Two departmental announcements in the last 48 hours show that for all the government's big words on cycling it has consistently shown no ambition or vision on the subject
The sentiment could hardly be more plain:
The government is committed to turning Britain into a cycling nation to rival our European neighbours.
But it's nonsense. I'll state my case from the start: for all the government's big words on cycling it has consistently shown no ambition or vision on the subject. It's failed, and there's no sign of anything but more failure to come.
To illustrate my point I give you two documents, both released in the past 48 hours, from a pair of government departments, and both superficially positive about cycling while being utterly depressing for anyone who rides a bike and appreciates the benefits of more people riding bikes.
The first, from which the quote above is taken, is the Department for Transport's (DfT) long-delayed response to the Get Britain Cycling inquiry.
The inquiry's report, produced in April by the all-party parliamentary cycling group, was thorough and eminently sensible, recommending a formal government commitment to increase cycling from its current pitiful level of 2% of all journeys to 10% and then 20% using a variety of measures, including increased spending on infrastructure and a "cycling champion" to lead efforts. Thanks to the tireless efforts of both the Times, which agitated for the inquiry, and the MPs who co-chaired it, Ian Austin and Julian Huppert, there will even be a parliamentary debate on the report on Monday.
But much as it pains me to write this, I can't see much coming from all this. Yes, it's another chance to raise the two fundamental points of the debate, which can't be repeated too often – more cycling is almost entirely good for a county's welfare; and we know very well how to get more people cycling – but that's about it.
The DfT response document offers virtually nothing new. The one concession is a commitment to look into the often pitifully lax sentences for drivers who kill on the roads. Two of the arguably most significant demanded changes – a target for increased bike use and the cycling champion – are turned down outright. The remaining 15 recommendations are mainly answered by referring either to existing projects ("Since February 2012 the Department for Transport has made an additional £159m available for cycling infrastructure") or pushing responsibility elsewhere ("The Department for Transport expects local authorities to up their game in delivering infrastructure that takes cycling into account").
The only bit which involves new cash manages, amazingly, to be more depressing still. Get Britain Cycling argued sensibly that government departments who benefit from more cycling, like health and business, should also put their hands into their pockets to pay for infrastructure. "Good idea!" said the DfT (I paraphrase). So, the Department of Health, which endures extra costs from physical inactivity estimated at around £1bn a year, is coughing up. A million pounds. Over two years. In departmental budget terms that's the spare change they find down the back of the sofa.
If you believe the DfT's words about being committed to cycling the only conclusion from all this is that they genuinely think they're already on the right track, and with the odd tweak here or there, before you know it we're a cycling nation. Alternatively, it's all so much meaningless words, and they know it.
Because one thing is clear: at the moment, Britain is a long, long, long way from being one of the continent's cycling nations. However you measure cycling rates, Britain is generally somewhere near the bottom of the EU league, generally rubbing shoulders with the likes of Cyprus, Portugal and Malta.
Another part of the DfT response deals with the vital issue of planning, and how to make sure cyclists' needs are considered from the beginning with new building and infrastructure projects. Nothing to worry about, the department says, the National Planning Policy Framework has this covered – it sets out that walking and cycling facilities should always be a key part of such design.
OK. It seems odd, however, that the DfT forgot to mention a big change to planning guidance. The new, "streamlined" advice was, admittedly, published by the Communities and Local Government (CLG) department a day after the DfT response, but its contents were well trailed in advance by none other than the communities secretary, Eric Pickles.
The revamped CLG advice has a whole section on travel plans and transport assessments, the mechanisms through which cycling and other forms of "sustainable travel", as they're known, are delivered.
It's mainly a lot of technical flimflam, but ends with a section which could have been personally dictated by "war on motorists" Pickles, and quite possibly was. Read it and feel any flickering hope that this government cares a fig about cycling being snuffled out.
It starts, "Can travel plans, transport assessments or transport statements be used to justify higher parking charges or other constraints on car users?" before expressing one long "No!"
While travel plans are intended to promote the most sustainable forms of transport, such as active travel, they should not be used to justify penalising motorists – for instance through higher parking charges, tougher enforcement or reduced parking provision (which can simply lead to more on street parking). Nor should they be used to justify aggressive traffic calming measures, such as speed humps.
Hang on. So they should promote sustainable transport while doing nothing to impede unsustainable transport? There's no reason why "drivers" need necessarily be pitted in battle against "cyclists" in policy matters, not least because they – I, we – are very often the same people. But speak to any cycle campaigner and they'll say that a real increase in bike use needs to be driven in two ways – the carrot of safe riding infrastructure et al and the stick of making driving slightly less attractive.
Pickles appears to want to do neither. Speed humps slow motorised traffic, enforcing urban speed limits that too many drivers otherwise ignore. You could call them anti-car, but it might be more accurate to call them pro-human. This is Pickles' vision of Britain's towns: roads full of cars speeding to copious and cheap parking spaces.
Despair, cyclists. This is the reality. It's possible Britain might become a "cycling nation", but at this rate it won't be happening in my lifetime.
11.45pm update
Further to Pickles and parking, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which among its many tasks keeps an eye on sustainable transport, has pointed me towards a big DfT study from 2008 about the effects of "maximum parking standards", ie not making it too cheap and easily available. The research was done in 2008 but only made public three years later when the CPRE made a Freedom of Information request.
The report's conclusions seem very clear. One says:
A clear relationship, backed up by strong evidence from many sources, has been shown regarding the implementation of maximum parking standards and the take up and success of Travel Plans.
In other words, plentiful and cheap parking means people won't walk or cycle. And does getting tough on parking harm businesses? No, says the study:
Extensive research undertaken within the UK and Europe has clearly shown that there have been no adverse economic development impacts following the introduction of maximum parking standards.
In fact, it adds later, "some evidence suggests that maximum parking standards will support business and the economy". This can all sound a bit dry and wonk-ish, but there's a very important message: the Pickles doctrine is emotional and political, not based on evidence. He, and by inference the government, are instinctively anti-bike.
Separately, the CPRE has its own resources on parking and travel patterns.
via Environment: Bike blog | theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/aug/30/government-cycling-policy-failed
