Written evidence submitted by Cycling UK (ATR0075)

Introduction

1. Cycling UK was founded in 1878 and has 65,000 members. Cycling UK’s central mission is to make cycling a safe, accessible, enjoyable and ‘normal’ activity for people of all ages and abilities.  It was previously known as the Cyclists’ Touring Club, or CTC, the national cycling charity. Our interests cover cycling both as a form of day-to-day transport and as a leisure activity, which can deliver health, economic, environmental, safety and quality of life benefits both for individuals and society. We represent the interests of current and would-be cyclists on public policy matters.
2. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Transport Committee’s inquiry. It complements a joint response which we have submitted together with the Bicycle Association, British Cycling, Living Streets, the Ramblers and Sustrans. That response reflects the joint ‘Moving the Nation’ manifesto launched earlier this year,[1] but also includes our joint call for the forthcoming Government Spending Round to give rise to a 2nd Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS2) that needs to be considerably stronger than the current one (CWIS1).
3. This response adds points not covered by that joint submission.  Its key recommendations, which complement but expand on those of the joint submission, are set out in paragraph 29.

Discussion

• The benefits of cycling / active travel

4. Investing in cycling and active travel has a wide range of benefits for our economy, health, environment and quality of life, as well as improving access for those who cannot travel independently by car (including children and many older people or people with disabilities). 

Economic benefits[2]

• Cycling infrastructure reduces congestion: a typical road-lane can carry 7 times as many bicycles per hour as cars.[3]
• Cycle-friendly, people-friendly shopping streets attract higher footfall and retail spending. A new cycle lane in New York boosted retail sales by 46% compared with shops in the surrounding area.[4]

Health and quality of life benefits[5]

• People who cycle regularly in mid-adulthood typically enjoy a level of fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger[6] and a life expectancy two years above the average.[7]  Regular cycle commuters have a 45% lower chance of developing cancer and a 46% lower chance of developing cardiovascular disease,[8] and a 29% lower overall mortality rate.[9] The health benefits of cycling in the Netherlands are worth 3% of Dutch GDP.[10]
• Employees who cycle regularly take fewer sick days and arrive at work feeling less stressed. These benefits are worth £83m annually to UK businesses.1 Children who walk and cycle to school are happier, concentrate better and perform better academically.[11]  Physical activity has mental health and well-being benefits too.

Environmental benefits[12]

• A typical UK adult making an average-length car commute (4 miles) could save c6% of their carbon footprint by switching to cycle commuting,[13] as well as reducing noise and pollutant emissions. If we doubled cycle use through switching from car-travel to cycling, this would reduce Britain’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 0.6 million tonnes,[14] about as much as replacing all air travel with rail travel between London and Scotland.

Overall benefits[15]

• Government estimates of the benefit-to-cost ratios (BCR) for active travel investment range from 5.62 : 1 (Department for Transport, DfT)[16] to 13:1 (Department of Health)[17]. The former is a conservative estimate based on UK evidence only – it also cites a figure of 6.28 : 1 as an international average. DfT regards any BCR above 4:1 as “very high value for money”.[18]
• The London School of Economics estimated that even current levels of cycle user were delivering economic benefits worth £3bn a year in 2010.[19] Leeds University researchers estimated in 2015 that, if cycle use were to increase from 2% of all journeys (current levels) to 10% by 2025 and to 25% by 2050 (as recommended by the parliamentary Get Britain Cycling inquiry report), the cumulative benefits would be worth £248bn over that period.[20]

5. Yet the sheer range of cycling’s potential benefits is also its biggest weakness. Maximising these benefits requires ‘joined-up government’ – i.e. action and investment from a range of departments and other public bodies. DfT’s own historic failure to invest in cycling, despite its own evidence on the strength of the economic case for doing so, suggests it seeks as somewhat peripheral to its core departmental objectives.  DH’s failure to invest in it makes even less sense.

