Cycling needs infrastructure built for cycling.

As I have posted before, we have a government promising significant modal shift to walking to cycling for doing almost nothing to make it happen, even when spending hundreds of millions on major roads.  

At most we seem to get some shared path signs on existing pavements - which no-one supports as good practise - or dotted white lines on roads.

Rachel Aldred researched the views of people on different types of infrastructure.   While the majority of respondaent were regular cyclists, they were not only asked whether they would use teh various types of infrastructure, but whether others would.  The results are not exactly surprising - but they give a clear indication.

Cycling needs infrastructure built for cycling

Not infrastructure designed for motor vehicles. 
Not infrastructure designed for walking. 
But for cyclists:  8 to 80 cyclists 

Winter cycling in Copenhagen - along a separated cycle lane.

People supported substantial separation from motor traffic, in various forms. Separation by kerb or by car parking was very popular, as were park routes and streets closed to through motor traffic.

Separation by white lines was not popular - especially for people with children, children on their own or older (perhaps wobbly) cyclists,

Change is partly a matter of will - but also a matter of money.  And commiting money is the clearest indication of will available.

So if you meet and candidates for Westminster or Holyrood, perhaps you'd like to ask them when they are going to match Dutch levels of per capita spend on cycling.

See Rachel's blog at http://rachelaldred.org/research/children-and-cycling/ complete with a link to her first publication from her research. 

No thought for cyclists

Shortly, to the north of Aberdeen, there will be oodles of money spend dualling the A90 from Balmedie to Tipperty and starting to build the AWPR.   

You'd like to thing that those in charge as well as thinking about motorists would spare a thought for other road users.  Everyone knows that designing things right int he first place is cheaper than retrofitting later. 

It can be done - look at the path coming off the away from the
feeder lanes.  So build in.  So hard - and expesive to retrofit.

But no.  The new A90 junctions at Balmedie and Blackdog will be grade seperated junctions - like motorway jucntions, designed for motorised vehicle to accelerate into the flow of traffic and decelerate only as they start to turn left.    Great for fast moving traffic. 

But lethal for cyclists.

There are cyclists who regularly use the A90.  Their needs have simply not been included in the design process.

Transport Scotland point to NESTRANS who point to the Councils.

I've news for them - safety of all road users is the responsibility of all of them.
Let's hope they don't learn the hard way.

More details at
http://aberdeengreens.org.uk/news/campaigners-angered-by-lack-of-thought-for-cyclists and
http://aberdeengreens.org.uk/news/green-campaigners-highlight-need-for-cycling-investment and even - the Aberdeen Evening Express - http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/local/call-to-consider-cyclists-in-aberdeen-to-tipperty-a90-upgrade-plans-1.814916

A Challenge - EUR 44 per head for cycling?

With some amount of fanfare, the Scottish Government has published their Cycle Action Plan for Scotland 2013 which reviews and updates their 2010 plan.

They describe their target of 10% journeys by cycle as ambitious.  It is ambitious given the paucity of the plan.  But it's not ambitious by international standards. 

So what are the Scottish Government actually proposing?
One measure you can't escape from is cash.

Netherlands EUR 487m/ year - so EUR 30 per head of population each year


London is spending £104m/year - some EUR 21 per head of population each year.

The Peterhead Cycle Demostration project has a total budget of £185,000 - a one off-spend of EUR 13 per head over the three year life of the project.

So what is the Scottish Government proposing in their nice new shiny CyclingAction Plan?  Well it looks like there will be less than £47m over three years (part of the monies are for walking and safer streets) so that EUR 55m.  Sound greats - until you remember that between a population of 5.3m and over 3 years so that comes down to a miserly EUR 3.4 per head of population each year.

If the Government are serious about cycling, perhaps a good place to start would be allocating the 10% modal share aim in terms of the transport budget to cycling.    Transport Scotland has £2,000m a year.  So £200m a year for cycling from that budget.  Ok that's then  EUR 44 per head - but have a lot of catching up to do to get the type of infrastucture that people enjoy in the Netherlands and Denmark.

