Home
Study conducted for charity by Leeds University shows benefit of hitting Get Britain Cycling targets

National cycling charity CTC says England’s economy could benefit to the tune of £248 billion over the next three and a half decades if the recommendations of the 2013 Get Britain Cycling report of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) were implemented in full.

The claim is made in research conducted by Dt Robin Lovelace and Fiona Crawford of Leeds University whose report, The Economic Cycle – Quantifying the benefits of getting England Cycling is published today.

With a foreword by the University of the West of England’s Professor Phil Goodwin, author of that APPCG report, the CTC study claims that by comparison, implementation of the government’s Cycling Delivery Plan (CDP), published last October, would bring an economic benefit to England of just £48 billion.

The difference is chiefly due to the impact of meeting the ambitious target set in the Get Britain Cycling report – 10 per cent of all journeys to be achieved by bike by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2050 – against the one set in the CDP.

The government said in that document, described on its launch by CTC chief executive Paul Tuohy as “derisory,”that it wanted to double trips by bike from their current level of 2 per cent by 2025.

Cycling campaigners including CTC also criticised the government for failing to give a firm commitment to spending £10 per head each year on cycling, one of the key recommendations of the ACPPG’s report.

According to the CTC’s report, by 2050 there would be a yearly benefit of £46.4 billion to England were the Get Britain Cycling report’s recommendations met in full, mainly through increased fitness of the population but also through factors such as less congestion and absenteeism as well as better air quality.

Launching the report today, Mr Tuohy said: “Every day it seems a new report is issued that states the UK through an increasing sedentary existence is eating its way into an obesity epidemic that will break the NHS and cost billions to the economy.

“Our report, the Economic Cycle, proves conclusively that cycling can make a real difference to waist lines and the economy – £248 billion worth of difference. However this can only be achieved if ambitious targets to encourage cycle growth are set and there is a proper long term funding strategy in place.

“CTC has joined its cycling and walking coalition partners to call on MPs to support Dr Julian Huppert MP’s amendment to the Infrastructure Bill which would create a legally binding Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy. Such a strategy will make the possibility of cycling’s massive return on investment less of a dream and increasingly a reality.”

The charity, together with the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Sustrans, Living Streets, British Cycling and the Richmond Group, is pressing for an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill currently passing through Parliament that would see a long-term investment strategy put in place for walking and cycling.

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.

14 comments

Avatar
JamesJ [36 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

"the CTC study claims that by comparison, implementation of the government’s Cycling Delivery Plan (CDP), published last October, would bring an economic benefit to England of just £48 billion."

Do you mean billion? That's really a lot.

Avatar
JamesJ [36 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Oh, I see. It's the first paragraph that's wrong: "National cycling charity CTC says England’s economy could benefit to the tune of £248 million". The headline says £248 billion.

Avatar
Man of Lard [331 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

They mean billion. It's over 35 years... and assumes some apocalyptic take-off for modal shift to bicycle.

Avatar
Jonny_Trousers [278 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

That's all very well, but we don't pay road tax.

Avatar
Roger Geffen [59 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

The £248bn figure is correct, however the £48bn figure is wrong - it should be £46.4bn. Yes, these figures are all in billions, not millions. And we are talking about cumulative benefits over a 35 year period. However the benefits are 'discounted', i.e. future benefits are treated as being less valuable than shorter-term benefits, in accordance with the Treasury's methodologies.

In response to JamesJ - the distinction between these two figures is this:

* We could achieve benefits of £248bn between now and 2050 by meeting the targets of the parliamentary 'Get Britain Cycling' report - i.e. increasing cycle use from 2% of trips now to 10% of trips (less than German levels) in 2025, and to 25% of trips (roughly Dutch levels) by 2050.
* By contrast we would achieve just £46.4bn of benefits if cycle use only increases at the rate proposed by the Government's Cycling Delivery Plan (CDP), which merely proposes a doubling of trips made wholly or partly by cycle by 2025. N.B. At this rate, we wouldn't reach Dutch levels of cycle use till almost the 23rd century!

Avatar
HalfWheeler [596 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

£248 billion? Not £249 billion or £247 billion?

Hmm. Reminds me of that Vic Reeves quote; "88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot".

Avatar
levermonkey [681 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I thought that the National Guesswork Authority had been closed down. Keith Waterhouse would be so proud.  4

Avatar
Cyclist [295 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Yep, another report written by the 'University of make believe' and funded by Hogwarts CC.

Avatar
JamesJ [36 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Thanks Roger. Actually, it wasn't me being entirely dim. Road.cc edited the article after my comment as they'd mixed up billions and millions in the headline and article.

Avatar
Nobody [2 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

test

Avatar
Ivorcader [13 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Having just read the summary the only 'disbenefits' to the modal shift to cycling are taxation losses (presumably fuel duty, VAT on car sales and road fund/tax). Report seems to ignore the thousands of people employed in the motor trade, manufacturing, fuel distribution etc many of whom will lose their jobs; they can't all become bike mechanics and salesmen.

Avatar
Ivorcader [13 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Having just read the summary the only 'disbenefits' to the modal shift to cycling are taxation losses (presumably fuel duty, VAT on car sales and road fund/tax). Report seems to ignore the thousands of people employed in the motor trade, manufacturing, fuel distribution etc many of whom will lose their jobs; they can't all become bike mechanics and salesmen.

Avatar
Ivorcader [13 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Having just read the summary the only 'disbenefits' to the modal shift to cycling are taxation losses (presumably fuel duty, VAT on car sales and road fund/tax). Report seems to ignore the thousands of people employed in the motor trade, manufacturing, fuel distribution etc many of whom will lose their jobs; they can't all become bike mechanics and salesmen. The report was commissioned by the CTC so it was never going to be neutral or negative about cycling was it.

Avatar
jacknorell [969 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Oh, look, the car lobby showed up to comment.