We respond to the further call for evidence
per http://www.senedd.assemblywales.org/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=5750,
closing on 5 April 2013.
1. Is there a need for a Bill aimed at enabling more people to walk
and cycle and generally travel by non-motorised transport? Please
explain your answer.
Yes. The inappropriate use of public
space by fast motorised transport impacts seriously on our high
streets, our waistlines, and our society in general. All
desperately need easy pleasant non-motorised
transport.
2. What are your views on the key provisions in the Bill, namely
–
the requirement on local authorities to prepare and publish maps
identifying current and potential future routes for the use of
pedestrians and cyclists (known as “existing routes
maps” and “integrated network maps”) (sections 3
to 5);
Given sufficient ongoing authoritative and well-informed
involvement by Ministers, this requirement may be useful. It is
unfortunate that no definite criteria of quality are laid down -
Edinburgh for example once presented an impressive mileage of
"cycle routes" by asserting that all its bus lanes were suitable
for cyclists. Which they weren't. I note the powers of direction
given to Ministers to "enforce a suitable and consistent standard
for mapping active travel routes across Wales." To allow for
ongoing improvements to the relevant standards and guidelines and
avoid reference to material which may become outdated, the aims
should perhaps be defined as a network that will allow a
grandmother to have a safe and pleasant journey with her six
year-old grand-daughter. This or similar language should be part of
the Bill.
the requirement on local authorities to have regard to integrated
network maps in the local transport planning process (section
6);
Good. This will at least prevent
responses such as a recent one from a senior Highways officer,
dismissing a suggestion with "I
am not responsible for promoting cycling".
the requirement on local authorities to continuously improve routes
and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists (section 7);
Good, though it falls seriously short of a requirement to aim for
an effective network.
the requirement on highway authorities to consider the needs of
pedestrians and cyclists when creating and improving new roads
(section 8)
Again, good, but "consideration" does not
necessarily translate into real-world improvement. The requirement
should be identify
and map changes that would create a fully integrated network for
walking and cycling, *with safe and appropriate routes for all
journeys, including those on or adjacent to all present highways*,
and to develop a prioritised list of schemes to deliver such a
network. I note that the
Explanatory Memorandum does contain such language (local
authorities being required to "identify what enhancements, upgrades
and new infrastructure would be required to enable people to make
continuous and safe journeys by foot or by bike"), but does not
give it the force of statute. Such language should be included in
the Bill.
3. Have the provisions of the Bill taken account of any response
you made to the Welsh Government's consultation on its White Paper?
Please explain your answer.
No - these remarks are substantially repeated from my earlier
response.
4. To what extent are the key provisions the most appropriate way
of delivering the aim of the Bill?
Their intentions seem admirable but the language is vague enough to
allow the present lack of progress to continue. We recommend minor
but vital changes to give the process a momentum of its own, rather
than depending entirely on routine Ministerial attention.
5. What are the potential barriers to the implementation of the key
provisions and does the Bill take account of them?
The key barrier is the perception,
within Highways Departments in particular, that walking and cycling
is something abnormal, done by eccentrics and enthusiasts only; as
part of this perception, very few Highways departments have any
expertise whatever in designing active transport facilities and any
"improvements" are commonly a ludicrous waste of public money.
Additionally, there is a concomitant perception that better
transport requires, indeed is, faster motor transport. This is
incorrect - mild traffic calming will be an important part of any
comprehensive solution - but is a serious barrier to
progress.
To the extent that Ministers are actively involved in pressing for
genuine improvements, this Bill may allow these barriers to be
overcome. Sadly the Bill as presently drafted will require ongoing,
time-consuming, well-informed, forceful support from Ministers to
achieve anything at all. More definite language is needed,
requiring authorities to identify a good-quality aspiration and
work towards it.
6. What are your views on the financial implications of the Bill
(this could be for your organisation, or more generally)? In
answering this question you may wish to consider Part 2 of the
Explanatory Memorandum (the Impact Assessment), which estimates the
costs and benefits of implementation of the Bill.
The wider costs and benefits of the
legislation seem to be modelled without use of the best evidence,
from international comparisons. The idea that genuinely better
facilities might increase accidents and their costs, or might fail
to give a dramatic improvement in cycling rates and economic
activity, appears incompatible with the Dutch and other continental
experiences. In the Netherlands and elsewhere, very large increases
in walking and cycling and absolute reductions in accidents have
followed from better facilities; Dutch accident statistics have
improved far more than the British.
7. To what extent has the correct balance been achieved between the
level of detail provided on the face of the Bill and that which
will be contained in guidance given by the Welsh Ministers?
We note serious flaws which may condemn
the entire effort to ineffectiveness. Authorities should be
required not merely to "consider improvements", but to describe a
good-quality aspiration and to work towards it.
8. Are there any other comments you wish to make on the Bill that
have not been covered in your response?
No.
--
Richard Keatinge
for Safe Streets Anglesey