Don't worry POP will be giving it a thorough fisking as soon as we've got our head around it. Unfortunately we don't get a sneak preview and have inconvenient things like day jobs so we can't get a response out quickly enough to make the media...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Cycling Action Plan for Scotland
(98 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Yes, sorry, PoP shouldn't have even been in that sentence.
Posted 11 years ago # -
There are obviously different approaches to campaigning (on this and other issues).
You can say 'it is rubbish, let's give up or be totally negative'. Or you can criticise, fiercely if necessary, but nonetheless look for whatever positivity and further lobbying opportunity there is.
If Greener Leith/ Spokes had taken the 'give up in disgust' approach over leith walk, rather than continue lobbying, then we might well still be at the original plans, instead of at a significantly improved plan (which GL is still lobbying to get further improved).
Similarly, just because Edinburgh has said no cycling on the traffic-free side of Princes ST, it would be crazy to give up in disgust. They can say 'no' many times, but until it is built things can change (and even subsequently) and they are more likely to change with continuing engagement and some understanding rather than with total negativity.
This is the approach which has resulted in Edinburgh allocating 5%, now 6%, of transport spending to cycling - unlike any other council in Scotland. [OK, i know that one or two of the commentariat feel that this budget is pretty pointless and might even prefer 0%, even if that meant no winter path gritting, no new North Meadow Walk, etc, etc, but an even better opportunity to criticise the council].
Obviously Caps2013 has no hope of attaining its Vision and can and should be hugely criticised in that respect. The disparity in trunk roads and cycling investment is appalling. However there are also aspects of CAPS that are positive, are likely to help a bit, and will certainly provide useful lobbying opportunities. Very few things are wholly bad.
Oh how I hate appearing to be giving the government some minimal support, even if it is only 1% of my thought! PS.. Which of the critics voted for them? - please own up if so before you cast too many further aspersions.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Well if you put it as a false dichotomy like that then obviously it's better not to give up, in disgust or otherwise. But I don't think anyone said anyone should give up in disgust. Maybe I missed it.
But I don't think you have to give them any kind of support. My own view, for what it's worth (which I accept isn't much) is that they need you more than you need them. You don't need to be fair. You don't need to say that anything is positive if all it does is create a lobbying opportunity. They didn't set out to give you a lobbying opportunity so you don't need to see that as a positive aspect of the CAPS. It's an accident. You can denounce it completely as a sham. You don't get their money so you're not compromised like Sustrans or Cycling Scotland so you don't need to give them anything. You can afford to be uncompromising because your opinion matters and you (and PoP) can mobilise hundreds (and thousands) of cyclists to protest about things.
And if it matters - didn't, wouldn't.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"You can say 'it is rubbish, let's give up or be totally negative'. Or you can criticise, fiercely if necessary, but nonetheless look for whatever positivity and further lobbying opportunity there is."
All true. But another reality is that few people (or organisations) have the stamina to do what Spokes has for the last 37 years.
I'm sure it's true that politicians (and officials) rely on people giving up. It's certainly the case that developers can play a long game and wait 'til objectors give up.
PoP shook things up. I'm not suggesting that that is better than the Spokes incremental approach. Just different with some obvious (to date) progress/benefits.
"Which of the critics voted for them? - please own up if so before you cast too many further aspersions."
I don't think that's relevant. People vote on a lot more than 'cycling'. If we're talking Scottish Parliament they had more than one vote.
More relevant (whoever people voted for - or didn't) is whether the SNP is living up to its manifesto promises and its oft reiterated allegation that it believes in a cleaner, sunnier, wiser, funnier and PoPier Scotland for all who sail in her (or whatever version of fatherhood and cream donuts it is/was offering).
It is perhaps time for 'cycle campaigners' (and other versions of ordinary people) to try to go beyond 'cycling' and 'transport' and say what we really really want - nicer, safer (etc.) places to live and work.
Leith Walk is about much more than cycle lanes and a lot of people realise that and have been arguing for a better deal for pedestrians and businesses too!
Maybe forget about Keith Brown for a bit. Go for John Swinney who has said (more or less) that he'd be happy to spend more on 'cycling' if anyone could prove it was worth it.
Ask him to prove that Billions on roads is 'worth it'.
I discovered this evening that there is a Minister for Public Health - Michael Matheson MSP -
Responsibilities: Public Health, Health Protection, Dentistry, Healthy Working Lives, Sexual Health, Child & Maternal Health, Medical Records, Adult Care & Support, Problem Alcohol use and recovery, Social Inclusion and Historic Abuse
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/People/14944/Scottish-Cabinet
Presume that includes obesity and exercise? I wonder what he thinks about active travel.
