Agenda item

Capital Programme 2016-17

To consider the report.

Minutes:

Gordon Oliver, Principal Transport Policy Officer, introduced the report that sought the Cycle Forum’s views on priorities for the 2016/17 Cycling Capital Programme.

 

The Forum were informed that in July 2015 Cabinet approved the 2015/16 Highways and Transport Capital Programme and set indicative budgets for the 2016/17 and 2017/18 Capital Programmes, with the Cycling Budget set at £75,000 per year.

 

Priorities for future years’ capital spend would be identified from the cycling audit undertaken to inform the Cycling Strategy and through consultation with the Cycle Forum.  The emerging Cycling Strategy will identify cycling schemes in each of the neighbourhood plan areas. However, the cycle audit was not yet complete for all areas.

 

The forum went through the table at 2.5 (agenda page 15) that showed a suggested prioritised list of schemes.

 

Ian Taplin questioned the reduction in funding for the Cycling Capital Programme from £100k per year to £75k per year and was informed that although there was a reduction, more was being spent on cycle parking provision in schools and safe routes to schools then ever before.

 

Ian Taplin also mentioned that central government were cutting funding for cycling by 50%.  He felt that it was a contradiction that the Government portrayed itself as the greenest whilst at the same time cutting cycling funding.  RBWM seemed to be going in the opposite direction of what we were told by Government.  The Chairman mentioned that the £75k budget did not stop other projects progressing from other funding streams or by putting in capital bids.  He mentioned that funding could be made available from S106 / CIL where applicable.

 

The Chairman said he noted that the Forum had raised concern about the cut in funding to the Cycling Capital Programme. 

 

Cllr Beer felt that the funding should be spent on useful schemes rather then less useful schemes because that is all we can afford. 

 

It was recommended that a list of schemes over a longer period should be made available. 

 

The Forum questioned why £600k funding from the LEP was being spent on the A4 cycle route when the scheme was flawed and did not address key safety issues.   Others felt that the money could be spent on other more suitable projects or cycling education.  The Chairman said that the funding had been ring-fenced for this project but he would ask officers to check if it could be spent elsewhere. 

 

Gordon Oliver informed the Forum that the route had been chosen by the Forum after a number of workshops in 2014.  The Forum supported a route from Maidenhead to Slough and this was mirrored by neighbouring authorities. Andrew Payne noted that according to Strava (a popular cycling app) there were four times as many cyclists using the A4 than the A308 between Maidenhead and Windsor.

 

The Forum also considered the implications of Crossrail coming to Maidenhead and thus the need to have a strategic view about how people are going to get into and across Maidenhead and it was also noted that the local population would grow and thus there would be increased burden on local transport infrastructures.

 

Cllr Beer recommended that there should be finger post signage adjacent to Hines Meadow Car Park.

 

Resolved that: the Cycle Forum note the report and raised concern about the cut in funding.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: