Agenda Item

Document Sample
Agenda Item Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                       Agenda Item

Committee:                   Cabinet

Date:                        29 January 2008

Title:                       Scrutiny review of cycling in East Sussex

By:                          Director of Law and Personnel

Purpose:                     To provide an opportunity for the Cabinet to
                             comment on the report of the Transport and
                             Environment Scrutiny Committee.


RECOMMENDATION –

To consider any comments the Cabinet wishes to make to the County Council
on the report of the Transport and Environment Scrutiny Committee.


1.       Background Information

1.1     The Transport and Environment Scrutiny Committee has completed its
scrutiny review of cycling in East Sussex.

1.2     The Committee’s report will be submitted to the County Council on 12
February 2008 and a copy is attached. The Cabinet now has an opportunity to
comment to the County Council on the recommendations in the Scrutiny Committee’s
report. Elsewhere on the agenda is a report by the Director of Transport and
Environment commenting on the Scrutiny Committee’s report and responding to the
individual recommendations in an action plan.

1.3    Since the meeting of the Transport and Environment Scrutiny Committee on
27 November 2007, the five districts and boroughs in East Sussex have been asked
if they wish to comment on the findings and recommendations of the scrutiny
committee’s report. The only response received to date is from Wealden District
Council which has no objection to the Board’s report and recommendations. Any
remaining comments will be incorporated into the monitoring timetable for this review.




ANDREW OGDEN
Director of Law and Personnel

Contact Officers: Paul Dean (01273 481751)
Scrutiny Review of Cycling
in East Sussex

Report by the Project Board



Councillor Richard Stogdon (Chairman)
Councillor Jon Harris
Councillor John Garvican




November 2007
Transport and Environment Scrutiny Committee – 27 November 2007
Cabinet – 29 January 2008
Full Council – 12 February 2008
The report of the Scrutiny Review of Cycling in East Sussex


Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 3
Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 5
   Departmental roles and finance............................................................................................. 6
   The 2003 Cycling Strategy for East Sussex.......................................................................... 7
Cycling and the Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2) ....................................................................... 8
      The East Sussex ‘balanced scorecard’.................................................................................. 9
      Utility v. recreational cycling ................................................................................................ 10
      The National Cycling Network (NCN) and L’Avenue Verte.................................................. 12
      Cycling and other integrated transport and maintenance schemes..................................... 12
Safety and cycling .................................................................................................................... 14
Health and wellbeing benefits of cycling................................................................................ 14
Cycle training in schools ......................................................................................................... 15
Cycling and public transport ................................................................................................... 16
   Cycle parking at railway stations......................................................................................... 16
   Bicycles on trains.................................................................................................................. 17
Cycling promotion .................................................................................................................... 18
Other partnership possibilities................................................................................................ 18
   Connect 2 ...............................................................................................................................18
   Cycling England .................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix: Terms of reference, membership and evidence.................................................. 20
   Scope and terms of reference of the review....................................................................... 20
   Board Membership and project support ............................................................................. 20
   Project Board meeting dates................................................................................................ 20
   Witnesses providing evidence............................................................................................. 20
   Evidence papers.................................................................................................................... 21




                                                                       2
Recommendations
Recommendation                                                                               Page

1   The Board recommends that a revised Cycling Strategy for East Sussex should be            8
    developed to:
    a) Send a clear, unambiguous message that sets out the Council’s direction and
    commitment to promoting cycling in all its forms, and the factors limiting what can be
    achieved.
    b) Explain the priorities that will be used to allocate funding to cycling through LTP
    capital funds which should support suitable and effective utility cycling schemes.
    c) Set out its aspirations for recreational cycling which will be dependent upon
    sourcing external funding and partner cooperation.
    d) Explain its policy regarding the priority schemes such as L’Avenue Verte or
    completion of sections of the National Cycling Network (NCN) through East Sussex
    and clarify the basis of future progress and funding for these schemes.
    e) Contain targets that are: clear; achievable yet challenging; carefully phrased to
    ensure public acceptability; and are within the power of the relevant organisation to
    achieve.
    f) Take into account and be compatible with other relevant policies, such as the East
    Sussex Active Living Strategy 2007-12.

2   When competing for LTP capital funds, cycling schemes should be judged fairly and         13
    robustly against the LTP objectives in the balanced scorecard but without being
    given a negative weighting. This would allow high quality utility cycling schemes to
    come forward and compete effectively against other traffic and public transport
    schemes.

3   A £50,000 ‘cycling opportunity fund’ should be put forward annually as a project          13
    within the balanced scorecard which, if successful, would enable a range of flexible,
    low cost responses to meet unanticipated but desirable utility cycling activities
    including:
    a) supplementing larger traffic and maintenance schemes to benefit cycling and
    walking (see page 12)
    b) joint funding of cycle parking for example with rail companies at key railway
    stations (see page 16)
    c) signing and reactive maintenance in conjunction with partners such as Sustrans
    (see page 9).




                                                 3
4   The Council should implement the Audit Commission recommendation to agree and              13
    implement an audit regime for new highway and traffic schemes by taking a practical
    and tailored approach depending on the type and size of scheme, including:
    a) all transport scheme promoters and designers should be made aware of the need
    to cater for cyclists wherever possible;
    b) opportunities should be identified within repair and maintenance programmes to
    introduce cost effective cycling measures at marginal cost using the ‘cycling
    opportunity fund’ as required.
    The effectiveness of this approach would be measured by bringing a sample of
    successful scheme outcomes to Transport and Environment Scrutiny Committee
    during the monitoring period of this review.

5   That the scoring criteria used in the Balanced Scorecard assessment process be             15
    refined to include explicit health benefits within the Local Transport Plan 2 objective
    ‘protect, promote and enhance the environment’.

6   Where schools that would benefit from cycle training are failing to identify staff or      16
    time for training, the cycle training manager should take all possible action to try to
    encourage recalcitrant but otherwise ideally placed schools to take part by:
    a) Emphasising the benefits of cycling both to individual children and the wider
    community
    b) Engaging the help of local elected Members to use their influence
    c) Consider using monetary incentives if it is cost effective and affordable.

7   That Southern be requested to consider whether in the light of the impact of its policy    18
    of banning cycles on certain rush hour services:
    a) it would be prepared to adopt a more selective approach towards banning the
    carriage of cycles on its trains, for example by limiting the policy to certain stations
    rather than a blanket ban for entire routes
    b) when considering the future operation of the Gatwick Express a cycle ban policy is
    not introduced this service
    c) it will negotiate with bicycle retailers to promote discounts on the purchase of new
    bicycles for its customers.

