David Cameron and Patrick McLoughlin's 'Cycling Announcement': amount pledged is pitiful, but politically striking to see them directly associate themselves with cycle advocacy and the segregation of cyclists from pedestrians and motor vehicles

On Monday 12th August 2013 David Cameron and Patrick McLoughlin (Minister for Transport) announced a total of £148 million 'new' funding for cycling between now and 2015 (that's £77 million per annum). It was heartening to see this get such substantial, in-depth coverage from the BBC, especially the comment from Chris Stewart, their Look North Chief Reporter who castigated authorities for building 'cycle lanes' alongside 70 mph dual-carriageways that forced those on a bike to risk their lives crossing 70 mph slip roads at right angles.

However, as Christian Wolmar (who is seeking the Labour nomination for 2016 mayoral election) and Mark Ames of the ibikelondon blog have pointed out, the total funding we're getting is only getting about £17 million a year more than we got every year until 2010 with Cycling England, a quango that distributed £60 million per annum to cycling projects. Why was this money cut off in 2010? David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and the Coalition immediately cancelled it, of course, when they came to power. So the government now is, in fact, woefully trying to make up for three years, and £180 million, of missed investment in cycling with a pitiful £77 million a year. That's a joke, if you ask me.

So, the total funding announced for cycling by our national government is, we can all admit, an insultingly small amount. There are, however, are a few rays of light for cycling advocacy in the UK. The first is the language that this new spending announcement is couched in. In the government's own press release the word 'segregated' occurs three times, including 'a new segregated Super Highway from east Leeds to Bradford City Centre'. This is a substantial improvement on the situation even three years ago, and will hopefully prevent large amounts of government money being wasted on schemes that do a negligible amount to promote cycling (such as the £500,000 travesty that is Scotland's Nice Way Code). Moreover, the use of the key word 'segregated' will help stop local authorities getting away with putting blue paint in the middle of a general traffic lane which Boris Johnson choose to use for most of his largely useless 'Cycle Superhighways' (which were even lambasted by his political ally and new Cycling Commissioner, Andrew Gilligan).

Given that there are still significant numbers of 'cycling advocates', especially in organisations like CTC (The National Cycling Charity), who neither understand nor support the segregation of cyclists and motor traffic – nor cyclists and pedestrians – it is in many ways remarkable that a largely Conservative government is in a small way helping establish segregated cycle lanes as the 'gold standard' that local councils should be aiming for. The fact the government has embraced segregation (at least in name) is a testament to the effectiveness of The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain (which formed partly in response to the ongoing opposition to segregation in existing cycling advocacy groups like CTC), the London Cycling Campaign's 'Love London, Go Dutch' campaign, The Times' 'Cyclesafe' campaign, and Andrew Gilligan and Boris Johnson's 'Cycling Vision for London', published in March 2013, which implicitly established segregated routes as the ideal road-layout to ensure cycle safety and high rates of cycling.

Another significant element of Monday's announcement is the extent to which David Cameron and Patrick McLoughlin have publicly associated themselves with cycling. (Patrick McLoughlin even wrote a comment piece for The Times in support of it! Hard to imagine Philip Hammond, the previous Minister for Transport, doing the same.) This public association of key politicians with cycling not only helps further normalise it as a majority mode of transport, but also makes the government more accountable for future cycling deaths. When someone dies because of using a form of transport which you have actively 'sponsored' and encouraged, you are more responsible that if someone dies using a form of transport you have completely ignored for the last 3 years (as the Coalition has done). With Monday's announcement the Conservative majority of the Coalition has started a conversation about cycle advocacy which they were refusing to engage in, even last year. This is surely a good thing.

David Cameron cycling in opposition. He's largely ignored it since. As has the rest of his party, excluding Boris Johnson and Dr Sarah Wollaston MP. Might this be about to change?

The personal contributions of specific politicians and parties also opens the arena for cycling to become a truly political issue, in the sense that different politicians may well begin to actively compete with each other to show they are representing the interests of those that cycle better than their competitors. This hasn't happened an awful lot in this country yet. But we got a taste of what could become quite common with Maria Eagle's (Shadow Minister for Transport) spot-on comments following the announcement:

No amount of cynical spin from David Cameron will make up for the fact that, immediately on taking office, he axed Cycle England, the Cycle Demonstration Towns scheme and the annual £60m budget to support cycling that he inherited. 

