- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Old Shoreham Road pop upDepartment for Transport commissions report on Active Travel Fund schemes – but you’ll have to wait three years to read it
If a week is a long time in politics, how about three years? That’s how long we’ll have to wait to read the full report commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT) into cycling and walking schemes paid for under the Active Travel Fund, introduced last year in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
In the meantime, the DfT says that it is due to receive a “baseline report” of schemes that will be included in the study by December 2022 – still 12 months away.
The charity Cycling UK, which has mounted legal challenges to schemes put in place with the help of emergency funding but removed before they could be properly evaluated – protected cycle lanes in Shoreham by Sea in West Sussex and on London’s Kensington High Street being two cases in point – has said that pending publication of the full report, the government needs to be clear over what it expects from local authorities in terms of such infrastructure, and what consequences they face should they be dismantled without adequate assessment of how effective they are.
> Cycling UK prepares for legal challenge against “knee jerk” removal of cycle lanes
In a written question, Damien Moore, the Tory MP for Southport, asked “What recent assessment [the DfT] has made of congestion levels in areas where Active Travel Fund projects have been implemented.”
Replying on behalf of the government, Transport Minister Chris Heaton-Harris said: “It is for local authorities to manage their roads and to ensure that the active travel schemes they install are designed in such a way as to take into account the needs of all road users.
“The Department requires all local authorities to monitor and evaluate the impacts of their active travel schemes.
“It takes time, however, to understand the long-term impacts of new cycling infrastructure, both on rates of cycling and on the flow of other traffic.
“The Department has commissioned a formal national evaluation of the Active Travel Fund (ATF) which will consider this matter in some detail.
“A baseline report of schemes selected for evaluation is scheduled to be received by the Department in December 2022,” he added. “This will be followed by a final report in late 2024.”
> Department for Transport say councils must give walking and cycling schemes time
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, urged Transport Secretary Grant Shapps to be clear in what the government expects from local authorities in terms of active travel schemes – and what consequences they will face if they remove them before there has been adequate opportunity to evaluate their effectiveness.
He told road.cc: “If the baseline report isn’t going to published until December 2022, and final report not until late 2024, the crucial question is what local authorities are expected to do in the interim?
“Can they adopt with impunity the West Sussex and Kensington approach, removing schemes within weeks without proper evaluation, or will that have consequences in terms of future funding or the retention of their traffic management powers?
“And what happens if local authorities now press pause on schemes pending the evaluation of the fund?
“If we’re waiting three years for a final report, the Secretary of State must spell out unequivocally what he expects from local authorities regarding active travel schemes, but also the consequences if and when they ignore him, and he then has to act when they do.
“It shouldn’t be down to Cycling UK, as we’re doing with West Sussex, to hold councils to account when they treat active travel schemes as an optional extra, making up their own rules about evaluation and removal in defiance of both government policy and the statutory guidance,” he added.
> Government ‘hiding active travel funding report from Parliament’, Cycling UK claims
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.
Latest Comments
- Mr Blackbird 3 sec ago
I agree that pogacar is probably the best all rounder of all time. And is potentially the best of all time. His breakaway performances to win...
- Pub bike 4 hours 28 min ago
A similar issue occurs every day on Priory Lane that links the Roehampton Gate entrance of Richmond Park with the Upper Richmond Road: part of the...
- HLaB 8 hours 20 min ago
My older Lezyne strip drive pro (the same charging system) would do similar. I'd charge it up in the office and it would say it had full charge...
- Dunnoeither 9 hours 49 min ago
Thankfully no one here lives in a country with a history of colonialism, slavery or a corrupt financial industry (the list goes on)so we can point...
- Mr Blackbird 12 hours 32 min ago
I agree. The officials probably earn a pittance or just get paid expenses. They do what they do for love of the sport. Without them the sport would...
- ubercurmudgeon 11 hours 58 min ago
Those rainbow bands look more like plaid at that speed.
