@sallyhinch
That's what I had in mind when I wrote the post. Do you see the beauty of it?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Active travel spend to double
(121 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
@sallyhinch
Obviously, as @gibbo has said, what we mean by 'world class' and what the Scottish government mean by 'world class' infrastructure could be two different things.
I've heard that, in the Netherlands, it's illegal to build a new road unless you also build a segregated bike lane alongside it.
That's what world class means.
The Scottish government hasn't promised a single kilometre of segregated city bike lanes.
Now, maybe they forgot to mention it. Or maybe they're the only people who haven't figured out that safe city infrastructure is what gets people cycling in.
Or, maybe they are opposed to that sort of infrastructure.
My money is on the latter.
(BTW, if you look at their "clean air" promises, you'll see that they're offering to do nothing about enforcing that, either. There's a clear pattern here.)
Posted 7 years ago # -
@gibbo
What is your preferred route for a cross-Edinburgh segregated path?
I go for A701 - Botanics - Granton.
Any advance on that?
Posted 7 years ago # -
Aberdeen maybe Queen's Road - Albyn Place - Union Street - King Street.
Any Doonhamers or Snecky experts on here?
Posted 7 years ago # -
@IWRATS
What is your preferred route for a cross-Edinburgh segregated path?
My first question would be whether more people do North-South or East-West.
Yours sounds good for N-S. For East-West, something like:
Milton Road-London Rd/Regent Rd-George St-Shandwick Place-Roseburn-Tram path/shared use to Gyle.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"I go for A701 - Botanics - Granton."
New link to Midlothian-Gilmerton Rd-Newington-Bridges-Leith St-Broughton St-Botanics-Carrington for me. NEPN to serve as branches to points northwest and northeast.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Strong arguments for each of the A701, Lasswade Road, Gilmerton Road and the A7 being used, really.
Not much in it, but I think the A701 is probably my least favourite of those options.
One day we'll have them all done, with links between them...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Midlothian-Gilmerton Rd-Newington-Bridges-Leith St-Broughton St-Botanics-Carrington.
Queen's Road - Albyn Place - Union Street - King Street.
Right, that's Unthank and the Silver City sorted.
Weeg, Doonhame, Snecky and Dùn Dè to go.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The problem for Dumfries is not so much the town centre as joining the outlying villages into it. So we would need a segregated path running parallel to the A75 from Collin into the town centre others from Torthorwald, Glencaple, Holywood and Islesteps - all of which have no pleasant direct alternative to manning up and tackling fast A or B roads
Posted 7 years ago # -
The majority of roads where we need new, high quality cycling infrastructure are managed by councils, not SG.
I'm not sure how much the community links plus program currently costs (somewhere in the region of 5-10m?), but surely the place that we want the new money spent is on CL+, where the funding could be increased five fold. Then maybe a bit of stuff to help smaller councils to bid, so that the money isn't all swallowed up by Edinburgh and Glasgow...
Posted 7 years ago # -
"I reflected on this overnight. Couldn't sleep"
I hope it was productive, I slept well, perhaps all this doesn't worry me!
CCE is an odd place. A lot (well actually a very small number in the big scheme of things) of people with passion about cycling, ActiveTravel, health, wellbeing, nicer places to live etc. etc.
Lots of opinion, opinions and also lots of experience and expertise.
In a Brexit and Trump world it's easy to be cynical, though concerns/dangers there outweigh any considerations of whether £80m will be wisely spent or frittered on 'education', consultants reports and electric car points.
Last night magnatom posted "I am astonished by some of the negativity here."
I also received a message from a non-CCEer who was disappointed about some things on this thread.
"Politicians need to feel that investment at this level commands public support. If cyclists can't welcome it we're screwed."
I think the above two commenters AND all the posters here are too close and too invested and care TOO much.
That is not a criticism just a fact that it's easy to overreact and see things as too black and white.
The reality is that most people don't care (enough) and 'good news about ActiveTravel' is largely missing from the general media.
