Conservative MSP questions whether Scottish government’s Access Bikes scheme represents “value for money”

I suppose it depends on whether unspent funds can be reclaimed into other budgets I suppose.  

But yes, currently only setup costs have been spent and can be claimed is 'a waste'. I do wonder if concerns of abuse or defaulted payments have meant stronger checks then normal. Shame the FOI hadn't asked how many applications had been turned down and how many were still ongoing and / or time frames of decisions. 

Nine months does seem a little short for a repayment period for the very low paid.

ktache wrote:

Nine months does seem a little short for a repayment period for the very low paid.

Providing a loan to people in financial difficulty also seems like a bit of a trap. I'd rather the tax-payers just bought the bikes and donated them to people in need of mobility.

Birmingham Council had some free bike schemes a few years ago. Raleigh bikes painted orange with Birmingham on the downtube. Still see some out and about when I'm on my commute. 2000 or so in the end I believe. 

It certainly didn't come out of the blocks running.  But then - in terms of national level public money spending - this isn't even a full handful of peanuts.

I would like to see this working. Maybe it does need a little more time. But given more time and it turns out it's a bureaucratic failure then yes, scrap it. I do note that this is one of the very few "subsidies" to do with bikes, whereas overall all motorists are subsidised (relative to what they pay in taxes - when the full costs of motoring are accounted for). Plus there are additional schemes too.

Even if it becomes fully subscribed it certainly isn't a panacea. Like the rest of the UK Scotland is largely short of decent options for mass cycling. (There are some historic exceptions - but at least in Edinburgh the roads are as uninviting and as physically damaged as anywhere in the UK). Also Scotland failed to reduce the default urban speed limits when it had the chance * and is very happy spending a ton on new roads. Although the spend on "active travel" is up a bit it will take some years for that to filter through. That's filter through into actual plans - it'll take much longer for actual cycle networks.

* Because "a one-size fits all approach was not appropriate"(!) It's almost like some politicians were willfully misunderstanding the concept of a default - which we already have.  And this in spite of it being perfectly possible under the scheme for local authorities to put speeds back up if "needed"...

500 interest free loans of up to £500. I make that £250k

Cost to administer scheme: £400k

Just buy 800 £500 bikes and give them away!

I'd certainly have been very happy if they had put more money the way of the Cycle Station or The Bike Station or other such schemes.  That gives you bikes for less than 500 quid, recycles old ones, provides maintenance and even training / jobs!

I'm not seeing that it's 400k to administer the scheme. I think that's the total pot of money available, most of which is available for loans.  Obviously there will be admin costs - which of course might turn out to be ludicrous.

However whether or not this particular scheme is worthwhile I don't think the "give them a fish" model is generally a good use of the money. So I wouldn't just hand out bikes. For psychological reasons it's important people put money in themselves - even if their costs are heavily subsidised.

Surely the money for the loans you get back, so there should be next to no cost to the public purse.

The quote "Patrick Harvie has spent nearly £400,000 of public money" suggests that is not to be recouped.

Your point about free stuff not being cared for is very much accurate, just look at how hire bikes, trains and public playground are treated

That quote looks like it may be (deliberately) misleading. The one further down says "a scheme that has access to £390,000 of public funds", which kind of implies that they haven't actually spent all that money yet. So it's not a stretch to think that they may also be being (deliberately) misleading in suggesting that none of that money will be rcouped.

Gm_Crop wrote:

500 interest free loans of up to £500. I make that £250k Cost to administer scheme: £400k Just buy 800 £500 bikes and give them away!

and the cost for implementation will be .....?

While there is much chest thumping regarding financing of active travel this is mainly in tourist areas and pretty much aimed at leisure cycling. Little to nothing is currently being done to encourage utility cycling in many areas. Renfrewshire is doing stuff but is mainly the outlying corridors. Once you're spat out when it becomes more urban there is nothing to facilitate utility cycling. This and the huge opposition toward restructuring of junctions to protect vulnerable road users is all pretty much disheartening.

There was also the opportunity to introduce presumed liability into the legal system but this too was shot down in flames by the then Transport Secretary. Police Scotland is dragging their heels in introducing an electronic portal to report close passes. I'm sure that the justice system could even establish traffic offence courts with Sheriffs specialising in this particular area. There's so many firsts that could be scored and sadly these opportunities are not being taken. 

giff77 wrote:

While there is much chest thumping regarding financing of active travel this is mainly in tourist areas and pretty much aimed at leisure cycling. Little to nothing is currently being done to encourage utility cycling in many areas. [...] This and the huge opposition toward restructuring of junctions to protect vulnerable road users is all pretty much disheartening.

[...]There's so many firsts that could be scored and sadly these opportunities are not being taken. 

I generally agree, I'd frame it as Scotland is the best of one of the worst (UK). There was an increase to a sensible minimum active travel spend. As you say many initiatives were proposed - a positive sign - but failed (e.g. 20mph as an urban default).

"Mainstream opinion" (what politicians / media say and many people accept) in Scotland still shares much with the rest of the UK. There is a complex of beliefs around transport, some true but many just a reflection of "what is" now. That doesn't mean that there are no alternatives nor that we are simply stuck at the point we've got to. After all part of the reason for all the motor vehicles is decades of very deliberate government promotion and funding!

These beliefs include things like the following: cycling is not "transport" - it's at best a leisure activity (or only "transport" for the poor / criminal). Transport "strategy" must be about a few high-expense projects - large road / rail / air projects. People won't shift to self-powered / lower powered transport modes. Thus change cannot come at the "expense" of driving. There are several vicious circles e.g. no-one cycles so we can't build cycle infrastructure, cycling is not convenient and doesn't feel safe so I'm not giving up my car etc.

Each of these can be challenged. Plotting a course of change given the reality of where we are and given those beliefs is indeed difficult. But - at least in the past - politics wasn't merely about staying on top by any means. There was an idea that you could have a programme. That politics was about leadership which didn't always mean "doing the least unpopular thing". That you could bring in changes which were initially unpopular but which had longer term benefit.