Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Six English cities to share £6.5 million government cash for cycling

Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Leeds, Manchester and Norwich submit winning bids to DfT

Six cities across England are to share £7 million cash provided by the Department for Transport (DfT) for projects aimed at improving the safety of cyclists.

The funding, announced today by transport minister Jesse Norman, will be shared between Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Leeds, Manchester and Norwich.

They had applied for funding under the government programme Cycle Ambition Cities – formerly, Cycle City Ambition – programme in response to an invitation to submit bids earlier this year.

Details of the winning projects appear in the video above, and are also listed below.

cycle_ambition_city_funding.jpg

Source: DfT

Norman, whose responsibilities include cycling, said: “I want us to become a nation of cyclists, and to make cycling a natural choice for people of all ages and backgrounds.

“While Britain has some of the safest roads in the world, we want to encourage still more people to take up cycling.

“We are determined to make cycling safer and easier across the country. This funding, as part of our overall cycling and walking strategy, will help local councils to make their roads safer for everyone.”

The funding provided by the DfT will be topped up with further amounts from the local authorities involved and potentially other sources.

It forms part of the £1.2 billion funding over five years announced in April 2017 as the government published its long-awaited Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, which was broadly welcomed by campaigners.

That equates to roughly £4.5 per person per year, less than half of the £10 minimum sought by the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s Get Britain Cycling report published in 2013, although local contributions will boost the figure.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

25 comments

Avatar
antigee | 5 years ago
1 like

"It forms part of the £1.2 billion funding over five years announced in April 2017 as the government published its long-awaited Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, which was broadly welcomed by campaigners.   and as far as can see the headline (and I use that word specifically) spend on the Cycling Ambition Cities program is £101m over the 5 years  2016/17 to 2020/21 according to:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa... page 13  

a quick look at dft cycling related press releases and can't find any other announced spends from this pool ? - the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is a very nice document - the 5 year investment plan great but suspect that what we are seeing here with a thinly spread £6.5m is a drip drip drip dilution of the announced spend and no real commitment to the strategy document

hopefully can be proved wrong

Avatar
Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
0 likes

This is a lamentable amount of money that is clearly being squandered by local authorities who are being ripped off by road maintenance contractors. In isolation none of these projects will make much difference to cycling numbers and cycling journeys.

What is required is an integrated policy, regulation and standardlisation across the country: backed by an allocation of funding.  Clearly, for a cash-strapped Government running high public debt and a current account deficit, this is problematic. 

I'm not sure how I feel about hypothecated taxation - but someone has to pay for this. In short, you don't get Danish cycling infrastructure on US-level taxation.  Other transport systems, rail, road and air operate on a user pays basis. Indeed this policy has also crept into education.  So,  perhaps in this context - and stone me now - then some form of revenue raising should be considered; either annual, or a VAT-type tax on the purchase of bikes and equipment.   

Avatar
Eton Rifle replied to Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
3 likes

Chris Hayes wrote:

I'm not sure how I feel about hypothecated taxation - but someone has to pay for this. In short, you don't get Danish cycling infrastructure on US-level taxation.  Other transport systems, rail, road and air operate on a user pays basis. Indeed this policy has also crept into education.  So,  perhaps in this context - and stone me now - then some form of revenue raising should be considered; either annual, or a VAT-type tax on the purchase of bikes and equipment.   

 

There already is one - it's called  VAT.  Why should the cost of infrastructure that benefits the whole of society in the form of lower pollution, less noise, fewer deaths and injuries and generally better quality of life, be borne by the few folk who can actually be bothered to get off their arses and cycle?  What sort of punitive tax rate do you think would have to applied to cycling to raise the sums required to make a real difference?  

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
7 likes

Chris Hayes wrote:

This is a lamentable amount of money that is clearly being squandered by local authorities who are being ripped off by road maintenance contractors. In isolation none of these projects will make much difference to cycling numbers and cycling journeys.

What is required is an integrated policy, regulation and standardlisation across the country: backed by an allocation of funding.  Clearly, for a cash-strapped Government running high public debt and a current account deficit, this is problematic. 

