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

 
 
 
 

To boost the high street, cities should invest in offices

Offices in Northampton. Image: Getty.

Access to cheap borrowing has encouraged local authorities to proactively invest in commercial property. These assets can be a valuable tool for cities looking to improve the built environment they offer businesses and residents.

Councils are estimated to have spent £3.8bn on property between 2013 and 2017, funded through the government’s Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) at very low interest rates. Offices accounted for half of this investment, and roughly a third (£1.2bn) has been spent on retail properties. And local authorities were the biggest investor group for UK shopping centres in the first quarter of 2018.

Why are cities investing? There are two major motivations.

First, at a time when cuts are squeezing council revenue budgets, property investments can provide a long-term revenue stream to keep quality public services up and running. Second, ownership of buildings in areas marked for redevelopment allows councils to assemble land more easily and gives them more influence over the changes taking place, allowing them to make sure the space evolves to meet their objectives.

But how exactly can cities turn property ownership into successful place-making? How should they adapt the buildings they invest in to improve the performance of the economies?

Cities need workers

When developing the city’s property offer, the aim should be to get jobs back into the city centre while reducing the dominance of retail space. For councils who have invested in existing retail space and shopping centres, in particular, the temptation may be to try and retain their existing use, with new retail strategies designed to reduce vacancies.

But as the Centre for Cities’ recent Building Blocks report illustrates, the evidence points to this being a dead-end. Instead, cities may need to convert the properties they own so they house a more diverse group of businesses.

Many city centres already have a lot of retail – and this has not offered significant economic benefit. Almost half (43 per cent) of city centre space in the weakest city economies is taken up by shops, while retail only accounts for 18 per cent of space in strong city centre economies. And many of these shops lie empty: in weaker city centres vacancy rates of high-street services (retail, food and leisure) are on average 16 per cent, compared with 9 per cent in stronger city economies. In Newport, nearly a quarter of these premises are empty, as the map below shows.

The big issue in these city centres is the lack of office jobs – which are an important contributor to footfall for retailers. This means that, in order to improve the fortunes of the high street, policy will need to tackle the barriers that deter those businesses from moving to their city centres.

One of these barriers is the quality of office space. In a number of struggling city centres, the quality of office space on offer is poor. But the low returns available for private investors mean that some form of public sector involvement will be required.


Ownership of buildings gives cities the opportunity to reshape the type of commercial space on offer. Some of this will involve improving the existing office stock available, some will involve converting retail to office, and some of will require demolishing part of the space without replacing it, in the short term at least. Without ownership of the land and buildings on it, this task becomes very difficult to do but will be a fundamental part of turning the fortunes of a city centre around.

Cheap borrowing has provided a way not only for local authorities to generate an income stream through property investment. but also opens up the opportunity to have greater control over the development of their city centres. For those choosing to invest, the focus must be on using ownership to make the city centre a more attractive place for all businesses to invest, rather than hoping to revive retail alone.

Rebecca McDonald is an analyst at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.