Postponing Cycle Lane Creation

At a time when the Council is facing large spending cuts due to the budget deficit I was dismayed to read the Council has spent £9 million on creating cycle lanes in an attempt to emulate cities in Holland. Going by the number of cyclists in the cycle lanes it would seem to be a huge waste of money when the Council is facing a large budget shortfall. I understand a further 12 million has been budgeted for the current year to create more cycle lanes.

The benefits of cycle lanes are largely illusory and apply to a very small minority and therefore there is no urgent need for them to be created, the Council could save a large amount of money by postponing any further cycle lane creations.

I agree that capital investment in infrastructure can be a Good Thing but going by the daily commute I hardly see any cyclists using cycle lanes.

Staff are being asked to save pennies here and there while the huge sums being spent on cycle lanes seem to be rather frivolous. Hence such spending could be postponed and the money re-allocated to vital services or used to reduce the budget shortfall.

 

 

Why the contribution is important

This ideas is important as it saves the Council substantial sums of money which could reduce the budget shortfall by a significant amount immediately.

by Moneysaver on September 08, 2016 at 10:18AM

Current Rating

1.42857142857
Average score : 1.4
Based on : 14 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Joseph September 08, 2016 at 10:52

    The major point of the lanes is not to provide benefits to the existing small (but growing) numbers of cyclists in Glasgow, but to massively increase the number of cyclists in the long term. Provision of safe cycling infrastructure suitable for use by less confident cyclists is the primary way this can be achieve.

    There are many benefits to the cycle lanes described here:

    http://www.cyclinguk.org/[…]/cycling-and-economy

    To pick on one in particular:

    "The average economic benefit-to-cost ratio of investing in cycling & walking schemes is 13:1."

    Many of the cycle schemes have attracted matched funding from elsewhere, meaning the Council is achieving benefits of 26 times the money they invest. There are very few other areas where the Council can achieve such a high benefit from spending.

    These schemes will have a massive long term benefit to the Council, and are one of the main ways to fix the air quality issues within Glasgow and improve the health of residents in the long term. Yes, there are short term costs, but the long term savings immensely out weigh them many times over.
  • Posted by Moneysaver September 08, 2016 at 11:15

    I note the points you made and while you may be correct in some aspects regarding long term benefits the point is that the Council has a serious shortfall in the budget which needs to be addressed in the short term.

     In other words you may have benefits of a £100 million some day in the far,far future from spending £12 million but if you can't afford or don't have that £12 million to begin with...

    Also reducing the number of cars in the city centre has simply reduced the number of business with many shops shut with further loss of NDR revenue so some of the cycle lane benefits are illusory.I mean no one is going to carry all their shopping on a wobbly bike.
  • Posted by Joseph September 08, 2016 at 13:58

    " In other words you may have benefits of a £100 million some day in the far,far future from spending £12 million but if you can't afford or don't have that £12 million to begin with..."

    These aren't the right figures. We're talking about spending £12 million today to gain benefits of £312 million. If you delay the £12 million you delay the £312 million.

    It's like saying "We have a short fall, let's stop fixing potholes for a few years, that'll save money". All you do is created a bigger problem for future budgets, as in a few years time the roads now need a completely resurface at a far larger cost.

    The Council needs to solve both the short term and the long term budget problems. There is no suggestion at all that I've seen that the budget shortfall is a temporary problem; there is likely an even bigger shortfall in future years if public finances continue on the same path and care costs continue to spiral.

    Spending a little now produces big savings in the future. We have examples in this country, the investment in cycle superhighways in London did not need to wait for the far far future before seeing a payback.
  • Posted by Moneysaver September 09, 2016 at 12:03

    I am afraid that is erroneous reasoning. This would imply that if the Council had borrowed vast sums eons ago then we would not need to do anything at present as the benefit of such would have ballooned to massive proportions.

    If I had £1000 I could spend it now or invest it at 1% compound rate interest and become a millionaire in a few hundred years time, by which time I would be dead.

    I have observed potholes being fixed and they need to be fixed again a few weeks later as the job is done so badly or thoughtlessly that it does not last.

    Care costs are growing as a large fractions of the population is failing to amend their lifestyles and depend on various medicines with all the side effects to keep going.I regularly see 50 years olds on mobility scooters and with walking sticks and being over weight.

