THE DISTORTIONS AND LIES AT THE HEART OF GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT POLICY

 

TWO legal cases caught my eye last month.

The first was Cycling UK’s legal action against West Sussex County Council, objecting to the removal of a successful pop-up cycle lane installed following lockdown last year.

The second legal case reported recently was Transport Action Network’s bid to halt the government’s controversial 27 billion pound expansion of England’s road network, on environmental grounds.

Good luck with that one!

It is claimed that transport secretary Grant Schapps overrode official advice to review road building plans when it became apparent the scheme would mean the UK breaching the Paris Agreement to cut pollution levels to zero by 2050.

Schapps says the claim is baseless but will not justify why it is baseless.

Because he can't, probably.

Of course, government lawyers back him up saying that Schapps has no need to provide reasons for saying so.

Only last week it was revealed in a European Union court that the UK has consistently failed to control air pollution for a decade, in particular from diesels.

The case began before Britain left the EU and the legal limits remain in UK laws.

The report says that dirty air causes 40,000 early deaths every year in the UK.

Britain will do its best to fudge  this ruling, and dodge the issues over their road building plans.

Proving yet again that it takes a lot to shake a moronic  cabinet when it has decided on a course of action, even when it will pump more shit into our lungs. Nothing must be allowed to spoil their love affair with their pals in the road construction business. Road building  is considered a vote winner whereas cycling, despite all the many health benefits for the nation,  is not.

However, we can take heart to recall  one monstrous road scheme they were forced to abandon. 

It brings to mind an interview I had with a transport minister in the 1980s, when Robert Key – if I recall the name correctly – defended plans to build Link Roads either side of the M25.

The M25 London orbital was built to relieve London of heavy traffic going to and from the Channel ports and other key destinations.

However, it also attracted local traffic diving on and off, using it to reach the many out of town superstores which were springing  up all over the country. And so the M25 became too congested.

Cue to build Link Roads either side to relieve the M-way. Except by now it had become established that new roads often generate even more traffic. How to balance this phenomena with the need to reduce vehicle pollution which is now seen as an absolute necessity.

Answer, stop building more giant roads if, as is likely, more traffic will be generated as a result. 

He was a portly man, was Key, a cheerful friendly guy, bit like the liar who is now our prime minister.

The proposed Link Roads would make the M25 12 lanes wide! At our meeting he went out of his way to avoid admitting this.

No, it’s not a 12-lane motorway, he insisted. The Link Roads are separate.

But the link roads, as you call them, will be laid right next to the M25, all the way around London, and that makes it a 12-lane highway, I said.

 No, no, it’s not a 12-lane highway, he insisted.  The link roads are separate.

Look, I said, if you view this from the air, you will look down on your Link Roads system and see it has  three lanes running  on either side of the six-lane (four lanes near Heathrow) M25.

That makes 12 lanes – 14 near Heathrow. And they will be connected by huge interchanges twice the size of what’s in place now. And they will become a barrier to vulnerable road users wanting to cross it on the normal highway.

I said to him how did he imagine cyclists would cope with threading the huge interchanges if no provision was to made for them? Because no provision was made for cyclists.

He hadn’t given cyclists a thought.

I am pleased to say the Link Roads were never built thanks to long-running and huge campaigns staged by Friends of the Earth and communities around the M25. This action succeeded in generating massive press and TV coverage.  One major newspaper ran a front page story with an artist’s impression of the giant roadway across the full width of the page. The editorial described it as the biggest road system in Europe, the equal of the multi-lane highways of LA.

The public learned of the expected impact of extra pollution and increased traffic flow on local roads connecting to the new highway. Such was the furore the government were forced to abandon its plans. Or put them on hold! Keep any eye out in case they ever try this one again.

Meanwhile, on a much smaller scale – but one which could  resonate nationwide -  is Cycling UK’s legal case  against West Sussex County Council for taking take out a popular cycle lane introduced in Shoreham-by-Sea during lockdown.

The case rests on Cycling UK’s claim that the council failed “to carry out an equality impact assessment before making the decision to remove the cycle lane.”

It had only been in place two months and thirty thousand rides were registered on it. This was one of a spate of pop up cycle lane removals across the country as local authorities acted with unseemly haste to get rid of them in response to minority groups protesting that loss of road space was causing congestion!

It was mostly all bollocks

In West Sussex’s case the council chose to ignore its own data revealing its popularity with users and which reported no negative impact on journey times nor increase in air pollution during the very little time the cycle lane was in place.

In general, transport planners just don’t get cyclists and pedestrians, despite the many campaigns and reports explaining how to do so. They never have and there is no sign they ever will.

It was this ignorance which led to civil engineer John Grimshaw MBE to

put cycling routes on the map in the UK, quite literally. He did so in the 1970s by creating Sustrans (Sustainable Transport) and set about converting disused railway lines into cycling and walking paths. He followed this by creating the 16,000mile National Cycle and walking network, funded in the beginning by the Bicycle trade and the Millennium Commission in 1995.

Grimshaw was one of the few engineers who understood the needs of cyclists. He rode a bike purely for utility purposes and pretty quickly realised how hostile the road network can be and a deterrent to cycling for many. He told me he was frustrated by engineering colleagues who just didn’t understand the needs of cyclists and pedestrians who over the years have been designed out of the road system. 

Grimshaw realised that many people, and especially the young would simply never ride a bike and therefore not acquire any road craft if the roads were not made safer for them.

That’s why he determined to create traffic free paths along disused railway routes, as safe places to ride, so that with confidence gained, they would eventually venture on to the roads.

I must also mention the National Byway (National Byway Trust), covering  over three thousand miles  around  quiet roads in England and parts of Scotland and Wales, connecting with sites of historical interest. It includes 60 loops for one day rides. Three sections remain to be sign-posted.  They need funding to do this, plus funding for a three-year marketing plan and staff to meet public demand and run a PR program.

But  the sums involved in helping create both of these fine networks 

fall far short of the billions of pounds required to make the national road system safer for cyclists. 

Even when ministers do a good talk on the need to make th e roads safer, they often fail to follow through. For instance when a new traffic layout at Kings Cross in London was completed a few years ago, cyclists needs had once again been ignored. I'm not sure if any remedial work has since taken place.

A few years ago in an interview in Cycling Weekly, a minister was asked if she thought traffic planners were any closer to understanding the cyclist-pedestrian concept.

She replied that, sadly no, they have still have some way to go!

And only a couple of months ago I heard from a civil engineer who himself is a member of Cycling UK who  regretted to say that in his experience  civil engineers in general still had no clue how to plan for cyclists and pedestrians.

FINALLY.......

Last week’s Budget contained no extra investment for cycling, leaving Cycling UK red faced and very angry. No surprise there.

It proves yet again that Britain has no interest in improving the safety of the highway for cyclists,   beyond providing peanuts here and there.

Cycling UK’s policy director Roger Geffen will be feeling especially aggrieved, for he received an MBE in 2015 in recognition of his tireless efforts promoting cycling, with a  huge chunk of his time devoted to lobbying government for decent funding. 

In retrospect perhaps his award was really for banging his head against a brick wall.

What Geffen said in 2015:

 “I’m humbled to be appointed an MBE but I still wish the government would find some serious funding for cycling, far more than me having three letters after my name!

Give it back, Roger.