Browsed by
Category: Politics

Thoughts on politics

Road safety and the definition of insanity

Road safety and the definition of insanity

So far this week there have been three serious crashes in Edinburgh (and it is only Friday) which is not good news. Then on seeing a tweet this morning my heart sank further. The tweet spoke of influencing “culture change and mutual understanding on our shared road network”. For many who have been campaigning for years to make the roads safer for people to cycle, walk or wheel, this feels like Ground Hog Day. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against the person who wrote it. It is someone I know and respect. It is the comment that “We have to work together to influence culture change and mutual understanding on our shared road network” that makes me feel depressed.

We have been here before. This is nothing new, every time there is a spike in road deaths we hear the same mutual respect concept rolled out. As Albert Einstein is supposed to have said (and probably didn’t), “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result“. We know there is a fatal flaw in the “mutual respect” approach to road safety. It assumes that all road users are equally capable of harming each other and therefore equally culpable when/if things go wrong. This is simply not true. Until we ditch this flawed concept, we will be unable to move on, stuck in an insane loop, a deathly Ground Hog Day.

The question now is: how do we break out of this cycle of insanity? The answer is simple, we look for evidence of what works, and learn from that. But before we go further, it is worth just looking to see where the mutual respect/share the road concept came from. It has its origins in 1930’s America where it was invented by the Shell oil company and adopted wholesale by the motor industry. It is still promoted by the Ford Motor Company as a way of getting non-motorised road users off the roads to make way for cars and also to transfer blame to the victims when things go wrong. Therefore, is it any wonder that it has failed? OK, so what else is out there?

Back at the start of the Millennium when all was hope and optimism, the concept of Vision Zero became popular across the world. The idea of Vision Zero started in Sweden and was approved by their parliament in October 1997. The aim was to use road engineering to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured (KSI) to Zero by 2020. Are they there yet? No, the rate of KSIs in Sweden stopped declining in 2013, and the target date moved to 2030.

The UK has talked about developing a Vision Zero strategy but has never actually implemented anything across the country. This is partly as transport is a devolved issue, and indeed Scotland did have a Vision Zero policy, too, but this was quietly dropped some years ago and has disappeared from sight. The main reason the UK does not have a fully developed Vision Zero strategy is because the government claims to have a low rate of KSI per 100k people. However, this is deeply disingenuous, as the UK also has very low levels of walking and cycling (along with the highest obesity rates in Europe). When the KSI rate per distance walked or cycled is examined, it turns out the UK’s rates of KSIs are among the highest in Europe.

Given that there is a desire to increase rates of active travel, where should we look for an example of how to get it right? The country which has probably been most successful at this is the Netherlands, with their strategy of Sustainable Safety (or “Duurzaam veilig” if you want it in Dutch). Where Duurzaam veilig differs from Vision Zero is that it recognises that in the majority of collision humans are to blame and that roads should be designed to be “self-explaining”, thus reducing the likelihood of crashes in the first place. Sustainable Safety also acknowledges that collisions will happen and therefore, when the inevitable does occur, it should be survivable. This approach has been shown to work, the Netherlands are probably the safest place in the world to walk or cycle. There is no point in trying to reinvent the wheel when it already exists. The intelligent approach is to learn from the concept and adapt it to your needs. Got rough roads to travel over? Add a more cushioning tyre, but don’t be tempted to make the wheel square.

Therefore, I suggest, if we wish to escape the deathly Ground Hog Day described above, now is the time to abandon the “mutual respect” concept and embrace Sustainable Safety. Can it be done? Well maybe if someone with a background in psychology, a persuasive nature and access to people at the highest level, were to get the Scottish Government to change its approach. Then we could have a chance to break out of this cycle of insanity.

City of Edinburgh Councillors and twitter: 2020

City of Edinburgh Councillors and twitter: 2020

City of Edinburgh Councillors and twitter: 2020

Some years ago, in the interests of openness and democracy, I compiled a list of all the City of Edinburgh Councillors with a Twitter account, as that one was some what out of date, I have now gotten around to up dating it (and further corrections on 1st July 2020). Hope you find this useful.

