|What has Ken Livingstone in GLC days|
got to do with today's cycling investment?
Answer: An awful lot. See below.
The BBC splashed recently that a whopping £4million would be going to outer London boroughs alone to focus on cycling. The BBC quoted how this would help those 13 outer London boroughs make the physical improvements to make cycling safer and more convenient. It neglected to say that the £4million pot was to be spread between those 13 boroughs over three years. I make that a tantalising £103,000 per borough per year. Which will buy you about 10 sets of road signs.
Let's look at some more whopping numbers from the Mayor Boris Johnson's Cycling Revolution. The Mayor is proud of some initiatives - there's money going into the Cycle Hire scheme, into the Superhighways scheme, into training and promotion. So no-one could say nothing's happening for cycling. And plenty of people gawp at the statement that, taken all together, a record £116m is being invested in cycling in 2010/11. It sounds like a large amount of money, doesn't it?
But let's put that in context. First off, let's consider that much of that £116million never quite happened the way you think it might. Jenny Jones of the Green Party has some excellent analysis where she shows that the Mayor may have underspent the planned cycling budget in previous years and simply spent the big money in one go. If you average out the figures spent in the last three years on cycling by this Mayor, according to Jenny Jones, you get a total £217.8million. In other words £72 million a year. Let's run with that number for a while.
Now, I know these figures are a bit rough and ready, but the Transport for London budget in 2009/10 was £9.2billion and was designed to fund the delivery of a series of major transport improvements as part of its multi-billion pound Investment Programme. That includes the Tube, buses, roads, walking and, of course cycling.
So, using some slightly back-of-a-cigarette-packet statistics, let's use those figures as a rough guide. If Jenny Jones is right, then cycling - which represents only about 1.7% of all journeys in London, admittedly - gets about 0.78% of the total transport budget allocated by Transport for London. Or to put it another way, TfL spends £9.35 on cycling for each London resident (excluding the hundreds of thousands of people who travel into London every day and also need to get about the place).
Swing over to the Netherlands and the small town of Assen. We know lots about Assen because David Hembrow writes an excellent blog here in which he usefully compares how the Dutch think about their towns and cities versus how our politicians and planners think about our towns and cities.
And in Assen, a town of only 62,000 people, the cycling budget is €5.7 million over two years. In other words, approximately €83 per person per year, or roughly £73.
A small Dutch town spends nearly eight times more per person on cycling each year than London in the height of its so-called Cycling Revolution. 41% of all journeys in Assen are by bicycle.
London's Mayor has set a target that 5% of all journeys in London shall be made by bicycle by 2026. But while Assen spends £73 per person per year to achieve a 41% share, London is talking about only £9.35 per year. Assen has been spending at similar rates for years and years. And, if you believe the TfL press releases, London is only now gearing up for the bicycle and only now is it spending serious cash on sorting out cycling in London.
Except that's simply not true.
Let's just recall my cigarette-packet calculations: In 2011, roughly 0.78% of Transport for London's budget goes towards cycling. Let's compare that with 1981, newly elected leader of the Greater London Council, Ken Livingstone, stood on the steps of County Hall in front of 1,200 cyclists. According to the report in New Scientist magazine, he committed £2million, or 1% of London's transport budget to cycling. Donning the red cycling T-shirt of the London Cycling Campaign, he then allowed his transport spokesman to imply that 1% was the minimum they should expect.
The cycling campaigners of 1981 were demanding that cycling get a fair share of the road transport budget. Even the Conservative party backed the demands, if you believe the report.
Forward-wind to 2011 and you once again have cross-party support to give cycling a fair share of the roads. This, in an era, where cyclists are now the biggest single users of many of central London's bridges in the rush-hours.
And in 2011 we have a cycling mayor who is vocal about cycling and his support for increasing cycling levels by 400% over the next 15 years.
And yet, if you look at the numbers, nothing much has changed since 1981. In 1981, cyclists rightly demanded a fair share of the road budget and Ken Livingstone committed to a 1% share. In 2011, you can assume that cycling is getting less than 0.8% share of the London transport budget. My numbers aren't going to be exact but when have you ever read a press statement that gives you completely truthful numbers to work from?
Cycling's share of the road hasn't increased in 30 years. And in that time, although it might not feel this way when you're at the traffic lights on Clapham Road, even Transport for London admits (and you can read a lot more detail on this on Crap Waltham Forest's blog here) 'there were no more cyclists riding bicycles in Greater London in 2008 than there were seven years earlier'. As Crap Walthamstow states very eloquently, London's cycling revolution never happened.
I'd go one further than that: London's cycling revolution is never going to happen. Because, proportionately, cycle funding seems to have gone backwards since 1981. And behind the smoke and mirrors, it doesn't look like cycling is going to get a bigger proportion of funding in the near future either. At least not under this Mayor's plans.
I'd focus your attention on the New Scientist issue from June 1981: "I'm quite happy to give you one percent. You're being a bit modest at one per cent. Cycling has got to make up for lost time for the years when millions of pounds were spent on pointless road schemes".
So it's a shame that our current Mayor seems - if you believe my numbers - to be spending even less than one per cent.