Budget 2017

[mjr]

It's been mentioned a few times in passing like viewtopic.php?p=1183373#p1183373 but what do we expect from the 2017 Budget? What do we hope for?

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/roger-ge ... investment makes me think that Cycle City Ambition Grant projects and the Access Fund may be coming to an end and those with everything else was still only a micturate poor £1.38 per person per year anyway, split between cycling and walking - a long way short of the £20 recommended by parliament. If you plotted cycling spending on this graph, it would be near zero and reducing:


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... aiting-for claims there's widespread public support for more funding and the politicians are lagging behind. Will there be any light ahead, or only more oncoming motor vehicles?

[NUKe]

My dear old dad had only 3 things he worried about when it came to the budget, petrol, Alcohol and cigarettes, nothing else ever bothered him. I don't worry about any of those three. So I guess there is nothing left.
On a serious note I hope the Government consider housing for the young, doesn't just use this as another tax give away. but starts to look at investing in future GB and ends pay freeze for the Public sector particularly the lower paid.

What I would really like to see, investment in public transport and cycle infrastructure. A fair taxation system, to stop us becoming a tax haven post Brexit.

[al_yrpal]

Screw tax evaders and avoiders. Tighten rules on tax avoiding so called trusts and charities.

Ramp up spending on STEM subjects in schools and Unis. Cut spending on useless higher education.

Scrap VED and tax road fuels higher.

Heavily tax profit on land sales and spend the tax on public housing.

Double council tax on foreign and company owned property

Temporarily reintroduce Industrial Development Certificates

[Vorpal]

What do we expect? More of the same ****.

What do we hope for? Well, I'm not going to hold my breath, but if were up to me...

2) reduce funding for motoring, and transfer the money to community development; more of this, and less of this, please

3) increase taxes on motoring (preferably on fuel), and do away with the company car.

4) introduce tax incentives for employers who encourage cycling, by achieving a minimum of cycle-friendly goals, such as parking facilities that meet a threshold standard, showers and changing rooms, flexible hours, good cycle access, and an active travel policy that includes goals for increasing the numbers of employees walking and cycling to work

5) proper cycling infrastructure standards; none of this wishy washy crap about guidelines and what is possible. Standards for cycling infrastructure should be as firm as those for bridges and highways

6) Training for highways engineers and planners, and contractors who act on behalf of highways authorities. The training should include cycle-friendly design, the benefits of active travel, the costs of motoring, and the new standards for infrastructure.

7) an independent body to perform risk assessments, accessibility/NMU assessments, and safety audits of infrastructure and development plans

p.s. there's lots more, like overhauling the education system, but I stuck to cycling-related stuff, as this is in campaigning & public policy, rather thant he tea room

[Stevek76]

5) proper cycling infrastructure standards; none of this wishy washy crap about guidelines and what is possible. Standards for cycling infrastructure should be as firm as those for bridges and highways

6) Training for highways engineers and planners, and contractors who act on behalf of highways authorities. The training should include cycle-friendly design, the benefits of active travel, the costs of motoring, and the new standards for infrastructure.

Agreed, though I'm not sure 6 would really need public funding, it would follow automatically from 5. If your clients are asking for cycling infrastructure you will make sure you have the available staff to do it else you don't win jobs. Ime, while there are certainly a fair few stick in the mud highway engineers around in the industry, there is a far from a lack of those who want to design and plan far better infrastructure, they just don't get to do it as the demand from councils & highway authorities isn't there. Nor for that matter is the funding from central government.

A public fund for training would perhaps be better aimed at the councils and highway authorities themselves.

7) an independent body to perform risk assessments, accessibility/NMU assessments, and safety audits of infrastructure and development plans

5 is still the critical bit though, left to their own devices a good number of apparently qualified safety auditors still like to cage pedestrians in fencing everywhere

[mjr]

What do we expect? More of the same ****.

What do we hope for? Well, I'm not going to hold my breath, but if were up to me...

2) reduce funding for motoring, and transfer the money to community development; more of this, and less of this, please

And they've done the opposite. Probably. It's hidden in "localism" so we can't be sure, but there's plenty of transport funding but it looks like none of it has to be spent on cycling and it all seems to be going to a few areas that mostly didn't vote for this government in 2017: £1.7bn for English city regions, £2bn for Scotland, £1.2bn for Wales and £650m for Northern Ireland. English towns and rural areas get naff-all again?

3) increase taxes on motoring (preferably on fuel), and do away with the company car.

And they've done the opposite: the April 2018 fuel duty rise has been scrapped, while VED is being increased (very slightly, for some) instead - so that's the opposite of what many experts think needs to happen to help get a grip on pollution, which is for use to be taxed more heavily than mere ownership. To try to deflect that, £220m of the proceeds will be put into an sarcastically-named "clean air fund" - and that's about half what they're putting into electric car filling stations.

Then there's the blind dash towards driverless cars and it's debatable whether that helps or hurts cycling. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42040856

They're bumping up the tax on diesel company cars a little, but that's nowhere near doing away with it.

Happily, this year CUK have been pretty swift with commentary, tweeting "no mention of walking and #cycling in the budget" and criticising "220 million for a #cleanair fund - less than half % [of the amount spent freezing fuel duty]" which is much better than BC's silence and Sustrans's seeming praise of the Clean Air Fund.

[landsurfer]

Pay rise .... result ...