    Cycle lanes are not required by the majority and merely impede the flow of traffic by narrowing the roads and creating jams. Also the behaviour of cyclists poses a danger to pedestrians and motorists alike as they fail to follow any rules.
  • Posted by Fiets September 13, 2016 at 13:32

    Over 50% of Glasgow households do not have access to a car, so funding safe 8-80 active travel infrastructure benfits the majority of Glasgow households. In cites that have 8-80 infra it's common to see people in their 60's and 70's still cycling and walking. This helps overall fitness and lowers the cost of care.

    10% of the transport budget should be spent on active travel THat still leaves 90% for other uses.
  • Posted by Moneysaver September 19, 2016 at 11:51

    I agree older people need to be active - in a gym which is a safe place and not by cycling and endangering everyone with lawlessness and recklessness.

    Having a subsidized car could do away with the need for public transport and remove road hogging buses with their rude drivers.
  • Posted by Fiets September 22, 2016 at 11:41

    >
    >I agree older people need to be active - in a gym which is a safe place and not by cycling and >endangering everyone with lawlessness and recklessness.
    >

    I give you 4/10 for this effort. Your trolling needs to me more creative to score higher.
  • Posted by Moneysaver September 22, 2016 at 12:07

    Actually I was referring to cyclists who weave in and out on the pavement in a zig zag fashion and have no regard for pedestrians ,motorists or rules & regulations.

    I cannot understand why they have to zig zag in an unpredictable manner. They maybe trying to show off how cool and hip they are.

    Hence being lawless and reckless.

    Many pedestrians including small children have been FATALLY injured by these selfish and uncaring cyclists. Fatally injured means they will not recover from the injuries. That could be you as the pedestrian

    Older people are safer in a gym so that if they keel over a trained first aider will be on hand.
    Do you realize cold weather increases the risk of heart attack by more than 58%?

    The risk being an increase of 3% per degree of temperature decrease.
  • Posted by tollpatsch October 03, 2016 at 15:52

    Sorry Moneysaver, that is wholly inaccurate.

    Official statistics show that on average less than 1 person per year is killed by cyclists on pavements. Dozens are killed by drivers, however.

    Hundreds are killed and seriously injured by drivers all over the UK - are you also advocating that we cease all investment in the road network because of this?

    There are an absolutely huge variety of benefits to investing in active travel. To their credit, Glasgow City Council do appear to acknowledge this, even if their plan for achieving great modal share for cycling and walking is somewhat flawed.

    Because the case is so clear cut, I find it difficult to take your stated argument seriously.
  • Posted by BobF October 04, 2016 at 18:26

    Moneysaver

    "Cycle lanes are not required by the majority and merely impede the flow of traffic by narrowing the roads and creating jams."

    Cycling survey that GCC have done over recent years has noted a significant increase in the numbers of cyclists.
    http://www.cyclingscotland.[…]lasgow-increase-by-over-200
    https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/[…]ndler.ashx?id=33403&p=0

    "Cycle lanes ...merely impede the flow of traffic by narrowing the roads and creating jams" - so do bus lanes, what is your point?
     
    "Having a subsidized car could do away with the need for public transport and remove road hogging buses with their rude drivers." - Whats the projected cost of such a scheme?

    Regarding people using a gym my nearest and easiest council to access is approximately 40 mins away by bus. Cycling might be 30 mins , as main roads to the gym are not safe. So surely require gyms build closer.

    " and not by cycling and endangering everyone with lawlessness and recklessness." - please cite evidence for this. Some road users are not considerate, regardless of their mode of transport

    "Also the behavior of cyclists poses a danger to pedestrians and motorists alike as they fail to follow any rules." - Many road users do not observe common courtesy, what about vehicles pose a danger to all road users? As l often say its a minority of road users that pose a danger to other road users. No single group of road users can be accused of place other road users in danger.