I think too much is made (often by politicians) of the 'show your support - usually for cycling stuff - or it will be difficult to persuade our colleagues/the public').
Uncritical (meaning without criticism where it is justified) support is not really a good idea.
I think the last five years has taught us quite a lot.
PoP has shown that MANY more people are willing to show up for a pro-cycling/change the status quo demo than for the anti-20mph one!
PoP made cycling (and walking) a 'must be associated with' issue for politicians of all parties.
Yes Keith Brown got a rough reception and doesn't seem to have changed his ways, but changes have been seen in other areas.
I think PoP (in addition to Spokes of course, plus assorted individuals) helped Lesley Hinds to focus and be bold.
I think similar has been happening in Glasgow. Maybe other Scottish cities too.
In Edinburgh we are still waiting for the Canal to be joined to The Meadows which is a ludicrous delay, but at least people bothered to comment on the plans (and the Buccleuch Street ones) so things will be better than they might have been.
Likewise a lot of effort has gone into making an East-West route (through Roseburn) possible. I'm sure the effort helped Adam McVey be firm with some of his colleagues. By contrast, previously, Jim Orr wanted people to stop pushing for more/better on Leith Walk because he thought it was the best that could be done. Fortunately people ignored him and things are better than they might have been, but...
The improvements on Gogar Station Road came about because someone (who happened to be a CCEer) said 'this isn't good enough'. The deputation to the CEC committee was even in the name of CCE!
One notable thing where 'getting behind it' seems to have been beneficial is Operation Close Pass which seems to have arrived in Edinburgh because of positive Twitter comments about what the police were doing in the West Midlands. It is likely to go Scotlandwide because senior police and politicians realise there is support.
So -
'We' (mostly) welcome yesterday's announcement and recognise that it is an important shift - beyond just a bit more cash (which may or may not be spent wisely).
But there is still a lot to do to get what ActiveTravel represents (a more comprehensive approach to health, travel, activity, place etc.) more widely understood and implemented.
There remains the big disconnect between government giving money and the reality that most infrastructure has to be provided by LAs.
So good news, long way to go, need for more campaigning and praise where it's due.
Need for more of the same (campaigning/pressure/ideas) OR some step change in co-ordinating, encouraging, collating 'best practice' etc.
I don't think that can just rely on a small number of people with a bit (lot) of spare time.
The small picture is influencing politicians and officials.
The bigger picture is bypassing the entrenched 'world motor view' and obscenity of anti-cyclist attitudes in some newspapers.
Difficult.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The majority of roads where we need new infrastructure are managed by councils, not SG
That's their problem, not ours. They've touted a budget and a goal, navigating the bureaucracy is their job.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Technically, I think the Conservative manifesto also included Perth and Stirling.
We wouldn't want to be out-ambitioned here, would we?
Posted 7 years ago # -
Well we can get all carried away with dreaming about fantasy infrastructure. Or we can look at the government statement:
- the £80m is to go on investment supporting active travel
- a commissioner to ensure the delivery of world-class infrastructure
- more promotion of electric bikes
- projects to help older people use the walking and cycling network
- a long distance route 'equivalent to' the north Coast 500
- connecting the A9 cycle paths with the NCNWithin that £80 million, there might be some extra cash for "world class" infrastructure, but it seems to me that much of the additional spend has already been notionally earmarked for specific initiatives.
Perhaps it's best to assume that most of the "extra" money will all be spent on the items that have been bullet-pointed. So, we'll get a new long distance route; the SNP flagship A9 project will have it's cycle lane elements linked into the NCN; there will be funding for projects to get older people cycling; and subsidy/promotion of electric bikes will be paid for; oh and we'll a commissioner who will oversee what the existing infrastructure spend goes on, fix things when inevitable mistakes are made, etc. Maybe after all that is budgeted there'll be some cash left over for a fresh round of competitive tendering for Community Links+ from Sustrans.
