Presumably nothing in the Hootsmon? Doesn't quite fit their (Conservative &) Unionist agenda somehow? Why do they not report on these things? Need more car advertising money?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Events, rides etc.
Active Transport Budget Protest
(285 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
I received a letter today from Marco Biagi MSP on the back of sending in a form from the Active Transport Budget Protest.
"Dear PS
In recent months many local residents have written or emailed to explain their substantial concerns about national investment in walking and cycling. Following up on this I will be taking the issue in person to Keith Brown, the Transport Minister, along with representatives of local cycling organisations, in a meeting on 1st February. I aim to have a full and frank discussion of the points that have been highlighted by those campaigning on the matter. I know how important this is to everyone who has written and so I will update you further on progress after the discussion.
Yours sincerely..."
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I will be taking the issue in person to Keith Brown, the Transport Minister, along with representatives of local cycling organisations, in a meeting on 1st February."
It's good that a central Edinburgh SNP MSP is so keen. There is little doubt that there could be a change in spending between transport modes - ie less on new roads.
BUT the 'problem' is that walking and cycling fit with all sorts of other SNP Gov aims - esp health - that it needs a wider approach.
Posted 12 years ago # -
£4.5 million more for "road transport". It doesn't say if that's building more roads or fixing existing ones. £4.5 million doesn't build much roads...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Nothing in the announcement about active travel funding. So much for Keith Brown's suggestion of 'consequentials' as a possibility to top up the budget...
Posted 12 years ago # -
"So much for Keith Brown's suggestion of 'consequentials' as a possibility to top up the budget"
Of course it's possible that...
BUT 'cycling' needs to get away from (just) transport - well at least until there are politicians/transport people who actually understand how cycling (and walking) could be factored in properly when considering how/why people move about and the various energy/resource/road damage etc. etc. impacts they have.
Until then it would help if Health would be more active in supporting 'active travel'.
Many post back there's this -
"
It is also clear that the Scottish Government is persuaded of the benefits of active travel - and this has been reflected in a range of policies, including the Cycling Action Plan. Perhaps most significantly, it has been the driver behind the Smarter Choices Smarter Places project which saw a number of ideas for encouraging active travel trialled in various locations throughout Scotland, backed with £15 million of Scottish Government money. The Government is currently studying the lessons that can be learned from each of these projects."
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4718&page=6#post-54009
UNFORTUNATELY - if the Newsnight Scotland report on missing Climate Change Targets is to be believed - the various SCSP projects resulted in no (measured) increase in walking or cycling. Car use was down - but 'probably for economic reasons'.
P.s. I think it's today that Marco Biagi (MSP) and Spokes go to see Mr. Brown.
Posted 12 years ago # -
When is is a 32% cut in a budget really a 14.3% cut? When it's the Scottish Government's capital budget!
You know how Ministers keep arguing that there is a 32% cut in the capital budget between 2011/12 and 2014/15. Well, that might not be entirely correct. Details (Excel spreadsheet):
Also, the cut between this year's budget and next year's is 4.5%. Now, obviously these cuts are bad and tough decisions have to be made, but misleading the public (intentionally or not) is a poor tactic. It certainly put the cuts to active travel funding in an even worse light.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Now, obviously these cuts are bad and tough decisions have to be made, but misleading the public (intentionally or not) is a poor tactic. It certainly put the cuts to active travel funding in an even worse light.
The new Forth road bridge has to be paid for somehow! Why not make others feel guilty about asking for money by telling them it's not our fault, a big boy (Westminster) done it and ran away with our money.
So, although we (the Scottish government) think cyclists are
a bunch of dafties and greens who don't seem to realise we have hills and rain here in Scotland, sorry I meant perfectly entitled to argue their point of view in this magnificent Scottish democracy, nevertheless I regret to inform you that they big boys Dave and Nick have only gone and nicked our pocket money, so I'm afraid we'veno bawbies left for the likes of you, sorry I meant budgets will alas need to be trimmed and investment considered strategically.Of course, we all want to achieve the world's most ambitious climate change targets, but I mean come on, realistically, you cannot seriously think you can live in Scotland without a car. I think they have those new electric ones, if that helps. Maybe we can invest in some charging stations, that'll look like we are at least trying, won't it?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Kaputnik said: "£4.5 million more for 'road transport'. It doesn't say if that's building more roads or fixing existing ones. £4.5 million doesn't build much roads... "
I can guess what happened, some one designing the New Forth Crossing miscalulated and they've found the dual carrageway will be 4.5 metres longer, and at roughly £1000000 per metre I'd guess thay need to top up the budget?
