BYPAD+ 
BicYcle Policy AuDit 
2003-2005 
 
TRL Limited 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Report and Cycling Policy Quality Plan 
Bicycle Policy Audit for Liverpool 
(October 2004) 
 
David Allen and Charlotte Burke 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

---

 
 
1  CONTEXT 
BYPAD stands for BicYcle Policy AuDit and is a European research project supported by the SAVE 
II program (DG TREN).  The main aim of the BYPAD-project is to develop a bicycle policy audit, 
which gives an evaluation of the quality of the bicycle policy in European cities.   
 
The objectives of the project were to: 
•  Carry out a bicycle policy audit, resulting in an evaluation of cycling policy in Liverpool; 
•  Set targets and objects to improve aspects of cycling policy within the City. 
 
This final report summarises each of these phases and looks more specifically at the actions to take 
forward for the cycling quality plan for the City of Liverpool. 
 
Section 2 provides an overview of the methodology used followed by section 3 which introduces 
Liverpool by providing background information on the City. Section 4 details the scores and provides 
a commentary for the questions as a result of the BYPAD process. Section 5 provides objectives and 
measures for specific areas as part of the quality action plan for cycling in Liverpool. Finally, section 
6 summarises the BYPAD process for Liverpool. 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  1

---

 
 
 
2  METHODOLOGY 
Politicians, civil servants and user groups (a representative from each) in Liverpool were initially 
presented with the BYPAD questionnaire. The questionnaires were filled in by each representative 
regarding the current state of cycling policy in Liverpool, which included making comments and 
suggestions for improvements where appropriate, and scoring each aspect of cycling policy 
according to the BYPAD+ ladder of development (see section 2.1 for description).  
 
A consensus meeting was held in late February 2004 with each of the groups and TRL facilitators to 
discuss the scores attributed to each of the bicycle policy aspects in the questionnaires. The aim of 
this meeting was to examine areas where differences of opinion had been voiced by the various 
parties with regards to score, and to come to some consensus. 
 
An interim report was produced and presented to each of the representatives. The aim of this interim 
report was to summarise the agreed scores for the various aspects of cycling policy in Liverpool, and 
then to explore progress in terms of the BYPAD ladder of development. The interim report was also 
used as a basis for the initial development of objectives and actions as a result of comments 
regarding improvements to cycling policy.  
 
Following the production of the interim report, a second meeting was held to discuss the findings of 
the interim report and to identify objectives and targets of a cycling quality plan for the City, focusing 
on those areas of cycling policy which obtained low scores in the preliminary phase. 
2.1 
BYPAD LADDER OF DEVELOPMENT 
The scores attributed to each of the bicycle policy areas in the questionnaire relate to the BYPAD 
ladder of development (see Figure 2.1). A definition for each level of the BYPAD ladder of 
development follows. 
 
Score Attributed 
Meaning 
Final Score  
by Evaluation 
Group 
1 
Ad Hoc Approach 
0-25 
 
2 
Isolated Approach 
26-50 
 
3 
System Orientated Approach 
51-75 
 
4 
Integrated Approach 
76-10 
 
Figure 2.1: BYPAD Ladder of Development 
 
Level 1: Ad-hoc-orientated 
 
At this level there is some form of cycling policy, but it is minimal. Cycling policy is limited to problem 
solving. Due to a narrow understanding of cycling policy, measures are focussed on infrastructure or 
road safety at specific locations. There is a minimum level of quality for the cycling policy, which is 
characterised by: 
•  A low and irregular budget; 
•  Few officials (if any), low skills, no competence; 
• Limited 
communication; 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  2

---

 
 
•  Informal structures and agreements; 
•  Quality is a result of individual efforts only. 
 
Level 2: Isolated approach 
 
At the second level there is already a cycling policy in place, but this policy is isolated from other 
policy fields such as mobility, spatial planning and environment. Good infrastructure is the main 
concern of the policy, although some supplementary activities are undertaken. The cycling policy is 
characterised by: 
•  Some use of data and some knowledge of the cyclists’ needs and priorities; 
•  Global agreements with a limited compulsory character (task setting) 
•  Decisions are often made which are counterproductive because of a lack of tuning with other 
policy fields; 
•  Continuity in cycling policy is not guaranteed 
 
Level 3: System-orientated 
 
Cycling is seen as a system, which is integrated into the overall mobility policy. There is also political 
support from different responsible politicians. Cycling policy comprises of a wide range of different 
measures (e.g. mobility management, services, campaigns, information, education and 
infrastructure). Various partners contribute and co-operate with each other in the application of the 
cycling policy. The cycling policy is characterised by: 
•  Tendency for long term planning; 
•  User needs are systematically taken into account; 
•  There is high quality data available which forms a solid basis for the cycling policy 
•  There is a substantial budget, but it is not yet safeguarded for the long term; 
•  Agreements are in place which creates formal partnerships between different actors (e.g. 
other departments, schools and employees) 
 
Level 4: Integrated approach 
 
Cycling policy is a continuous task with strong relationships with other policy fields (environment, 
health, employment, economy etc). Measures to encourage cycle use are made up of measures 
which curb car use. Quality indicators are recognised as policy instruments. Alongside political 
support, systematic networking and strategic partnerships characterise the cycling policy. This helps 
to achieve synergetic effects through the exchange of ideas, knowledge and experiences with 
external partners through horizontally (other cities, public bodies, public private partnerships) and 
vertically (higher authorities). The cycling policy is characterised by: 
•  The availability of high quality data; 
• Systematic 
evaluation; 
•  Substantial and regular budgets; 
• Systematic 
networking. 
 
 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  3

---

 
 
3  INTRODUCING THE CITY OF LIVERPOOL 
 
Liverpool is a Metropolitan borough centrally located in the North–West of England on the north side 
of the Mersey Estuary.  The city is located in the historic county of Lancashire and is at the heart of 
the metropolitan county of Merseyside. The 2001 census puts the population of the city at 
approximately 440,000, with over one million inhabitants living in the surrounding conurbations.  An 
old, industrial and commercial city, the city covers an area of 70 square kilometres.  Liverpool still 
possesses some manufacturing base and is the second largest export port in the UK.   
   
More recently, the city has reorientated towards culture and has been chosen as the European 
Capital of Culture for 2008.  The city has several key sites including Tate Liverpool, the Walker Art 
Gallery, the Docks and two universities.  On an international scale, Liverpool is famous as the home 
of the Beatles.  This will give Liverpool the opportunity to showcase its cultural life and cultural 
development to the rest of Europe and internationally.  In the past, a number of European cities have 
used the Capital of Culture status to transform their cultural base and the way their city is regarded 
both in their own country and on an international scale.   
 
The city has a high level of deprivation and is ranked as the second most deprived district in England 
and Wales from a total of 354 in the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004.  The focus of the Local 
Transport Plan  (LTP) is to ensure the linkage of the most socially and economically deprived 
communities with employment areas.  These social and economic conditions are reflected in 
transport with over 40% of households having no access to a car.       
 
Modal Choice 
 
Of the total trips in Merseyside in 1996, travel mode split indicates that; 
•  37% were undertaken by car; 
•  25% by walking; 
•  16% by car passenger; 
•  15% by bus; 
•  3% by taxi; 
•  2% by train and  
•  2% by cycle.  
 
Car ownership is low, and there is only minimal congestion periods both am and pm – congestion 
does not pose a significant problem. Bus use is high and there is low student cycle use.  In Liverpool, 
the proportion of journeys to work by bike increased from 1.56% in 1991 to 1.73% in 2001, a very 
slight increase.     
 
The Liverpool Cycling Strategy (1997) reports that Liverpool has one of the lowest proportions of 
journeys made by bicycle of any major city in the UK.  In considering that cycling would be well suited 
to the compact nature of Liverpool’s central area, the closeness of many residential suburbs, low car 
ownership and high student population, these figures are particularly low.  The terrain of the city is 
also relatively flat making cycling a suitable transport option for a wide section of the population.   
 
According to a Local Authority Performance Assessment carried out by the English Regions Cycling 
Development Team (CERCDT) in November 2003, cycle use is rising in Liverpool and is gradually 
increasing from its low base.  However, they also report that the City has a number of problems in 
promoting cycling.  At present, a culture of cycling within the city appears to have been lost and 
approximately 90% of cyclists are adult males.  The ERCDT do note, however, that there are a 
number of promotion initiatives run by local community and voluntary sector groups such as 
Netherley and Valley Local Initiative for Transport which are becoming integrated with the work done 
by the City Council.       
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  4

---

 
 
Transport and Cycling 
 
Road building in Liverpool during the 1970s has created a network which contains many large and 
busy roads that in places are unsuitable for cycling.  However, whilst facilities are sometimes 
isolated, the City does tend to build complete routes.  There are two key national and/or regional 
cycle routes in Liverpool: the Trans Pennine Trail and the National Cycle Network. The Trans 
Pennine route is a coast to coast facility linking the major towns and cities across the North of 
England from Liverpool to Hull and Leeds to Chesterfield. The Trans Pennine Trail consists of the 
Loop Line Nature Park and the Mersey Way. The Liverpool Loop Line fulfils the City Council’s 
commitment to the Trans Pennine trail and forms part of the National Cycle Network.  There are two 
NCN routes in the city – Route 62 running north-south in the east and Route 56 running from Route 
62 to Pier Head.   
 