I wonder what Michael Russell thinks about Safe Routes to School?
Doesn't seem to be one of his -
Responsibilities: Teacher and school workforce issues, School infrastructure - building programme and technology, School closures, Further and Higher Education, The Scottish Funding Council, Educational attainment, Performance improvement and reform of education
- perhaps it should be.
Don't give up.
Think Smarter.
and Greener, Healthier etc -
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Performance/scotPerforms/objectives
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Transport Minister Keith Brown said: “We are committed to the vision outlined in the updated Caps document for 10 per cent of journeys to be by bike by 2020 and continue to invest in the infrastructure required to increase participation in cycling for everyday travel.
“Most cycling trips are local trips and we encourage local authorities to invest more in local facilities.”
"
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/all-scottish-residential-streets-should-be-20mph-1-2971503
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm committed to the vision outlined in my updated weight loss action plan to being 80kg by my 50th birthday and I'll continue to put in the miles required to burn off the calories through everyday cycling. Most calories are sandwiches and I'll encourage the missus to make smaller sandwiches.
Another beer? Don't mind if I do. Cheers.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Naturally the cool heads continue to engage and seek a way forward within the confines of current political realities.
Despite the success of PoP as a galvanising medium for a broad grass roots movement it appears certain that SG leadership is not merely indifferent, but actively hostile towards its sensible, progressive aims.
That two-fingered message is absolutely staggering.
Posted 11 years ago # -
You guys have heard me rehearse this argument before:
http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/we-dont-need-no-education.html
Posted 11 years ago # -
To be honest, when I first read it, 'giving up in disgust' was my primary reaction...
Posted 11 years ago # -
"To be honest, when I first read it, 'giving up in disgust' was my primary reaction..."
What do you think of my 'ignore Keith Brown' strategy?
"
Maybe forget about Keith Brown for a bit. Go for John Swinney who has said (more or less) that he'd be happy to spend more on 'cycling' if anyone could prove it was worth it.Ask him to prove that Billions on roads is 'worth it'.
"
And more -
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10500&page=2#post-115129
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'd be interested to know if there is an equivalent 'action plan' for road building e.g dualling A9/A96.
Or do they not need an action plan, because they're just going to do it, no questions asked...?
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Or do they not need an action plan, because they're just going to do it, no questions asked...?"
Suspect that sums it up nicely.
Posted 11 years ago # -
There is an action plan of sorts, known as the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR):
This sets out 29 investment priorities for major transport projects/programmes from 2012. These 29 were chosen following a fairly exhaustive assessment exercise by Transport Scotland.
Interestingly it only includes the dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Nairn and supports the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Blair Atholl and junction improvements - although recognising that the SG supports full dualling of the A9. So the Scottish Government has chosen to go far further than its own transport assessments can support in trunk road dualling.
You will note that the STPR is effectively a list of infrastructure projects that the Scottish Government is committed to delivering (with a particular emphasis on roads and to a lesser extent rail), unlike CAPS - which includes no specific infrastructure projects.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, in the late 1970s...
"The bridge serves as a clear example that even in the early 1980s, cycling infrastructure like this was built. A piece of infrastructure that must have been planned in the late 1970s. An era in which cycling was at an all time low in the Netherlands."Maybe we should call ous the "Cycling Inaction Plan" if c(r)ap is too rude...
Posted 11 years ago # -
The POP response http://pedalonparliament.org/caps-a-failure-of-leadership/
We'll be doing a more detailed point by point commentary later, so any feedback welcome
Posted 11 years ago # -
"complete and utter absence of any real leadership from the Scottish Government"
"We’ll be making a more detailed response in a day or two"
Looking forward to that!
Posted 11 years ago # -
yeah, 'day or two' or four or five, realistically...
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Public in dark over cost of big transport projects"
"
Auditor General Caroline Gardner pointed out that while the Scottish Government said these projects would be affordable, it has never shown how."
Posted 11 years ago # -
From POP - "Make 20mph the default speed limit for residential areas, for example. Create national design standards that follow best practice for cycling, rather than offering guidance. Enforce laws protecting vulnerable road users, rather than encouraging ‘mutual respect’."
Yes I wholeheartedly agree with all of that.
"And above all invest money in active travel right across this country of ours, instead of looking around to see if there’s a few crumbs available from the roads budget."