[Vorpal]

5) proper cycling infrastructure standards; none of this wishy washy crap about guidelines and what is possible. Standards for cycling infrastructure should be as firm as those for bridges and highways

6) Training for highways engineers and planners, and contractors who act on behalf of highways authorities. The training should include cycle-friendly design, the benefits of active travel, the costs of motoring, and the new standards for infrastructure.

Agreed, though I'm not sure 6 would really need public funding, it would follow automatically from 5. If your clients are asking for cycling infrastructure you will make sure you have the available staff to do it else you don't win jobs. Ime, while there are certainly a fair few stick in the mud highway engineers around in the industry, there is a far from a lack of those who want to design and plan far better infrastructure, they just don't get to do it as the demand from councils & highway authorities isn't there. Nor for that matter is the funding from central government.

A public fund for training would perhaps be better aimed at the councils and highway authorities themselves.

7) an independent body to perform risk assessments, accessibility/NMU assessments, and safety audits of infrastructure and development plans

5 is still the critical bit though, left to their own devices a good number of apparently qualified safety auditors still like to cage pedestrians in fencing everywhere

First off, training doesn't follow, or we would have more planners and engineers using the guidelines already in place.

Second of all, training is absolutely critical in order to achieve good results with audits and risk assessment. Many of the current auditors are not qualified to do risk assessments or safety audits specifically with regards to cyclists, and there are neither training standards, nor audit standards for this. What is included in the safety audits is very limited. The best standard for this was the Cycle Audit and Review, produced in the late 90s and immediately shelved by highwaymen who couldn't be bothered and highways authorities who kowtow to the car.

[ianrobo]

Did any of you think the Tories would dare do anything against drivers and the vested interests etc ?

Instead some words but few actions and on diesel, says it harms then avoided taxing 'white van man' or are probably the worse offenders idling and driving styles etc.

you may point to Johnson as Mayor but he was no fool when it came to London but to really change the way things are you have to break eggs.

[Stevek76]

First off, training doesn't follow, or we would have more planners and engineers using the guidelines already in place.

Perhaps I misunderstood you but given much of this work is outsourced to consultants providing training to them seems a little unnecessary. The reason they do not always use the guidelines already in place is precisely because they are 'wishy washy crap' that are all too easily overruled by political interests or local public opposition. Even if they are followed, unless there is local political will for it, whatever was designed/planned is typically subsequently watered down at the direction of council officers/political/public/financial pressure against competing interests and that have much more concrete standards and if x consultant won't do it, they'll just go to y instead.

If there are concrete standards about design, planning and the economics and business case for such matters then it does become relatively self fulfilling as schemes that don't meet these would be liable to get thrown out at inquiry. (assuming they even manage to secure funding in the first place)

Still, as we can all see from Hammond's budget, no point anyone holding any breaths on the UK about to get sensible on transport.

[pete75]

Double council tax on foreign and company owned property

So Mr and Mrs Kaminski pay twice the council tax of Mr and Mrs Brown next door. Can't think of anything other than pure prejudice that would lead anyone to advocate such an idea.
Most housing associations are limited companies. What you propose would double council tax for those living in properties owned by an HA. Rather a silly idea as their tenants tend to be fairly low paid.

[Vorpal]

First off, training doesn't follow, or we would have more planners and engineers using the guidelines already in place.

Perhaps I misunderstood you but given much of this work is outsourced to consultants providing training to them seems a little unnecessary. The reason they do not always use the guidelines already in place is precisely because they are 'wishy washy crap' that are all too easily overruled by political interests or local public opposition. Even if they are followed, unless there is local political will for it, whatever was designed/planned is typically subsequently watered down at the direction of council officers/political/public/financial pressure against competing interests and that have much more concrete standards and if x consultant won't do it, they'll just go to y instead.

If there are concrete standards about design, planning and the economics and business case for such matters then it does become relatively self fulfilling as schemes that don't meet these would be liable to get thrown out at inquiry. (assuming they even manage to secure funding in the first place)

Still, as we can all see from Hammond's budget, no point anyone holding any breaths on the UK about to get sensible on transport.

There is training in DMRB.

[Debs]

Interesting reading on the ideas proposed above and i find many very agreeable.

However:

Chancellor Philip Hammond has announced the personal allowance for income tax will be increased from £11,500 to £11,850 from April 2018, while the threshold at which you pay a higher rate of income tax will rise from £45,000 to £46,350.

The announcement in today's Budget means most taxpayers will be able to earn £11,850 before they pay a penny of income tax from the start of the next tax year.

The change to the personal allowance will mean an extra £70 in your pocket if you're a basic-rate taxpayer and an extra £140 for higher-rate earners.

Despite pre-Budget speculation, there was no announcement on bringing forward the personal allowance limit to £12,500. It had been suggested in the Conservative Party manifesto that this would happen by 2020.

In addition to raising the personal allowance, the higher rate – the point at which you start paying 40% tax – will be raised from £45,000 to £46,350. This will give somebody earning £50,000 a year an extra £270 a year (on top of the extra £140).

Typical on purpose deliberate missed opportunity Tory budget then, the low paid get 70 quid and no more, the well off who probably don't really need it get £270 [plus skies the limit more depending on how overpaid], which only serves the time honoured Tory principle of widening the pay gap between the over-paid and underpaid [ a.k.a. under-employed ]
If i was the chancellor i'd of raised the zero tax personal allowance limit to £13,000
and raised the above upper £45.000 limit to 45%
I'd also lower VAT to 15%
No VAT on bicycle parts, accessories, clothing and new bicycle purchases