As well as national routes running through Liverpool, there are a number of cycle routes located in 
the City. These are: 
•  University Cycle Route 
•  Sefton Park Cycle Routes 
•  Speke Boulevard Cycleway 
• Vauxhall 
Road 
•  Woolton Cycle Route 
 
The cycle network has a strong focus in linking main employment sites with surrounding areas. The 
network combines both on- and off-road routes, providing a greater degree of accessibility to facilities 
and employment and education opportunities for local residents. However, provision of cycle routes 
stop at the city centre boundary and focuses predominantly on the outer areas of the City. 
 
The cycle routes pass through key locations and also link to the National Cycle Network. The 
university route links the city centre to student accommodation. There is also a cycle route in 
Woolton, a suburb to the south-east of the city centre.  This is the city’s newest route and uses a 
combination of lanes, paths in parks and traffic calming measures.     
 
In recent years, through the LTP, Liverpool City Council have doubled the number of cycle routes in 
the city and have provided cycle parking at popular destinations.  The ERCDT report that recent 
routes have shown good use of a wide range of techniques and a confidence from planners to take 
space from other traffic rather than from pedestrians.  Although provision is improving and allowing 
some routes to interlink, a lack of sophisticated directional signing means that the network is still 
disjointed in places.    
 
Liverpool City Council is currently funding a bicycle parking program through the Merseyside LTP. 
Cycle parking was introduced last year in Allerton, Old Swan, Belle Vale, Netherley, Aigburth, 
Toxteth and Tuebrook, along with many improvements in the city centre. Work is underway to 
provide cycling parking in West Derby, Norris Green, Garston and Walton. Cycle parking in the city 
centre consists of Sheffield stands in the pedestrianised areas. The city has seventeen shopping 
districts, of which six provide cycle parking. Facilities such as the libraries, leisure facilities and 
universities all provide good cycle parking.  The programme aims to install approximately 100 
Sheffield Stands per year around Liverpool.     
 
The Council works with the MCC to encourage and improve cycling in the City 
(www.merseyworld.com/mcc).  Membership of the Cycling Campaign is wide ranging and varied 
which will hopefully work towards a greater cycling culture in the city.  Liverpool City Council also 
hosts the LCF four times each year where cycling related issues can be discussed.  The forum is 
made up of Liverpool City Council Officers, local and national cycling organisations, local businesses 
and anyone interested in cycling in Liverpool.  The Cycling Officer also attends meetings of the 
Merseyside Cycle Campaign and encourages a regular dialogue between them and the Council.       
 
A map of cycle routes in Liverpool, is supported by the City Council and produced by the Merseyside 
Cycle Campaign.  The map can be purchased directly from the cycle campaign, tourist information 
and bike shops at a cost of £3.00.  In addition the map is available free of charge from the City 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  5

---

 
 
Council.    The City Council also produce a number of smaller guides to specific cycle routes 
including the Woolton Cycle Route.     
 
Cyclist Safety 
 
There are no available statistics dedicated to cyclist safety in the City of Liverpool.  
 
History 
 
Liverpool City Council has been providing for cyclists since the 1980s.  One of the early routes, from 
the University Halls to the University, included an innovative roundabout design where the cycle 
route went through the middle.  This route was later extended by advisory directional signing.  The 
development of the Liverpool Loop Line gave an excellent opportunity to provide a recreational route 
for the city.  However, there has been a perceived lack of security, especially at the northern end, 
which has minimised the benefits.      
 
Travelwise and Liverpool City Council are two key organisations involved in the promotion and 
improvement of cycling in Liverpool.  All Merseyside Authorities contribute towards a seven strong 
Travelwise team who promote sustainable transport across Merseyside.  Merseytravel have a high 
profile in cycle promotion with their Bike Time family rides which take place throughout the year.  
Details are posted on the Travelwise website (www.gotravelwise.com)   
 
Cycling Policy 
 
The City of Liverpool published “A Cycling Strategy for Liverpool” in June 1997 and this has recently 
been reviewed by independent consultants.  In identifying measures to increase cycle use in 
Liverpool, the plan looks at methods of encouraging cycling, education, publicity, planning and 
engineering.   
 
The City Council’s targets for cycling are taken from the Merseyside LTP and are to triple the number 
of cycle trips compared with a 2000 base by 2010.    The Cycling Strategy itself contains an Action 
Plan adapted from the National Cycling Strategy model local authority action plans.  The policy sets 
out targets to be met at various stages by 2012 regarding auditing; review of the road network; cycle 
networks; cycle parking; integration with public transport; usage; accidents; theft; employers and 
health.     
 
Other Policies 
The Merseyside LTP was produced following the publication of the Government’s Transport White 
Paper “A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone”.  The LTP aims to develop an integrated and 
sustainable transport network for Merseyside, which supports economic, social and environmental 
regeneration and ensures good access for all of the community.  Cycling has a major role to play in 
achieving these objectives for the city, which is aiming to encourage cycling, especially for short 
journeys by:  
 
•  Developing a safe and convenient cycle network  
•  Installation of cycle parking  
•  Reviewing the existing cycle strategy 
 
The LTP cycle plan concentrates on a core network with a focus on links between pathways areas 
and employment zones by 2006, and the rest of the network by 2012.   
 
As an area of high deprivation, social inclusion is also a key factor in the improvement of Liverpool’s 
social and economic status.  Social exclusion has been highlighted as a health issue and greater 
engagement with health bodies to promote social inclusion is important for development.  Supporting 
cycling is considered a way of reducing social exclusion and healthcare concerns amongst excluded 
sectors of the population.     
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  6

---

 
 
Currently, the Council only offers off road skills training to primary aged school children.  They are 
seeking to develop road training for primary school children but so far none has been implemented.  
Information on the availability of adult cycle training in the city is provided on the council website with 
Cycling Solutions and Cycle Project Northwest being the main providers.   
 
 
In Liverpool, 20 schools currently have an adopted School Travel Plan and 4 have a draft in place.  In 
addition to this 13 schools are currently in the development phase of the process.    School Travel 
Plans set out practical measures to improve pupils’ safety and to reduce the number of journeys 
made to school by car.  The school and local community are consulted and the plans aim to raise 
awareness of the benefits of walking and cycling to school as well as environmental improvement.  
The School Travel Plan process is integrated with Safer Routes to Schools initiatives.   
   
Research and Other Support  
 
The method of monitoring cycling in Merseyside is via a household survey carried out every five 
years.  However, the Council has also installed four permanent automatic counters which will provide 
further data for analysis. The number of counters is set to increase to further increase the robustness 
of available data.   The first year results are expected to show a growth in use.     
 
Personnel  
 
According to the recent assessment by the ERCDT, the City Council has one officer who spends half 
of their time on cycling and half on Safer Routes to Schools.  However due to the recent DfES/DfT 
funding allocation to support the Travelling to School Initiative all SrtS project work will be undertaken 
by a dedicated officer.  Therefore allowing the Cycling Officer to spend 100% of their time on cycling 
issues.  It is also noted that there is no main advocate for cycling within the authority and that staff 
members hold a wide variety of views and attitudes towards the mode.   
 
The Council also has a travel plan coordinator and is progressing with its own travel plan.  The 
Universities and Hospitals within the city are also in the process of creating and implementing Travel 
Plans.   
 
Means  
 
The Merseyside LTP Annual Progress Report July 2003 shows an increased spend on cycling in 
2002/03.  The report suggests that this reflects both the under-performance in 2001/02 and the 
increase in the delivery costs of some schemes, which has increased funding in 2002/03.  The 
review of the Cycling Strategy by external consultants in mid 2003 identified the need to increase 
spending on delivering the cycle route network, particularly Merseyside’s early commitment to link 
Pathways with SIAs.  
 
The following section will now assess bicycle policy in Liverpool applying the BYPAD+ process. 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  7

---

 
 
 
4  ASSESSMENT OF BICYCLE POLICY IN LIVERPOOL 
The scores awarded to each bicycle policy aspect by Liverpool representatives are shown in Table 
4.1. These scores were agreed during the consensus meeting. The scores relate to the BYPAD+ 
ladder of development (see Figure 2.1 in section 2). 
 
