Active Travel Strategy - response from the Liverpool Cycle Forum
Points made at meeting on 20 October 2010 and emailed comments received
Requirements to deliver the Active Travel Strategy (ATS)
· The LTP3 and Active Travel Strategy Vision states commitment to a ‘low carbon future’ – the medium/long term goal should be a zero carbon economy
· Funding levels must be stated to determine what is deliverable within timescales
· Targets for delivery need to be set
· Examples of Copenhagen and Southport state annual investment made on cycling. The ATS should state this for Liverpool and Merseyside
· Many interventions state ‘seeking funding’ to deliver – cycling should also be included in scheme funding (not separated)
· Budget cuts should be a lower percentage or preferably none for active travel measures as these are stated priorities for delivery with high benefit cost ratios
· Funding could be derived from revenue raising sources, for example London has low emission zones where polluting vehicles are fined. These funds could be ring fenced for active travel measures. Not meeting our air quality targets will incur fines so should be included in the Freight Strategy (Annexe 4).
4.1 Introduction
Agree with statements outlining the benefits of increased cycling (and walking). These benefits demonstrate the need for delivery of these active modes to be prioritised over other modes in LTP3.
4.2 Networks and facilities
Agreement that appropriate infrastructure is vital to underpin this strategy, but this should be expanded in this section and the following points are made:
Liverpool’s Cycle Strategy identifies a city wide network with radial and orbital routes but this needs completion. Connectivity to this network must be developed across the highway network as a whole. This network must also be connected to the rest of Merseyside, with continuity across borough borders. There must be links to key gateways so that Merseyside becomes a cycling destination for visitors.
It must be acknowledged that cyclists should be able to use any part of the highway network if they choose to, so infrastructure must not be limited to a defined network.
The road user hierarchy in this city must change as in practice the car continues to be top of this. The road user hierarchy needs to be used to address the culture in Liverpool which puts motor vehicles first.
The network needs to be defined in terms of how is should look – it needs to be visibly dominant on the highway network and ‘branded’ so that it has a high profile. This is a key part of promotion. The network must meet the needs of different types of cyclists to encourage use for different types of trip. Examples of this could include heritage routes and daytime leisure routes with links through parks.
The role of cycle audits is not discussed, although they are included as an intervention in 4.2.13. These are required to identify infrastructure improvements and to ensure links are made to key destinations and residential areas. Cycle audits (and pedestrian audits) must also be included at an early stage of the design process for all highway and developer schemes so that opportunities to improve infrastructure are not missed and problems are addressed within the scheme. Currently these are carried out too little too late. A negative outcome on cycle/pedestrian audit for any scheme should carry sufficient weight so that the scheme may not go ahead.
The role of maintenance is not discussed. This should include cleansing. Poor maintenance has a disproportionate effect on cyclists and good maintenance shows you care about the environment that is being provided. The maintenance regime depends on road classification – the code of practice for this appears to be aimed at reducing liability and on structural condition. This needs to include serviceability for all road users.
4.2.2 The acknowledgement of safety as a major hazard for cyclists and pedestrians is welcome. Real and perceived safety issues are a key barrier to cycling. However ‘consideration’ is a very weak term to use and a higher weighting must be given to active travel modes. Safety in terms of the contribution of cycling and walking to safer, stronger communities should be stated.
Enforcement of red lights, speeding and parking must be made as these are important factors in attaining a safe travelling environment.
4.2.3 This needs more clarity as to what is proposed for implementation, for example city wide 20mph as with the 20’s plenty concept.
4.2.10 Cycle parking is important for security. An awareness of types of parking required for long and short stay parking is required.
4.2.11 Low bike ownership is a major barrier to increasing the number of people who take up cycling. Increasing bike ownership must be a priority as the Disadvantaged Communities Research (Annexe 7) shows cycle ownership levels are lower than car ownership. Also where cycle usage is low, women are less likely to cycle (this gender imbalance is not the case when cycle usage is high).
4.3 Training
Agreement that cycle training should be delivered as part of a package of interventions to address road safety. The road user hierarchy identified in the previous section should be used to make the highway network safer – the provision of training will not be effective if the roads are not conducive to cycling. Training should underpin promotion.
While the provision of cycle training is welcome, lack of it should not be viewed as a barrier to cycling – don’t need to have training to cycle. Other promotional methods could be used to increase awareness, such as variable message signs.
Training should also focus on the education of other road users. For example, the requirement for driver training to increase awareness of cyclists on the road should be incorporated into bus contracts and taxi licensing. This is particularly important in the multi-use of bus/taxi/cycle lanes where conflicts can be created.
HGV driver training is also required as these vehicles contribute disproportionately to accidents involving cyclists (for example, see Transport for London’s Cycle Safety Action Plan).
4.3.6 Terminology ‘road accident’ should be changed to ‘road crash’, for all the reasons cited by the British Medical Journal and other organisations. There needs to be an understanding that road deaths do not occur ‘by accident’.
4.4 Smarter Choices
Agree key messages for promotion – cheap, quick, environmentally friendly, healthy, respectable method of travel
Also agree to target journeys of 5 miles or less for encouraging cycling
4.4.1 Promotion needs innovative methods to reach non-cyclists, for example:
- Network information should make routes clearer to all road users
- Provision of personalised journey planning information
- Need to take the opportunities for promotion when primaries pupils transfer to secondary schools
- Need more information available on the practicalities of cycling, such as equipment
- Raise positive profile of cycling to combat adverse perceptions
- Cycle Speke model has achieved good results – should use this area based approach elsewhere
4.4.7 Partnership working should provide opportunities for social enterprises and voluntary groups, for example the Student Guild launching maintenance project with bike recycling. Also need to look at the interface between healthcare and transport, and get buy-in from the health sector, e.g. Liverpool Community Health, GP consortia, etc.
4.4.9 Promotion through schools is very important to set lifelong travel habits. There is an issue with continuing the school travel plan programme as School Travel Advisor posts are no longer being funded – this gap in resource needs to be filled.
4.4.10 Supporting cycling to rail stations should also include staff awareness and station design, e.g. being able to get to the ticket desk with bike
5 Delivery and monitoring
5.5 The role of monitoring and evaluation of the impact of activities should be included to inform future programmes, in addition to pedestrian and cycling counts. Other tools could be used to justify benefit cost ratios, for example the World Health Organisation Health Economic Assessment Tool for Cycling. Participation in partnerships could prove useful in providing evidence of impact, for example the University of Liverpool are currently investigating issues that impact on the health and wellbeing of those living in UK cities and towns. The targeting and evaluation of campaigns should be assessed as to the impact on types of cyclist and benefits, for example, attracting new cyclists, increasing levels of cycling for existing cyclists, contribution to physical activity levels, individual and community based promotion. This should include the cost of these schemes.