Home
City aims to treble number of people cycling at least once a week over next 12 years

Liverpool City Council has unveiled what it is calling a “cycling revolution” with the aim of becoming the country’s fastest growing city for riding bikes.

The Liverpool Cycling Revolution aims to treble the number of residents riding a bike once a week from 15,000 to 45,000 over the next 12 years, equivalent to one in ten of the city’s population. It also aims for 15 per cent of people living there to cycle at least once a month.

The strategy focuses especially on those who do not currently ride a bike, and was drawn up following consultation with Local Transport Plan partners, Liverpool Cycle Forum and other interested parties.

Aims of the strategy include:

  • Developing a network of cycle routes to create a safer environment for cyclists
  • Improving safety through training and enforcement for all road users
  • Promoting positive messages and provide information to encourage and sustain cycling.
  • Embedding cycling in council policies

The council says that its plans will also help it meet a 35 per cent reduction in carbon emissions it needs to meet by 2024, while also improving people’s health resulting in savings estimated at £31 million a year.

Councillor Tim Moore, Liverpool City Council cabinet member for transport and climate change, said: “This is a very important strategy which supports the Mayoral pledge of making Liverpool a cleaner and greener city,

“We want Liverpool to be the fastest growing city for cycling in the country with it becoming a popular, mainstream way of travelling.

“Already we have a record number of people using bikes and the recent launch of the Citybike hire scheme will increase that figure significantly but we want to build on that by investing in our cycling infrastructure and encouraging more people to use bikes regularly.

“The strategy sets out how we can develop a network of cycle routes , including cycle lanes, signed routes crossing points and other facilities to create a safe cycling environment.

“The strategy sets out very ambitious targets but they can be achieved and Liverpool will be a greener, safer and healthier city,” he added.

The term Cycling Revolution was first used in the context of a British city by Mayor of London Boris Johnson – who two years ago apologised to the people of Liverpool for a 2004 editorial in The Spectator magazine, which he edited, and which said the city’s inhabitants enjoyed their “victim status.”

Mr Johnson, who was also shadow environment minister at the time, was ordered by then Conservative leader Michael Howard to go to Liverpool and apologise in person for the article.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

10 comments

Avatar
Leodis [403 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Didnt Liverpool council remove all bus lanes?

Avatar
Paul_C [463 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

rather low target...

"15% of the population to cycle at least once per month..."

a more ambitious target would be for 15% of ALL journeys to undertaken by bicycle...

Avatar
Quiddle [9 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Liverpool council could help by persuading Merseytravel, which they dominate, to make it cheaper to cross the Mersey by cycle (currently £2.70) than by car (£2.40 including fuel and tunnel toll).
As I understand it cycles are transported FOC at the Dartford Crossing - that would be a good starting point.

Avatar
JamesE279 [27 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

They need to re-lay most of the roads too, unless you're looking for cyclocross training...

Avatar
Jacob [40 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

So if they are saving £31 million a year will that mean that they will be investing that directly into cycling safety...Typical council bullsh*t and just not enough.

Avatar
Scrumpymonkey [6 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

An unambitious, token effort. Don't waste your breath councillors, this target will probably be achieved without any input from you.

Avatar
Cranky Acid [40 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Paul_C wrote:

rather low target...

"15% of the population to cycle at least once per month..."

a more ambitious target would be for 15% of ALL journeys to undertaken by bicycle...

15% is so pathetic I thought it was a typo

Avatar
WolfieSmith [1323 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

They roll out Uncle Chris tomorrow for a photo op. Board man could do us all a favour by using the press conference to ask difficult questions.

The very shady Peel Holdings are developing both ends of the main North-South commuter route for a new port to rival Felixstowe and a condo village called Mersey Waters. Cycling routes are currently not seriously discussed.

Both Sefton and Liverpool Councils believe that lip service to cycling is still possible whereas other councils have seen the future. Sefton will still block rat runs with bollards, raised pavements and planters rather than install cycle lanes through the road blocks. 'We consulted residents and they wanted a planter". Did you consult local cyclists? 'No.'

Avatar
a_to_the_j [118 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

utter tosh.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1198 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Cranky Acid wrote:
Paul_C wrote:

rather low target...

"15% of the population to cycle at least once per month..."

a more ambitious target would be for 15% of ALL journeys to undertaken by bicycle...

15% is so pathetic I thought it was a typo

Yes, I had to read it twice. What exactly is the point of such a feeble 'target'? What is it supposed to achieve if 1 in 7 cycles round the park for ten minutes once a month? I don't think that's enough to make any difference to health, and it certainly won't make the slightest difference to traffic levels or pollution, so what on Earth is the purpose of such a 'target'?

At such a low level it becomes bizarrely arbitrary. Its like having a target for dental health that goes 'we want at least 1 in 10 of the population to enter a room containing a toothbrush at least once a week'