road maintenance or dedicated cycle areas out of town on some of the narrower roads Go away and leave us alone What part of go away don’t u understand? .. No cycle lanes Waste of money not needed NOT NEEDED See above See above Spend money on something of benefit to community Waste of money when these areas are safe, when was there an accident??? No cycle path between Glenburn Road and Rothesay Pavillion No Road alterations between Glenburn Road and Rothesay Pavillion Do not take up space on the roads for cycle lanes The design is ridiculous and would cause chaos on our roads Stop wasting money on this proposed project Not have it happen Not have it happen Cancel it Cancel it Cancellation Cancellation None None Do nothing there is ample space for safe travel and the accident records prove that Do nothing there is ample space for safe travel and the accident records prove that Building improvements Fixing damage Spend the money on repairing the promanade Listen to views being clearly expressed by local residents using platforms beyond your lazy survey which can’t even get street names correct. How insulting that is to local people!
Page 162
159 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com You should have advertised the link to the survey clearly and repeatedly on local social media sites. Feedback from dozens there clearly state that until recently they had no idea where to find the survey to express objection Change it to something that would provide an are fir kids like battery park in gourock/greenock Only spend money on changes that will improve life's or increase economic growth Scrapping it Scrapping it Sack the consultant Start spending it on the pavements replacing cracked slabs that have been neglected for too many years. Oban has no cracked slabs. Cancel it Cancel it Use the prom which is already there Use the money elsewhere. Use the money elsewhere. Put in bucket Rip it up Money saving Reinvesting the money elsewhere Cancel the plan. Redirect the funds to higher priority problems. See above (there can only be one MOST important change. People need to have car parking spaces You are narrowing already narrow roads Waste of money We the community of Bute don't want it.. Leave the taxi rank Scrap the idea More parking for cars in battery place by making the pavement narrower The head of the pier is already a dangerous junction when the ferries are busy so not making it worse Want to spend money on fixing the roads Want to spend money on more disabled parking spaces Nome Scrap the whole project! Spend the money of more worth while causes! Why has this been allowed to continue in the face of public opinion. it's not needed
Page 163
160 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com it's not needed None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. I'd throw it in the bin Just scrap the whole idea. Fix pot holes More public toilets Pen pushing, box tickers from the council Put project in bin Spend money on better things for community A cycle lane up High street to the Joint Campus would be more beneficial to the community. Waste of money. The community does not want this!! Scrap it Scrap it Move on to somewhere else. RIP the proposal up Don't change anything! This will causes a issue with parking Don’t do it Don’t do it More benches Don’t mess up the roads Move it into the prom Don't need this on the island Waste of money Scrap the plan. Scrap the plan. Big bin fit consultants in Spend the money on something the Island needs Cancel it. We don’t want it WE DO NOT WANT OR NEED THIS As above None required As above
Page 164
161 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com As above Better use the money on other services Cancel all plans Stop the whole idea !!! I would leave the route unchanged Leave the area untouched Please spend this money on finishing pavilion Please spend this money on royal hotel Scrap it Scrap it Do not waste the town Stopped prepositions Burn it Ripe it up Keep the Bus Stop Lay-bys. Current bus stop lay-bys allow all other road users to pass when buses are picking up passengers. Moving the bus stop into the road will inconvenience other road users, thus causing congestion / increasing exhaust emission levels Reinstate parking outside Rothesay Pavilion. Parking here will be especially required when it eventually reopens Burn it We don't want it!!!!! Spend the money on something that the community actually needs As above As above Don't do it Don't do it Repair our paths and roads Use the cash for repairs Scrap it Scrap it None None None Stop it going ahead Scrap it Scrap it
Page 165
162 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com More public convenience open for longer Spend the money making appearance more inviting. Not needed Would be detrimental to the area 4 taxi bays ? There are 11 taxis in Rothesay and every one of these spaces are required What a waste of money. The council budget will never cover the cost of maintaining this Stop Not going ahead with the project Stop wasting money Dont do it Leave the community alone Do nothing Do nothing Move the route Cyclists are a bloody menace - keep cycling on pavements and nearly knocking people over especially the blind and partially sighted who don't see them coming Just don't do it!!!!! See above See above Cancel the project Cancel this wasteful project Scrap it Scrap it Cancel the Albert Pier to Glenburn stretch as this stretch of road needs more off road parking Nothing Use the existing esplanade None None Change size think of the lorry’s and tractors using the road Needs to be moved as you can’t make the roads smaller Don't do it Forget it There is absolutely no need for a cycling path on this stretch of road whatsoever. There is absolutely no need for a cycling path on this stretch of road whatsoever.