Table 4.1: Summary of Initial BYPAD Scores 
Policy Aspect 
Score
 
Policy Aspect 
Score
Module 1: User Needs 
 
 
Module 6: Communication and 
 
Education 
1. How user needs are ascertained 
1  
20. Communication of policy to               
0.5 
decision makers and actors 
2. Accessibility of data on user needs 
0.7  21. Increasing the image of cycling 
1 
3. Involvement of users in process of 
2.5  22. Initiatives to encourage life long 
0.5 
political decision making 
cycling 
 
 
 
23. Education and cycle training 
1 
Module 2: Leadership 
 
 
 
 
4. Where cycling policy is prepared 
1.7  Module 7: Target Groups and 
 
and executed 
Partnerships 
5. Impact key individuals have within 
1  
24. Encouragement of officials to cycle 
1 
the political decision-making process 
to work 
6. Existing steering platforms 
1  
25. Promotion of cycling to work by 
1.7 
employers 
 
 
 
26. Promotion of cycling to school 
1 
Module 3: Policy on Paper 
 
 
27. Promotion of cycling to leisure 
1.5 
sites 
7. Content of local cycling policy 
4  
28. Promotion of shopping by bike 
1.8 
8. Realisation of actions in policy plan 
3  
29. Promotion of family biking 
1.8 
 
 
 
 
 
Module 4: Means and Personnel 
 
 
Module 8: Complimentary Activities 
 
9. Safeguarding of cycle policy 
3  
30. Measures to curb car use 
1 
financing 
10. Available finance to support new 
1  
31. The use of health effects to 
1 
initiative or innovative projects 
support cycling policy 
11. Improvement of topic-related 
0  
 
 
knowledge and skills of staff 
 
 
 
Module 9: Evaluation and Effects 
 
Module 5: Infrastructure Services 
 
 
32. Measuring the effects of cycling 
0.5 
and Safety 
policy 
12. Improvements in infrastructure for 
2  
33. Safeguarding the quality of 
2 
cycling 
projects and actions 
13. Organisation of cycle 
1  
34. Monitoring of bicycle use 
2 
infrastructure maintenance 
14. Improvements in orientation of 
2.9  35. Collection and use of safety 
1.3 
bicycle users 
related data 
15. Improvements in bicycle parking 
2  
 
 
16. Prevention of bicycle theft and 
0.5   
 
vandalism 
17. Improvements in bicycle user 
1  
 
 
safety 
18. Combination of cycling and public 
1.5   
 
transport 
19. Encouraging cycle use through 
0.5   
 
services to cyclists 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  8

---

 
 
4.1 
BYPAD SCORES FOR MODULES AND QUESTIONS 
Table 4.2 gives an overview of the scores for each of the BYPAD modules, and therefore their 
progress on the BYPAD ladder of development. 
Table 4.2: Summary of Module Level of Development 
Score Meaning 
Module 
Score 
0-25 
Ad-hoc approach 
Communication and education  
18.8 
Complimentary activities  
25 
26-50 
Isolated approach 
Leadership  
30.8 
Means and Personnel  
33.3 
User Needs  
35 
Infrastructure services and safety  
35.6 
Target groups and partnerships  
35.8 
Evaluation and effects  
36.3 
51-75 
System orientated 
 … 
approach 
76-100 
Integrated approach 
Policy on paper  
87.5 
 
The majority of scores for Liverpool for each of the modules fall into the isolated approach category. 
Policy on paper is the only module to score highly enough to represent an integrated approach at 
level 4. The following sections look at each of the modules in more detail and the scores attributed to 
individual questions. 
 
Table 4.3 displays the converted BYPAD scores for each question and overall for each module, and 
their progress on the BYPAD ladder of development. 
 
Section 4.1.1 to 4.1.9 looks at the scores of each module in turn, discussing both their current level 
and also the possible objectives or targets for future improvement. 
 
Key for Table 4.3:  
 
Level of development quality criterion 
 
Level of development module ‘X’ 
 
Level of development bicycle policy Liverpool 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  9

---

 
 
 
Table 4.3: Summary table levels of development for the bicycle policy in Liverpool 
 
Level 1: Ad-
Level 2: 
Level 3: 
Level 4: 
Hoc 
Isolated 
System 
Integrated 
Approach 
Approach 
Orientated 
Approach 
  
Approach 
Module 1: User Needs 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
How user needs are ascertained 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Accessibility of data on user needs 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Involvement of users in process of political 
decision making 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Module 2: Leadership 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Where cycling policy is prepared and executed 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Impact key individuals have within the political 
decision-making process 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Existing steering platforms 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Module 3: Policy on Paper 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Content of local cycling policy 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Realisation of actions in policy plan 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Module 4: Means and Personnel 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Safeguarding of cycle policy financing 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Available finance to support new initiative or 
innovative projects 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Improvement of topic-related knowledge and 
skills of staff 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Module 5: Infrastructure Services and Safety 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Improvements in infrastructure for cycling 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Organisation of cycle infrastructure 
maintenance 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Improvements in orientation of bicycle users 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Improvements in bicycle parking 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Prevention of bicycle theft and vandalism 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Improvements in bicycle user safety 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Combination of cycling and public transport 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Encouraging cycle use through services to 
cyclists 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Module 6: Communication and Education 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Communication of policy to decision makers 
and actors 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Increasing the image of cycling 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Initiatives to encourage life long cycling 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Education and cycle training 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Module 7: Target Groups and Partnerships 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Encouragement of officials to cycle to work 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Promotion of cycling to work by employers 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Promotion of cycling to school 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Promotion of cycling to leisure sites 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Promotion of shopping by bike 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Promotion of family biking 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Module 8: Complimentary Activities 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Measures to curb car use 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
The use of health effects to support cycling 
policy 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Module 9: Evaluation and Effects 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Measuring the effects of cycling policy 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Safeguarding the quality of projects and actions 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Monitoring of bicycle use 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Collection and use of safety related data 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Overall Bicycle Policy in Liverpool 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  10

---

 
 
4.1.1  
User Needs 
The ‘User Needs’ module specifically examines how bicycle user needs are ascertained and 
managed. Attention is drawn towards how the municipality involves the users and the way in which 
the interaction and participation of users in the political decision making process is assured. The 
module assesses and secures a customer orientated approach. 
 
User needs scored 35 for the City of Liverpool, implying an isolated approach to cycle policy. Looking 
at the individual scores for the various aspects associated with user needs, it is evident that 
Liverpool’s strong area is the involvement of users in the process of political decision making (which 
scored 62.5). However, how user needs are ascertained (25) and the availability of data on user 
needs (17.5) scored very low, implying an ad-hoc approach. 
 
      Question 1:  How are user needs ascertained?                                 
25
 
Liverpool gains some feedback for cycling in the city through household surveys, automatic traffic 
counters, the LCF and LTP/APR consultation.  In addition there is potential to utilise further data from 
School Travel Plans.  This may, however, create a wish list that LCC may be unable to deliver.  
There is a need for greater consultation through focus groups and interviews, together with more 
extensive monitoring resulting in a score of 25.0 (Ad-Hoc approach).   
 
      Question 2:  How is data on user needs made accessible?                                 
17.5
 
There is a standard rule for processing complaints, by which members of the public also express 
their needs as users.  However, this is limited and much more could be done.   
 
      Question 3:  How are users/groups involved?             
62.5
 
The MCC work with Liverpool City Council to improve and encourage cycling in the city.  Membership 
of the group is wide ranging and it is hoped that this will encourage a greater cycling culture in the 
future.  The city also hosts the Liverpool Cycling Forum four times a year demonstrating that 
Liverpool’s strength in this area is the involvement of users in the process of political decision 
making.   
4.1.2 
Leadership 
The ‘Leadership’ module examines the impact and commitment of politicians and chief officers on the 
quality of cycling policy. Do people in leading positions have an inspiring and motivating impact on 
cycling policy? Are they capable of taking a lead position, are they committed to the job, are they 
‘real change’ managers or are they simply isolated without any impact? 
 
It is of interest to know who is involved in the preparation of policy on the official level and to what 
extent lead officials have a clear impact on the (mobility) policy. On the political level it is also 
interesting to find out who is responsible (one person or the whole city council). Attention should also 
be paid to the existence of steering platforms, both internal and external. The way in which the user 
(group)s can have their say is also incorporated into this module. 
 
Leadership scored an overall 30.8, equating to an isolated approach.  A factor scoring relatively high 
was where the cycling policy is prepared and executed (42.5). However, the existing steering 
platforms scored just 25, as did the impact key individuals have within the political decision-making 
process, implying an ad-hoc approach, and pulling down the overall score for leadership in Liverpool. 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  11

---

 
 
 
      Question 4:  Where is the cycling policy prepared and executed?                               
42.5
 
Cycling policy for Liverpool has been made into a document by the Cycling Officer within the Council. 
However, although the preparation has been strong, its implementation is less so. 
 
      Question 5:  What impact do key individuals (both officials and politicians) have 
25
within the political decision-making process concerning cycling? 
 
Individuals in the political decision-making process currently have a very limited impact on cycling 
policy.  There is no main political advocate for cycling within the City – although a Cycling Officer is 
employed (at time of BYPAD+ questionnaire).  The introduction of a travel plan for Liverpool City 
Council, together with the possibility of a flat rate travel allowance should encourage cycle use 
among LCC employees.       
 
      Question 6:  What steering platforms exist (who participates and what subjects 
25
are dealt with)? 
 
No internal steering group currently exists.  In the past, internal steering groups have been attempted 
but without much success.  However, issues are discussed with external groups.  Greater integration 
is needed between the different groups involved, including planning, education, leisure services and 
health.   
4.1.3 
Policy on Paper 
The ‘Policy on Paper’ module examines the existing strategy for cycling policy and the way it is 
programmed. What is the context of cycling policy and to what extent is it integrated into the broader 
framework? Other points of interest are the degree of: long term planning, (obligatory) arrangements, 
use of priorities and the dealing with cross-boarder problems. 
 
Policy on paper scored very highly for Liverpool, with the highest score overall - . This means that an 
integrated approach has been taken. The content of local cycling policy scored 100, with the 
realisation of actions in policy plan scoring 75. 
 
      Question 7:  What is the content of the local cycling policy? 
100
 
The cycling policy is very comprehensive and compatible with the National Cycling Policy objectives.  
A score of 100.00 represents the highest score overall for Liverpool and shows that an integrated 
approach has been taken.   
 
      Question 8:  How is the realisation of actions in the policy plan ensured? 
75
 
The majority of actions in the policy plan are realised in the short term, but are reactive rather than 
proactive.  However, for long term actions such as those set out in the LTP, explanations have to be 
given as to why targets are not being met.  A lack of knowledge about the cycling policy acts as a 
barrier to its implementation.  The availability of an electronic version of the policy would be useful in 
overcoming this barrier.    
4.1.4 
Means and Personnel 
The ‘Means and Personnel’ module deals on the one hand with the financial aspects of the policy 
and on the other hand with the manpower that is involved in cycling policy. What are the financial 
sources for executing a cycling policy and what is done to safeguard financial continuity? Are there 
financial incentives for starting up innovative bicycle projects? How much effort is put into negotiating 
budgets for a better cycling policy? Also, the qualifications of the personnel and the possibilities for 
improving their skills are investigated. 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  12

---

 
 
 
Means and personnel scored low for Liverpool, with just 33.3. It therefore qualifies in the isolated 
approach. Safeguarding of policy financing (75) scored very highly, however, improvement of topic-
related knowledge and skills of staff (0) and available finance to support new initiatives or innovative 
projects (25) pulled down the overall score for this module. 
 
      Question 9:  How is the financing of cycling policy safeguarded? 
75
 
Approximately £300,000 is available each year for the implementation of the cycling policy.  This 
budget usually remains within cycling, with the fairly continuous financial support resulting from the 
five year LTP.  Any additional funding tends to come from European Union sources and the 
DfT/Sustrans.   
 
      Question 10:  Is finance available to support new initiatives or innovative 
25
projects? 
 
The cycling budget outlined above tends to be spent on the development of infrastructure for cycling 
and cycle promotion in the city.  At present, there are no new initiatives or innovative projects being 
funded or planned for the future and little funding available for the implementation of soft measures.  
The acceptance of bids for a set budget to fund innovative projects would stimulate greater 
engagement in cycling in Liverpool.    
 
 
     Question 11:  What is being done to improve the topic related knowledge and 
0
skills of the staff? 
 
Training for staff in Liverpool has taken place in the past, however very little seems to be available at 
present.  To improve their score, Liverpool need to ensure that training is available to all staff to 
improve their topic knowledge and skills.  Internally, there is scope for workshops and/or seminars to 
improve co-operation and co-working between different departments and to raise cycle awareness 
4.1.5 
Infrastructure Services and Safety 
Which cycling infrastructure is implemented and how is maintenance organised? Further issues 
include the orientation of the bicycle users and the measures for bicycle parking. Improving safety is 
an essential aspect of cycling policy and therefore it is given special attention in this module. The 
integration of cycling with public transport and additional services such as secure bicycle parking, 
bicycle stations etc. is also covered in this module. 
 
Again scoring poorly, infrastructure services and safety scored just 35.6; an isolated approach. Some 
higher scores were evident in this section, including improvements in orientation of bicycle users 
(72.5 – systems orientated approach), improvements in infrastructure for cycling and improvements 
in bicycle parking (both scoring 50 – isolated approach), the latter two aspects verging on gaining 
systems orientated approach status. The remaining aspects achieved very low scores, all within the 
ad-hoc category, the lowest of which was encouraging cycle use through services to cyclists (12.5) 
 
     Question 12:  What is being done to improve the infrastructure for cycling? 
50
 
Cycle routes/lanes have been introduced leading to the city centre, resulting in a score of 50.0 being 
obtained for this question. To improve the score, a more high-quality cycle network would have to be 
introduced, with links to neighbouring communities and over the city as a whole, and including a 
variety of cycling facilities (e.g. road markings, traffic regulation, speed inhibitors etc). 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  13

---

 
 
 
     Question 13:  How is the maintenance of the cycling infrastructure organised? 
25
 
Cycle lanes and off-road tracks are maintained on a routine basis, although relatively infrequently.  
There is a call centre called Liverpool Direct which allows members of the public to log complaints 
and/or inform the Council of necessary works.  These problems tend to be remedied quickly.  
Liverpool also has a street furniture maintenance programme.   
 
     Question 14:  What is being done to improve the orientation of bicycle users?           
72.5
 
Signage for the orientation of cyclists in Liverpool is at a high standard, hence the high score 
attributed to it. Main cycle routes are indicated, as well as the production of a city cycle map, 
including links to national routes that pass through the region. 
 
     Question 15:  What is being done to improve bicycle parking?                           
50
 
Bicycle parking is promoted in the city centre, although access to some cycle parking is difficult due 
to it’s location in the centre of pedestrianised areas.  In certain areas, there is a lack of cycle parking 
which needs to be addressed through the planning department at Liverpool City Council.  A 
pedestrian and cycle audit is planned to assess facilities for cyclists, including cycle parking.  Some 
cycle parking is very poorly designed and there is no protection from cycle theft. There is scope for 
improvement in cycle parking provision at the city’s rail stations.   
 
     Question 16:  What is being done to prevent bicycle theft and vandalism?                    12.5
 
The increase in cycle parking through the LTP has made storage of bicycles easier in the city and 
theft more difficult.  It is the responsibility of the cyclist to fit anti-theft devises and to lock their bike up 
correctly.  The police have been involved in preventing bicycle theft and CCTV coverage in some 
areas may deter criminal activity.  Bicycle cages have been introduced in some areas, although this 
is not practical for all locations.  The development of new facilities should consider the provision of 
secured parking in lockers or cages to improve the current score.   
 
     Question 17:  What is being done to improve safety for bicycle users?                         
25
 
It is thought that the main reason for people choosing not to cycle in Liverpool is perception of safety, 
which is a real barrier.  Due to the increases of traffic and vehicle speed, cycle lanes are of limited 
benefit in improving safety.   
 
     Question 18:  What is being done to optimise the combination of public transport 
37.5
and cycling? 
 
There is free cycle carriage at all times of the day on Mersey Travel.  Some bicycle lockers are 
provided at Hunts Cross and Station.  However, there is poor quality interchange between the station 
at Hunts Cross and the cycle network which deters cycle use.  The presence of steps around many 
stations also makes cycle access very difficult. This could be improved through the introduction of 
wheel ramps.  There is also the potential to introduce cycle parking at future tram stops.   
 
     Question 19:  What is being done to encourage cycle use through services to 
12.5
bicycle users? 
 
At present, bicycle shops in the city provide the only primary service to bicycle users in Liverpool.  
However, there are not many shops available, partially as a result of the current lack of demand and 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  14

---

 
 
low levels of cycling.  There is scope for the development of a good cycle repair shop, as well as a 
bike regeneration or recycling scheme for young people. 
4.1.6 
Communication and Education 
Communication is divided into two important topics. Communication of facts and arguments to find 
and support new actors who contribute to the cycling policy on the one hand; how is the municipality 
communicating its cycling policy? On the other hand, the question of how the image of cycling is 
promoted is important. The educational part is given attention by asking for the initiatives regarding 
education and cycle training. 
Communication and education in Liverpool scored just 18.8, the lowest score overall in the audit; 
signifying that an ad-hoc approach is taken.  
 
     Question 20:  How is the cycling policy communicated to decision makers and 
12.5
(potential) actors? 
 
Currently, little is done concerning communicating cycling policy to decision-makers and employees 
of the council in Liverpool, usually on an ad-hoc basis. To improve in this area, cycling policy needs 
to be communicated to other departments on a regular basis, rather than when needed. 
 