Since then he has axed targets to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads, reduced traffic enforcement, cut the THINK! awareness campaign and allowed longer HGVs. 

Only last month the prime minister set out plans for Britain's roads that failed to include a single commitment to the investment in separated cycling infrastructure that is the best way to boost cycling and make it safer.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Admittedly Maria Eagle's actions in office might not match up to her comments in opposition, but she is bang-on the money here, especially in regard to the government's £12 billion a year road building scheme that makes a few million spent of cycling pale into insignificance. The fact that David Cameron is attempting to spin himself as being pro-cycling opens up 'cycling' as an area of competition between Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dems which will hopefully create an 'arms-race' (if you will) on cycling policies as each party seeks to capture the ever-increasing cycling vote. Similarly, in terms of the London Mayoralty, Boris Johnson has been largely unchallenged by any major politicians over his cycling policies (though Jenny Jones AM [Green] and Caroline Pidgeon AM [Lib Dem] have been fantastic over the last few years on the London Assembly). Nor has Boris had any challenge from within his own party as a 'cycling-champion'. I believe this political wasteland is what has allowed him to push through policies that are extremely damaging to cycling (such as blue-paint cycle superhighways or scrapping the pedestrianisation of Parliament Square) without losing his image among the wider-public as someone who does his best for cycling because he's got no competitors in terms of promoting it. Hopefully this will change, and awful policies will be exposed for what they are not only by cycle campaigners, but by politicians and political parties looking to gain an advantage on rivals (e.g. Cameron vs. Johnson, etc.).

Ultimately this announcement by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport is a recognition of the political strength of cycling advocacy in this country (especially following the recent and impressive sports success in cycling). However, in their championing of 'segregation' this government is helping to unify advocacy groups on the issue, thus making the cycling voice stronger and more uniform. Moreover, by entering into a dialogue about cycle safety the government have made themselves far more accountable for cycling deaths in the country, as Boris Johnson is increasingly finding himself to be for anyone killed on a bike in London. It's an insultingly small amount of money, but the announcement itself is big news.

Thoughts on TfL's Cycle Superhighway 5 (CS5) 'Response to Consultation'

TfL recently published the responses to the consultation they held on the new, improved Cycle Superhighway 5 (CS5), they will build running from Victoria to New Cross Gate. It's a fairly long document (download here), so I thought it might be worth picking out some of the more pertinent details for those interested in cycling:

The poorly designed CS3. Much of the new CS5 route will be physically segregated 'using cats’ eyes, rumble strips, traffic wands or similar' , leading (among other benefits) to less of the above occurring.

A) Some politicians are getting it (very) right:

Caroline Pidgeon, London Assembly AM (Lib Dem, twitter) gave a fantastic response:

I had the pleasure of briefly conversing with Caroline Pidgeon via email last September, as one of many people she spoke to when investigating cycling in London. She clearly 'gets cycling' now. This is fantastic to see since it's this kind of political support that's needed if we want segregated lanes to be built in London.

B) Some politicians are getting it (very) wrong:

The responses from Westminster City Council by Cllr Edward Argar (Conservative) and Cllr Alan Bradley (Conservative) were, frankly, awful:

1) Countless scientific studies have shown that motor traffic levels expand and contract to match capacity. Thus, Los Angeles has one of the world's largest road systems, but also many of the world's worst traffic jams:

Los Angeles' freeways: a case study in why more roads doesn't mean less congestion.

And on the flip-side, when London's motor traffic capacity was drastically cut by up to 33% (source: RAC) for the 2012 Olympics, was there increased congestion? No, in fact in many places there was less congestion. Did London grind to a halt? No, we delivered a great Olympic Games, while the City and everything else continued running very smoothly.

Edward Argar's and Alan Bradley's 'serious concerns' about 'increased congestion' are therefore simply not grounded in reality. This is what gets my goat. Edward Argar is 'Cabinet Member for City Management & Transport'. He also studied History at Oriel College, Oxford. He's clearly an intelligent person. Yet, he's not looking at the data (even though that's what he's paid to do) about how traffic congestion is and isn't caused. Westminster Cyclists seem much better informed:

It's surely Edward Argar's job to note that 'a similar approach on Grosvenor Road and Millbank has led to a large increase in cyclists without seeming to significantly increase traffic congestion'. Disappointingly, he hasn't; yet.

2) Both councillors also expressed concerns about 'increased rat-running'. This is perhaps even more frustrating since it is blatantly hypocritical. Westminster Council are actually currently opposing measures to curb rat-running such as 20mph limits and blocking motor traffic through-routes:

Warren Street, Camden: through-route closed to motor traffic. This is what Westminster Council would be doing if they were actually concerned about rat-running.

If Westminster Council wants to discourage rat-running there are many easier (and more effectual) ways to do it than by blocking the CS5.

C) TfL are (broadly) trying their best:

1) Bizarrely, the Department for Transport seems to be against any cycle stop boxes larger than 7.5m:

It's clear that 2m segregated cycle lanes are better than advance stop lines (ASLs), but if I've got a truck behind me, I'd rather have 10m than 7.5m space between me and a vehicle that can easily kill. This is where The Times's #cyclesafe petition to get the Coalition to actively support cycling comes in. There's a limit to how much TfL can do if their efforts are being actively retarded by central government. 

Cameron needs to get behind cycling, or face the political consequences at the next election.

TfL should not have to 'win' support from the DfT to make infrastructure safer for cyclists. The DfT should be pushing TfL to make these changes. That the impetus is coming from TfL, under direct control of the Mayor, says a lot about the drastically different stances on cycling of Boris Johnson and David Cameron respectively....

2) TfL are having safer cycling infrastructure blocked by local residents and businesses:

This is an unusual instance where the proposed improvements have actually worsened following consultation. I believe we need to pay attention to examples like this because it doesn't make sense to beat up TfL on everything, if (occasionally) the real opposition lies elsewhere. If TfL's attitude to cycling is changing this should be welcomed and embraced, even if it can't always yield results.

How to get past resident and business opposition is a more difficult matter. For starters, I'd propose two ways:

• When TfL does build infrastructure properly (as we hope for the CS2 2013 Stratford extension) its our job to help publicise and make crystal clear the benefits that accompany 'doing it right'. That way TfL have more political firepower to convince residents and businesses they need to 'do it right' elsewhere in London, even if this means banning certain left turns.
• Further publicising the public realm and commercial benefits that greater cycling brings. E.g. (from Mark Treasure at AsEasyAsRidingABike) 'Street in Horsham got pedestrianised (during the day) last year. Footfall up 6%, 90% of traders in favour now'

If anyone else has any ideas, comments are most welcomed. I suppose I feel that in 2013 though TfL is very far from perfect, they're not always the key interested party that needs convincing. Cycle campaigners should, perhaps, be supporting TfL (in certain cases) and trying to win around these resistant groups instead.

Conservative AM Richard Tracey's cretinous contribution to the London Assembly's investigation into cycling in London

Having just watched the live feed of the London Assembly's investigation into cycling in London today (11/9/2012), I felt obliged to record the idiotic comments of Richard Tracey (a Conservative London Assembly member, representing Merton and Wandsworth) for posterity on the internet.

Here's a photo of Conservative Richard Tracey looking substantially less fat than he did on my web-feed today. Maybe he could take the advice of the Danish Cycling Embassy and prolong his life by 6 years by cycling to work and losing a few pounds?

The London Assembly had very intelligently invited two experts, from Holland and Denmark respectively (two countries where cycling is both much safer and much more widely practiced than in London), to speak on the issue of cycling in London. The Dutch and Danish experts made many incisive comments about the importance of building safe cycle infrastructure, for instance segregating cycle traffic away from fast moving motor traffic to provide real protection for cyclists. Unfortunately Richard Tracey's contribution did not match their intellectual standard.