• Trends

6. There is an apparent divergence between Government data on cycle mileage and cycling trips in Britain.  Traffic count data suggest that cycle traffic has increased steadily over the past 20 years, from 4.08bn km cycled in 1999 to 5.26bn km in 2017.[21] Personal travel diary survey data also show a gradual increase in the average distance cycled annually per person, rising from 39 miles per person in 2003 to 60 miles in 2017. However they also indicate a lack of growth in cycling trips, and instead an increase in the average length of a cycling trip.[22]
7. We do not have good data on trends in cycling trip purposes or in the demographics of cycle use. However we suspect the data indicate a growth in two of the longer types of trip – recreational cycling and commuting – alongside declines in trip types which are generally shorter (e.g. school escort, personal business and shopping trips) and which are more likely to be made by women and older people.  Cycle use for school journeys has fluctuated without changing significantly over the past 15 years.[23]
8. International and domestic comparisons indicate that higher rates of cycle use are generally associated with a more equal gender split, and a wider age-range of cycling trips.[24] [25] In Britain, cycle use is male-dominated, with men making almost 3 times as many trips as women, and cycling almost 4 times the distance.22 There is no evidence yet of increases in GB cycle use being associated yet with greater equality in the demographics of cycle use, at least not at the national scale.[26]

• Department for Transport’s effectiveness in objective-setting and cross-departmental liaison

9. When the Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS)[27] was published in 2017, Cycling UK and other cycling and walking groups strongly welcomed its stated ambition, namely “To make cycling and walking the natural choices for shorter journeys, or as part of a longer journey.” We similarly welcomed its aspiration to make walking and cycling “a normal part of everyday life”, through “the transformation of local areas” in ways that would tackle congestion, improve physical and mental health, support local economies, benefit employers and high streets.[28]
10. We also welcomed its recognition that “Walking and cycling should be seen as transport modes in their own right and an integral part of the transport network, rather than as niche interests or town-planning afterthoughts”, and that “Realising our ambition will take sustained investment in cycling and walking infrastructure”, “long-term transport planning” and “a change in attitudes, among central Government, local bodies, businesses, communities and individuals.”
11. Sadly DfT did not manage to secure that sustained investment from the Treasury.  As noted in our joint submission (see paragraph 2), the CWIS purportedly comprises £1.2bn that “may” be invested in cycling and walking, but only £314m over 5 years that was specifically earmarked for that purpose.  That £314m consisted of four budget lines, namely: the Cycling City Ambition Grant programme (£99m); Bikeability cycle training (£50m), the Access Fund (an £80m revenue funding stream to support behaviour change programmes) and an £80m fund for cycle and pedestrian improvements related to Highways England’s network of trunk roads and motorways (the Strategic Road Network, SRN).  Only the last of these budget-lines was due to last for the full 5 years of the CWIS.  Hence earmarked spending in the final year of the CWIS (2019-20) was set to decline to just 37p per person in 2019/20.  This is just a fraction of the £10 per person annually called for as a minimum in the 2013 parliamentary Get Britain Cycling report,[29] and by the Transport Committee’s own 2014 report on Cycle Safety.[30]
12. The CWIS contains just one quantified ‘target’: namely, to “increase the percentage of children aged 5 to 10 that usually walking to school from 49% in 2014 to 55 % in 2025.” It also contains two quantified ‘aims’, namely to double cycling ‘stages’, and to increase the number of walking ‘stages’ to 300 per person annually in 2025 (n.b. a ‘stage’ can be a whole trip or part of a trip that also involves travel by another transport mode).  Cycling UK pointed out at the time that even the aim to double cycling stages amounted to a far lower increase in the proportion of trips made by cycle outside London, given that (a) total trip numbers would increase due to population growth, and (b) London’s own predicted growth rate, and levels of investment, far outstrip those expected for most of the rest of England.  We showed that this ‘aim’ amounted to just a 74% increase in trips per person outside London, boosting cycle use only to c3.5% of all trips (depending on future trends in total travel).  We estimated that, at this rate of growth, England would ultimately reach Dutch levels of cycle use shortly before the start of the 23rd century.[31]
13. The CWIS was also notable for the lack of contributions from other Government departments, such as those responsible for planning and local government, education, business, sport, air quality and outdoor access, sport, and particularly the Department of Health.
14. Cycling UK did nonetheless strongly welcome the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) process which lies at the heart of the CWIS, with its call for local authorities to plan high-quality cycle-route networks, rather than isolated disconnected routes (as had hitherto been typical of UK cycle-planning).  We continue to strongly support the LCWIP process and have received funding – along with Sustrans and Living Streets – to deliver support to 44 authorities or groups of authorities, to help them prepare their LCWIPs [32] (see also paragraph 32).

