Cambridge's cycling campaign, Camcycle, has come down strongly on the decisions made by the Liberal Democrats and Labour parties on the current proposals for a Sustainable Travel Zone in Cambridge, which after a "rug pull" by the council yesterday, are now "unlikely to proceed".
In August last year, the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) announced proposals for a transformational change to the city’s transport network to be developed over the next six years, called 'Sustainable Travel Zone', or STZ.
The GCP said that this new transport zone would cut the number of car journeys within Cambridge by a staggering half, with motor vehicle journeys disincentivised with a £5 charge per day for using the zone between 7am and 7pm on weekdays only.
The plane laid out additional charges for other vehicles, LGVs £10 and coaches and HGVs £50. A system of discounts, exemptions and reimbursements would apply to groups including emergency vehicles, blue badge holders, low-income households, some NHS patients and staff, social care workers and zero-emissions, accessible taxis.
The revenue raised was to be used to fund active travel projects as well as buses. An estimated £20 million annually will be available for infrastructure investment.
Sounds a lot like another zone from another city, over which battle lines have been drawn?
> Whose ULEZ is it anyway? Political chicanery as clean air zone set to expand to outer London
Cambridge CYCLOPS junction (Camcycle)
Camcyle said: "Inaction is a political choice that will have a detrimental impact on our transport network. It will not address the urgent issues of our growing region including health, pollution, road safety and carbon emissions.
"Cycling has always been, and will continue to be, part of the solution. Camcycle will never stop campaigning for the things that enable more, better and safer cycling, which will in turn deliver benefits for everyone, even those who do not ride themselves.
"To achieve a high-quality, accessible cycle network across our region, it is essential to secure both an increased level of investment in dedicated cycle infrastructure and a reduction in the speed and volume of motor traffic on our roads. Our rural routes should be safe for all ages and abilities, and our urban areas should be places for people not traffic jams."
The proposed flat fares were due to be introduced from next year, if the plan was approved this summer. When Camcycle members were surveyed in October 2022, 88 per cent were in support of it.
However, after concerns against the plan were raised by the Lib Dems, the Labour group on the council has now voted to withdraw support for the proposals, saying that it was worried about the "impact on low income families".
> "Upholding ULEZ good news for all cyclists": Cycling groups welcome High Court ruling ULEZ expansion as lawful
Asked how "dead" the plans were, Labour leader of the council, Mike Davey said: "They are not going to go ahead.
"There were bits we liked and bits we remained concerned about. Sustainable travel has not gone away – something is going to have to happen. Something will have to go ahead because we have a problem with congestion in this city, which is only going to get worse."
> Cambridge cyclists issue impassioned 'Please stop killing us' plea
However, Camcycle has not been pleased one bit with the decision.
The group said: "If decision-makers are going to completely give up on this idea, and all the benefits it would have brought, urgent action is needed on alternative schemes that will achieve a reduction in motor traffic and the income for sustainable transport modes that is equal to what the STZ was forecast to achieve.
"What cannot happen is that our region wastes another decade and more millions of taxpayers’ money failing to take action for change. Since 1990, when congestion charging was first discussed, our young people (the majority of whom supported the Sustainable Travel Zone in the 2022 consultation) have been failed. The poorest and most isolated in society have been failed. Our local businesses, strangled by congestion, have been failed. It’s time to turn the tide."
Add new comment
65 comments
It's not wide all the way and at some points it's just a shared use pavement but apart from the point where it goes from one side of the dual carriageway to the other with no signage (that I've noticed) it's a good start.
I think AlsoSomniloquism said they use it regularly but I've only been on it 3 or 4 times.
Yep it is my route. If I'm on my hybrid* I use it and it is used regularly by delivery cyclists coming in for shifts and others. Typical of the DM to take the one section with "queueing traffic" and blame the bike lane for it when it happens to be leading to traffic lights and a section which has no actual changes to the road layout at all.
*If I'm on my road bike I don't simply because there is still a bus lane which I can use to go faster as most of it is used by pedestrians rather then the pavement running next to it.
Turns out Birmingham really is a dump after all. Levelling Up and that 350m a week should sort the problem.
