SPOKES Leaflet 80, Late 2001

Additions and Updates to this site http://www.spokes.org.uk SPOKES Logo

SPOKES Leaflet 80, Late 2001 - Web Page 2

Web Page 1

Web Page 2

Spokes 6th Annual Council survey of cycle spending
Highlights from the results Individual Councils Council Underspending How Councils spend their own money	External/additional funding CWSS - Cycling, Walking and Safer Streets Cycle-use targets Table of results

Web Page3

LOCAL NEWS

Editor: Dave duFeu .Printer: Barr Printers Print run: 11,000
Copyright details:SPOKES may be quoted freely, if the source is acknowledged and our address given.

Back copies of other recent SPOKES Leaflets are available by sending a stamped self-addressed envelope to SPOKES (addressat bottom of page).
For a set of all available back copies, please send £1 (we have copies left of roughly 50 issues).
Back to main news page

SPOKES 6th. ANNUAL COUNCIL SURVEY OF CYCLE FUNDING

For a 6th. year Spokes has surveyed all 29 Scottish mainland councils on cycling/SRS, including capital budgets [01/02] and expenditure [00/01]. Only N. Lanarkshire did not reply.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE RESULTS
Council's Own Transport Capital

Councils are budgeting more for transport [col b]

But less is going to cycle projects [col c]

SRS budgets are up hugely [col d]

External funding raised by Councils

There is now an automatic CWSS allocation [col h]

Councils gain sizeable SE allocations for cycle or part-cycle projects via successful PTF bids [col i]

But funds from other external sources are falling [col j]

The overall picture

There is huge variation between councils

Overall cycle/SRS funding is slightly down in 01/02

Crucially, councils are failing to spend around a third of what they have been allocated/raised for cycling/SRS

INDIVIDUAL COUNCILS
All councils above average on one of our main indicators [cols g,p] are bold in the table. South Ayrshire is clear top, raising over £22 per head of population for cycling/SRS, including 14% of its own transport capital budget. Second is Dumfries and Galloway, then West Lothian. While the latter has highest percent allocation [26.7%] it is less good on external funds, underspending and staffing [see below].
In S. Ayrshire cycling is key to the integrated transport strategy, with rail stations as 'multi-modal hubs', extensive main-road bus-bike lanes, town cycle networks linked to rural areas, and high SRS emphasis. There will even be bike racks on all council-suuported buses. Cycle staffing is good, and the staff have raised extra hefty funds from the PTF, developers and Sustrans. Substantial SRS Education Dept funding suggests effective integration. Finally, the cycle target is very ambitious - 10% of all trips by 2010 - and the council is clearly taking the target seriously.
For main details of D&G and W. Lothian see Spokes 77. D&G also now has funds for a Stranraer integrated project, with a significant walk/cycle role. West Lothian is well into its ambitious 2-year £750k scheme of 20mph zones at all primary schools - a local Labour election promise.
COUNCIL UNDERSPENDING
In 2000/01 councils budgeted over £1.8m of their own capital funds for cycle projects, but spent only £1.4m. They raised £8m externally - but spent just £5.1m. Overall £2.25 per head was available but only £1.50 spent. The pattern is similar to previous years - but worse.
This parallels Spokes' experience some years ago when Lothian's cycle budget was drastically underspent - until we persuaded the council to set up a 3-person Cycle Unit. Cycle projects are relatively cheap, but may take as much negotiation, consultation and legal work as a road scheme. Indeed, in several councils expenditure has been postponed due to land negotiations or compulsory purchase. There is also said to be a UK shortage of suitably trained staff.
It is notable that our top 2 councils have the highest level of cycle staffing per head - and have used their cycle budgets to attract huge additional funding. In contrast W. Lothian, with low cycle staffing, significantly underspent in cycle/SRS budgets, and attracted less outside funding.
HOW COUNCILS SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY
Councils have allocated 3.5% of capital transport budgets for cycling/SRS in 01/02 - down slightly from 3.7% last year, and within the 3.2%-3.9% range which has held since 1997. But the overall 3.5% masks a huge SRS rise [col d] alongside significant falls for cycle projects [col c].
EXTERNAL/ADDITIONAL FUNDING
The amount raised by councils from outside has fallen around 9% [col k], from £8m budgeted in 00/01 to £7.3m this year - but the composition of this funding has changed drastically. This year £4.2m (60% of external funding) was from successful PTF bids [including the cycle element of integrated bids], compared to just £1.5m (20%) last year. But just £3m was attracted from other sources (e.g. Lottery, LECs, Europe) this year, compared to £6.5m last year!
We congratulate the government on its successful strategy to encourage cycle-related PTF bids. Last year Minister Sarah Boyack said "there have been too few cycling and walking projects" [Spokes 77]. However, the 50% funding drop from other sources is very worrying, more than offsetting the PTF increase. The drop is partly due to the year 2000 push for the initial 10000km National Cycle Network. Councils must keep up such applications - e.g. for local schemes, and for year-2005 NCN expansion.
CWSS - CYCLING, WALKING AND SAFER STREETS
The Scottish Executive has allocated councils £3m for CWSS in 01/02, £3.85m in 02/03 and £8m in 03/04 [Spokes 79;SEDD circulars 12.4.01, 4.5.01] - on top of the option to bid to the PTF. Because CWSS[like SESRS last year] is automatic, not raised by councils, we have shown it in separate columns [h,q], not as part of our main indicators.
The Executive hopes CWSS allotments will encourage councils to spend more in these areas. It is early days, but this seems not to be happening for cycle projects [col c] - although it is for SRS [col d]. The reasons are complex, but government must keep close tabs on what is happening.
Another concern is that much CWSS money could go on schemes with little benefit to cyclists. We asked councils how they intend to spend the allocation, and we estimate very roughly it will go 40% to cycle or cycle/walk, 30% to walk-only, and 30% to traffic calming. Thus only £1.2m of this year's £3m would go to cycle schemes.
We asked how cycle officers viw the CWSS scheme. Although councils are said to dislike earmarked funds, only one made this point whilst 18 welcomed the scheme - and indeed seven asked for tighter earmarking, to ensure every council does spend on cycle projects. The table summarises the main points made, and by how many councils...

