Hundreds of cycling Santas take to new £45m Bristol link road before it's opened to traffic in New Year

pruaga wrote:

Don't let the Daily Fail find out, they'll be livid if people are riding alongside a cycle path and not on it.

Quentin Willson will be along there with his camera! 

burtthebike wrote:

£45 million for a road that will increase car use, congestion, pollution and danger, but it's all going to be all right because they let some cyclists dressed in santa costumes to use it for a few hours first.

£45 milion for a single road.  How fortunate that austerity only affects social services, the police, the NHS, education etc, but not the real necessities like building more roads.

I don't know the specifics of this particular road but investing in transport links is good for the economy, which generates more tax income to pay for other things.

We could do with a proper transport strategy which balances the pros and cons of different transport investments in pursuit of broader social/economic/environmental goals - but that would almost certainly still involve building some roads.

Duncann wrote:

I don't know the specifics of this particular road but investing in transport links is good for the economy, which generates more tax income to pay for other things.

We could do with a proper transport strategy which balances the pros and cons of different transport investments in pursuit of broader social/economic/environmental goals - but that would almost certainly still involve building some roads.

There is a myth that investing in transport links is good for the economy, but the economic justification for building more roads is far from robust, being based mainly on the saving of small amounts of time for large numbers of drivers.  Although the analysis is supposed to include environmental effects, in practice it doesn't.  Even using these largely illusory benefits, the economic case is still extremely weak, with payback figures of 1:1.5 being considered good for the lifetime of the road.

Investment into Active Travel, cycling and walking, has been shown to be much much more beneficial in economic terms, which is why so many UK governments say they support it.  Payback figures of 1:20 are about average.

We already have a proper transport strategy which balances the pros and cons of various travel modes, and cycling and walking come out top by any measure, but we still spend all the money on building more roads.

We need new politicians, not another strategy.

burtthebike wrote:

There is a myth that investing in transport links is good for the economy, but the economic justification for building more roads is far from robust...

[/quote]

If you've tried getting around this area at a busy time you'll understand that this road is needed. The alternative routes are narrow and convoluted, passing through densly built up areas which are used by a lot of commuters on bike and on foot. Removing even a small amount of traffic from these roads will make things much better for everyone living in the area, cyclists and pedestrians.

burtthebike wrote:

Duncann wrote:

I don't know the specifics of this particular road but investing in transport links is good for the economy, which generates more tax income to pay for other things.

We could do with a proper transport strategy which balances the pros and cons of different transport investments in pursuit of broader social/economic/environmental goals - but that would almost certainly still involve building some roads.

There is a myth that investing in transport links is good for the economy, but the economic justification for building more roads is far from robust, being based mainly on the saving of small amounts of time for large numbers of drivers.  Although the analysis is supposed to include environmental effects, in practice it doesn't.  Even using these largely illusory benefits, the economic case is still extremely weak, with payback figures of 1:1.5 being considered good for the lifetime of the road.

Investment into Active Travel, cycling and walking, has been shown to be much much more beneficial in economic terms, which is why so many UK governments say they support it.  Payback figures of 1:20 are about average.

We already have a proper transport strategy which balances the pros and cons of various travel modes, and cycling and walking come out top by any measure, but we still spend all the money on building more roads.

We need new politicians, not another strategy.

Could you share a link to our transport strategy, please?

I don't suggest that all and any investment is good but there is a strong economic case for  some  investment.  I am in favour investing in good schemes whether aimed at motorists, cyclists, rail or bus passengers. Google suggests that the Bristol road in this story had a 1:9 figure.

I am aware of the much poorer ratios for other road schemes and the often more positive figures for cycling schemes (although your 1:20 figure seems selective - others suggest 1:5 (still clearly very good)). Economic appraisal in transport is certainly flawed, although it does seem to be improving.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-value-of-cycling-rapid-ev...

http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/public/files/Policy_Reviews/15-07-01-Tran...

Duncann wrote:

Could you share a link to our transport strategy, please?

I don't suggest that all and any investment is good but there is a strong economic case for  some  investment.  I am in favour investing in good schemes whether aimed at motorists, cyclists, rail or bus passengers. Google suggests that the Bristol road in this story had a 1:9 figure.

I am aware of the much poorer ratios for other road schemes and the often more positive figures for cycling schemes (although your 1:20 figure seems selective - others suggest 1:5 (still clearly very good)). Economic appraisal in transport is certainly flawed, although it does seem to be improving.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-value-of-cycling-rapid-ev...

http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/public/files/Policy_Reviews/15-07-01-Tran...

Your transport policy depends on where you live.  Assuming that it is somewhere in CUBA, it is the Joint Local Transport Plan http://www.westofengland.org/transport/joint-local-transport-plan

I would be utterly astonished if this road had a cost:benefit ratio of 1:9, as 1:1.5 is considered good and 1:2 is considered excellent.

There are various ways of estimating the value of cycle schemes, and the result depends on what you include, things that most road schemes don't include, like health, global warming etc.