Among other questions Richard Tracey seemed very concerned to know just how large Copenhagen and Amsterdam were in terms of population size. Given he's paid £53,439 a year to be a London Assembly he perhaps could have gone to the trouble of consulting wikipedia for this information before the meeting in question, and subsequently avoided wasting everyone else's time. But no. He's too lazy. He's Richard Tracey.

Having established the population sizes of Copenhagen and Amsterdam (500,000 and 1,000,000 respectively) Mr Richard Tracey then jingoistically remarked that they were both smaller than Birmingham, the UK's second largest city. Looking around the conference room for encouragement for his completely irrelevant comments, Mr Richard Tracey then pondered if Birmingham was indeed the UK's second largest city, or whether it might be Manchester. Mr Richard Tracey then concluded that he was initially correct. It was Birmingham. [Again, none of this was remotely on topic. What on earth is this man being paid £53,439 a year for???]

If Mr Richard Tracey was aiming to make a point about journey distance (and hence undermine a pro-cycling argument by conjecturing, even though it has been conclusively proved otherwise, that Londoners make so many long-distance trips that a high modal share of bike use is impractical) he completed missed the mark by asking about population size instead. Was this a bit of completely pointless Capital City Cock-Wagging by our elected representative? ["My capital city's bigger than yours! Thanks for taking all the trouble of coming to London and giving us the benefit of your vast experience! Joke's on you cause my ears were closed you European Pricks!"] Just to clarify those are Richard Tracey's words, not mine.

In fact, the extremely high population density and comparatively small road space of London actually makes a very high modal share of cycling eminently practical, for a reason so simple that even Mr Richard Tracey can understand it: bikes take up far less space on the roads than cars. In London we have lots of commuters and a strictly limited road space. Therefore we need more cyclists in we want to ease inner-city congestion.

This photo (borrowed from the excellent Cyclists in the City) shows about 20 rush-hour cyclists fitting into a space that would only hold 2 cars. Imagine how much worse the traffic would be for Richard Tracey if all of those cyclists were in their own cars, creating a 20 car traffic-jam stretching far back over Southwark Bridge.

Having watched Richard Tracey wasting about 10 minutes trying to undermine the London Assembly's distinguished guests because their cities were smaller than his, I thought he would now shut-up. But, unfortunately he didn't.

Moreover, can you guess which reputable newspaper Mr Tracy decided to draw on for his next 'intelligent' contribution? Was it The Times' CycleSafe campaign, highlighting the shockingly high numbers of cyclists that have died on our streets? Was it The Independent and The Guardian repeatedly calling for London's authorities to do more for cyclists. Was it The Economist cogently (as always) arguing that cyclist numbers in London have been increasing while cycle infrastructure has been staying static, and massive investment is now needed to make cycling safer and therefore more attractive to Londoners? Or was it even The Telegraph arguing that cycling should be our national sport, and listing the many ways in which regular cyclists pay an astonishingly positive contribution to our economy?

No. It was The Daily Mail which published an article about a (possibly fictional) woman that got hit by a cyclist. Now, I am in no way condoning anti-social cycling (if this incident did indeed occur). But Richard Tracey is seriously missing the issue here. Insultingly so. If we are to talk at a public meeting about safety incidents involving bicycles in London, should we not be remembering the many people that have lost their lives on Bow Roundabout before we consider anyone that may or may not have been brushed by a bicycle on a pavement? These people are dead now. The Daily Mail columnist's mother (if she exists) is still alive. Surely those that died on Bow Roundabout represent a much bigger issue?

But no. Richard Tracey continued on, quoting from online media created only for the most intellectually limited members of our literate populace, and called for compulsory bicycle number plates so the anti-social perpetrators of these crimes could be caught. Mr Tracey, if you're going to put the focus on justice, how about calling for greater punishments for the van driver who killed a 12 year old boy last Thursday? Or the driver that seriously injured a Paralympic cyclist last year? David Cameron spoke yesterday at the Olympic Athletes' Parade about his son now - in the post-Olympic aftermath - wanting to be "like Bradley Wiggins". But did David Cameron mention any safety measures that would make his son, and many other sons like him, allowed to have the option of cycling safely segregated from life-threatening high-speed traffic, like the aforementioned van driver? No, David Cameron didn't.