Page 166
163 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Pavements sorted Pot holes sorted Move it elsewhere Where are people goi g to park in Victoria Street. Parking is restrictive enough. Survey aimed at walkers and cyclists. Ask drivers and local shops what would be best for town Take away the restrictive entrance for vehicles your design shows. Ferry terminal entrance Ferry terminal entrance No cycle lane Sack mark arrogant and incompetent Give up with this stupid idea Give up with this stupid idea Scfap Scrap Do not hinder access to ferry terminal . It is creating a conflict between users and inviting a collision Cancel it Scrap the whole idea Scrap the whole idea Scrap the plans More carparking in town Upgrade the Promenade surface and seawall Ditti above, it is not required. As above As above Just stop this project Use the money for this project for something else Consultation into a cycle path between Port Bannatyne and Ettrick Bay Painting a specific cycle lane on the existing promenade No needed Cycle lanes will not be used Improve the parking at Albert Pier - Cars parking 30 mins limit Not required on island Not required on island Scrap it
Page 167
164 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Cancel the whole plan No improvements to existing route needed Abandon it all Abandon it all We don't need this We don't need this Cancellation Stop wasting money on white elephants I don't think preventing traffic from turning left into the ferry queue is realistic. Maybe an all red phase on the lights for people to cross in all directions. Also lights need to stay on green when the ferry is unloading, otherwise the turnaround of the ferry can be delayed and active travellers miss train connections! Provide somewhere dry for cyclists who are waiting to board the ferry. Only needs a small bus shelter. How does making people with bikes stand in the rain for ages in the middle of winter encourage cycling?! Coach parking isn’t adequate Taxi rank isn’t big enough See above See above Discard the unnecessary cycle lanes Do not add light control of crossings - "zebra" style crossings more than suffice Incorporate more cycle parking Do not implement these proposals Once they start this it will expand all over town to tap into the funding. Not sure Not sure Connect More dropped curbs Scrap the lot Scrap the lot immediately Scrap all of this idea. Scrap all of this idea. instead of roundabouts make crossing None None No design not needed No design not needed and I cycle regularly
Page 168
165 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Don't do the redesign Nobody wants it. Absolutely no need to do it Pure nonsense Spend the money on route up to the school or out to port bannatyne Used the esplanade Scrap it Scrap it Scrap it Scrap it Extend length Scrap it Scrap it all Because we don't need it Means nothing Increase taxi rank Not to encroach ferry terminal parking And again Scrap it again Scrap it completely Scrap it completely Scarp this as waste of money put money to kids soft play or sumilar Scrap as not needed, as a daily cyclist plenty of room in road, pavement and promenade already Ditto Ditto For it to be completely binned. The roads are too narrow and the pavements are required eg walkers, wheelchair users and prams. It would restrict the number of essential taxis at the rank. Cause congestion and stop traffic from getting easy access to the ferry therefore causing more congestion. nu Not to happen it is the most stupid and inconsiderate idea, there are other places in Bute where it would be better to put a cycle lane eg out past the yachting club and Skeoch woods, a much more sensible area. Have no bike lane Have no bike lane As above As above Ideally spend the money improving the safety of the pavements at Ardbeg and Ettrickdale
Page 169
166 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com If the money cannot be spent improving current active travel walkways, the give funds back and don’t waste taxpayer’s money. Don't waste money on it CalMac port entrance - new design is completely impractical Gallogate Roundabout is very difficult to navigate on foot and need complete redesign with crossing for walkers/cyclists Scrap tje plans As above As above Scrap the whole idea Scrap the whole idea. Scrap this and listen to the community Scrap this and listen to the community Use the money elsewhere like to widen the pave,EMT and improve routes up to the campus Use the shore side paths Use the money to fix the pa event and fence on Ardbeg Road Use the money to fix the prom None Waste of money Cut cost so can do other work. Signage to cycle track along sea wall Use a lane in sea walk Retain parking improvements Scrap it Scrap it Scrap it Scrap it More parking It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters As above Forget the idea Cancel the whole thing Scrap this nonsense Location - not needed for the area you’re proposing. Change location LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION Leave the island alone and scrap it
Page 170
167 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Listen to the residents and scrap it Don't do it, utterly pointless and has no benefit to community Don't do it, utterly pointless and has no benefit to community Speed control for cars etc Leave route as it is Leaving route as it is Look at better routes, for example a safe route for children to cycle to school. Stop wasting more money on these surveys, if you are not going to listen to the views Cancel it Cancel it Burn it Rip it up As above As above Scrap it Scrap it Battery place left dide pavement should be parking. This will encourage visitors to leave car and walk to town. Taxi rank increase in spaces. Ardbeg shoreline needs fixed Pavilion needs fixed Leaving the town alone Not changing what already works Forget it! Scrap it! Consider a different route, one that will benefit folk, not just a change for changes' sake Instead of telling locals what they want, actually ask them Don't alter anything that already exists Don't change the road layout Don’t design it Don’t design it As above As above SCRAP THE PLAN: LISTEN TO THE MAJORITY. SCRAP THE PLAN: LISTEN TO THE MAJORITY.