CWSS scheme supported/welcomed	18
3-year advance announcement allows better planning	6
Some funds should be ring-fenced for cycle projects	4
Danger councils will reduce their own cycle funding	2
Population-based CWSS allocation unfair to rural areas	1
Earmarking may be too restrictive on councils	1

CYCLE-USE TARGETS
Some half of councils are adopting government targets to quadruple bike use by 2012; most also to double by 2002. It is astonishing how councils with similar targets vary in cycle staffing and funding: we must question if some are really serious! Only two councils have more stringent targets - South Ayrshire [above] and Edinburgh.

a. Council name [mainland only] [above-average entries in bold; best *bold italic*]	01/02 council’s own transport capital budget, excluding additional/external/ other-department funds (£k)					g. col e as % of col b.	01/02 external/additional/ other-department funds (£k)				01/02 cycle/SRS pence/head [cols p and r exclude CWSS]			Target set?	%FTE bike staff	Bike audit?
	b. total transp capital	c. cycle budgt#	d. SRS budget	e.cycle & SRS [c+d]	f. as e 00/01 actual	g. col e as % of col b.	h. CWSS	i. other PTF	j. other exter- nal	k. total i+j	p.e+k pence /head	q. as p but plus h	r.as p 00/01 actual	Target set?	%FTE bike staff	Bike audit?
Aberdeen	7290f	0	5	5	60	0.1%	111	0*	0	0*	2*	54*	96*	Z	0	S
Aberdeenshire	2245f	42	86	128	59	5.7%	118	2	151	153	124	177	56	Y	0	S
Angus	3690	25#	0	25	69	0.7%	65	0	135	135	145	205	99	Z	25	CP
Argyll & Bute	4410f	25	0	25	0	0.6%	58	700u	0	700u	806	870	0	C	~20	A
Clackmannan’	1850f	90#	0	90	0	4.9%	29	0	0	0	184	243	0	N	?	A
*Dumfries & G*	3129f	0m	200	200	377	6.4%	79	674	872	1546	1188	1241	1567	Z	##	S
Dundee	1700fn	10#	0	10	5	0.6%	82	0*	51	51*	41*	97*	3*	Z	30	A
E Ayrshire	230f	0	0*	0*	0	0.0%*	71	420	68	488	403*	462*	50	Y	50	A
E Dunbarton’	986f	0	102	102	77	10.3%	66	0	38	38	127	187	115	Y	0	A
E Lothian	1703f	5	0	5	5!	0.3%	55	12	0	12	19	80	77!	N	<5	S
E Renfrewshire	2579f	5	0	5	14	0.2%	53	90	0	90	108	168	16	Z	33	A
Edinburgh	9700f	97*	196	293*	242*	3.0%*	277	300t	110	410	156*	218*	122*	X	##	RS
Falkirk	3720f	50	100	150	150	4.0%	85	18t	0	18	117	176	104	Z	~10	C
Fife	4540f	25#	0*	25*	55*	0.6%*	204	270	80	350	107*	166*	16*	Z	70	S
Glasgow	6030f	171*	0	171v*	293	2.8%*	372	420t	70	490	107*	167*	57	Z	##	C
Highland	15900f	232#	0	232	75	1.5%	112	2	0	2	113	166	36	Z!	##	P
Inverclyde	1800	7	0	7	0	0.4%	51	0	0	0	8	68	0	N	2!	S
Midlothian	500	0	0	0	28	0.0%	50	0w	0	0	0	62	115	Y	10	C
Moray	1286	0	0	0	0	0.0%	44	0	0	0	0	51	476!	N!	10!	S
N Ayrshire	1700	0	0	0	0	0.0%	82	0	0	0	0	59	0	Z	<3	S
N Lanarkshire	No reply received by print deadline										196
Perth/Kinross	1101f	14#	100	114	13	10.4%	80	200	0	200	236	296	65	Y	60	S
Renfrewshire	490f	0	0	0	0	0.0%	106	250	0	250	140	200	0	Z!	?	?
Scottish Borders	1423f	0	30	30	2	2.1%	62	0	169u	169u	188	246	2	YC	~12	S
*S Ayrshire*	4325f	355n#	250	605	155	14.0%	67	700	1250	1950	2241	2300	1535	X	##	C
S Lanarkshire	5190	10	75	85	127	1.6%	189	0	0	0	28	89	41	N	40	S
Stirling	2007f	50	0	50	53	2.5%	50	90	37	127	213	273	353	ZY	33	Ay
W Dunbarton’	1175f	0	0*	0*	0	0.0%*	57	84	8	92*	97*	157*	0	N	0	S
*W Lothian*	3406f	185z	725z	910	139	26.7%	95	22t	0	22	609	671	91	?	20	S
Totals / averages excluding North Lanarkshire in all 3 lines below [no reply received this year or last]
for all councils	94105	1398	1869	3267	1998	3.5%	2770	4254	3039	7293	224	282	150
00/01 Actual	81759f	1383	615	1998	n/a	2.4%	?	1146	3957	5103	150	?	n/a
00/01 Budget	70322f	1839	790	2629	n/a	3.7%	4789s	1550	6455n	8005	225	327s	n/a