I'm not sure how I feel about hypothecated taxation - but someone has to pay for this. In short, you don't get Danish cycling infrastructure on US-level taxation.  Other transport systems, rail, road and air operate on a user pays basis. Indeed this policy has also crept into education.  So,  perhaps in this context - and stone me now - then some form of revenue raising should be considered; either annual, or a VAT-type tax on the purchase of bikes and equipment.   

no they don't. They're heavily subsidised.

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to ConcordeCX | 5 years ago
3 likes

ConcordeCX wrote:

Chris Hayes wrote:

. . .

.  Other transport systems, rail, road and air operate on a user pays basis. . . .

no they don't. They're heavily subsidised.

Even worse.  The externalities are horrendous.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to ConcordeCX | 5 years ago
1 like

ConcordeCX wrote:

Chris Hayes wrote:

This is a lamentable amount of money that is clearly being squandered by local authorities who are being ripped off by road maintenance contractors. In isolation none of these projects will make much difference to cycling numbers and cycling journeys.

What is required is an integrated policy, regulation and standardlisation across the country: backed by an allocation of funding.  Clearly, for a cash-strapped Government running high public debt and a current account deficit, this is problematic. 

I'm not sure how I feel about hypothecated taxation - but someone has to pay for this. In short, you don't get Danish cycling infrastructure on US-level taxation.  Other transport systems, rail, road and air operate on a user pays basis. Indeed this policy has also crept into education.  So,  perhaps in this context - and stone me now - then some form of revenue raising should be considered; either annual, or a VAT-type tax on the purchase of bikes and equipment.   

no they don't. They're heavily subsidised.

 

And that fact is so clear that I'm a bit baffled how the OP could say what he says in the bolded part.  Where did he get that idea from?

To be fair, the subsidies in air travel are hidden or hard to analyse because there are so many externalities involved (and things like absence of VAT on fuel - is a lack of a tax a susbisidy?).  But for rail and road you don't even need to consider those uncosted externalities, there are straightforward non-concealed subsidies in the form of substantial state spending.

Avatar
srchar replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 5 years ago
1 like

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

And that fact is so clear that I'm a bit baffled how the OP could say what he says in the bolded part.  Where did he get that idea from?

People assume that because they've had to buy an airline or train ticket, or paid "road tax" or tolls, they've paid for an unsubsidised service in its entirety, whereas cycling infrastructure is free at point of use.  Mind you, so is the NHS, but I often hear that being described as "free" rather than "subsidised".

Chris Hayes wrote:

a VAT-type tax on the purchase of bikes and equipment

You mean on top of the VAT that is already charged on bikes and equipment, including those bought on C2W?

I've often wondered if cycling infra should come out of the health budget rather than transport. The DoHSC has a financial incentive to get more people onto bikes, whereas the DfT doesn't - quite the opposite, in fact.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
0 likes

Chris Hayes wrote:

In short, you don't get Danish cycling infrastructure on US-level taxation. 

In all fairness, I don't think you get anything on US-level taxation.  That's why their prisons, healthcare, probation service - practically everything that the UK state provides - is provided directly by private companies and why their citizens have to pay for it extra.

Added: but their people in power care about this even less than British politicians - US politicians seem to be all insanely wealthy, so really couldn't give a f about the travails of their voters.  Unless their voters are the ones they meet down the golf club or need them to build a hotel or something...

Avatar
Simon E | 5 years ago
2 likes

If Jesse Norman is sincere when he says "I want us to become a nation of cyclists" then it is going to take a HELL of a lot more than this to make it happen. Shrewsbury has pissed away £12 million on cosmetic alterations that have done nothing to improve access or safety for peds & cyclists.

These things are about making crossings 'nicer', it's just window dressing. They will probably just create more roadworks, and the resulting token measures in a handful of places to will satisfy no-one.

Look at Boardman's plans for Manchester to see how to think big enough to effect real change.

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
4 likes

Simon E wrote:

If Jesse Norman is sincere  . . .

Call me a cynic if you like, but . . . 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
6 likes

cycling money, aka motoring money to get them (motorists) through junctions/roundabouts quicker and push people on bikes out the way ever further and making the journeys even more circuitous/dangerous.

£6.5M is a fucking insult to be put forward as anything that's going to make a damn difference even IF and that is a big if, it actually is used for something effective.