8   That opportunities to provide high quality cycle parking at rail stations across East      18
    Sussex be explored fully in conjunction with Southern Rail with a view to
    implementation of facilities where possible.

9   That the Lead Member should consider carefully whether the Council should place a          19
    bid for resources to create a demonstration site in East Sussex under Cycling
    England’s second phase of cycling demonstration towns within Bike for the Future 2
    (2008 – 12).




                                                  4
Overview
1.     Today’s transport challenge is to deliver efficient, cost effective mobility for ever greater
volumes of people and goods whilst reducing the impact of transport on the environment.
Cycling can make a significant contribution to reducing the impact of transport on the
environment in the context of a predicted traffic growth in the UK of 20% between 2003 and
2015 with an associated extra 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 .
2.     Cycling is a unique activity in contributing to the accessibility of towns, villages, centres
of employment and recreation; it can help to ease traffic congestion whilst saving CO2 and
improving air quality; it helps promote and support economic and sustainable development and
has a potentially major positive impact on public health.
3.      The 2001 census shows that just 1.7% of the resident population in East Sussex
travelled to work by bicycle compared with a national UK average of 2.9%. The highest
proportion was in Eastbourne at 3.5% and the lowest in Wealden with just 1.1%. The counties
with some of the highest percentages include Somerset (6.2%) and West Sussex (5.3%). In the
UK 56% of all journeys by car are less than five miles and 23 per cent are less than two miles. A
recent study found that the UK ranked 12th out of 15 European nations in terms of the average
distance people cycle each year and 14th on distance walked. The proportion of primary school
children taken to school by car has remained above 40% since 2002.
4.      In recent years the County Council has undertaken various cycling initiatives with these
highlights:
      •   Off road multi-user routes such as Forest Way Country Park and the Cuckoo Trail
          provide extremely popular, predominantly recreational, opportunities for cycling. The
          cycle counters on the Cuckoo Trail indicated over 70,000 cycle trips in 2006 and it is
          estimated that at least as many walkers use the route.
      •   The Ouse Estuary cycle track is proving extremely popular for utility trips; surveys
          indicate that the number of cycle trips between Newhaven and Seaford has gone up by
          approximately 200% since the opening of the route in 2005.
      •   Highly successful and well used cycle maps in paper and on-line formats have been
          produced, along with a cycle ‘journey planner’, and have had to be re-printed.
      •   The annual programme of guided cycle rides (Cycling East Sussex) attracts over 500
          participants per annum and has been running for more than 10 years; events such as
          the East Sussex cycle and walks festival have also proved popular.
      •   Initiatives, such as allowing cycling on Hastings promenade, have been successful but
          sensitivities have inevitably arisen amongst other users of the space, for example
          pedestrians, which have to be surmounted.
5.        Less successful have been the following outcomes:
      •   An Audit Commission inspection report on transport services in East Sussex (2004)
          considered that a lack of strong commitment to cycling had contributed to the very low
          level of cycling in the county, and that the cycling strategy target to evaluate all road
          schemes for their impact on cyclists had not been implemented.
      •   Cycle routes have sometimes been built in the ‘easier’ sections and then suddenly come
          to a halt because of problems, typically, land ownership issues, lack of funding,
          engineering difficulties or a group opposed to a particular scheme. For example, a
          stretch of cycle way near Berwick, according to some local views, goes from “nowhere to
          nowhere else” and then “deposits cyclists in a dangerous manner back on to the main
          road”.


1
    Cycling England publication, the Case for Cycling


                                                        5
    •   Unlike some other counties, there is no active county-wide cycling forum in East Sussex
        at present.
6.      The views of all East Sussex parish and town councils on cycling were solicited during
the early stages of this review. 20% of authorities contacted responded. Details of all the
responses received are provided in a separate evidence pack and are, in most respects,
consistent with the outcomes of national surveys and work being reported elsewhere.
Additionally a county-wide public survey was undertaken which solicited a significantly higher
response than was expected.
7.     This report is therefore submitted as an interim report pending the analysis of the public
consultation responses and consideration of the views of the five district and borough councils
who are significant partners in determining the success of cycling initiatives.

Departmental roles and finance
8.      For several years until 2006/07, cycling activities fell within the responsibility of different
teams within the Council’s Transport and Environment Department. A dedicated Cycling Officer,
located in the Traffic and Safety Team, had an allocation of approximately £200,000 annually for
cycling schemes from the Traffic & Safety element of the integrated transport capital
programme. Officers in the Traffic and Safety and Countryside Management teams were
responsible for cycle training in schools, promoting cycling activities amongst County Council
staff and arranging cycle fairs and guided rides for the general public.
9.      A restructuring, following the departure of the Cycling Officer in February 2007, provided
a timely opportunity for Scrutiny to consider and comment upon the County Council’s approach
to cycling and make recommendations to help inform a revised cycling strategy.
10.     Until his departure, the Cycling Officer was responsible for coordinating a broad mix of
strategic and operational work including:
    •   Organising cycling activities and promotional work including route maps which have
        proved very popular.
    •   Identifying and designing specific facilities including cycle routes and cycle parking.
    •   Ensuring that cycling is taken into account in other transport schemes such as road
        safety projects and traffic calming through cycle audits.
    •   Bidding for external funding such as Interreg 2 which dominated most of the Cycling
        Officer’s time.
    •   Conducting feasibility studies for future schemes, mostly funded by Interreg.
    •   Monitoring cycle usage across the county.
11.     The Traffic and Safety Team now retains responsibility for cycle training and developing
school travel plans but the strategic function for cycling has been relocated to the Transport
Policy Team. Consequently, cycling is no longer considered a stand-alone activity with its own
budget. Instead, cycling schemes are now required to compete against other LTP projects to
secure LTP capital funding. To date, this has resulted in one cycling scheme being funded in
this way: the Harbour Road scheme in Rye.
12.     The Board considered the integration of cycling into transport strategy to be logical,
especially as available resources in general for transport schemes are limited. Whilst there is no
longer a Cycling Officer in the County Council, there are named officers with responsibility for
cycle strategy and cycle training which is of critical importance for effective communication
about future intentions on cycling with external partners and the public.


2
  Interreg is a European funding programme that helps Europe’s regions form partnerships to work
together on common projects.


                                                   6
13.    The County Council’s integrated transport budget for 2007/08 amounted to
approximately £4m in support of the East Sussex Local Transport Plan 2 (2006 – 11). Of this
approximately £1.3m was allocated to Traffic and Safety, and £2.7m to Transport Strategy for
implementation of integrated transport schemes through Local Area Transport Strategies
(LATS). The setting aside of this £1.3m for safety schemes reflects the high priority assigned to
road safety by the County Council.
14.    Bidding for external funding, in particular Interreg, is a highly labour-intensive process.
Furthermore, most grants require match funding by the County Council or other partners that,
despite the value-for-money such grants infer, still adds a significant pressure to existing
budgets.
15.     Attracting external funds for cycling in East Sussex has been successful in recent years
with Interreg being the main source. This has funded a mix of schemes and has delivered route
and feasibility studies on future schemes that could be implemented should additional funding
become available. In many cases, additional funding has not yet become available to realise
these expensive schemes on the ground.
16.     There is no current funding emerging from Interreg although opportunities for future
projects are being considered. Most notably, the County Council in partnership with French and
English authorities is in the early stages of developing a bid to the new ‘Interreg 4a’ programme
for the L’Avenue Verte Paris to London cycle route.

The 2003 Cycling Strategy for East Sussex
17.    The Local Transport Plan includes a Cycling Strategy alongside other modal strategies
such as passenger transport and walking. The Cycling Strategy was produced in 2003 to
support the broader objectives contained within the Plan.
18.    It is clear with the benefit of hindsight that the 2003 Cycling Strategy was over ambitious
and backed by insufficient resources. Of the 14 targets within the strategy, seven have not been
achieved; six have been achieved only in part, and just one target has been met and, in fact,
exceeded. The successful target relates to the securing of external funding against a target of
£500,000 by 2008.
19.     Until 2007/08, the system of prioritising cycling schemes lacked the rigour of assessment
of effectiveness that other integrated transport schemes had to undergo. The Board accepts
that increasing cycling in general will result in a range of health and environmental benefits and
is therefore worthy of promotion in its own right. However, without significantly more resources
than are currently available, it is essential for the County Council to prioritise potential cycling
schemes based on a better understanding of the likely benefits. To achieve this will also require
greater clarity in the future cycling strategy about the relative importance of utility and
recreational cycling (see page 10).
20.     In 1996, the government set a target to quadruple the amount of cycling by 2012 and
this target was included in the Strategy. The target was abandoned by the Government in 2004
because it was deemed unlikely to be met. Indeed, cycling levels have fallen over the last 10
years in UK with just isolated locations where cycling has increased.
21.    Currently, local highway authorities now are required to define ‘challenging and
achievable’ core and local targets for their local transport plans. The East Sussex LTP2 contains
a mandatory target and a local target on cycling, measured using 14 automatic cycle counters.
The targets together with current progress is shown in the following table:




                                                 7
Indicator            Target                                               Progress

1. Cycling trips –   Increase the level of cycling trips in East Sussex   From a base of 100 in 2005/06,
the national         to an annualised index of 130 by 2015/16             the number of cycling trips has
mandatory            compared with a 2004/05 annualised index of          fallen by 10%.
indicator            100, with an intermediate target of 115 by
                     2010/11.

2. Cycling trips –   Increase the level of cycling trips in Greater       From a base of 100 in 2005/06,
a locally set        Eastbourne/Bexhill and Hastings areas to an          the number of cycling trips in
indicator            annualised index of 165 by 2015/16 compared          these areas has fallen by 12%.
                     with a 2004/05 annualised index of 100, with an
                     intermediate target of 130 by 2010.

22.      There is no readily available comparative data against other local authorities for these
indicators. Furthermore, the data in isolation does not explain why cycling trips are decreasing
nor whether the trips counted are recreational or utility. To help address these questions will
require further research and the analysis of the public questionnaire responses carried out as
part of this review.

Recommendation 1.
The Board recommends that a revised Cycling Strategy for East Sussex should be
developed to:
a)      Send a clear, unambiguous message that sets out the Council’s direction and
        commitment to promoting cycling in all its forms, and the factors limiting what
        can be achieved.
b)      Explain the priorities that will be used to allocate funding to cycling through LTP
        capital funds which should support suitable and effective utility cycling schemes.
c)      Set out its aspirations for recreational cycling which will be dependent upon
        sourcing external funding and partner cooperation.
d)      Explain its policy regarding the priority schemes such as L’Avenue Verte or
        completion of sections of the National Cycling Network (NCN) through East
        Sussex and clarify the basis of future progress and funding for these schemes.
e)      Contain targets that are: clear; achievable yet challenging; carefully phrased to
        ensure public acceptability; and are within the power of the relevant organisation
        to achieve.
f)      Take into account and be compatible with other relevant policies, such as the East
        Sussex Active Living Strategy 2007-12.

Cycling and the Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2)
23.      The Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2) is a statutory document covering the period 2006-11.
It states how East Sussex will deliver the national and local Government shared priorities for
transport – tackling congestion, delivering accessibility, safer roads, better air quality and other
quality of life issues.
24.    There is an increasing amount of research emerging from UK and the rest of Europe to
demonstrate that promoting utility cycling alongside with other key transport and traffic policies
does play a significant part in reducing traffic congestion as well as increasing the accessibility
of employment and facilities, improving environmental quality, and increasing safety.



                                                      8
25.     It will take time in the UK, but towns, such as Groningen in the Netherlands, have
achieved a bicycle use rate of 40% only by developing a range of policies over 30 years. They
started by blending spatial planning policies bringing together living, working and shopping
functions and gradually favouring pedestrians, cyclists and public transport rather than cars.
26.      Given the timescales needed for successful outcomes and working within a climate of
limited financial resources, the lessons from elsewhere in UK suggest that it is important to
prioritise resources carefully for maximum effect. Targeting resources into a small number of
areas, routes or towns, together with effective monitoring, is likely to produce greater benefits
and achievement of targets than trying to spread the resources too thinly over many areas or
where cycling is less likely to be successful. Less successful areas for cycling promotion might
be either because of the geography, demographics or because there is little local interest or
desire.

