We had so many terrific entries to our No Idling competition and decided to announce two more winners. This takes the total number of winners to five students from schools in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
Amelia Walker from Westpark School created a fantastic, colourful poster. We especially love the bike in the bottom right corner. A large waterproof banner is in the process of being made for her.
Poppy Bernard from Ferryhill Primary School. We love how Poppy has captured the flow of air pollution here to show it goes everywhere, affecting people and animals. A large banner has been created and given to Ferryhill Primary School for Poppy.
We’re very pleased to announce the winners of the Aberdeen Cycle Forum’s No Idling competition. We received over 50 entries and they were all fabulous which made the judging very difficult. Nevertheless the judges voted for their favourites and we chose three winners and printed two banners.
Gavin Thomson from Friends of the Earth Cllr Sandra Macdonald from the Aberdeen City Council Heather Dickson – art teacher Elizabeth Martin age 11 Daniel Martin age 14
The Aberdeen Cycle Forum also had final say as we had to select images that would print well and were sufficient resolution for printing.
The unanimous favourite from all judges was a very resourceful design by Alexander Petrov from Cults Primary School. Alexander created a 3D poster using materials from his environment. Because we were unable to print this one onto a banner we awarded Alexander a £20 gift voucher at Alpine Bikes, an Aberdeen Cycle Forum snood, and a certificate. Great job Alex!
The second winner was Ellis Routledge from Milne’s High School in Elgin. Our young judges in particular liked this image. Ellis has received a large waterproof banner with his design on it.
And coming in third was this design by Daniel Fox from Cults Primary School. Daniel has also received a large waterproof banner with his design printed on it.
Thank you to everyone who entered. We enjoyed seeing all the terrific designs and hope the students enjoyed making them.
In a recent survey by Aberdeen City Council, related to their draft Active Travel Plan, 83% of respondents answering the question as to whether it was a ‘cycle friendly’ city, gave the answer that it was either ‘unfriendly’ or ‘very unfriendly’.
No one is less surprised than us.
Despite years (actually decades!) of campaigning for active travel, we still see very few positive changes, and at the same time the Council continues to bring forward new road-building schemes which will increase traffic capacity on key routes coming into the city centre.
When we respond and question the logic of this, it feels like we are dismissed because we are ‘only’ cycle campaigners and not transport or planning experts. So what can we do about that?
Last week we held an on-line seminar to try and raise the level of debate. The speaker was Professor Phil Goodwin, an eminent academic in topics such as traffic modelling , road space allocation and active travel. Professor Goodwin doesn’t know Aberdeen so wasn’t directly speaking about new Aberdeen road schemes like the Berryden corridor or South College Street, but he has lots of examples of what has and hasn’t worked elsewhere. The one-hour seminar was recorded and you can watch it below or read a short note of some of the main points (scroll down this page to see the notes).
As to the main question of whether these new road schemes will do what the Council say they will, and actually reduce traffic in the city centre? Well, Professor Goodwin couldn’t answer that because he freely admits he doesn’t know Aberdeen nor has he seen the Council’s modelling data. But if you watch the seminar, it’s pretty clear what he thinks based on his experience elsewhere.
Notes from Urban Traffic Problems webinar by Professor Phil Goodwin (28/1/21)
Hosted by Aberdeen Cycle Forum.
– 1989: Road for prosperity, the ‘biggest road programme since the Romans’, was abandoned within five years as even twice the number of roads would not keep up with traffic forecasts, as demand management was required (rather than increased offer AKA more roads).
– Recurrent traffic forecasts problem: over-estimation of long-term traffic growth, under-estimation of induced traffic derived from new road projects. Road projects are often fine at first but are back to the same problem soon after, as traffic grows to fill the available space, so-called “induced demand”.
– 1990s: UK looks at German and Dutch realities/examples for town centre pedestrianisation and traffic calming in residential areas, respectively.
(Minute 7:00) Both realities aimed at better distributed road space allocation. Research and case studies (200 urban areas around the world) show that reducing road capacity leads to traffic reduction too (particularly effective in pedestrianisation schemes). But the results are not consistent. Instead, in some places there has been an increase in traffic in towns where pedestrianisation schemes and by-passes were implemented. Induced traffic from bypasses was greater than reduced traffic in city centre. This happens particularly when pedestrianisation isn’t ambitious enough and is limited to a few key shopping streets.
(Minute 11:20) Changing dynamics – The total amount of traffic is increasing, but this growth is led by Age 60+ group, while younger groups recorded car use reductions. Reduction is greater in urban areas (including small towns).
Low confidence on how trends evolve even before Covid and Brexit; even harder to understand now.
(Minute 13:40) UK Treasury recently released a review of the “Green Book” (finance manual), which assesses value for money of projects. The Review criticises how at present BCR (benefit-cost ratio) are boosted to promote new projects, whereas money would be better spent on strategic coherence and risk management (i.e. to improve what’s there). Even with this critique, ongoing projects have not been reviewed to re-calculate their actual value. Pandemic and Brexit is a good time to pause/reset and re-appraise.
