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

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?  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Simon E wrote:

If Jesse Norman is sincere  . . .

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

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.

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".

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...

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....

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?

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.'"

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?

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..
 

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.