The East Sussex ‘balanced scorecard’
27.    The ‘balanced scorecard’ approach was commended by the Audit Commission following
the Best Value Review of Transport in 2004. It enables many different types of transport
scheme to be compared and scored against the following LTP2 objectives:
   •   Improve access to services
   •   Manage demand and reduce the need to travel
   •   Improve road safety and reduce fear of crime
   •   Reduce congestion / improve network efficiency
   •   Protect, promote and enhance the environment
   •   Improve maintenance and management of the transport network.
28.     The total score for each scheme is divided by the cost of the scheme to give a value for
money ratio which is then used as a guide by a Member panel annually to prioritise the
schemes within a three year rolling programme. This process helps to ensure that capital
funding for integrated transport schemes is targeted at those schemes best able to meet the
LTP objectives. Importantly, the scorecard was introduced to increase the accountability and
public transparency of transport scheme selection where many worthy schemes are competing
for a very limited pot of money.
29.    Until 2006/07, a number of corporate portfolio steers were also included in the balanced
scorecard. However, it proved too difficult to judge the specific contribution of transport schemes
towards objectives such as “raising economic performance” or “improving services to older
people”. Consequently, the balanced scorecard now focuses on providing a realistic and fair
comparison of the different schemes based on contributions to the LTP2 objectives. The Board
endorsed this simplification of the scorecard noting that it remains flexible enough to respond to
changing requirements and evolving Council policy steers.
30.      Schemes that tend to score highly on the balanced scorecard are those that reduce
traffic volume and congestion particularly at peak times and in the most cost effective way. In
general, such schemes aim to achieve a ‘modal shift’ from peak hour private car use to either
public transport or walking and cycling. As well as utility cycling schemes, these types of
scheme include: bus infrastructure (particularly bus lanes), public transport interchanges; local
road improvement schemes; parking schemes and local traffic management.
31.     Walking schemes and cycling schemes are often closely linked and tend to benefit both
groups. Small scale improvement for cyclists can also ride on the back of larger infrastructural
projects, traffic management or traffic safety schemes. Many schemes within the balanced
scorecard include elements that are likely to benefit cycling; urban bus lanes in particular cater
for cyclists as well as buses (see paragraph 50).




                                                 9
32.     A cycling scheme that would merely increase the number of cycle journeys, such as
building a recreational cycling route, will score badly under the balanced scorecard. For this
reason, completing recreational sections of the national cycling network routes within East
Sussex would not emerge as priorities under the balanced scorecard and would need to be
funded from elsewhere if they are to proceed.
33.     During the 2006/07 Reconciling Policy & Resources (RP&R) process, additional Council
policy steers emerged, the effects of which were incorporated into the balanced scorecard. The
absence of cycling as a clear policy steer resulted in the ‘downgrading’ of each cycling scheme
by one point compared to all other non specific cycling schemes. The basis for this downgrading
has emerged from various sources, most specifically a public consultation exercise carried out
in 2004 3 which suggested that there was a public view that utility cycling should be afforded a
lower priority than other kinds of integrated transport initiatives.
34.     The Board considers that due to a combination of circumstances, a negative bias
towards all cycling schemes has evolved within the culture of the County Council. This is due to
the way in which proposed cycling schemes have emerged over recent years, the distortions
caused by the earlier funding regime, together with some negative outcomes. This has left a
misleading perception that cycling schemes per se are expensive, represent poor value for
money and benefit only a minority. Until now, little attempt has been made to identify a range of
cost effective cycling schemes that will effectively hit a range of important transport targets, not
to mention the broader health, economic and environmental benefits.
35.     The Board considers therefore that the negative weighting of cycling schemes within the
balanced scorecard should stop. This crude approach has the effect of excluding potential utility
cycling schemes that could play a major role in achieving LTP2 objectives and bringing about
other significant long term benefits. Also, presenting the policy steer in this way sends out a
public message that the County Council is not committed to cycling, a message with which the
Board is uncomfortable (see recommendation 2).
36.    One further problem with the balanced scorecard process is its inability to deal with
immediate, low cost flexible and responsive measures (see recommendation 3). Evidence
presented to the Board suggests that it may be sometimes beneficial to provide:
    •   low cost supplements supporting cycling measures on the back of larger schemes; for
        example, ‘dropped kerbs’ that would add cycling and walking benefits economically to
        other traffic schemes
    •   provision of secure cycle parking where there will be a clear and immediate benefit; for
        example Southern Rail has requested a £5,000 contribution (a third of the cost) to
        extend secure cycle parking at Lewes station
    •   cycle route signing – new or for repairs in conjunction with Sustrans
    •   ‘reactive’ cycle route maintenance.

Utility v. recreational cycling
37.     Encouraging bicycle use cannot be seen as an isolated objective for East Sussex
County Council. Whilst cycling in general confers considerable health benefits (see page 14),
the distinction between utility cycling and recreational cycling becomes important in helping to
decide how best to prioritise resources:




3
 Jointly commissioned by Scrutiny and the Transport and Environment Department (Best Value Review
of Transport in East Sussex – 2004)


                                                 10
   •   Utility cycling is cycling done simply as a means of transportation; it includes
       commuting, going to school or college, delivering goods and services and shopping. It
       generally involves travelling short and medium distances of just a few miles. Utility
       cycling schemes, if carefully planned and implemented, help to meet LTP objectives.
   •   Recreational cycling is cycling primarily done for fitness, touring, sport or fun. It can
       involve considerably longer journeys than utility cycling. Recreational cycling schemes
       are better geared towards meeting tourism and associated economic development
       objectives.
38.     Sustrans does not recommend separating utility and recreational cycling in policy terms.
This is partly because there is usually an overlap of purpose within individual schemes making it
hard to separate these elements; also, increasing cycling per se is considered to be an
important and valid aim in its own right. Promoting recreational cycling, they argue, also leads to
individuals making a “lifestyle choice” and subsequently taking up utility cycling. However, whilst
such a link may seem intuitive, not all observers are confident about the evidence to support it.
39.     From the consultation exercise, East Sussex parish and town councils recognise the
benefits of both types of cycling but on balance there is more support for prioritising utility
cycling in areas where it is likely to be effective. Some parish councils took particular exception
to the high costs of building some recreational cycle routes, particularly those that involve
buying land, when there are other competing priorities such as education and adult social care
services facing the County Council.
40.     Cycling England fully recognises the financial predicament of most local authorities and
therefore considers it important for authorities to assess carefully the contribution every potential
cycling scheme makes towards the different LTP and relevant wider objectives, such as health
promotion.
41.      The Board considers that introducing more cycling schemes and changing policies to
increase cycling in general will result in a wide range of potential transport and public health
benefits. However, priorities have to be carefully managed within the LTP capital budget and so
it is important to be clear about the impact each proposed cycling scheme is likely to have on
LTP targets so that comparisons with other types of integrated transport scheme within the
balanced scorecard can be made fairly.
42.     Over recent years the significant level of external funding available to East Sussex for
recreational schemes (through Interreg and Sustrans funding for example) has led to the
Council match funding some expensive recreational cycling schemes in East Sussex which
have not contributed to meeting LTP objectives such as reducing peak hour congestion. On the
one hand the LTP highlights the value of utility cycling, but historically there has been an
emphasis on recreational schemes because of the tempting ‘carrot’ of external match funding.
43.     The Board considers that the County Council should therefore stop seeking external
financial support for recreational cycling schemes requiring match funding by the Council unless
a suitable source of finance is identified beforehand (recommendation 1c). In particular, where
match funding for a cycling scheme is expected to come from LTP capital funds then the
scheme should contribute effectively towards LTP targets. This principle should also apply to
the acceptance of developer contributions towards cycle schemes.
44.     Soliciting widespread local approval, let alone financial support, for many cycling
schemes to meet recreational objectives is going to be difficult in many parts of the county. It will
require considerable leadership and committed individuals to ‘champion’ the cause in local
communities. However, benefits in the long run often emerge against initial opposition. For
example, early proposals for the Cuckoo Trail were not welcomed locally but today it is
inconceivable that this track could be withdrawn given its current enormous popularity. The role
of effective leadership and cycling promotional activity by the County Council will be critical in
bringing about active support for local cycling schemes in many areas.



