• 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

The Scottish Executive allocated councils £3m in 01/02 for CWSS, £3.85m in 02/03 and £8m in 03/04, hoping this would encourage more spending in these areas. There were signs last year that cycling was not gaining [Spokes 80], and this year confirms the problem. The main reasons are...

• Councils are free how to divide up CWSS money. Our results suggest cycling & SRS each only get 25-30%. Most of the rest goes to general traffic calming, even some one-way streets (which hinder cycling). Despite CWSS some councils still spend zero on cycle schemes!
• Instead of adding CWSS money to existing cycle/SRS budgets, some councils cut the budgets. Thus the total from both sources rose only from £4.1 to £4.3m [col g]. Some councils [eg Aberdeenshire] continue a cycle budget of their own, and are fully transparent in how the two sources are used; but in others the CWSS money is hard to disentangle and is less likely to benefit cycling/SRS.

The top three performers, Dumfries & Galloway, Perth & Kinross and Fife all allocate their own and CWSS funds, raise sizeable external funds, and have good cycle staffing. Other high-performing councils fall down in some areas - Argyll & Bute won a huge PTF bike-route bid, but budgets little itself. Falkirk, W.Lothian & maybe N.Lanarkshire have brilliant cycle/SRS budgets, but low staffing: so they raise little outside cycle money, and W.Lothian often underspends its cycle/SRS budget. Last year's top council S.Ayrshire has had major staff turnover, and we do not know whether its promise has suffered or been fulfilled.

Last year [Spokes 80] we identified a huge problem of cycle/SRS underspending, despite the fact that overall road/ transport spending was over budget. The same has again occurred with external cycle funds [cols j,k], though internal budget underspending is less clear [reason in footnote w].

Councils have allocated only 3.8% of transport capital to cycling/SRS in 02/03 - again within the 3.2%-3.9% range which has held since 1997, even though our percentage is now boosted by including CWSS [see table, 'special notes'].

This year sees last year's picture continuing, with big increases in cycle project money from PTF bids [col i], but matched by big falls from other external sources [col j]. Successful PTF bids now comprise 79% of all external cycle-project funds! - compared to 60% last year and just 20% in 00/01. At £3955K, PTF money is twice the £2040K allocated to cycling by councils from their own capital funds including CWSS [cols c,d]. Councils like Perth and Dumfries, which heed government advice to include cycle/ walk in PTF bids [as highlighted in Spokes 77, 80] are reaping magnificent rewards. Perth's cycle officer told us "The CWSS scheme didn't stop us getting a lot more money from the PTF" - i.e. just as the Executive had promised!

There is little change in staffing levels dedicated to cycle projects. However, as highlighted last year, councils with significant cycle staffing seem much more effective in raising big external cycle project funds, and in ensuring that available internal & external funding is actually spent.

Alistair Darling MP

Press reports that he is a former Spokes member are incorrect; but as Lothian Transport Convener after Labour's 1986 victory he acted on the manifesto promise to create a 3-person Cycle Unit - probably the greatest single step ever taken locally to promote cycling [though he was elected to Parliament shortly before the Cycle Unit staff were appointed]. Despite much adverse publicity he also cancelled the contract for the Western Relief Road, signed by the Conservatives a few days before the election.

Our memory of him as fair and very capable is reinforced by his recent essential but brave public comment on taking congestion charging seriously [LTT 18.7.02] - in contrast to the mealy-mouthed silence of Scottish Ministers see article].

• Last year the government CWSS allocation to councils was shown as an 'external' column. However, many councils have used it interchangeably with their internal cycling/SRS budgets. So this year the entire CWSS allocation is added into col b, CWSS expenditure on cycling/SRS is shown [in cols d,f] and it is included in totals and percentages [cols g,h,p,q].

• Totals and %'s above are not comparable with previous tables, for the above reason and because 2 of the 3 non-respondents budgeted highly on cycling/SRS last year.

The most important columns are cols p, k and q.
Col p: the percentage of the council's own 2002/03 roads/ transport capital budget (including the government CWSS allocation) which it is budgeting for 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.
Col q: total per head of population [in pence] to be spent on cycling/SRS from all internal+external sources.
Col b: Excludes ring-fenced external/additional resources such as PTF allocations, but includes CWSS for the reasons above.
Cols c,d: Cycle budgets from the council's own overall capital roads/transport budget (c) and from the CWSS allocation (d).
Cols e,f: Ditto for SRS - internal (e) and CWSS (f) budgets.
Column i: Successful PTF bids for cycle or part-cycle projects
Column j: Other external funds - Lottery, Sustrans, Europe, etc

Targets column:
G government target adopted [quadruple use by 2012]
X more stringent target than government target
Y other target set by council
N no target

Audit column:
C Formal cycle audit as in SE Cycling by Design or NCS
A Ad-hoc / informal cycle audit
R Road safety audit includes cycling
P Cycle audit/check for planning applications
Z Other

Abbreviations & Explanations:
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
LEC Local Enterprise Company
NCS Government National Cycling Strategy
SRS Safer Routes to School
SE Scottish Executive [i.e. the Scottish government]
PTF SE Public Transport Fund
CWSS SE cycle, walk, safer streets allocation from 01/02 on

Footnotes:
* Plus unknown sum(s) - e.g. unquantifiable or not yet known
! Unknown - used data from previous or subsequent survey in whole or in part to obtain this figure
# Includes cycle schemes from other transport dept budgets, not counting external/additional funding (cols h-j)
$ May be different meaning of transport capital expenditure, giving too-low capital (col b) and too-high % (col p)
t Integral to bus corridor [e.g. lanes/ASLs] - say 10% cycle [my guesstimate - respondent not able to disentangle]
w Unknown as didn't ask for CWSS split in 2001/02 survey
x Substantial cycle element in Stirling/Alloa rail project

Topof page	SafeRoutes to School	Newsletters	Campaigns	Membership

Links	Questions	Contents	Diary	SPOKES  Home Page

This page accessed times since October 31st. 1998.