Same old BS, different amount of pitiful money.

Shut the fucking roads off to motors, force them to go the long way around towns and cities and if business want deliveries and people access they'll need to find other solutions that don't involve personal conveyances and fuck off 40ton killing machines during the day.

Avatar
brooksby replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
1 like

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

cycling money, aka motoring money to get them (motorists) through junctions/roundabouts quicker and push people on bikes out the way ever further and making the journeys even more circuitous/dangerous.

I'm pretty sure that's all they *can* do for Old Market Roundabout in Bristol.  Its a gyratory type roundabout above a dual carriageway which is practically an urban motorway.  I'll bet that they'll just fiddle with the crossings, and maybe paint some markings to say cyclists can use the crossings too.  No genuine cycling infrastructure seems likely, and certainly not for a half million pounds.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
1 like

brooksby wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

cycling money, aka motoring money to get them (motorists) through junctions/roundabouts quicker and push people on bikes out the way ever further and making the journeys even more circuitous/dangerous.

I'm pretty sure that's all they *can* do for Old Market Roundabout in Bristol.  Its a gyratory type roundabout above a dual carriageway which is practically an urban motorway.  I'll bet that they'll just fiddle with the crossings, and maybe paint some markings to say cyclists can use the crossings too.  No genuine cycling infrastructure seems likely, and certainly not for a half million pounds.

Old Market roundabout is really annoying to cross as a pedestrian, so I hope they'll do something about the timing of the traffic lights. They could do something with the subways although they're not exactly the most inviting place to cycle/walk through.

The existing bike "lanes" (just a bit of paint) around/near that roundabout are positively dangerous as almost every single car/lorry ignores them. The one going past the BristolPost building is suicidal as you're guaranteed to get a vehicle performing a left-hook turn as they decided to put a bus lane to the left of the "cycle lane".

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Old Market roundabout is really annoying to cross as a pedestrian, so I hope they'll do something about the timing of the traffic lights. They could do something with the subways although they're not exactly the most inviting place to cycle/walk through.

That was sort of my point: they'll probably just fiddle with the crossings (timings, and maybe change pelicans to puffins or something).

They won't touch the underpasses as that wouldn't be seen to have any benefit for motorists, and any money the council spends - even Cycle City Ambition Fund money - cannot be seen to be spent entirely on cycling stuff...

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
1 like

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Old Market roundabout is really annoying to cross as a pedestrian, so I hope they'll do something about the timing of the traffic lights. They could do something with the subways although they're not exactly the most inviting place to cycle/walk through.

That was sort of my point: they'll probably just fiddle with the crossings (timings, and maybe change pelicans to puffins or something).

They won't touch the underpasses as that wouldn't be seen to have any benefit for motorists, and any money the council spends - even Cycle City Ambition Fund money - cannot be seen to be spent entirely on cycling stuff...

IIRC there was talk at one point to fix/replace the lifts and/or put a one of a variety of walk-ways up to the the old bridge across from Castle Street to Old Market - that might have had some plus points with a decent design (although not the prettiest). Shame they knocked the whole thing down....

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 5 years ago
3 likes

It strikes me that you don't get much for your money - a million and a half quid for a single junction seems to be the going rate. I have no idea if that's a good deal or not.

I agree with omaclean - sharing the roads with traffic in towns and cities may suit some people, but for most, they just won't cycle. Quality, segregated infrastructure is the only proven way to mass cycling. (This announcement is possibly a minute step in the right direction).

There was a Cycling Uk poll a week ago - top of the list of fears putting people off cycling: sharing the road with large vehicles (57%); next, close passes (56%).

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to HarrogateSpa | 5 years ago
2 likes

HarrogateSpa wrote:

It strikes me that you don't get much for your money - a million and a half quid for a single junction seems to be the going rate. I have no idea if that's a good deal or not.

I agree with omaclean - sharing the roads with traffic in towns and cities may suit some people, but for most, they just won't cycle. Quality, segregated infrastructure is the only proven way to mass cycling. (This announcement is possibly a minute step in the right direction).