                                                 11
The National Cycling Network (NCN) and L’Avenue Verte
45.    Some of the larger or flagship schemes such as the NCN routes and L’Avenue Verte
comprise a complex mixture of mostly recreational and some utility sections. The NCN2 in East
Sussex is the east-west route and much of this passes through the densely populated coastal
towns and therefore does meet the utility criteria. NCN21 by contrast, the north-south route, is
predominantly recreational particularly in the northern part of the county. These routes are
expensive schemes to complete in full and to the highest standard. They often involve the
construction of costly off-road routes with associated land acquisition costs.
46.     Evidence from elsewhere in the UK suggests that some county councils are
considerably more focussed in prioritising the funding of cycling schemes towards meeting LTP
targets. The success of this policy is reflected in the much higher percentage of utility cycle
journeys achieved. Such an approach places recreational cycling at an aspirational level, with
implementation dependent upon support from a range of other partners including local
communities, district and town councils and those with an interest in economic development and
promoting tourism. For NCN routes this means strictly prioritising only those sections that meet
the Council’s objectives.
47.     The Board considers that funding for cycling schemes of a predominantly recreational
nature would not score highly within the balanced scorecard in East Sussex and therefore would
not be funded from LTP capital funds. Such schemes would remain aspirational but ready for
implementation should additional funds become available.

Cycling and other integrated transport and maintenance schemes
48.     In addition to the schemes within the balanced scorecard, the County Council
undertakes a range of other traffic management activities including safety schemes, and repair
and maintenance programmes. The Board seeks to ensure that full advantage is being taken to
include cycling measures, especially those that could be added in at marginal or no additional
cost, on the back of other schemes.
49.     A scrutiny review on urban speed limits in East Sussex (March 2006) recommended a
pilot scheme of street furniture de-cluttering, creative road signing and ‘shared space’ principles
as part of the introduction of the Lewes 20mph zone. The principles behind these proposals are
entirely consistent with promoting safety for all road users including cyclists and pedestrians.
The Board is concerned that this scheme has not progressed on the basis envisaged by the
earlier scrutiny review because the benefits for cyclists are not yet being realised.
50.    A 2003 Cycling Strategy target was: To agree and implement an audit regime for new
highway and traffic schemes by the end of 2004. The Audit Commission in its inspection report
on transport services in East Sussex (2004) recommended that the Council should demonstrate
a commitment to utility cycling by carrying out cycling audits of all types of new traffic scheme as
proposed in the Cycling Strategy. It is unclear why this recommendation has not been
implemented, albeit cost is the stated reason. There does not appear to be clear understanding
as to what is meant by “cycling audit”. However, a practical ‘horses for courses’ compromise
ought to be possible at minimal cost.
51.     Larger integrated traffic and safety schemes are already assessed for cycling safety
during their safety audit. However, this process may not lead to suggestions for improvements
that might benefit cyclists. It is acknowledged that it would be a labour intensive task for an
individual and therefore far more resource efficient if, as a starting point, all scheme promoters
and designers could be made aware of the need to cater for cyclists wherever possible.




                                                12
52.     Repair and maintenance schemes are less likely to be identified as being suitable for
introducing cycling features because to do so would require a design stage that would not
otherwise be part of a scheme’s plan. Attempting to add cycling elements to maintenance
schemes would also require care to ensure that cycling schemes are not seen to emerge in a
piecemeal way. Nonetheless, opportunities may be being missed to introduce cost effective
cycling measures on the back of planned maintenance programmes. For example:
     •   road resurfacing where cycle friendly measures could be improved or introduced at
         marginal cost
     •   simple road space re-allocation measures such as the introduction of advisory cycle
         lanes on roads of sufficient width during renewal of existing markings
     •   introduction of ‘advanced stop lines’ during traffic signal reconfiguration.
53.   To best achieve this will require a “cycling opportunity fund” as part of the LTP capital
programme as described in recommendation 3.

Recommendation 2.
When competing for LTP capital funds, cycling schemes should be judged fairly and
robustly against the LTP objectives in the balanced scorecard but without being given a
negative weighting. This would allow high quality utility cycling schemes to come
forward and compete effectively against other traffic and public transport schemes.

Recommendation 3.
A £50,000 ‘cycling opportunity fund’ should be put forward annually as a project within
the balanced scorecard which, if successful, would enable a range of flexible, low cost
responses to meet unanticipated but desirable utility cycling activities including:
a)       supplementing larger traffic and maintenance schemes to benefit cycling and
         walking (page 12)
b)       joint funding of cycle parking for example with rail companies at key railway
         stations (page 16)
c)       signing and reactive maintenance in conjunction with partners such as Sustrans
         (page 9).

Recommendation 4.
The Council should implement the Audit Commission recommendation to agree and
implement an audit regime for new highway and traffic schemes by taking a practical and
tailored approach depending on the type and size of scheme, including:
a)       all transport scheme promoters and designers should be made aware of the need
         to cater for cyclists wherever possible;
b)       opportunities should be identified within repair and maintenance programmes to
         introduce cost effective cycling measures at marginal cost using the ‘cycling
         opportunity fund’ as required.
The effectiveness of this approach would be measured by bringing a sample of
successful scheme outcomes to Transport and Environment Scrutiny Committee during
the monitoring period of this review.




