http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20889202

I find it hard to understand the logic of putting £4m into cycling in Scotland and not a penny on the road networks that not only need it the most but also would see MOST tyre traffic if created.

Glasgow and Edinburgh badly need investment in segregated cycle lanes, when is this going to happen?

As I said in the other thread, this is additional money coming directly from the Scottish Government that is over and above what the Local Councils need to do to the infrastructure they are responsible for.

But then I’m not a big fan of segregated cycle lanes either…..

Oh and this is in addition to the money announced in October that is mainly aimed at improving bike access to the Commonwealth Games venues – mainly in Glasgow.

I hate segregated lanes too, seem to be full of old people and children wandering all over the place at about 4mph.
Personally, I think that if wanted to improve things for bikers the best way to spend £4m would be on mending potholes.

Based on the Edinburgh tram expense, £4m would get you about 50m’s of cycle-lane on Princes Street.

andrewh, have you ridden a bike in Amsterdam?

Druidh I didn’t see the other thread, but it’s irrelevant… EXTRA funding should go where it is likely to have the greatest benefit, wherever that is in Scotland and under whichever local authority region it is in. The network between Oban and Inverness, it could be argued, should also be the responsibility of the local authorities.

I am a numbers man, and see the £3m spend being used, say, 2-3% as much as the equivalent spend on the outskirts of one of our cities would see. There are many ways for people to cycle around the more rural areas and there are decent networks in place, not to mention that people who are likely to use these long distance routes are less likely to be put off by cycling on roads as commuters who are simply too afraid to go on the roads. If these commuters had a cycle lane with a kerb for safety the numbers of cars being used each day would obviously be slashed and we would start to move forwards.

Spending money on improving cycle links to remote, rural communities, improving cycle access to public transport links so reducing need for people to drive to towns, and investment in cycling at schools, all seem logical to me.

Not saying the big cities don’t need infrastructure improvements but rural areas do to.

Not saying the big cities don’t need infrastructure improvements but rural areas do to.

But the benefit is almost non-existant, as no one lives there (and we are rural in the Borders).

Funding like this should be spent according to a cost-benefit analysis in my view, based on facility use, NOT driven by a political box ticking exercise.

Here’s the OP from the other thread, earlier today.
So – that’s one vote in favour of more funding in rural areas that connect to larger towns, glasgowdan wants it spent in those towns, Sustrans want it everywhere.

I suspect that this funding for NCN 78 is based on the premise that it will encourage tourism – a major income stream for communities on the route.

andrewh, have you ridden a bike in Amsterdam?

The main difference from cycling in Amsterdam to cycling here is that over there, you are perceived as a rightful user, not the case here. I think trying to be like Amsterdam wouldn’t work here, it’s a cliche, but its true – once you give someone a dedicated cycle lane, the general public get into a mindset that you should only be cycling there and not on a road.

I spent a week working over at KLM last may, and had a ten minute walk from my hotel to the facility. I couldn’t really work out how that particular lane was supposed to work! There were pedestrians, cyclists and even mopeds on it. I ended up walking on the road!. 🙂

Anyway, I’m blabbering. Tbh 4 million wouldn’t get too much in the way of an integrated cycling solution, they’d just end up painting green sections on the road, I think it would take huge amounts of money to do it properly, and were not exactly awash with cash. Not until we get our oil money back, but that’s an entirely different thread. 😈

An Oban to Inverness cycle route – I’ll use that. Kind of completes the circle for folk doing a hebridean tour which comes back to the mainland at Ullapool.

I suspect this will become the overwhelmingly popular LeJog option too.

Spending money on improving cycle links to remote, rural communities, improving cycle access to public transport links so reducing need for people to drive to towns, and investment in cycling at schools, all seem logical to me.

As someone who lives in a fairly rural area, sick of hearing about cycle infrastructure in inner cities whilst having to contend with cars travelling in excess of 70mph on small winding roads, I think it’s a good idea.

Selfish that may be, but a lot of money and consideration is constantly being put into our cities (which I applaud), and for good reason as already pointed out. That doesn’t mean the rest of the country should be left high and dry. Many of these routes are used for leisure purposes, but it’s a small price to pay to promote health and tourism through safe and enjoyable cycling facilities.

From the October announcement

Scotland’s cycle path network is to get a £6m revamp, which will include improvements to the Land’s End to John O’Groats route.

The famous route will be upgraded from Barnton Junction to the Forth Road Bridge.

The money will also be used to create more cycle paths in Glasgow ahead of the Commonwealth Games in 2014.

Routes in Dundee, Kirkcaldy and Edinburgh will also be improved, as will the cycle path along the A90.So – mostly urban.

We could, of course, just be happy that another £10m has been added to the budgets set by local councils instead of arguing about who most “deserves” it…

despite me starting the other thread I will reply here also, its great to see others in my mindset about rural commuter/non tourist cycling, the narrow roads, rough surface, unlit, untreated and often tractor mudded puddled filled roads are a big concern with 60.70mph cars too.
as we all would like more money, it does some to be city centered, which compared to rural towns, already have other public transport choices not available to us.
the argument regarding biggest impact I feel is not relavent, otherwise motorists would argue for all the money now wouldn’t they!

ps. given the high speed of scottish trunk A roads I, all for cycle paths/lanes

Aye, but a cycle lane is just cycling on the same A road, but its painted green, the cars are still belting past at the same speed. I’m fortunate enough to have a cycle path right on my doorstep that I can cycle all the way to Inverness on, if I so desired. It’s 49 miles to Glasgow on it, which is reasonably pleasant til ye hit paisley!. 😀

EXTRA funding should go where it is likely to have the greatest benefit

Scotland is maintained as a large leisure facility for us English. Why would we want to give the natives something over improving what we want?

‘Over improving what we want’

That doesn’t make sense. Can we have it in English please?.

Read it again no beer!

I doubt £4m will achieve very much at all for effective cycle routes, there is a rout planned from Dumfries station out to Mabie forest and the council have secured a grant of £50,000 from sustrans to carry out a feasibility study….A £50,000 grant for a **** feasablity study?….wot a **** waste of cash, i got questioned regarding it when i was in Mabie car park back in November and i told them exactly what i thought of the project and the woman who was doing the survey said my views were pretty much representative of the majority of responses but the council are desperate to push it through and estimate they’ll need a further £180,000 funding package to fulfil the project. D&G council are a bunch of inept **** though so this scheme will not surprise me if it does get the green light.

Link to story

It is still an extra sum on money,so all good. Problem is that it is government money so will achieve about as much as a team of volunteers working at Glentress for cake for a weekend.

no one is doubting the fact any money is good money, but its the value for money thats the concern, both in what its spent on, and its cost. I for one would be a keen volunteer/cheap labour to maintain effective commuter and leisure routes , but as a prime example is stated above, mabie, most of it gets frittered away, and just to emphasise the point with tourism priority, thats also a prime example. I’m sure dumfries commuters welcome such funds for a minority of tourists coming by train for riding in mabie, rather than spending on an integrated cycle network to outer villages that can be used daily all year round.