But rather than forcefully arguing the case, parts of the government seemed almost apologetic, letting the initiative pass to the AA, opposition parties and the press. With an election in sight, they are now adopting some of these simplistic prescriptions, which will worsen climate change, public health, congestion, social inclusion, and road death.

Now transport policy, rather than improving accessibility, seems to aim for more movement. Everyone must be able to travel when, where and however they wish, regardless of effects on other people or on society. All we need do is spend big money on roads and transport [LTT 16.12.99].

The overall direction of policy is still more balanced than under the last government ... BUT ...

• The only reference to walking and cycling in John Prescott's recent 'big speech' was to safety, not to their role as a transport mode. And whilst the government has adopted the Conservative's unfunded National Cycling Strategy, they have not set up a major funded national cycling initiative like the successful European schemes.
• The new UK Transport Bill has no powers for charging big retail & leisure premises for car spaces. These powers had been promised, even though not to be used at first. Councils and environment groups are campaigning on this major retreat [LTT 16.12.99]. Other recent moves which may help out-of-town supermarkets are appalling and potentially disastrous, say the House of Commons Environment & Transport Committee [LTT 20.1.2000].
• Biggest change - the petrol duty escalator is abolished. It was to rise annually by 6% over inflation until 2002, to reduce fuel use as part of UK commitment on climate change [TS briefing 8.11.99]. Green MSP Robin Harper called its abolition "about the worst decision the Chancellor could have made ... just as it was beginning to bite" [H 10.11.99]. Admittedly, future duty increases, raising £200m a year for each 1p duty, will be devoted entirely to transport. But "with Gordon Brown the devil really is in the detail" [Iain McWhirter, H 10.11.99], so this could mean money for sustainable transport [G 10.11.99] or [H 10.11.99] a return to "the concreting of Britain". Much depends on lobbying - by everyone from Spokes members like you to the British Road Federation!
• There are strong rumours that the Speed Policy Review recommendations, due Feb 2000, will be watered down. Limits on rural single-carriageways had been expected to fall from 60mph to 50 (nearly half of cyclist deaths are on rural roads), with maybe a 30mph maximum in all villages. [Slower Speeds leaflets from 01603.504563].
• The new draft PPG13 (guidance on linking planning and transport) has removed earlier references to traffic reduction, and also sets maximum parking spaces for urban developments at a very high level [LTT 16.12.99].
• Big new money is going into trunk road building [LTT 2.12.99]. Also in Scotland, though to a lesser extent [p5].
• The annual funding announcement for English council transport plans [LTT 16.12.99] marks a huge retreat from last year's excellent concentration on walking, cycling and public transport [LTT 1.1.99]. This year's 18 new road schemes are "a welcome step forward" according to the British Road Federation, but are "a virility test to stave off media criticism" according to professional specialist magazine Local Transport Today [16.12.99].
• According to the Campaign Against Drunk Driving the government has decided not to lower the drink-drive limit from 80mg. Yet whilst 500+ deaths a year involve 'drunk' drivers, 1000 other people die in under-80mg alcohol-related collisions!! [CADD, Nov 99].
• Despite the Traffic Reduction Acts, the government now says reduction is impossible in a growing economy [G 30.11.99]. Instead, we face 35% traffic growth from 1996 to 2010, highest on country roads [LTT 2.12.99]. Yet much growth results from dispersion - longer journeys, not more [G 21.12.99]. There is more movement of people and goods in Britain relative to GDP than in similar countries [STR Autumn 99]. Also, many examples suggest that concerted UK policy could reduce traffic [Spokes 68].

• There are signs that the long-delayed National Walking Strategy is being downgraded. "It isn't a National Walking Strategy - we are not going to tell people they have to walk" said a government source [LTT 20.1.00].

Lord MacDonald Transport Minister, DETR, 76 Marsham St, London SW1P 4DR; and copy to: Sarah Boyack MSP, Scottish Transport Minister, Scottish Parliament EH99 1SP.

PARTY TRANSPORT POLICIES

If government policies are now less than we would hope, how do the other parties stand on sustainable transport? The ratings below are based mainly on press reports of government decisions and opposition statements. If any party feels unjustly treated they are welcome to reply! Also, the reader must consider which opposition statements each party is likely to stick to when in power!!

Meaning of codes...  1=3Dbest policy; 5=3Dworst	Lab/Lib  Scotland	Lab  UK	SNP	C-on	Gr-een
Cycling & walking	3	3	3	4	1
Local+trunk road building	3	4*	5^	5	1
Public transport	2	3*	2	3	1
Controlling car use	3	3	4#	4	1
Has the party hope of power to implement its policy?	1	1	2	4	5

*These figures have recently fallen, and are now worse than in Scotland, due to recent government funding decisions for English council and trunk road-building and public transport - see article.

^SNP want all roads in Trunk Roads Review + many local roads. Sunday Herald calls them "best friend of the road lobby" [7.11.99].

#SNP say current policy anti-car and unfair to motorists [H 4.1.00]. Support urban congestion charges, not workplace or other charges.

In December Transport Minister Sarah Boyack hosted a major conference to promote cycle policy. The biggest disappointment was the absence of an announcement on cycle funding. Indeed, Sir Donald Miller, replying, said he hoped the Minister would ensure this - and would be so successful in promoting cycle use that people would point to Scotland as they now point to other European countries.

However, the Minister did give some useful pointers. She re-affirmed the target to double cycle use from 1996 to 2002 [is this now feasible? - Spokes 74], and again by 2012. She urged councils to boost cycle spending via integrated Local Transport Strategies, which she would assess in judging applications to the Public Transport Fund. She launched new Safe Routes to School Guidance [article], and promised full assessment of Cycle Challenge schemes [Spokes 68] "to help identify future government action".

There were positive presentations to the conference from two of Scotland's leading Councils in terms of cycle policy - Glasgow and Dumfries & Galloway [Spokes 74]. Both however emphasised the problems of funding. Both had raised large sums from outside sources and, particularly in D&G, this had been essential in persuading councillors to chip in sufficient local money. Spokes fears that such opportunities are now decreasing [Spokes 74], making a new government funding mechanism yet more vital.

Later in December, the government launched Cycling by Design [see article], a guide to providing cycle facilities.

In October the government announced successful bids by councils to the Public Transport Fund. Apart from Midlothian's bridge several are integrated packages benefiting cyclists - including Glasgow, Perth & Kinross, Renfrewshire and S.Ayrshire. But we are very concerned that the government has twice increased trunk road funds, whilst the Public Transport Fund is static, and not yet designed sufficiently with cycling in mind [Spokes 74].

A701 trunk road bridge in Dumfries Urban Cycle Network [Spokes 74]. Details: Andrew Brown 01387.260133.

Spokes wishes to thank all readers who have written to MSPs or councillors about cycling & transport policy. We hope your efforts will be rewarded in the Spring announcement of the Public Transport Fund future. We urge all readers to write the occasional letter, picking up any matter in Spokes which concerns you.

EUROPE EXAMPLES

The crucial point about European cycle increases is they are due to deliberate government policy and funding. In Holland for example cycling fell rapidly, as in Britain, till reversed by the national Master Plan [see article]. Across West Germany cycling was doubled from 5% to 10% of all trips between 1981-1991. In Denmark, only 4% of age 9's now go to school by car [Getting out of Neutral, Transport 2000].

There is nothing special about these countries. A recent study [LTT 21.5.98] showed cycling measures in Aberdeen could achieve 8% car use reduction. Edinburgh, through deliberate policy, has already more than doubled cycle use from its 1980s nadir. All that is required is determined, funded, national government action. The Dutch Master Plan, for example, gave £15m yearly to boost and part-fund council projects, and for national publicity and research - equivalent to around £5m in Scotland or £50m UK-wide.

STRATEGIC ROADS REVIEW

In 1997 the new Labour Scottish Office made an excellent start [Spokes 69], cancelling a new Forth Road Bridge, and putting most remaining projects into a review. We were told [letter 19.9.97] this would "fully consider alternatives to new roads". The result, Travel Choices for Scotland, was published in Nov 1999 [www.scotland.gov.uk, 0131.244.7243].

But, instead of looking at problem corridors/areas, and seeing how to tackle their transport/accessibility problems by transport, planning and such measures, the report sees roads as the start point, then assesses their impact.

The assessment method is also dubious. Virtually every road is rated positive on promoting integrated transport and accessibility for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport (eg by allowing traffic calming nearby). But the analysis forgets that public transport & cycling are seriously harmed by more car dependence, greater distances, and dispersion.

Nor has the Review compared the huge costs of big road schemes with using the same money for public transport, traffic calming, employer green commuter plans, safety measures, or for local economic development.

The roads include new £60m M77 and £32m A1 schemes plus nearly £50m other mainly rural roads. However, £32m could provide extensive A1 safety measures and traffic-calm the whole of Edinburgh [STR autumn 99, TS Dec 99]. Instead, it will pile yet more traffic into the city.

The M8, M80, and smaller schemes like Dalkeith A68, however, are delayed for 'multi-modal' studies - hopefully these will genuinely take account of the above points.

The controversial £180m M74 is left to the councils, and a multi-modal study urged. But Glasgow is hell-bent on the road, although the goods traffic now held up by congestion could be served by a cheaper scheme, also discouraging car commuting. Minister Sarah Boyack should insist on multi-modal assessment, instead of apparently discussing with the councils how to raise the whole sum [SE 1761/1999] [JAM74 campaign group: PO Box 3751, Glasgow G42 8WR].

Top of page  Safe Routes to School Newsletters Campaigns Membership   Links  Questions  Contents  Diary