Will spending round cuts & investment be good or bad for cycling?

Some possible good news, some possible bad, but the devil will be in the details

by John Stevenson   June 26, 2013  

Palace of Westminster Image by Flickr user Trodel

Reactions from the cycling community have been mixed to today’s announcement of £50 billion in investment in Britain’s roads in the spending round, which outlines the government’s plans for expenditure after the next general election.

It’s not yet clear exactly how the combination of day-today spending cuts and capital investment will affect cycling, though it’s understood that more details will be availabe tomorrow.

The key points that relate in one way or another to cycling and cycling facilities are:

  • £50 billion transport infrastructure program, called by the Chancellor George Osborne, "the largest programme of investment in roads for 50 years and in railways since the Victorian age"
  • Department for Transport to make 9 per cent saving in day-to-day spending.
  • Government to "look at the case for" Crossrail 2 link in London and give mayor Boris Johnson almost £9 billion of capital spending and additional financing power by 2020.
  • Transport for London budget cut, but major projects will be funded. It’s not currently clear if this includes the planned £913 million investment in cycling infrastructure, 2/3 of which was expected to come from the Treasury.
  • Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s budget cut by 7 percent, which may mean a reduction in funding of recreational and grass-roots sport. Elite sport’s funding will be protected.

Much of the fine detail that might affect cycling is yet to be announced. For example, BikeBiz executive editor, author and cycle campaigner Carlton Reid has wondered on Twitter if tomorrow’s publication of the details will include the announcement of an Office for Active Travel.

Cycling charity Sustrans says the government is mistaken if it believes building more roads is the key to economic recovery.

Sustrans Policy Director, Jason Torrance said: “Investment in infrastructure is key to stimulating the UK’s economy, but the government is mistaken if it thinks large scale investment in new roads is anything but a drain on the taxpayer.

“Investing in infrastructure that prioritises walking, cycling and public transport and takes the two-thirds of journeys under five miles off our roads would transform local economies and increase people’s travel choices.

“By providing people with healthy and affordable transport options the government would dramatically ease congestion, improve our health and save the economy billions.”

British Cycling said the government should not miss the “blindingly obvious” chance to provide better cycling facilities as part of new infrastructure.

British Cycling’s Director of Policy and Legal Affairs, Martin Gibbs, said: “Today’s news presents the Department for Transport with a blindingly obvious opportunity to prioritise cycling and reassess where the roads budget is going.

“The All Party Parliamentary Get Britain Cycling report called for the cycling budget to be £10 per head if we are ever to get near creating an environment that will inspire more people to get on bikes. At the moment, the government is spending just £2 per head. A better allocation of investment now and a sustained strategy on cycling would help the government to realise the full potential of what cycling can deliver for the nation.

“I look forward to hearing more detail about the £100 billion transport infrastructure details that the government will announce tomorrow. It is essential that all new roads and infrastructure are built with cycling designed in at the outset. We’re still not doing this.

“The Mayor of London’s commitment on cycling is admirable and the sort of initiative we want to see happening across Britain. I hope today’s cuts to Transport for London’s budget do not lead to the fantastic ambition we’ve seen in the capital being scaled back.”

1 user comments

Oldest firstNewest firstBest rated

Obviously Betteridge's law doesn't work here since the writer has cunningly avoided a yes/no question.

The answer to the headline actually seems to be "we have no idea". But I would suggest that the focus on "road-building" doesn't bode well since in contemporary times roads aren't very bike friendly.

Very disappointing that there wasn't a specific reference to cycling anywhere in the announcements yesterday or today (that I've seen).

posted by pmanc [113 posts]
27th June 2013 - 12:36

like this
Like (1)