Active Travel England, the Government’s new cycling and walking executive agency, launches with Chris Boardman as interim commissioner. The former Oly …

By stwhannah

Get the full story on our front page at:

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

Support us and help us keep the content flowing by becoming a full member.

just heard this on the radio. i like Chris Boardman, he knows and understands what cyclists need. i hope he has great success with this.

@ton I agree, he’s the perfect guy for the job. I’m not sure how long I could keep banging the same drum and making such slow progress, so I hope he doesn’t get worn down by endless government machinations.

Hopefully Chris will be able to make a difference but in my opinion there is one glaring omission from these plans.

They never mention how to tackle the cycle theft epidemic.

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.

Theft might not be in their remit, but I wonder if insurance and storage might be? It seems perverse that you can live in a flat, buy a car (or motorbike), park it on the street or in any number of parking spots at shops etc, and have it insured against theft or damage regardless of where you park it. But buy a bike – or cargo bike – and you might just about manage to claim back if you use a gold standard lock and attach it to just the right sort of fixture and that’s assuming you can find a space for it anywhere in the first place…

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.

Hopefully Chris will be able to make a difference but in my opinion there is one glaring omission from these plans.

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.

@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.

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.

Population density per km2

Belgium 383
Netherlands 508
UK 281
Germany 240
Italy 206
France 119
Denmark 137

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.

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.

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60092864

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.

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

Because he is doing a safe activity that doesn’t require one.

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.

No-one better to lead this – a former sport cyclist who truly understands the role of cycling as an everyday form of transport. Needs the political will and funding to make it happen but as a spokesman and public face there is no-one better.

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

Watch this where he explains exactly why

https://fb.watch/aHLhqxHWbT/

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.

Watch this where he explains exactly why

https://fb.watch/aHLhqxHWbT/

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.

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

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.

So people keep saying. The problem is that it’s not borne out by the reality on the ground, where e.g. Rochdale has yet to start construction of its very modest Beeline (which connects the canal to the town centre, and not much else), and what there is isn’t a connected network, either to nodal points or to other routes.

This isn’t Boardman’s fault – he had no powers to compel councils to act. See today’s WRGM press release

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.

This isn’t Boardman’s fault – he had no powers to compel councils to act. See today’s WRGM press release

Yeah, the Bee Network thing, after a blaze of publicity when it launched, has met with varying degrees of apathy, ineptitude, mismanagement and watering down from the 10 councils that make up Greater Manchester. It’s not Boardman’s fault at all – they had no legal powers forcing councils to act and many of them backed down at the first hint of any negativity.

I’ve got reasonable hopes for ATE and they seem to have a bit more about them forcing councils to put in proper infra rather than the usual “any old shite to appease the lycra mob” but I’ll believe it when I see it.

I have to say though, Chris is an absolute legend to have been putting up with this middle management crap from councils for so long. Calmly and methodically breaking down all the arguments against it, all the noise and distractions about helmets / insurance / hi viz and other assorted bollocks. I couldn’t maintain that professionalism, I’d be hitting Councillors around the head shouting “why are you so **** thick?!”

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…

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.

A personal anecdote. Cycling to work is a no helmet activity (21-ish km each way on the road) and I don’t hang about downhill. Never worn a helmet for this in 5 years, number of accidents 0, number of falls 1 (a cleat didn’t release and I fell into the road no bumped head). Road commuting is a generally a very safe activity.

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.

Chris is a great figurehead and advocate but in Manchester has been hampered by lack of budget and frankly interest from most of the councils. I fear the same limitations here, the news report mentions £5million government funding which is peanuts. I think I read new cycle lanes cost £500k per km

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.

Him not wearing a helmet can only hurt one person – him.
Clearly former pro Chris would still ride a bike even if a helmet was compulsory, but for someone else, ruining their hair or just carrying the thing round all day once they get into town may be the deal breaker for them.
Every new cyclist on the road makes YOU safer, as bikes are more visible and normal.

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’

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

Because – rightly or wrongly – wearing a helmet is seen by many as a barrier to cycling.

Being able to cycle without “needing” one is the goal of this plan.

As they are not a legal requirement, why put people off by showing him wearing one?

(I always wear one, I’ve damaged three in crashes, but none of those crashes involved traffic. I’m happy to let people make their own choices.)

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.

If you walk around a post-war tower block estate in this country there are underpasses, overpasses, footpaths, cycle paths,

Yes, there was a load of innovation from the 50’s to the 70’s but some mistakes were made – underpasses and overpasses are still measures that prioritise motoring rather than walking. It’s pedestrians and cyclists who have to go far out of their way, up or down a steep slope, into a dark, dangerous feeling underpass. We built estates with footpaths and alleyways that weren’t overlooked so again they felt unsafe – particularly when many of these estates suffered underinvestment and high crime levels. Milton Keynes was held up as the city where cycleways were built and not used but even there they were hidden away and indirect whilst driving was made super-easy.

The reaction to that was that ‘permeability’ was bad so we’ve had decades of building suburban housing with cul-de-sacs and no links between them so each street is cut off from the next, walking is inconvenient and everyone ends up driving.

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’

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.

Manchester was turned into an ulgy place thanks to the inner ring road and associated radial roads built and modified in the 70s respectively. They created a kind of hostile urban desert for pedestrians and cyclists. Massive mistake in my view.

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.

Manchester was turned into an ulgy place thanks to the inner ring road and associated radial roads built and modified in the 70s respectively.

Which is true, but there’s no reason things can’t be changed. There is no reason to take a private car inside the inner ring road, except that CoM council make so much money from mobility hubs car parks.

This to me will put more people off so sadly I can only see fewer people using bike as transport.

Which is true, hence the need to get adequate active travel infra that goes to places people want to go and forms sensible routes built. Adequate road policing resource and enforcement would help too mind you.

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.

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.

On the plus side if you cycle primary the driver of the wide vehicle has to assess things as they must cross the centre (line) to get past. As they are usually rentals this leads them to being more cautious to avoid damaging the vehicle they don’t own.

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.

It would help if the people actually involved in urban planning, etc (councillors), could only use their cars to get to work once a week.

That would focus their attention.