READING THE TABLE
The most important columns are cols g, k and p.
Col g: the percentage of the council's own 2001/02 transport budget which it is allocating to cycling and SRS.
Col k: what the council has itself raised for cycling/SRS [£k] from all sources other than its transport budget. e.g. from Sustrans, PTF, ERDF, LEC, council recreation/education dept, but excluding the government's automatic CWSS allocation.
Col p: total per head of population [in pence] to be spent on cycling/SRS from all internal+external sources except CWSS.
Column c: The cycle budget column includes cycle capital work from other transport dept budgets e.g. traffic management, accident remedial, etc [but excluding external funds in cols h-j]
Column i: Successful PTF bids for cycle or part-cycle projects
Column j: Other external funds - Lottery, Sustrans, Europe, etc
Targets column:
Z government target adopted [quadruple use by 2012]
X more stringent target than government target
Y other target set by council
N no target
C considering/developing target
Audit column:
C Formal cycle audit as in SE Cycling by Design or NCS
R As above included in full road user audit
S Safety audit includes cycling; no separate cycle audit
P Cycle audit/check for planning applications
A Ad-hoc, Informal, or no audit/check
Abbreviations & Explanations:
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
LEC Local Enterprise Company
NCS Government National Cycling Strategy
SE Scottish Executive [i.e. the Scottish government]
PTF SE Public Transport Fund
SRS Safer Routes to School
SESRS Special 00/01 SE SRS allocation to all councils
CWSS Special 01/02 SE cycling, walking, safer streets allocn
Footnotes:
* Plus unquantified sum(s) e.g. from other budgets/projects
! Unknown - used data from previous year's survey
# Includes cycle schemes from other transport dept budgets, not counting external/additional funding (cols h-j)
f Plus ring-fenced external funds, usually SE PTF
m Low/zero this year due to extra-high cycle budget last year
n Very approximate, provisional, and/or guesstimate
s In 00/01 the extra allocation here was SESRS not CWSS
t Integral to bus corridor [e.g. lanes/ASLs] - say 10% cycle [my guesstimate - respondent not able to disentangle]
u Some/all may be postponed due to land negotiations/CPO
w Sherriffhall bridge £802K delayed to 02/03(?) due to CPO
v Large drop, but some schemes now under other budgets
x Additional 75K allocated from CWSS, so SRS total 150K
y Council preparing advice note on cycling and development
z Includes sums carried over from last year


Topof page	SafeRoutes to School	Newsletters	Campaigns	Membership


Links	Questions	Contents	Diary	SPOKES Home Page

SPOKES,St.Martin's Church, 232 Dalry Road, Edinburgh EH11 2JG Tel:0131 313 2114 (a/phone only) or e-mail to spokes@spokes.org.uk