                                                13
Safety and cycling
54.      Evidence from the consultation conducted during this review and from national sources
conclusively demonstrate that fear about safety on the road is the most significant factor in
deterring the take up of cycling. And yet, data from London over the past ten years shows a
falling number of cyclists killed and injured with an increasing number of cycle trips. Similar
results have been found in other countries in a variety of situations suggesting that increased
cycling does not necessarily increase the number of fatal or serious injuries and may contribute
to a reduction.
          In 2000, a total of 125 adults and children were killed in the UK whilst cycling. By
          contrast, 125,000 people died in the same year from coronary heart disease of which
          45,000 were due to lack of activity (National Cycling Strategy, 2003)
55.     The majority of parish and town councils responding to the consultation strongly
highlighted various dangers of cycling. In order to overcome the dangers, they acknowledged
that significant resources will have to be spent on solutions including: more designated ‘quiet
lanes’, lower speed limits and identifying and publicising a network of suitable routes. The
question of whether to separate or integrate cyclists into general traffic is disputed with opposing
views being represented.

Health and wellbeing benefits of cycling
56.     The health benefits are likely to be a key ‘selling point’ in building local support for
recreational cycling schemes and in influencing individuals to take up utility cycling. Evidence to
support the fact that physical exercise in general and cycling in particular is good for people’s
health and wellbeing abounds, with many recent attempts having been made to quantify the
benefits in monetary terms. Evidence, particularly for East Sussex, is summarised in the draft
East Sussex Active Living and Action Plan 2007 – 12.
57.       The evidence presented to the Board by public health professionals also suggests that:
      •   The benefits 4 gained from regular cycling outweigh the loss of life years through cycling
          fatalities by a factor of about 20 to 1.
      •   There are multiple wellbeing benefits of getting more people cycling including: reduced
          costs to the NHS; improved work productivity; improved physical and mental wellbeing;
          improved air quality; reduced noise pollution; a positive impact on climate change.
      •   In particular, a major trend over the past twenty years has been the growing threat of
          widespread obesity.
          The numbers of clinically obese adults have increased threefold in the UK between 1980
          and 2002. Levels of overweight children in England are high and rising; in 2003, 32% of
          boys and 28% of girls aged 2-15 years were overweight and 17% of boys and 16% of
          girls aged 2-15 were obese 5 .
58.    LTP2 contains a number of key themes and initiatives from the ‘Choosing Health’ (2004)
White Paper which will influence the delivery of LTP2 objectives. This includes ‘increasing
exercise – in order to reduce the risk of major chronic diseases and premature death’. The LTP2
seeks to encourage greater levels of walking and cycling which will contribute to the objectives
to ‘manage demand and reduce the need to travel by car’ as well as ‘protecting the local
environment’.




4
    ‘Valuing the Benefits of Cycling’ (June 2007) – research commissioned by Cycling England
5
    ‘Valuing the Benefits of Cycling’ (June 2007) – research commissioned by Cycling England


                                                    14
59.     It takes an enormous act of will and determination for many people to decide to cycle to
work instead of taking the car. Once the safety and other fears are overcome, the benefits
become very evident. There is now powerful quantifiable evidence backing the health and
wellbeing benefits of cycling and these benefits fall within the influence of LTP2. The Board
concluded therefore that health benefits should be incorporated more explicitly into the balanced
scorecard objectives than is currently the case. The Board recommends achieving this by
simply increasing the prominence given to health benefits within the already existing LTP
objective of ‘protect, promote and enhance the environment’.

Recommendation 5.
That the scoring criteria used in the Balanced Scorecard assessment process be refined
to include explicit health benefits within the Local Transport Plan 2 objective ‘protect,
promote and enhance the environment’.

Cycle training in schools
       Less than 2% of East Sussex pupils currently cycle to school; surveys suggest that more
       than 35% would like to cycle if it were practicable to do so
60.     The considerable benefit of cycle training in schools is self evident and the Board wholly
supports such training programmes, especially where there is the real possibility of dramatically
increasing the number of pupils cycling to and from school. The success of school cycle training
in East Sussex is evident not only in terms of the increase in numbers of pupils cycling after
being trained, but there are significant safety benefits too. Research demonstrates conclusively
that proper cycle training of school age children leads to much safer cyclists and even,
according to research from Denmark, to those cyclists going on to become safer car drivers.
61.     In 2007/08 there is a £35,000 budget for cycle training in East Sussex schools which
supports twelve cycle trainers, nine of whom are trained to the new national standard. In
2006/07, 54% of 10-12 year olds in the county completed cycle training. Parents/carers are
charged £16 per child and 7% of parents/carers receive the training free of charge. The cost of
providing the training to each child is £31 (2006/07).
62.    Training takes place in 123 out of the County’s 143 primary schools. The thoughtful
combination of cycle training and associated initiatives such as provision of secure cycle parking
has resulted in dramatic increases in the number of school cycle journeys in some areas.
63.     The training team have adopted a ‘pushing against an open door’ approach in order to
make the limited resources stretch as far as possible to achieve the maximum levels of training.
Whilst the location and environment surrounding the school is important in determining whether
cycling is generally feasible and seen as being safe, the most successful improvements have
been in those schools that have fully committed to the scheme by identifying a member of staff
to champion the initiative and by providing the time and encouragement for the training to take
place. This input from the schools’ side is critical in enabling the trainers to be as efficient and
effective as possible in delivering the training.
64.    Unfortunately, some schools which would have been ideally suited in other respects do
not have the higher levels of commitment apparent elsewhere and have therefore not benefited
from the offer of training. The Board considered that all possible encouragement should be
directed at those schools to participate fully, including informing local Members so that they can
use their influence to try to improve the schools’ commitment to cycle training.




                                                 15
Recommendation 6.
Where schools that would benefit from cycle training are failing to identify staff or time
for training, the cycle training manager should take all possible action to try to
encourage recalcitrant but otherwise ideally placed schools to take part by:
a)      Emphasising the benefits of cycling both to individual children and the wider
        community
b)      Engaging the help of local elected Members to use their influence
c)      Consider using monetary incentives if it is cost effective and affordable.

Cycling and public transport
65.      The external liaison manager from Southern attended a Board meeting to discuss issues
around cycles and trains. It was apparent that relations between the County Council and
Southern are extremely positive suggesting that significant progress in joint working could be
made on a number of fronts. Both parties also recognise that there are a number of shared
priorities.

