Birmingham Cycling & Walking Coalition |
| Report of meeting 2 |
| Making
Birmingham a more cycling and walking friendly city, 15 December 2004, Birmingham
This is a report of the second meeting of a loose coalition of cycling and walking interests from the public and voluntary sectors, formed in November 2004 to:
Meeting 2 focused on two key issues:
Some 20 people attended Meeting 2 (see delegates list for details) representing various cycling, walking and public health organisations from around the West Midlands, not just Birmingham. Following a short presentation on the outcomes of Meeting 1, delegates worked in two separate groups. This report has been prepared by Alison Millward, the independent facilitator. The report of Meeting 1 was accepted without change. Local Transport Plan Discussion Keith Blower (Chief
Engineers and Planning Officers Group – CEPOG) explained that the
revision to the West Midlands LTP scheduled for production in July 2005
would be considered as a provisional document and that the final version
would need to be submitted in 2006. It had become clear that funding for a major scheme related to cycling would not be forthcoming as central government were making cuts in the funding available for LTPs. Funding was more likely to come for minor works programmes to be delivered through district level LTPs. As the work on revising the cycling strategy in the LTP had been based on the assumption that there would be a major cycling scheme, this approach would have to be changed. Several people felt that a programme of minor works would be more applicable to cycling and walking anyway, provided that the major schemes focused on other road users, reflected the needs of cyclists and walkers within them. Several people emphasised that improving accessibility to the network, improving facilities at key attractors/generators (ie work places, schools and colleges) and safety, for the commuter cyclist, would achieve the greatest impact on reducing congestion. Similarly, health benefits would only accrue if people were able to cycle and walk frequently. It was therefore critical that the needs of commuters (young and old) were given due priority, but balanced with provision for leisure and local journey cyclists. There would still be a need for individual organisations interested in developing the cycle network further, to submit details of specific new routes, junction improvements and other safety and accessibility measures, for consideration. Examples were cited of Sustran’s proposals for a largely off-road route from Sutton Coldfield into Birmingham City Centre and extending NCN Route 5 to the north of the city centre; the Cycling in Sandwell representative suggested routes linking into and crossing over the so called Black Country Box; and the airport representative cited proposals for a Route 53 linking the airport to the city centre. A number of people felt that strategic objectives relevant to cycling and walking should be developed in the overarching sections of the LTP, not just in the separate appendices as now. These general objectives should include:
Only 1% of journeys in the West Midlands are currently made by bike and the target in the current LTP (2003) is to achieve 10% of journeys by cycle in 2031. Representatives from the health sector commented that the target needed to be nearer to 25% to achieve any significant improvement in health benefits. The CEPOG representative described how cycling levels were continuing to fall in the area (as measured in a number of different ways), and that this trend was unlikely to be reversed in the next five years. Promotional and educational campaign discussionsThe group working on the promotional and educational campaign amended the draft objectives generated at Meeting 1 and then mapped out a range of mostly new activities which could be useful in raising awareness and increasing the confidence of existing and potential cyclists. The revised objectives for the promotional and educational campaign were:
The details of the proposals are set out in Table 1 and will be further developed and then prioritised at Meeting 3 in February 2005. There was a need to consult research to identify what types of activities had proved to be successful at increasing levels of walking and cycling [offers of help will be gratefully received]. Next stepsIt was agreed that a joint response could be made from the coalition to the LTP review but that individual organisations should also respond separately, especially those wishing to suggest location specific proposals. Responses to Keith Blower (CEPOG) were needed by mid January 2005. Presenting the coalition’s ideas to senior members of the local health services was widely supported, to strengthen understanding of the potential health benefits and the possibilities for partnership working. It was also felt that the chairs of PCTs and Directors of Public Health would be well placed to influence the Planning and Transportation Subcommittee overseeing the review of the LTP. Similar approaches should be made to the police services and other local politicians. Meeting 3 would be planned for February 2005 to be held on health service premises. The Local Access Forums should be approached to send representatives to future coalition meetings. Alison Millward Name Organisation |
|