I read something in the news which said that Birmingham's financial problems "could" be laid at the door of their having paid humongous amounts of money hosting the Commonwealth Games. The games that various states - not just cities! - around the world have announced that they cannot afford to run.
Didn't it all start from "we don't need to give women the same incentives to work (like money) as we do men"? That's hardly unique to Birmingham of course. Nor was their response to a hundred or so women making a discrimination claim: "Settling up would be expensive! Let's go to the courts instead". Followed by a lengthy wrangle about time limits (and presumably cash spent defending previous discrimination) which finally ballooned into "Oh no! The courts now say that lots of women (not just the hundred or so initial claimaints) could be due the money we didn't bother to pay them! That's far more expensive!"
However Socialist Worker says it's really the Tory cuts wot did it and spineless Labour not fighting them, so I guess opinions vary.
Most of what you mentioned was under a NOC (Con-LibDem Coalition) council. Yes 10 years later it should have been proritised but as you mentioned, the payments were due at a time central government were making cuts. It would have been interesting, if we hadn't just voted Labour back in whether Eric Pickles would have bailed us out at the time when asked. The council has tried to raise money by selling their crown jewels (NEC sold for £300mil in a rush to raise funds and then was sold again a few years later for £800mil)
£184mil is quoted as the councils cost for the CW games, although that is also partners as well. There were several businesses and local Uni's who were quoted as "partners" on the advertising gumph so maybe not all of that was council money. The whole thing was £800mil or so. Victoria had it listed as £1.1billion but as high as 3-4billion so not sure why the massive jump. It might be that we already had most buildings and usage, Alexander Stadium just needed some temp stands, Edgbaston for Cricket, Brum Uni and NEC as other places. It was only the Swimming centre which needed building and originally it was looked at the Uni as they had a new pool built but the capacity wasn't there. Only the track cycling was outside the area.
Birmingham's a dump and politicians lie. Hard to disagree with that.
Nice to see there's one news outlet that we can trust to encourage safer behaviour on our roads ....
https://www.gbnews.com/news/ulez-fines-dodged-britons-trick-sadiq-khan-c...
Cycling Mikey is on GMB tomorrow at 725. Apparently some arsehole lawyer is going to be on too.
"Can you get me off this NIP for dangerous driving on some technicality?
I mean, that is your approach to road safety?"
If he says we need legal parity between bikes and cars, can someone please ask him if that means motors limited to 250W and cutting out at 25kph.
Just so I know I've got this right. Drivers are angry (presumably at the government) because speed limits don't apply to cyclists and simultaneously angry with cyclists for not sticking to speed limits. That's a lot of anger issues.
Drivers can barely conceal their daily disappointment with the actual driving experience vs a mixture of nostalgia for past times, flukey times when there was no one around and the odd car ad.
Anything can then be the focus of all this excess energy, not least a cyclist doing the speed limit (or not) keeping up with them. Driver non-compliance with speed limits and a range of other rules occurs on an industrial scale but, notwithstanding this backdrop it's always "I saw cyclist... doing x"
where x = too slow, on the pavement, too fast, not on the pavement, etc
Car adverts are particularly odd.
I have never seen one where the cars are "stuck in traffic" in an urban environment - they are always completely empty cities like the beginning of 28 Days Later or else Wide Open Spaces.
(edit) Actually, I can recall one ad I've seen where the cars are barely moving. A recent one for some mini SUV thing, with the USP for the vehicle being that "the driver is sat high up so has good visibility" I think...
Absolutely!
Can't find it but IIRC a while back there was an article here on a German chap who'd done just that as commentary. ("Good for traffic jams!")
And there was this:
I fear hearing to CyclingMikey on the Jeremy Vine show is more likely to promote hatred of cyclists than D&C constabulary's tweet.
Looks like Birmingham could do with getting rid of those cycle lanes to make more room for cars. Look at all those cyclists, stopping the drivers from getting where they need to go.
I wonder how much clearer the road was just a week ago before the schools went back? Probably still not a pleasant experience, but I imagine it was at least moving
Probably much quieter, which begs the question: how many of those journeys could have been made by bike? In an urban environment you're maybe, what 15 mins from a high school max, significantly less from a primary school.
