What can Public Health do for cycling?

We know cycling is great for people's health, and in a country like the Netherlands the population gain significantly from the regular exercise they get from their bikes. As we hear more about the impact of lifestyle choices on health, what are the people in charge doing to promote active transport for everyone?

Ask not what cycling can do for public health, ask what public health can do for cycling. 

A couple of years ago responsibility for 'public health' moved from the NHS to Local Authorities. This change means councils must consider health when they plan all of their activities - education, transport, planning and all the rest.

It was hoped this change would cause a step change in the way councils worked with a new emphasis on cycling and walking. However that didn't happen, so what are the reasons and what can we do about it?

The problem

Public health professionals know that a big shift to active travel is needed to combat our sedentary lifestyles & improve the health of the population. However this hasn't translated in to action from councillors and engineers who are following different priorities.

We can't afford the NHS if we continue like this.

Lack of physical activity places a huge burden on our health services. The cost of treating the associated health complications comes at a time of constrained budgets. The rapid growth of conditions like Type 2 Diabetes could make the NHS unsustainable as we know it. Unfortunately there isn't a magic bullet and public health can't solve this on their own.

Must transport be part of the solution?

Transport departments will ask why they're being expected to adopt a new set of aims and priorities. To answer this local councils need to consider other ways they could fill the physical activity deficit in their communities and whether that is affordable.

For instance we could ask:

• How much money did they spend on leisure services last year?
• What proportion of the physical activity needs of the population were realised by their leisure services programmes?
• Can this fulfil the activity needs of the community and is it affordable?

We can't afford to solve this without using all of the opportunities we have to promote healthy activity. Transport departments are in control of much of our public space and budgets public health professionals can only dream of. We need transport to be part of the solution by promoting active transport, improving our health and saving the NHS from spiralling costs.

Because it's no longer just about cost effectively getting people from A to B.

• We need to emphasise and give credit for outcomes (like more people cycling) rather than big showy projects (many cycling schemes are about small scale interventions with small budgets).
• We should not accept health impacts being regarded as secondary considerations with journey times being used to justify projects which fail to promote cycling and walking.
• Roads must be designed to make cycling and walking viable options for everyone.

We need to keep reinforcing these messages with every consultation and when we talk or write to our politicians.

The invisible killer you can't escape

Finally, we all need to talk about air pollution a lot more. The impacts on children, the old and the weak are truly shocking and the evidence continues to pile in.

Progress has been made by Client Earth and EU regulations but the scale of the problem is huge and far too little is being done about it. We need to push for local government action to address sources of pollution close to our homes, schools and hospitals. 

London boroughs rejecting segregated cycling

TfL have rightly had a lot of scrutiny on their schemes, including here. However the London boroughs who control 95% of our roads have escaped the spotlight.

It doesn't take long to find serious examples of boroughs failing to provide for cycling or worse, actively resisting it. Freedom of Information requests also reveal that many boroughs have virtually no segregated lanes, except ones built by TfL. It is also becoming apparent that some boroughs are holding back TfL cycling schemes by refusing to cooperate.

In March we ran a poll which found over half of the respondents wanted us to focus on segregated lanes. So with TfL bringing forward ambitious plans, it's time to take a look at the boroughs. We might not like what we see.

City of London Oppose Segregated Superhighways

The City of London are opposing the new North-South and East-West segregated superhighways using spurious objections they seem to have made up on the spot - for instance concerns about the air and noise pollution... from bikes.

They are also removing (unprotected) lanes & instead of removing motor traffic or providing physical protection, they are forcing cyclists to jostle with motor traffic.

Their 20mph limit and plans to make one way streets two way for bikes are welcome, but they don't replace the need for segregated cycle lanes on main roads.

Southwark's Own Transport Department Against Segregated Cycling

Southwark have a poor record and made a U-turn on their cycling commitments. However pressure from grass roots campaigners has led to a review of a major scheme and may signal a change in direction. This is great news however with a history of going back on promises and after admitting their own transport department is the main barrier we need to keep the pressure on every step of the way and also fight for a major change in direction in Southwark - business as usual is not acceptable.

Also in Southwark we have a sad situation where the residents of an exclusive square are seeking to block a quietway.

Westminster Blocked Segregated Cycle Superhighway 5

Despite large numbers of cyclists travelling & working in Westminster, it is one of the least cycle friendly boroughs in London. They also have one of the worst records for cyclist safety.

TfL have proposed a largely segregated lane for the rest of the route, but it appears taking this the full length was blocked by Westminster who are proposing to draw pictures of bikes on side street. Effectively this means CS5 stops at the end of the bridge.

No Segregated Cycling in Camden's West End Plans

Camden's consultation for transforming Tottenham Court Road fails to provide segregated or protected cycling, is disappointing from a borough which has made ambitious proposals in the past. It doesn't do anything to encourage more people to cycle and does not provide for young & old, inexperienced, disabled, less fit people, people with kids cycling or cargo bikes.

Further north Camden are proposing to extend the light segregation on Royal College Street up to Kentish Town. While the improvements & extension are to be welcomed, we aren't going to see large numbers of people take up cycling unless we have a proper network of safe & convenient routes throughout.

And more:

• Kensington and Chelsea 'eviscerated' the Bike Grid, which is pushed to the margins in Westminster and blocked by the Royal Parks according to aseasyasridingabike. UPDATE: It is now reported they have also blocked CS9.
• Wandsworth are proposing a traffic light compromise instead of a Dutch roundabout and only after pressure from TfL, report Cyclists in the City.
• Lewisham are ignoring cycling in their re-design of the town centre. "All this work being undertaken is an ideal time to have some proper cycling infrastructure included, unfortunately it looks like it's been left out" from Facebook.

Name and Shame

Are there any examples of opposing councils we have missed, or schemes where councils have shown leadership & support? Please let us know below, our next step will be to turn up the pressure on the anti-cycling boroughs.