CouncillorPolitical PartyTwitter addressWard
Robert C AldridgeLib-DemN/ADrum Brae / Gyle
Scott ArthurLabour@CllrScottArthurColinton / Fairmilehead
Gavin BarrieEdinburgh Party of Independent Councillors@GavinKBarrieInverleith
Eleanor BirdSNP@CllrEleanorBirdForth
Chas BoothGreen@CllrChasBoothLeith
Claire BridgmanEdinburgh Party of Independent CouncillorsN/ADrum Brae / Gyle
Mark BrownConservative@Mr_Mark_BrownDrum Brae / Gyle
Graeme BruceConservativeN/APentland Hills
Steve BurgessGreen@SteveAMBurgessSouthside / Newington
Lezley Marion CameronLabour@lezleymarionLiberton / Gilmerton
Jim CampbellConservativeN/AForth
Kate CampbellSNP@KateC_SNPPortobello / Craigmillar
Mary CampbellGreen@MaryGreensPortobello / Craigmillar
Maureen M ChildLabour@MaureenChild1Portobello / Craigmillar
Nick CookConservative@CllrNickCookMorningside
Gavin CorbettGreen@gavincorbettFountainbridge / Craiglockhart
Cammy DayLabour@cllrcammydayForth
Alison DickieSNP@AlisonDickieSNPSouthside / Newington
Denis DixonSNPN/ASighthill / Gorgie
Phil DoggartConservative@PhilipDoggartColinton / Fairmilehead
Karen DoranLabour@KarenDoran3City Centre
Scott DouglasConservative@scottdouglas_Corstorphine / Murrayfield
Catherine FullertonSNP@cathyfullertonSighthill / Gorgie
Neil GardinerSNPN/APentland Hills
Gillian GloyerLib-DemN/ACorstorphine / Murrayfield
George GordonSNPN/AForth
Ashley GraczykIndependent@ashleyannotateSighthill / Gorgie
Joan GriffithsLabour@joan_griffithsCraigentinny / Duddingston
Ricky HendersonLabour@henderson_rickyPentland Hills
Derek HowieSNP@derekhowiesnpLiberton / Gilmerton
Graham HutchisonConservative@CllrGrahamHutchAlmond
Andrew JohnstonConservative@CllrAndrewJFountainbridge / Craiglockhart
David KeySNP@davidfkeyFountainbridge / Craiglockhart
Callum LaidlawConservative@ClaidlawPortobello / Craigmillar
Kevin LangLib-Dem@kevin_langAlmond
Lesley MacinnesSNP@lmacinnessnpLiberton / Gilmerton
Melanie MainGreen@melaniemainMorningside
John McLellanConservative@johnmclellanCraigentinny / Duddingston
Amy McNeese-MechanSNP@AMcNeeseMechanLeith Walk
Adam McVeySNP@adamrmcveyLeith
Claire MillerGreen@CllrCMillerCity Centre
Max MitchellConservative@maxmitchell91Inverleith
Joanna MowatConservative@jomowatCity Centre
Rob MunnSNP@robm2Leith Walk
Gordon J MunroLabour@GJMunro26Leith
Hal OslerLib-Dem@HalOslerInverleith
Ian PerryLabourN/ASouthside / Newington
Susan RaeGreen@susan4leithwalkLeith Walk
Alasdair RankinSNP@AlasdairRankin_City Centre
Lewis RitchieEdinburgh Party of Independent CouncillorsN/A (account deleted)Leith Walk
Cameron RoseConservative@cameronroseSouthside / Newington
Frank RossSNP@FrankRoss06Corstorphine / Murrayfield
Neil RossLib-DemN/AMorningside
Jason RustConservativeN/AColinton / Fairmilehead
Stephanie SmithConservative@cllr_stephanieLiberton / Gilmerton
Alex StaniforthGreen@Alex4Craig_DuddCraigentinny / Duddingston
Mandy WattLabourN/AMorningside
Susan WebberConservative@SJWebber_PHWPentland Hills
Iain WhyteConservative@CllrWhyteInverleith
Donald WilsonLabour@CultureCmmunitySighthill / Gorgie
Norman WorkSNP@CllrNormanWorkAlmond
Louise YoungLib-Dem@CllrLouiseYoungAlmond

If you spot any errors, please let me know, I am also on Twitter @kim_harding.

Creative Commons License
This post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Generic License.

How to undermine a Bill with loopholes

How to undermine a Bill with loopholes

Following on from my last blog post, I decided to take a look at the “Pavement Parking Standard Response” from the Tory MSPs and this is what I found. It is clear example of Orwellian double speak, their proposed amendments are not intended to “to strengthen the Bill” but rather to introduce loopholes to undermine the clauses on pavement parking.