- Hirsute 13 hours 50 min ago
Oxford from Emily Kerr "Anyone know anything about the THIRD major smash up on Iffley Rd in my ward in a year? "
- Miller 15 hours 6 min ago
It may not be as bad as made out but it's not great. In fact it is frustrating because bits of it are actually quite good but it repeatedly does...
Add new comment
19 comments
At the rate councils are taking up infrastructure they've installed, by the time the report comes out there won't be a cycle lane to photograph for the front cover glossy.
They have pulled up wands and orcas near me and they haven't yet managed to paint in the cycle lane on the pavement (though they have narrowed the main lane and removed the original cycle lane).
Solihull MBC, failing cyclists since... forever.
Since COP26 it's like the climate emergency is over. I haven't heard any politician talk about it since then. Politicians need to be honest enough to say that these schemes have to be introduced to change behaviour and driver inconvenience is necessary and intended. Despite the lack of discussion about active transport at COP26 we still agreed to 'wider system transformation'. Failure to do that is a failure to meet obligations. It's really that simple.
Waiting 3 years is non sensical and deceiving the public about what has to happen.
Exactly. To my mind an emergency requires an immediate response, yet it seems our response to a climate emergency is to float some hot air about CO2 targets in ten or twenty years time. It's all talk and no action.
Here's a good video look at a city that is hugely car-centric but which has recently started a rapid transformation to towards much more cycling, public transport and less car parking. Imperfect but interesting. It's called Paris.
A comment in the video echoing my previous point - "Too many cities are wasting time on 'pilot projects' that spend years telling us what we already know about good street design."
Exactly. There's a wealth of data from other cities around the world, so lets just copy the best bits and learn from their mistakes (e.g. that poorly designed cycle bridge in Copenhagen http://www.copenhagenize.com/2017/04/copenhagens-fantastic-stupid-bicycle.html and compare it with their lovely Cykelslangen snake bridge).
Instead, we seem to ignore what works and install the most poorly thought out infrastructure possible that has the maximum amount of conflict points between peds/cyclists/motorists. And beg buttons.
On the one hand there's actually some kind of check on progress. Previously it's been "throw them some beans and we don't want to hear from them again".
On the other - looks normal. It seems people throughout society take the state of our transport system as a given. The only directions to move in seem to be "tinker on the edges" - because there isn't space around the road / money left after major infrastructure - or "spend billions on a single massive train line / road / change all cars to electric". Small interventions widely applied don't figure. "Little and often" is right out.
Is this "Big Bung theory" e.g. any change has to generate large excesses of cash which can be concentrated in the hands of a few? Certainly it's hard to control more devolved things, to generate central media interest or take credit. A failure of imagination / vision - the status quo serves the powerful / loud voices well enough? Is it genuinely that we've gone too far in one direction and we really "can't get there from here"? Could it really be politically impossible / unacceptable to the majority? However cities and even other states have managed to change the direction of travel.
It does start looking odd. There's a great deal of readily available evidence (and "sales material") that a big increase in active travel would not just be a good thing but would work out very well financially. In the face of which we in the UK keep saying "oh - that's interesting - it's worth a small study to look at that". And then we end up years later at the same point - "so tell us about the benefits of cycling then?" Like the National Cycling Strategy of a quarter of a century ago.
well it makes some sense in that if its going to report on the long term impacts, you cant measure long term impacts unless you actually take the time to monitor them long term.
And thats got to be considered as more than a 12month period to account for any seasonal variations and the like.
Then youve got to identify sites where these are in place for more than 12 months as it does seem like local councils who installed them in tranche 1, faced with the either make permanent or remove as the temporary road orders expire, are choosing the remove option, which is no good then if you were trying to monitor its impacts long term, tranche 2 stuff seems to have gone completely quiet, which probably indicates alot of the money is quietly being returned unspent.
Maybe Cycling UK could start by publishing a report on how many of the schemes that went in, actually still exist now, and what councils across the UK intend to do next.
