 |
| "Build it and they won't come?" Is the Active Travel Bill a missed opportunity to match education - and incentives to push modal shift - with improved cycling facilities? (Pic : roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com) |
The Active Travel Bill
was introduced earlier this year, and is currently making its way
through the first committee stage, which is due to finish this
week.
To recap, the Bill intends to place a duty on local authorities to map and plan "active travel routes" (English : Cycle and pedestrian lanes), allowing them to identify gaps, improve facilities and hopefully provide better quality routes to encourage walking and cycling.
Amongst the issues raised in committee is whether legislation is required, as opposed to a new strategy instead. There's also some confusion over departmental responsibilities – Culture Minister John Griffiths (Lab, Newport East) is the lead minister for the Bill, even though it's a transport responsibility - as well as the exact guidance local authorities will be issued with if the Bill is passed.
Another concern was that the legal requirement to carry out the mapping exercise might only apply to settlements with more than 2,000 residents – which would affect rural parts of the country, and bypass 23% of the Welsh population. That's not to mention the overarching issue of funding too.
I don't think you can deny that one of the main concerns about cycling (or walking) is safety. The main way nations, citing examples elsewhere in Europe, have tried to overcome that is by developing fully-segregated cycling facilities.
Sustrans recently announced plans for a segregated cycle route between Cardiff and Newport, which is estimated would cost just £500,000. That would buy you a few metres of motorway or half a railway station. So these things are relatively cheap, it's just a matter of finding the money and having the levels of use to justify spending it.
The Bill, as it stands, spells out that local authorities will need to "secure continuous improvement" to active travel networks. It's unclear if that means prioritising segregation over things like (cheaper) painted cycle lanes, we'll have to wait and see. Suzy Davies AM (Con, South Wales West) has a short debate in the Assembly on this issue on Wednesday.
However, there are warnings about going whole hog in developing cycling facilities without the underlying "nudge factors" to get people on their bikes in the first place.
There's one town in the UK which is, arguably, the ideal template for creating and sustaining a cycling culture. It has a fully segregated cycling and walking network, linking residential areas to major employers, the town centre core, as well as key transport infrastructure – the sort of thing the Active Travel Bill wants to encourage Welsh councils to develop.
Except, despite all that, it's been a massive failure. At its peak, it's reported only 14% of people used cycles as their main form of transport, and now the figure's just 3%.
Welcome to Stevenage
Stevenage was developed as a new town in the 1960s
and 70s, so we only have Cwmbran as a direct comparison in Wales. We
can't apply the same criteria to most Welsh towns, which are older and have different geographies, but I think the underlying
themes are still relevant.
Despite everything being designed from the outset with cyclists and pedestrians in mind - including traffic-free routes, underpasses and segregation between pedestrians and cyclists - it never caught on. People still opted to use their cars for short journeys, even if the facilities available were up to the standards of the Dutch.
So, even if you provide some of the best cycling facilities possible, if you don't get people to think "bike before car" – whether that's through discouraging car travel deliberately (i.e. low speed limits, speed humps, car park charges), or through education – it probably won't work.
Recent developments in London are another example of the uphill climb facing the Welsh Government and Sustrans. London has already developed a network of "cycle superhighways", and is now experimenting with Dutch-style cycle-friendly roundabouts (where cyclists have right of way when crossing the exits) and cycle traffic signals.
I think it highlights how backward the UK is when it comes to cycling when developments like these are flagged up as "radical innovations", so mind-blowing, that they need to be confined to the academic bubble for further study as if they were alien concepts. They've been used elsewhere in the world for decades.
I still think, broadly speaking, the draft law is a good one. It just falls short of what it could have been. Judging by some of the committee evidence, I think others feel the same way deep down.
One of the big let downs in the Active Travel Bill is that it's heavily focused on the practical mapping exercise, with little emphasis on the "softer/social" changes required to encourage people out of their cars – just like Stevenage.
It should've had provisions in there for things like cycle proficiency training, speed limits and minimum standards for cycling facilities. Of course, all that could be included in any official guidance drawn up by the Welsh Government.
We can do better than just monitoring cycle lanes, ticking a box for each new metre of tarmac put down. Tarmac that – without the right cultural shift – is unlikely to be used as intended.
To recap, the Bill intends to place a duty on local authorities to map and plan "active travel routes" (English : Cycle and pedestrian lanes), allowing them to identify gaps, improve facilities and hopefully provide better quality routes to encourage walking and cycling.
Amongst the issues raised in committee is whether legislation is required, as opposed to a new strategy instead. There's also some confusion over departmental responsibilities – Culture Minister John Griffiths (Lab, Newport East) is the lead minister for the Bill, even though it's a transport responsibility - as well as the exact guidance local authorities will be issued with if the Bill is passed.
Another concern was that the legal requirement to carry out the mapping exercise might only apply to settlements with more than 2,000 residents – which would affect rural parts of the country, and bypass 23% of the Welsh population. That's not to mention the overarching issue of funding too.
I don't think you can deny that one of the main concerns about cycling (or walking) is safety. The main way nations, citing examples elsewhere in Europe, have tried to overcome that is by developing fully-segregated cycling facilities.
Sustrans recently announced plans for a segregated cycle route between Cardiff and Newport, which is estimated would cost just £500,000. That would buy you a few metres of motorway or half a railway station. So these things are relatively cheap, it's just a matter of finding the money and having the levels of use to justify spending it.
The Bill, as it stands, spells out that local authorities will need to "secure continuous improvement" to active travel networks. It's unclear if that means prioritising segregation over things like (cheaper) painted cycle lanes, we'll have to wait and see. Suzy Davies AM (Con, South Wales West) has a short debate in the Assembly on this issue on Wednesday.
However, there are warnings about going whole hog in developing cycling facilities without the underlying "nudge factors" to get people on their bikes in the first place.
There's one town in the UK which is, arguably, the ideal template for creating and sustaining a cycling culture. It has a fully segregated cycling and walking network, linking residential areas to major employers, the town centre core, as well as key transport infrastructure – the sort of thing the Active Travel Bill wants to encourage Welsh councils to develop.
Except, despite all that, it's been a massive failure. At its peak, it's reported only 14% of people used cycles as their main form of transport, and now the figure's just 3%.
Welcome to Stevenage
 |
| Does the fact things like this are seen as "radical" in the UK, highlight the uphill struggle the Welsh Government and Sustrans have? (Pic : The Telegraph) |
Despite everything being designed from the outset with cyclists and pedestrians in mind - including traffic-free routes, underpasses and segregation between pedestrians and cyclists - it never caught on. People still opted to use their cars for short journeys, even if the facilities available were up to the standards of the Dutch.
So, even if you provide some of the best cycling facilities possible, if you don't get people to think "bike before car" – whether that's through discouraging car travel deliberately (i.e. low speed limits, speed humps, car park charges), or through education – it probably won't work.
Recent developments in London are another example of the uphill climb facing the Welsh Government and Sustrans. London has already developed a network of "cycle superhighways", and is now experimenting with Dutch-style cycle-friendly roundabouts (where cyclists have right of way when crossing the exits) and cycle traffic signals.
I think it highlights how backward the UK is when it comes to cycling when developments like these are flagged up as "radical innovations", so mind-blowing, that they need to be confined to the academic bubble for further study as if they were alien concepts. They've been used elsewhere in the world for decades.
I still think, broadly speaking, the draft law is a good one. It just falls short of what it could have been. Judging by some of the committee evidence, I think others feel the same way deep down.
One of the big let downs in the Active Travel Bill is that it's heavily focused on the practical mapping exercise, with little emphasis on the "softer/social" changes required to encourage people out of their cars – just like Stevenage.
It should've had provisions in there for things like cycle proficiency training, speed limits and minimum standards for cycling facilities. Of course, all that could be included in any official guidance drawn up by the Welsh Government.
We can do better than just monitoring cycle lanes, ticking a box for each new metre of tarmac put down. Tarmac that – without the right cultural shift – is unlikely to be used as intended.
0 comments:
Post a Comment