Scotland's largest council aims to spend £6m over the next 3 years improving cycling infrastructure

[MiK1138]

Scotland's largest council aims to spend £6m over the next three years on improving cycling infrastructure.

Glasgow City Council said the cash would be spent on more segregated cycling routes, traffic calming measures and other safety features.

Councillors approved the Strategic Plan for Cycling 2016-2025 and agreed to the funding on the basis that match funding is sourced from other key stakeholders.

The number of people cycling in Glasgow has increased by 200% since 2007.

Since 2010, the cycle network in the city has grown from 230km to 310km.

Health benefits
Facilities such as the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome, at Emirates Arena, and Cathkin Braes Mountain Bike Trails have also opened during that time.

Bailie Elaine McDougall, the council's executive member for transport, environment and sustainability, said: "Cycling has huge health benefits for individuals as well as environmental advantages for the city.

"This new strategy outlines our plans to transform Glasgow into the most cycle friendly city in Scotland.

"To achieve this will require substantial investment and it is our intention to invest £6m over the next three years if we can get the Scottish government and other stakeholders to do the same."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35715957

 

[Col5632]

Can only be a good thing

 

[Haitch]

£6m over the next three years if we can get the Scottish government and other stakeholders to do the same."

So that's three pounds thirty-three p. per person per year provided someone else stumps up the same amount.

 

[steveindenmark]

So that's three pounds thirty-three p. per person per year provided someone else stumps up the same amount.

But not everyone rides. So just think of those who dont ride who are paying so cyclists can ride a bit safer.

 

[Drago]

I'm suspicious of traffic calming since they removed a load of it in Milton Keynes because the accident rate went up.

The principle of the council's campaign is welcome, but I'll be suspicious of any actual benefit until it arrives. After all, this will be concocted by people who probably don't ride themselves.

 

[Brandane]

Waste of money IMHO.. There already exists a network of cycle routes; they are called roads. If only selfish nobbers from all sides would learn to play nice and SHARE them. Building separate infrastructure for cyclists only drives a further wedge between them and us, and fuels the "use the f***ing path and keep off the roads" brigade.

 

[Profpointy]

mmm, from what I've see of cycling infrastructure , it might be better spent on taking road engineers to the pub rather than paying them to make build stuff that makes cycling more dangerous and less convenient.

I am being serious bu the way.

(just to be clear it is at least theoretically possible to build helpfull infrastructure, and I do concede the Bristol-Bath cycleway - on an old railway route - is good. Can't recall any others)

 

[Levo-Lon]

An idea from a Council................

 

[snorri]

Perhaps it's my suspicious nature, but it looks as if Glasgow Council will spend £6m if, and only if, matched funding can be sourced.
Shouldn't they have completed negotiations regarding matched funding before announcing this joint expenditure?

 

[boydj]

Glasgow has some half-decent infrastructure, and a lot of poor infrastructure. Let's hope the new stuff is well-designed.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

But not everyone rides. So just think of those who dont ride who are paying so cyclists can ride a bit safer.

Sounds fair enough to me, given that cyclists in the UK and Australia subsidise motorists' use of the roads. Most of us pay income taxes, and yet motor vehicles are the main source of wear and tear on the roads. Someone in the Australian government this week raised the issue of "user pays" funding for roads, i.e. taxing motorists based on the distance they drive: you can imagine how well that was NOT received.

 

[NorthernDave]

Perhaps they can pop down to Leeds and see how not to spend it..?

 

[toffee]

I'm suspicious of traffic calming since they removed a load of it in Milton Keynes because the accident rate went up.

The principle of the council's campaign is welcome, but I'll be suspicious of any actual benefit until it arrives. After all, this will be concocted by people who probably don't ride themselves.

Where was this?

Derek

 

[HLaB]

From what I've seen infrastructure no matter how good it is has to end somewhere and when it does folk used to being kept apart fail to interact properly. :-/

 

[steveindenmark]

Sounds fair enough to me, given that cyclists in the UK and Australia subsidise motorists' use of the roads. Most of us pay income taxes, and yet motor vehicles are the main source of wear and tear on the roads. Someone in the Australian government this week raised the issue of "user pays" funding for roads, i.e. taxing motorists based on the distance they drive: you can imagine how well that was NOT received.

But I would imagine that the vast proportion of cyclists are also car owners.