(Minute 16:40) Questions for Aberdeen based on this:
– Have proposed schemes been reviewed to take account of carbon calculations, given climate emergency?
– Are effects of Covid/Brexit being considered?
– Financial and budget constraints, what schemes are really worth being implemented?
(Minute 18:08) Following Scottish Gov targets, traffic should be reduced by 20% compared to current rates, not expanded to future growth forecasts. In other words, we are already 20% above what will be allowed by future targets.
There are cities elsewhere, similar in size to Aberdeen, that have managed traffic much better (e.g. Freiburg in Germany); there is ‘experience’/case studies to take inspiration from, perhaps there is a need to look at these case studies, working trips to go and see what and how it has been done.
(Minute 25:20) Transport planning skills within Council and elsewhere-> There is a disconnect between priorities and resources. Huge teams of qualified and expert people dedicating their work for, say, roundabouts; only a handful dedicated to active travel (walking and cycling provision) and perhaps not as expert, leading to poorer quality projects. A reallocation of road space is required; but for this to happen, a reallocation of skills and resources is also required, otherwise the so-called priorities (e.g. Transport Hierarchy) are a sham.
(Minute 27:10) Q: Local Strategies are being developed in line with Scottish Gov direction; When is a good time to go on and write a transport strategy? Connectivity is hugely important for Aberdeen.
A: Connectivity is important to any city; there tends to be an over-estimation of how better connectivity will lead to better economy, particularly if the cause it’s elsewhere. From experience, road building has served the richer areas more than the poorer nearby the project implemented (hence no levelling-up happens). Need to focus less on carbon-intense projects; Best time for developing a transport strategy is 20 years ago, second best time is now (Covid/Brexit a good time to reset), can’t be waiting/’thinking’ about writing new strategies for much longer, it needs to be done instead.
(Minute 33:47) Q: Aberdeen has narrow roads, what can be done about this?
A: Freiburg, Ghent and Seville brought about change via good buy-in from residents (even in terms of designs) and strong political support. Places with narrow roads have been some of the places where it’s been easiest to implement radical changes/policies. If too narrow, it’s best to not have mixed traffic, instead prefer street closure (for car/through traffic) and implement placemaking features.
(Minute 36:40) Q/Statement: A lot is happening in the UK (e.g. Greater Manchester) on taking the experience from other European cities, some changes also in Scotland, but it is true a lot more has to happen in Aberdeen.
A: It is not always the leading cities that remain leaders. There is an opportunity for Aberdeen to get recognition if good changes start to happen.
Q: What proportion of budget should be allocated to active travel?
A: 15% (as suggested in the question) is a good amount to start with. The main point is that allocation of funds is currently not matching the stated priorities (e.g., road hierarchy, environment), hence stated priorities are not being implemented.
Q: Villages nearby Aberdeen (eg Kingswells – Weshill) . Some of these places are less than 4 miles away, yet no quality active travel infrastructure. What needs done to get this sorted?
Best approach by Switzerland where there’s lots of small places well connected with bigger towns/cities (via multi-modal connections). Enforcement is also very important, often lacking.
Q: Are ring-roads effective in reducing traffic in the area within them?
A: Yes, if far enough from the inside central area AND traffic calming/pedestrianisation has been widely implemented within the central area. Both need to happen around the same time.
In Aberdeen there have for many years been proposals affecting road capacity, with the Berryden corridor, and current proposals on Union Street and South College Street. The controversies about these have been equally long. But Aberdeen is not alone in such discussions – there is experience in other towns in Scotland, the rest of the UK, other countries in Europe and indeed other continents.
This seminar is aimed at better understanding how these controversies have evolved over recent years, and especially the experience of what works and what does not. We have invited an expert who has not been directly concerned with the discussions in Aberdeen, but has a wide experience of how similar ideas have been tried elsewhere, to add a wider context to our discussions.
He is Professor Phil Goodwin, a leading academic from University College London, the University of Oxford, and the University of the West of England, who has been an adviser to the DfT and the European Commission, and carried out research on the effects of road building, reallocation of road capacity, public transport, walking and cycling. In the seminar he will give an introduction with plenty of time for full discussion of the implications for Aberdeen.
The seminar will run from 1pm – 2pm on the 28th January. It will be virtual, by Zoom, and participants should register in advance at by clicking the button below.
The Aberdeen Cycle Forum has launched a “Don’t be an idler!” competition for school pupils in the north east of Scotland. We want students to design a banner encouraging their parents and caregivers to turn their car engines off when the car is stationary.
It’s an offence in Scotland to leave your car engine running but more importantly, it’s harmful to our children’s health. Children are particularly vulnerable to exhaust emissions because they absorb more pollutants per pound of body weight than adults do.
Here’s what car fumes do to children. They can cause asthma and allergies, damage the growth of their lungs, raise the risk of heart disease and cancer, damage the development of their brains, and even pass into the bloodstream of unborn babies.