Slightly puzzled about this statement. A few tens of millions is undoubtedly crumbs by comparison to the roads budget but spent wisely this amount could make a huge difference to everyday cycling, ie. through building in safe cycle provision at the start of projects, through lower speed limits, through more rigorous enforcement of legislation. Isn't that enough ?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I didn't write that, but what I thought it meant was:
Fund cycling properly, with planning, not just giving it whatever is leftover when the real money has been spent.
I take the 'crumbs' reference in two ways - small, fragmentary bits, not integrated, and, 'leftovers'. We want a full slice of the loaf!
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Isn't that enough?"
I'm afraid not. I'm all for 20mph in appropriate locations (i.e. loads of places), but a busy road with a 30mph speed limit is still going to be fairly unpleasant for cycling at 20mph.
You're absolutely right to say that cycling could be integrated into new developments at virtually no cost - the fact that this is rarely done makes it quite clear that nobody in power is all that interested in cycling.
If you throw chickenfeed at cycling infrastructure(like everywhere in Scotland), you get pavements converted to shared use, gutter cycle lanes, Advance Stop Lines, and the odd cycle path. As we all know, none of these things make a great deal of difference - indeed, many of them would be better off not existing.
The Dutch spend an average of more than £20 per head per year. Some particularly committed cities spend a great deal more. This is how you get all the luxurious facilities that they have, and how you give the entire population, from children to pensioners, the freedom of their towns.
PoP asks for £100million per year for Scotland in their manifesto. I agree with that - it matches the Dutch level of spend. That would still be a relatively small proportion of the transport budget, and I see no reason to be satisfied with less.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Speaking entirely personally, I'd be fairly happy even if they just agreed to increase by 1% each year, until reaching 10%. At least that would show some concerted thought and planning - and show what is possible with a little leadership.
Posted 11 years ago # -
quite clear that nobody in power is all that interested in cycling
Agreed, and the really odd thing is that this in turn makes it quite clear that they're not interested in improving peoples' health, or in making local shops far more profitable, or in making children do better in school, or adults perform more effectively at work, or in building the strength of local communities and making areas less crime-ridden, or in solving transport problems and getting rid of traffic jams, or in vastly lowering family transport costs, or in raising the general happiness of the population, or in attracting far more inward investment... makes you wonder just what those in power really do care about.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Incrementing by 1% is also politically astute since costs little in the short term, it pleases a vocal lobbying group and it passes the real spending onto a different leadership or administration.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"makes you wonder just what those in power really do care about"
This of course -
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Performance/scotPerforms/objectives
Oh, I see what you mean.
If they really cared about all that, they do a LOT about 'cycling'!
Perhaps PoP needs to do its critique with frequent references to "Objectives".
Posted 11 years ago # -
"And above all invest money in active travel right across this country of ours, instead of looking around to see if there’s a few crumbs available from the roads budget."
As the person who did write this - there's two things here. One is reflecting that when it comes to roads, the money's just there, but when it comes to even a modest amount of money for cycling the CAPS just limply says 'the challenge is where that money will come from.'
The other thing is that, even if you build it in from the start, proper cycle provision done properly isn't necessarily cheap. It's good value, but Sustrans estimates up to £1 million per km for the sort of separate but parallel urban track that is really needed once you've run out of disused railway lines. That's why POP are asking for 5% of the transport budget which moves us from 'crumbs' to 'slice' to stretch the bread analogy probably further than it wants to go
Posted 11 years ago # -
Demand the whole loaf (to redress the years of neglect) - and cake...
Posted 11 years ago # -
yes, cake. And the icing on it... and a cherry on top
Posted 11 years ago # -
@cc: Hear, hear! I don't trust any of them.
I think there's something in what chdot said about moving beyond "cycling" and towards a more holistic vision of liveability. I see our grand old cities transformed into Detroit-like wastelands (particularly Glasgow, which is a hateful mess of a place), and I am angry.
Me? I would rip out the central Glasgow section of the M8 and restore the original street pattern and buildings. No alternatives - just raise two fingers to the people who elect to bring cars to a place served by a vast suburban rail and bus network. Motor traffic should be banned from Princes Street, as Spokes so boldly proposed. More streets should be pedestrianised, with trees and places to sit. All urban streets should have a blanket 20mph speed limit with absolutely no exceptions to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. All main roads should have cycle tracks, constructed in the space that is currently wasted by providing on-street parking for a handful of cars. Pavement guardrail and multi-stage pedestrian crossings should be eliminated.
That's the kind of city I'd like to live in. Would any of our mainstream politicians, addicted to fossil fuels and determined to keep this country in the grip of extreme car dependency as they are, have the courage to put their heads above the parapet and propose such a change in direction? I doubt it.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
