New Forest plans to use 'rural Boris Bike' grant to repair roads damaged by cars instead

So as part of the aftermath of the latest attempted Scottish revolt, the govt. are discussing handing over more power to local govt. (i.e. Councils). I think this is an excellent reason why we shouldn't.

Even when some of councillors want to do the right thing, the rest are so bent and corrupt that decent and moral behaviour doesn't get a look in. Sack the lot of them and force them to spend the money on cycle infrastructure or pay back the money WITH INTEREST.

There are many councils that would love to spend this money on installing new cycle infrastructure, let them have it.

Here's the info from @forestcyclist on the campaign:

======================================

Despite my best efforts @newforestnpa now openly back schemes that largely benefit only motorists, and with cycling funding!

The decision to authorise this spending now resides with @transportgovuk Patrick McLoughlin MP, Robert Goodwill MP, & Baroness Kramer

I NEED each & every one of you (& everyone you know) to email them with this link to the news article I did with Road.cc: road.cc/131278

Here are their emails:

patrick.mcloughlin [at] dft.gsi.gov.uk
robert.goodwill.mp [at] parliament.uk
kramers [at] parliament.uk

Please help me guys!

Sounds awful.

So what do we do about it ?

Who do we complain to ?

Is a petition a valid way forward ?

Is this Authority fit to manage a spend like this ? Could they be held personally liable if they spend money on items that it wasnt intended for ?

I've worked in areas related to this for a bit and there are a few things it might be useful for people to understand that are relevant:

1) Grants from central government to local authorities can either be ringfenced or unringfenced. The trend in recent years is increasingly for grants to be unringfenced as this gives local government flexibility to manage their budgets. It's not clear how this grant has been given to NFNPA. So they might have quite a lot of discretion on what they can do with it and DfT may be rather powerless to stop them. Or it could be a much more specific grants with more rigorous checks and balances.

2) The NFNPA isn't responsible for the road network. Essentially national park authorities are planning authorities with some duties to promote tourism but little else. All other duties remain with the district and county councils within the park boundaries. Roads in the New Forest therefore aren't their responsibility. Depending on their size they'd sit with the Highways agency, county or district council. If you were being cheeky you could ask the NFNPA whether they are legally allowed to spend money on this stuff.

3) The difference between capital and maintenance spending is down to accounting policy. Essentially if you're creating an asset it counts as capital spending. Repairing and upgrading a road can be considered to be creating an asset (a better road) hence is capital investment. But gain there are some oddities about NFNPA spending money on assets they don't own because the roads belong to others.

If the NFNPA spend the grant money intended for cycling projects or non cycling matters surely they open themselves to legal challenge as they are not acting within their powers, using their powers incorrectly or spending the money within the terms of the grant? Maybe a legal challenge can be brought against them?

I am sure the New Forest is nice but it comes across as a horrible place to cycle in. Lots of anger and aggression. Lots of other nicer and far more welcoming places to ride and spend my £££.

Some people still don't seem to have got the message. 'Cyclists are not wanted in the New Forest, go somewhere else'.

There are plenty of other beautiful parts of this country where they will happily take the money, health benefits and reduced traffic brought by cycling. I'd probably avoid the Cotswolds, as well, but from the Midlands up, people seem quite a bit nicer and drivers have less of a sense of entitlement.

It's not too bad where I am in the Chilterns, too. It's just bad luck if you happen to live in the New Forest and like riding your bike.

Absolutely shocking, total waste of money if they do spend it on repairing crumbling road edges.

How this encourages cycling beggars belief, as all official advice tells cyclists NOT to be gutter bunnies, but of course this is about the tiny parochial minds of tinpot politicians driving 4x4s the size of delivery vans.

Being perfectly honest, I'm not convinced by bike hire UNLESS there was a concerted effort to reduce cars off the forest roads, and to make cycling the default.

£3.5M could buy a lot of links and joining up of existing paths, trails and ways as well as closing down smaller roads to cars completely, and prioritising crossing points in favour of cyclists. All of which would go to making a coherent and subjectively safe cycling experience within the forest.

If that did happen then the existing bike hire and tourist companies could launch bike hire themselves, perhaps under a forest wide "brand".

Are those horses in the photo dead?

This money could be spent sorting out the huge mess that is the 'missing mile' in the middle of the Burley-Brockenhurst rail trail. Currently families are dumped onto a mile of the worst-possible forest rat-run road, acknowledged by HCC as the most-sped-on in the forest. Sort that out first, as thousands use it every weekend in the summer.

