It’s time to end the stop-start approach to cycling

Labour's shadow secretary of state for transport gives her plan for Britain's cyclists.

Cyclists deserve better than the spin they were subjected to from transport ministers this month. A promise of £148m turned out to be an average of just £38m a year until 2016, with the rest to be found by local authorities. From a Tory-led government that axed Cycling England and its £60 annual budget, this was too little too late after three wasted years.

This is a wasted opportunity considering the positive benefits that would flow from a greater priority being given to cycling.

When nearly a quarter of all car journeys are less than a mile, making cycling a more attractive option has a huge potential to cut congestion and boost the economy. With families facing a cost of living crisis, making more journeys by bike is a good way to reduce the impact of rising fuel costs on the household budget. And as a cost and time effective way of staying fit, cycling has real health benefits. Switching to cycling also cuts emissions, reducing transport’s contribution to climate change.

The good news is that these benefits are increasingly recognised, with the number of people cycling up by a fifth in the past decade. However, we will have to really move up a gear if we hope to catch those countries which have set and met impressive targets to increase levels of cycling.

I am clear that the only way this can be achieved is to end the stop-start commitment to cycling that prevents greater progress being made. Ministers recently set out annual budgets for rail and road investment up to 2020/21, but failed to do so for cycling infrastructure. That means a £28bn commitment to roads, but a one-off £114m for cycling spread across three years. It’s time for a serious rethink of priorities within the roads budget, with a proportion reallocated to deliver a long-term funding settlement for cycling infrastructure. The evidence from countries such as the United States is that a commitment to smaller scale transport improvements, alongside a "fix-it-first" approach to roads, delivers jobs and growth more effectively than a list of controversial road schemes of questionable value that may take years to deliver.

The priority for investment to support cycling must be dedicated separated infrastructure to create safe routes. In the past, the focus has too often been on painting a thin section at the side of the road a different colour. Genuinely separated cycle routes are vital to improve safety, but also to build confidence and encourage those not used to cycling to make the switch to two wheels.

A commitment to new infrastructure cannot become an excuse not to improve the safety of cyclists on roads where there is no separation. The priority should be redesigning dangerous junctions, where almost two thirds of cyclist deaths and serious injuries from collisions take place. There must also be much greater use of traffic light phasing to give cyclists a head start. To ensure we do not repeat these past mistakes I have proposed that all future transport schemes be subject to a Cycling Safety Assessment prior to approval, in same way that economic and equality impact assessments have to be met.

Local authorities will be central to devising, prioritising and delivering a new commitment to cycling infrastructure. Councils should be provided with a best practice toolkit for boosting cycling numbers, based on what we learnt from the wrongly disbanded Cycling City and Towns programme and evidence from abroad. They should be supported to deliver 20mph zones, increasingly becoming an effective default in most residential areas. The Labour government in Wales has taken forward Active Travel legislation, setting out clear duties to support cycling, and we should assess the very likely potential to extend that approach to England.

As well as getting the right infrastructure in place to support cycling, we need to reverse some of the reckless decisions taken by Ministers since the last election.

It was wrong to axe national targets to cut deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads and downgrade THINK! road safety campaigns. Ministers should restore targets, alongside new goals for increasing levels of cycling, and urgently assess any connection between these decisions and the rising number of cyclist deaths – now tragically at a five year high. The Government should not have ended long-term funding certainty for the Bikeability scheme, nor axed the requirement for School Travel Plans. And, instead of weakening the obligations on train companies, they should have toughened obligations to provide facilities for cyclists. With HGVs involved in around a fifth of all cycling fatalities, despite making up just 6 per cent of road traffic, it was wrong for Ministers to have permitted trials of longer lorries. Instead, the £23m set to be raised annually from the HGV road charging scheme should be used to support the road haulage industry to equip lorries with safety equipment, such as side under-run protection and blind spot mirrors, and improve driver training and awareness.

Cycling has the potential to be a huge British success story, but it needs a new approach and a shared commitment across government, councils, schools, employers and public transport providers. Most of all, it needs Ministers to cut the spin and instead give cycling infrastructure a greater priority within existing transport investment plans. It’s time to end the stop-start approach that is getting in the way of progress and agree a cross-party, long-term commitment to cycling.

This post is part of A to B, the New Statesman's week of pieces on transport and travel.

Photograph: Getty Images

Maria Eagle is the shadow secretary of state for defence and Labour MP for Garston and Halewood

Getty
Show Hide image

How Donald Trump is slouching towards the Republican nomination

There was supposed to be a ceiling above which Trump’s popular support could not climb.

In America, you can judge a crowd by its merchandise. Outside the Connecticut Convention Centre in Hartford, frail old men and brawny moms are selling “your Trump 45 football jerseys”, “your hats”, “your campaign buttons”. But the hottest item is a T-shirt bearing the slogan “Hillary sucks . . . but not like Monica!” and, on the back: “Trump that bitch!” Inside, beyond the checkpoint manned by the Transportation Security Administration and the secret service (“Good!” the man next to me says, when he sees the agents), is a family whose three kids, two of them girls, are wearing the Monica shirt.

