Government announces £250m emergency active travel fund as part of £2bn investment

AidanR wrote:

As I cycle commuter (well, before the pandemic!) I sincerely hope that more people turn to cycling and other forms of active transport and I pray that we don't see increased car use. However, I'm pessimistic for two reasons:

1. We've seen an increase in cycling since the lockdown but for a lot of people returning to work, a bike will not be a viable replacement for public transport. They won't consider it realistic to ride 10 miles each way every day, they won't have access to showers, they won't be able to carry enough kit.
    
2. In terms of space on the road, even bikes pale in comparison to (full) buses. Whilst 50 people on bikes take up a lot less space than 50 people in cars, a bus containing 50 people takes up a lot less space again. And that's before we start to consider trains, which of course take up no road space at all.

Encouraging active transport is important for many reasons, and will be part of the solution to the current crisis for some people. It's critical that we take advantage of the current moment to build infrastructure that encourages this and makes walking, cycling and scooting safer for all. But it's not going to be a panacea and other ideas are desperately needed if (at an appropriate time in the future) we are going to get everyone back to work.

1. the average commute is somewhere around 3 miles, easily rideable.  Hopefully, some of the money will go towards workplace facilities like showers and bike security.

2. Bikes are still pretty space efficient, and unlike public transport, are door to door and don't involve sitting next to someone who's coughing and sneezing.

Nobody has ever said that cycling is a panacea, despite all the people claiming that they can't do it for various medical reasons.  But it is by a very large margin, the best answer to so many problems created by modern car addiction; congestion, pollution, safety, health, obesity, sustainability etc, etc.

The real problem is that successive governments have hailed it as a saviour, but then refuse to fund it; this government for instance.  You don't usher in a Golden Age of cycling with the relatively small amount of money they are providing.  We need a long term, fully funded with amounts increasing every year plan.

Where did you get 3 miles from? In London at least, it appears to be 9 miles (https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/characteristics-of-commuters). Sorry if I'm being London-centric, but it's where I live!

Perhaps active transport isn't being hailed as a panacea, but I haven't seen too many other ideas being floated. Maybe I've missed them, and am happy to be corrected!

Average car commute is just over three miles nationally, with every other mode less.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/466097/average-distance-travelled-fo...

How have you calculated that, as I don't see that figure in the link? I've downloaded the underlying data, which states car/van drivers cover an average of 788 miles in a year for commuting, but that the average number of trips is 78. There's similar data for other forms of transport, giving average commuting distances of:

Car - 10 miles
Motorbike - 10 miles
Bus - 6 miles
Train - 22.5 miles
Tube - 9 miles
Bike - 3 miles
Walking - 1 mile

Yes to "more money for cycling" : newsflash - the more healthy the nation, the more resilient it is.

Not so sure about more cycle lanes and other dedicated routes, at least not without a mandatory attitude change on the part of that pernicious minority of vigilante Mr Angry drivers to whom you risk handing a crowbar to beat and lever cyclists off "their" roads, (doubtless paid for in full by "their" road tax/fuel duty/insurance and other "hard-pressed motorist" hang-ups). Bullies make the world's greatest victims, as I always say.

AidanR wrote:

1.  
2. In terms of space on the road, even bikes pale in comparison to (full) buses. Whilst 50 people on bikes take up a lot less space than 50 people in cars, a bus containing 50 people takes up a lot less space again. And that's before we start to consider trains, which of course take up no road space at all.

Except that cycling gives a lot more flexibility in terms of route choice. On a bus, you're all stuck with travelling the same route that the bus happens to take, even if that doesn't go directly where you want to go. On bikes, the same group of people can disperse over a wider set of roads to get where they want to.

That's a fair point, and personally I try to use back streets where possible. But in many places there aren't many options - sure, on a 10 mile commute there are lots of permutations, but in a given place there is usually at most 1 alternative to the "main" route. In my years of commuting it's always struck me that most cyclists stick to the main routes.

handlebarcam wrote:

Governments usually prefer to spend money on things that their donors can make a bigger profit on: road building, running trains or buses, etc. But needs must in these strange times, and building cycle lanes and widening pavements will tide over some construction companies, and keep them buying JCBs. Local authorities will need bridging loans, consultants and accountancy firms. The money might well also do some good as well, but a significant proportion of it will end up in off-shore bank accounts. And the beauty of spending on active travel is it can be cancelled at any future juncture with minimal public backlash.

Chapeau sir, you're even more cynical than me.

Cynical? I'll just leave this here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/vote-leave-ai-firm-wins-se...

The sentiments in Shapps' speech were good.

The £2bn is over 5 years, so it's £400m per year. And it's a reannouncement of the £5bn for buses + cycling over 5 years, first announced by Johnson in Feb.

What's news is the allocation of that money as between bikes + buses.

I'll be pleased to see a National Cycling Champion appointed. Again, this was previously announced in Nov 2018 but nothing has happened since.

Harrogate youmightbebetteroffelsewhere Spa wrote:

The sentiments in Shapps' speech were good.

The £2bn is over 5 years, so it's £400m per year. And it's a reannouncement of the £5bn for buses + cycling over 5 years, first announced by Johnson in Feb.

What's news is the allocation of that money as between bikes + buses.

I'll be pleased to see a National Cycling Champion appointed. Again, this was previously announced in Nov 2018 but nothing has happened since.

You're so right, and Shapps good intentions don't butter any parsnips, and this isn't new money, it's previously announced funding which wasn't enough then and is now pathetic.  Golden Age of cycling; ha, ha, ha.  Gilt paint perhaps.

The only change in policy and funding is the £250m for temporary cycle and walking infra, which will have to be easily removable.  Why didn't they say back in February that £2bn of the £5bn was for active travel?  I doubt that £2bn spread over the UK over five years is going to make much difference.  Ten times that and I might start believing that they say what they mean.

This is from a contemporary report in February "Cycle routes will also see a major boost across the country with over 250 miles of new, high-quality separated cycle routes and safe junctions in towns and cities to be constructed across England, as part of the multibillion-pound package announced today."  So it was crap at the time, they've just revised history and keep announcing the same money to make it appear they're actually doing something.

Sorry, but as I said in the my first post, this is anything but a thought through policy; it's made up on the hoof with no clear idea of what they are doing.  After the last ten years of broken promises and lies, I for one, am seriously under-surprised.

Just heard on the radio that some of the money will be used for electric scooters, which isn't what is needed.

EDIT; last month they announced £27bn for new roads, 13.5 times as much as on cycling.  But cycling is a priority, just like C19 testing.

One of the questions in the (repeated) Richard Osmonds House of Games this week, in the round Distinctly Average, asked how many miles of roads were there in the UK.

It's over 250,000.

A quarter of a million miles

Makes 250 miles seem quite low doesn't it.

Keep going, though.
With a bit more time available to me at present (working, but no commute) there's a lot of letters, on-line commenting on local newspaper articles and stuff on faffbook that needs to be challenged. 

Drivers really have to go a long way out of their  way to get "I saw a car today, and do you know what he did...", so inured are we to the daily crapfest (e.g. highlighted in the Guardian blog).

My faffbook last week was with a youngish driver who'd had a close encounter with a headphone wearing jogger out on one of our country roads - on the wrong side of the road, apparently. It had happened hours ago and she was, she said, still seething about it. Oh, really, why is that?

It's a road I cycle and drive a fair bit, so I was interested. I wonder what reaction she was hoping to get: "asking for it", "no-one to blame but herself"?

I can't defend the headphones aspect - but I do point out there are an awful lot of equally distracted and inattentive drivers around. And that If you do hit someone, it's not going to make a jot of difference who was right or wrong, when you're stood there waiting for an ambulance with someone in a crumpled heap at the roadside. 
the comment that no-one "knows the road", as in what's around the next corner seemed quite popular. 
Pleasingly, but in no way "victory", Others joined in with the "drive to the conditions" message and she turned off comments. 

David9694 wrote:

Keep going, though.
With a bit more time available to me at present (working, but no commute) there's a lot of letters, on-line commenting on local newspaper articles and stuff on faffbook that needs to be challenged.

I agree, though with the caveat that how you respond - your tone and the simplicity and wide appeal of your message - is crucial to others' perception of the validity what you say. Chris Boardman is incredibly good at handling criticism or negativity and turning it around. Most of us aren't so good and it's far easier to resort to mudslinging or simply using chosen facts as an argument. Nothing wrong with facts - strong ones always help - but when trying to persuade someone then I think they are not enoufh. It's crucial that each of us stops to look at what the other person is really saying and find a way to build a bridge and not a wall.

Look at how much companies spend on advertising and how manipulative it can be. People often make an emotional decision to choose brand (or model) A instead of brand B, which is hugely influenced by advertising, whether it's for cars, smartphones, takeaways, guitars or baked beans. You have 'sell' it, not just state it. Instead of berating my council about the lack of cycling facilities I'm trying to push for positive hanges by saying how beneficial (and relatively cheap) they can be, that all of us will benefit and indicating how well it already works in other places.

The other thing I think is really important is repetition. Don't think that replying to one post or a single tweet to your council or whoever is enough; you need to keep drip-feeding the concept or changes you want realised. It's when a message keeps reappearing that people start to think that there is more substance to the argument. Just like "a lie often repeated becomes the truth'' (see comments on the Industry calls for VAT-free bikes article) it will gain strength by being seen again and again. Chip, chip, chip away.

I agree, Simon. Good advice, I'll do my best to put it into practice.  I hope lots of us are doing the same thing - I do notice there are others countering the oft referenced notion that "the answer is me driving my car, what's the question?" 

What has struck me recently is how "it was something to do with a cyclist" can pop up in quite unexpected places. 

If the jogger being on "the wrong side of the road" implies that they were heading towards the car, on the same side of the road, then the jogger was positioned as recommended in the Highway Code - and for reasons that make the issue of headphones largely irrelevant.

My view of headphones for any wheeled road user is that they are not a clever idea, and that goes for on foot on a road without a pavement . I am suprised that when the subject comes up on here people defend it. I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place there, when it comes to challenging the driving lobby on the issue of due care and attention and the many in-car distractions. 

interestingly, Another women chimed in on the faffbook thread - a cyclist had, in Bath swung across her path two lanes, wearing headphones apparently, and then had shouted at her. Goodness knows what happened there. She was saying you can safely use a single ear Bluetooth - not sure I exactly built a bridge there. 

We have to set the example in my view - no driver / rider distractions; no filming yourself either.
I think this is different to the (lack of) hi-vis argument.

Do you know anyone that does film selfies whilist riding ?

I've seen it happening a couple times - in real life.

David9694 wrote:

My view of headphones for any wheeled road user is that they are not a clever idea, and that goes for on foot on a road without a pavement . I am suprised that when the subject comes up on here people defend it. I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place there, when it comes to challenging the driving lobby on the issue of due care and attention and the many in-car distractions. 

interestingly, Another women chimed in on the faffbook thread - a cyclist had, in Bath swung across her path two lanes, wearing headphones apparently, and then had shouted at her. Goodness knows what happened there. She was saying you can safely use a single ear Bluetooth - not sure I exactly built a bridge there. 

We have to set the example in my view - no driver / rider distractions; no filming yourself either.
I think this is different to the (lack of) hi-vis argument.

Interesting view, now please explain how layers of metal and padding along with high volume music with or without the heavy base beat do not affect your sensory awareness?

"So sir, you didn't notice that you'd knocked a cyclist off?"

"Must have had my music blaring" is one of my favouritist exchanges, trust me.  It's also why I like cabriolets so very much.

But has this been fully thought through? If the rate-limiting step is the requirement that passenger seats be spaced 2m apart, what difference does it make whether those seats are circumscribed by the coachwork of a bus or are instead fixed atop bicycle seatposts? Is the truth just that on public transport people will demand their 2m, whereas cyclists will put up with the inevitable bunching?

The difference is that cyclists are outside and bus/train/tube passengers are not.

Many epidemiologists have stated that the 2 metre rule outside is excessive and that fleeting contact with another person outside carries minimal risk.

Sharing an air-conditioned box with 20 other people for an hour on the other hand is a recipe for transmission.