Also closer to home let's not forget that for example Edinburgh already has a pipeline of active travel/cycling infrastructure projects it is seeking match funding for. These are all documented in the ATAP. They will be realised before any new proposed segregated routes are even thought about. If there is extra money available one "easy win" in my view would be to get the Powderhall railway path funded and built: it would link into the NEPN and not take an inch of space away from drivers of motor vehicles, except maybe the odd access point. It's protected as an active travel corridor in the Edinburgh Local Plan. No TRO processes required, just acquire the track bed and get busy with surfacing and lighting. Such a relatively simple piece of infrastructure still seems a long way down the council's list of priorities.
Need I also mention the frankly appalling record of Transport Scotland recently in delivering active travel "infrastructure" as part of their motorways and trunk roads Grands Projets? See the most blatant examples locally: the total lack of any active travel facilities on the Queensferry Crossing; the abysmal, bitty, indirect new shared use paths circling the huge roundabouts and junctions north of the Forth Bridge/Queensferry Crossing; and the worst possible option for active travel chosen at the Sheriffhall junction of the Edinburgh City Bypass.
So in the cold light of day the morning after a surprisingly positive announcement, some realism is required. In summary:
- The "new money" is all largely spoken for by the looks of it.
- Getting any decent infrastructure built will require engagement with the local council in the first instance.
- The new Active Nation Commissioner (ANC)* will have his/her work cut out trying to get Transport Scotland projects to better consider the needs of active travellers.* - Other movements for self-determination in former outposts of the British Empire are available.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
“Taken together, these measures along with our plans to build an Active Nation by investing record sums in walking and cycling, represent a step change in our levels of ambition and it’s heartening to see this being described as Scotland’s boldest and greenest Programme for Government.”
Posted 7 years ago # -
Posted 7 years ago #
-
@Crowriver - The "new money" is all largely spoken for by the looks of it
All the more reason to tell them where we actually want it spent. This is also an annual increase. The money might be allocated for 2018 - but what about 2018? 2020? That's when these projects would be implemented. @IWRATS is right to be getting prepared now.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I also cannot believe the negativity on here. I knew "we" were negative, but this thread really brings it home.
I think it's great they've doubled the spend - it feels like they are finally "getting it"
@crowriver
You missed from your list of the government statements, the following:
- making our towns and cities friendlier and safer spaces for pedestrians and cyclists by increasing investment that supports active travel from £40m to £80m per year from 2018-19
My bold. I take that to mean they will be using the money to build infrastructure in cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen , etc.
scot gov active travel by Ed, on FlickrPosted 7 years ago # -
We wouldn't want to be out-ambitioned here, would we?
Not by that...errr...group of people. Who knows anyone can pick routes there?
we can get all carried away with dreaming about fantasy infrastructure
The drove roads, the Wade roads, the Caulfield roads, the Telford roads and the post-war roads were all the fantasies of highly motivated zealots before they were variously worn, dug and hammered into the ground by working people.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I also cannot believe the negativity on here.
Should I start another thread for those wishing to contribute to an Eight City Plan?
Posted 7 years ago # -
"The money might be allocated for 2018 - but what about 2018? 2020? "
2019 is when the UK is due to crash out of the EU without a deal is it not? So all bets are off on what the Scottish government budget will look like from 2019 onwards.
Assuming it is simply "more of the same" and that the Scottish government's priorities do not change, then yes there might be quite a bit more money around. I'm assuming that things like "projects to help older people use the walking and cycling network" and "more promotion of electric bikes", even "connecting the A9 cycle paths with the NCN" will be longer term commitments, spanning a number of years. Even with that, there ought to be money available for general infrastructure spend after the "long distance route 'equivalent to' the north Coast 500" is consulted on, designed, and built.
This is of course all dependent on what the budget line actually is, and how it's allocated. As I pointed out above in the thread, the exact budget line in Scottish government published budgets is "Support for Sustainable and Active Travel". Historically and currently that has included things like building dedicated fast busways and grants for electric cars. Maybe the £80 million is entirely for active travel (so maybe £50 million for cycling at a guess?) but maybe not. Is this all capital spending? Or is a mix of capital (infrastructure) and revenue (projects, education, training, advocacy, advertising campaigns, etc.)
