News: £1.2bn Cycling & Walking Investment unveiled

[Pedelecs]

Last month the government published its long-term Cycling and Walking Investment plan (‘CWIS’) to encourage more people to make short journeys on a bike or on foot.

The funding package covers a number of initiatives, including cycling proficiency training for a further 1.3 million children, expanding cycles routes to connect more communities with employment and retail sites in nearby cities and improved road safety measures alongside regional investments promoting cycling and walking schemes, plus improved cycle facilities at rail stations.

Sustrans, with a number of other leading transport groups and health organisations, campaigned for the CWIS to ensure that active travel is considered a priority area for investment.

Policy Director at Sustrans, Jason Torrance, told Pedelecs: “With the launch of the first ever UK Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, we have reached a significant milestone along the path of making cycling and walking the natural choice for short journeys. The challenge now is to deliver the change locally and nationally. We can only realise the potential of cycling and walking by improving infrastructure and the built environment.”

Full story: http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/news/1-2bn-cycling-walking-investment-unveiled/

 

[fatwomble]

Good news if they actually put the proper thought into it and back it up with the funds to make it happen.

 

[Benjahmin]

Ahh great! More white painted lines on the road and extra 'Cyclists dismount here' signs.

 

[Eaglerider]

£1.2 Billion eh! That will be £0.6 billion on consultancy, £0.3 billion on committees, £0.15 billion on research and around £50 on cycling infrastructure. The rest will just be wasted on traffic calming bollards that make the road so narrow for trucks, that certain death for local cyclists will result. What a waste, but then, perhaps it will be different this time!

 

[Croxden]

£1.2 Billion eh! That will be £0.6 billion on consultancy, £0.3 billion on committees, £0.15 billion on research and around £50 on cycling infrastructure. The rest will just be wasted on traffic calming bollards that make the road so narrow for trucks, that certain death for local cyclists will result. What a waste, but then, perhaps it will be different this time!

Oh I do like an optimist.

 

[gray198]

£1.2 Billion eh! That will be £0.6 billion on consultancy, £0.3 billion on committees, £0.15 billion on research and around £50 on cycling infrastructure. The rest will just be wasted on traffic calming bollards that make the road so narrow for trucks, that certain death for local cyclists will result. What a waste, but then, perhaps it will be different this time!

Eaglerider, you are just an old cynic (lol)

 

[Benjahmin]

Just realisation born of bitter experience!

 

[fatwomble]

£1.2 Billion eh! That will be £0.6 billion on consultancy, £0.3 billion on committees, £0.15 billion on research and around £50 on cycling infrastructure. The rest will just be wasted on traffic calming bollards that make the road so narrow for trucks, that certain death for local cyclists will result. What a waste, but then, perhaps it will be different this time!

Unfortunately I wouldn't bet against that statement. Fingers crossed though.

 

[grldtnr]

Unfortunately I wouldn't bet against that statement. Fingers crossed though.

I had been to Netherlands recently, the difference in philosophy about this is really marked!
The Dutch live just as densely populated towns and cities as us, yet they have cycle / footways everywhere, the difference is in the community accept cycling is more effective,they had the foresight to ban or restrict motors from old narrow cities and towns, when they become clogged, also there were a high number of predestrian deaths,a lot of them children back in the 1970's, the public campaiged the politico's to do something,hence ,the claiming back of the towns and cities ,cycle paths were a benefit.
If we REALLY want the same, our politicians should accept the will of the public,the Public WILL need to believe they want the change too, this be won't change without the want.
Yes , there is a cost, UK spend less than £1.50 per head on highways, the Dutch,spend around d €30 , it there is a palpable benefit, it is obvious that the Dutch are a cycling nation,it is not uncommon to see several bikes in the front of housing, here to see maybe 3 cars a household, the Dutch cycleways are crowded a t commute time, the Dutch seem to be relatively healthy nation,due to cycle use

 

[flecc]

I had been to Netherlands recently, the difference in philosophy about this is really marked!
The Dutch live just as densely populated towns and cities as us, yet they have cycle / footways everywhere, the difference is in the community accept cycling is more effective,they had the foresight to ban or restrict motors from old narrow cities and towns, when they become clogged, also there were a high number of predestrian deaths,a lot of them children back in the 1970's, the public campaiged the politico's to do something,hence ,the claiming back of the towns and cities ,cycle paths were a benefit.
If we REALLY want the same, our politicians should accept the will of the public,the Public WILL need to believe they want the change too, this be won't change without the want.
Yes , there is a cost, UK spend less than £1.50 per head on highways, the Dutch,spend around d €30 , it there is a palpable benefit, it is obvious that the Dutch are a cycling nation,it is not uncommon to see several bikes in the front of housing, here to see maybe 3 cars a household, the Dutch cycleways are crowded a t commute time, the Dutch seem to be relatively healthy nation,due to cycle use

All very true and praiseworthy. But their start point was the early 1970s when they still had a very low car density and the car wasn't so integrated with their economy and lives. And as they say themselves, their program is still far from finished.