     Question 21:  What is being done to improve the image of cycling? 
25
 
There is scope to promote cycling further as a mode of transport within the city, particularly due to 
the low levels of car ownership.  Ideas for improving the image of cycling include competitions, 
collaborations with football clubs, promotion through the free city newspaper, and the re-launch of a 
car-free day for Liverpool.  There are efforts within the city to promote sustainable mobility through 
programmes such as  CATCH (Clean Accessible Transport for Community Health) funded by the 
European Union.  Travelwise also work to promote cycling and sustainable transport across the 
Merseyside Region.  Information is provided to housing developers/developments giving information 
about alternatives to car ownership and use in Liverpool.   
 
     Question 22:  What initiatives are taken to encourage life-long cycle use? 
12.5
 
The health benefits of cycling should be used here, primarily targeting schools. Currently,  ‘How to 
get to …’ guides are available for schools and hospitals.  Travel packs could be given to children 
moving to secondary schools and cycle training given within schools.  Younger children can also be 
targeted, although there is an image problem with cycling in the city.  Barriers are likely to included 
liability issues, especially with younger children.  People moving into the city could also be targeted, 
in conjunction with residential parking restrictions.   
 
 
     Question 23:  What is being done concerning education and cycle training? 
25
 
Currently, the City Council only offers off road skills training to primary aged school children.  They 
are seeking to develop road training for primary school children but so far none has been 
implemented. This is a potential action for the future.     
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  15

---

 
 
4.1.7 
Target Groups and Partnerships 
This module focuses on how the municipal cycling policy addresses specific target groups and 
involves or co-operates with the corresponding partners. What measures are being taken to 
encourage cycling to work, to school, shopping by bike etc. and how are local employers, schools 
and collages, retailers etc involved? Are there any measures in place to stimulate ‘lifelong cycling’? 
 
Target groups and partnerships scored 35.8 in Liverpool; an isolated approach. More needs to be 
done to promote cycling to work by employers and schools (scored just 25) which would increase the 
overall score. Improvements are also necessary to promote cycling to leisure sites (scoring 32.5) 
 
     Question 24:  What is being done to encourage officials to cycle to work? 
25
 
The development of a travel plan for Liverpool City Council aims to address this issue.  Current 
barriers to cycling to work include lack of end of trip facilities, traffic levels and a lack of safe and 
accessible routes.  Cycle use on Council Officers visits is discouraged due to time issues and funding 
has been withdrawn as a result.  Council Officers do have to pay for parking and there has been 
some modal shift as a result.  However Council Members can claim cycle mileage allowance for 
official use of their cycle in the course of work.  
 
     Question 25:  What is being done to promote cycling to work among local 
42.5
employers? 
 
More could be done in Liverpool to promote cycling to work amongst local employers. This includes 
city wide competitions or campaigns to identify cycle-friendly employers, and promote the benefits 
(health – individual and public) of cycling.   
 
     Question 26:  What is being done to promote cycling to school? 
25
 
Some schools are very keen to promote cycling to school and cycle parking has been implemented.  
At present, no formal cycle training has been given, although eight schools have adopted Travel 
Plans with another 17 under development.  These Travel Plans are mainly in the south of the city.  
The level of support is dependent on the views and involvement of head teachers and other staff 
members.  Currently, buses are used to take children to school within cycling distance due to 
perceived safety issues.  Walking and cycling initiatives would be useful in overcoming these safety 
issues.  As mentioned above, Liverpool are also in the process of developing on-road training for 
school-aged children and more promotional work is needed.         
 
     Question 27:  What is being done to promote cycling to leisure sites?     
32.5
 
This is an area of provision that is improving in Liverpool.  The majority of leisure sites now have 
cycle parking with Sheffield stands, although there are no plans to increase this provision in the 
future.  Some leisure centres within the city are linked to the cycle network, with the majority included 
in the planned network.   
 
     Question 28:  What is being done to promote shopping by bike?     
45
 
There is currently adequate provision of cycle parking within the city centre in pedestrianised areas, 
close to shopping facilities. However, to further improve the score for this question, Liverpool would 
have to use campaigns to encourage cycling for shopping purposes, as well as ensuring that cyclists 
have equal or better access to shopping facilities than those travelling by car (directness etc) 
 
     Question 29:  What measures are taken to promote family biking? 
45
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  16

---

 
 
Merseyside TravelWise promote cycling for the family with their Bike Time family rides which take 
place throughout the year.  Details of these rides are posted on the Travelwise website which helps 
raise awareness.   
4.1.8 
Complementary Activities 
This module deals with activities or decisions beyond ‘pure’ cycling policy that can have an effect on 
cycle use. Two aspects are included. What is being done to curb car use and how are the health 
effects of cycling used to encourage cycle use? There are different policy domains that indirectly 
affect cycle use and therefore it is important to focus on these domains in order to avoid 
counterproductive effects. 
 
Complimentary activities scored 25 overall, which is an ad-hoc approach, bordering on an isolated 
approach. Both measures to curb car use in Liverpool and the use of health effects to support cycling 
policy scored just 25. 
 
     Question 30:  What is being done to curb car use? 
25
 
The city centre used to suffer from high levels of illegal parking which created a need for additional 
car parking provision.  Car parking charges in Liverpool are low meaning they do not act as a 
disincentive to car use.  It is a perception of the council that regeneration and reduction in car use 
cannot take place simultaneously.   As a result, there remains much scope for the development of 
car free residential developments and controlled parking zones.   
 
A Car Parking Strategy is currently in development which will assess the effect of the City Centre 
Movement Strategy on the overall availability of car parking in the city.  This will include issues such 
as Park & Ride and on / off street car parking.    
 
     Question 31:  How are the positive health effects from cycling used to support 
25
cycling policy?                             
 
The health benefits of cycling provide a key factor to support and promote cycling policy in Liverpool.  
This is particularly relevant in light of the current obesity crisis in the UK.  The Cycling Officer needs 
to develop links with local Primary Care Trusts in order to introduce localised initiatives.  Links can be 
drawn between health and other departments in the promotion of cycling to adults.  Projects such as 
Health Start and REACT (Regeneration through Environmental Action) are already in place.   The 
Health Impact Assessment for the LTP and support for cycling in the City Health Plan mean that the 
basis is already there but needs to be built on.   
4.1.9 
Evaluation and Effects 
The ‘evaluation and effects’ module focuses on the way the results of cycling policy are followed up 
and the method in which this information is used to make further improvements to cycling policy. The 
actual effects of cycling policy form the second important subject of this module. How does the 
municipality measure the effects of its policy? How is the quality of the process safeguarded? With 
regard to the effects: how is bicycle use monitored and how are safety levels measured?  
 
Evaluation and effects scored 36.3; an isolated approach. The collection and use of safety related 
data was found to be good (32.5) and taking an isolated approach. However, measuring the effects 
of cycling policy (12.5) scored very low, implying an ad-hoc approach is taken. Safeguarding the 
quality of projects and actions (50.0) and the monitoring of bicycle use (50.0) are both bordering on 
the system-orientated approach to cycle policy.  
 
     Question 32:  How are the effects of cycling policy measured? 
12.5
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  17

---

 
 
MIS counts are carried out and reported back in the Annual Progress Review (part of the LTP 
process).  The targets include:  
•  Length of new cycleways (to include cycle paths and routes);  
•  Cycle parking at public transport sites; 
•  Cyclist casualties; and  
•  No of cycling trips. 
 
Targets are contained within the cycling strategy, but satisfaction surveys related to cycling in their 
entirety are not carried out, it is generally combined with LTP and APR consultation.   
 
     Question 33:  How is the quality of projects and actions safeguarded? 
50
 
At present, there is no formal framework in place to ensure the quality of projects and actions are 
safeguarded, the responsibility lies with individuals. A framework needs to be developed within which 
evaluation of data of earlier projects are consulted for the current project, and projects are part of an 
action plan and are ranked according to priority.    
 
     Question 34:  How is bicycle use monitored? 
50
 
The council has installed four permanent automatic counters which will provide statistics for the 
analysis of bicycle use.  However, there is much more in this area that Liverpool would like to do, 
including further permanent and manual counters.  The Council realise that there is scope to do 
much more and that the consistency of data collection needs to be maintained.  The LTP county-
wide household surveys can be inaccurate.  Improvement of monitoring would help to justify 
spending on cycling in the city.  There is also the need to carry out origin/destination surveys, which 
should have been carried out in the past.  There is the potential to involve geography 
teaching/students from schools and universities in Liverpool in conducting cycling surveys and other 
data collection.   
 