"well it makes some sense in that if its going to report on the long term impacts, you cant measure long term impacts unless you actually take the time to monitor them long term."
Is 50 years enough?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o
have any of these UK schemes been in place for 50 years ? its not about producing a report that questions is making your roads safe for cycling a good idea. Its about does putting a segregated lane down High Street of average UK Town/City, make a difference to cycling and motor vehicles.
This is part of the problem though. The question really is one at the political level. The design and engineering and figures are important. But what you end up with depends on the priorities someone has set.
Even if you do nothing / don't change - that's a decision too. So it's what sort of mobility are our towns and cities designed for now? (I think most level-headed people sort of know...) Is this optimal? Is this sustainable? What uses do we want to design for in the future / who do we prioritise?
I think the government often hides behind the "this is obviously properly the responsibility of local authorities". Yep - but you give them money and set a direction. Same with the councils / local authorities. Manchester's major has effectively said "we are doing this". This is translating into "design and measure and consult". What it is not about is "we'll do a trial of something random one one streeet, fight about that for years, then try something else random at another point".
(Ranty Highwayman has a good article touching on this in the context of pedestrian crossings - noting that this normally questions normally get referred to engineers / designers when those in change should take responsibility for making a decision.)
I agree that - at a fairly low "officer" level this is indeed how the UK works (or should...). Design, propose, consult, bring in legislation (ETRO / TRO etc.), maybe do a trial, more consultation, change design, maybe another trial etc. (If you watch Bicycle Dutch's more recent version of "How the Dutch got..." it's more apparent that over 50 years that this process was followed there too - and indeed all the familiar protests / councils dragging their feet / one step forward, then rewind took place).
I'm all for testing / trial / monitoring. Adapting to local conditions etc. But currently it's just too easy for all this to be an endless round of test this, test that. Because the all important decision has already been made - "very little change if any, thanks".
It is at least possible - we know because "big" decisions and indeed unpopular and expensive ones are actually taken fairly regularly - from the top downwards.
But there's more - new and improved (and more thoughtful after 10 years) version of that video:
How did the Dutch get their cycle paths?
Article here: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/11/17/how-did-the-dutch-get-their-cycle-paths/
Thank you. I grabbed the first link that came up, as it was more about making a point: the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented countless times.
In that context, the blog of David Hembrow is a treasure trove , too:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/?m=1
A cynic might suggest that the government likes to talk and posture about active travel, but is doing its utmost to delay and not implement it. To me it sounds like they're saying "we want active travel, but it's those dastardly councils that are sabotaging our plans".
Well I believe the Active Travel Unit at the DfT is staffed by people committed to quality active travel schemes.
It never seems to go very far up the tree, though. So we have a little department here, a couple of posts there. And over time the people move on - but not up. So the skills and knowledge are dissipated and we don't get people "with a background in active travel" in higher level roles. Seen it in Edinburgh council, looks like it's happened with West Midlands Police.
There are a few exceptions thankfully - at city level Manchester's Andy Burnham stands out. London mayors Ken (for making a start) and Boris(!). Leslie McInnes as Edinburgh transport convener is moving in the right direction. Humza Yousaf in Scotland made some sensible noises as minster for transport - though he's moved up and on.
In a Christmas so let's have good cheer - who're your pick for hopeful voices in power for cycling / active travel?
I'm sure they are. The problems are entrenched opinions throughout the rest of government and DfT (and especially Highways England/National Highways for filling that bridge in with concrete). Also a problem is that we have weak political leadership - Boris with a large majority and an interest in cycling really should have done more, but it appears that he's too tied up in other shenanigans.
A seemingly incredible length of time to analyse what must be fairly simple figures and data, especially when there are already examples of clear benefits in the short time these projects have been in place. Another demonstration of the government's complete dedication to Active Travel, the environment, climate change, health, pollution etc, etc.
I'm not aware of any such analysis of the effects of road-building; how strange.
Too soon, eburtthebike, too soon to say...