Other people are content with the shirts they arrived in (“Waterboarding – baptising terrorists with freedom” and “If you don’t BLEED red, white and blue, take your bitch ass home!”). There are 80 chairs penned off for the elderly but everyone else is standing: guys in motorcycle and military gear, their arms folded; aspiring deal-makers, suited, on cellphones; giggling high-school fatsos, dressed fresh from the couch, grabbing M&M’s and Doritos from the movie-theatre-style concession stands. So many baseball hats; deep, bellicose chants of “Build the wall!” and “USA!”. (And, to the same rhythm, “Don-ald J!”)

A grizzled man in camouflage pants and combat boots, whose T-shirt – “Connecticut Militia III%” – confirms him as a member of the “patriot” movement, is talking to a zealous young girl in a short skirt, who came in dancing to “Uptown Girl”.

“Yeah, we were there for Operation American Spring,” he says. “Louis Farrakhan’s rally of hate . . .”

“And you’re a veteran?” she asks. “Thank you so much!”

Three hours will pass. A retired US marine will take the rostrum to growl, “God bless America – hoo-rah!”; “Uptown Girl” will play many more times (much like his speeches, Donald J’s playlist consists of a few items, repeated endlessly), before Trump finally looms in and asks the crowd: “Is this the greatest place on Earth?”

There was supposed to be a ceiling above which Trump’s popular support could not climb. Only a minority within a minority of Americans, it was assumed, could possibly be stupid enough to think a Trump presidency was a good idea. He won New Hampshire and South Carolina with over 30 per cent of the Republican vote, then took almost 46 per cent in Nevada. When he cleaned up on Super Tuesday in March, he was just shy of 50 per cent in Massachusetts; a week later, he took 47 per cent of the votes in Mississippi.

His rivals, who are useless individually, were meant to co-operate with each other and the national party to deny him the nomination. But Trump won four out of the five key states being contested on “Super-Duper Tuesday” on 15 March. Then, as talk turned to persuading and co-opting his delegates behind the scenes, Trump won New York with 60 per cent.

Now, the campaign is trying to present Trump as more “presidential”. According to his new manager, Paul Manafort, this requires him to appear in “more formal settings” – without, of course, diluting “the unique magic of Trump”. But whether or not he can resist denouncing the GOP and the “corrupt” primary system, and alluding to violence if he is baulked at at the convention, the new Trump will be much the same as the old.

Back in Hartford: “The Republicans wanna play cute with us, right? If I don’t make it, you’re gonna have millions of people that don’t vote for a Republican. They’re not gonna vote at all,” says Trump. “Hopefully that’s all, OK? Hopefully that’s all, but they’re very, very angry.”

This anger, which can supposedly be turned on anyone who gets in the way, has mainly been vented, so far, on the protesters who disrupt Trump’s rallies. “We’re not gonna be the dummies that lose all of our jobs now. We’re gonna be the smart ones. Oh, do you have one over there? There’s one of the dummies . . .”

There is a frenzied fluttering of Trump placards, off to his right. “Get ’em out! . . . Don’t hurt ’em – see how nice I am? . . . They really impede freedom of speech and it’s a disgrace. But the good news is, folks, it won’t be long. We’re just not taking it and it won’t be long.”

It is their removal by police, at Trump’s ostentatious behest, that causes the disruption, rather than the scarcely audible protesters. He seems to realise this, suddenly: “We should just let ’em . . . I’ll talk right over them, there’s no problem!” But it’s impossible to leave the protesters where they are, because it would not be safe. His crowd is too vicious.

Exit Trump, after exactly half an hour, inclusive of the many interruptions. His people seem uplifted but, out on the street, they are ambushed by a large counter-demonstration, with a booming drum and warlike banners and standards (“Black Lives Matter”; an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe, holding aloft Trump’s severed head). Here is the rest of the world, the real American world: young people, beautiful people, more female than male, every shade of skin colour. “F*** Donald Trump!” they chant.

After a horrified split-second, the Trump crowd, massively more numerous, rallies with “USA!” and – perplexingly, since one of the main themes of the speech it has just heard was the lack of jobs in Connecticut – “Get a job!” The two sides then mingle, unobstructed by police. Slanging matches break out that seem in every instance to humiliate the Trump supporter. “Go to college!” one demands. “Man, I am in college, I’m doin’ lovely!”

There is no violence, only this: some black boys are dancing, with liquid moves, to the sound of the drum. Four young Trump guys counter by stripping to their waists and jouncing around madly, their skin greenish-yellow under the street lights, screaming about the building of the wall. There was no alcohol inside; they’re drunk on whatever it is – the elixir of fascism, the unique magic of Trump. It’s a hyper but not at all happy drunk.

As with every other moment of the Trump campaign so far, it would have been merely some grade of the cringeworthy – the embarrassing, the revolting, the pitiful – were Trump not slouching closer and closer, with each of these moments, to his nomination. 

This article first appeared in the 28 April 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The new fascism