Forum Topic

Conservatives need strong pro-cycling measures

Below is an interesting article from ConservativeHome making the case that people like Tom Pike have been making for the economic, health and political imperative for Conservatives to support active travel and traffic restriction schemes in cities like London. One for our younger more open-minded local Councillors perhaps. And the LibDems in Southfield of course.This quote sums it up for those who don't want to take the time to read the whole article: "a core right-wing value is giving people the liberty to make their own choices in life. Right now the vast majority of road space is monopolised by one mode of transport – cars. We must ensure everyone has the option of a cheap, safe and efficient alternative method of travel."https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2021/05/jordan-redshaw-our-party-needs-a-strong-pro-cycling-measures-to-rebuild-in-cities.htmlJordan Redshaw is on the Conservative Friends of Cycling’s Executive Committee.It is not controversial to say that since the beginning of the pandemic there have been some things the Government has got right and some areas where it should have done better.An often overlooked area in which this Government has achieved outstanding success is in its promotion of cycling. There simply have been no previous governments with such a bold vision. Their proposals are described in the “Gear Change” report: an ambitious plan to get Britain cycling that has been received very positively.To back up these proposals, the Government has committed to spending £2 billion on cycling and walking over the course of a parliament. They have already published much needed higher standards for safer cycling infrastructure (LTN 1/20). They are helping people get back on their old bicycles with 500,000 repair vouchers worth £50 up for grabs and there are plans to introduce a modern day Cycling Proficiency scheme for people of all ages.However despite strong actions to promote safe cycling, on the doorstep, the Conservative Party is still seen to have a weaker stance on cycling than its opponents. As a party there is a lot for us to gain by promoting cycling and therefore cementing our rightful position as the party helping people cycle more and with safety.During the recent local election campaign, we saw many Labour led councils take credit for implementing safe cycling infrastructure using the government’s Active Travel Fund. This £250 million fund has allowed local authorities to bid for grants to improve cycling infrastructure in the midst of the pandemic. This was a missed opportunity for many Conservative-led councils who have not taken advantage of the Active Travel Fund and delivered safe cycling infrastructure to their voters.We need to trust the Government in its promotion of cycling – after all Boris has a successful record here having implemented the gold-standard of segregated cycle lanes, the “Cycle Superhighways” as Mayor of London. London’s cycle hire scheme is still popularly known as the “Boris bike” scheme by Londoners and tourists alike.The Prime Minister’s strong cycling credentials helped him win a second term in a city usually dominated by Labour. Shaun Bailey was generally perceived to have poor intentions for cycling and ended up finishing ten per cent behind Sadiq Khan in the final round. It is not good enough for Conservatives to give up on London, when we know we can win in London with a positive, pro-cycling manifesto.After all, we recently saw Andy Street and Ben Houchen achieve similar success with pro-cycling policies. Street wrote here at ConservativeHome about his ambitions to build 500 miles of cycle lanes in the West Midlands, and Houchen invested £18 million for active travel improvements in the Tees Valley. Conservative councillors across the country could learn a lot from this and achieve similar success by also delivering high-quality cycle infrastructure.A core right-wing value is giving people the liberty to make their own choices in life. Right now the vast majority of road space is monopolised by one mode of transport – cars. We must ensure everyone has the option of a cheap, safe and efficient alternative method of travel. It is a wonderful thing that anyone can get set up with a bicycle for less than £200 and in many urban areas it is the quickest and most reliable way to get from A to B.Let us not forget that many cyclists also own cars. The AA recently found a third of drivers have said they will cycle, walk or run more after lockdown. Many of these people won’t cycle for political reasons or even for the environment, they simply want the choice to get around cheaply, safely and quickly.It is vital that communities are properly consulted when introducing safe cycling infrastructure and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). All too often last year, Labour councils introduced temporary cycle lanes and LTNs overnight with minimal or no consultation. There has to be decent consultation with local residents to ensure schemes are implemented in the best possible way by considering everyone’s needs.However, we must not fall into the trap of listening to the loudest voices in our party – or perpetuated myths on Twitter – as reasons for scrapping or never implementing these schemes. Imperial College London found no evidence that cycle superhighways worsened traffic congestion in London. In Kensington and Chelsea, independent polling found just 30 per cent of those surveyed were against the Kensington High Street cycle lane. This is not an isolated case as surveys have consistently found that the majority of residents support LTNs too – perhaps unsurprisingly, as who wouldn’t favour traffic moving from residential streets to main roads?Polling in March this year shows just 16 per centof people oppose LTNs, whereas 47 per cent support them in London. Supporting cycle schemes is a vote-winning policy and for Conservatives to remain relevant in cities and amongst future generations we must embrace many Briton’s desires to cycle safely. During the pandemic one of the reasons we fared badly, as a country, is because of our obesity crisis. According to the OECD, 63 per cent of UK adults are overweight, meaning the UK is the most overweight country in western Europe. The costs of physical inactivity to the UK are estimated to be in excess of £7 billion every year.There are clear economic benefits both for individuals and wider society in improving the nation’s health. Regular cycling can reduce the risk of dementia, Type 2 diabetes, some cancers, depression, heart disease and other common serious conditions by at least 30 per cent. Cycling England’s Qualitative Survey on Cycling found in their Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) analysis, for each £1 invested in cycling the value of decreased mortality was £2.59.This is only taking into account the benefits of reduced mortality, the overall BCR ratio of cycling investment is much higher at 13:1. Whereas motorways often only have BCR’s of 3:1.Other economic benefits should not be underestimated. Cyclists visit local shops, restaurants and cafes more than users of other modes of transport spending up to 40 per cent more than drivers according to TfL. This higher footfall will help our high streets at a crucial time.Supporting safe cycling is only going to become more important as we work towards carbon net zero by 2050 – it is not a fad that is going to disappear after the pandemic passes. If we continue to build on the Government’s success at a local level we can ensure this is a golden era for cycling. As a country we will reap huge economic, environmental and health benefits, and as a result the party we will reap the rewards at the ballot box

