Recent weeks have seen the release of a number of national level surveys. But what do they tell us about trends in cycling, and how do we learn from the findings?
Stakeholders in active travel will often pore over new survey findings in the hope of uncovering positive stories about trends revealed by the data, or to try and find evidence that things are not changing fast enough. We at Sustrans do this too. Apart from anything else, number nerds can have a whale of a time ‘panning for gold’.
But one could be forgiven for being rather confused about the collective implications of the recent crop of survey results. Examples include:
The National Travel Survey (these days personal travel within GB by English residents) shows:
- Cycling trips per person per year zig-zag up and down over the past 15 years; most recently, there are two consecutive years of marked decrease; 2016 levels are not as low as those recorded in 2013; 2016 levels are 19% lower than that recorded in 2002; there is little evidence of a definitive trend emerging.
- Cycling miles per person per year zig-zags over the past 15 years, but with the suggestion of an upwards trend; there is no change from 2015 to 2016; 2016 levels are 37% higher than those recorded in 2002.
- Frequency of cycling trips is unchanged from 2006 to 2015 at 15%, but falls to 14% in 2016 (Table NTS0313).
The Road Traffic Estimates in Great Britain 2016 report shows:
- Pedal cycles travelled 3.5 billion miles on roads in 2016, 6.3% further than in the previous year, and over one-third more than 20 years ago; this is the highest figure since 1987.
- There is a distinct upward trend from 2000 onwards, albeit between two periods of zig-zagging (around 2004-07 and 2014-16).
- Growth in cycling over ten years is very mixed across four distinct categories of roads, ranging from +80% on rural minor roads to +7% on urban minor roads.
Meanwhile, DfT analysis of the Active People Survey for 2014/15 shows that 10% of adults cycle at least once per week, unchanged from 2010/11.
Data for Scotland, from the Traffic and Travel in Scotland 2015 shows:
- Distance cycled on all roads is estimated to have decreased from 369 million vehicle kilometres in 2014 to 342 million vehicle kilometres in 2015.
- One percent of journeys had cycling as the main mode of transport, a similar proportion to 2014.
- Just over two (2.2) percent of adults usually cycle to work, compared to 2.6 percent in 2014.
According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, conducted for government departments including the Department for Transport:
- There has been a non-significant decrease in the proportion of people reporting that they own or have access to a bicycle, from 43% in 2011 to 42% in 2016 (Table ATT0310).
- There has been a marked decrease in the proportion of people saying that they could not switch short journeys that they make by car to cycling trips, down to 25% in 2016 from 34% in 2015; this is a very different metric to those reported above, but one might reasonably expect a marked change in attitude to be reflected in some behavioural change.
How do we learn from these findings?
Firm conclusions on changes in levels of cycling are hard to draw from this national-level evidence.
The narrative for Road Traffic Estimates in Great Britain report states that “people who cycle have been cycling further, but that the proportion of the population who cycle has not changed substantially.” It feels rather ambitious to me to draw this conclusion from the evidence presented. And it simply doesn’t tally with other evidence sources, quantitative and anecdotal, from numerous other sources, many of which are gathered at a more local level.
There are huge challenges around sampling approaches, including geographic parameters (which bits of the UK/GB), weighting and scaling, survey scope (on highway, or including traffic-free), and data accuracy – not to mention analysis and interpretation. However, we ought to be able to set sources alongside each other to see whether they align to reveal change, and/or to form a consistent narrative.
But the real patterns of change are very hard to unpick from this data. Messages are mixed and trends are indeterminate.
The implications of this ambiguity are profound – it reflects a very fundamental challenge in evidence-based policy making.
On the one hand, it makes it tremendously difficult for policy makers to set out a convincing case that cycling is increasing, and that investment is working.
On the other hand, this data might actually reflect a failure of approach to investment. Sustrans has worked with local authorities around the country to show that where local investment is made, change happens – we are confident that, despite the mixed messages of the national data sources, well-targeted investment is effective. (For relevant case studies, see Investing in Cycling and Walking & The Economic Case for Action, Fit for Life or the Evaluation of the Cycling City and Towns and the Cycling Demonstration Towns programmes).
But investment that is piecemeal and short-term does not yield great results.
Sustrans calls for sustained and substantial investment in active travel. The lack of sustained funding does limit the scope to ‘lock-in’ any increase in levels of cycling. The lack of significant funding constrains ambitious delivery.
And a more coherent evidence base would help to make the case. We are keen to work out how data resources from around the country can bolster the narrative around growing cycling.
Read Lynn Sloman’s blog about Growing cycling in cities: Lessons from the Cycling City and Towns programme
from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8239590 https://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/national-data-sources-and-what-they-reveal-about-trends-cycling
via IFTTT
source https://ukresinboundsurfacing.tumblr.com/post/165543951968
No comments:
Post a Comment