• Effectiveness of CWIS so far

15. We do not yet have good evidence on the impact to date of the CWIS, other than that (as noted previously) overall cycle traffic has continued to grow slightly, while the numbers of cycling trips remain unchanged (see paragraph 6).
16. In the absence of better data, our impressions are that the CCAG programme (£99m) currently appears to be producing mixed but generally positive results, as was the case with the Cycling Demonstration Towns and Cities programme which preceded it.  The Cycling Towns yielded some very impressive results at the local level,[33] [34] though without achieving benefits on a large enough geographical scale to make a nationally significant difference.  As with the Cycling Towns, some CCAG cities appear to be performing better than others.  Greater Manchester is delivering some excellent local schemes (e.g. the protected cycle lanes on the Oxford Road / Wilmslow Road corridor), yielding significant increases in cycling.[35]  Reports from Oxford seem less impressive.[36]
17. Likewise, we expect the Access Fund (£80m) to be delivering similarly positive but localised results to the £350m Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) which preceded it,[37] albeit at a smaller scale due to the lower level of funding involved.  We can reasonably assume that the Bikeability cycle training programme continues to produce similar results to previous years.  Investing in cycle training can deliver excellent value-for-money, however other evidence suggests that its benefits are not sustained without complementary improvements to the cycling environment.[38]
18. Our biggest concern though relates to the lack of data about even the outputs, let alone the outcomes, from Highways England’s £250m ‘designated fund’ for ‘Cycling, Safety and Integration’.[39]  Given that £100m of it was earmarked specifically for cycling schemes, it concerns us that Highways England seems unable to tell us what schemes have been delivered, let alone what they have achieved.  We are also seriously concerned at HE’s failure to spend its Air Quality designated fund.[40]  Given Britain’s air quality crisis, it seems extraordinary that HE has only managed to spend £3m of this 5-year £75m budget, with only 18 months remaining.

Balance of responsibilities between central and national Government, including funding

19. As noted above, we strongly welcome the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) process which lies at the heart of the CWIS,[41]  and are working with DfT and other partners to help make a success of it.  Yet there are three respects in which we believe Government is hampering those local authorities who are keen to boost cycling in their areas, namely:

• Lack of guidance on infrastructure
• Traffic signing and junction priority rules
• Funding: both direct funding, and the ability to implement local congestion and pollution-based charging, both to deter motor vehicle use and to support investment in clean and healthy travel.

20. All three issues are addressed in our joint submission.  The following paragraphs briefly summarise our position on them.

Cycling Infrastructure Design guidance

21. DfT has now commissioned some excellent consultants to update and replace its existing Local Transport Note LTN 2/08 on Cycling Infrastructure Design guidance.  Cycling UK is represented on the working group providing input to the revision, and are confident of a positive outcome, reflecting the policies and priorities we called for in our booklet ‘Space for Cycling: a guide for decision-makers’.[42] This focuses on three main types of provision:

• Protected cycle lanes or tracks on or alongside faster and/or busier main roads.
• Low traffic volumes and speeds for most minor streets and lanes, with 20mph being the norm for most urban streets and 40mph for most rural single-carriageways. Highway authorities would be free to apply higher limits where appropriate.
• Off-road cycle links away from roads, but forming part of a wider network that connects the places people want to get to and from by cycling.

22. We await its publication, expected in the New Year. However the challenge will then be to ensure it is consistently applied in all highway and traffic schemes, new developments and planned highway maintenance works.  This will require professional training programmes, as well as action to integrate the new guidance into other design guidance and manuals.

Junction priority rules

23. Unfortunately, the new guidance referred to above will still be constrained by the UK’s rules on junction priority.  Cycling UK strongly supports the call made by British Cycling’s ‘Turning the Corner’ campaign for these rules to be revised, based on the continental principle that drivers turning at a junction should give way to pedestrians or cyclists travelling straight ahead across their path.[43]  This principle should also be incorporated into the next revision of the Highway Code.

