http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: CAPS 2017 en Mon, 18 May 2026 05:19:36 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241474 Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:23:10 +0000 crowriver 241474@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Scottish cycling target won’t be hit for 350 years if current trends continue</p> <p>A Scottish government target to have 10 per cent of journeys made by bike won’t be hit for another 300 years if current trends continue.</p> <p>Figures in the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland report show that 2.2 per cent of journeys are now made by bike, and increase of only 0.2 per cent since 2006.</p> <p>Continues at: <a href="http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/scottish-cycling-target-wont-be-hit-for-350-years-if-current-trends-continue-308385" rel="nofollow">http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/scottish-cycling-target-wont-be-hit-for-350-years-if-current-trends-continue-308385</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241144 Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:12:17 +0000 crowriver 241144@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Also worth asking where the business cases are for dualling the A9 and A96 - every penny spent on cycling goes through the wringer, but billions get spent on roads with almost no scrutiny."</p> <p>Yes, I've been wondering if it may be worth actually opposing trunk road schemes instead of just getting the begging bowl out and asking "Please Sir, can we have some more?" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241122 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:24:34 +0000 HankChief 241122@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Embarrassing that the promotional video show the cyclist going over the grass...</p> <p><a href="https://flic.kr/p/R6wo3s"><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/705/32223991622_5650620784_n.jpg"></a><a href="https://flic.kr/p/R6wo3s">Great Infrastructure ?!</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/91842878@N03/">HankChief</a>, on Flickr</p> <p>Not to mention the front cover of the report showing only youngsters with full suspension in a forest... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241120 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:04:59 +0000 Morningsider 241120@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>crowriver - Transport Scotland love roads, but even they couldn't justify full dualling of the A96 or A9. The Strategic Transport Projects Review (now under revision) only proposed A96 dualling between Inverness and Nairn and A9 dualling between Perth and Blair Atholl. The decision to go for full dualling was purely political - a decision that costs in the region of three or four billion quid. </p> <p>If the Transport Minister ever says they can't afford cycling improvements, just remember this. Also worth asking where the business cases are for dualling the A9 and A96 - every penny spent on cycling goes through the wringer, but billions get spent on roads with almost no scrutiny.</p> <p>STPR final report: <a href="http://www.transport.gov.scot/report/j11260a-05.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.transport.gov.scot/report/j11260a-05.htm</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241119 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:50:14 +0000 crowriver 241119@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Indeed Morningsider. However that would mean taking the various Sir Humphreys in Transport Scotland to task, never a popular move for a minister to make. Neither would it be wise to contradict the Tablets Of Stone, otherwise known as the Infrastructure Investment Project Pipeline, signed off by none other than the saintly Nicola herself when she was Infrastructure minister. Who knows, there might even be a repeat of the snowgeddon which caused an errant minister to fall on his sword a few years ago.</p> <p><a href="http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/Finance/18232/IIP" rel="nofollow">http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/Finance/18232/IIP</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.transport.gov.scot/projects" rel="nofollow">http://www.transport.gov.scot/projects</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241118 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:45:55 +0000 Morningsider 241118@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>crowriver - yes, that raised a smile. If only the Scottish Government could track down the mysterious figures who negotiate these contracts, plan maintenance and choose what to upgrade. Perhaps they could then try and convince them to stop spending so much on trunk road projects and a bit more on cycling. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241117 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:36:56 +0000 crowriver 241117@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“The Scottish Government’s position is that levels of transport spend cannot simply be based on percentage allocations for each transport mode. The overall transport budget must reflect existing contractual requirements, planned maintenance and upgrades and it would be wrong to arbitrarily allocate definite amounts to any one mode.”</p> <p>Unless of course that mode happens to be motor vehicles. In which case, arbitrarily allocate definite amounts as much as you like! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241106 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:52:01 +0000 Rosie 241106@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Spokes hath spoken:-</p> <p><a href="http://www.spokes.org.uk/2017/01/caps3-disappoints/" rel="nofollow">http://www.spokes.org.uk/2017/01/caps3-disappoints/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241103 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:22:30 +0000 magnatom 241103@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>We could just give up, or we could shout louder. I recommend lots and lots of the latter. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241091 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:47:28 +0000 neddie 241091@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Is there a MAPS - Motoring Action Plan for Scotland?</p> <p>No, why not?</p> <p>Because it's a built-in assumption that we'll spend all the money on motors. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241089 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:42:55 +0000 crowriver 241089@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It should be renamed CIPS - Cycling Inaction Plan for Scotland. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241085 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:11:52 +0000 sallyhinch 241085@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The argument on not increasing the budget is particularly illogical. If they don't want to set a percentage, fine. That doesn't mean they can't increase it. It's like arguing with a teenager ... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17351#post-241083 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:19:58 +0000 Morningsider 241083@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>CAPS 2017 is out! From a quick look, the key points are:</p> <p>1. 10% of everyday trips by bike by 2020 "shared vision" remains - no mention of claims that this is unachievable.<br /> 2. Scottish Government rejects call for % of transport budget to be allocated to cycling, despite lauding progress made by Edinburgh.<br /> 3. No new funding.<br /> 4. Nothing on segregated cycle lanes.<br /> 5. No new substantive policy initiatives.<br /> 6. Lots of padding.</p> <p>Overall, very disappointing.</p> <p>Details: <a href="http://www.transport.gov.scot/system/files/documents/reports/Transport%20Scotland%20-%20Policy%20-%20Cycling%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Scotland%20-%20January%202017.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.transport.gov.scot/system/files/documents/reports/Transport%20Scotland%20-%20Policy%20-%20Cycling%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Scotland%20-%20January%202017.pdf</a> </p>