The latest bike lane row to erupt in local politics appears to be this one from Merseyside, Conservative councillors taking issue with the Labour-run local authority’s message to leave the car at home and make active journeys; a call being supported through the installation of new cycling infrastructure.

We have seen similar events unfold across the United Kingdom in recent years, councils keen to use active travel funding to improve cycling, walking and wheeling routes and in turn enable residents easier and safer access to the health and environmental benefits that active journeys can enable.

It is with this in mind that Sefton Council this summer outlined its consultation on a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), including a network of active travel routes and 15 cycling corridors, notably featuring plans aiming to improve accessibility and safety around busy, major roads such as the A5036, A565 and A59.

While cycle lanes, as they often do when it comes to press attention of active travel schemes, have made the headlines here, Sefton Council also mentions footways, junctions, pedestrian crossings and signage in its plans.

> “Unfortunately what many people don’t understand is that when cycle lanes are built we don’t just get cycle lanes”

Cllr Daren Veidman, Cabinet Member for Housing and Highways commented in July: “Switching to active travel makes our streets safer, less polluted, nicer to use and reduces our carbon footprint. Ditching the car for some shorter journeys and walking, wheeling and cycling instead, can benefit our physical and mental health.

“We want the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan to provide the blueprint for that switch. It needs to cover all sorts of journeys including the walk to school and work and visits to local shops and other services such as GP surgeries and health clinics. This means accessible routes for wheelchair users and mobility scooters, and parents pushing prams, as well as better routes for people who would cycle if they felt safer.”

However, Conservative councillors have criticised the proposal claiming it is “wasting time and taxpayer money” and “crackpot stuff”.

“This is just the latest attempt by Sefton Council to impose more of these ridiculous schemes on our local communities,” Cllr Mike Prendergast wrote on Facebook. “The cycle lanes in Southport town centre have reduced town centre parking, negatively impacted local businesses and need to be scrapped.

“In the new LCWIP, the proposed route for much of the Southport plans are almost identical to those overwhelmingly rejected by local people several years ago when Labour wanted to extend the existing town centre scheme across the whole town. They just won’t take no for an answer and have now repackaged their failed proposal with a new name in the hope that people won’t notice.

Cllr Mike Prendergast cycle lane row
Cllr Mike Prendergast cycle lane row (Image Credit: Facebook/Councillor Mike Prendergast)

“There is also the bizarre proposal to put a cycle lane down the middle of The Promenade and make Nevill Street left turn only. It really is crackpot stuff from people who haven’t got a clue how to improve our town and who seem utterly determined to make it harder for local businesses to make a living.”

It is worth noting that Sefton Council has been Labour-run since 2012 and of 66 seats, the Conservatives hold just four compared to Labour’s 51.

In another social media post, a Conservative campaigner from Southport Benjamin Younis claimed the proposals were “absurd” as council data suggested on one street included in the plans there were “an average of nine cyclists per hour during the summer, a time when you would expect cycling levels to be higher”.

While some expressed support, the video also received questions from many. One commenter suggested judging need based on cycling levels prior to infrastructure being built was “the equivalent of seeing how much a bridge crossing crocodile infested waters is needed based on the amount of people swimming across”.

Others questioned Younis’s figures. For example, one commenter wrote: “Your figure of nine cyclists per hour is based on usage over 24hrs and seven days per week. Do you really expect cyclists to be riding in the dead of night? Anyhow, using that calculation you’ve rounded down to nine when the actual figure is 9.8, so basically ten. However, I think a more realistic calculation is to use an eight or ten-hour period per day when most people use the roads. Based on an eight-hour period the number of cyclists jumps to almost 30 per hour and 24 per hour for a 10-hour period.

“Now, speaking as a cyclist I welcome more cycle lanes as I use the Sefton network extensively to avoid the roads. Speaking as a motorist, keeping up to 30 cyclists per hour off the road is a good thing as it speeds my journey up and more importantly keeps road and cycle lane users safer.

> These controversial cycle lanes caused uproar — but what actually happened once infrastructure was installed?

“Finally, speaking as a Dukes Ward resident, I don’t see this issue as binary, as you seem to view it. Why can’t we have cycle lane infrastructure built and the roads maintained to a good standard? It’s not a lot to ask and in my opinion you should be fighting for both.”

The Labour council disputes the Conservatives’ claims, Cabinet Member for Housing and Highways, Cllr Daren Veidman stating: “Encouraging active travel is part of our Net Zero commitment and supporting the infrastructure for people to make the switch to sustainable travel, making Sefton greener, healthier and safer place to be.”