Cycle parking at railway stations
66.     Utility cycling is based upon the notion of the right mode of transport for the right job. For
many commuters, a journey would consist of a short journey to a railway station followed by a
train journey. The home to station journey is a key target for modal shift from cars to cycling or
walking and a key issue is the provision of sufficient, safe cycle parking facilities at railway
stations. Excessive levels of car parking around rail stations is also a problem and one that the
Council is attempting to address through demand management measures such as the
introduction of parking controls on nearby roads.
67.     Southern has created five centres of excellence for cycle facilities in its region. These
are at: Haywards Heath, Three Bridges, Barnham, Dorking and Ashtead. Parking facilities in
these stations have ramps and are covered by CCTV and adequate lighting to ensure access
and safety. 1,400 cycle parking spaces have been created at the region’s railway stations over
the last three years. The strategy has worked resulting in fewer derelict bicycles, reduced
vandalism and increased demand and usage of parking places.




Cycle park at Ashtead train station, Surrey – a Southern cycle centre of excellence.




                                                    16
68.     In East Sussex stations, cycle parking facilities are not as advanced. For example
Eastbourne has just 20 places and Lewes 60 in the form of uncovered Sheffield stands.
Through joint working it is anticipated that Lewes station will become the first centre of
excellence in East Sussex by expanding cycle parking provision and installing the safety
features that have been so important to success in other stations. Work is also scheduled to
start on the introduction of a facility at Hampden Park with a significant opportunity at Newhaven
Town station yet to be fully explored.
69.    The Southern representative suggested that opportunities for the introduction of cycle
parking at numerous other rail stations in East Sussex may exist and funding is available to
implement these if match funding can be made available by the County Council.
70.       To assist progress in East Sussex the Board considered that relatively small sums of
money might be needed to joint fund beneficial projects that would assist achievement of LTP
objectives. The opportunity fund at recommendation 3 (page 13) would provide the required
flexibility and is strongly endorsed by the Board as a means to extend cycle parking provision in
the county’s railway stations.

Bicycles on trains
71.    The question of allowing bicycles on trains suddenly became controversial in the local
region when Southern introduced its policy of banning bicycles, except folding bikes, on certain
rush hour trains in early 2006. The move prompted widespread public objection and high profile
protests at the stations affected. Several parish councils in their response to the Board’s
consultation continue to voice opposition to this policy and regard it as a barrier to fully
developing maximum take up of cycling.
72.    On the face of it, restricting the carriage of bicycles on trains impedes the ability of the
County Council to achieve its utility cycling policies. Concerns about this policy have been
voiced nationally and it is particularly seen as a problem in London where cycling is viewed as
an important means of relieving congestion on public transport.
73.      However, Southern argues that its policy is needed because more people are now
travelling on its trains, especially during the rush hour, and bicycles at peak times cause service
delays and discomfort to other passengers. Southern has recently acquired the contract for the
Gatwick Express service which currently permits bicycles on all services. No decision has yet
been made about any changes to this service including the cycle carrying policy.
74.     Southern argues that there are alternatives for people needing to cycle at both ends of a
train journey. In other parts of Europe it is becoming increasing common for people to have a
bicycle at each end, but this requires increasing the provision of safe parking at stations. Also
folding bikes are permitted on all trains at all times of day. Both these solutions are more
expensive for individuals affected and some train companies have negotiated discounts on new
bikes for their customers with bicycle retailers.
75.     The evidence to the Board suggested that other train companies operating in the region
have a more flexible approach to carrying bicycles by limiting the ban to certain sections of
routes, rather than a blanket ban on the entire length of a route at peak times.




                                                 17
Recommendation 7.
That Southern be requested to consider whether in the light of the impact of its policy of
banning cycles on certain rush hour services:
a)     it would be prepared to adopt a more selective approach towards banning the
       carriage of cycles on its trains, for example by limiting the policy to certain
       stations rather than a blanket ban for entire routes
b)     when considering the future operation of the Gatwick Express a cycle ban policy
       is not introduced this service
c)     it will negotiate with bicycle retailers to promote discounts on the purchase of
       new bicycles for its customers.

Recommendation 8.
That opportunities to provide high quality cycle parking at rail stations across East
Sussex be explored fully in conjunction with Southern Rail with a view to implementation
of facilities where possible.

Cycling promotion
76.     The Board acknowledged that cycling promotion must work effectively alongside policies
on infrastructure improvement if significant increases in utility cycling journeys are ever to be
achieved. The Transport and Environment department runs various cycling promotion activities
from producing well-used written and online cycling route guides to running cycle days and
guided cycle rides for the public and cycle-to-work days for Council employees. However, most
of the responses from parish councils’ consultation suggest that there is a general lack of
awareness of County Council cycle promotion activities apart from initiatives in schools.
77.     The timescale and terms of reference of this review has meant that the Board did not
investigate this area of cycling activity but recognises that there are questions to be addressed
about the Council’s approach to promotion. These will be addressed during the monitoring
stages of this review when the results of the public consultation exercise are available.

Other partnership possibilities
Connect 2
78.    In June 2005 the Big Lottery Fund (BIG) and ITV announced a competition to find the
winner of a £50 million National Lottery grant. Entries needed to be “groundbreaking projects
that would inspire communities to revitalise the areas where they live”. Connect 2 is a national
scheme coordinated by Sustrans which consists of 79 local walking and cycling schemes and is
competing with three other organisations for the £50 million grant.
79.   The Bexhill – Hastings Coastal Connection is included within the Connect2 project and if
successful the County Council would receive £380,000 towards implementation of the scheme.




                                                18
Cycling England
80.     Cycling England is the national body which coordinates the development of cycling
across England; its aim is to get more people cycling, more safely, more often. So far it has
promoted six cycling demonstration towns to lead the way in encouraging cycling across
England within a programme called Bike for the Future. The towns selected were: Aylesbury,
Brighton, Darlington, Derby, Exeter and Lancaster. Each town receives a grant of £500,000 per
year for five years to implement cycling related infrastructure with a view to increasing levels of
cycling and improving cyclist safety. East Sussex did not apply to become one of the
demonstration towns in the first round.
81.     Cycling England has applied to the Government to develop a second phase of
demonstration towns which could include smaller market towns. The County Council should
consider carefully whether it wishes to bid for resources to create a demonstration site in East
Sussex under Bike for the Future 2 (2008 – 12). Competition across England is likely to be
tough given the large numbers of authorities which submitted applications for the first round. To
stand a chance of success is likely to require a demonstrable Council commitment to taking the
projects forward with a shared coherent vision across the different tiers of local government,
together with public support.

