A parliamentary meeting about cycling provision along the route of HS2 showed me that MPs just don’t get it

These are not most cyclists. Image: Getty.

There is a moment in Ben Elton’s novel Gridlock, when a small group of rail enthusiasts are left alone in the basement of a building while car industry lobbyists are upstairs talking with ministers about the real business of building roads. I was reminded of it recently at a Parliamentary committee meeting on HS2, the high speed rail line between London and Birmingham. But this time, rail was the real business – and it was cycling in the figurative basement.

Here’s the context. Cycling UK, a charity, was trying to hold HS2 Ltd to account for its promises to ‘cycle proof’ the route. This means considering cycling at the design stage: tunnels and bridges are very expensive to retrofit, so getting the extra width in at the start is key. If you don’t, communities all along the 330 mile route will be permanently prevented from cycling safely to their neighbours, schools, shops etc., across the tracks.

The first phase of HS2, from London to the West Midlands, is already considered a write-off as far as cycle crossings are concerns: the government-owned HS2 Ltd. has told the cycle proofing working group (CPWG), the group of experts it is supposed to consult on the subject, that it didn’t have enough money in the £56bn project to think about cyclists.

The company looks set to use the same excuse on phase 2a, from West Midlands to Crewe, after a letter from its director, Oliver Bayne, referred to the “principles” rather than the “applicable aspects” of design standards. This is a worry: design standards mean the difference between a safe, traffic-free cycle route anyone can use, and sharing a fast, narrow main road lane with lorries.

Cycling UK’s policy director Roger Geffen, and his expert witnesses, John Grimshaw and Phil Jones, arrived at the Parliamentary committee room at around 9.30am; I was present, covering it for the Guardian. We waited – only to be told at around 11.30am to come back after lunch.

At 1.45pm, Geffen was finally allowed to set out his case. He argued that communities along the routes to be able to walk and cycle safely. He explained the need for design standards, and safe, direct-vision standard vehicles. 

The MPs, though, didn’t seem to understand. The first question from the chair of the committee was an expression of surprise Roger wasn’t wearing Lycra. That’s like asking someone advocating for better pedestrian facilities why they don’t turn up to Parliament wearing running shoes and a sweat wicking vest.

The chair also failed to understand why design standards were relevant, and eventually, growing frustrated, stopped Geffen entirely, forcing him to bring on his witness, Phil Jones, a leading expert on cycling infrastructure, without introducing him or his credentials. Jones had just a couple of minutes to explain why HS2’s design standards were exactly the wrong kind if you wanted people to be able to cycle safely. By now, it was almost 3pm.


At one point an MP asked why contractors should use safer lorries, given the potential impact on delivering “best value for the public purse”. This question, with its implication that cost savings trump human lives, was astounding. I don’t know if she understood this implication, but Geffen paused, politely, before pointing out that there is also a cost when companies kill cyclists – an attempt to state the potential outcome of poor vehicle standards, using the MP’s own metrics.

Next came John Grimshaw, co-founder of the national cycle infrastructure delivery charity, Sustrans. Grimshaw is delivering, on his own initiative, a whole new cycle route, the Waddesdon Greenway, complete with crossings, where HS2 cuts through Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire. This has meant negotiating with landowners, raising money, the lot. His partner even obtained a newt licence.

Grimshaw noted that he had personally negotiated access for a new cycling bridge ramp from the Rothschilds – infrastructure of a kind that would also help those with mobility issues, such as wheelchair users. And yet, he said, HS2 were still reluctant to put the ramp in, even though it would cost “pennies”.

At this point, it’s worth noting that the return on investment for cycling infrastructure ranges from £5.50 to £35 per £1 spent. HS2 has an ROI of just £1.47. What’s more, much of that comes from the business benefits of cutting travel times, rather than from anything experienced by communities along the route.

Last up was Peter Miller, director of environment for HS2 Ltd. He said it was difficult to cost cycling infrastructure, and questioned whether there was any desire for cycle crossings from communities along the route anyway. He was led through his points by HS2 Ltd’s QC, during which time one MP challenged him to say that not designing for cycling at the start would rule it out forever. During some of his claims on HS2’s provision for cycling, Phil Jones, in his frustration, murmured “rubbish”. Before we knew, it was over.