Caroline Pidgeon, the leader of the LibDems on the London General Assembly (pictured here), does genuinely understand cycling and cyclists in London. But she is unfortunately hampered by having to work with buffoons like Richard Tracey. The man's an idiot and I'm quite frankly amazed that one single Londoner voted for him in 2010. I am even more shocked that the London Assembly have allowed Tracey to be a member of the Transport Commitee.

To return to my final point with regard to Richard Tracey and the London Assembly meeting. When Dr Rachel Aldred and our Dutch and Danish friends were very cogently outlining the limitations of many of the current Cycle Superhighways (especially CS2 which runs, as blue paint, from Bow, down Mile End Road and Whitechapel Road, to Aldgate), Richard Tracey was extremely keen to know what the "trade-offs" would be to installing safe, protected cycle lanes for Londoners to use. Clearly Richard Tracey was cacking his pants about the impacts of any slight reduction to London's motor traffic capacity.

But as Dr Aldred very acutely observed, many of London's key roads were closed or constricted during the Olympics. Did we have chaos? No. Not at all. London ran better than many of us have ever seen it run. Moreover, all available studies have shown that road congestion simply expands or contracts to meet road capacity. So, just as building the massive M25 did nothing to alleviate London's long-term traffic congestion, because traffic simply increased to accomodate it, limiting traffic flow on many major London carriageways by the installation of segregated cycle lanes is not going to lead to an explosion of road congestion; traffic levels will simply decrease to accomodate the reduced capacity. So would Richard Tracey kindly stop cacking his pants? No.

I've written here in defence of Boris Johnson's cycling credentials. I argued that the biggest opponents to safe cycling in London are local politicians, often councillors, that have no interest in installing safe cycle infrastructure in their boroughs, where they have almost complete control of street layout since, by law, the local council is the local highway authority. This morning at the London Assembly we heard of Newnham Council's depressingly successful opposition in 2010 of TfL's, and Boris Johnson's, plan to extend Cycle Superhighway 2 - literally just 'blue paint' - into their borough. We also got to see, and hear, one of these anti-cycling councillors 'in action' at the council table: Mr Richard Tracey.

An example - on Whitechapel Road - of the horribly obstructive blue paint of the CS2 that Newnham Council so righteously opposed. I wonder how the traffic can flow at all on this street with that barely visible blue box getting in everyone's way.
Future Cycle Superhighway construction needs to be a hundred times more ambitious.

If you think that Richard Tracey needs to bring his views up-to-date with the 21st century - and lets not forget this a man who was in Thatcher's Tory Cabinet of the 80s, a government which designed most of the 'killer-junctions' which TfL are now improving - drop him an email at Richard.Tracey@London.gov.uk and do please let him know just how regressive and unhelpful his views are.

If you are a resident of Wandsworth or Merton you could also contact Richard Tracey as a constituent of his through www.writetothem.com

After all, we live in a democracy and cyclists using online communication channels recently managed to get Richard Nye to publicly apologise for saying "the only good cyclist is a dead one". Richard Tracey's road management policies aren't much better than Richard Nye's anti-cyclist editorials, and unlike Mr Nye, Mr Tracey has far more power to do cyclists actual harm through these policies.

So I think it's worth all of us dropping Mr Tracey a line at Richard.Tracey@London.gov.uk and letting him know that his idiotic contributions to today's debate simply weren't good enough.

(I didn't see the start of the debate so if I missed any more puerile questions from Richard Tracey do please add them in the comments section. Politicians like Richard Tracey, and Conservative MP Mark Field, need to be brought to public account with the cycling community, so we can all stop simply 'blaming-Boris'.)

Those interested can also watch a recording of the entire meeting here: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/webcast/transportcommittee110912.asx (Richard Tracey begins his idiocy at about 1hr 40minutes) or read a transcript of the meeting here: http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/b6950/Minutes%20-%20Appendix%202%20-%20Transcript%20Cycli.pdf?T=9

-------

Other posts on Richard Tracey being a buffoon: 

- A Personal Note to Conservative London Assembly Member Richard Tracey by Cyclists in the City - Nov 2011
- The chutzpah of Richard Tracey by As Easy As Riding A Bike - Jun 2011