Paul Campbell ● 1978d76 Comments

This has been interesting thread to read. As the Transport Spokesperson for the Conservative Group of Councillors on Hounslow Council I would like to draw residents’ attention to our Cycling Policy issued in 2019. I am happy to supply anyone with a copy.We are not anti-bike or anti-car we are for a balanced approach to London's transport ills and specifically those of this borough. We do not promise a magic solution  because nobody can but we do promise schemes that can be discussed publicly and achieve a wide measure of support.We will never be dogmatically in favour of or against any cycleway or an LTN - we always assess them on their merits. For example, will they improve air quality and make all forms of traffic flow more freely, and will they make life easier for local businesses to succeed.One gentleman has so little faith in his powers of persuasion or the obvious merits of the LTNs being imposed on us that he writes,"Surely LTN's will simply be voted out by the vast majority of car owners, so no change. If what we really need is use of cars to be considerably reduced LTN's must be implemented with little or no consultation."Does he not realise as it says in the article at the top of this thread, many cars owners are also cyclists. This desire to force people out of their cars is really a counsel of despair and would establish the precedent for further heavy handed action by the State. In other countries the State has (for perfectly sound reasons) introduced measures to compulsorily limit population growth - do we want that?. There are those that argue if we all adopted a vegan or vegetarian diet that the world would be a better place - should the State therefore ban the sale of meat?In the article quoted at the head of this thread that the same gentleman has clearly not read its says that  "It is vital that communities are properly consulted when introducing safe cycling infrastructure and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). All too often last year, Labour councils introduced temporary cycle lanes and LTNs overnight with minimal or no consultation. There has to be decent consultation with local residents to ensure schemes are implemented in the best possible way by considering everyone’s needs."By genuinely consulting local people you end up with better schemes and better supported schemes. The alternative approach of imposing measures produces resentment,anger and social division.  The State does not always know best and the Local Authority does sometimes get things wrong and has to amend or reverse decisions. This is a fact of life. Get over it, and stop trying to defend poorly designed and poorly implemented schemes. 