As Morningsider said at the start of the thread: "Devil in the detail and all that".
Posted 7 years ago # -
I've heard that, in the Netherlands, it's illegal to build a new road unless you also build a segregated bike lane alongside it.
We have the Equality Act to ensure, for example, special access needs are considered during the design of new buildings. In the US I believe the definition of normal access includes what we would consider special access requirements so the inclusion of these is never up for debate or seen as an afterthought or special case.
We need a transport policy that considers cycling walking and wheelchair use, for example, to be normal forms of transport, not sustainable, active or alternative.Posted 7 years ago # -
"Should I start another thread for those wishing to contribute to an Eight City Plan?"
Yes, though should there be another for small/rural?
Posted 7 years ago # -
"I take that to mean they will be using the money to build infrastructure in cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen , etc."
Perth, Inverness, Paisley, Stirling also qualify as cities. Towns is a much broader category that includes any settlement larger than a village.
So maybe we shouldn't assume the government intends to focus on the bigger cities, at least not in preference to the multitude of towns across Scotland that may or may not have such "world class" active travel infrastructure as shared use footpaths, painted advisory cycle lanes full of parked cars, and ASLs.
Consider that in 2014/5 the annual spend just on roads maintenance was £162 million for trunk roads; £259 million for local roads.
What proportion of the £80 million headline figure is:
a) "new" money (ie. £41 million as £39 million is existing, allocated spend)
b) intended for capital spend
c) not already allocated to a previously announced project
d) not earmarked for Community Links+ for competitive tenderingIt might be a relatively modest amount: let's imagine it's £10 million, or even £15 million. Imagine that is then parcelled up and distributed to Local Authorities as a ring-fenced grant proportional to local need according to the usual funding mechanism. How much would Edinburgh get in that scenario? Aberdeen? Glenrothes? Stornoway?
Or will the government create a new funding mechanism? If we look at what is happening in education, will we see a similar model of "regional boards" taking on this task, perhaps overseen by the ANC, rather than Local Authorities?
Whatever happens, I'd say the chances of £80 million per annum being spent directly on active travel infrastructure are close to nil.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"We have the Equality Act to ensure, for example, special access needs are considered during the design of new buildings."
True, but it hasn't stopped chicanes, rumble strips etc. from being retrofitted to existing useable shared use paths. Also when these same paths get resurfaced much of the work teams' time goes into laying out tactile paving strips which then get loose in many instances creating trip hazards.
The road to hell, etc.
Posted 7 years ago # -
It is good news that SG is pledging to invest more in AT. However, they also need to invest in local government so that there are enough people to work on the projects and actually spend the pledged money. I asked Adam McVey why the SNP were merely promising that they would continue to spend 10% on cycling and walking rather than increase it at the Spokes event prior to the Council Elections and his fairly reasonable reply was that Edinburgh Council barely had enough relevant staff to deliver the projects that had already been greenlit, e.g. the Meadows to canal link up.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"Edinburgh Council barely had enough relevant staff to deliver the projects that had already been greenlit, e.g. the Meadows to canal link up."
Yes, but they choose to put a lot out to (long term contracted) consultants. Surely that can't be efficient/cost effective with the amount of money/work coming up (?)
Posted 7 years ago # -
"So word I had from inside CEC was even the on-road option wasn't realistically going to happen in the near/mid term... It comes in at between £2.3M and £4.0M per mile... £80M could get you perhaps 26 miles of cycle path..."
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15007#post-259517
Posted 7 years ago # -
"they choose to put a lot out to (long term contracted) consultants."
Consequence of temporary project match funding via Sustrans? OTOH without that match funding the projects wouldn't be happening, or rather fewer of them would.
On the SESTrans thing I quote my earlier reply:
It's only £41M on top of existing spend. Not all of that will be capital infrastructure, so...
I'll be looking forward to riding my electric mobility tricycle along the new route when I'm 102!
Posted 7 years ago # -
True, but that shorttermism is a BIG part of the problem.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