The proposals of the NFNPA are disgusting!
Personally, however, I'm not convinced by the original "Boris Bike" scheme either. Surely the private sector can provide bike rental, if there's the demand for it.
My belief is that any money available to improve cycling in The Forest should in the first instance, go to improve it for the many, many of us who already live and cycle here. The first things I'd like to see would be proper improvements to the routes between settlements, and good secure bike parking in the hearts of these settlements. Those of us who are not only recreational cyclists, but wish to reduce the amount of car journeys we make, need to be able to ride between the towns and villages, legally and safely, without the sort of detours that this would currently entail. Sadly, many of the Forest tracks are reserved for walkers and horse riders - sorry, but how many of these are making journeys related to their work I wonder.
The very first thing I'd like to see would be a road bike usable link across the A31 at Stoney Cross. The existing underpass is only accessible by MTB. A good link here would open the Forest up to the North-West. Just one personal idea.
Secure bike stands, in good visible positions, at the heart of the towns and villages would also help to encourage all forms of cycling.
As a society, we need to reduce the dependence on "cars" to reduce vehicle congestion, and to increase general levels of exercise.
What a criminal shame that the NFNPA don't represent the huge number of local cyclists. At the next local elections, we must start asking the right questions.... Remember, in a Democracy the people get the rulers they deserve. Lets all try harder.http://road.cc/sites/all/modules/smileys/packs/Yahoo!/frustrated.gif

Cycling budget hijacked by authority. Sound familiar?

Bedford's Turbogate anyone?

We can't let them waste this money.

Serious Question:
Can anyone explain exactly WHY so many people who live in the New Forest seem so aggressively (and disproportionately) opposed to an idea as simple as encouraging people to get around by bike?

it would seem that the Dft's aims behind this funding;

''It is the intention that schemes should:
encourage and enable recreational visits to, from and around National Parks by cycle;
 encourage and enable people living and/or working in and around National Parks to travel for day-to-day journeys by cycle''

are somewhat at odds with what by all accounts seems to be the aim of the new forest national park which is to do everything it can to discourage cycling in its area of jurisdiction

Dft maybe needs to ask some questions here around whether the park authority ever had any intention of using this funding for the purpose it was offered

Clearly an abuse of the system to use money put aside for a Cycle Scheme to improve roads that they are trying to stop cyclists using. The words immoral & corrupt come to mind and a public enquiry should be held, the members of the NFNPA are not fit to hold office.

so they got the money under false pretences under the cycling banner then?,is that legal?.

so they got the money under false pretences under the cycling banner then?,is that legal?.

My local council is very keen to patronisingly point out the difference between 'capital' and 'revenue' expenditure when i moan about them wasting money on capital projects whilst cutting services and staff
In this case it seems NFNPA are as confused as i am about the difference - spending capital funding on what would seem revenue expenditure.
These people of flipping hypocrites as well as clearly being flipping idiots.

Good to see you used a picture of "Cycling ponies". Just look at them taking over the village green and that one standing looks like it's about to leave something nasty

Does this mean this sum will get added into the total the next time some minister wants to boast (or complain) about how much is being spent on cycling?

Surely, if cycling money is being used for the roads, we can boot the cars off our 'cycle lanes', that they haven't paid for!

As is says in the article, Moors Valley is a commercial venture, including the cycling centre - it shouldn't be subsidised by funds for the New Forest.

From the NFNPA website;

"What is the National Park Authority?

The National Park Authority is the body that makes key decisions about the delivery of National Park purposes. The decisions are made by 22 members, 12 of whom are elected to local authorities in the National Park, four elected by parish councils and appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and six appointed by the Secretary of State to represent national views. The Authority employs 70 staff."

16 of the 22 NPA members are elected to the membership by parish and local councils, is it any wonder that there bias is on supporting schemes that they're electorate would be in favour of, rather than considering the requirements and desires of the wider community.

Like the majority of politicians they will act in a way that get's them re-elected to the same gravy train.

Re-surfacing and widening of Ornamental Drive;

Firstly the surface isn't that bad compared to other roads in the area, and widening it will only make it more dangerous to cycle as it will encourage increased vehicle speed and poor overtaking behaviour - there are small stretches now where drivers have to wait behind single cyclists due to the width which is the safest policy.

The majority of traffic is using this road as a rat run between Brockenhurst and the west side of Lyndhurst, particularly in the summer months when, as Bez poetically explained above, Lyndhursts tentacles of traffic queue extend out in all directions from the town. When a road becomes a rat run all drivers are interested in is getting to the end of it as quickly as they can otherwise there's no point in using them, and this in turn has safety implications for more vulnerable road users.

The other main use of OD is to reach the 4 star Tudor age hotel, and this presents a lovely hazard in itself as vehicles entering the grounds from the A35 direction simply drive straight across the corner cutting across on coming traffic. So if these vehicles can travel quicker due to road improvements .....