Thank you for your email,

The Transport Bill offers a chance to examine and possibly change legislation surrounding pavement parking, as well as low emission zones and bus franchising to name some of the other issues it may address.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the Transport Bill in principle but we will likely aim to lodge amendments to strengthen the Bill at Stages Two and Three to ensure it is a robust and sound piece of law.

Frequent parking on footways can cause damage that eventually manifests as uneven pavements. Such damage can represent a real danger to pedestrians, especially vulnerable ones, with local authorities having to foot the bill for repairs.

We can all agree that inconsiderate parking must be tackled and I am pleased that there are plans to look at it. A blanket ban on pavements must be properly researched and proportionate. Inconsiderate parking should not be tolerated, but there are many instances when parking partly on a pavement is the only available option and can be done without obstructing pedestrians’ access.

As you will be aware there may be instances in which parking with two wheels on a pavement has left sufficient room for pedestrians to pass while allowing traffic to flow freely on the road. That is a key point because it would obviously be counterproductive to impose a ban only for it to result in constant road blockages. As long as such parking can be done in a way that allows more than enough room for all pedestrians to pass freely, it is not always necessary to impose a blanket ban. I am not convinced that a blanket ban with no room for exemptions by local authorities in places might be too much of a catch all approach, I know of many areas where pavement parking is the only option to allow free passage of vehicles, including emergency vehicles, through narrow streets – in those examples perhaps local authorities may need to approach this pragmatically. Blanket centralisation of such individual circumstances in my view has historically caused unintended consequences.

The compromise that we would like to emerge would be to find a balance between protecting vulnerable pedestrians and allowing harmless pavement parking to continue. I suspect our amendments will be of this ilk.

I can understand the temptation to push through a blanket ban because it is right to say that we should not tolerate forcing vulnerable pedestrians to move around parked cars on pavements or dropped footways. However, we would not be serving the public if we simply imposed a blanket ban and left motorists, as well as law enforcement officers, to clear up the mess.

I hope you find the above position helpful and I thank you for contacting me regarding this important subject.

They start by acknowledging that “Frequent parking on footways can cause damage that eventually manifests as uneven pavements. Such damage can represent a real danger to pedestrians, especially vulnerable ones, with local authorities having to foot the bill for repairs”. Yes, that is why the Bill proposes to completely ban parking on the footway. However, they suggest that “parking partly on a pavement is the only available option”, not true, there is always the option to park considerately elsewhere and walk to your final destination, that is what footways are there for. We all have the right to walk, but there is no “right” to drive, this is a privileged form of mobility undertaken under licence.

Then we get on to the suggestion that “parking with two wheels on a pavement” should be acceptable, this directly contradicts acknowledgement that parking on the pavement is damaging for a wide range of reasons. The frequency of this parking behaviour is a red herring, they already suggest pavement parking is harmful and then proceed to contradict themselves. The next red herring is “pavement parking is the only option to allow free passage of vehicles”- if the road is too narrow to allow parking on the roadway, then yes, it is indeed too narrow for parking – so why should motorists expect to be allowed to encroach into areas specifically set aside for pedestrians? It is neither fair nor reasonable. Just remember that we all have the right to walk but there is no right to drive. By saying that pavement parking should be permitted, this is saying the motorist should in all cases have priority over pedestrians. This is in no way about “compromise” or “balance”, it is about prioritising motorists over “vulnerable pedestrians” who are currently forced “to move around motor vehicles parked on pavements or dropped footways” by inconsiderate and selfish parking.

Finally we are told that a blanket ban will leave “motorists, as well as law enforcement officers, to clear up the mess”, how so? If there is a blanket ban on pavement parking the law, is then clear and unambiguous, there should be no mess to clear up. By introducing exemptions for so called “harmless pavement parking” it deliberately introduces ambiguity, which then creates a mess for enforcement officers to clear up, along with time-wasting court action while loophole lawyers argue over the level of harm caused.

For the good of all, these loopholes must be blocked before the Bill is passed. Only by having a blanket on all pavement parking will the law be clear and unambiguous.