     Question 35:  How does the municipality collect and use safety-related data? 
32.5
 
The main method of collection for safety related data is STATS 19.  There is the need for greater 
monitoring, as under-monitoring and hot spots already deter cycling.  The collection of perception 
data would allow the council to identify areas where people do not cycle and why.  This could provide 
valuable data in helping to increase cycling levels, but would be labour intensive and time 
consuming.  The Liverpool Cycling Strategy already states targets for safety.     
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  18

---

 
 
4.2 
BYPAD+ OVERALL RATING FOR LIVERPOOL 
Overall, cycling policy in Liverpool scored 37.6 out of 100, meaning that, assessed according to the 
BYPAD+ process, an isolated approach towards cycling policy is currently taken. Ideally, Liverpool 
should initially aim to improve its score to 51+, indicating a system-orientated approach is taken 
towards cycling policy rather than an isolated approach. Through the BYPAD+ methodology process, 
areas where efforts should be concentrated to improve scores have been identified. Those areas 
which score 25 or under (ad-hoc approach) include: 
•  Ascertaining data on user needs  (25.0) 
•  Accessibility of data on user needs (17.5) 
•  Impact of key individuals within the political decision-making process (25.0) 
•  Existing steering platforms (25.0) 
•  Available finance to support new initiatives or innovative projects (25.0) 
•  Improvement of topic relate knowledge and skills of staff (0.0) 
•  Prevention of bicycle theft and vandalism (12.5) 
•  Encouraging cycle use through services to cyclists (12.5) 
•  Organisation of cycle infrastructure maintenance (25.0) 
•  Improvements in bicycle user safety (25.0) 
•  Increasing the image of cycling (25.0) 
•  Initiatives to encourage life long cycling (12.5) 
•  Education and cycle training (25.0) 
•  Communication of policy to decision makers and actors (12.5) 
•  Encouragement of officials to cycle to work (25.0) 
•  Promotion of cycling to school (25.0) 
•  Measures to curb car use (25.0) 
•  Use of health effects to support cycling (25.0) 
•  Measuring the effects of the cycling policy (12.5) 
 
Selected areas will be looked at in more detail in the objectives and measures section in order to 
create individual actions to improve these aspects of the cycling policy. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  19

---

 
 
5  SETTING OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES 
The BYPAD+ audit process identified that cycling policy in Liverpool is currently taking an isolated 
approach. There are a number of modules that should be prioritised when identifying improvements 
in preparation for the cycling policy quality plan. These aspects include Communication and 
Education (18.8), Complimentary Activities (25.0) and Leadership (30.8). The module on Policy on 
Paper scored highly (87.5), and therefore needs little consideration in the near future when creating 
the cycling policy quality plan. 
 
The next step of the audit process is to create a cycling policy quality plan. The following points are 
essential for inclusion in the plan: 
1.  Determining improvement goals on the basis of the audit process 
2.  Setting out a priority list 
3.  Identifying the people responsible for implementing goal improvements 
4. Identifying 
employees 
and departments involved 
5.  Defining a time schedule for implementing objectives with opportunities for interim evaluation 
6.  Setting out a budget for realising the improvement goals 
 
These actions were discussed in a second meeting with the Liverpool evaluation group. The results 
of the interim report were relayed and discussion surrounded those areas of cycling policy in 
Liverpool that had been prioritised (low-scores) and setting objectives and targets for improvements.  
This section will demonstrate the objectives and targets set for each of the prioritised cycle policy 
areas.  
 
Although the process identified a number of areas for improvement, due to time and resource 
constraints and cycle resources, six questions were identified during the BYPAD process as being 
priorities in the development of the Cycling Quality Plan for Liverpool. These are: 
 
•  Question 5: What impact do key individuals (both officials and politicians) have within the 
political decision-making process concerning cycling? 
•  Question 11: What is being done to improve the topic-related knowledge and skills of staff? 
•  Question 16: What is being done to prevent bicycle theft and vandalism?                                 
•  Question 20: How is the cycling policy communicated to decision makers and (potential) 
actors? 
•  Question 22: What initiatives are taken to encourage life long cycle use? 
•  Question 32: How are the effects of cycling policy measured? 
 
Sections 5.1 to 5.7 discuss the objectives and measures identified through consultation with the 
evaluation group during the second BYPAD process meeting. For each area, an objective pro-forma 
shown, as used in the second stakeholder meeting (see Appendix A for Summary Sheets). 
 
 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  20

---

 
 
5.1 
THE IMPACT KEY INDIVIDUALS HAVE WITHIN THE POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING 
PROCESS CONCERNING CYCLING (LEADERSHIP MODULE, QUESTION 5) 
The evaluation group identified that individuals in the decision-making process currently have a very 
limited impact on cycling policy in Liverpool. This led to a poor score for this aspect of leadership of 
just 25.0, an ad-hoc approach. A target was set of achieving a score of at least 26.0, an isolated 
approach. The objective is to increase the impact of key individuals on the decision-making 
process. In terms of priority, it was decided that this objective was ‘High’. There are positive 
synergies with existing steering platforms. Possible opposition has been identified as the need to 
review any conflicting view in policy documentation. The preconditions necessary to achieve this 
objective include the appointment of a Cycling Officer, and the identification of funding mechanisms. 
 
To achieve this objective, target measures include raising the profile of politicians and officers 
involved in cycling policy implementation through effective marketing, e.g. local newsletter/press. It is 
intended that this target will be achieved by the end of March, 2005, and the main actor responsible 
for its implementation is likely to be the cycling policy officer, supported by the Transport Policy Team 
and the Service Manager. Further actors include the council press office/marketing department and 
Merseyside TravelWise. Sources of funding are yet to be identified, but are likely to be Cycling 
Officer resources. 
 
A second target measure is to ensure representation of cycling interests within departmental 
meetings and forums. It is intended that this measure will be achieved by March 2005, and the main 
actor responsible for its implementation will be the Cycling Officer, supported by the Departmental 
head. Further actors include the council press/marketing. Sources of funding are yet to be identified, 
but are likely to be Cycling Officer resources. 
5.2 
IMPROVING THE TOPIC RELATED KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS OF STAFF (MEANS AND 
PERSONNEL, QUESTION 11) 
The evaluation group identified that although some limited topic related training had been given to 
staff, very little is currently being done. This led to a 0.0 score for this aspect of leadership, an ad-hoc 
approach. A target was set of achieving a score of at least 26.0, an isolated approach. The objective 
is to pave the way to improving the topic-related knowledge and skills of staff. In terms of 
priority, it was decided that this objective was ‘Medium’. The preconditions necessary to achieve this 
objective include the appointment of a Cycling Officer, and the identification of funding mechanisms. 
 
To achieve this objective, a target measure is to raise the issues with the scrutiny group. It is 
intended that this target will be achieved in the medium term with the main actors being local 
Councilors (currently John Coyne), MSTPC Members and the Executive Member for Regeneration. 
 
The second target measure is to produce a cycle design guide for Liverpool, focusing on planning for 
traffic engineers highlighting the needs of cyclists.  It is intended that this target will be achieved in 
the short to medium term and the main actor responsible for its implementation will be Liverpool City 
Council. A source of funding is the LTP. 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  21

---

 
 
5.3 
PREVENTION OF BICYCLE THEFT AND VANDALISM (INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVICES 
AND SAFETY MODULE, QUESTION 16) 
The evaluation group identified that the increase in cycle parking through the LTP has made storage 
of bicycles easier in the city and theft more difficult.  It is the responsibility of the cyclist to fit anti-theft 
devices and to lock their bike up correctly.  The police have been involved in preventing bicycle theft 
and CCTV coverage in some areas may deter criminal activity.  Enclosed bicycle ‘cages’/storage 
have been introduced in some areas, although this is not practical for all locations. This led to a score 
of 12.50, an ad-hoc approach. A target was set of achieving a score of at least 26.0, an isolated 
approach. The objective is to reduce theft and vandalism of bicycles in Liverpool. In terms of 
priority, it was decided that this objective was ‘Low-Medium’. Possible barriers to achieving the target 
measures have been identified as the police and the possible time/resources that would be required 
of them. The preconditions necessary to achieve this objective include the appointment of a Cycling 
Officer, and the identification of funding mechanisms. 
 
To achieve this objective, target measures include the utilisation of the presence of CCTV in the city 
centre locations by approaching policy and requesting increased monitoring. It is intended that this 
target will be achieved in the medium term, and the main actor responsible for its implementation is 
likely to be Chair of the LCF (currently Councillor Paula Keaveney, formally John Coyne) and 
Liverpool City Council. Further actors include the local police.  
 
