UPDATED: Question to the leader of WSCC

I have just sent this question to the leader of WSCC using the Leader's Online Hotseat - I'll post the answer here, if I get one.

In your answer to a question about safe cycling to schools in Lancing (http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/ccm/content/your-council/leaders-hotseat/20...) you mention that WSCC have pledged to provide 20km of cycle lanes, presumably in 2009-10. I sadly suspect that that's for the whole of West Sussex, a mere half-of-one-percent of the roads the Council is the Highways Authority for and that cyclists have a right to use. Had it been 20km of routes in Lancing I'd have been more impressed.

Cycling is a mode of transport that is rapidly becoming popular for local journeys: it's cheap, healthy, avoids traffic congestion, environmentally friendly, doesn't burn finite fossil fuel resources, can be used by all ages including children, provides useful accessibility for people without cars (a large proportion of the population), and fun!

WSCC apparently agree with all of the above, and have done for many years (see excellent-words-on-paper from WSCC Cycling Strategies for over a decade).

My question is this: why, given that cycling in West Sussex towns is a popular mode of transport, with modal share of around 10% in towns (increasing annually), and supposedly something that the council is trying to encourage, does cycling receive less than one percent of the WSCC transport budget, with that money often only available if linked to Section 106 "planning gain" income?

Providing for cycling can be as simple as installing 20mph speed limits, which render dedicated cycle lanes unnecessary. This is clearly demonstrated in Portsmouth, which is now an extremely pleasant city to live, walk and cycle in. WSCC need to re-visit their transport budget priorities, and put real action behind their words about encouraging cycling!

Here's the answer I received on 21 October:

Dear Anthony,

Thank you for your email.

Cycling receives a large amount of additional funding outside of our cycling budget. This funding is not always attached to external funding streams such as Section 106 developers contributions but from other highways related work areas.

The Safer Routes to School, Safety Engineering, Transport Planning and Road Safety Education, Training and Publicity teams also fund cycling initiatives such as cycle infrastructure improvements as well as road safety awareness campaigns and training that cyclists directly benefit from.

You refer to 20mph being applied in Portsmouth. West Sussex County Council is currently rolling out School Safety Zones at various schools across the county. A key feature of our SSZs is that they include an advisory 20mph limit. SSZs aim to improve levels of safety for all road users as well as increasing the perceptions of safety. This scheme is one example of cyclists benefiting from schemes implemented outside of the cycling budget.

West Sussex County Council has also implemented pedestrian friendly environments in the past, such as the Bognor Regis Home Zone and low speed zone that consisted of a 20mph zone incorporating 40 roads in Bognor Regis.

West Sussex County Council is committed to encouraging cycling as a safe and realistic alternative to the car. West Sussex County Council is already highly aware of the environmental, economic, health and social benefits brought about by increased levels of cycling. However, like many authorities West Sussex County Council has a limited amount of resources with many competing priorities. However, I hope you can appreciate that much work has already been done with regards to encouraging cycling within West Sussex and that many areas of highways work will continue to improve cycling infrastructure in the future, which will compliment and support the schemes procured through our cycling budget.

I trust this informationis helpful.

Yours sincerely
Henry Smith
Leader of the County Council

I asked about this "large amount of additional funding", and where it was being spent. In return my question was turned into a Freedom of Information Request question by the council. Can they do that? Anyway, I hope that we'll find out the true nature of WSCC's budget for cycling, including all the non-cycling-budget extras, soon.

Oddly, neither my original question to the "Leader's Online Hotseat" nor the answer has yet appeared on the Hotseat webpages. So I've published them here in the meantime, so we can all see how WSCC are encouraging cycling in the county.

Clarification: "Section 106" money is effectively bribes from large developers in return for gaining planning permission. The official view is that large developments should contribute to the area in which they exist, which I suppose is a valid point, but linking the payments so closely to gaining planning permission seems a bit odd to me. The problem, from a cycling point of view, is that most cycling project budgets have been dependent on S106 funding being available: if the development didn't happen the cycling budget was zero. Quite why this applied to cycling, and not to other transport modes including pedestrians, I don't know. I suspect it was merely because cycling was/is not treated as a serious mode of transport by WSCC.