Can Chris Boardman lead new Active Travel England to real change?

Cycle theft is one for the police, not ATE. It would be a distraction completely out of their remit. ATE need to be allowed to concentrate on their core purpose.

Unless you’re talking bigger picture, but then cycles aren’t the only thing thieved.

Great person for the job. When he stopped competition cycling he got into scuba diving. Full on deep technical diving and writing for a magazine. I dived with him in Portland. He really goes all in and gives it 100%. Gave a good performance on BBC breakfast this morning despite some fatuous questions.

@qwerty That’s both easy and hard, remove the cars and the problem is solved. In the meantime we take space all ready there and allocate it to active transport. Those who are active are contributing to an improvement in the urban environment.

That’s both easy and hard, remove the cars and the problem is solved. In the meantime we take space all ready there and allocate it to active transport. Those who are active are contributing to an improvement in the urban environment.

Spot on. If you are part of the problem, make life harder, part of solution, make life easier. It was so much nicer to walk, run, cycle, and generally be outside during lockdown.

There’s always the argument that “I have to drive”, and that’s fair, but getting more cars off the road actually helps them too.

They never mention how to tackle the cycle theft epidemic.

They’ve still not solved this problem in the Netherlands and yet they have more bikes than people. They also park them out in the street at home. The answer is not to spend stupid money on a bike for everyday transport, and if it gets stolen its still way cheaper than driving.

They never mention how to tackle the issue of squeezing new walking and cycling infrastructure into the UKs narrow and overcrowded car dominated roads & towns.

Cycling and walking infrastructure takes up very little space. Automotive infrastructure is the primary problem because its such an inefficient use of space, driving around in, and storing multi-occupancy vehicles which are mostly used to transport individual people. It’s densely populated areas where active travel makes the most sense.

By most accounts he’s made a lot of progress in greater Manchester in a short space of time. It’ll be interesting to see how he applies what he’s learned to a wider picture.

As for anyone arguing that we don’t have enough space for active travel, one could easily argue that where space is restricted, that means there’s no space for cars.

It’s an ‘executive agency’ so what power and authority does it have?
Does it have a meaningful budget?
How many staff does it have?
What commitment, if any, has the Treasury given to fund nationwide investment in active travel? How much money ring-fenced and over how many years?
How truly committed are government departments and local authorities to supporting active travel?
Chris Boardman’s appointment is as interim head which doesn’t suggest permanency of tenure – unless he wants the job on a permanent basis.
He’s a very strong advocate for active travel but without the resources to develop and implement meaningful integrated policies and schemes this will get stuck in central government treacle.
I wish him and ATE every possible success but my pragmatic view is nothing much will change.

A lot of positives in the Highway Code amendments. I found this interesting reading –
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1037306/table-of-change-to-the-highway-code.pdf

Can’t agree. I’m sure in some bits of Holland he specifically mentions it is somewhat safe, but we’re not in Holland. We’re vin the UK with UK roads, paths and public.

Make your own risk assessment for yourself, wear your magic hat, buy yourself a crash helmet for the car and a waterproof one for the shower, and then leave others to make their own risk assessment based on evidence. Such a bizarre thing for people to be judgmental about.

The other great Beeline routing issue is that some obvious routes have already got crappy paint based ‘infra’ on them. But there’s no money to bring this up to spec, only to build new routes…

A personal anecdote.

Don’t be silly, I don’t want to derail the thread – wear what you want, but I’ve never needed a seatbelt, an airbag, a life jacket on a plane etc etc etc and they’re still important.

They never mention how to tackle the issue of squeezing new walking and cycling infrastructure into the UKs narrow and overcrowded car dominated roads & towns.

Easy, you ban cars. Why are hundreds of pedestrians made to use about 20% of the width of the street, so that about 10 cars can sit in a traffic jam?

Of the four most densely populated countries, this is only an excuse claimed in the one lagging way behind the rest for cycling infrastructure. It is an excuse not a reason.

To be fair the two above us got completely flattened twice in the last century, so it’s not entirely a fair comparison.

If you walk around a post-war tower block estate in this country there are underpasses, overpasses, footpaths, cycle paths, Dr surgeries, shops, schools etc all within a walkable distance. We just don’t view that sort of mixed-use, high-density housing as desireable. When in reality it’s as much part of the solution as building the paths/lanes.

They’re talking about another 2500 homes on the university agricultural collage farmland / floodlpain south of the M4 at Reading. This is great if you think chasing the suburban-/rural house + car commute is still the future. Rubbish if you think building houses on greenbelt 8 miles* out of town where each subsequent house is adding 20m-30m to the commute of the next one. Vs putting the same number of units on a redeveloped brownfield site nearer the town, with short commutes and you don’t add further commutes to subsequent homes.

in Manchester has been hampered by lack of budget

I thought half of the Manchester ATF hadn’t been claimed? Problem is more a complete lack of political will – see also the CAZ fiasco and the Great Ancoats St ‘European-style boukevard’

To be fair the two above us got completely flattened twice in the last century, so it’s not entirely a fair comparison.

Walk around an average Dutch, Belgium or German town and you will find them just as hapahazard, and crowded as British towns and cities. It is just jingoistic excuse making to pretend that the UK has unique problems that prevent the same infrastructure planning of those other countries.

The real difference has been the political will, from the 70’s and 80’s they have had organised plans to integrate public transport, pedestrians and cycling into their infastructure. While the uk has largely left it to the market. Which has lead to powerful and well financed lobbies dictating policy.

That is also why we shouldn’t be too hard on CB for the impact that he has had so far in Manchester, this is not a problem that can be solved over 2 or 5 years. it is going to take 30 – 40 maybe 50 years just to catch up. We will probably see minimal impact in our lives but as long as progress can be made future generations can reap the reward.

Not sure about the funding – how much has or hasn’t been claimed. However, one of the major problems in Transport is the way that improvements are funded and this filters through to the comments you see about spending £x per head on Active Travel.

You can spend £100 / head on Active Travel but if what you’re doing is a total shambles, it’s money pissed up the wall.

DfT publicises that it has a pot of money for, I dunno, “junction improvements”. It invites councils to bid for portions of it. Cash-strapped councils pop in their bids – lets say they ask for £100,000 but actually get awarded £75,000 because God forbid that the government might actually want to encourage anyone to do things properly. That £75k is not enough to do the work that was originally bid for so they cut out various bits and pieces of it (usually the pedestrian and cycling bits) and you end up with a half-arsed “improvement” scheme that is nothing of the sort.

This “not quite enough” funding is prevalent throughout the entire industry but equally, councils have to bid for it, they desperately need the funds. And then if they don’t spend the funds, they get clawed back which is why you find councils desperately spaffing money away on “active travel” stuff that involves painting a white line down a gutter and putting some Cyclists Dismount signs around the place – excellent, £30k well spent, we can bid for more of the same next time around.

Hopefully, having an organisation that actually looks at the quality of schemes might start to have an impact on what is delivered.

I do hope that this can make a difference. But I am finding the roads are getting more dangerous these days with cars getting ever wider and taller, they take up so much room and feel very intimidating. This to me will put more people off so sadly I can only see fewer people using bike as transport.

Didn’t he quit a government job because he said no one there was actually interested in what he was doing?

I hope the fact that he’s taken this post means he thinks he’ll be able to achieve something this time.

after spending 37 years cycle commuting to work, i spent my time riding alongside empty pavements for the 10 miles each way. why can we not upgrade all pavements to dual use ?
it works in holland, france and norway to name 3 more forward thinking countries.

On the BBC article why is he riding without a helmet?

And there in a nutshell is an illustration of the stupidity of the British public in general, and an indication of what an impossible task Boardman has.