Page 171
168 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Coach space made realistic The narrowing of the roads Actually look at the community you're proposing doing this in and get the names of the streets it'll affect right. Check the highway code, apparently the person in town promoting this thinks that people should just park on cycle paths if they need to. Traffic Calming (keep speeds below 20mph in town centre) Listen to the locals Put the idea in the bin do not proceed with this do not proceed with this No need for a cycle lane. As a cyclist for over 30 years the roads in Bute are safe for me and my children to cycle on As above Scrap it It will be hell for disabled drivers. It will be mayhem Fix the prom with the money Install more drop kerbs to current system Stop the consultation Cycle route nearer the sea Pedestrians with prams . Wheelchairs pavement cars Repair ardbeg sea walk instead Repair promenade instead Scrap the whole idea Scrap it Have a more family friendly promenade Make something for children Abandon & start over Use the areas that are already available instead of withdrawing amenities that have & needed. Scrap it As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! Improve the existing road and pavement surfaces As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! Improve the existing road and pavement surfaces None None Scrap it Scrap it
Page 172
169 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Take away the plans all together We don't need this Don’t do this Don’t do this No changes needed No changes needed Abandon it Abandon it Lower pavements Parking space N/A N/A Bin In Improve the failing structure of the promenade Reconsider the parking at Albert Pier. The space for 3 coaches is totally inadequate and in the wrong position against the seawall. The old toilet building at Albert Pier needs consideration Do something with the pavilion it is an eye sore Fix roads Review the process which led to this project being suggested Spend the time and money in some better way. There must be a better way. If there MUST be a cycle lane on E Princes St and Battery Place, make use of the promenade Instead of the cycle-lane along E Princes Street and Battery Place, formalise permitted car parking on the pavement that has already been permitted and tolerated for decades. Use existing prom rather than costly changes. Scrap it and do something that's actually beneficial Scrap it and do something that's actually beneficial Same Same No changes No changes pavement extension at Pier, blocks route to pick up/ drop off zone when approaching from north. would be better as a raised deck (like big speed table) reduces speed, pedestrians have more protection, traffic can still flow. uni directional cycleways on either side of road as opposed to bi-directional on one side of road. Proven to reduce conflicts at junctions
Page 173
170 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Ditch this nonsense Sack the clown consultant at the meeting who park illegally for starters. As above As above Coaches to park Albert Pier More room for cars to park Albert Pier to Glenburn As above As above The design is unnecessary The urination of that part of Rothesay Leave it as it is Scrap the idea, utter waste of money Way too narrow particularly at bottom of bishop street / roundabout for buses and emergency vehicles bin it bin it N/A N/A Working public toilets Working public toilets Keep well away from the exit from the ferry Completely waist of money other things fixed first Fix the roads Don't want it Don't want this change The narrowing of the entrance to the ferry queue area is too restrictive. The section including East Princes Street and Battery Place will eliminate much needed parking for both residents and visitors to the guest accommodation. Improving on parking Secure access Add extra trees along the seafront Use pavement outside Victoria Street shops to increase parking Wouldn't have it done Wouldn't have it done Scheme not needed Scheme not needed
Page 174
171 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Cycle route on the seafront behind Winter Gardens I would not block off the vehicle access to the peer in the way the design does. This will almost certainly increase congestion. when loading ferries I would not increase the number of pedestrian lights as opposed to crossings in the design. Idea Whole N/a N/a Perfectly god esplanade to walk and cycle this route Parking in town limited at present any further reduction would have economic impact on town Use promenade Don’t waste our tax payers money Take a red marker pen and cross it out Try to forgive the clueless consultant who dreamt up the scheme. Zebra crossing Zebra crossings Abandon this project Abandon this project It doesn't go ahead Spend the money on something actually needed Give the money to a town that needs it or to fund a community buyout of the discovery centre. Scrapping the scheme. Fill in the potholes Make wheelchair accessible kerbs Renovate or demolish the Albert Pier Building Do not build Save money Don't do it Not needed Listen to the residents. There appears to be a lack of thought re people with disabilities and young children. The pavements are fairly wide in parts but if you take away a large proportion of that then other people are at a disadvantage. If a child runs out in front of a cyclist who is cycling on the pavement who is liable? The roundabout being made smaller is another indication that the people who are carrying out the survey do not live in the island as the buses have to get round it!! Albert Pier having more space for buses means that yet again car parking is being lost and where will the cars who have to park along the road to the Glenburn going to park. The road here is narrow and the bus can struggle to get through.