[Disclaimer - my math is wayyyy off]
Posted 12 years ago # -
I see that Claire Baker (also @clairebakermsp) recently asked a parliamentary question about funding:
"S4W-05417 Claire Baker: To ask the Scottish Executive how much it will spend in (a) 2011-12, (b) 2012-13 and (c) 2013-14 on promoting sustainable and active travel and how much of the money will arise from the Barnett consequentials received as a result of UK Government spending decisions on road transport."
Sounds a lot like the sort of information Morningsider linked to a few days ago.
Posted 12 years ago # -
It will be interesting to see the reply she receives!
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
2/6/12 12:31 PM
Scottish budget last-minute change of heart???
Seems unlikely, but there are hints!! And you can help
"
!http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2012/02/budget-change-of-heart
Posted 12 years ago # -
One point two BILLION pounds by kaputniq, on FlickrPosted 12 years ago # -
"Finance Secretary, John Swinney, has ignored transport committee recommendations on cycling in past two years. This year campaigners are more optimistic."
OH, that was two years ago...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Re: Active Travel Budgets
I’m getting in touch because you previously contacted me on the subject of active travel budgets.
Last Wednesday (1st February) my colleague Marco Biagi MSP and I were pleased to welcome Mr Dave Du Feu of the Spokes cycling campaign group and Mr Mark Sydenham of the Edinburgh Bike Station to the Scottish Parliament for a meeting with Transport Minister Keith Brown, MSP.There is no doubt that all parties agree about the benefits that active travel can bring in terms of health, environment and jobs. On the other hand Mr Brown quite fairly reiterated the very difficult spending constraints that the Scottish Government is operating under – including the ridiculous position that it requires to fund the Forth Replacement Crossing entirely out of transport revenue expenditure rather than through borrowing. Nevertheless, he also made clear his continuing commitment to the Government’s target of 10% of all journeys being made by bicycle in 2020, and also the manifesto commitment to increasing the percentage of transport funding going to “low-carbon, active and sustainable travel”.
There was disagreement about the relevant figures that surround this debate, and at the Minister’s suggestion the two cycling organisations are going to sit down with officials, Marco Biagi MSP and me so that we can ensure on-going discussions are not side-tracked by debates over numbers.
The Minister also suggested that parties meet again in May so that further discussions can by informed by review of the “Cycling Action Plan for Scotland” which should provide us with an up to date picture of what progress is being made.
In the meantime, the Minister is committed to doing all he can to find additional funds for active travel that might arise from underspends on other projects, or from “Barnett Consequentials” (ie extra spending arising from increases in public spending in England and Wales).
I do hope the Minister is able to secure some funding in the short term, though fully appreciate that will not go as far as any of us would really like. However, I believe that much more significant was Mr Brown’s commitment to on-going engagement with the cycling organisations to ensure that both the 2020 commitment, and the manifesto commitment on low-carbon, active and sustainable travel are met.
I will continue to press the case for active travel funding in the months and years ahead and will keep you fully informed of developments. I hope these comments are helpful, and please do not hesitate to get in touch again on this subject – or any other.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Eadie MSP
(SRD: My paragraphing)
Posted 12 years ago # -
In other words - we've met with some cyclists and told them our manifesto plans again...
Or is that being harsh? That's a very long letter saying virtually nothing as far as I can tell. Still can't believe they're going to get anywhere near the 10% target in the next 8 years if the current lack of investment and true political will continues.
Posted 12 years ago # -
k'nik's image has started a nice little debate over on my FB page :)
Posted 12 years ago # -
This section strikes as fairly typical Scottish Parliamentariniasm...
"There is no doubt that all parties agree about the benefits that active travel can bring in terms of health, environment and jobs. On the other hand Mr Brown quite fairly reiterated the very difficult spending constraints that the Scottish Government is operating under – including the ridiculous position that it requires to fund the Forth Replacement Crossing entirely out of transport revenue expenditure rather than through borrowing. Nevertheless, he also made clear his continuing commitment to the Government’s target of 10% of all journeys being made by bicycle in 2020, and also the manifesto commitment to increasing the percentage of transport funding going to “low-carbon, active and sustainable travel”."
