To receive the above presenation

The Forum received a presentation on the Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT), which was an online tool designed to help predict which areas had the greatest potential for increasing cycling. It showed where the greatest health and environmental benefits could be delivered by people choosing to cycle to work rather than driving, and what could happen if significant investment meant Dutch standard infrastructure was in place.  The tool was free to use, with open access at www.pct.bike. The tool was funded by the Department for Transport and had been developed by a consortium of academic partners led by CEDAR at the University of Cambridge. The tool had been refined with input from a range of transport professionals and stakeholders from across England; Rachel Aldridge of the University of Westminster had been involved. A series of workshops had been held across England.

The Forum noted that conventional transport planning tools considered motor traffic and public transport. There were few professional tools available to inform the planning and development of cycling infrastructure. The new tool would help transport planners to spend money more effectively and to make the business case for cycling. It would also help  government to prioritise where to direct funding for cycling.

The PCT covered the whole of England and data could be analysed at county level. Counties were further divided into Middle Super Output Areas (MSOA). MSOAs were determined by the number of residents, so rural areas were much larger than urban areas. The tool used 2011 Census data to look at where people lived and which cycled to work. It looked at factors such as trip distance and hilliness to work out which trips could most readily be cycled.

The tool considered considers four scenarios:

•Government targets

•Gender equality

•Go Dutch

•E-bikes

It showed the cycling potential between areas with outputs shown as straight lines. It could also show the cycling potential along specific routes, mapping cycling potential onto the existing network, using CycleStreets journey planner. It showed the change in cycling and driver numbers, health benefits in terms of reduced deaths per year and reductions in carbon emissions. In terms of limitations, the Forum noted that the tool only considered commuting journeys that were 100% made by bike and did not handle cross-boundary trips very well. Medium Super Output Areas were quite large and centroids may differ from actual destination points. Route mapping for ‘fast’ options used the fastest legally cycleable route and may therefore include roads that the council would not encourage cyclists to use. It was also noted that the PCT only looked at commuting trips, therefore did not take into account cycling trips by children travelling to school.

The tool demonstrated that the highest levels of cycle commuting were in Windsor, Eton & Eton Wick (5% of trips). The lowest levels of cycle commuting in Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale (1% of trips). In rural areas, cycling typically accounted for 2% of commuting trips.  If the Go Dutch scenario was input, the highest levels of cycle commuting would be in Windsor, Eton, Eton Wick & parts of Maidenhead (20-24% of trips). The lowest levels of cycle commuting would still be in Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale (11-12% of trips). In rural areas, cycling would increase to 15-19% of commuting trips. The trips with greatest potential were noted as:

Maidenhead:

·            Riverside to town centre

·            St Marks to town centre

·            Boyn Hill to town centre

·            Furze Platt East to town centre

·            Cox Green to town centre

Windsor:

·            Clewer Village & Clewer Within to Windsor Town Centre & Eton

·            Spital & Clewer Green to Windsor Town Centre & Eton

·            Clewer New Town & Dedworth East to Windsor Town Centre & Eton

·            Dedworth West to Clewer Village & Clewer Within

·            Clewer New Town and Dedworth East to Clewer Village & Clewer Within

In conclusion, the PCT was useful to show where growth in cycling trips was likely to come from, and where investment was likely to have the greatest benefit. However, the size and shape of the MSOAs made it difficult to pick out key routes. The urban areas of Maidenhead and Windsor had the most potential for increased cycling trips. ‘Maidenhead Missing Links’ would improve links to the town centre from the east and north, which was where some of the greatest potential existed. Improving access to Maidenhead town centre from the west should also be a priority, including the crossing of Frascati Way. In Windsor, the greatest potential would come from improving the Dedworth Road / Clarence Road corridor. Improving the A308 / Parsonage Lane / Mill Lane roundabout could also have significant potential for improving cycling trips.

Forum attendees were encouraged to go online and use the tool, and provide any feedback to officers.

Luke McCarthy commented that in relation to the Missing Links project, Maidenhead would be starting from a lower base according to the tool, therefore would potentially have a stronger case for funding. It was noted that, despite its limitations, the PCT was the best tool available without undertaking hundreds of cycle counts across the country. Ian Taplin commented that a lot of the outputs were common sense, as routes were often popular because cycling infrastructure was already in place.

The Chairman commented that the data could be fed into the planning department to guide development in principle.