Page 175
172 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com You have indicated more parking on Victoria Street, however when cars come off the ferry and turn right it is already a tight corner. There is also traffic lights and cars should not be within the zigzag lines and not near the corner of the street so where would parking be? Keep full width of the pavement - important as more people use wheelchairs and mobility scooters as they get older Remove floating bus stops -RNIB campaign highlights their dangers Scrap the proposals This is the same question as above. Could some car-parking be included along the stretch of road towards the Glenburn. Cars are currently parking (illegally) on the promenade. As above. Keep pavements clear for pedestrians. People should not have to cross a cycle lane to get to Rothesay town centre. There is no need a cycle line for battery Place There is no need a cycle line for battery Place Probably the only area on the island NOT to have a cycle lane Save the Council money to spend elsewhere Don’t need this Don’t want this Ideally the cycle route should be for connectivity in the town and should be from the ferry to the school and factory something that is useful and includes mobility scooters Forget this absolutely ridiculous idea which nobody wants. Use money for something sensible that is required. Forget the Battery Place leg of the scheme. If this hare brained scheme has to proceed then it should run along the prom from the Victorian toilets to the pavilion. None None Don’t do it A refurb of Guildford Square would be better Spend the money upgrading the building in Rothesay town centre All above Scrap it Scrap it parking Money wasted Waste of money which could be put to much better use Scrap it now Scrap it now
Page 176
173 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Reduce the road speed through the town to 20 mph. This will make the road even safer for cyclists. It will also make crossing the road safer for pedestrians. The road through Rothesay is already very safe for cyclists, The majority of cyclists who visit or live on the island are Road cyclists who would not use the cycle path. The only dangerous part of the route is at the traffic lights for the ferry terminal. It wasn't clear how that would be separated from cars. Will it be raised? Will the cycle route have its own traffic lights? Don’t do it Don’t do it Demolition of Royal Hotel More pressing issues Can it be changed to the promenade. The money could be well spent repairing the promenade and creating a safe cycle and walking route. Spend money on existing pavements Spend money on existing roads Scrapping it. Scrapping it. Abandon the idea Look for genuine improvements to spend money on Do not proceed with the design Have consideration for the thoughts of the community Don’t reduce access to pier No cycle path required in town No cycle path required in town give up now to not proceed Legal compliance with crossings, bus stops, Scrapping the idea altogether and spending on improving our local hospital/dental services As above -even though the scheme is not required - minimal amendments to existing footpaths can be made to create shared cycle/footways as permitted under the design guidance. Don’t want cycle lane Don’t want cycle lane Discard To not be considered Direct funding where it is needed most - this proposal is a waste of money. Ditto above Ditto above
Page 177
174 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Maintain historic weigh bridge outside the ferry terminal. This is meant to be a conservation area Maintain layout of taxi rank. It works, and it allows for more than 4 taxis during busy periods, which can immediately set off in any direction without the need to turn round Fix the pavements 20mph traffic speed limit through the busiest area Do not make the roundabout smaller, people already have difficulty here. Move the cycle route to the sea front which already runs to the Pavilion. The cycle hire station is already located in a prime position here so some improvements to this area seems a more logical choice and avoids sending cyclists to the busiest junction on the entire island. Waste of money sign markings end of route cycles must move off the pavement the present scheme is creating potential danger to both cyclists and pedestrians. There needs to be barrier seperating them buffer needs to be bigger for car doors to avoid hitting cyclists. its mych to short, why would anyone want to use it .. Just because funding is available, does not mean you have to use it. Not required Look at other areas on the island Not needed in the area, period Not needed! Not needed Not applicable It’s not needed We need more parking and wider space for cars no need for a cycle lane Something Isle of Bute doesn't need! Spend money fixing the prom the existing cycle lane Don’t do it Additional parking for ferry waiting Spend the money on improving other existing infrastructure Safe walking and cycling space separated from vehicles, not on a shared roadway IE the PROMENADE More parking Do not go ahead As above Dont waste money The community deserves something useful
Page 178
175 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Don’t need cycle path Not required Skate/cycle park Scrap the project and fix the eyesores all over the town Waste of money Waste of time and money. It is definitely not required Scrap the design Would be better spending money to complete sea wall works at ardbeg It is a waste of money and Even less cycle space Implementation of bute residents and community concerns and scrap all of this Car parks This is a vanity project which will have a negative impact on our town More parking spaces Scrap it all together Redesigning this nonsense so that it doesn’t exist An alternative cycle path in another area. Utterly pointless Na Spend money on a dog warden To Stupid idea Plenty of room for all Waste of money The road repaired Common sense We do not want it More disabled parking. Cycle lane up the high street to the school Abandoned Cars not to park on drop curbs From Albert pier to Glenburn, the road needs more official car parking Scrap it
Page 179
176 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Don't go ahead with it Bay parking means cars reversing on to the main road, dangerous Instead repair any uneven or damaged sections of the pavement Bike shelters Cancelled waste of money Parking Looking after the elderly Motorbike parking as above Do not touch Don’t want it at all As existing Nil Parking More car parking in Montague street no shops reserving the space outside their shops Consideration of more taxi spaces Funding to help restore the Royal hotel. No need for a cycle lane. Improving existing prom/pavement N/A As above Tell the job centre he left voluntarily Parking for coached Disabled drop kerbs monitored by parking attendants Less emphasis on dedicated cycle areas Stop wasting money .. Use money elsewhere within our community not needed Consultation for the locals Waste of money A more useful location. Both locals and visitors need parking The answers in the survey are taken on board To not happen at all
Page 180
177 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not beeded No parking on pavements As above NO pavement obstructions! Nothing, I don't want it The actual width of pavements (there are 3) and roads along Battery Place is massive. Plenty room for parking both sides of the road, a cycle lane and walking path. Come up with a solution that resolves everything not just one or two individuals priorities. As mentioned above, all issues are already resolved and have been for decades so someone is finding problems that don’t exist. Scrap it. It is not needed Use the funds for other better local uses Leave route as it is, this is not needed It doesn’t happen Ridiculous idea cyclists will not use it Not required There was a plan to widen the road up to the school and make a Cycle route- what happened to this? Use the 3rd putting green as a playpark, fenced off, as area for kids waiting ferry in a safe space All unnecessary Waste of money NO CHANGE AT ALL See answer 1 Not narrowing the road There are already road users Highway Code rules regarding the space cars and vehicles must give bicycles Burn ithe proposal We do need the taxi rank I cycle on the road Not taking away walking and driving spaces in a narrow enough lanes Don't come up with stupid ideas Don’t know Get rid of it all together it's not needed None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. Use the money for something else. More public toilets Sorting proper parking in town so idiots don't park on the pavement