Funding, including Clean Air Zones

24. Cycling UK and our active travel allies had previously supported calls for cycling to receive funding equivalent to at least £10 per person annually.  However, due to a combination of factors (notably the Government’s commitment to an investment strategy that covers walking as well as cycling, and the lack of progress towards the Government’s own targets in the intervening years), we now believe the 2nd CWIS (CWIS2) needs to have an initial budget amounting to 5% of overall transport spending, rising to 10% over the 5-year period of the next spending round (i.e. 2020/1 to 2024/5).  Our reasoning is outlined in our joint submission.
25. We also believe the Government needs to be a lot more supportive of local authorities wishing to introduce Charging Clean Air Zones in response to problems of local air pollution (as well as congestion).  This could not only deter some motor vehicle use and prompt a shift to cycling and other clean and healthy transport options (as happened following the introduction of London’s congestion charging scheme[44]), but it could also provide funding to invest in improving those options. The Government’s own technical analysis of options for tackling air pollution[45] indicated that charging was the most effective measure for achieving emissions reductions “as soon as possible” (as required by the courts).[46]

• The effectiveness of the Government’s measures to promote cycling and walking

26. We have a great deal of sympathy for the DfT officials who were tasked with building a ‘Strategy’ for Cycling and Walking Investment when it only comprised four earmarked budget lines (see paragraph 11).  Unsurprisingly, it falls some way short of amounting to a joined-up package.
27. However the Government’s forthcoming Spending Review provides an excellent and timely opportunity to remedy this.  The Government has now commissioned research to assess what resources are needed to deliver the CWIS’s stated aims (though we would have wished they had considered existing research on this question at the time it written).[47]  We hope this will lead to a second CWIS – CWIS2 – which has funding commensurate with its stated ambitions, and a comprehensive package of measures to enable people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities to take up cycling as a safe and normal activity, by tackling the full range of factors which currently deter people from doing so – see the first bullet-point in section A below.

• International lessons

28. We are happy to endorse the findings of an excellent review of international best practice, commissioned by Transport for London.  We particularly highlight its concluding summary of key lessons about good practice, and practice to be avoided, on pages 102-107.[48]

Recommendations

29. Our recommendations fall under four headings, as follows:

A.       Funding

B.        Cycle-friendly roads, streets, junctions and new developments

C.        Alternatives to cars, vans and lorries

D.       Other safety measures.

A. Funding

• Devote a greater proportion of total transport spending to cycling and other forms of clean and healthy transport. The Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) should increase initially to 5% of total transport spending at the start of the next spending round (2020/21), rising to 10% over the next 5 years. #
• Specific funding should be available:

i)     to support councils in delivering their Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs);

ii)   to support the provision of ‘Bikeability’ cycle training for people of all ages; *

iii) for behaviour change programmes to promote cycling in schools, workplaces and in a range of community settings to increase cycle use among those who are under-represented in cycling (e.g. women, older people, health patients, people with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups); and

iv) to support the uptake of electrically assisted pedal cycles (or e-bikes) both for personal travel and for local freight deliveries (see also the points under C below).

• Support local authorities in introducing local charging schemes to tackle congestion and pollution, with the revenues earmarked for clean and healthy transport (see paragraph 25).

B. Cycle-friendly roads, streets, junctions and new developments

• Support the planning and development of comprehensive local cycling networks, enabling people of all ages and abilities to make any local journey safely and conveniently by cycling. #*
• These networks should comprise: *

i)     protected cycle lanes on or alongside faster or busier main roads;

ii)   local streets and lanes with low traffic volumes and speeds; and

iii) off-road cycling routes (e.g. through parks and open spaces).

• Adopt new rules to give greater safety and priority for walking and cycling at junctions. #*
• High quality secure cycle parking should be widely available to meet the needs of different users at different location types.
• Ensure that DfT’s forthcoming new cycle-friendly design guidance, incorporating the above principles, is consistently applied in all road and traffic schemes, new developments and planned road maintenance work. #*

C. Alternatives to cars, vans and lorries

• Support the uptake of electrically assisted pedal cycles (or ‘e-bikes’) as alternatives to the car, particularly for journeys that are longer or hillier than people would otherwise be happy to cycle, and for people who would otherwise be deterred from cycling due to their age, health conditions or disabilities.
• Support the uptake of cargo bikes (including those with electric assistance) as a solution for smaller local deliveries, together with trans-shipment depots to reduce the use of lorries on local streets in built-up areas.
• Support the integration of cycling and public transport, and the complementary development of hire-bike schemes.

D. Other safety measures

• Improve cycle safety by influencing driver behaviour, through a combination of awareness campaigns, changes to the Highway Code and the driving test, and strengthened road traffic law and enforcement. *
• Reduce the threat to cyclists and pedestrians from heavy goods vehicles, by establishing national standards for lorry operators, drivers and the vehicles themselves (particularly the design of their cabs), and by reducing their use on urban streets. *
• Refresh the UK-wide guidance in Well Managed Highway Infrastructure, to ensure cyclists’ safety is properly reflected in national and local policies and procedures for (i) highway inspection frequencies, (ii) identifying and prioritising defects for repair; (iii) winter maintenance and vegetation clearance; (iv) reinstating surfaces to a high standard, including any coloured surfacing; (v) management of cycle safety around construction sites, when traffic lanes are narrowed, when shuttle traffic-lights are used or when road closers and diversions become necessary (see our submission to the Transport Committee’s local roads funding inquiry).

• Supporting evidence

30. The justification and evidence for recommendations marked ‘#’ is covered in our joint ‘Moving the Nation’ response to this inquiry, while those marked ‘*’ are covered in Cycling UK’s published response to the Government’s call for evidence on its Cycling and Walking Safety Review. [49] Our recommendations in relation to highway maintenance are set out in our response to the Transport Committee’s inquiry on local roads funding.
31. It therefore remains for this submission to cover the following topics: (i) our specific proposals for budget headings in CWIS2; (ii) cycle parking, (iii) integration of cycling and public transport; and (iv) hire bike schemes.

i)               CWIS2: proposed budget headings

Implementing Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs)

32. The single most important budget-line that needs adding to a new CWIS is one for funding the implementation of Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs).  We reiterate our strong support for the LCWIP process and our role in actively supporting 44 authorities or groups of authorities to prepare their plans.  However most councils currently lack any earmarked funding to deliver their plans – and this inevitably limits their ability to draw up ambitious long-term plans in the first place, given the lack of confidence as to whether they will be able to deliver them.  Long- term dedicated funding is essential if the LCWIP process is to deliver its promised benefits.

‘Bikeability’ cycle training

33. Bikeability level 2 cycle training is currently offered to just 50% of primary school age pupils.  We wish to see this doubled, while substantially increasing the availability of level 3 training for people at secondary school, or for new and returning cyclists in adulthood.  There is good evidence that adult cycle training is a highly cost-effective way to encourage new people to cycle, to cycle more often and for longer-distance journeys, and to feel more confident when doing so.  For younger children the evidence is less strong, suggesting that cycle training may be necessary but not sufficient to give parents the confidence to allow their children to cycle independently.  International best practice still supports its inclusion as a vital component of any wider strategy to promote more and safer cycling. [50]

Positive promotion and opportunities to ‘give cycling a try’

34. There is good evidence that behaviour-change programmes, in schools, workplaces and community settings can be highly cost-effective ways to boost cycle use, particularly among groups such as women, older people, BAME communities, health patients and people with disabilities.
35. Cycling UK’s Big Bike Revival (BBR), Community Clubs and Cycling for Health projects, run with support from DfT, have consistently demonstrated their effectiveness– and cost-effectiveness – in boosting cycle use particularly among groups.