    "Many pedestrians including small children have been FATALLY injured by these selfish and uncaring cyclists. Fatally injured means they will not recover from the injuries. That could be you as the pedestrian" - Cite the evidence otherwise this is only anecdotal. In which case l will be happy to submit video evidence of road users behaving in a selfish and uncaring manner. Once you have accepted those then l am sure a number of other cyclist in Glasgow will be more than willing to share their footage as well.
  • Posted by BobF October 04, 2016 at 19:09

    Just found out the the NHS active support and encourage cycling - http://www.cyclinguk.org/[…]/health-and-cycling

    This has a terrible video of some people over 50 who dare to cycle after going shopping https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/[…]/ Shocking that especially when you consider that country invested considerably in their cycling network from 1970's onwards, l was quite shocked when l found that out. Imagine an integrated cycle and public transport network one can but dream......
  • Posted by Ernie October 05, 2016 at 10:10

    A report by Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH) showed that people cycling to work in Glasgow helped generate £4m health-related savings in 2012 alone. The number of people commuting by bike has increased since then so it follows that so has the health saving accrued but let's just say it's £4M each year.
    That's £16M in the last four years, hardly an illusory benefit as Moneysaver would have people believe, so I'd suggest the Council should continue building segregated & safe cycle routes like the South West Cycle Way that actually enable people to travel in safety and in numbers. These should be built as soon as possible, on key routes radiating from the city centre and joining communities outwith the city. The health & financial benefits will be huge.
  • Posted by Moneysaver October 05, 2016 at 12:49

    To ERNIE

    The savings you mention are illusory as cycling increases wear & tear on the knee cartilage
    which mean metal knee replacements at huge cost.

    Then the metal leaches into the body and causes numerous health problems.

    In other words you are turning healthy people into invalids permanently on medication with all the attendant side effects.

    Who are the winners?

    Pharmaceutical companies.

  • Posted by Beatthechamp October 05, 2016 at 13:25

    @'Moneysaver' You just don't like cyclists or cycling, do you?

    Now here, is some actual evidence: Between 2006-2010 1011 people were killed by cars or vans mounting the pavement. During the same period 14 people were killed by cycles.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/[…]/uk_accident_statistics_for_pedes

    And forgive me for GCPH and NHS evidence more seriously than your assertions.

    Your suggestion is entirely vexations and is driven by your prejudices and should therefore be dismissed.
  • Posted by Ernie October 05, 2016 at 13:26

    Moneysaver wrote: "The savings you mention are illusory..."

    Hmmm, who to believe - an evidence-centred research team of scientists or some random guy offering baseless opinion? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Posted by cyclist1 October 05, 2016 at 16:25

    @Moneysaver is clearly on the wind up. This had me in stitches, especially the knee replacement part!
  • Posted by Moneysaver October 10, 2016 at 11:35

    Ernie
    Hmmm, who to believe - an evidence-centred research team of scientists or some random guy offering baseless opinion? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    " the body temperature of a chicken is 34 degree Celsius".

    You do realize that these "research team of scientists" are usually employed as consultants by some vested interest and therefore anything they say must be viewed with suspicion.
    For example if I say to the body temperature of a chicken is 34 degree Celsius often enough you will believe me.

    Hence the mantra that cyclists are going to solve congestion is purely a promotion event.
    Having mechanical knees is no joke and a source of pain for those inflicted and the cost huge to a overstaffed by "Managers" health service.

    I have nothing against cyclists but they are mostly a passing fad to whom everyone is bowing and scraping at great cost to the poor unfortunate motorist who has to suffer the slings and arrows of political whims.

     the body temperature of a chicken is 34 degree Celsius .
  • Posted by Ernie October 11, 2016 at 10:27

    Moneysaver wrote: "Many pedestrians including small children have been FATALLY injured by these selfish and uncaring cyclists."

    I'm pretty sure you're only engaging in this to yank everyone's chain but I'll give you this one opportunity to show otherwise. Your statement above is alarmist and designed to create fear so I'm asking you to back it up with evidence. Road death statistics are freely available.

    Give me the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists in, oh, let's say the last 10 years. You can do this for Glasgow only, Scotland, or the entire UK, it's up to you.
  • Posted by MSCRS October 18, 2016 at 15:36

    This is a bad idea. The money that is saved through the health benefits of cycling will be a saving in the long run for the NHS and the health and social care partnership and the council. Better cycling infrastructure is a spend to save win. Increasing cycling provision takes drivers off the street, so it will lead to less congestion on the roads in the long run.
  • Posted by Moneysaver October 19, 2016 at 11:58

    Just Eating Less would save the NHS a vast amount of money as I see so many people aged 40 or 50 doddering about unsteadily with walking sticks and mobility scooters endangering everyone as they zig zag haphazardly all over the pavement with a glazed look and carrier bags full of more junk food in the holdall.

    Congestion is caused by far too many traffic lights needlessly holding up traffic when simple underground or overhead pedestrian enclosed bridges could solve this.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas