Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

“Derisory” and only “a wish list” – campaigners slam government’s cycling delivery plan

DfT publishes draft plan just hours before parliamentary debate on Get Britain Cycling report

Campaigners have described the government’s cycling delivery plan as “derisory” and little more than “a wish list,” saying that the targets it sets for cycling lack ambition and that a firm commitment to spending is needed.

The draft cycling delivery plan was published by the Department for Transport (DfT) his morning, just hours before MPs were due to debate progress being made towards implementing the recommendations of last year’s Get Britain Cycling report from the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG).

That report called for initial minimum annual spend on cycling of £10 per person with the aim of increasing cycling’s modal share from 2 per cent of journeys to 10 per cent by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2050.

But campaigners have pointed out that the government’s plan, now open for “informal consultation” and published some 14 months after Prime Minister David Cameron promised a “cycling revolution,” fails to satisfy either of those recommendations.

The DfT says it aims to double the levels of trips made entirely or in part by bicycle in England by 2025. National cyclists’ charity CTC says, however, that the target “is even less ambitious than it appears.”

It adds: “Once the expected growth of cycle use in London and population increase are taken into account the increase in real terms would be less than three quarters (74 per cent), and falls far below the ‘Get Britain Cycling’ targets.”

On the issue of funding, the DfT claims that current spend is £5 a head a year - the APPCG has put the figure at £2 - but fails to commit to any increase in funding.

Instead, the DfT says that “The government’s aspiration is that – working with local government, and businesses – we can together explore how we can achieve a minimum funding equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020 and 2021 – and sooner if possible.”

Transport minister Robert Goodwill said: “This government is serious about making the UK a cycling nation. We have doubled funding since 2010, with £374 million committed between 2011 and 2015.

“We want cycling and walking to become the natural choices for shorter journeys, kick starting a cycling revolution that will remove barriers for a new generation of cyclists.

“This strategy provides a road map for the way forward.

“Local action to promote cycling is evident through schemes being run across the country and the delivery plan is a call to action, asking local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to do more,” he concluded.

CTC chief executive Paul Tuohy was scathing in his criticism of the government’s proposals.

“This is a derisory plan not a delivery plan,” he said. “The Prime Minister’s ‘cycling revolution’ with its Penny Farthing budget is going nowhere unless the Chancellor finds funding for cycling in his Autumn Statement.

“Cycling needs at least £10 a head if we are even to begin catching up with German, Dutch or Danish levels of cycle use.”

He went on: “If we can afford long term strategies for our roads and railways why not for cycling? It has such huge benefits to the economy and the environment, our waistlines and our wallets it would be foolish not to.

“With the Chancellor’s deadline to comment on what should be in his Autumn Statement tomorrow, I urge MPs and the public to voice their support today for CTC’s call for funding4cycling,” he concluded.

British Cycling said that it was disappointed that the plan “does not commit any significant funding to make these actions a reality.”

Chris Boardman, the governing body’s policy advisor, urged for a minimum of £10 per person per year to be spent on cycling, and highlighted research published today by British Cycling that claimed that such expenditure could save the NHS billions of pounds.

“The long-awaited cycling delivery plan is an unmissable opportunity for the government to put their money where their mouth is and truly give us the cycling revolution promised by David Cameron,” he said.

“We need to see an annual budget of at least £10 per head. If [Chancellor of the Exchequer] George Osborne isn’t convinced he just needs to look at British Cycling’s research paper which shows £17 billion savings for the NHS and a 25% increase in the mobility of our nation’s poorest families. This isn’t just about cycling, it’s about creating better places to live.”

Jason Torrance, policy director at the sustainable transport charity, Sustrans, said that a firmer commitment needed to be made to levels of expenditure on : “Today’s aspiration to explore an investment of £10 per head for cycling is a welcome step in the right direction, but the most vital ingredients for cycling’s success are missing from the plan.

“Without any indication of where this money will come from and with targets that are too distant and lacking in ambition, today’s announcement is more of a wish list than a plan.

“Getting the population moving is a critical issue. Without a significant increase in the number of people cycling and walking their local journeys Britain will come to an economic standstill; overcome with congestion and the cost of the physical inactivity crisis.

He added: “Now is the time to transform Britain into a cycling and walking nation by building on today’s announcement to set ambitious targets and using the next budget to invest £10 per head in cycling through existing funding arrangements.”

Ian Austin MP, co-chair of the APPCG, opening the parliamentary debate in the House of Commons this afternoon said he was “disappointed” in the plan “for all sorts of reasons.”

Later, he described it as a "document," adding, "I don't think you can credibly call it a delivery plan."

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

23 comments

Avatar
Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes

I started reading it but lost interest when I discovered that walking is an 'alternative' travel option.

I must be living on the ragged edge of society as I thought than walking was a pretty normal and mainstram way to get around.

Avatar
IHphoto | 9 years ago
0 likes

Compare and contrast the will of the Government over cycling infrastucture with that for bending over backwards for frackers and letting them rape and pollute our country with barely any recourse available for us to stop them.

The first one will create a serious dent in our CO2 emissions and the second will only increase them.

Avatar
Mr Agreeable | 9 years ago
0 likes

The way the commenters on this website queue up to put the boot into Sustrans reminds me of a mob of Sun readers attacking a paediatrician's office.

The problem here is not a charity which is desperately trying to get cycling accepted as a normal, healthy part of our society. It's a government which doesn't give a toss about anything which isn't "economic growth". In other words, stuff which burns oil and wows foreign investors.

Sustrans understand this completely, so why are the baying mob of bloggers, Twitterati and internet experts so slow to catch up?

Avatar
jameshcox | 9 years ago
0 likes

Oh joy!

They have an aspiration to explore an investment.

Well don't we all. I have an aspiration to explore whether I can invest in that £9000 Pinarello; but my wife will make damn sure I never do...

Avatar
RoryLydiate | 9 years ago
0 likes

This looks like the "little as possible" option. I've never believed that either the DfT or the Treasury had any serious wish to promote cycling. It's too low tech for prestige schemes and brings in relatively little tax. A happier, fitter, longer lived and worst of all frugal nation, where's the profit in that?

Avatar
JeevesBath | 9 years ago
0 likes

Local Councils always get the criticism on here for not appearing to know what they are doing, which in some instances may be the case. However, this is probably at most half the problem.
The Council's cycling officers may well come up with decent ideas to begin with, however once they enter the process of political backing is when things fall apart. Local 'car centric' residents will get on their high horses, the Ward Councillors will suddenly develop wobbles when they see potential votes being lost, and all of a suddent the officers are being asked to just stick a bit of meaningless paint down instead.
The very prominent rise of the 'U-kippers' recently rather depressingly shows where the tide of popular democracy is going, and it's not in the direction of increased cycle infrastructure.

Avatar
gazza_d | 9 years ago
0 likes

There are a fundemental issues with this plan.

1st - It's not a plan frankly. It's a document with some soundbites.

2nd - It puts the onus on LAs etc to voluntarily register an interest for cycling & walking scheme money. As we have seen with the New Forest debacle, some don't care about cycling & some are so motor-centric that they are almost anti-cycling. There should have been a statutory duty applied to authorities similar to the active travel bill in Wales to devlop & deliver.

3rd - Targets are unbelievably low and unambitious with stupidly long timescales.

4th - No new money on the table (yet) ad what is there already is spotted into certain key locations though CCAFs and other grants.

5th - Design standards. LAs are still building poor tight shared paths full of conflict. If we did get real commitment and some money it needs to be spent on good quality designs borrowing from the best on the continent

Avatar
Airzound | 9 years ago
0 likes

Let's face it, it will NEVER get any better. The UK is a fucking crap country to ride a bike. The politicians don't give a crap about cycling and neither do motons or any one else not connected with cycling, so this creates a pretty miserable and dangerous experience unless you ride very quiet leafy lanes in deepest countrysideshire, but even then, you risk being flattened by some cunt in a 4x4 driving too fast and close or some other cunt in a white van taking a short cut driving at an insane speed that they never see you let alone avoid you. Cyclists are at best seen as irritants and an inconvenience, or at worst, a menace - fair game to be run down. The courts give pathetic sentences even if the driver even makes it to court. This peeps is cycling in the UK. Get used to it as it ain't never going to change. Mr Toad rules the road.

Avatar
winlatoncyclist | 9 years ago
0 likes

Surely a big problem here is that Cyclists I assume count for such a small part of the electorate. Therefore committing £10 per head of the population to improve cycle infrastructure is political suicide.

What needs to happen is all parties to sign up to a unilateral agreement to improve cycling infrastructure to achieve the long term goals of reducing the burden on the NHS, reducing congestion, reducing emissions.

That way, no party can pledge to reverse or slash the cycling infrastructure funding when/if the general public start to baulk over their taxes going on cycling... after all, they pay their road tax for the roads already. or something.

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 9 years ago
0 likes

Robert Goodwill is a waste of space as cycling minister. He has no commitment to make a difference for cyclists. He is there as an apologist for a the government, to make excuses for doing nothing.

Our cycling minister is pathetic.

Avatar
pmanc | 9 years ago
0 likes

Jason Torrance said: "Today’s aspiration...is a welcome step in the right direction".

Perhaps he was distracted learning about badgers or building a bench somewhere. Do Sustrans know what transport means?

Avatar
GrahamSt replied to pmanc | 9 years ago
0 likes
pmanc wrote:

Perhaps he was distracted learning about badgers or building a bench somewhere. Do Sustrans know what transport means?

And do you know what "Sustainable" means?  29

Stop attacking organisations that are on our side!
Focus your energy towards the things that stand in our way, not our allies.

Avatar
JohnMartin | 9 years ago
0 likes

Typical of the government all talk and little action.  29

Avatar
crazy-legs | 9 years ago
0 likes

That's why all this talk of "we need £10 per head spending on cycling" is a really bad idea without an actual infrastructure plan in place.
Get the planning and design sorted FIRST.
Then cost it.
Then build it.

Giving someone a shedload of money and saying here you go, this is equivalent to £10 per head, go and spend it on "cycling" is rubbish - all that'll happen is a load more random green paint on the roads and lots more "cyclists dismount" and "end of cycle route" signs go up.

Need a NATIONAL plan, not just farming it out to councils and telling them to do what they think is best - that way you end up with all sorts of random crap, not a joined up network.

Avatar
bikebot replied to crazy-legs | 9 years ago
0 likes
crazy-legs wrote:

That's why all this talk of "we need £10 per head spending on cycling" is a really bad idea without an actual infrastructure plan in place.
Get the planning and design sorted FIRST.
Then cost it.
Then build it.

Designing infrastructure ain't free. In fact the experience in London has been that the design and planning process often absorbs the largest chunk of the budget.

That's one reason why people keep saying £10 is the absolute minimum to start the process.

Avatar
mrmo replied to crazy-legs | 9 years ago
0 likes
crazy-legs wrote:

Need a NATIONAL plan, not just farming it out to councils and telling them to do what they think is best - that way you end up with all sorts of random crap, not a joined up network.

And what would be wrong with having a motorway go from three lanes to two just because you cross the county boundary? Or why shouldn't each council decide what gauge rail-track is used for their few miles?

Avatar
toddysax2 replied to crazy-legs | 9 years ago
0 likes

Unfortunately true in some areas, though it's not bad where I am. One thing that does wind me up though is "Cyclists dismount". When drivers get out and push their vehicles I'll do it, otherwise I ignore it.

Avatar
jollygoodvelo | 9 years ago
0 likes

It's all good words. Who will enforce the actions?

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to jollygoodvelo | 9 years ago
0 likes
Gizmo_ wrote:

It's all good words. Who will enforce the actions?

Having read the thing, there's very little commitment to meaningful action!

Avatar
congokid replied to jollygoodvelo | 9 years ago
0 likes
Gizmo_ wrote:

It's all good words.

It's all weasel words.

Here's how they look as applied to some of the more memorable and stirring speeches and soundbites from the last century...

Avatar
Bez | 9 years ago
0 likes

"the DfT claims that current spend is £5 a head a year"

…£4.95 of which goes on turbo roundabouts, gravel car park resurfacing, some blue paint, and a man who sprays little pictures of bicycles onto pavements.

The remaining 5p per head is given to Sustrans to buy the ingredients for their bicycle-powered smoothies.

Avatar
thesaladdays replied to Bez | 9 years ago
0 likes
Bez wrote:

The remaining 5p per head is given to Sustrans to buy the ingredients for their bicycle-powered smoothies.

I think they actually spend it travelling around the country affixing tiny national cycle network stickers in random places. No mean feat!

Avatar
Saratoga replied to Bez | 9 years ago
0 likes

My local council spent it all on removing the bicycle stands from outside local shopping parades, then upgraded the carparks so motorists could park closer to the shops, and finally installed brand new bike stands as far from the shops as possible.

Latest Comments