• The Big Bike Revival (www.cyclinguk.org/bigbikerevival) is run in conjunction with local bike-recycling projects and similar social enterprises, with support from DfT.  It involves open days where people are encouraged to bring along bikes that have lain unused, which often need a simple fix.  They are offered free cycle checks, servicing, cycle maintenance workshops, cycle training and accompanied rides. 37% of participants in Big Bike Revival events in England were non-regular cyclists, almost half were women and 42% were from the top 30% most deprived areas in the country.
• Community Clubs (www.cyclinguk.org/community-cycle-clubs) are run in partnership with a wide variety of community groups, whether for women, health patients, people with disabilities or other disadvantaged groups.  They offer longer-term support for people interested in taking up cycling, for whatever reason.  They can often be formed in the aftermath of a Big Bike Revival project. We have set up over 200 clubs in England and Wales, which have attracted 50,000 participants. Half of them were women, 47% are from the most deprived three deciles of neighbourhoods with 24% coming from most deprived decile. 20% of participants have a disability or long-term health condition and 30% are inactive, meaning they were not doing 30 minutes of exercise per week prior to joining the club.
• Our Cycling for Health project (www.cyclinguk.org/community-outreach/health) has been run through 8 ‘cycling hubs’ throughout West Yorkshire, with support from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. It enables people with inactivity-related physical and mental health conditions to take up cycling as part of a sociable and supportive group. The majority of participants are now referred to the programme by local health professionals.  Of the programme’s 270 direct beneficiaries, 56% were from recognised areas of deprivation with 31% coming from the highest decile of deprivation. 78% were female and 28% identified as being of non-white ethnicity. 90% were previously non-cyclists, yet 68% were still cycling regularly (i.e. more than once a week) 6 weeks after the programme had ended.  Participants said they felt more confident, more relaxed, closer to other people, better able to think clearly and deal with problems, and more optimistic about the future.

36. Cycling UK believes that revenue-funded behaviour change programmes can provide excellent value for money even in the absence of good cycling infrastructure – though they are a lot more effective if the two go hand-in-hand.[51]  Recently-published DfT research[52] demonstrates the impact of the three Sustainable Transport Demonstration Towns programmes (Darlington, Peterborough and Worcester) which focussed almost entirely on revenue-funded behaviour change programmes. Overall these achieved a reduction in total traffic levels in the order of 2% in the three towns, together with a reduction of 7-10% in the number of car driver trips per resident. A cost-benefit analysis, undertaken on a relatively conservative basis and considering congestion benefits only, produced a BCR of 4.5 : 1.

Electric bicycles (or ‘e-bikes’) and cargo bikes

37. The European market for e-bikes grew nearly 12-fold from 2006 to 2014 (from 98K to 1,139K units annually).[53]  Yet the UK’s e-bike market is very under-developed, compared with countries like the Netherlands (where e-bikes account for 21% of bike sales) or Belgium (50% of sales).[54]  Hence there is a very strong case for the Government to support increased use of e-bikes as part of the its Industrial, Clean Growth and Clean Air strategies.
38. Projects to promote e-bike use have been shown not only to increase cycle use but also to reduce car use, and hence pollutant emissions.  Initial feedback from demonstration projects run by the charity CoMoUK (previously known as Carplus Bikeplus) found that that 46% of participants were using e-bikes for regular trips that they had previously made by car or taxi.[55]  A separate e-bike hire project in Brighton found that participants reduced their car use by an average of 20% during the project.[56] These results match findings of reduced car-use from other e-bike projects in the UK and the Netherlands,[57] Norway,[58] Switzerland,[59] Australia[60] and California.[61]
39. Taken together these studies also indicate that:

• People are willing to use e-bikes for longer and/or hillier trips than they would be willing to make using conventional bicycles;
• Their additional speed means they can compete with cars on journey times over longer distances than conventional bicycles can;
• For drivers wishing to reduce their car use, e-bikes are in many ways a preferable alternative to e-cars.  They cost less to operate, they provide additional health and (in many cases) time-saving benefits, they are easier to store (avoiding the need to find and pay for parking spaces), and their batteries are easier to charge.
• ‘Try-before-you-buy’ schemes are highly effective for boosting cycle use, especially among groups who would otherwise not consider cycling, e.g older people, health patients and people with disabilities.

40. The Government’s Office for Low Emissions Vehicles (OLEV) provides generous subsidies for the uptake of electric cars and vans, but no support whatsoever for e-bikes. We fail to understand how there can be any justification for this.  As a solution for tackling pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, supporting e-bikes must surely be a lot more cost-effective, bearing in mind not only the above evidence of reductions in car use, but also the far greater energy-efficiency of e-bikes compared with electric cars. Moreover, support for e-bikes would deliver reductions in congestion, road danger and physical inactivity that cannot be achieved by supporting electric cars.  It would also strengthen UK-based e-bike manufacturers like Wisper and Urban Mover[62], contributing further to the Government’s Industrial and Green Growth strategies.
41. Electric cargo-bikes also have the potential to replace vans, particularly for ‘last-mile’ goods deliveries in urban areas.  The EU-wide Cyclelogistics project[63] (to which Cycling UK contributed) found that 51% of motor-vehicle trips in EU towns involving the transport of goods could be accomplished by cargo bikes.[64]
42. We therefore strongly urge the Government to reconsider OLEV’s remit and direct it to support e-bikes as well as electric cars and vans.

