- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Commuter cyclistDeputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to announce £214million additional funding for cycling
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will today announce £214 million in funding for cycling at a summit in Bristol. The money will be divided between the eight cities which have already received Cycle City Ambition funding and the Highways Agency to improve conditions for cyclists on its roads.
£114m of additional money will go to Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Cambridge, Oxford, Norwich and Bristol to continue progress over the three years 2015/16 to 2017/18. The formula for deciding how much each city gets has yet to be announced.
£100m of funding is earmarked for the Highways Agency to improve cycling conditions along and across the Highways Agency’s network of major trunk roads. The Agency, soon to be turned in to a company owned by the Government, is also responsible for the country's motorway network. Cyclists are not of course allowed on motorways, but the possibility of cycle routes alongside motorways is something that is likely to arouse interest amongst campaigners. Recently we reported how the Belgian region of East Flanders plans to invest in a 600km network of fast cycling routes linking up major population centres for fast riding cyclists.
Cycling organisations have welcomed news of the expected funding announcment. However, Sustran's Chief Executive also contrasted the amount being given to cycling with the £24 billion the coalition has earmarked for spending on roads, while CTC Chief Executive Paul Tuohy reiterated the organsation's call for the equivalent of at least £10 per person per year to be spent on cycling.
In a statement responding to the announcement Mr Tuohy said:
"“This new funding certainly moves the Prime Minister’s ‘cycling revolution’ up a gear, and the three years of committed funding will be very much welcomed in the 8 cities due to receive it.
“This has been a hard fought interim victory, not just for the cycling campaign community but also for the Department of Transport staff and MPs who’ve worked hard with us to Get Britain Cycling.
“We now need to keep pushing leading politicians in all parties to raise the annual funding for cycling up to the level of at least £10 per person, increasing progressively to £20 as cycle use rises – not just for 8 cities but for the whole of Britain.
“So our message to local authorities and campaigners everywhere is, ‘Let’s keep up the pressure, it’s starting to work!’ The public, the media and around 100 MPs of all parties have all supported calls for annual investment in cycling of at least £10 per person, wherever they live. If we want to be confident that Britain’s long-awaited ‘cycling revolution’ is truly underway, that’s the next milestone to aim for. This would provide huge benefits for our health, wealth and well-being.”
The Government recently published evidence showing that investing in cycling delivers over £5 of health and other benefits for every £1 spent.
Sustrans, the charity based in Bristol where today's conference is taking place, says it welcomes the investment, but urged the government to commit itself to consistent spend on cycling.
Its chief executive, Malcolm Shepherd, said: “This is an invaluable commitment from government to cycling at a time of local spending cuts that spans this and the next Parliament.
“This must be a call to action for local decision makers at a time when the government is committed to spending £24 billion on roads and wider investment priorities are being set."
He added: “Longer term, dedicated funding of at least £10 per head is the key to transforming Britain into a cycling and walking nation and we look forward to working with government to secure this.”
Last year’s Get Britain Cycling report from the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group called for annual spending of a minimum of £10 a head to provide safe infrastructure for cyclists.
However, the government’s Cycling Delivery Plan, published last month in draft form, said only that it would “explore” how to raise funding to that level.
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.
Latest Comments
- lesterama 3 sec ago
Just don't turn up at road races expecting to ride it.
- Richbeck 17 min 22 sec ago
Take a look at spa cycles - plenty of choice and options.
- anke2 1 hour 53 min ago
Just for a perspective:...
- brooksby 2 hours 16 min ago
Asking the Bristol Post to do actual journalism? Ha! That's a good one!
- brooksby 2 hours 17 min ago
I'm not sure I'd want to drop my member, regardless of whether or not I was being hunted...
- Destroyer666 4 hours 26 min ago
Yeah, not sure how to react to that. I know that's something that I can never afford and the same functionality can be had for a tenth of the price...
- mdavidford 6 hours 51 min ago
They were handed the victory on a Platea?
- chrisonabike 7 hours 30 min ago
I think the former is a fair summary. What's available guides buyers' choices BUT the common choices are reflected by the market here **....
- DogOfOB 8 hours 18 min ago
To be sure, race organizers and racers review races in detail and most often, where there have been accidents or deaths, there have been prior...
- Dadams7378 8 hours 24 min ago
I'm not sure I agree they are 'promoting' this. It is a review, so unless you're suggesting the reviewer is biased towards Fizik, then it isn't a...
Add new comment
32 comments
There was a target of getting 50% of people through university. Meaning that (ideally) everybody with average intelligence or above would go through university therefore devaluing the degree. Now we have a £9000 per year graduate tax which means that only the students that benefit from University pay while the rest of country foots the bill for the 3-5 year skive for the 40-60% of graduates that probably shouldn't have gone to university in the first place. University should be free but it should have higher enter requirements so that it doesn't have to cater to people with merely average intelligence.
Back on topic let's just hope the cities in the list actually consult local cycling advocacy groups to decide how to spend the money.
Unfortunately I'm not sure that these groups really know what to ask for, or even what they want in many cases. They often seem to be happy to see the instalation of infrastructure that de-prioritises cyclists and I've even seen them campaining on the basis that cycle infrasucture would keep them out of motorists' way.
Your point being?
Mine is that free university education is both possible and works to benefit society.
Well, the thing is, we ARE funding education. If we could not afford to, then the students would have to pay upfront.
I disagree. The fact is that we *are* funding all the education fees - just with the promise that the students will pay back the money at some point in the future.
This policy was not about the need to fund education, it was about saddling young people with debt, and in my opinion is VERY unfair.
'with the promise that the students might pay back the money at some point in the future'
FTFY. Most won't.
'This policy was not about the need to fund education, it was about saddling young people with debt, and in my opinion is VERY unfair.'
No, it was about the need to fund education. Nobody puts together a policy to deliberately saddle young people with debt. And it's an optional cost - those who don't want the possibility that they might have to pay back some of the money could look at MOOCs instead. There are always options.
I very much wouldn't put that beyond Ian Duncan Smith...
The policy is about tax cuts, about not providing socially beneficial services. Why should the old pay for the young? why should the young pay for the old. If you can't afford to see a doctor tough. Those with the most money can afford to pay for their own provision, the rest....
Number one cause of bankruptcy in the US, medical fees.
The thing about Clegg and lying/untrustworthy .... the Tuition fees thing was a Tory policy.
The lib dems have claimed they were able to water down the original tory policy somewhat (delaying the repayment) - but in reality I think this amendment would have had to have been made anyway as the original plan was completely unworkable.
So, the real issue is not that Clegg is 'untrustworth' - it that he and the lib dems allowed themselves to be completely bossed by the tories. They should have stood back and abstained, but they have allowed themselves to take the blame, and they just blundered into it...
Not seeing that coming was a major flaw.
Just him - or do you also blame the people who thought up the idea and pushed it through because they have more MPs?
Exactly like tuition fees.
and going way OT, as the minority partner in a coalition government, do you really think he was in the position to stop the tories raising tuition fees?
And anyway, charging a percentage of salary, remember very few will ever clear this "debt", sounds more like a graduate tax than a loan to me.
Who was it who introduced the fees and scrapped grants? who was it who raised the fees? So to blame the Lib Dems is to miss the point that all the parties are guilty of lying.
Going slightly more OT, greenest government ever... I trust you would never vote Tory after the number of lies they have told?
He may not have been able to get his Manifesto pledge which was for free education but could have stopped the fees being raised to £9000.
So yes I do blame him directly for the fees my daughter now going to spend most of her working life to pay back.
£9000 is a drop in the ocean compared to what it *could* have been. I've three sons who I am hoping will go to university, btw - of course I'd rather not have to pay anything, but University education was unsustainable without fees. And it is the Universities themselves who have decided to charge the maximum of £9000. They could have asked for less. So blame them if you need to blame anyone. Otherwise - it's just reality, particularly in the era of MOOCs. Many of us were very, very lucky to have gone at a time when we didn't have to pay.
Tell that to Sweden... higher avg level of education, wealthier nation, better welfare system, etc. Free university education, with grants that let students have a reasonable standard of living while attending. Seem a net positive to me, but what do I know?
Though the equivalent of the Tories, or rather the new libertarian wing of the Moderaterna ('the moderates') has tried to disassemble all of the above for a while now.
Spotted a flaw in your plan. We're not Sweden.
Higher tax levels.
Try and sell that to the Daily Mail.
I'd trust him over most of the others. At least he has the balls to change something if it's blatantly wrong.
oh yea like tution fees?
And Nick Clegg is such a truthful politician then
about £1.50 a head extra for a very short term then.
I wonder how many marketing symbols, optimistic visualisations and white lines this can be wasted on.
The HA is responsible for motorways and lots of "trunk" roads (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...). The A23 for example is on their remit, or parts of it.
I was in Mallorca riding along what was effectively the service lane alongside the main north-south "motorway", which was separated by a fence and thought why not do it everywhere? Motorways and major dualled roads take up so much space, an extra 3-4m for 2-way cycle tracks would be nothing in the grand scheme. Obv not the greatest days cycling but as a way to get somewhere quickly it would help.
In a century's time maybe we'll get a decent, joined up network.
I may be a bit cynical, there is precious little point in this money, it is going to get spent on pointless paint, on creating shared paths that abruptly end, that are blocked by telephone boxes. That rather than going directly from a to b will go everywhere in between as well.
If will just give certain organisations a few talking points, and give the politicians a few soundbites, it will also cause more resentment from certain sectors about why are the cyclists not using these paths and blocking the roads, getting in the way etc etc.
Actually creating high quality cycle routes that are fast direct and well kept, forget it.
It really irritates me that spending on roads is always described as an investment, whereas other spending is described as funding, as if it was a charity donation.
Is there an election pending? Still I'm sure we can trust Nick, a man of his word with strong political ideology which he would never weaken just for power and a pay rise. Good on yer Nick?
I immediately thought of the A3 cycle path too. Last time I used it there were brambles growing across it. I suspect for most people it's a case of once and never again.
Can Road CC Dave dig out his infographic of cycling budgets expressed in billions? £200 million is welcome but it's not the step change we need.
Nick Clegg has a weekly half hour show on LBC, which is live now until 9:30. I only remembered this as I just turned the radio on, so I'm listening to see if this gets any mention.
This is rather like the announcement of extra money for cycling in Scotland we saw two years ago, here is what Pedal on Parliament had to say about that Crumbs from the Table and they are absolutely right about that. We will not see a real change in cycling levels until there is real spending on cycling and that needs to be at least 5% (preferably10%) of Transport Budget (about £20-30 per head), until that happens we will continue to bounce along the bottom.
Sorry, Nick who?
Is this funding in this Parliament or is it a pre-announcement of a manifesto promise for the GE2015?
Just I have a bit of an issue with any sentence with "Nick Clegg" and "Election Promise"in it.
"cyclists are not of course allowed on motorways" - Technically, this is correct, but in reality, some multiple-carriageway A-roads are effectively indistinguishable from a motorway. If it's dangerous to cycle along a motorway, I cannot see why the same is not true of an A-road like the A3.
I would like to point-out that the cycle path that runs along it is hostile, badly maintained, strewn with debris and quite unpleasant. Let's hope that the CTC / British Cycling / local cycling groups are consulted regarding the infrastructure, rather than the tradition of providing utterly useless and dangerous infrastructure that is designed and intended to obstruct, deter and discourage cycling.
Also, please allow for non-standard bicycles, tricycles, hand-cycles, cargo bikes, trailers and tandems etc.
A3 near Ripley in Surrey
http://i54.tinypic.com/2u9nzom.jpg
Site of photo grom Google maps
http://goo.gl/maps/MNnfZ
Pages