Page 181
178 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Free parking Keep pedestrians safe by rebuilding the sea wall at Ardbeg. Scrap it Ludicrous proposals Wase of money Not needed More seats to stop at Secondly, not to do it Not needed in Rothesay As above Waste of time get someone with a brain to stop it Burn it Pointless will make no improvement As above Keep cyclists and pedestrians well away from each other, due to the fact blind or deaf persons would be a great risk of collision and accidents Other ways Money should be spent on more needed things It is unwanted Please spend this money on finishing pavilion Same as above Improve the road and pavement surfaces that are already there. Stop wasting money Spending money on repairs Add parking / allow pavement parking on/near Battery Place to facilitate residents and Guest Houses in that area Repair current roads More traffic wardens would help traffic flow and punish council employees who park illegally in white BMWs. Footpath to be even and less patchy As above Do not start it Scrapped Repair the paths and roads None Reintroduce access to Esplanade for vehicles to park:as it is rarely used by pedestrians thereby reducing pressure on parking in the town centre and Battery Place None
Page 182
179 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap the bike plan completely Not necessary Ample space already for walking and cycling Do not implement this. Cyclists do what they want and the majority will not use it they are more content cycling the wrong way on one way streets Taxi rank is vital and should not be altered No cycle lane Waste of money Reallocate the funds Fix the pavements instead Don’t do the plan Taking away parking N/A 3 spaces for taxis is not enough Car parking along Battery Place. You can easily have up to 40 cars parked on the pavement you are considering for the cycle route at any given time in the summer. Walking and cycling separate from cars Waste of money See above None Cancel Scrap it The area around the busy ferry terminal needs more not less parking to accommodate large coaches etc. Repairs to existing roads N/A Safe walking None Fix potholes Listen to the people who live here Use the money elsewhere Parking Level the pavements for users Getting the pavements and pot holes sorted 2. Why do t you put in a cycle lane up towards Rothesay campus which would be beneficial to the health and safety of the students. Safer pedestrian crossings at ferry vehicle entrance exit.
Page 183
180 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not needed No cycle lane Waste of money Keep existing Invite suggestions and benefits of schemes that are less costly and obstructive to other road users( eg damaged paths nearer Port Bannatyne ) Scrap the whole idea None . Resurface roads and pavements N/A As above resurface the rutted roads of the island Less virtue signalling Parking spaces Waste of Government money The shore railings are in need of replacement or repair Improved parking is needed on the seafront. Spend money on this and not this stupid project. Better Road Markings Change to existing infrasyructure not needed. Keep parking available Would rather have speed bumps along battery place along to pavilion Removal Making sure vehicles don't park where they block the route. No-one does anything about the parking on the footway on Battery Place so how will this be any different Spend money keeping a bank on the island Taxi rank See above More priority given to pedestrians rather than cyclists Ensure parking regulations are enforced This is a conservation area with a huge wide Victoria. promenade for cycling and walking Separate from traffic Keep pavements as is No cycle lane required already use pavement to cycle on. None
Page 184
181 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com More important things to waste money on It should be cancelled. none Roads fixed There are already broad pavements and esplanades that can be safely used just mark them up Scrap it Not needed Scarp The money would be better spent on fixing the current pavements and roads Make cycle lane in high street Increase size for taxis Deck chairs Scrap it completely More parking for visitors Ditto Common sense it is not required No bike lane Parking on Battery place for businesses and residents is way more important than any cycle path Cars have no option but to queue along Victoria Street when the ferries are busy. The proposed changes are going to make this even more of a problem, with complete blockages along our main thoroughfare highly likely. Stupid I wouldn't put it in place Shared space at roundabouts As above The design should be scrapped. Scrap it and listen to the community Use existing facilities Invest in a play area Consideration for the opinions of the whole of Bute This is not needed Easier access for those with mobility issues Keep separate from road traffic Waste of money ZebraCrossings
Page 185
182 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com As above A workshop to educate car drivers on how to safely pass cyclist's Nothing More parking Less cycling route It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters As above The project should be scrapped HGV’s trying to navigate a very sharp narrow turn As a regular cyclist I’d say scrap it Boat traffic will be a nightmare Repair road near boat yard Landscaping especially at Albert pier Scrap it. Safety this would make things worse The majority of the island roads are suitable and safe for cycling, this will not encourage people to cycle more Funding go to other community needs Total waste of money Less cycle path As above Don’t do it at all not needed Stop it Short term paid parking Waste of money None No cyclists No benefit to the island A more intelligent route Use existing wide off road areas I.e. the promenade Stop wasting money on a useless idea Wider roads More parking As above
Page 186
183 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com SCRAP THE PLAN.Misplaced plans to fix something that does not require to be fixed whilst simultaneously creating problems that didn’t previously exist and compounding those that did. That's an emphatic 'No' from me! Parking monitoring and illegal parking dealt with Not wasting money which will affect the accessibility of taxi services and parking in town. Traffic calming measures (reduce motor traffic speed). Weeds removed from kerbs do not proceed with this Abandon the proposal Rubbish bins As above Scrap the project Actually use the money to fix the places bikes can already use ie the prom Vehicle parking Improving the appearance around the pier 2 We do not want it! Improve the parking, or leave as it currently is. Safe for elderly drivers Total waste of money Its not required Bikes off road Parking spaces Abandon it Update/maintenance of prom for cycling to occur As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! Improve the existing road and pavement surfaces None Waste of money Leave it the way it is Don’t do this No changes needed As above For designers to consult local people properly Leave existing system in place The removal of parking spaces in the proposed areas will impact business across the town Stopping vehicles parking on pavements.
Page 187
184 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Bike Parking at Battety Place needs fixing . Although Battery Place seaside pavement is regularly used for car parking that indicates the necessity to create proper parking bays in this area. Fix the roads Common sense. Improve/ extend waiting area for ferry Fix the railings along Ardbeg road Town parking No changes cycle way must be different height to main carriageway and pavement. Essentially 3 levels. when the pavement and cycleway are same level, it creates conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists It causes undue problems to buses and emergency vehicles managing the proposed changes. I would like it not to cut off the pier for ferry traffic Having the coaches park on the Albert pier and rest of proposed area for cars. Safety for pedestrians As above The promenade needs repaired Proper maintenance of existing prom for walking The design should be rejected Good walking pavements Has there been a Health / safety done Fix the islands roads , so many potholes potentially dangerous to cyclists bin it N/A Working public toilets Cleaning side of pavements as full of weeds None Provision for parking between Albert Pier and Glenburn Road. Bollards Plenty of crossing places for pedestrians Roads need fixed first Not needed No comment Unwanted
Page 188
185 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com N/a Waste of money that could be gainfully in other parts of the island Parking Abandon the plan More road space for cyclists who will not use the cycle path. They will use the road. The existing infrastructure is poorly maintained so what hope do we have that they will maintain the proposed scheme. More parking None - scrap it is it not needed Abandon this project It doesn't happen Small quiet seaside towns don't need cycle lanes. .More drop kerbs for wheelchairs Scrapped Fix pavement Same as above keep the full width of the pavement for pedestrians, especially those using wheelchairs, mobility scooters or even prams Cycle path not in front of bus stop N/a The extra parking spaces at Albert Pier are welcome, but are these intended specifically for ferry users (which is important) or will they be taken by local residents? How will the scheme ensure that parking for ferry passengers is prioritised? Open up the promenade so vehicles going for the ferry can park instead of waiting on Victoria street Safer pavements. N/A Do not go ahead We don’t need it Opportunity to repurpose the sea front promenade and make it a real facility for the town If you cannot even get the name of Victoria Street correct then there is no hope for us! Don’t block the access of the cars entering the pier. It Don’t do it Spend the money on other things Rothesay needs More parking access to shop for elderly but not yet disabled Don’t need cycle path waste of money sort parking out with bays
Page 189
186 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com It’s not needed See above Scrap it now Separate, completely cyclists from pedestrians Better access to the ferry terminal for drop off and pick up purposes - the current plan looks to severely restrict existing vehicular access in this regard Ridiculous idea Crumbling buildings People going on a bus will have to cross over the cycling lanes. On the mainland this has caused many accidents. Bus parking Pot holes fixed Evidence that it will be of any benefit at all Less disruption Make use of the esplanade No cycle path required in town this will cause disruption beyond it’s so called benefits Proper legal compliance with bus stops, crossings, entrances and egress’s The survey data provided in slide 3 provides no context to allow the reader to make an informed judgement. Is it parking surveys? bicycle use surveys? From local knowledge, it would be expected that extremely low numbers of bicycle users along the proposed routes would be identified, which, when considered in context of the potential CAPEX for the scheme will indicate little value in the scheme. Don’t want cycle lane Not necessary There are more pressing needs on the island for development and funding. Mend paths More residential car parking spaces for Battery Place Maintain layout of taxi rank. It works, and it allows for more than 4 taxis during busy periods, which can immediately set off in any direction without the need to turn round Waste of money Delay the scheme until route from ferry to school have been constructed route up to the school to make it useful instead No Cycling This idea restricts other users accessing services in the town and infact access to the island is hindered no alteration to existing roads and pavement Not needed! Not needed
Page 190
187 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not applicable It’s not needed Spruce up the buildings spend the money on that maybe make a play area for kids at the putting green anything but a deranged cycle lane that nobody wants Waste of money! Scrap the whole idea There are more important things needing attention This is just a vanity project put together without the consultation of the community No cycle paths Do not go ahead As above Nothing Why not use the money for a safe school crossing up at the medows/ hospital Same Not suitablw Keep wide promenades they’re safer. Total rubbish Utterly ridiculous. Not needed.....not applicable Scrap the design Build a playpark on putting green next to ferry Is totally unnecessary Zero cycle lanes Implementation of bute residents and community opi unions re scraping whole project Child safe areas No cyle track Implementing something more useful, like more parking around the town An alternative cycle path in another area. Not needed Na More parking places for cars on shore side at battery place Happen Stupid idea Why take it to the pavilion, is there a plan to get this finished? Waste of money
Page 191
