"Cycling Scotland Publishes Progress Report On Cycling Action Plan For Scotland"

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

"Cycling Scotland Publishes Progress Report On Cycling Action Plan For Scotland"

(26 posts)

Started 12 years ago by chdot
Latest reply from Instography

No tags yet.

chdot
Admin

This sounds good

"

Cycling Scotland has produced a progress report on the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CAPS).

CAPS was published in June 2010 and launched the Scottish Government’s target of getting 10% of journeys made by bike by 2020. As secretariat of the CAPS Delivery Forum, Cycling Scotland was required to produce a report on the progress of the action plan after the first full financial year.

The report, which you can download here, looks at the progress that has been made on each of the 17 actions in CAPS and reflects on the progress made towards getting more Scots on their bikes. The report also makes the following recommendations:

Improved Leadership;

To be encouraged by establishing an annual Cycling Summit between the Transport Minister and Local Authority Transport Convenors & Heads of Transportation, together with a requirement on Local Authorities to develop strategies and plans to deliver on the 10% target and incorporation of cycling into Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs).

A refresh of CAPS by the Scottish Government;

To be started as soon as possible and to link outcomes to the funding and stakeholder commitments required to realistically achieve these outcomes, thus producing a fully-costed action plan for implementation with intermediate targets to 2020.

Increase Funding for Cycling;

To take advantage of the wide ranging benefits of cycling as a preventative spending measure and incrementally increase the amount invested specifically on cycling and active travel to the equivalent of 10% of the transport budget by 2020. To engage with other Government budget areas that gain from the cross-cutting benefits cycling brings to health, education, environment, sport and tourism and for these budget areas to contribute to make up at least the equivalent of 10% of the transport budget. To ensure that when transport schemes are appraised for return on funding, the full range of cycling’s benefits are recognised in the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG).

"

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

Wow.

incrementally increase the amount invested specifically on cycling and active travel to the equivalent of 10% of the transport budget by 2020.

That is a bit of a problem, in that realistically it needs to be 10% now. At least it's in there.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"At least it's in there"

I can't work out if this is a 'recommendation' or in any way is/will be Government policy.

Posted 12 years ago #
Instography
Member

To be in any way credible Cycling Scotland has to say something but my reading of it, and the reason I tweeted the "equivalent" in response to chdot at the conference is that the line about 10% is a sophisticated cop out. It makes the right noise, it ups that ante from POP's 5%. No, not 5% but 10% but actually it diverts attention away from the SG (away from Cycling Scotland's funder). If turns attention on health etc. So rather than taking money from the transport budget, rather than take money from cars, it takes money from what, cancer?

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

So rather than taking money from the transport budget, rather than take money from cars, it takes money from what, cancer?

I read it in the same way, that this was a potential raid on the health budget.

Cancer though? Emotive. Maybe obesity related diseases like type 2 diabetes?

How much are 'we' spending on free bus passes for 60 year olds who can afford to pay? What if that cash were spent on cycling? Some rural bus services might suffer, but...

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"
but actually it diverts attention away from the SG (away from Cycling Scotland's funder). If turns attention on health etc. So rather than taking money from the transport budget, rather than take money from cars, it takes money from what, cancer?

"

That's an interesting interpretation.

Of course 'health' is still the SG, but you could be right about taking spotlight/money away from 'transport'.

I'm sure there are plenty on here who would say 'stop spending on big/'glamous' transport and give it to 'active travel' - simples'

BUT SG clearly doesn't understand/agree.

ALSO another real problem is that another key part of SG's intransigence on this is the stonewalling 'most of the spending/infrastructure is up to LAs (true) and we have given them the money (well perhaps - but they also have another things to do with it, only CEC has its '5% of transport') and 'we don't ringfence anymore' (also true - and part of the problem).

The SG's latest 'big idea' - which is probably a good idea is -

"
Improved Leadership;

To be encouraged by establishing an annual Cycling Summit between the Transport Minister and Local Authority Transport Convenors & Heads of Transportation, together with a requirement on Local Authorities to develop strategies and plans to deliver on the 10% target and incorporation of cycling into Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs).

"

The irony is of course that it is handing responsibility for "leadership" to LAs!

I don't have a problem with 'taking money from health' as such.

For years senior health people have taken an interest in walking and cycling as 'good for you' - and has even spent some money (mostly walking).

This is all about "preventative spending" - an idea/phrase that was fashionable with the SG for a short while earlier this year.

In England Public Health is being moved from the NHS to LAs which might be a good idea but with current spending restraints on both sectors could turn out to be a disaster. Being optimistic it could lead to new thinking and initiatives 'on the ground'.

I'm not aware of similar plans in Scotland.

I think the SG should just spend 10% of its transport budget on Active Travel - perhaps by channeling a fair amount through Sustrans - already used by SG to work with LAs to encourage/part fund projects - not just construction, its I Bike project is particular effective.

One 'problem' that 'we' understand clearly is that cycling is not just about transport - it involves travel - commute/shopping/leisure, education (in many senses), health (as above) and even sport.