Call for a pavement parking ban in Scotland

Call for a pavement parking ban in Scotland

The Transport (Scotland) Bill is currently making it way through the Scottish Parliament, among its provisions are clauses which aim to ban pavement parking in Scotland, which is long overdue. However, there are a few loopholes which need closing. Therefore as a responsible citizen, I decided to write to my MSP’s asking the consider helping to close these loopholes as the Bill makes it way through Holyrood. Here is the letter which I sent to my elected representatives:

I am writing to you in the hope that you will act to close the loopholes regarding pavement parking in the current Transport (Scotland) Bill. Without closing these loopholes the legislation will fail to provide the full benefit to all of the people living in Scotland.

There are currently exceptions for all “delivery vehicles”, allowing vans and lorries to park on pavements for “up to 20 minutes”. This is a total nonsense, there is no need for delivery vehicles to park on footways or cycleways. Rather, there is a need to rethink how last mile deliveries are carried out and to seek smarter, more sustainable solutions. The current practice of allowing vehicles to park on the pavement not only causes great inconvenience to pedestrians, it also places a cost burden hard-pressed local authorities who have to pay for the damage caused by pavement parking.

The bill also needs to more clearly define what a pavement obstruction is so that enforcement is straightforward and easy for local authorities. A clear definition will also make it easier for drivers to know what they are expected to comply with. There should be no ambiguity on what constitutes obstruction such as the time limit nonsense referred to above.

The other thing that is lacking from the bill is the banning of parking which obstructs dropped kerbs, this omission needs to be corrected. Not only are dropped kerbs important to wheelchair users, people with mobility scooters and parents with pushchairs, they are important for those carrying deliveries too. Here again, there needs to be a clear definition of what constitutes obstruction dropped kerbs so that everyone knows what is expected of them.

The Transport (Scotland) Bill has the potential to improve safety on our roads and the quality of life for all, if these loopholes are closed. Please don’t miss the opportunity to improve this Bill.

Thanks,

Kim

Mr Kim Harding, BSc, MPhil

I will add in replies as I get them.

The first three replies I received where automated responses, one was an “out of office” message saying that the MSP was on holiday and would get back to me on his return. The other two came from Miles Briggs (Conservative) and Jeremy Balfour (Conservative), both replies were almost identical which suggest that this is a standard party approach to dealing with any correspondence from constituents.

Thank you for contacting me.

Priority is given to helping constituents with individual concerns or problems.

If your email relates to a nationally organised campaign on a current political issue where you have been asked to “Write to your MSP” you are likely to find a response on my website at: [MSP’s website]

While I always welcome personal comments from constituents I am afraid that I have reached the conclusion that it is no longer possible for my staff to process individually the many thousands of identical or computer-generated `round-robins` I receive every month. If you live in Lothian you may wish to come along to one of my regular advice `surgeries` when I will be pleased to discuss your own concerns with you in person. These are advertised in the local media and on my website.

Kind regards,

With these automated replies, these MSPs are effectively holding up two fingers to their constituents and show their contempt for those they are elected to represent. To be clear these auto-replies are not to an automated campaign, they are to all email correspondence sent MSPs representing the Conservative party. We live in a “representative democracy” when a person takes the time to write a personal message to their elected representative, it is the responsibility of the elected person to read and respond to the message, otherwise what is the point of electing these people. The fact that the issue which I am raising is a matter of concern to a number of other people, who have also made the effort to contact their elected representative, is totally irrelevant.

Having received the automated replies Tories, I checked out their standard reply on the Pavement Parking clauses in the Transport (Scotland) Bill, only to find that they are deliberately trying to insert the loopholes into the Bill.

The first genuine reply can from Kezia Dugdale (Labour), on behalf of a college who was on holiday, saying that their party position was to fully support the Bill:

Thank you for your email regarding the parking provisions within the Transport (Scotland) Bill.

Scottish Labour very much supports a ban on pavement parking. As your email highlights, pavement parking can cause serious problems for those with mobility issues, as well as those with prams, and we should take action to prevent it as far as possible.

The Transport Bill as it is drafted does provide a number of specific exemptions and gives local authorities the ability to exempt certain roads from a ban. These exemptions provide an element of flexibility and will help to protect against potential problems such as unnecessarily restricting access on certain roads for emergency vehicles. There are also specific exemptions built into the bill for certain vehicles, for example an ambulance attending an emergency. However, as your email notes, there is a risk that exemptions may create loopholes and undermine the effectiveness of the ban, so it is important that they are kept to a minimum.

