Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

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

“Crisis has exposed how little space is allocated to people” - Boardman

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has today announced a £250m emergency active travel fund which will see pop-up bike lanes and other measures to improve cycling and walking created in England within weeks. The money is part of £5bn in funding for cycling and buses outside London that was announced in February. Shapps said £2bn of that is earmarked for active travel.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Boris Johnson spoke of a “new Golden Age of cycling” having previously told UK mayors that far more commuters would need to cycle when the nation begins to emerge from lockdown.

Speaking at the daily coronavirus briefing, Shapps urged people to walk and cycle more to take the pressure off roads and public transport.

“During this crisis, millions of people have discovered cycling - whether for exercise or as a means of safe, socially-distanced transport," he said.

"While there is no change to the ‘stay at home’ message today, when the country does get back to work we need those people to stay on their bikes and be joined by many more.

“Otherwise, with public transport’s capacity severely restricted at this time, our trains and buses could become overcrowded and our roads gridlocked – holding up emergency services, critical workers and vital supplies.

“We know cars will continue to remain vital for many, but as we look to the future we must build a better country with greener travel habits, cleaner air and healthier communities.”

Maintaining the two-metre rule means buses, trains, trams and tubes will be able to carry far fewer passengers and it’s been estimated that transport capacity could be reduced by as much as 90 per cent.

Speaking last week, London’s cycling commissioner Will Norman said that if just a fraction of those people switch to cars, the capital would grind to a halt.

The story is similar in other areas and the funding is therefore intended so that local authorities to improve roads for pedestrians and cyclists.

"The crisis has exposed how little space is allocated to people,” observed Cycling Commissioner for Greater Manchester, Chris Boardman.

"If we enable people to travel differently, we will protect them now during the crisis, and afterwards when the public health benefits of more people exercising and breathing in cleaner air kick in – that's how you protect the NHS."

Writing to Shapps earlier in the week, co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, Ruth Cadbury MP, urged him to act quickly and allocate funding to local authorities to widen pavements and add cycle lanes.

She said if such initiatives were implemented soon, “they will be less likely to bear the wrath of vehicle drivers complaining about cyclists and pedestrians taking road space. Continued positive messaging from the Government would of course be very welcome too.”

A coalition of nine environmental and transport pressure groups including Greenpeace and Cycling UK has also written to the government demanding a big increase in spending on walking and cycling.

"It would be completely absurd if, after the unprecedented efforts and sacrifices made to save thousands of lives from Covid-19, we allowed thousands more to be cut short by the devastating impacts of toxic pollution," they said.

Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns said: “The last thing we want when lockdown ends is everyone jumping into their cars to drive to work because they’re concerned about taking public transport.

"Pop up cycle lanes and widened pavements are cheap and easy to implement solutions which will allow millions to move in safety, not just from the risks of motor traffic but also from the risks of catching coronavirus.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

42 comments

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Rich_cb | 4 years ago
0 likes

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

I take your points both about enclosed airspace versus a ventilated airspace, and about the fleeting nature of cyclists proximity to each other.

However, there has also been talk about cyclists riding in the slipstream of the rider infront, necessitating more than the 2m distance. I know the 'research' was not peer reviewed, and that particularly goes to the distances that paper did recommend, but the basic idea that two metres behind a moving cyclist is clearly not the same thing as 2m static distance does make sense. The two effects - the free circulation of air outside and the slipstream effect - work in opposition, so maybe 2m will be about right for cyclists outdoors after all?

As regards the fleeting proximity - I understand that the risk accrues not instantaneously but from being within 2m for a specified duration (the various contact tracing apps talk about a few minutes, the UK govt originally specified 15 minutes before quietly dropping the duration element from communications). However I don't think it would much matter whether the other person within the 2m zone was constantly changing, the fact would remain that you were within 2m over a sustained duration with some other person, albeit a revolving door of different ones. So again, on a crowded cycleway the point about not being in sustained proximity to any given person is moot.

In the end the problem is how to transport a large number of bodies along a road whilst maintaining 2m between them. The limiting factor seems to be the width and nature of the road, rather than whether the bodies travel in packages or individually - they still need their 2m.

I guess the thing is there are simply not enough buses, and bikes will support a greater throughput than cars. But probably still not enough, so the 2m thing will end up being compromised for cyclists whilst the rule remains enforced (because it can be) on public transport.

I also would question whether the 2m rule is even necessary if everybody wears a facemask for the protection of others.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Sriracha | 4 years ago
2 likes
Sriracha wrote:

I also would question whether the 2m rule is even necessary if everybody wears a facemask for the protection of others.

The protective effects of non-clinical face masks are not yet confirmed. Personally, I prefer not wearing a mask and consciously not touching my face (with non-washed fingers) rather than wearing an ill-fitting, hot and itchy mask that makes people fiddle with it and their face.

(If there's convincing evidence that masks do a good job, then I'll be happy to change my mind)

Avatar
Sriracha replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

The protective effects of non-clinical face masks are not yet confirmed. Personally, I prefer not wearing a mask and consciously not touching my face (with non-washed fingers) rather than wearing an ill-fitting, hot and itchy mask that makes people fiddle with it and their face.

(If there's convincing evidence that masks do a good job, then I'll be happy to change my mind)

You talk in terms of the influence of a facemask on you touching your face, so you are still seeing things in terms if personal protection. Wearing a simple facemask is about protecting others - it can do nothing for you. If the virus is in an aerosol a simple facemask won't filter it out of the air you breathe in. But if the person at the source of that aerosol had been wearing a cloth mask the infected saliva would have been caught whilst still in droplet form, big enough for a simple mask to trap, before the droplets escaped onto the eddies and evaporated down to a microscopic aerosol.

