Posted with permission
"
Date: 18 November 2010 13:54
Subject: Future of CWSS fund
To: alison.hay@argyll-bute.gov.uk
Dear Cllr Hay
I am writing from Spokes on the above. CWSS was not mentioned in John Swinney's budget yesterday, and I understand that it may be discussed at a COSLA meeting tomorrow, Friday. If that understanding is correct, I would urge that COSLA supports retention of this fund.
You will be aware of the Spokes annual survey of cycling investment from all main sources in Scotland. The latest summary results are on the attached page 7 from our recent Spokes Bulletin no.108.
STABILITY OF FUNDING
CWSS has been the most consistent and reliable source of cycling investment over the past decade; whereas other sources have fallen and risen with alarming rapidity depending on the vagaries of who was the current Transport Minister, with alternating additions and cuts to Sustrans, arrival and removal of RTP capital, abolition of the Public Transport Fund, etc, etc. Whilst those other sources are very valuable, and in some years much exceed the CWSS level, they would be much less effective without a stable basic investment budget.
In our annual survey one of the greatest pleas from council cycle officers is to know in advance what funding will be available, so they can have some stability and consistency in planning - schemes involving consultation, road orders, etc, normally need 1-3 years. The second plea of council cycling officers is continuation of a ring-fenced basic cycling/walking investment budget. Many of them will be devastated if the main backbone of stable cycling investment funding is scrapped. Indeed, at the recent Cycling Scotland conference that was the very first question, from a local authority cycling officer, to Transport Scotland chief exec David Middleton.
VALUE OF CWSS FUNDING
The government in its CAPS initiative has set a target of 10% of trips to be by bike by 2020, but this cannot be achieved without the enthusiastic cooperation of councils, where most of the action takes place. Cycling infrastructure to make local cycling journeys feel and be safe and welcoming is vital, as we have seen for example in Edinburgh, which has doubled commuter cycle use in the last decade thanks to improved infrastructure. In the report on their recent Active Travel Action Plan Edinburgh Council states that "any withdrawal of CWSS funding is likely to have serious implications ... the cycling targets are unlikely to be met."
Secondly, many councils use CWSS as match-funding, often to double the level of investment - for example, partnering with Sustrans, British Waterways, and many other funding sources.
Thirdly, although the primary objective is to provide cycling infrastructure and promotion, this is also a very jobs-intensive use of capital as compared to larger scale investments such as roads where much more of the funding goes into machinery and materials. Regrettably, when government speaks of the jobs value of capital investment, it often only applies that to big high-publicity schemes. If instead we were to look at jobs per £ invested then small capital schemes such as cycling infrastructure would surely move much further up the priority ladder.
Thank you for reading these brief points, obviously written in haste given the immediate timescale, but which I hope you will be able to take account of in your decision-making
Yours Sincerely
Dave du Feu
for Spokes
'
posts