Team GB/Sky did a bit well this year. Then a couple of its stars got knocked off in circumstances all too familiar to 'ordinary' cyclists.

Cue outrage/handwringing/and a certain amount of nasty Internet victim blaming.

In recent weeks I have met quite a few people involved in what could loosely be called 'sport'. There is a general theme of 'we're all in this together - we just want to get more people cycling'.

Things are changing. If Cycling Scotland has decided (with or without a nudge from the SG) that it needs to look beyond 'transport' that is a good thing BUT it's still only 10% ("equivalent") BY 2020.

The SNP Government is looking like a dinosaur - but other parties are mostly not much better - there are a variety of elections before 2020.

IF governments want more people to cycle (there are targets...) spend more on well designed infrastructure, if they want people to be healthier they might want to encourage cycling.

But as politicians keep saying 'it's not that simple'.

Well actually it IS.

Posted 12 years ago #
Instography
Member

Of course it's true that cycling isn't just transport and there is a justification for preventative spending from other budgets but that's not just suddenly become true so the question, for me at least, is why is CS making this recommendation now? What's wrong with it? Why might it be policy magic - a showy misdirection? It seems unlikely that this recommendation hasn't been through the Scottish Government and been signed off already, which means that Keith Brown likes it. It serves his interests in some way so that seems to me like a good enough reason to be instantly suspicious that it's not good for us.

So, while it might not be inherently bad, my starting point is that this is bad news. Has anyone signed up for this? Any local authorities rushing to divert spending? And what's the mechanism by which this revenue expenditure (which what spending on obesity and diabetes would be) would be turned into the capital spending that segregated infrastructure needs? As far as I know it's a fundamental of public accounting that revenue and capital budgets are strictly separated, with limited transfers between them.

Perhaps that's not the intention. Perhaps there's no plan for this to be capital spending. Maybe this 10% equivalent will go into a humungous 'give me cycle space' campaign and more free 'Love Cycling, Go Dutch' hi viz.

Given the lack of detail on how this is going to be done, is it really any more than a soundbite for KB to be able to say that the SG is committed to seeing the equivalent of 10% of the transport budget on cycling.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"
Of course it's true that cycling isn't just transport and there is a justification for preventative spending from other budgets but that's not just suddenly become true so the question, for me at least, is why is CS making this recommendation now?

"

That indeed is the question (plus the supplementary about whether KB has 'approved this message').

I'm seeking clarification - we'll see if I get any...

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"
As far as I know it's a fundamental of public accounting that revenue and capital budgets are strictly separated, with limited transfers between them.

"

Indeed.

This has always been one real problem with all sorts of Government(s) spending - money to build something, none to maintain it.

Simplistically it's like 'I have £500 should I buy a computer or have a holiday'.

One is capital - there's a thing to show for the money, the other is more akin to revenue.

In the personal reality the holiday may have a longer lasting benefit - especially if the computer is badly designed and not fit for the purpose you intended...

OT (completely unrelated of course) - there was an eruption on Twitter last night about the QBC. At one point I asked Andrew Burns if he would ride it with some critics - 'send me an email' followed by ENews journalist asking if they could come too. Might be fun!

Posted 12 years ago #
PS
Member

"And what's the mechanism by which this revenue expenditure (which what spending on obesity and diabetes would be) would be turned into the capital spending that segregated infrastructure needs?"

PFI/PPP. One of the rarely talked about underlying drivers of PPP is that it miraculously converts spend on a capital project into something paid out of the revenue budget. Boom!

[Of course, this being Scotland where PFI is bad, we can just call it NPD instead.]

Posted 12 years ago #
sallyhinch
Member

It's a bit smoke and mirrors that spending on cycling will cut the need for health spending. Sure it will cut obesity, heart disease and some cancers but then we'll all live much longer and end up with something much more expensive like Alzheimer's (not to mention bankrupting the pension system). They should take the money out of the transport budget because more roads cause problems whereas more cycle paths solve them. Apart from the pensions crisis, that is...

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

might it be policy magic - a showy misdirection? It seems unlikely that this recommendation hasn't been through the Scottish Government and been signed off already, which means that Keith Brown likes it. It serves his interests in some way so that seems to me like a good enough reason to be instantly suspicious that it's not good for us.

Ha! Yes, I'm very suspicious too.

Maybe it's just the usual 'jam tomorrow'. 'Equivalent of 10% of transport budget on cycling by 2020' and also 'High speed rail Edinburgh-Glasgow by 2024'.

Holyrood election in 2016? Will KB still be a minister in 2020?

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

It seems it really is CS speaking to the Government, rather than SG/KB hiding behind CS.

I assume any danger of 'biting the hand that feeds' is minimised with the '10% by 2020'. The crucial detail is how any move from 1% to 10% is done. 10% from next year is very unlikely but would also be spent badly as it would have 'appeared from nowhere'. BUT tiny gradual increases over next 8 years won't provide the necessary money.

Clearly SG must know it must find some more money for cycling. If KB can get it to come from someone else's budget he'll be happy, and CS may benefit (that's not me being cynical).

I have been a critic of some of the things CS has done and I'm sure I ignore/choose to discount some of the pressures it's under.

I think CS is making a slightly brave move here and opening up a debate about cycling not being 'just transport' (or 'just sport' in a different 'silo') and trying to get politicians and civil servants (inc. Transport Scotland) to see a bigger picture.

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

The crucial detail is how any move from 1% to 10% is done.

CS seem to think it will happen incrementally. Just what those increments would be are the detail.

Let's see: currently 1% of transport budget (I'm being generous), target 10%. Need to find a total of 9% in increments.
8 years to achieve the target.

8 divided by 9 = 0.88888888888 (ad infinitum)

So, we need a proportionate rise to 1.88% of the overall transport budget), followed by increments at the same level for the following 7 years.

Posted 12 years ago #
Kirst
Member

Some rural bus services might suffer, but...
But that's ok because it's only the countryside? But that's ok because they'll just buy cars instead? We shouldn't be supporting anything that takes money out of public transport.

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

If folk living in rural communities felt they had an alternative to using the car, perhaps they would. Segregated cycle lanes between villages, for instance. That might not make much difference to the aforementioned 60 year olds, or maybe only a few of them...

If the free bus passes are keeping some rural bus services alive (as has been said anecdotally by some), surely it would be better just to subsidise these routes directly so that all can benefit?

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

@chdot

"The crucial detail is how any move from 1% to 10% is done."

@crowriver

"CS seem to think it will happen incrementally. Just what those increments would be are the detail."

crowriver is marginally more precise.

The incremental idea is essentially one that Spokes has been arguing for for some time.

I think CEC still has a policy of 5% plus 1% a year.

The 'danger' now is that SG will spend a lot time looking for suitable (non-transport) budgets and there will STILL be no more money spent sufficiently in advance of 2020 for (any chance of) the targets to be met.

It would be tragic if nothing was done until the next round of manifestos.

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

The 'danger' now is that SG will spend a lot time looking for suitable (non-transport) budgets and there will STILL be no more money spent sufficiently in advance of 2020 for (any chance of) the targets to be met.

Surely the greater danger is rather that KB will just cherry-pick the ideas he likes, and ignore the ones he doesn't? Such as those involving spending the equivalent of 10% of the transport budget by 2020?

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"
Surely the greater danger is rather that KB will just cherry-pick the ideas he likes, and ignore the ones he doesn't? Such as those involving spending the equivalent of 10% of the transport budget by 2020?

"
I genuinely think we are past that point.

But there's always the chance of a U-turn.

Posted 12 years ago #
Kim
Member

Cycling Scotland is living in fantasy land if it seriously thinks that it is going to get money from heath. Yes, there is an argument that encouraging active travel makes people healthier and therefore we should spend money in a preventative manor, but in reality it just doesn't work that way. If those at the top of CS were paying attention, they would know this. Ho Hum.

@chdot if Andrew Burns takes up the offer, can I come too? ;-)

Posted 12 years ago #
Kim
Member

@Kirst "Some rural bus services might suffer, but..."

Oddly at the SC Go Dutch conf last Tuesday, there was talk about how to integrate cycling with rural bus services, ie carrying bikes on buses to help teenagers get about and increase tourism. Sadly the SNP doesn't really get it, which is odd given that it relies on rural votes. It will be interesting to see if Alex's desire to give 16 year olds the vote might have some impact...

Posted 12 years ago #
Instography
Member

@crowriver
I'm not doubting your arithmetic but if you've only got to 10% of the budget by 2020 you won't have achieved 10% of journeys by 2020. There must be a significant lag between getting the money, doing something with it and that leading to an impact on cycling.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"if you've only got to 10% of the budget by 2020 you won't have achieved 10% of journeys by 2020"

Except that it's possible to imagine 10% by 2020 without any extra spending.

Which may be what SG is hoping...

Posted 12 years ago #
Kim
Member

I rather get the feeling that SG was hoping they could quietly shelve the whole thing. However, they were taken total by surprise by the Stop Climate Chaos demo in January, then PoP, and the Olympics. So are now scrambling to make it look as if they are doing something, anything....

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

I'm not doubting your arithmetic but if you've only got to 10% of the budget by 2020 you won't have achieved 10% of journeys by 2020. There must be a significant lag between getting the money, doing something with it and that leading to an impact on cycling.

Yeah, I think I alluded to that in the second post in this thread.

Anyway, this is just a recommendation from a quango. It's not binding on the minister. I reckon we'll be lucky to get 5% of the budget by 2020...

Except that it's possible to imagine 10% by 2020 without any extra spending.

Which may be what SG is hoping...

Indeed, mass cycling culture in Scotland will just happen by sheer force of enthusiasm, good will and karma. Whereas serious transport infrastructure like motorways and high speed trains, well you know it's very expensive, only so much money to go around, priorities and all that...

Posted 12 years ago #
Instography
Member

So you did.

Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

"Cycling Scotland Publishes Progress Report On Cycling Action Plan For Scotland"

Reply

RSS Feeds

Links