There was a Cycling Uk poll a week ago - top of the list of fears putting people off cycling: sharing the road with large vehicles (57%); next, close passes (56%).

the first resort should be to eliminate the danger as much as possible. That is, get rid of the dangerous traffic. Segregated infrastructure should be a last resort. There is really no need for private transport in town and city centres, and certainly no need for juggernauts.

how many of the people who are too frightened to cycle because of the traffic, drive instead?

 

 

Avatar
nappe | 5 years ago
3 likes

The Hebden Bridge to Todmorden tow path is about leisure cycling, nothing wrong with a pootle alongside the canal, but it has nothing to do with transport infrastructure.

I don't live in a large city, so, for me, all efforts should be about promoting the idea of sharing the road network.

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
6 likes

£6.5M between six of them and the have the utter gall to call it Cycling Ambition?  This government really couldn't have made it any clearer that all their talk about cycling is waffle and hot air, and they have absolutely no intention of actually funding it properly, or at all in fact.  This is an insult.

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like

burtthebike wrote:

£6.5M between six of them and the have the utter gall to call it Cycling Ambition?  This government really couldn't have made it any clearer that all their talk about cycling is waffle and hot air, and they have absolutely no intention of actually funding it properly, or at all in fact.  This is an insult.

It's cheap publicity, not serious infrastructure investment. Surprised they didn't slice it up even more finely for more photo opps... "minister unveils new road marking saying, 'This is evidence of a government committed to driving.  Err... oh yes, driving a cycling revolution - that's what I meant. Obviously.'"

Avatar
ChasP | 5 years ago
9 likes

I think the money would be better spent filling in potholes. Infrastructure is a red herring that only reinforces drivers' idea that the roads are for them alone making  it even more dangerous when you inevitably leave the path. One of the beautys of cycling is the freedom, which souldn't be restricted to certain routes. Bring in presumed liability and proper sentancing to change the attitude of drivers so we can use all the roads (except motorways). 

Avatar
EagleDay replied to ChasP | 5 years ago
3 likes

ChasP wrote:

I think the money would be better spent filling in potholes. Infrastructure is a red herring that only reinforces drivers' idea that the roads are for them alone making  it even more dangerous when you inevitably leave the path. One of the beautys of cycling is the freedom, which souldn't be restricted to certain routes. Bring in presumed liability and proper sentancing to change the attitude of drivers so we can use all the roads (except motorways). 

I agree, several times I have been shouted at by passing motorists  to get on the path. Cyclepaths can be as much a drawback as a benefit. And how many of these paths will follow the flow of traffic rather than come to a dead stop at junctions?

 

Avatar
omaclean replied to ChasP | 5 years ago
2 likes

ChasP wrote:

I think the money would be better spent filling in potholes. Infrastructure is a red herring that only reinforces drivers' idea that the roads are for them alone making  it even more dangerous when you inevitably leave the path. One of the beautys of cycling is the freedom, which souldn't be restricted to certain routes. Bring in presumed liability and proper sentancing to change the attitude of drivers so we can use all the roads (except motorways). 

 

There's not an example that I'm aware of where the introduction of presumed liability has caused a huge swell of cyclist numbers. I am however aware of city after city that has managed a huge swell in numbers after segregated cycle infrastructure (e.g. Copenhagen, London, Seville). They estimate the NHS makes 4 quid back for every 1 spent on cycling infrastructure, I doubt pot holes have anything close to that as a return, not that it should be an either or matter in any case..
 

Avatar
muhasib | 5 years ago
2 likes

For those without any knowledge of the North of England I'd just like to say that cycling money is not going to Leeds if it's being spent on a towpath between Hebden Bridge and Todmorden.
Also is this new money as I'm not sure after reading this article:
https://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/plans-to-improve-atrocious-canal-p...
Is £245 a metre a reasonable cost ?

Avatar
the little onion replied to muhasib | 5 years ago
3 likes

muhasib wrote:

For those without any knowledge of the North of England I'd just like to say that cycling money is not going to Leeds if it's being spent on a towpath between Hebden Bridge and Todmorden. Also is this new money as I'm not sure after reading this article: https://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/plans-to-improve-atrocious-canal-p... Is £245 a metre a reasonable cost ?

 

 

it is a disgrace. The Hebden to Tod route won't even be Tarmac but hard pack instead. 1.5 million for something that will erode in three years is an abomination. 

Latest Comments