We want students to design a banner for their school gate, church, drama hall, etc, that convinces adults to turn their engines off and help keep the air clean for growing bodies. The winner will receive a large outdoor banner with their design featured which they can then hang proudly wherever car engines gather.
Let’s keep our children healthy and safe. Please turn off your car engines while you wait.
Last year when we started up our programme of lessons for beginners, Duthie Park was the obvious place to go because there is lots of space and plenty of wide, well-surfaced and mostly flat paths. The park is generally a great place to cycle, especially for kids, learners or just less confident cyclists who want to stay away from traffic. But could it be better? There is hardly any cycle parking, and the layout of the access points is far from ideal.
We’ve produced a cycle audit which hopefully captures what is good but also what could be improved. This is our second attempt at an ‘audit’ of this sort. The first one looked at the new cycle path on Tillydrone Avenue and the Diamond bridge and you can read it – Third Don Crossing – Cyclists’ perspective. We don’t claim to be engineers or design professionals – we’re just pointing out things that are obvious to a cyclist but maybe not to everyone else.
Maybe you know somewhere that would benefit from a cycle audit? Send us your ideas, or even better, do your own one!
Sometimes it feels like there’s a lot of anti-cycling sentiment in Aberdeen. Cyclists are our husbands and wives, our children and parents, our brothers and sisters, which makes the prejudice all the more distressing and frightening, especially when it fuels aggression from motorists.
With this in mind the Aberdeen Cycle Forum has started a social media campaign to change attitudes towards cyclists. We want to focus on the benefits of cycling not just for the cyclist but for the whole community. Here are some of our messages:
You may see these messages in your social media feed and we encourage you to like and share them. You’re also welcome to download and use them yourself and if you have any suggestions for more like this then please get in touch.
We have written a joint letter along with Grampian Cycle Partnership and Scottish Cycling North East Grampian to Aberdeen City Council in a plea to reverse the decision to remove the segregated cycle path on the beach esplanade.
The new cycle path is a first of its kind for Aberdeen, creating a safe space for cycling that is physically separated from the carriageway. The path was installed with funding from the Scottish Government’s Spaces for People programme, which aims to help people safely distance from one another whilst they walk, wheel or cycle.
We are still in the middle of a pandemic where social distancing is as vital as ever. The paths at the beach will facilitate this not just at the beach but across the city by taking the pressure off other modes of transport such as buses.
The road is sufficiently wide to accommodate the cycle path without removing any parking spaces. It has also resolved a long-standing issue with speeding as the narrower carriageway has slowed the speed of traffic. It’s a win-win for everyone.
One of the reasons given for the removal of the paths is the difficulty motorists are having unloading their cars. The council could address this issue with simple changes such as increasing the width of the buffer zone between the cycle path and the car parking. We’re keen to work with the council to improve the design and make the scheme work for all.
Another reason given for the removal of the path is supposedly poor usage. However the council’s own papers show that cycling has increased significantly in the area, including by children, and people getting more active. It’s still early days for this path and we believe even more people will use it if it’s embraced and well promoted.
The wider issue is the lack of a coherent city-wide network. It is still difficult to get from the city centre (or anywhere) to the beach by bicycle. But as the number of segregated paths grows, more cyclists will use them. The beach esplanade route is an excellent foundation for a wider network which makes it all the more tragic to see it taken away.
We’re doing all we can to challenge the removal of the Aberdeen beach segregated cycle lanes. In normal times we’d organise a protest but with the current restrictions mass gatherings are banned and with good reason. Instead we’re going to encourage people to use the cycle lanes tomorrow from 12 – 2pm. We’re going to be there and will have a dozen or so Aberdeen Cycle Forum-branded snoods to give away. We can toss one to you from two metres away!
If you haven’t written to the council about the cycle paths yet then we encourage you to do so. You can find contact details here.
Now more than ever we need to redistribute road space to active travel. Cars take up an amount of space that’s disproportionate to the number of people they can move which is in many cases just one or two people per car.
We know the segregated bike lane was made with ugly orange bollards but they were temporary. The lanes could be made permanent into something like this:
This is a huge improvement on what was there which is four lanes for cars.
The Aberdeen Cycle Forum is dismayed to see the city council is planning to remove the cycle lanes at the beach. The segregated cycle path was installed less than two months ago using money from the Sustrans Spaces of People fund as a way to allow for social distancing during this pandemic.
The beach path was the very first of its kind in the city and provided hope for cyclists that this would be the start of a connected network of paths. Aberdeen city currently accommodates cyclists poorly and the environment on the roads can feel hostile and dangerous. This presents a barrier to people and discourages them from cycling.
You don’t have to be a cyclist yourself to benefit from cycling infrastructure. People who replace trips by car with trips be bike lower the carbon footprint of the community, reduce expenses for the NHS, and lower air pollution in the city. This benefits the entire community.
If you’re as disappointed as we are by the council’s decision then please write to your local councillor. You can find emails at the links below: