Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

OPINION

More money to come for cycling?

Avatar
"Jam tomorrow" not an ideal approach for green transport in a climate emergency

What did we get for cycling in the budget? Well, according to Cycling UK, nothing new, but these items were in there:

  • £36m for an “iconic new Central Park Bridge in Plymouth,
  • £79m for new cycleways in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole”
  • £1bn from the Transforming Cities Fund, and a further £800m for bus and cycling infrastructure.
  • Further details on a Comprehensive Spending Review in summer, along with a national bus strategy.
  • New potholes fund, with £500m a year, which is a 50% increase in local roads maintenance budgets in 2020/21.
  • £10m for a new cycle route between Nottingham, Derby and East Midlands Airport – (possibly a section of the HS2 Cycleway)

These projects are of course something, but they are nothing to the £27bn of tarmac Rishi Sunak pledged for major roads.

Sources in the Department for Transport say the real money for cycling will be coming this year, however. How much money, and the details of how it will be spent, and on what, is yet to be revealed.

With a climate crisis already here, and air pollution and congestion toxic in many of our towns and cities, it’s frustrating the cash hasn’t come yet. What’s more, funding for cycling runs out at the end of this financial year, i.e. next month. We don’t yet know how the £1bn-plus pledged for cycling from last month’s buses and cycling announcement will be spent, or indeed, when. Perhaps it will plug the gap.  

The fact is, if active travel funding is not deployed soon, the government will struggle to meet its own targets – the ones it’s set to miss under current levels of funding – like the ambition of doubling cycling from 2% to 4% of all trips by 2025, and of building the 250 miles of cycleways, that were promised in the Conservative manifesto. There are five years to deliver all of this. 

It was a struggle to get less than that built in London, where then mayor Boris Johnson’s cycling tsar Andrew Gilligan could keep tracks on boroughs in person – and keep an astonishing level of detail on schemes, roads and routes in his head. As advisor to Boris in no. 10 he will need help at a national level to keep tabs on those details, and to deliver. This role could be taken by a body akin to the long-scrapped Cycling England, though it would probably encompass walking, to reflect the growing interest and importance in providing for pedestrians – and rightly so.

That body’s role could be ensuring councils adhere to new design standards, which are being tweaked and will be released imminently. Funding will be contingent on meeting those standards.

If we do find ourselves awash with cycling money, local government will be the limiting factor. Councils in England, indeed most of the UK, are so unused to “doing” cycling, they will struggle to deliver much in four years.

Following generations of under-investment in active travel, councils will firstly need to understand the (albeit unarguable) benefits of active travel, secondly to deliver to a standard that means the routes will be used, and thirdly to withstand the inevitable cries of the apocalypse that won’t come.

They will start from standing on staff, on contractors, and on road space reallocation, and they’ll need to hold their nerve if there’s backlash around such changes.

That’s just the ones who want cycling. Of 343 councils in the England, just 33 completed Local Cycling and Walking Investment Plans, or LCWIPs, as part of the government’s Cycling and Waking Investment programme, setting out where they’d build active travel routes and networks, if they had the money. The remaining councils will be starting absolutely from scratch.

So, how much money is needed?

According to the Cycling and Walking Alliance, and to the Government's own analysis, we need £5-6bn over the next five years to double cycling to 4% of all trips - still a very small modal share, when you compare with more advanced cycling nations.

Any more than that and, I’m told, councils will struggle to spend it with the capacity they have.

At the moment we have “over £27bn of tarmac”, for 4,000 miles of new roads – a ludicrous idea given we need to cut car journeys, not increase them, yesterday. A sensible government would use roads money for cycling – after all, the returns are astronomical, on anything you can think of, from health, air quality and decongestion, to tourism.

As Cycling UK’s Policy Director, Roger Geffen, recently put it to me, it's often possible to fish cycling money out of other pots – extrapolating that, perhaps even roads money. Of the £1.2bn government said they’d spend on cycling 2016-2021 only a quarter of that, £314m, was ringfenced; the rest came from other funding pots, like the Local Transport Fund and Local Growth Fund, and the notoriously hard-to-crack Housing Infrastructure Fund. These extras were written into other funding by the Department for Transport – and in the end more than £1.2bn was spent on active travel, albeit a lot on shared cycle and footpaths, something we’ll hopefully see an end to with design standards.

As Roger Geffen puts it this is more "jam tomorrow" for cycling. We cannot leave it any later to invest in active travel, a literal panacea for much of what ails us.

What we can do now is work with our respective local councils to persuade them spending such money is a good idea. Then, at least, they'll at least be thinking of cycling when the money *finally* appears. Get bothering your local councillors and MPs now, seems to be the solution. Once again for cycling, it's a case of making the best of a bad budget - for now. 

Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.

Add new comment

6 comments

Avatar
Awavey | 4 years ago
0 likes

there was also £30 million for active and sustainable travel across Bradford from the transforming cities fund. The 5bn bus/cycling fund announced last month, which we assume 1bn will solely be cycling focussed will be detailed when the combined spending review & bus strategy is published in the summer.

But what was more significant imo and has been lost in the headlines, they also announced £4.2bn from 2022-23 for five-year funding settlement transport plans for the eight mayoral combined authorities, so the likes of Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester will be able to submit a plan to central government on how to spend an amount of that money on transport in Greater Manchester, and then like how the setup works in London, the mayor has the flexibility and funding to deliver what they feel they need most.

and weirdly, actually even the £27bn on roads does also include money set aside for cycling provision, as Highways England are given funds as part of building or improving the roads into a cycling safety and integration fund, which they use to build or improve cycling routes alongside those roads or junctions, it will probably be about 200million in total based on the existing road settlement fund and spend on cycling.

for sure its not the £5-6bn we want for cycling, its probably about half that all told assuming they arent double counting some of it, but I dont think outside of cycling the rest of the UK is currently ready to accept funding on that scale climate crisis or not

Avatar
HarrogateSpa replied to Awavey | 4 years ago
1 like

You make some fair points, but not about Highways England.

At J47 of the A1M, there's an example of Highways England's active travel handiwork. A shared use path around the roundabout, that gives way to every roundabout exit.

And the roads at this junction are the A1M and the A59 - one not open to bikes, and the other a very busy main road with no cycle infra.

So the crappest type of cycle infra is built somewhere that nobody can get to on a bike unless they are very brave - in which case they won't be using the crap infra. It's totally brainless.

I have never ever ever seen anyone use the shared use path.

Any money given to Highways England for active travel will be wasted.

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 4 years ago
5 likes

You have to judge the Chancellor and the government on what they do, not what they hint they might do in the future. On that basis, it's fair to condemn them now.

£27bn for new roads. Really? They understand nothing about the climate crisis or creating liveable towns or the health and obesity crisis. Or induced traffic demand.

I would normally be more polite, but on this occasion I have to say they are morons, with their criminally stupid spending priorities. I loathe them and I despair of them.

Avatar
the little onion | 4 years ago
3 likes

Great analysis Laura. To me, this is the key paragraph

""Following generations of under-investment in active travel, councils will firstly need to understand the (albeit unarguable) benefits of active travel, secondly to deliver to a standard that means the routes will be used, and thirdly to withstand the inevitable cries of the apocalypse that won’t come."

This is the frustrating thing. It's not just the lack of money, it's the lack of expertise, will, or indeed, care. My experience in West Yorkshire is that the nearly £30 million of central government funding for the cycle super-highway has been wasted on mind-bogglingly bad design, as chronicled on this site and elsewhere. Leeds council spend £250k of its own cash on a brand-new segregated cycle lane on Kirkstall Road, scene of several cycling factalities, then placed a bus shelter in the middle of it, forcing cyclists back onto the road. Only a few places (Manchester, and His Eminence St. Lord Sir Christopher of Boardman) seem to be 'getting' cycling.

Two steps are needed:

-lots of money for cycling (at least, relative to current spending on cycling. It's a tiny fraction compared to 4,000 miles of road tarmac or HS2)

-clear, enforceable and high quality minimum standards for any cycle infrastructure. If it wouldn't be good enough in the Netherlands, it shouldn't be good enough here. 

Avatar
Luca Patrono replied to the little onion | 4 years ago
1 like

Not to mention how they had the nerve to recently add Give Ways (on bloody CS1!) for side roads when going from Stanningley to the roundabout, going towards Bradford, and at the Aldi just built in Barkerend. Perfect example of the ignorance and indifference, when a supposed "cycle super highway" is screwed around with long after its construction, simply for the convenience of car drivers.

Avatar
Moist von Lipwig replied to Luca Patrono | 4 years ago
0 likes

What you may likely find in cases like that (I'm not familiar with the layout) is the problem is established behaviour.  Its very common for any new initiatives - such as cyclist priority over vehicles - to get recommended to be removed during the Stage 2 Road Safety Audit, with the justification that established behaviour is safer, cars will not expect cycles to have priority.  The Overseeing Organisation will then have the liability if they decide to reject the recommendation.

I've also seen where developments happen adjacent to existing infrastructure, the existing infrastructure is amended to suit the new development without all relevant bodies being aware of it.

Latest Comments