Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Sustrans claims National Cycle Network has saved UK economy more than £7 billion

Calls for government to invest 5% of transport budget into walking and cycling

Sustrans has asked the government to increase investment in walking and cycling after claiming that its National Cycle Network has saved the UK economy more than £7 billion since it was first established, 20 years ago.

Physical inactivity costs the UK economy around £20 billion every year and the charity calculates that over £6 billion of its claimed savings have come from reducing health costs. According to The Telegraph, the calculations were made using the Department for Transport’s official appraisal framework, webTAG, which is the framework used to assess the impact of different traffic systems.

Researchers also estimated that Sustrans routes had helped save businesses £200 million by decreasing the number of sick days taken, while reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduced traffic congestion were also said to have contributed to savings.

Malcolm Shepherd, Sustrans Chief Executive, said:

“To make walking and cycling local journeys an option for everyone we need the new government to provide funding for cycling and walking to be equivalent of 5% of the transport budget, and a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy that contains a long-term vision and targets, in the same way that already exists for our roads and railways. This relatively small investment has the potential to have huge benefits for us all.”

It is 20 years since Sustrans gained Lottery funding to develop the National Cycle Network and it now extends over 14,000 miles. Last year, 4.9 million people made 764 million trips by bike and foot on the routes.

While proud of the organisation’s achievements, Shepherd makes the point that government could achieve much more. “If a charity can lead the creation of a Network of routes that runs the length and breadth of the country, imagine what could be possible if government created safer conditions for walking and cycling, including reducing speeds.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

18 comments

Avatar
brooksby | 8 years ago
0 likes

@spen - true. even the new segregated path in central Bristol is overrun with pedestrians ignoring the cycle symbols and the fact that it's made to look like a road not a footpath (eg. a dashed centre line)

Avatar
wrevilo | 8 years ago
0 likes

The problem is that a lot of local authorities have no internal expertise for 'active travel' and or cycling due to cuts. So money is funneled into Sustrans.

I don't believe this to be an ideal arrangement.

Avatar
teaboy | 8 years ago
0 likes

Sustrans are simply yes-men for bad infrastructure. They have the belief that ANYTHING is better than nothing, which leads to small budgets spread too thinly and used for the easy option. That's why we have the NCN that we do - unsurfaced routes with steps and barriers that are indirect or inappropriate for most types of bike and rider.

Just look at their approval for the Bedford Turbo-roundabout.

Avatar
spen | 8 years ago
0 likes

gaza_d put his finger on exactly why segregated infrastructure isn't generally being installed anymore. Bot prds and people on bikes ignore the segregation.

As for Sustrans, they are becoming part of the problem rather than the solution. They have several members of staff who are positions to give a yeah or nay on funding who simply don't live in the real world. For instance they wanted raisewd cussins put across junctions on 40mph road with cyclists have priority across all junction. I wonder how many casualties they thought was an acceptable level on an arrangement like that?

gazza_d wil also find that he uses LA routes with Sustrans paying for the signs and a proportion towards groundworks, with no provision for any future maitenance, leaving the LA to pickup the bill, and a map with their logo all over it. After that- nothing to do with us guv!( the sections of paths owned by sustrans where I live are notable by their lack of basic maintenace. some years not even basic grass cutting, surfaces lifted by tree roots and generally poor quality surfaces). The money they use isn't even theirs, most of it comes fro central government fro some unfathomable reason Sustrans get their hands on it first and take out their admin fees before a penny is spent on infrastructure.

Get rid of Sustrans, give the money directly and ringfenced to LAs with rules governing consultation before implementation and we might statrt to get a network that goes to the same places that people want to.

Avatar
gazza_d | 8 years ago
0 likes

We have a section of fairly new Sustrans designed segregated NCN route here on South Tyneside. It's been in about 4 or 5 years now.

I have had several local authority officers tell me over the last 2 or 3 years that shared is the preference rather than segregated, unless cyclist and pedestrian traffic are both quite high.

I use some stretches of segregated and people just walk in the cycling bit all the time. Which can be frustrating when it's a group with prams, or a bunch of teenagers spreading out over the path. The reasons seem to be because A) the cycling side is wider, and B) further away from the road traffic

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 8 years ago
0 likes

Sustrans do some good work, but am I right in thinking that they always put in shared use cyclist/pedestrian paths? Really when possible it's better to have a bike path/lane, and a pedestrian path/lane, which is what the Dutch do - because the speed of travel is different for walkers v cyclists.

I'm in favour of sustainable travel, but not slow travel just for the sake of it.

Avatar
Airzound | 8 years ago
0 likes

Sustrans ……………… LoL!

 21

Avatar
SteppenHerring | 8 years ago
0 likes

To expand on the fist comment, I have deep reservations about Sustrans. As far as I can tell, their route go from somewhere you aren't to somewhere you don't want to go via routes that would destroy a decent set of wheels.

Just had a quick look at their (piss poor) website and nothing joins up - unless you have an MTB and a sense of adventure.

I recall a few years ago, I was in Cornwall and me and my son had road bikes. We knew what to expect from the terrain. Anyhow, coming (slowly) up a section of road marked with a 30% gradient, we came across a Dutch family. One parent on a tandem with one kid, the other parent with the other kid on a followme job. Both with fully loaded panniers and a trailer. They had seen the sign "National Cycle Network" and had foolishly assumed that this was the sensible way to go. They must've thought it was some cruel British joke. Which, in a way, I suppose Sustrans is.

Avatar
armb replied to SteppenHerring | 8 years ago
0 likes
SteppenHerring wrote:

To expand on the fist comment, I have deep reservations about Sustrans. As far as I can tell, their route go from somewhere you aren't to somewhere you don't want to go via routes that would destroy a decent set of wheels.

That's unfair. There are also Sustrans routes where they've stuck a few signs on a road people could use just as well without it being labelled as part of a so-called National Cycle Network. I suspect those are where the claimed savings are being made. (There are also a few usable routes that wouldn't be there without them - at least not unless we'd spent the Sustrans money on sustainable transport by another route.)

Avatar
ianrobo | 8 years ago
0 likes

course not hence why the Tories cut the wind subsidy, can not have cheap electric killing the carbon industry eh ?

Avatar
ianrobo | 8 years ago
0 likes

who is that Gazza, name names ...

I would love to think you are wrong but if politicians were bothered about people being being healthy they would

1) ban smoking - I smoke
2) min alcohol until price at about £1 (would not affect pubs)
3) Big sugar warnings, limit sugar in children's food etc

Avatar
gazza_d replied to ianrobo | 8 years ago
0 likes
ianrobo wrote:

who is that Gazza, name names ...

I would love to think you are wrong but if politicians were bothered about people being being healthy they would

1) ban smoking - I smoke
2) min alcohol until price at about £1 (would not affect pubs)
3) Big sugar warnings, limit sugar in children's food etc

happy to name my MP Stephen Hepburn as a tobacco industry fop. Don't even need to trawl the local press, some nationals covered the scandal http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11619737/MPs-took-tobacco-fi...

Granted the next two articles predate the recent election but do you reckon it will have improved?

There's this lot http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-fracking-industry... , and presumably lots more in the pocket of the oil industry

And for private healthcare interests http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154

So I ask again, why would any of the lot again would want a population that's fit, healthy & not spending loads of money on oil etc?

Avatar
ianrobo | 8 years ago
0 likes

This government will cut it all. They hate cycling as a party (some notable exceptions) and will fall in with the UKIP tenandancy where they can. Boris remember is an exception but he is only continuing what Ken started and knows is popular.

Avatar
gazza_d replied to ianrobo | 8 years ago
0 likes
ianrobo wrote:

This government will cut it all. They hate cycling as a party (some notable exceptions) and will fall in with the UKIP tenandancy where they can. Boris remember is an exception but he is only continuing what Ken started and knows is popular.

I don't think they "hate" cycling (and walking for that matter) as such, but there is simply no profit in it for them.

Most of them have close links either directly or via close relations to the oil industry. Read this about the links from last Govt to fracking.

there is very close links to the auto industry and privatised healthcare.

Quite simply, there is more profit from fat unhealthy people driving everywhere, burning oil & needing new cars, then needing gastric bands fitted by private clinic under expensive NHS contracts, than a nation of healthy active people walking and cycling.

And Labour, LibDems and UKIP are equally as rotten. My Labour MP is still accepting trips from the tobacco industry allegedly to protect jobs at a local cigarette filter manufacturer.

Avatar
brooksby | 8 years ago
0 likes

Quick show of hands- does ANYONE believe that the government will commit 5% to active travel? They can't afford it cos they're too busy giving tax breaks to make sure wealthy people can move their house to their children/grandchildren/housekeeper/cat without paying any tax

Avatar
gazza_d | 8 years ago
0 likes

I use a mix of Sustrans and LA routes for my commutes and the sustrans stuff is generally good and well surfaced.

The problem is as ever that some of the routes that were nailed together many years ago & seemed a revelation then are seriously crap by today's expectations.

The problem is generally lack of money for dedicated cycling schemes, and political will to take on the driving lobby and to ensure that good quality joined up cycling provision is baked into other schemes such as junction works or town centre revamps.

Avatar
horizontal dropout | 8 years ago
0 likes

Better still:

Dear Dave

Please f*** off.

PS, judging by how busy some of the Sustrans routes round here are they are doing a good job of getting people on bikes. Nothing's perfect of course but credit etc.

Avatar
VeloPeo | 8 years ago
0 likes

Dear Dave

Please spend money on cycling infrastructure

Please don't give it to those Sustrans clowns.

Latest Comments