Winter cycling in Copenhagen

Local Transport Strategy - consultation

Aberdeenshire Council is now consulting on the next version of the Local Transport Strategy.  The draft is better than the old strategy in that it at least thinks that walking and cycling is a transport option rather than a leisure activity but I am sure we can improve it further.

You can read the draft here.


If you wish to comment on the draft LTS, you can use the online survey at www.surveymonkey.com/s/draftLTS or you can email details comments to ltsconsultation@aberdeenshire.gov.uk - or both!

The closing date for responding is 31 October 2011.

3 tonnes CO2 extra per head in Aberdeenshire

Recent figures published by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change reveal that Aberdeenshire’s carbon emissions to be 10.8 tonnes per head.  This is the third worst in mainland Scotland with only East Lothian and Falkirk being worse.  If we take out the industrial & commercial elements, then Aberdeenshire is worst.

Aberdeenshire led the way in producing a Sustainability Charter but this seems to be merely a piece of paper full of good intentions rather than a document that has led to real action.

A few weeks ago it emerged that Aberdeenshire was failing to meet its own targets in reducing business travel by over half a million miles per year.  On a wider set of figures showing where Aberdeenshire was
also missing its climate change and sustainability targets, I challenged Aberdeenshire’s performance at Infrastructure Services last week but Chair Peter Argyle dismissed my concerns saying it was all in hand.  It clearly is not.

Across Aberdeenshire CO2 emissions from 2005 to 2007 showed no change for either domestic consumption or road transport and a small drop for the commercial and industrial sector.  But it is worrying that Aberdeenshire is seeing land use changes including deforestation, changes to farm practises and conversion of farmland to settlements that equated to 1.3 tonnes of CO2 emissions per head in 2007, an increase on the 2005 and 2006 figures.”

This clearly can not be sustained.  The next local plan will need to be much more robust about ensuring that we stop eating into valuable farmland and reduce the need to travel.  NESTRANS will need to refocus
its priorities on public transport improvements, the shift towards walking and cycling and forget about unaffordable road schemes.

It is only a small gesture - but if you are concerned, join in Earth Hour tomorrow, 16th October.  Switch all your lights off for just one hour - 7pm to 8pm.  

This post is part of Blog Action Day 2009 Climate Change

More on Newburgh speeding

Aberdeenshire Council have done a speed survey at the north and south of Newburgh. The results are shocking.

Maximum Speed
The Quay : 77mph
Inch Rd : 66mph

In a 30mph zone, this is totally irresponsible.

Almost worse, it the fact that this is not just a few rogue motorists - almost everyone is exceeding the speed limit. Road engineers talk about the 85 percentile speed - the speed that 85 % drive below - or that 15% exceed. It's a pretty good measure of what is regarded as "normal"

The Quay : 42mph
Inch Road : 36mph

It is not acceptable to drive at 6mph - or worse 12mph above the speed limit in any of our villages.

The Council is now looking at how to fund measures to reduce speeds in Newburgh and the police have been asked to step up their use of mobile speed camera.

But the responsibility lies with drivers. Drive at 30mph and it's a 50:50 chance of killing a pedestrian if you hit them Drive at 40mph and there is just a 1 in 10 survival rate. Is a life worth the extra minute or two on your journey that obeying the speed limit would mean?

50 mph

On a holiday in Norway some years ago, I found driving at the national speed limit of 50mph very relaxing. Everyone simply obeyed the limit and apart from the slight jostle to be the first in the line off a ferry, it was very relaxing. Almost no overtaking - all the traffic simply drove at 50mph.

And then there is fuel consumption. Of course this varies with cars, driving style, etc but generally 45-50mph will be the most efficient. Typically driving at 60mph will use 21% more fuel than driving at 60mph.

So, I welcome the government's consultation on reducing the national speed limit to 50mph for single carriageway roads.

Let's say yes to reduce rural road deaths and CO2 emissions.