In the coming months the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Economy and Connectivity (REC) Committee will be scrutinising the Transport Bill. This is an opportunity to look closely at potential problems and loopholes, such as the ones outlined in your email. In the REC Committee Scottish Labour’s Transport Spokesperson Colin Smyth will be working to strengthen the Bill and address concerns about its effectiveness.

The REC Committee are currently collecting evidence on this Bill. If you wish to submit your views, information on how to do so is available here. [No information provided]

In the meantime, thank you again for your email, and please don’t hesitate to get back in touch if I can be of any assistance to you in the future.

Kind regards

Kezia

I can understand the point of exempting emergency vehicles attending an emergency call, but where is the point exempt whole roads from a ban? If the road is too narrow to permit parking on the roadway, it is too narrow to permit parking other than in a emergency situation. Providing any other form of exemption will only lead to abuse.

Update 12th Sept 2018
This is Alison Johnstone (Green) reply:

Many thanks for writing to me about the Transport Bill, and efforts to restrict pavement parking. I am responding also on behalf of my Green MSP colleague, Andy Wightman.

I agree that parking on pavements should be an enforceable offence. Even partially parking vehicles on the pavement can reduce the amount of space that is available for people to pass by and can completely obstruct the footway. No one should be forced onto the road, especially our most vulnerable street users, including older people, children, parents with buggies, wheelchair users and those with reduced mobility.

I understand concerns that the current exemption for delivery vehicles in the draft Bill could undermine efforts to deliver accessible streets for all. Scottish Green Transport spokesperson John Finnie MSP is seeking more information about these exemptions and how we can legislate to best deliver safe pavements for the most vulnerable in our society.

As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, John will vigorously test the Scottish Government’s proposals when they are discussed at Committee in the coming weeks.

Best wishes,

Alison

Asking the candidates where they stand on Active Travel (updated)

Asking the candidates where they stand on Active Travel (updated)

With the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections being held on Thursday 5 May 2016, I have decided that it is time to ask the candidates where they stand on Active Travel. In the past I have made a few suggestions as to what a manifesto for active travel should include, such as this post from 2010 and this from 2011. However, this time round I have been involved with a campaign called We Walk, We Cycle, We Vote AKA #WalkCycleVote. We believe these three pledges will transform Scotland for active travel

  • Investment: Provide sustained, long term investment in both cycling and walking, reaching 10% of the transport budget.
  • Infrastructure: Build and maintain dedicated cycling infrastructure, enabling people aged 8-80 to cycle.
  • Safety: Promote and deliver safer roads for both walking and cycling.

More detail can be found here.

As a genuine floating vote, I really haven’t decided who I am going to vote for yet. I have been e-mailing the candidates standing for election to ask where stand on Active Travel. Using the #WalkCycleVote’s handy Find your candidates page, I have been sending the following message to the candidates.

[Subject]Where do you stand on Active travel?

Dear candidate,

As a voter in the Edinburgh Central and the Lothian region, I would like to know about your and your party’s position on active travel?

There are three thing I would like to see:

Investment: Provide sustained, long term investment in both cycling and walking, reaching 10% of the transport budget.

Infrastructure: Build and maintain dedicated cycling infrastructure, enabling people aged 8-80 to cycle.

Safety: Promote and deliver safer roads for both walking and cycling.

I have attached a pdf which give more details in case you are interested. Can you tell me where you send on these three policy asks?

Thank you,

Kim Harding
Voter

 

First replies coming via Twitter:

First e-mail from Alison Johnstone (Green Party)

Dear Sally, Kim and all at Walk, Cycle, Vote,

Many thanks for writing to me about active travel policies ahead of the Holyrood elections in May. While the Greens have a small team compared with some others, I would very much like to have been able to get answers to you sooner, as I certainly have enjoyed working hard on this issue with you in recent years.

I am happy to restate my long-standing and unwavering commitment to deliver the investment, infrastructure and safety that is required of a modern country’s active travel infrastructure.

The Scottish Green Party has a long-standing commitment to spend at least 10% of Scotland’s transport budget on cycling and walking infrastructure, to put us on a course that would bring us up to the standard seen in many European countries where cycling rates are notably higher than our own. As Co-convenor of the Cross Party Group on Cycling during the previous parliamentary term, I frequently pressed the Transport Minister and the Finance Secretary to scale up their ambition.

It is simply unacceptable that in a transport spending of around £2 billion each year, cycle funding makes up less than 2% of this total. Since 2011/12, the trunk roads budget has increased by 36%, and yet cycle funding has plateaued, despite widespread concern that the Scottish Government is not on track to meet its 2020 target of 10% of journeys by bike.