ii)             Cycle parking

43. The number of incidents of cycle theft recorded in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) has dropped markedly in recent years: from 525,000 in 2010/11 to just 288,000.[65]  However it is important to reduce it further as part of any strategy to boost cycle use.  One study found that 24% of cycle theft victims simply gave up cycling.[66]
44. The design and location of cycle parking needs to reflect the type of use for which it is intended.  Short-stay and irregular users will prioritise convenience, whereas longer-stay or regular users will prioritise security.  In other words, cyclists are more likely to spend time putting their bike in a securely locked compound when parking at their workplace or when leaving it for a day (or longer) at a railway station, than when they are just making a quick visit to a shop.
45. We anticipate that DfT’s forthcoming guidance on cycle-friendly planning and design will include guidance on the appropriate quantity, design and placement of cycle parking at different types of location (residential, retail, employment, public transport interchanges), in urban and rural areas alike.  In the meantime we recommend the advice provided in Chapter 8 of Transport for London’s London Cycling Design Standards[67] and Chapter 8 of the Welsh Government’s Active Travel Act design guidance.[68]

iii)           Integrating cycling and public transport

46. There are numerous benefits from enabling people to make journeys by combining cycling and rail travel – or indeed by using other forms of public transport.  As well as providing individuals with a non-car alternative for longer- distance journeys (thereby contributing to the vision of the CWIS), it can also attract additional customers to the rail network (cycling effectively increases the catchment-area of a station roughly sixteen-fold compared with walking), while also reducing congestion around station car parks.
47. Measures to realise these benefits need to include:

• Convenient cycle access to, from, within and through stations and interchanges – including wheeling ramps to assist with cycle carriage up and down steps (where a better solution cannot be achieved).
• Ample high-quality cycle parking and storage at stations and key interchanges. This should be conveniently located, well-designed, secure and sheltered.
• Some dedicated space for cycle carriage on new and refurbished rolling stock – n. b. this includes light rail and tram systems as well as trains.  Cycling UK fully accepts that operators may need to restrict the use of this space on busy routes at busy times.  However this should not preclude cycle spaces being provided, so that they can be used at quieter times.  Signing and other information should be provided on trains and/or on platforms to help people know where to board with their bikes.
• Clear information about when and where cycles can and cannot be carried.
• The ability to reserve cycle spaces on longer-distance trains (i.e. those for which seat reservations can also be made) in real time.  At present, the processes for cycle reservations are very unwieldy.
• Good integration of local hire-bike schemes with the wider public transport network, including integrated ticketing and payment schemes.

48. Advice on relevant standards is provided in the Rail Delivery Group’s Cycle Rail Toolkit.[69]

iv)           Hire bike schemes

49. The recent influx of ‘dockless’ hire bike operators (such as Ofo and Mobike) has understandably been greeted as a mixed blessing, not least by local authorities.  On the one hand, it offers the potential to introduce hire-bike schemes at significantly lower costs than docked schemes (such as London’s Santander Cycles, aka ‘Boris Bikes’).  On the other hand, there is the risk of irresponsible behaviour by users (e.g. vandalising bikes, hiding them in locations where other would-be users cannot access them, or dumping them where they obstruct or endanger others).
50. It is accepted by all the key players in the hire-bike sector that some form of regulation is needed, to protect both the public and responsible hire-bike operators from ‘cowboy’ operators.  This is likely to involve giving powers for councils to determine:

• The maximum number of hire-bikes, and hire-bike operators, in their areas;
• Any areas where hire-bikes may not be left, in order to avoid obstructions and ‘clutter’;
• Any parts of their area where hire-bike provision is required, in order to deliver public benefits (e.g. in areas of transport poverty that might otherwise not be served);
• Integration with public transport payment and ticketing schemes.

• Further information

51. Further information on the topics covered in this submission is provided in Cycling UK’s library of campaigns briefings (accessible from www.cyclinguk.org/briefings) and in our summary and full responses to the Government’s recent Cycling and Walking Safety Review.48

October 2018