This is not my conjecture. See:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gAk7aX5hksU

I found the video made sense. It's a bit long, but from about 11:15 he explains how covid is transmitted, basically by droplets of spit when we talk (or cough, sing, etc). But it is the "talk" that strikes me most. After all, when we cough most will clap a tissue to their face to catch the nasties. But who does the same whilst talking. So a cloth facemask is just that, a hankie strapped over your mouth and nose. Remember, fiddling with your face might infect you, but if the theory is right not wearing a face mask risks infecting several others. Ultimately it's about the transmission rate.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Sriracha | 4 years ago
0 likes

I agree with that, but it's worth taking into account both aspects of infecting and being infected by others. If wearing a mask makes you less likely to infect others, but also increases the chance of getting infected, then it becomes more complicated as to whether masks are worth wearing or not. Ultimately, we need to think in terms of populations rather than individuals.

There's also the problem of people wearing masks that only filter the inwards air (e.g. Respro face masks and probably a lot of dust filter masks) and do next to nothing to the exhaled air.

Personally, I think the biggest source of contagion was most likely people in pubs/bars. The combination of a noisy environment making people shout to be heard and people holding a drink in front of them in a perfect position to catch droplets seems like the worst combination.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to Sriracha | 4 years ago
1 like

The 2 metre rule has no evidence base inside, let alone outside.

I've linked an article below which discusses this in more detail.

The most pertinent quote is:

“The two-metre rule does not have validity and has never had much of an evidence base. I’ve tried to trace it myself.

There is a fairly solid evidence base for a transmission rate if indoors and within one metre of someone with a respiratory infection for 15 minutes, but that time detail has been lost somewhere along the way."

I don't think there is much risk of catching the virus while cycling even relatively close to a carrier.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/01/two-metre-rule-reviewed-...

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Rich_cb | 4 years ago
0 likes

Thing is, you say bike lane is too crowded with pedestrians to make progress by bike, motorists will say likewise 'car lane' is too crowded with cyclists to make progress by car. And that will be their experience.

The perspective needs to be changed to one of "how can we safely fit car travel alongside this cycle route"? But you can't do it by diktat - somehow the democratic process has to be engaged to that end.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to Sriracha | 4 years ago
1 like

Unfortunately the money will talk.

It is impossible to replace reduced mass transit capacity with private cars.

Car sharing will be impossible due to social distancing so every full rush hour bus will generate an additional 30-40 cars.

You don't have to have a huge amount of experience commuting in cities to know that the result will be complete and utter gridlock.

The only way to even partially replace lost mass transit capacity is active travel.

Most cities have virtually no capacity to quickly increase their capacity for cars but most can increase the bike capacity relatively quickly and cheaply.

The best option for the economy will be active travel and for that reason it will be implemented.

Avatar
Cargobike replied to Sriracha | 4 years ago
1 like

If public transport is limited due to the 2m rule then motorists won't be able to lay the blame at cyclists for being in the "car lane" as they will be going nowhere, it'll be gridlock, apart from those who choose active travel, certainly in any city or urban area.

Avatar
David9694 replied to Rich_cb | 4 years ago
0 likes

On a bike, if it gets too crowded for you, you have at least got alternatives. Your're unlikely to acquire it in the outdoors - worry about enclosed spaces, like that office you're hurrying towards.
Get on the train taking 90 minutes from Salisbury to London, you've either got to grin and bear it, or get off at Basingstoke - not much a choice there!  People sit and sniffle and cough for that time - an irritation previously, but now...? and it's going to be an interesting hay fever season too. 
public transport, a friend of the cyclist, is undoubtedly in trouble right now - it's a pivotal moment, even with all the sunshine and daylight - the car represents to individuals safety and this situation adds a new dimension to that. 

 

Avatar
Gus T replied to David9694 | 4 years ago
1 like

David9694 wrote:

On a bike, if it gets too crowded for you, you have at least got alternatives. Your're unlikely to acquire it in the outdoors - worry about enclosed spaces, like that office you're hurrying towards.
Get on the train taking 90 minutes from Salisbury to London, you've either got to grin and bear it, or get off at Basingstoke - not much a choice there!  People sit and sniffle and cough for that time - an irritation previously, but now...? and it's going to be an interesting hay fever season too. 
public transport, a friend of the cyclist, is undoubtedly in trouble right now - it's a pivotal moment, even with all the sunshine and daylight - the car represents to individuals safety and this situation adds a new dimension to that. 

 

Oh I don't know, look in the press, there are hundreds of cars out there throwing themselves off roads, if more of them come out into the wild it will be just like Monty Python predicted (sorry can't find a link to the cartoon)

Avatar
David9694 replied to Gus T | 4 years ago
1 like

You mean and ending up in a ditch, or wrapped around a tree, in that "now let's see what this baby can really do" moment?

 

Avatar
Sriracha | 4 years ago
8 likes

I recall lots of comments in the press from 'new' cyclists appearing out of the woodwork during lockdown. They all said much the same thing, that they simply would not have contemplated cycling for transport prior to lockdown for fear of the motor traffic. And yet they loved cycling - nobody was forcing them to use their bike during lockdown, it just released their existing desire (and of course the weather has helped).

So this article over a year old says it all, it could have been written with lockdown in mind:

"Our public space is increasingly out of reach for all but the fit, the brave, and those in motor vehicles...
...We know the returns on investment for cycling projects are huge. But most people still can’t access these benefits – and we won’t be able to until we tackle our shamefully unpleasant roads."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/may/09/the-uks-fe...

Pages

Latest Comments