To honour climate change commitments made in Paris, and for the sake of bringing our infrastructure into line with that of many of our European cousins, we must take a different approach to transport in general, and active travel in particular. I very much share public concerns that spending on trunk roads will increase while support for public transport and active travel shrinks.

While an MSP for Lothian, I lodged an amendment to a Government debate motion on Active Travel (a copy is included below) and I was pleased that it was selected for debate. The full report of the debate can be found here. More recently I asked a question about how the Scottish Government works with local authorities to address dangerously high air pollution levels, given that increasing the levels of cycling and walking is among the vital steps to take. You can read more about this here.

Part of our ambition must be to deliver a transport network that can best serve the needs of the public in their daily lives, and I believe that an integrated approach to walking, cycling, and public transport infrastructure is the way forward. Recent research demonstrates a link between air pollution and heart disease and makes this a matter of extreme urgency.

Increased capacity and flexibility for the carriage of bicycles and other larger items is long overdue in my opinion, so it is a frustration to see missed opportunities for creating a more ambitious and user-friendly transport network, such as when new rolling stock is under consideration. Active methods of travel, such as cycling, should be an option for people taking longer journeys that require additional means of transport, and an integrated approach to transport policy is vital.

Please be assured that I am determined to do all I can to improve cycle safety and provision, and encourage more people to choose to take the healthy, active and environmentally-friendly option of cycling.

I am certainly intending to attend this year’s PoP, so thank you for the invitation.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch with me in the future if I can be of assistance, or if you have any specific ideas or concerns about cycling in Scotland.

Best wishes,

Alison

*S4M-11980.2 Alison Johnstone: Active Travel—As an amendment to motion S4M-11980 in the name of Derek Mackay (Active Travel), insert at end “; reaffirms the Scottish Government’s target of 10% of journeys to be made by bike by 2020; notes the estimate by Spokes that active travel funding in the 2015-16 draft budget is lower than in the previous year; calls on the Scottish Government to reverse this cut and substantially increase funding for active travel; notes the ongoing debate and research into the introduction of presumed liability in relation to road accidents, and urges local authorities to meet growing demand for high-quality walking and cycling infrastructure, extend 20mph speed limits in built-up areas and provide walking and cycling training opportunities to every child in Scotland”.

 

Next reply from Alison Dickie (SNP)

Dear Kim,

Lovely to hear from you. I think it would be useful to set out my own personal views on this and the wider SNP position.

I am absolutely committed to supporting sustainable development in Scotland and recognise that active travel has a vital role to play in ensuring we meet the needs of the present, with due consideration for future generations. The health benefits of active travel are obvious to me, as is tackling congestion and air pollution.

I live in the Edinburgh Central constituency and like quite a number of Edinburgh residents, I tend to walk everywhere I go. I am also very supportive of cycling and understand how safer routes will encourage more take-up of cycling, and I have often commented on that myself.

The SNP are investing over £1bn annually in public transport and other sustainable transport options to encourage people out of their car. We have also committed to a £5bn programme of investment in Scotland’s railways over 5 years to 2019, double that planned by UK ministers on a per capita basis. This significant investment will also help make our roads safer by reducing congestion.

Specifically, in respect of cycling, the SNP are passionate about making active and sustainable travel part of everyday life in Scotland. We are committed to a vision of 10% of everyday journeys being undertaken by bike by 2020, which is set out in the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CAPS). We are investing almost £36m in 2015/2016 to help support delivery of this ambition. This represents an increase of 70% on 2013/2014, at a time where Scotland’s overall capital budget has decreased by 26%. We are also working with partners to make Scotland’s roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists, to encourage people to choose to travel actively. You can read more about CAPS at the link below.

http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/316212/0100657.pdf

A third version of CAPS will be published later this year. To help support CAPS, we have held two Ministerial Cycling Summits and one Active Travel Summit since 2013, honouring our commitment in CAPS to bring together Local Authority Heads of Transportation and the relevant chair of Local Authority Committees, and active travel stakeholders. Looking forward, we will extend the Future Transport Fund (FTF), which supports the development of priority active travel infrastructure projects in partnership with local authorities.