188 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The Albert pier area cleaned up Don’t want Camper vans will park in the coach parking if they're moved off the pavement at Battery Place. Abandoned Pot holes to be addressed so people on mobility scooters can drive on pavement rather than road Help the small shops along the front Scrap it Make the road wider Increase number of kerb drops for disabled users Accessible water and air pump stations Cancelled waste of money Getting the derelict buildings up to use for the community Any parking as above again, hope you are getting the message! Do other work first for the community Not needed and a waste of money None Nil Parking Shuttle bus from a car park to Pier for commuters who park along Victoria street go on boat and don’t come back until night time Funding for repairing the sea wall and pavements along by the sailing club towards Port Bannatyne. No effect to existing parking N/A As above And scrap the idea Parking for taxis Childrens corner rebuilt No loss of existing roadways Not needed .. Do not proceed with this project not needed Transparency regarding the responses to the questions the community is asking Money could be spent on other areas
Page 192
189 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com More consideration towards a wider demographic of Bute’s population. I believe a cycle route will put tourists off visiting Not happen at all Not needed Priority for pedestrians As above Speed limit signs on road. Nothing, I don't want it Resolve Rothesays actual problems. The railings that the council never fix properly, the pavements damaged by storm never fixed properly, a building upgrade program to the front of Rothesay to improve image and encourage tourism. This plan discourages tourism in many ways by making parking a nightmare. There are very few side streets on Battery Place so nowhere for people to park. This is hotels, B&B’s, cafes, residents who may be retained fire fighters for all the designers know. They need access to their vehicles. Scrap it. The vast majority of the local community does not want this Support routes for school children cycling Leave route as it is, this is not needed Consultant learns to park in a proper parking space Sort out the route up to the school - there is room to widen in places there and it it’s dangerous for cyclists. Walkers and wheelers can use the promenade on the waterfront. Do not put in a cycle lane. This is a total waste of money when you could be spending this money on Thomson court day centre or keeping the discovery centre open All unnecessary Give community funding to make their own changes to benefit community No change at all See answer 2 No scheme needed The alteration to the front of Rothesay for a minority of users Lot of crap not needed Put in Pedestrian Crossings for the kids coming down from the joint campus Just get the roads fixed More coach spaces for tourists so they stop using Guildford square Preposterous idea Don’t know Spend the money on repairing the pathways and roads we already have it's not needed
Page 193
190 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. Less ignorance towards the islanders who LIVE HERE and listen to us when we say we do not want this. Fix pot holes Fix the potholes! No need for it at all We already have a promenade. A cycle lane could be introduced there. Scrap it Waste of money Going to cause a headache Are you getting the hint yet? Thirdly, cancel the project Not enough traffic on island for cycle route As above Consultants to pay back there fee Get rid of it Just coz money ring-fence for job doesn't mean its a good idea As above Better car parking bays within the town, as there is lack of parking and bus stops are getting blocked by parked cars. Rip it up It is unnecessary Please spend this money on royal hotel Same as above Improve local local buildings/infrastructure with the budget for this instead. Don't wreck our town More of what locals actually want Taxi Rank allows only for 4 vehicles, but there are consistently more taxis using the rank. This is important to have as many available as possible when the ferry comes to port in order to prevent people from being kept waiting, especially when raining. There is nowhere for the 5th taxi to park. We don't want it Rothesay is already as safe as it can be for cyclists and the current routes, while in need of urgent repair, already provide the community with what it needs. Better lighting As above Waste of money More parking needed None, make it disappear
Page 194
191 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Resurface roads in the town centre, particularly Battery Place to make them more cycle friendly None Spend money on essentials as opposed to hairbrain ideas. Waste of funds that would be better spent elsewhere. Community don't want this change The extra pedestrian crossings are not required and will only increase congestion Waste of money We don’t need a cycle lane Go away Use the money wisely this is not needed Leave the place as is Money could be better used elsewhere on the island NA As little development as possible. Would be better off repairing the roads and pavements so people can walk without tripping. See above None Cancel Scrap it Removing parking on the Albert Pier to Glenburn stretch will cause problems Repairs to existing benches & shelters N/A Space to push a pram or wheelchair None In force parking rules ie double yellows Cyclists local and who come here have had no serious accidents Don’t do it Parking Build housing for residents More lower kerb. For chairs 3. 1 and 2 . Not needed No cycle lane
Page 195
192 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Spend money elsewhere Keep existing Use of existing roadway to form painted marked cycle lane . Make more parking for cars and disabled people None N/A As above Try going out with a cyclist and see the actual issues Improvement of the existing tarmac surface at the promenade No changes needed to existing roads The grass bank and borders are in need of tidying up Listen to the views of the public and don’t force this on us. Forget the Rothesay Cycle Lane The routd is fine as it is Tearing up the plans N/a Community objection Less cruise ships more local visitors See above Increase parking around the pavilion It is totally unnecessary, whole community is against it Wide enough for pedestrians and cyclists Leave our town alone Town doesn’t need this change to accommodate cycling and walking. None This is waste of our money Stop making changes for the sake of it. none Pavements fixes More parkibg Scrap it Not needed Scrap Upgrade the lighting and walkways we have currently
