Discussion in 'Advocacy and Cycling Safety' started by YukonBoy, 1 Feb 2019.
Not a surprise, sadly. Cycleways have been returning over £5 per £1 spent lately, despite some bloopers, whereas HS2 will do well to break even.
I suspect that cycleway was in there as national government repeating a tactic used by local government for years: include a cycleway in a project, thereby reducing the number of cyclists objection, then you can cancel some or all of it when the motorised bit exceeds its budget, as they almost always do.
One saving grace is that I don't think they used cycling budgets to part fund HS2, unlike local councils who have used this trick to reshape traffic light crossroads and build new car parking spaces, counted as cycling project spending.
And as I wrote, despite that sort of abuse, they've been averaging £5 benefit for each £1 spent.
Just imagine what the benefit could be if more of the cycling budget was actually spent on helping cycling!
If that money was spent on repairing the roads for all road vehicles.
Reduce the "them & us" that is often used against other road users, whatever form of transport we use.
I can't really agree with that. Motor vehicles do thousands of times more damage and wear than lightweight cycles, already get thousands of times more funding - far more even than their modal share even in car-crazy England deserves - and still there's a multi-billion pound backlog of repairs. So let's prioritise spending the transport money where we get the most benefit: on cycling.
Walking would give a greater benefit. Return footpaths/footways to pedestrian use only.
Road vehicles to be on the roads.
Is there any evidence that walking would give a greater benefit? What benefit-cost ratio is the England coastal path expected to achieve, for example?
Agree on footways. Cycleways should be purpose built.
Cycleways are roads, as are motorways, but we're not allowed on the latter.
Any evidence that it(walking) doesn't give a greater benefit.
Don't think it will ever break even, goverments seem to be good in wasting money on big railway projects while to big companies operatings the trainst get the profits.
Agree with more and better cycleways however don't agree with neglecting ''normal'' roads as we as cyclist are allowed and especially in city traffic needed to use those too and for example potholes effect a bicycle more than a car. So bad roads are in nobody's benefit.
Depends the forth crossing got so bad they banned everything and now there is a bridge for buses and bikes only. Fantastic facility. So rather than spending billions on fixing roads not designed for cars they can block them off from motorised traffic and open up the full width for cycling and walking and living spaces.
Highways are designed for moving people not motorised vehicles. So let's have more roads that allow the most efficient modes of movement and remove the least efficient modes that get in the way.
Walking is not great for shopping and deliveries.
Separate names with a comma.