Agenda item

In attendance for this item were:

The Council:

Nigel Hudson, Head of Strategic Infrastructure & Economy

Andy Baker, Transport Planning and Commissioning Manager

Martin Rowe, Transport Strategy Team Leader

Lynsey Keir, Transport Infrastructure Commissioning & Project Office Manager

Matthew Fung, Public Health Consultant

Cllr Alan Amos, Cabinet Member for Highways

Cycling Group representatives:

Lyndon Bracewell - Push Bike! (Chairman) and Cycle UK (Chairman of local branch)

Robin Walker - Cycle Evesham Vale (Chair)

The Transport Planning and Commissioning Manager referred to the information included in the Agenda report, which set out the national context for cycling and funding sources. Examples of external funding were two bids to the Department for Transport’s National Productivity Investment Fund for Worcester and Bromsgrove, which secured £3.2 and £3.4 million (respectively).

The Government was encouraging local authorities to increase investment in cycling and walking infrastructure to 15% of total transport infrastructure spending. The Government’s Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) meant that the Council had a better chance of obtaining funding with a package of measures in place.

The report also updated the Panel on cycling events which continued to be very popular as well as bringing economic benefit, with the result that the Council’s financial contribution to events was reducing.

The Transport Infrastructure Commissioning and Project Office Manager explained her role as overseeing a Team responsible for work with walking and cycling and referred to the work taking place (Appendix 1). Revenue was key because whilst infrastructure was being put into place, it was not being promoted very well. Nonetheless, a lot had been achieved over the past 20 years including both big and small schemes such as cycle bridges, improvements to cycle ways, using S106 monies, safety measures, signing and use of the riverside. Solutions were often low key and cost effective and facilitating cycling improved people’s health and attracted visitors.

The Officer highlighted the information included in the Report, including cycle schemes progressed during 2018/19, what had worked well and new schemes for 2019/20. Moving forward, work would focus on the Strategy as well as the schemes involved in getting a cycling network in Worcestershire and making the most of S106 funds. Many schemes were small but intrinsic to the overall plan.

The Chairman invited questions and the following main points were raised:

·         The Chairman congratulated the Officers and Cabinet Member present on the long list of cycling schemes which was an increase on the previous year.

·         When asked about grants in this area, the Officers advised that the active corridors were spread across the County and that new bids focussed on cycling and walking.

·         A Member asked about district councils’ plans and development and was advised that LTP4 was built very much around planned development and that new development plans had to include cycling and walking plans. Regarding the Active Travel network, more challenging negotiation could be involved since the Council’s powers were not the same as for the highways network.

The cycling group representatives present were invited to provide feedback on cycling in Worcestershire.

Lyndon Bracewell from Cycle UK and Pushbike! made the point that cyclists needed to travel from one point to another, and in Worcester some provision was fragmented so that cyclists had to dismount from their bikes. His suggestion was to focus resources on Active Travel routes which gave maximum benefit, as well as on safer routes to schools and businesses to aid congestion. The sports and leisure aspects of cycling would take care of themselves. There was a perception that cycling was dangerous when in fact research showed it was no more dangerous than gardening.

Robin Walker from Cycle Evesham Vale appreciated the ambitions of LTP4, and the work on the Active Travel Corridor was very exciting. Intentions for a network around towns was welcomed. He would like to see promotion of cycling and walking actually happen and understood that Herefordshire was still using the ‘Choose How you Move’ campaign with success. Investment was needed, not just S106 monies and while he was surprised to hear that 10% of the Highways budget had been used on cycling and walking, he reiterated the need for a specific cycling budget. Congestion was terrible, for example into Evesham and it was crucial to accelerate access to Active Travel which would also reduce emissions.

Further Panel points made were:

·         The cyclist representatives were asked for any comments on shared use of space with pedestrians and the perception that cycling was dangerous to them. The Cycle UK representative said that taking Worcester as an example, he was only aware of one incident reported although he accepted there may be more. His view was that this was a perception rather than a reality and may stem from the anti-social behaviour of some younger cyclists, which he felt was more of a policing issue.

·         The Cycle UK representative pointed out that he cycled because he wanted to but was aware he was very committed.

·         A Member asked whether road markings were a big part of the solution and was advised that Officers took the opportunity to review the road maintenance programme.

·         The Panel Chairman referred to the Government’s suggestion that 15% of a Council’s Transport budget should be dedicated to cycling and walking, when the report gave the amount spent by Worcestershire (as a percentage of total transport infrastructure spending) averaged 10%.  When asked whether the 10% included S106 funds, the Officers advised that without S106 the figure was 4-6% for walking and cycling.

·         The Panel Chairman reminded the Panel that it had previously recommended a cycling specific budget, which the CMR for Highways had addressed during a meeting of Council.

·         A Member asked what follow up took place to gauge the take up of cycle schemes and was advised that this was important, although was often a case of resources.

·         Cllr Kent would welcome the opportunity to see work being done on older cycling routes in Wythall, which the Officers were happy to facilitate.

·         Panel Members acknowledged the interesting perceptions around cycling and considered how these could be changed. The Officers said that they were considering what worked best for different routes, but a change in behaviour was important since adding a road marking and a sign to indicate a cycling route, was not the full solution. The Transport Infrastructure Commissioning & Project Office Manager was clear that promoting cycling was a cheap way to impact on congestion and therefore she felt it important not just to rely on S106 monies.

·         The increasing popularity of electric bikes was raised, which could be particularly good for older people.

·         A Member highlighted the importance of cycling as a building block in tackling congestion.

·         A Member praised the level of pothole repairs in Worcestershire which also facilitated cyclists and pointed out that cycling would be affected should this budget be reduced. The Representative from Cycle Evesham Vale said that Worcestershire’s roads were better than elsewhere.

The Panel Chairman could see that cycling was a key area being developed across the County and asked Members to consider any key points or recommendations for Cabinet, for example regarding spend.

The Panel recommended publicity to promote active routes from home to school, which would reduce congestion. The need to address perceptions around safety was also stressed.  The scope of social media was highlighted in such publicity.

The Panel was interested to know more about the role played by S106 in relation to cycling and the Officers would provide a summary.

Comment was invited from the Public Health Officer present, who advised that an electric bike hire scheme was in hand and that promoting cycling may involve the Council thinking about how things could be done differently and not just what was spent.