You can vote for Sustrans online now!

[Danny]

Because road transport accounts for a significant proportion of the UK's carbon emissions. If we want to avert catastrophic global warming then the UK will need to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

Amongst the other things we will need to do to achieve this is to bring about a massive shift away from car use, and instead get people to walk, cycle and use public transport.

 

[jonesy]

Because road transport accounts for a significant proportion of the UK's carbon emissions. If we want to avert catastrophic global warming then the UK will need to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

Amongst the other things we will need to do to achieve this is to bring about a massive shift away from car use, and instead get people to walk, cycle and use public transport.

IMHO carbon is not the best argument for promoting cycling or walking. The trips most readily converted to cycling and walking are short, so the carbon saved even by a very significant modal shift to cycling from driving will still be a comparatively small part of the transport total. Nonetheless, there are plenty of very good reasons for encouraging more cycling: congestion, health, accessibility and social inclusion; these reasons are sufficient in themselves to justify more cycling and any carbon savings can be seen as a useful bonus.

 

[Danny]

IMHO carbon is not the best argument for promoting cycling or walking. The trips most readily converted to cycling and walking are short, so the carbon saved even by a very significant modal shift to cycling from driving will still be a comparatively small part of the transport total. Nonetheless, there are plenty of very good reasons for encouraging more cycling: congestion, health, accessibility and social inclusion; these reasons are sufficient in themselves to justify more cycling and any carbon savings can be seen as a useful bonus.

I take your point, and would also agree that cycling brings about plenty of other benefits. However I would still say that there are still significant carbon savings to be had from eliminating multiple short journeys by car* (e.g. the school run) as these still account for a significant proportion of car miles. Reducing car use will also help reduce air pollution which is still dangerously high in many towns and cities.

* I am sure there are scientific models which will tell us the relative carbon savings to be had from eliminating short and long car journeys. I won't pretend to have that level of expertise.

 

[marinyork]

Yes I would agree with MJones. Congestion, reduced pollutants and noise alone are good enough reasons for me. We've probably all got neighbours who drive 2-5 minutes round the corner not just when they are in a hurry or part of a journey elsewhere on the way but for the sake of it. This courses a disproportionate amount of congestion that with the amount of carbon used and length of journey is very difficult to clobber them financially to stop them doing it as often. If you got them walking or cycling more often they'd probably be slightly happier and healthier and may even start thinking about how they got about longer journeys.

 

[snorri]

I don't think the carbon savings issue, although valid, is a good selling point for cycling because the gains are all but invisible. People can feel healthier quite soon if they start cycling, it is easier to get around in towns and cheap too, parking is more convenient, so these issues sell cycling more effectively I think.

 

[marinyork]

I'd agree, apart from the parking bit.

 

[Tony]

I've said it before, but Sustrans said they were supporting cycling and walking. That phrase sums up an awful lot of their "cycle routes"---be prepared to walk, and forget about taking anything other than an unloaded upright solo.

 

[sheddy]

Local projects in Cardiff, Glasgow, Hastings and Perth on the video -
http://www.thepeoples50million.org.uk/projects/connect2

 

[phaedrus]

They Won!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7140621.stm

 

[gavintc]

According to the comment, they got 42% of the vote. That is not bad going for a sport deemed not worth supporting by our wonderful government.

I think the government are out of step with the mood of the nation - surprise surprise.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/British_Cycling_blanked_article_166673.html

 

[bof]

I'm not pro Sustran for a variety of reasons, but theirs was the only project that offered (apparent) benefits across a wide swathe of the UK, otherwise it was a vote for Cornwall, the Black Country or Sherwood Forest and most of us don't live that near any of those. Not surprising, then, that it won.

Incidentally when I tried voting (for the Black Country even though its nowhere near me) it kept rejecting my "funny writing" code, so I gave up

 

[Rhythm Thief]

According to the comment, they got 42% of the vote. That is not bad going for a sport deemed not worth supporting by our wonderful government.

Sport? Mode of transport and nothing else for me.

 

[snorri]

Sport? Mode of transport and nothing else for me.

I'll second that.
You beat me to it RT.

 

[Danny]

According to the comment, they got 42% of the vote. That is not bad going for a sport deemed not worth supporting by our wonderful government.

I think the government are out of step with the mood of the nation - surprise surprise.
QUOTE]

As were some of the posts to this thread