In contrast we've trapped ourselves with the opposite, making it nigh on impossible to reverse in a lifetime. Vast numbers are dependent on long car commuting distances and even longer journeys as part of their work. There's widespread dependence on often very distant out of town shopping. Our housing market has led to some great distances between work and home. Partly in consequence of all these factors, our public transport cannot cope with both the scale and diversity of the demand, resulting in more car dependence.

I could make this list very much longer, but I'm sure you get my drift well enough. It can be changed, anything can be, but the cost and scale of the vast structural requirements and social engineering necessary mean it will take at least an entire lifetime.

And it's not even possible from our present declining economic situation and Brexit uncertainty, we'll need at least a couple of decades to correct that first, before we can even start.
.

 

[grldtnr]

Yes I agree that the Dutch started their journey on integrated transport way back in the last century, yes I agree that there wasn't as many cars then ,but there are probably more now on the Dutch roads,also the Dutch economy was in a strong position for them to start making improvements to the Infrastructure, it's is still improving,,but this is only because there was a strong feeling in the public wanting change and willing to make sacrifices for it.

That ,my noble friend Flecc ,is what needs to change here,the acceptance that lifestyle needs to change ,we need to find a way to adopt change, and realise depending on the magic box with four wheels is not the answer.

It may take several generations ,but we do need to start, however can the job be finished otherwise? The Dutch model has shown it can work I for one believe Britain can make it work too, but we need the community to come together, and become a more socially aware society rather than be self centered.

 

[flecc]

we need the community to come together, and become a more socially aware society rather than be self centered.

This is probably the toughest part. We've become an American style car-centred culture in such depth that we are even worse than them. They at least have dedicated buses to carry kids to school in numbers, we take them one by one in cars!

That's the start point to achieve generational change, getting kids cycling and walking again, but there's an impasse present. Many parents won't let there children cycle at all due to traffic fear or walk to school through stranger danger, but they are going to have to cycle and walk first to reduce the traffic.

The old chicken and egg conundrum. It will take some very brave politicians to achieve any real change in the face of huge public opposition.
.

 

[Benjahmin]

And yet there are now complaints about the level of polution at and outside schools, with higher levels of asthma etc. We were exorted to go to diesel because of co2, now we have too high a Nox level. Where is there to go? But no-ones saying it. There must be an overall reduction in energy consumption particularly hydro-carbon fuels.
So I agree, Flecc, there must be a restructuring of our society to work and shop closer to home, consume less, be more productive (thinking veg gardens here).
Of course the main obsticle here is the totaly out moded model of economics by which all is planned and run, The one that insists that, unless there is growth, then the economy is failing. How is perpetual growth possible within a finite world? Rearrange these words in any order you like - is more less!

 

[2Lazy]

The CWIS is a welcome step in the right direction but the amount of investment as a proportion of overall Transport spending is still pitifully small. The Dutch spend around £20 per person per year on walking and cycling infrastructure whereas the CWIS at best will provide no more than £3.33 per person per year and only for the next five years. And of course the Dutch have the worlds best cycling design manual to ensure that the money they invest is well spent whereas we don't have any mandated cycling design guidance. The best response I've seen to the CWIS is from the Cycling Embassy of a Great Briton https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/news/2017/04/21/cycling-and-walking-investment-strategy-response

In regard to whether the UK *could* have cycling infrastructure at least as good as the Dutch - it is completely possible and the consequent health savings would probably make it cost neutral. I read lots of arguments about why the UK can't or will never have cycling infrastructure as good as the Dutch and most of those arguments in my opinion are complete and utter bunkum. It's fair to say that it would require a huge amount of political will and the pressure for that has to come from the ground up but if you look at what's happening in London for example I'm cautiously optimistic that the tide is turning in right direction. We must also consider the fact that we simply don't have the space on our roads for many more motor vehicles and as such cycling along with technological advances such as shared autonomous electric vehicles may in the future be the only pragmatic choice in order to avoid total gridlock.

I'd also dispute the assertion that we are more 'reliant' on motor vehicles than the Dutch were in the 1970s. We certainly have a lot more motor vehicles on the roads than in the 1970s but that does not necessarily mean we are or have to be reliant on them. Most journeys in Holland and the UK are in urban areas and are less than five miles, that is just a true today as it was in the 1970s.

 

[flecc]

The Dutch spend around £20 per person per year on walking and cycling infrastructure

For many years now we have been spending far more than that in London. Annual expenditure on cycling alone has mostly been above £24 millions, often well over, but even now our cycling commuters haven't quite reached 300,000. So that's at least £72 per annum per commuting cyclist, and commuting is the dominant form of cycling in London. Of course whether that money has always been well spent is a different matter.

I'd also dispute the assertion that we are more 'reliant' on motor vehicles than the Dutch were in the 1970s. We certainly have a lot more motor vehicles on the roads than in the 1970s but that does not necessarily mean we are or have to be reliant on them. Most journeys in Holland and the UK are in urban areas and are less than five miles, that is just a true today as it was in the 1970s.

There are some very big differences. In the early 1970s when the Dutch initiated their cycle facility program, their car ownership level was far below ours at that time, as even their own government noted. It had taken much longer to recover from the effects of WW2 and their levels of personal wealth were much lower as a result then. To be in the same position we'd have needed to start a cycle facilties program early in the 1960s when we had started our decade earlier large scale car adoption.

So I strongly disagree with your first assertion above, since Dutch reliance on cars in the early 1970s was low.

In the over 40 years since, we've built a car dependent structure in every respect, while the Dutch haven't. So we're car dependent while they are not.

I'm all for making progress on change, but we have to start with facts if we are to achieve anything worthwhile.
.

 

[gray198]

I think one of the problems with the roads being overcrowded are the amount of heavy goods vehicles moving freight around. Again as a result of short sighted cost based policy making when Beeching had the brilliant idea to decimate the rail system

 

[2Lazy]

For many years now we have been spending far more than that in London. Annual expenditure on cycling alone has mostly been above £24 millions, often well over, but even now our cycling commuters haven't quite reached 300,000. So that's at least £72 per annum per commuting cyclist, and commuting is the dominant form of cycling in London. Of course whether that money has always been well spent is a different matter.



There are some very big differences. In the early 1970s when the Dutch initiated their cycle facility program, their car ownership level was far below ours at that time, as even their own government noted. It had taken much longer to recover from the effects of WW2 and their levels of personal wealth were much lower as a result then. To be in the same position we'd have needed to start a cycle facilties program early in the 1960s when we had started our decade earlier large scale car adoption.

So I strongly disagree with your first assertion above, since Dutch reliance on cars in the early 1970s was low.

In the over 40 years since, we've built a car dependent structure in every respect, while the Dutch haven't. So we're car dependent while they are not.

I'm all for making progress on change, but we have to start with facts if we are to achieve anything worthwhile.
.

If the figures you have quoted are correct they're nowhere near Dutch spending levels on cycling. £24 million divdided by 6 million Londoners is £4 per person per annum. That is well below Dutch spending levels of £20 per person per annum, in fact the Dutch will soon be spending nearer £25 pp per annum.

Levels of car ownership are not a reflection of 'reliance' on motor vehicles. Just because Mrs Smith chooses to drop her kids off at school in a gas guzzling 4x4 does not mean the kids journey to school is 'reliant' on a motor vehicle. It's about priorities. If you prioritise walking and cycling it becomes the norm. As I say most journeys are urban and less than five miles, easily within the reach of a short walk or bike ride, and that is the same today as it was in the 1970s.

 

[flecc]

If the figures you have quoted are correct they're nowhere near Dutch spending levels on cycling. £24 million divdided by 6 million Londoners is £4 per person per annum. That is well below Dutch spending levels of £20 per person per annum, in fact the Dutch will soon be spending nearer £25 pp per annum.

My figures are correct, but yours need alteration. There are well over 8.5 million Londoners, not 6 millions. And you aren't comparing like with like. The London annual figure of at least £24 millions (often reaching over £50 millions) is only for cycling, essentially for the under 300,00 cycling commuters. The Dutch figure is for walking and cycling expenditure, so is for their whole 16.8 millions population. Also their cycling expenditure is spread thinly, since 70% cycle there, some 11.8 millions.

So even if the Dutch expenditure was solely for their cycling, it would still be only £28 per cyclist, which is less than the London average over the last decade. Since much of theirs is spent on walking, their cyclists get far less than London cyclists.

Levels of car ownership are not a reflection of 'reliance' on motor vehicles. Just because Mrs Smith chooses to drop her kids off at school in a gas guzzling 4x4 does not mean the kids journey to school is 'reliant' on a motor vehicle.

Choice is not what I'm talking about. I'm speaking of our infrastructure changes which have bound so many into car dependence. For one example. the housing market costs and availability that has driven many far away from their city centres work, which plus inadequate public ttransport pushes them into extensive car use.

