It may not be clear from the persistent bikelash in many sections of the media, but in fact there is huge public support for increased government investment in cycling and especially for building segregated bike routes.
Of 7,700 people surveyed in seven major UK cities for a new study published on Tuesday, 78% of people support the creation of more protected bike routes on roads, even when this could mean less space for other road traffic, with the majority of people saying this would encourage them to cycle more.
Yet, at present, a total of only 19 miles of physically segregated on-road cycle routes exist between Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Greater Manchester and Newcastle (this data was not available for Birmingham). This means they cover just 0.17% of those cities’ road networks. If you include off-road paths shared with pedestrians, the mileage goes up, but this is still a stark reminder of the gap between what people say they need and what has actually been built, as investment and political leadership have lagged behind public opinion.
Since 2014, Sustrans has been working with the seven cities and the polling company ICM Unlimited to produce the Bike Life reports, gathering data on cycle infrastructure, travel habits, public attitudes and the impact of cycling. The reports are then used to inform local investment and planning.
There has been some progress in recent years. Now, more than a quarter of people in these cities live within 125m of a cycle route, while almost half of all streets are 20mph. Other successes include segregated flagship routes in Belfast and Manchester, the Big Birmingham Bikes scheme which distributed 4,000 bikes to residents in the most deprived wards of the city, and a new walking and cycling bridge over the River Ely in Cardiff.
These schemes have had a palpable impact on people’s lives. The new report estimates that cycling takes up to 111,564 cars off our roads every day; line those cars up and it would equate to a 333 mile tailback.
And the vast majority of residents living in those cities understand the positive impact on congestion, health, air quality and local economies that more people moving around on bikes rather than in cars brings. More than two-thirds of those surveyed say more cycling would make their city a better place to live and work. Three times as many people would invest in more space for walking, cycling or public transport than in more space for cars.
This is far from the negative picture of public attitudes towards cycling that many have painted in the last few months.
The public is behind a radical change to make our cities more liveable. Delivering this transformation is going to take sustained political will and money. Copenhagen took decades to reach its 41% cycling modal share. But since 2004 it has invested more than £35 per head on cycling, resulting in a network of segregated routes on almost all main roads and bridges across the city.
Bold moves to allocate space to cycling and walking in Paris and Seville show that northern Europe no longer has a monopoly on creating liveable cities – and that change can be triggered rapidly.In the UK, Andy Street in the West Midlands and Andy Burnham in Manchester were both elected on ambitious promises to make their urban areas more friendly for walking and cycling.
We now need to see plans and investment to match campaign promises. There are encouraging signs; the Scottish government recently announced the doubling of their £40m investment into walking and cycling to £80m – equivalent to £15 per person.
But investment around the UK differs greatly currently, ranging from under £4 per person in Cardiff up to £25 per person in Bristol. However, with the Cycle City Ambition Fund about to finish, investment levels may trail off dramatically unless new funding is allocated.
Government at all levels must work together to deliver what people want and need by investing in segregated routes to make cycling attractive, safe and convenient. The public’s voice is loud and clear. It’s now up to politicians to make it happen.