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 1977d

“We will never be dogmatically in favour of or against any cycleway or an LTN - we always assess them on their merits. For example, will they improve air quality and make all forms of traffic flow more freely, and will they make life easier for local businesses to succeed.”Fair enough, but that is not what you have done. For example, you have repeatedly stated that you object to CW9 because TfL modelling shows it would not reduce pollution. However, that modelling assumed no change in overall traffic levels, or modal shift, and hence gave no overall change in pollution. You mistake an assumption as a prediction, and repeat this misleading claim even after it has been pointed out several times. It is misleading claims such as this that have undermined the credibility of local Conservative transport policy for anyone who takes the environmental challenges that London faces seriously. It explains why Londoners who voted Green gave their second preference votes by a factor of more than 6:1 to Khan, not Bailey, and it would have contributed to Chiswick backing Khan over Bailey as well. At this point you have a choice. You can continue to erode your local support by making such misleading claims justifications for your group’s transport policy. Or you can live up to your own stated commitment to treat these traffic measures on their merits, including not prejudging outcomes of trials such as in Devonshire Road. But you can’t choose to do both. You fact that you have completely overlooked that this article makes exactly this point, and instead decided to quote the one misleading sentence in it unfortunately does not give much confidence that you will make the right choice.

Tom Pike ● 1977d

Councillor Sam:“We are not anti-bike or anti-car we are for a balanced approach to London's transport ills and specifically those of this borough."I took a look at the last manifesto on your website and the only policy relating to cycling is:"We will require TfL to introduce cyclist appropriate road schemes but we will not support anything that adds to traffic congestion and air pollution e.g. CS9."Cycling gets a mention as part of your air pollution policy which also includes opposing the ULEZ, so one of the few measures you’ll take to limit pollution relate to prioritising cars over bikes.  I don't know when in 2019 you published the Walking & Cycling Policy, but in September 2019 you were the third signatory on the petition to reject the cycle lane:"We deplore the way that TfL has ignored the clearly expressed views of the residents of Chiswick and urge Hounslow Council to reject TfL's proposal to build a segregated two-way cycle super-highway (CS9) along Chiswick High Road."I note that your position shifted a bit in May 2020 when your new cycling policy indicated a wish to "move on from the controversy in Chiswick about Cycleway 9 and find a new consensus”.  The cycling consensus includes:- Removing the temporary cycle lane and doing another consultation (what was wrong with the last one?);- A stripped down C9 if there’s support;- Civil enforcement officers to police cyclists; and- Car parking.If the Tory manifesto cycling policy is to remove the cycle lane because it gets in the way of cars, if you sign petitions to remove it, if your arguments are that bikes increase air pollution but you won’t countenance any measure that might reduce car pollution, then I'm really struggling to understand how you're not at least pro-car!  It is also hard to avoid the conclusion that you're "anti-bike" when you align with The OC and complain "we know the members of the pressure group that Hounslow Council are listening to amount to less than 0.1% of the Borough's population. This is about as far away from democracy as one can get."This is a talking point that is frequently made by those associated with The OC - e.g David Riley's post:"LCC local branch Hounslow Cycling and friends and associates do not represent real cyclists nor society widely in Chiswick, let alone Hounslow or across London.  It represents less than 0.1% of society, but a 0.1% that thinks it should dictate to the 99.9% of society and that is not democracy."You’re well aware that The OC isn’t just about lobbying against cycling infrastructure, many of its members really don’t like cyclists - particularly their sanctimonious moralising about how they’re “saving the planet” and how they refuse to follow the rules (which you’ll fix with an army of enforcers!).Not that The OC doesn’t sanctimoniously moralise itself about the needs of poor people, disabled people, children, elderly people etc. and then accuses all cyclists (“shame on you”) of not caring about these groups.We've got a car, we've got bikes - we tend to ride them to skip the traffic, get some exercise and take the kids to school.I don’t identify as a pedestrian if I decide to walk to the supermarket instead of drive and I support the provision of safe pavements (not that I would think about it!).  But on this forum and in this debate, you are a "cyclist" and part of the "0.1%"  if you choose to use a bike for some journeys and want safe cycle lanes.  (And now also a hypocrite for having a car and of course answerable on behalf of all cyclists!)Tribal political movements are defined just as much by those they exclude as include.  The local Tories are currently part of the OneChiswick anti-cyclists / pro cars tribe and since I'm excluded from joining The OC, you have signalled that I’m also excluded from The Tories - I’ve got the message and am trying to “get over it”!

Ed Saper ● 1976d