For another example, the out of town shopping centres which people drive to, often very long distances, again because public transport is inadequate or doesn't provide any cover from the scattered places where they live.

And our insanely expensive railways which often make cars a cheaper choice for travel.

The Dutch don't have these problems because they've built their infrastructure very differently over the last half century.

And again you've cited short journeys, which I've already observed are not relevant since they only make up a small proportion of total miles driven. If short journeys were our only problem, we'd have little to worry about since most of our national road network would be empty of cars and most fuel stations would go broke!

So once again I say realism and facts are needed if we are to achieve anything. We are starting from a place the Dutch have never known, so we need our own solutions to our own problems to make a start.
.

 

[grldtnr]

My figures are correct, but yours need alteration. There are well over 8.5 million Londoners, not 6 millions. And you aren't comparing like with like. The London annual figure of at least £24 millions (often reaching over £50 millions) is only for cycling, essentially for the under 300,00 cycling commuters. The Dutch figure is for walking and cycling expenditure, so is for their whole 16.8 millions population. Also their cycling expenditure is spread thinly, since 70% cycle there, some 11.8 millions.

So even if the Dutch expenditure was solely for their cycling, it would still be only £28 per cyclist, which is less than the London average over the last decade. Since much of theirs is spent on walking, their cyclists get far less than London cyclists.



Choice is not what I'm talking about. I'm speaking of our infrastructure changes which have bound so many into car dependence. For one example. the housing market costs and availability that has driven many far away from their city centres work, which plus inadequate public ttransport pushes them into extensive car use.

For another example, the out of town shopping centres which people drive to, often very long distances, again because public transport is inadequate or doesn't provide any cover from the scattered places where they live.

And our insanely expensive railways which often make cars a cheaper choice for travel.

The Dutch don't have these problems because they've built their infrastructure very differently over the last half century.

And again you've cited short journeys, which I've already observed are not relevant since they only make up a small proportion of total miles driven. If short journeys were our only problem, we'd have little to worry about since most of our national road network would be empty of cars and most fuel stations would go broke!

So once again I say realism and facts are needed if we are to achieve anything. We are starting from a place the Dutch have never known, so we need our own solutions to our own problems to make a start.
.

Flecc,
I disagree with the statement, that the Dutch have never known a situation like ours, I don't think our problems are or have been any different,I agree that they have a benefit of rebuilding post war infrastructure,but the basic problem remains to change from cars back to cycling and walking, for us who know the difference of non car use, know what can be done.
Indeed a change is happening in London, also the problem of house owners needing a long commute needs solving.

For another example, I was away in the peak District for Easter,there are many off road trails up around Buxton & Bakewell, and it was encouraging to see the ex railways being used for cycling and walking, to extant that it proves attitudes can change.
That I believe is the nub of the problem ,prising us out of our cars, change our work life balance, and reject the cycle of consumerism fueled by cheap debt, an economy based on folk buying things they don't need ,with money they haven't got furthers the middle class ideas of look at what I can't afford!
Party political broadcast over.

 

[flecc]

I disagree with the statement, that the Dutch have never known a situation like ours, I don't think our problems are or have been any different

That's simply refusing to face the facts, which are:

Our car ownership race began in the late 1950s and continued apace through the 1960s. I was well placed to know that, being in the motor trade and a car owner from 1956 on.

The Dutch due to their worse post war situation got off the mark over a decade later. So early in the 1970s, the Dutch government noting that what was starting to happen was what had already happened here, saw the dangers. So they acted to prevent the decline in their existing widespread cycling and rapidly growing car use. As part of that they produced reports which I've read and from which I quote these facts.

So their position was very different, both back then and of course ever since. They started their cycling program from a position of a still high cycling rate and low car ownership.

To try to hammer that home, our cycling journey level is 3%, theirs is 70%. Our situations are in no way comparable.

That I believe is the nub of the problem ,prising us out of our cars, change our work life balance,

And referring to my above answers, that is the huge difference, the Dutch didn't have to prise almost everyone out of cars, most were still on bikes and they only had to convert a very much lower number of car drivers who were a minority and had recently been on bikes anyway.

The task we face is immense in comparison. Our current generation of car users simply cannot be converted, we know already that they'll even cut back on food rather then lose their cars. They even lose their mortgaged homes in preference to losing their cars. Many if not most have never even ridden a bike and would have to learn to ride in adulthood.

So to politically change the situation to any degree will take at least a generation since it means educating a whole new generation of the young into an entirely different future.

There is one way in which much more rapid progress can be made. That's for the decline in our economy to become so severe that we are reduced to the point of only being able to own bikes, rather like the immediate post war years when over half of Britain did ride them as their only vehicle.

Perhaps Brexit will do that, who knows?
.