Recommendation 9.
That the Lead Member should consider carefully whether the Council should place a bid
for resources to create a demonstration site in East Sussex under Cycling England’s
second phase of cycling demonstration towns within Bike for the Future 2 (2008 – 12).




                                                19
Appendix: Terms of reference, membership and evidence
Scope and terms of reference of the review
The Review was established to consider and make recommendations on the following:
a)     How cycling can contribute to achieving Local Transport Plan (LTP2) and other wider
       objectives including an assessment of the extent to which the 2003 Cycling Strategy
       objectives and associated targets have been achieved, amended or not achieved, and
       the reasons behind this.
b)     The extent to which the Council’s current cycling priorities are expressed within the
       Cycling Strategy, and Council Plan, especially in the context of limited resources.
c)     The overall effectiveness of promoting cycling in East Sussex, including the role played
       by partners.
d)     The balance of priority between utility and recreational cycling – actual and desired.
e)     The priority the Council attaches to national schemes such as the National Cycle
       Network (NCN).
f)     How best to integrate cycling measures into integrated transport schemes.
g)     The prioritisation and funding of cycling schemes; particularly how to acquire greater
       external funding for cycling and tackling issues around match funding and Council
       revenue budget limitations.
8.     The scope for improved partnership working.

Board Membership and project support
Review Board Members: Councillor Richard Stogdon (Chairman), Councillor Jon Harris and
Councillor John Garvican.
The Project Manager was Paul Dean (Scrutiny Manager) with logistics and support being
provided by Sam White (Scrutiny Support Officer).
Colin Clarke (Manager Traffic and Safety), James Harris (Assistant Transport Policy Manager),
Michael Oates (Team Leader, Traffic Engineering) and Robin Reed (Principal Transport Planner
with cycling strategy remit) provided ongoing support to the Board throughout the review.

Project Board meeting dates
19 June 2007, 23 August 2007, 17 September 2007, 17 October 2007 and 7 November 2007.

Witnesses providing evidence
The Board would like to thank all the witnesses who provided evidence in person:
Chris Boocock, Sustrans Area Manager, Brighton and Sussex
Paul Jarvis, South East Regional Development Manager (Physical Activity), South East Physical
Activity Co-ordinating Team
Roger Lanham, Southern Rail
Tony Lay, Mayfield and Five Parish Council
Mark Strong, Transport Initiatives LLP
Alex Sully, Cycling England
County Council Members and officers
Councillor Matthew Lock, Lead Member Transport and Environment
Sara Facer, Cycle Training Co-ordinator, Transport & Environment, East Sussex County


                                               20
Council
Peter Hayward, Head of Strategic Network Services, Transport & Environment, East Sussex
County Council
Andrew Keer, School Travel Plan Co-ordinator, East Sussex County Council
John Robbins, Transport Strategy Manager, Transport & Environment, East Sussex County
East Sussex County Council Members who submitted written evidence:
Councillors Michael Murphy, Rosalyn St Pierre and Rupert Simmons.

Evidence papers
Item                                                                                   Date

East Sussex Cycling Strategy                                                           May 2003

Transport and Environment Department Three Year Portfolio Plan 2207/8, 2008/9          January 2007
and 2009/10

Local Transport Plan 2006-2011                                                         2006

Transport and Environment – Council Plan 2007/08                                       January 2007

Integrated Transport Programme of Works 2007/08-2009/10 – briefing note for            January 2007
Member Panel Meeting

Balance Scorecard Assessment on new schemes being considered for inclusion in          September 2007
the Integrated Transport Capital Programme

Written submissions from County Councillors St. Pierre and                             October 2007

Reports from external organisations

Item                                                                                   Date

Cycling and social inclusion – speech by from transport minister Charlotte Atkins to   October 2007
the Lifecycle UK/GOSW Cycling and Social Inclusion Conference concerning
government cycle policies

East Sussex Active Living Strategy & Action Plan 2007-12 – draft document from         September 2007
Paul Jarvis, South East Regional Development Manager (Physical Activity)

Valuing the benefits of cycling – a report to Cycling England – Bruce MacDonald        May 2007
SQW

Cycling in the Netherlands – Minisiterie van Verkeer en Waterstaat                     2007

The National Cycle Network – route user and monitoring report to the end of 2006 -     2006
Sustrans

National Cycling Strategy – cycling and health                                         March 2003

A business case and evaluation of the impacts of cycling in London – draft –           January 2004
Transport for London Street Management – Cycling Centre of Excellence Surface
Transport, Transport for London. Mayor of London publication.

Building health – creating and enhancing places for health, active lives – blueprint   undated
for action, National Heart Forum, Living Streets, CABE



                                                     21
The case for cycling – Cycling England                                            undated

Reports on cycling from other local authorities

Item                                                                              Date

Draft Cycling Strategy – report of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee, County   March 2007
Council of the City and County of Cardiff

Pedalling Ahead: Our Cycle Strategy – West Sussex County Council                  April 2006

Cycle Lane Scrutiny Review – Cycleways Task Group, Overview and Scrutiny          March 2006
Management Committee, Wiltshire County Council

Media

Item                                                                              Date

Going Dutch – Steve Melia, Cycle Touring Club magazine                            November 2007

Carbon belt drive is ‘future for bike transmission’ – Carlton Reid, BikeBiz       September 2007

‘Millions needed’ to push cycling – item on Cycling England report - BBC News     September 2007

Bike week – support from East Sussex County Council. Travel Choice email          June 2007

Cycle path pushed up priority list – county – Rye and Battle Observer             July 2007

We see the Tour de France every day… - Harry Mount, Daily Telegraph               July 2007

Wheels are turning as Paris prepares for V Day – Henry Samuel, Daily Telegraph    July 2007

Cycling strategy needed – Eastbourne Herald                                       June 2007

Cycle path upkeep – Rye and Battle Observer                                       February 2007




Contact officer: Paul Dean (Scrutiny Manager) Telephone: 01273 481751
E-mail: paul.dean@eastsussex.gov.uk




                                                     22

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Tags: Cycling
Stats:
views:3
posted:9/7/2011
language:English
pages:23
Description: Want to rely on cyclists Sushen, continuous training and a correct method is able to slim down key -- either uphill, downhill or on the flat sections of Mercedes Benz, can be easily. Biking, mainly by the pace of continuous pedal movement to promote blood circulation, the waist and the thigh is stretching of the key. Such motion can make the oxygen amount into the body, by a certain number of heart rate increase in breath volume, so it has excellent effects of aerobic exercise.