When I walk my kids to school (not in Birmingham) about half way along the ten minute walk, we pass a family getting into their people carrier. We then see the same family getting out of the people carrier, dropping their kids off at the same school we are going to.
It depresses me every time I see it.
I will always remember walking from my house down to the takeaway in the village, this one time. Maybe a five/ten minute walk. I passed a bloke a few houses down getting into his car. When I arrived at the takeaway, he was getting out of his car...
"Inaction is a political choice"
It is not easy. The voters (or some voters) are so quick to baulk at the idea of changes affecting driving. What we might see as "positive change to promote better places, more efficient travel, health etc." many clearly see as a less than zero-sum game. It's not "inaction" to them (though they'll continue to moan about the roads). They'll see it as not deliberately choosing to ruin everyone's lives for ... a handful of cyclists?
We can't regulate cars, because (somewhat) poor people have cars*.
Photo ops in quiet streets with people walking about, mums and children on bikes...
Like shouty people who are rich enough to run a car but "poor" - actually, we're not really fussed about those either. It's the middling folks writing strongly worded letters / threatening to take us to court, local businesspeople, all the other councillors who drive ...
... and it always will. Because we can't get beyond seeing this as a political landmine which we'll only tackle if we absolutely have to. After all the other issues have been sorted. Which is never.
* You might think that a councillor would ask "what do people need to get around for, and how best to facilitate that given the other goals". This is clearly too advanced though. You might think a Labour representative would at least ask "and why are the incomes so low?". Unfortunately I bet the answer is always "x years of Tory cuts!" which doesn't really advance the plot here.
It does seem that low income families (obviously, as you say, not defined in any way) are a bit of a political football at the moment. I don't know how it is in Cambridge but in general poorer areas have very low turn out in the elections. That would suggest they do not feel represented by any of the political parties. In that case, it would be better to hear directly from the "low income families" rather than those claiming to be representing their interests. Perhaps they would understand that needing to own a car to get to the shops is an imposition and would actually get the most benefit from improved public transport.
Is it even simpler, that powers (autocrats, parties of all hues) have a long history of threatening others with the lumpenproletariat? Times past (mostly) this was directly, as a large force of "desperate people". Or more subtly, like e.g. Belarus encouraging migrants and then pushing them across the borders to Poland.
As you say the poorest seem to vote less and aren't normally in a position to e.g. fund politicians. I'm sure some folks do mean what they say about helping people. However there are few saints in real life, plus those at the bottom of the pile may have identified that their problem is - at least partly - those in better positions who wish to remain there!
"Inaction is a political choice"
It's odd that people think doing nothing is not a choice.
Had this sort of debate in the local rag (well, as much as you can). Apparently pushing for active travel is imposing your will on others when you know nothing about them.
Whereas doing nothing apparently isn't a choice and isn't imposing your will on others (more congestion, pollution, health issues, traffic collision damage).
Exactly this, we seem very reluctant as a society to point this out. I suppose it's the very definition of "laissez-faire" which is of course a choice.
Riding in this morning I stopped at the end of a queue of cars approaching some temporary traffic lights. There are roadworks in my lane, so there are three-way lights controlling traffic onto a pair of mini roundabouts. The lights changed and the traffic moved forward.
As I reached the actual lights they turned to amber - I knew I didn't have time to clear the whole 'controlled' area before they go red, so I stop. As I put my foot down on the ground, a van and two cars speed past me from behind...
On the positive, I watched a squirrel carrying an apple across a zebra crossing and try to go through a gate into the car park for the university chaplaincy building. It couldn't fit, the apple was too big, so it moved right and tried the next gap (with no success, the bars on the gate were evenly spaced, obviously). It did it again, and again, turned to go back the way it had come, but then turned back and - quite by chance, I think - ran around the end of the gate
Per this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXzlkE18nGY
(and my own comment on the video)
the police do take action if the evidence is clear.
the police do take action if the evidence is clear
Maybe yours do (although watch out for them claiming to 'take action' and then doing nothing) but they don't here, no matter how good the evidence.
https://upride.cc/incident/t90jdt_audiwithcaravan_rljatspeed/
@wtjs
Yeah, I guess I should re-word it to "the police may take action...".
Pages