Geffen has often said that, before making the case for cycling infrastructure, you have to make the case for cycling. For some politicians cycling looks like men in Lycra on weekend jollies, not normal people doing everyday journeys. Phil Jones said he left feeling bullied – that during 30 or more such Parliamentary meetings in his career he’d never been treated this way.

Once HS2 is built many smaller roads will be blocked off, leaving fewer crossings, inevitably with heavier traffic, without cycle infrastructure. The last time I cycled on a rural dual carriageway I was nearly mown down by a lorry, before a fallen branch tore off my front mudguard, stopping me dead: I had been too terrified of being run over by another passing lorry to swerve to avoid it. I continued my journey by pushing my bike along the grass verge, thankful to be alive.

Instead of looking to the future, those making decisions on how we travel are recreating the very conditions that result in obesity, air pollution and reliance on expensive private transport. Manchester mayor Andy Burnham recently called active travel an “orphan policy” in Whitehall; and MP Ruth Cadbury has said that mentions of cycling often elicit figurative eye rolls in Parliament.

I now get what they mean. What I saw was a worrying insight into why our government seems determined, not just to sideline cycling, but to stubbornly refuse to see the point of it at all.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook

 
 
 
 

“You don’t look like a train buff”: on sexism in the trainspotting community

A female guard on London’s former Metropolitan Railway. Image: Getty.

I am a railway enthusiast. I like looking at trains, I like travelling by train and I like the quirks of the vast number of different train units, transit maps and train operating companies.

I get goosebumps standing on a platform watching my train approach, eyeballing the names of the destinations on the dot matrix display over and over again, straining to hear the tinny departure announcements on the tannoy.  I’m fortunate enough to work on the site of a former railway station that not only houses beautiful old goods sheds, but still has an active railway line running alongside it. You can imagine my colleagues’ elation as I exclaim: “Wow! Look at that one!” for the sixth time that day, as another brilliantly gaudy freight train trundles past.

I am also a woman in my twenties. A few weeks my request to join a railway-related Facebook group was declined because I – and I quote here – “don’t look like a train buff”.

After posting about this exchange on Twitter, my outrage was widely shared. “They should be thrilled to have you!” said one. “What does a train buff look like?!” many others asked.

The answer, of course, is a middle-aged white man with an anorak and notebook. Supposedly, anyway. That’s the ancient stereotype of a “trainspotter”, which sadly shows no sign of waning.

I’m not alone in feeling marginalised in the railway community. Sarah, a railway enthusiast from Bournemouth, says she is used to funny looks when she tells people that she is not only into trains, but an engineer.

She speaks of her annoyance at seeing a poster bearing the phrase: “Beware Rail Enthusiasts Disease: Highly Infectious To Males Of All Ages”. “That did bug me,” she says, “because women can enjoy trains just as much as men.”


Vicki Pipe is best known as being one half of the YouTube sensation All The Stations, which saw her and her partner Geoff Marshall spend 2017 visiting every railway station in Great Britain.

“During our 2017 adventure I was often asked ‘How did your boyfriend persuade you to come along?’” she says. “I think some found it unusual that a woman might be independently interested or excited enough about the railways to spend sixteen weeks travelling to every station on the network.”

Pipe, who earlier this year travelled to all the stations in Ireland and Northern Ireland, is passionate about changing the way in which people think of the railways, including the perception of women in the industry.

“For me it’s the people that make the railways such an exciting place to explore – and many of these are women,” she explains. “Women have historically and continue to play an important part in the railway industry – throughout our journey we met female train drivers, conductors, station staff, signallers and engineers. I feel it is important that more female voices are heard so that women of the future recognise the railways as a place they too can be part of.”

Despite the progress being made, it’s clear there is still a long way to go in challenging stereotypes and proving that girls can like trains, too.

I’m appalled that in 2019 our life choices are still subjected to critique. This is why I want to encourage women to embrace their interests and aspirations – however “nerdy”, or unusual, or untraditionally “female” they may be – and to speak up for things that I was worried to speak about for so long.

We might not change the world by doing so but, one by one, we’ll let others know that we’ll do what we want – because we can.