New hire bike and transport strategies will be great, but need more teeth

The council meets on Monday to talk about hire bikes, and the next steps in the transport strategy. You can read the papers here: Committee Agenda and Papers
ebikes and escooters review (PDF)
review of the transport strategy consultation and plan (PDF)

Electric Bike and Scooter Hire

1. We welcome the huge number of journeys by hire bikes already, and the year on year growth involved
2. The significant impact already, on our carbon footprint and on making other transport options work for others
3. We support the hybrid model in use. The borough urgently needs to provide not only more bays for hire bikes, but more parking generally.
4. The council should consider moving quickly to support at least one other operator – these things make a difference through convenience, and we should seek to put as few barriers as possible in front of users.
5. The council should consider whether vouchers / memberships for bike hire can be offered to employees as a transport option. Everywhere where the council allows people to claim travel expenses should include hire bikes.
6. The papers indicate (5.5) that much more data is available from Lime, and we’d like to see that this is being used / investigated by officers for the insight it gives us.
7. The council should be asking for organisers of large events to include specific hire bike plans. This is a significant opportunity to address the transport needs of these events, and we believe that organisers should be required to work with the bike companies.
8. On 8.1.H – if there are suitable management agreements in place, the council should be able to manage more than 2 operators, if resident demand indicates this.
9. On 8.2 – we would caution about the level of demand expressed here. The level of detail indicates an overly-complicated procurement setup which would make it harder for companies and council to reach agreement, when the reality is that these are very popular in the borough, and it should not be beyond the ability of the council and the suppliers to find a way to report and deal with bikes appropriately. In particular, the use of phrases like ‘best in class’ and ‘excellent complaints process’ – who will evaluate this? Why are we looking for such complex constraints?
10. It is noted that the existing agreement with Lime is ‘not formal’ (item 3.3). We would ask that the same approach is taken for any new supplier – it seems unnecessarily complicated and lengthy, given the success of the existing arrangement, to plan a full three year contract for the provision of such a simple service.
11. In particular, in relation to item 8.4, we would hope it is possible to reach agreement on the expansion of bike numbers and a potential second supplier before Christmas, rather than waiting for New Year.

Transport Strategy

This is a really long paper, but the key bits are at the end, where it says “[these are the] key pillars that should form the basis of the Council’s transport strategy”. We added their ‘pillars’ below, with a brief comment on each. However the big omission here seems to be that walking, wheeling and cycling are not the biggest prioritie by a country mile.

(a) the improvement of public transport services, concentrating on improving public transport accessibility in areas where public transport availability is poor;

Public transport is provided mostly by other bodies. The council’s role here is to lobby, and to make the infrastructure for it accessible and safe. This should be made clear.

(b) improving the look and feel of town centres and other local commercial areas though road and transport planning that supports sustainable access

Improving the appearance of town centres is not a transport strategy goal. The goal is to deliver town centres which are accessible by active travel modes and public transport, and through which it is safe and attractive to use these modes.

(c) ensuring that areas and locations where large scale development is expected is supported not only by development-specific investment in transport but by wider improvement in transport services;

This would ideally clarify that the transport we’re seeking to support is *more* active travel / public transit and *less* private motor vehicles. Stating that large developments need transport improvements seems something of a statement of the obvious.

(d) improving the quality of interchange between travel modes;

Yes – interchange is really important, and an excellent way to support active travel modes.

(e) ensuring that river, rail and road crossings operate effectively and safely for all road users, including working with Network Rail, TfL and neighbouring boroughs to unblock bottlenecks in the transport system – including through the provision of new infrastructure such as additional bridges;

A worthwhile ambition, but we’d caution that these can be limited in terms of the actual capacity.

(f) ensuring residents are supported in transitioning to electric vehicles through poviding high quality and high quantity charging infrastructure;

This isn’t a transport strategy element, this is about air quality and environmental impact. it’s important to recognise that while it is preferable to have an EV rather than ICE vehicle, it is still significantly more preferable to reduce the overall number of vehicles.

(g) supporting more sustainable and safer last mile deliveries, including by supporting better regulation of delivery riders, support for freight consolidation and cargo bikes;

This is the wrong way around, prioritising lobbying is ignoring what the council can do: the council controls its roads and how they are used, and should be thinking “we need to encourage and support lower carbon and lower impact modes for transport in the borough.” It’s good that last mile and freight consolidation are mentioned, but these need to be the priority. Whilst delivery riders, due to the precarious nature of their work and poor regulation, can be annoying, their impact on transport is minimal, and they should not be a priority in a transport strategy.

(h) recognising that new and innovative means of transport, included those realised by improvements in communication and automation may bring substantial benefits to our residents;

This seems not to be a particular strategy item – what action is being offered here, what could be offered? It feels like either a low priority, or at least something not requiring significant time at this point.

(i) capitalising on the role that parks, open spaces and the towpath currently play and could play in supporting walking and cycling in safe, car-free environments;

This is welcome, but is the first time cycling has been mentioned. The fastest growing mode in the borough, which we specifically want to be much larger, is barely getting a mention.

(j) continuing sustained investment in roads to ensure safety for all users and to provide improved cycling, protected from motor traffic where possible

It isn’t good enough to offer “protected where possible” for cycling. This shows a real lack of ambition.

(k) prioritising investment in routes providing most utility to pedestrians in terms of accessing town centres and transport hubs; and that as well as pavement quality, other aspects of the pedestrian experience on these routes will be improved such as safe crossings, lighting and shade

Similarly, walking is the one mode everyone in the borough uses. Yet it’s last. While recognising this isn’t necessarily a priority order, it really is essential that any new strategy recognises the importance of making pavements and pedestrian routes better for everyone.