Yes we agree that this could really really help us tackle three important issues that strike at the very heart of social issues in this country; but a big boy (Westminster) stole all of our pocket money, and more important matters than health, environment and jobs have to come first, so if after we've built a lot of new roads there's any money left over we'll scrape around for the dregs for you; clearly this shows our utmost commitment to meet the hollow promises we made in a desperate attempt to grab power.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"k'nik's image has started a nice little debate over on my FB page :)"
Someone asked for McGonagall on this...
Wires of steel
Spanning the divide
Slowly, but surely rusting
Drivers, cyclists, walkers entrusting
That today
Won't be the day
They snapFrom behind the wheel
A bumpy ride
Shorter than a diversion
Or those with an aversion
To the train
Or the pain
Of a bikeBut the SNP feel
With misplaced pride
Of career parliamentarians
Ignoring non-car proletarians
We need a bridge anew
To spoil the view
On the ForthPosted 12 years ago # -
Great cod McGonagall, Anth!
Yeah, the patronising tone of the SNP politicians is starting to grate more and more. Spokes still seem optimistic, but it requires more pressure from the grass roots and general public. Otherwise ministers Brown and Swinney will continue to fob off the cycling lobby with promises of a very thin scraping of low sugar jam tomorrow...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Anth - words fail me...
I love how the Forth Crossing appears to be something which Scottish Ministers have no responsibility for, other than to pay for it. Also a bit worrying that an MSP doesn't know the difference between revenue and capital budgets.
Obviously, were lots of other ways to pay for the crossing available to the Scottish Government. However, they would require tolls to be charged on the new bridge, e.g. the Scottish Government could award a design, build, finance, maintain and operate contract for a period of 30/40/50 years to a private operator - which would bear the up-front costs of building the bridge and recoup those through toll income. Perhaps not politically palatable - but a definite option.
I could point out that Mr Eadie is a member of the Parliament's Health and Sport Committee, which spends a lot of time discussing "preventative spending". The health budget accounts for something like one third of all Scottish Government expenditure - perhaps just a tiny percentage of a percentage of that could be directed at active travel, no mention of that though.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Perhaps not politically palatable
A master of understatement as ever, Morningsider. Given that the SNP made a big populist hoo-ha over abolishing tolls on all road bridges, and minister Keith 'yomper' Brown still boasts of his unpaid fines for refusing to pay the Skye bridge tolls, I'd suggest a toll bridge is in El Presidente's 'Hell shall freeze over first' category.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Nevertheless, he also made clear his continuing commitment to the Government’s target of 10% of all journeys being made by bicycle in 2020.
A 'continuing commitment' will no doubt and quite rightly continue until the very last day of the target, but it conveniently sidesteps the fundamental question of what is actually being done to reach that target? Yes, money is tight. Yes, a ton of money is going on bigger roads and bigger bridges for more cars and more lorries. Yes, there is also a target for cycling and it isn't going to magically jump from 0.5% or 4.1% of journeys or whatever it is to 9.7% or 12.3% in a mad rush of six months' worth of driver education campaigns and reconstructing road junctions wholesale if the previous seven and a half years were spent looking at cars, which will pretty much be guaranteed if this:
...committed to [finding] additional funds for active travel that might arise from underspends on other projects...
is how funding for cycling (and walking, and running) is made available. We should be grateful we're allowed to use the roads at all!
Posted 12 years ago # -
Don't worry, the closer it gets to 2020 the more they'll be blaming LAs for not putting the infrastructure in.
So it'll never be the Government's fault.
I'm a bit surprised that they are not already 'wondering' what LAs do with all the 'Government' money...
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
David Miller @BBCDavidMiller
Could we see some good news for Scotland's cyclists at Holyrood this afternoon? Watch this space.
https://twitter.com/#!/BBCDavidMiller/status/167207467019812864
"
Posted 12 years ago # -
Holyrood rumours suggest that John Swinney will mention Active Travel today, but there might not be many details until tomorrow.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
2/8/12 2:47 PM
Scottish Budget: £13m extra active travel over 3 years. Success, but not meet manifesto yet? Also £72m extra for roads.
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2012/02/budget-change-of-heart/
"
Posted 12 years ago # -
That's a bit of a success. Looks like they've managed to retrieve some pennies from down the back of the sofa.
Posted 12 years ago # -
much credit owed to spokes (and others) for effort on lobbying front
Posted 12 years ago # -
I was going to post something about 'great success for CCE' given the photos that recorded a bunch of 'us' at the demo - and all the emailing - but it's such a small amount...
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