Page 196
193 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not to encroach ferry terminal parking Buses Scrap it completely More parking for ahoppers Ditto For money to be used elsewhere eg to make the promenade safe before it collapses No bike lane Parking along battery place is already difficult. This proposal will make that worse. Don't waste the money on it Ker separation from carriageway As above The design should be scrapped. Scrap it and listen to the community Fix sea wall Or just don’t bother with this at all This is a waste of money No silly cones to separate cycle and road traffic As above Expand to ettrick bay via Ardbeg Nothing More parking It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters As above Please stop this waste of valuable resources Don’t take away any parking spaces. Parking is already very limited As an experienced cyclist who has cycled all over the world, I say scrap this totally Finish pavilion Scrap it. Safety can’t see how this would make anyone safer Parking will be an issue for all the residents along this route Funding go to other community needs More parking As above Don’t do it at all not needed
Page 197
194 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stop it Large vehicle parking ( less carbon footprint print) Not wanted None Not existing Waste of money, that could be better spent elsewhere Joined up thinking. Just because it looked good on paper or worked in another area, does not mean it'll work here Stop wasting money on a useless idea As above SCRAP THE PLAN.Misplaced plans to fix something that does not require to be fixed whilst simultaneously creating problems that didn’t previously exist and compounding those that did. That's an emphatic 'No' from me! Road markings clearer Listening to the community who are stating that money should be spent on other things that are needed far more than a cycle route which we'll only serve a very small number of cyclists. A repaint of railings do not proceed with this As above Makes the road more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians And more vehicle parking Improving the appearance 3 Please go away and leave our main street as it is! Take account of the demographics Total waste of money Safe pedestrian and cycles to get to Montague street Parking spaces Abandon it More consideration for where residents park. Which is area of proposed cycle path. As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! Improve the existing road and pavement surfaces None Waste of time More car parks Don’t do this No changes needed As above
Page 198
195 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com To LISTEN to the views of locals Leave existing roads and pavements The disruption to the community in bringing these changes in will be a net negative to the community in the immediate near future. Lane Improve the weakness issues at the Promenade. Why not take the route in this direction and stabilise the reported weakness on the main promenade. Make better parking areas with in Rothesay instead of taking it awau Clear thinking. Fix the foot path at ettrickdale Traffic lights at Gallowgate No changes The changes to the vehicle queue at Calmac ferry is a nonsense and will cause chaos. I would like it to not take away space from the road Make all wider pavements small for cycle lane from Pavilion to pier and narrow pavement at taxi rank.. Safety for cyclists AND motorists. As above The sea wall at Ardbeg needs repaired Stop wasting money on unwanted projects and focus on improving the existing building stock The design would ruin a the town Mothball it waste of money The bike hire closed there was so little trade bin it N/A Working public toilets Paint Building's all over the Island None Adequate parking 20mph speed limit Waste of money Not needed No comment Unneeded N/a Why is this project being railroaded onto the locals file it away Listen to the community
Page 199
196 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap this scheme and stop over-paying consultants. We need safe places for children to cycle and we already have a prom just maintain it !! More parking None - scrap it is it not needed Abandon this project Scrap the idea Who asked for this? Who’s needs dors it address? Stop people cycling on pavements Waste of money Fix seawall Same as above Do not impose floating pavements in the area - see RNIB campaign for why they are so dangerous to pedestrians Sight and hearing impaired N/a More parking made available for all drivers whether it be cars or coaches. N/A Scrap the project Not needed Not to have cycle lanes in this manner I would in-ring fence the money and use it to repair the sea walls in Ardbeg Road. Don’t take away any of the pavement running along beside the road. Alone Don’t do it Do something about the Royal Hotel instead Allow other uses when the cyclists only use it on high days and jolidays None we don’t need a cycle path cycling on the roads are dangerous a cycle lane is a good idea but how will it work It’s a waste of money See above Leave it as it is Ensure that cyclists do not continue along the pavement at each end of the cycle routeroute Ridiculous idea Overall state of Town Elderly and less able bodied will have difficulty getting on a bus and keeping out of the way of oncoming cyclist therefor this will be dangerous for them.
Page 200
197 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Loading bays Pavements repaired Acknowledgement that it will be detrimental More parking No cycle path required in town do not change existing situation An official meeting with and Argyll and Bute concil representatives present Don’t want cycle lane Will not benefit the town The railings and pavements all need attention. Sort out the places that a person with a pram or mobility problems that can get across the roads without all stepping up curbs More car parking facilities on Battery Place Maintain historic weigh bridge outside the ferry terminal. This is meant to be a conservation area Present the route can only be accessed by road - it ques to no where useful and is a waste of money and funding Ensure bikes leave the footpath at the end of cycle route Hinders flow of traffic access to pier