National Cycle Network Review - Analysis

The National Cycle Network recently celebrated it's 20th birthday.  From humble beginnings it has grown dramatically over those 20 years with help from various funding streams but particularly a large lottery project at the turn of the millennium.

The network now covers 16575 miles and supports over 4 million journeys per year.  However, managing such a huge network is challenging.  It has grown in a way that has led to inconsistency in terms of quality, connectivity and clarity.  As a result Sustrans commissioned the first in-depth review of the network.

The outcomes of the report (which you can find by clicking here) are of no great surprise to those of us close to the network.  Our enthusiasm for the fantastic routes we look after is tempered with the reality that cycling infrastructure in this country suffers from under-investment and the fact that our National Cycle Network is looked after by volunteers on behalf of a charity is indeed the stark reality.  Network development has been erratic due to ever decreasing funding streams and a lack of consistency in terms of design.

Our Chief Executive Xavier Brice was recently quoted in a very good recent article in the Guardian as referring to parts of the network as "crap".  For those fearing another Gerald Ratner moment I feel that he pretty much nailed it in this case.  The above paragraph explains my feelings towards something that means a lot to me but there is no point in thinking it is perfect when there is so much room for improvement.  The article provides a good context to the comments and summarises the report well.  Xavier also speaks in more depth in this blog article which is also worth a read.

The main theme of the review has been to classify standards and assess the impact required to improve.  One clear point is that a lot of the poor or very poor sections are on road so one of the main aims is to increase the amount of off-road sections.  The off road sections still require a lot of attention with surface variability and obstacles being 2 of the main issues to address.  Notably over 50% of journeys made on the NCN are by walkers and there are also increasing numbers of users with mobility issues for which many of the barriers deter access.  The Paths for Everyone title is very apt.

Discussing the outcomes of the report

At this point I will reiterate that most of the NCN is not owned by Sustrans so working with the various landowners and so many other partners and groups is vitally important.  Our role as volunteers and members of staff is very much that of custodian.  I will be posting further details about how our own local sections compare to the national picture and what action will be required to improve but for those willing to face a plethora of figures we need to consider the funding aspect!

The funding of the project is, as ever, crucial.  The figures in the report look huge which is no surprise given the size of the network and struggle for funding this far.  The initial figure in the report of £2.8 billion to achieve a network of gold standard quality is a scary figure even with a projected pay-back to the economy of around £2.5 billion per annum.  However, the £2.8 billion is the total cost over 22 years to 2040 which works out at £127 million per annum.  This figure in isolation is still large but compared with road building budget is very small and the projected payback being a huge return on investment at nearly 20:1 benefit to cost ratio.

The funding issue was debated well at a recent launch event for Sustrans volunteers, staff and supporters.  Funding streams from a number of different sources were discussed but one key contributor stated that the Government should be responsible for providing funding and based on the above figures it is a fair call but we need to consider that the NCN is only part of the cycling and walking infrastructure.

From my experience over the last few years funding has been something akin to a game of hungry hippos where the available funding is snapped up very quickly by those authorities most prepared and tends to be based on major projects mainly in our biggest cities.  The NCN crosses many authority boundaries and has large rural sections so is not always best placed to benefit from some of the funding available, indeed neighbouring authorities on the same stretch of NCN may find themselves bidding against each other for their own connectivity projects.  The latest figures released with the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) Safety Review mentions £1.2 billion to be be spent over 5 years from 2016-2021 of which approximately half is intended for cycling and walking infrastructure

There is also a large gap in funding between London and the rest of the UK.  At presentations I've been to in the past I've seen 2 sets of figures given for cost per head attributed to cycling.  This can be very confusing when trying to compare against the likes of the Dutch in terms of cycling budget.  The CWIS mentioned above also suggests that the figures per head have doubled from £3.50 to £7 although it is not clear whether this includes the inflated figure that includes London.  This sounds positive but pails into insignificance when compared to the Dutch figure which is around £24 per person.

Segregated and spacious - cycling into Amsterdam

I recently visited Amsterdam briefly and had a keen eye on the cycling infrastructure between Ijmuiden and Amsterdam city centre.  All of the way along the route was uninterrupted, segregated and wide cycle routes.  Yes it helps being flat and being a smaller country but it works so well because it is consistently designed and has been well planned and funding distributed more fairly throughout the country.  Other cities in the Netherlands have benefited as much as Amsterdam - Groeningen in particular, though the distribution of population in the Netherlands is far more even than in England due mainly to the huge size of London.

It was with a sense of frustration that I returned to cycling in England with our less developed network but the subsequent release, digestion and analysis of the NCN review gives us hope that it's future state will be better than now, subject to the funding of course but also to spread the word and gain the support of our communities to promote it, use it and love it.