I hope that helps confirm our commitment to active travel and the support that cycling is receiving under an SNP Scottish Government committed to encouraging healthier and greener travel.
Kind regards

Alison Dickie for Edinburgh Central

 

Sarah Boyack (Lab)

Dear Kim, many thanks for raising the issue of how we promote active travel.

I have supported and promoted active travel and cycling policy and investment since my election in 1999.

I was the Scottish Parliament’s first Transport Minister in the first Scottish Parliament in 1999 and created new funds for safer streets, walking and cycling. I believe that a key challenge is delivering sustained investment by both local authorities and the Scottish Government over the next 10-15 years, if we are to deliver the transformation we need to see people of all ages being more active and making healthier, greener travel choices.

Scotland is nowhere near achieving its active travel goals to achieve 10% of all journeys travelled by cycle and 35% of all journeys by foot by 2020. My colleague David Stewart recently called for 1% of the £690m trunk road budget to be transferred to the Active Travel budget but unfortunately this fell upon deaf ears.

Given the huge benefits cycling brings to people’s health and the positive impact it has on air pollution and traffic congestion, I believe we should be doing far more to encourage people to take it up and to improve the infrastructure for existing cyclists. I agree we need to enable cycling for all ages and investment needs to start in our schools. I’m also keen to see more promotion of cycling for women and I support the recent focus on this in the cycling community.

It’s also important that we improve people’s travel options whether for work or leisure to ensure that walking and cycling are better integrated with reliable, accessible public transport across the whole of Scotland. That’s why Scottish Labour will make it easier and cheaper to get to work with a single ticket that can be used on buses, trains, trams, underground and ferries. If it can be done in London – it can be done in Scotland.

I recently wrote to the Scottish Government’s Transport Minister Derek McKay to express my concerns about Transport Scotland’s decision to downgrade cycle capacity on the Edinburgh-Glasgow service. Given the increased demand on Edinburgh to Glasgow for commuters we should be planning for extra, not reduced capacity. Having supported reopening the Borders Rail line I’ve also been committed to ensuring it has flexible space on carriages so that we can maximise the opportunity of promoting tourism and leisure opportunities in the Borders.

Our local councils have an important role in improving safety for cyclists. I support Edinburgh Council’s approach of reducing the speed limit to 20mph on selected streets and their increasing allocation of transport spending on investment.

As a former town planner I believe that we still have a long way to go in designing new buildings and public spaces to make active travel more attractive, whether its residential, work and shopping areas.

In addition to promoting active travel to work we should also be doing more to support new opportunities for leisure and recreation. Alongside the development of new national park land we need to see more well-developed walking routes and cycling trails.

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment. If re-elected I would be keen to work with you to maximise the benefits of increased levels of active travel.

Best wishes,

Sarah
Sarah Boyack
#Sarah4Central
@SarahBoyack
www.sarahboyack.com
facebook.com/sarahboyacklabour

 

Hannah Bettsworth (Lib Dem)

Dear Ms Harding,

Thank you for your recent email regarding the need to invest in active travel.

Scottish Liberal Democrats believe the case for increasing uptake of cycling and walking is compelling. It has huge potential to benefit the health of the people of Scotland, tackle obesity, ease congestion on roads, as well as contributing to meeting Scotland’s ambitious climate change targets and air pollution limits – both of which have been missed in recent years. There are more cars on the road than ever before and they account for half of all journeys under 5 kilometres Given that transport accounts for around a quarter of Scotland’s emissions, it will be almost impossible to meet these and other key targets unless there is a shift towards low-carbon and active travel. Indeed, it will require strong, effective and sustained leadership from the next Scottish Government if 10% of all journeys are to be made by bike by 2020.

Scottish Liberal Democrats support safer streets for cyclists and pedestrians. For example, we will establish more dedicated and segregated cycle infrastructure. It is also worth noting that Liberal Democrats have a strong record of delivering in this area. For example, our councillors in Edinburgh helped secure the commitment to spending 5% of the city’s transport budget on cycling, with an automatic 1% a year escalator to move it up to 10%. There is real progress being made and there is real merit in other councils’ following this lead.

Further plans for active travel will be set out in our manifesto. I hope that you will take the time to read it because many of these themes will be reflected in it and I am certain it will be of interest to you. It will be available in due course at www.scotlibdems.org.uk.

I hope that you find this response helpful in the meantime and please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance with regards to this or any other matter.
Kind regards,

Hannah Bettsworth

 

Just remember:
We Walk, We Cycle, We Vote

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
%d bloggers like this: