SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The overall reaction to the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland ( CAPS) consultation document's proposals was very positive. A number of respondents praised the overall objective of the plan, to achieve a 10% modal share of all journeys. The various objectives of the plan also received support, in varying degrees, explained in detail later. There was considerable concern, however, over how to take the plan forward as a concrete set of proposals.
There was almost universal agreement that the plan needed to be achieved and that the way the objectives were laid out in CAPS was a sensible approach. However the issue of how to fund and deliver these proposals was brought up by a considerable majority of respondents. This itself did not present a universal view as different respondents suggested different bodies receive funding. The considerable number of Government and nongovernment bodies active in this area meant that the answers to questions relating to delivery tended to vary considerably. However the overall picture that emerged was still one of additional funding being required to meet the ambitious target laid out in the plan.
More specifically, the following issues were raised:
1. Safety - A significant number of respondents mentioned safety as their primary concern regarding cycling. The major focus was on the safety of cycling on-road, though some respondents also had issues with safety on off-road paths, both with regard to general safety (maintenance of roads, lighting etc) and personal safety (fear of crime and anti-social behaviour). Safety was compromised primarily by the following things:
a) Speed of vehicular traffic flow;
b) Behaviour of drivers towards cyclists;
c) Failure to enforce parking regulations; and
d) Poor quality of existing facilities;
The suggestions CAPS makes over the hierarchy of consideration for measures to manage the impact of motorised traffic were welcomed, as a number of respondents stated that the speed of the traffic on-road was a major factor affecting their decisions about on-road cycling. Both experienced on-road cyclists and novice bike users wanted the speed of vehicular traffic to be controlled and speed limits enforced.
2. Design - Many respondents considered cycling infrastructure and facilities provided by a number of agencies were of poor quality. The primary focus was on Local Authorities, who provide the bulk of local cycling infrastructure.
However Transport Scotland received some criticism from one respondent, over the failure to follow their own guidance (Cycling by Design) on a trunk road. A few respondents criticised facilities provided by SUSTRANS, though the majority of people who mentioned SUSTRANS had positive opinions of their work. The criticism here was with regard to both on and off-road facilities although the major focus was on on-road facilities. Cycle lanes which ran for very short distances and then ended at junctions were a common cause for complaint. The major issues regarding design were:
a) A lack of joined up thinking in designing cycle facilities; and
b) Poor quality of provision, often making things worse.
3. Planning - Many respondents felt that cycling was not catered for at the planning stage and that in most cases, it was an afterthought. This resulted in developments often not having any cycle parking or it being put in retrospectively. Similarly new developments often lacked access routes for people looking to cycle. While a number of respondents said more needed to be done for residential cycle parking (especially in tenements), a lot more suggested that commercial developments and offices lacked cycle parking, often while having very large car parks. Many felt that cycling needed to be integrated into planning policy, from the master plan stage to ensure people who cycled were not left out and had access to cycling facilities. The issues raised over planning tended to be similar to ones raised over design. They were:
a) Poor provision of parking and routes to and from locations;
b) No consideration of cyclists' needs in planning; and
c) An apparent lack of consultation with cyclists in any planning
decisions.
4. Funding - Most respondents felt that targets were laudable, but questioned how it could be achieved at current funding levels, linking this to the low priority cycling had in current transport thinking and wanting this to change. 52% of individual respondents (98 out of 189) asked for an explicit commitment to funding while several more suggested Local Authorities be given support.
Stakeholder organisations and Local Authorities, all of whom were enthusiastic about the proposals in CAPS, felt additional funding would be needed. From a total of 69 organisational responses, 21 Local Authorities, 5 Regional Transport Partnerships and 10 other organisations and groups stressed the need for extra funding.
Local Authorities also stressed that in the current climate, they could not on their own meet any new funding demands.
The suggestion of the Association of Directors of Public Health ( ADPH) which asked for 10% of the transport budget to be invested in active travel was very popular, as some also pointed out the current budget was only approximately 1%. A number of responses from an event conducted by Transform Scotland supported Transform Scotland's view backing the call by the ADPH. A number of other individuals and organisations also backed the ADPH's call.
Many respondents, while applauding the Government's intention to target a similar modal share to some other European countries, pointed out that a share of the budget similar to those countries would be needed. It was said that these countries had achieved their modal shares by consistent investment over a long period of time and that a similar approach was needed in Scotland, at all levels of Government. The figure of £5/head was suggested by a respondent, as a sum which while relatively small, would provide as good a return as road or bridge projects costing much more.
While a few responses suggested funding be made available immediately, the general view of respondents was that some kind of detailed financing plan needed to be finalised at least before the next spending review. Any proposals would need buy-in from all parts of the community and all stakeholders, to be effective.
There were varying opinions on how any additional funding could be spent and by whom, though there were calls for these issues to be clarified in the final action plan document. There was some criticism that existing money was not spent properly by Local Authorities and some calls for more funding to be accompanied by oversight and guidance from the Scottish Government.
The issue of ring-fencing budgets came up in many responses. Some Local Authorities also called for ring-fenced funding for any new schemes; Cycling Scotland raised a concern that funding for the Cycling, Walking and Safer Streets programme may not be ring-fenced in the future. Many respondents wanted some form of ring-fencing for money spent on cycling. An added rider was that councils may not have the staff trained to spend any influx of new money on cycling infrastructure and so would need training.
These were the primary areas of concern for many respondents. The proposed objectives in CAPS included suggestions and actions to tackle the problems raised under each of the issues identified above, and the response to these suggestions was on the whole positive with some criticism over vagueness, a lack of detail and some concerns over whether certain actions were achievable.