A second target measure is to ensure cycle parking stands are provided in secure/overlooked 
locations, which will be an ongoing target measure. The main actor responsible for its implementation 
will be the Cycling Officer with assistance from Merseyrail. Funding will be provided via the LTP. 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  22

---

 
 
 
Prevention of Cycle Theft and Vandalism 
 
In providing secure cycle parking, Liverpool needs to consider the following (in relation to lockers in 
particular but generally applicable): 
•  Security (resistant to external attack, secure locking mechanism , graffiti and vandal 
resistant) 
•  Ease of Operation (dedicated use - 1, 3 or 6 month agreement, low administration, access to 
the lockers if required) 
•  Efficient use of space  
•  Low maintenance  
•  Minimal installation time and expense  
•  Reasonable cost over the full long-term life of the product  
 
Providers also need to consider the needs of cyclists. For example, commuters may require a safe 
storage place for (increasingly) expensive bicycles, guaranteed availability of a storage space, ability 
to leave equipment on the bike, such as panniers, pump, lights, tools, cycle-computer, helmet, 
waterproofs, convenient for work-place or destination, ie. near to main entrances, showers etc, 
reasonable cost (if any) and simple payment mechanism, and confidence in locker security and use. 
 
Other ideas include: 
•  Incorporation of cycling into new developments: 
o 
redesign areas resulting in improved surveillance of parks and streets, buildings 
(Delft Neighbourhood Project). 
o Home 
zones 
•  Use of local media 
•  Involve local Neighbourhood Watch / Police / Town Centre Managers / Local bike retailers in 
designing appropriate initiatives – Round table style 
• Local 
sponsorship 
•  Develop leaflet on how to prevent bicycle theft – detail benefits of cycle parking installed 
•  Liaise with police over registering bicycles 
•  Involve young people / likely offenders 
•  Investigate the possibility of locating cycle parking in conjunction with pedestrian initiatives 
i.e. CCTV / natural surveillance 
 
5.4 
COMMUNICATING CYCLING POLICY TO DECISION MAKERS AND (POTENTIAL) 
ACTORS (COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION MODULE, QUESTION 20) 
The evaluation group identified that cycling policy in Liverpool is poorly communicated to decision 
makers and (potential) actors. This led to a score of 12.50, an ad-hoc approach. A target was set of 
achieving a score of at least 26.0, an isolated approach. The objective is to increase policy 
awareness amongst decision-makers and potential actors. In terms of priority, it was decided 
that this objective was ‘Medium-High’. Positive synergies have been identified with existing transport 
forums. The preconditions necessary to achieve this objective include the appointment of a Cycling 
Officer, and the identification of funding mechanisms. 
 
To achieve this objective, target measures include approaching the marketing department to 
ascertain the possibility of awareness raising schemes. It is intended that this target will be achieved 
in the short-medium term, and the main actor responsible for its implementation is likely to be 
Liverpool City Council. Further actors include Councilors (such as John Coyne and Paula Keaveney 
as chair of LCF) and Merseyside TravelWise. LTP funding will be used.  
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  23

---

 
 
A second target measure is to invite decision-makers and potential actors to the annual cycling road 
show (if not done already) to raise awareness. Again, this will be intended to be achieved in the 
short-medium term. The main actor responsible for its implementation will be Liverpool City Council 
with Merseyside TravelWise. Possible financing is from the LTP process.  
5.5 
INITIATIVES TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE LIFE LONG CYCLE USE (COMMUNICATION AND 
EDUCATION MODULE, QUESTION 22) 
The evaluation group identified that limited measures are being taken to encourage lifelong cycling in 
Liverpool, and therefore much more needs to be done. A score of 12.50, an ad-hoc approach, was 
therefore attributed to this question. A target was set of achieving a score of at least 26.0, an isolated 
approach. The objective is to promote/encourage life long cycling in Liverpool. In terms of 
priority, it was decided that this objective was ‘Medium-High’. Positive synergies have been identified 
with current Safer Routes to Schools initiative being carried out in the city. The preconditions 
necessary to achieve this objective include the appointment of a Cycling Officer, and the 
identification of funding mechanisms. 
 
To achieve this objective, target measures include the provision of adult cycle training. It is intended 
that this target will be achieved in the medium-long term, and the main actor responsible for its 
implementation is likely to be Liverpool City Council with Merseyside TravelWise. LTP funding will be 
used to finance this.  
 
A second target measure is to publicise the benefits of cycling through marketing campaigns (e.g. 
cycling road show, leaflets etc). Again, this will be achieved in the medium-long term. The main actor 
responsible for its implementation will be Liverpool City Council. As with the first measure, LTP 
funding will finance this. 
 
 
Encouraging Life Long Cycling 
 
It is key that Liverpool considers the following when trying to encourage life long cycling within the 
City: •  Work towards dispelling myths about topography, weather etc. 
•  Use cyclists in Council promotional events and literature 
•  Liaise with Recreation Officer to develop and promote cycling activities in association with 
cycling clubs 
•  Offer ‘Cycle Friendly Employer Awards’ for employers that provide their staff with showers, 
secure cycle parking, lockers and allowances for work trips undertaken by bicycle etc. 
•  Special offers on bikes for cycling to work. 
•  Develop links with other organization such as the police, post office etc. to promote cycling. 
• Schools 
liaison 
•  Working with other groups   
• Local 
media 
• Local 
incentives 
 
5.6 
MEASURING THE EFFECTS OF CYCLING POLICY (EVALUATION AND EFFECTS 
MODULE, QUESTION 32) 
MIS counts are carried out and reported back in the Annual Progress Review (part of the LTP 
process).  The targets include:  
•  Length of new cycleways (to include cycle paths and routes);  
•  Cycle parking at public transport sites; 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  24

---

 
 
•  Cyclist casualties; and  
•  No of cycling trips. 
 
Targets are contained within the cycling strategy, but satisfaction surveys related to cycling in their 
entirety are not carried out, it is generally combined with LTP and APR consultation.   
 
The evaluation group identified that limited measures are being taken to measure the effects of 
cycling policy. A score of 12.50, an ad-hoc approach, was therefore attributed to this question. A 
target was set of achieving a score of at least 26.0, an isolated approach. The objective is to realise 
the objectives in the CTC benchmarking action plan. In terms of priority, it was decided that this 
objective was ‘High’. Positive synergies have been identified with the BYPAD+ process. The 
preconditions necessary to achieve this objective include the appointment of a Cycling Officer. 
 
To achieve this objective, a target measure is to identify monitoring requirements of the CTC 
benchmarking action plan and identify resources to monitor aspects of this plan. This has a time 
horizon of mid-2005 to be taken forward by the Cycling Officer with support from Transport Policy 
Team Leader and Transportation Services Manager. 
 
An additional target measure is to set up 6-monthly evaluation periods to review meeting cycling 
policy objectives and set new targets. Again, this will be intended to be achieved by mid-2005. The 
main actor responsible for its implementation will be the Cycling Officer with support from Transport 
Policy Team Leader and Transportation Services Manager, financed by the LTP. 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  25

---

 
 
6  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
Scores were attributed to each aspect of current cycling policy in Liverpool by members of the 
evaluation group. These scores were: 
 
Table 6.1: Summary of Module Scores 
 
Score Meaning 
Module 
Score 
0-25 
Ad-hoc approach 
Communication and education  
18.8 
Complimentary activities  
25 
26-50 
Isolated approach 
Leadership  
30.8 
Means and Personnel  
33.3 
User Needs  
35 
Infrastructure services and safety  
35.6 
Target groups and partnerships  
35.8 
Evaluation and effects  
36.3 
51-75 
System orientated 
 … 
approach 
76-100 
Integrated approach 
Policy on paper  
87.5 
 
 
The overall score for Liverpool was 37.6, an isolated approach. This implies that there is already a 
cycling policy in place, but this policy is isolated from other policy fields such as mobility, spatial 
planning and environment. Good infrastructure is the main concern of the policy, although some 
supplementary activities are undertaken. The cycling policy is characterised by: 
•  Some use of data and some knowledge of the cyclists’ needs and priorities; 
•  Global agreements with a limited compulsory character (task setting) 
•  Decisions are often made which are counterproductive because of a lack of tuning with other 
policy fields; 
•  Continuity in cycling policy is not guaranteed 
 
Six questions which obtained low scores, or were considered important to focus on by the City, were 
selected to prioritise in the cycling policy action plan. These were: 
 
•  Question 5: What impact do key individuals (both officials and politicians) have within the 
political decision-making process concerning cycling? 
•  Question 11: What is being done to improve the topic-related knowledge and skills of staff?  
•  Question 16: What is being done to prevent bicycle theft and vandalism?                                 
•  Question 20: How is the cycling policy communicated to decision makers and (potential) 
actors? 
•  Question 22: What initiatives are taken to encourage life long cycle use? 
•  Question 32: How are the effects of cycling policy measured? 
 
Objectives and measures have been set for each of these questions, including target scores, the 
identification of possible funding sources, synergies and possible opposition to the objectives, time 
scales and main actors responsible for implementation. A summary of the Cycling Quality Plan 
objectives is given in Table 6.2.
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  26

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6.2: Summary of Cycling Quality Plan 
 
Time Horizon 
Objective 
Target measures 
Main Actors 
Current Score 
Target level 
Short - Medium 
To increase policy awareness 
Approach marketing department to 
Liverpool City 
Ad-hoc – 12.50 
Isolated - 
amongst decision-makers and 
ascertain possibility of awareness 
Council 
26.0+ 
potential actors 
raising schemes 
Short - Medium 
To increase policy awareness 
Invite decision-makers and potential 
Liverpool City 
Ad-hoc – 12.50 
Isolated - 
amongst decision-makers and 
actors to the annual cycling road show 
Council 
26.0+ 
potential actors 
(if not done already) to raise 
awareness 
Medium 
To reduce theft and vandalism 
Utilise the presence of CCTV more in 
Liverpool City 
Ad-hoc – 12.5 
Isolated - 
of bicycles in Liverpool 
the City Centre locations by 
Council (Cycling 
26.0+ 
approaching the police and requesting 
Officer), John 
increased monitoring 
Coyne / Paula 
Keaveney 
Medium 
To pave the way to improving 
Raise issues with the Scrutiny Group 
Councillors John 
Ad-hoc – 0.0 
Isolated – 
the topic-related knowledge 
Coyne/ Paula 
26.0+ 
and skills of staff 
Keaveney 
March 2005 
To increase the impact of key 
Raise the profile of politicians and 
Cycling Officer 
Ad-hoc – 25.0 
Isolated – 
individuals on the decision-
officers involved in cycling policy 
supported by 
26.0+ 
making process 
implementation through effective 
departmental 
marketing, e.g. local newsletter/press 
head 
March 2005 
To increase the impact of key 
Ensure representation of cycling within  Cycling Officer 
Ad-hoc – 25.0 
Isolated – 
individuals on the decision-
departmental meetings and forums 
supported by 
26.0+ 
making process 
departmental 
head 
Mid 2005 
To ensure consistent and 
Setup 6-monthly evaluation periods to 
Cycling Officer 
Ad-hoc – 12.5 
Isolated - 
comprehensive monitoring of 
review meeting cycling policy 
26.0+ 
policy is carried out 
objectives and set new targets 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
 
27 

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Time Horizon 
Objective 
Target measures 
Main Actors 
Current Score 
Target level 
Medium – Long  
To pave the way to improving 
To produce a design cycle guide for 
Liverpool City 
Ad-hoc – 0.0 
Isolated – 
the topic-related knowledge 
Liverpool, focusing on planning for 
Council 
26.0+ 
and skills of staff 
traffic engineers highlighting the needs 
of cyclists 
Medium – Long  
To promote/encourage long life 
Provision of adult cycle training 
Liverpool City 
Ad-hoc – 12.5 
Isolated - 
cycling in Liverpool 
Council 
26.0+ 
Medium – Long  
To promote/encourage long life 
Publicise the benefits of cycling 
Liverpool City 
Ad-hoc – 12.5 
Isolated - 
cycling in Liverpool 
through marketing campaigns (e.g. 
Council 
26.0+ 
cycling road show, leaflets etc) 
Ongoing 
To reduce theft and vandalism 
Ensure cycle parking stands are 
Cycling Officer 
Ad-hoc – 12.5 
Isolated - 
of bicycles in Liverpool 
provided in secure/overlooked 
26.0+ 
locations 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
 
28 

---

 
 
The BYPAD+ process can be repeated in order to monitor progress in achieving the objectives set 
out in the quality plan. This will determine whether Liverpool is on its way to achieving an overall 
score of 51.0+, a system-orientated approach, rather than the current isolated approach to cycling 
policy. This process could be repeated annually. 
 
Liverpool will need to overcome barriers of identifying financial resources in order to achieve the aims 
and objectives highlighted by the BYPAD+ process. Possible sources discussed include: 
 
•  Continued use of LTP funding; 
•  Primary Care Trusts (PCT) may be a potential source of funding, especially for schemes 
such as Cycling on Prescription and health campaigns 
 
This process has enabled Liverpool to a way forward with a need to work with other departments and 
organisations and to consider areas of priority, as set out in the quality plan. 
 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  29

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX A: BYPAD OBJECTIVE AND MEASURES PRO-FORMA SHEETS 
 
Objectives and Measures 
Proposals of the evaluation group,
Module: Leadership 
No. and question in the questionnaire: 5. What impact 
Achieved level: Ad-hoc – 25.0 Target 
level: Isolated – 26.0+ 
do key individuals have within the political decision 
making process? 
Objectives: 
Priority Time 
horizon 
Positive Synergies with Possible opposition 
Preconditions 
needed 
To increase the impact of key individuals  High Medium  Existing 
steering 
Need to review any 
Appointment of a 
on the decision-making process 
platforms 
conflicting view in policy 
Cycling Officer; 
documentation 
Identification of 
funding 
mechanisms 
Target measures 
Time horizon 
Main actor 
Further actors 
Possible 
financing 
Raise the profile of politicians and officers involved in 
March 2005 
Cycling Officer, 
Council press 
To be identified – 
cycling policy implementation through effective marketing, 
supported by Transport 
office/marketing 
expected low 
e.g. local newsletter/press 
Policy and departmental 
cost (Cycling 
head 
Officer 
resources) 
Ensure representation of cycling within departmental 
March 2005 
Cycling Officer, 
Council press 
To be identified – 
meetings and forums 
supported by Transport 
office/marketing 
expected low 
Policy and departmental 
cost (Cycling 
head 
Officer 
resources) 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
 
30 

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
 
31 

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objectives and Measures 
Proposals of the evaluation group,
Module: Means and Personnel 
No. and question in the questionnaire: 11. What is being  Achieved level: Ad-hoc – 0.0 Target 
level: Isolated – 26.0+ 
done to improve the topic-related knowledge and skills of 
staff 
Objectives: 
Priority Time 
horizon 
Positive Synergies 
Possible opposition  Preconditions needed 
with 
To pave the way to improving the 
Medium Medium-Long 
 
 
Appointment of a Cycling 
topic-related knowledge and skills 
Officer; Identification of 
of staff 
funding mechanisms 
Target measures 
Time horizon 
Main actor 
Further actors 
Possible financing 
Raise issues with the Scruitiny group 
Medium 
Councillor John Coyne 
Chair of the LCF   
N/A 
Paula Keaveney 
MSTPC Members 
Executive Member for 
Regeneration  
 
To produce a design cycle guide for Liverpool, focusing on 
Medium-Long 
Liverpool City Council 
LCF, MCC.  
LTP 
planning for traffic engineers highlighting the needs of 
cyclists 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
 
32 

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objectives and Measures 
Proposals of the evaluation group,
Module: Infrastructure, Services and Safety 
No. and question in the questionnaire: 16. What is being 
Achieved level:  Ad-hoc – 12.50 Target 
level:  Isolated – 26.0+ 
done to prevent bicycle theft and vandalism? 
Objectives: 
Priority Time 
horizon 
Positive Synergies 
Possible opposition 
Preconditions 
with 
needed 
To reduce theft and vandalism of bicycles in 
Low-Medium 
Medium 
 
Police – time and 
Appointment of a 
Liverpool 
resources 
Cycling Officer; 
Identification of 
funding mechanisms 
Target measures 
Time horizon 
Main actor 
Further actors 
Possible financing 
Utilise the presence of CCTV more in the City Centre 
Medium 
Liverpool City Council 
Police Mixed 
funding 
locations by approaching policy and requesting increased 
monitoring 
Councillor John Coyne / 
Paula Keaveney   
Ensure cycle parking stands are provided in 
Ongoing 
Cycling Officer 
MerseyRail 
LTP  
secure/overlooked locations 
 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
 
33 

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objectives and Measures 
Proposals of the evaluation group,
Module: Communication and Education 
No. and question in the questionnaire: 20. How is the 
Achieved level: Ad-hoc - 12.50 
Target level: Isolated – 26.0+ 
cycling policy communicated to decision makers and  
(potential) actors? 
Objectives: 
Priority Time 
horizon 
Positive Synergies with Possible 
Preconditions 
opposition 
needed 
To increase policy awareness amongst 
Medium-High  Short-medium 
Existing transport forums   
Appointment of a 
decision makers and potential actors 
Cycling Officer; 
through SPD in 
Transport, 
Identification of 
funding mechanisms 
Target measures 
Time horizon 
Main actor 
Further actors 
Possible financing 
Approach marketing department to ascertain possibility of 
Short-Medium 
Liverpool City Council 
John Coyne / Paula 
LTP top slice 
awareness raising schemes 
Keaveney 
Merseyside 
TravelWise 
Invite decision-makers and potential actors to the annual 
Short-Medium 
Liverpool City Council 
Merseyside 
LTP 
cycling roadshow (if not done already) to raise awareness 
TravelWise 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
 
34 

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objectives and Measures 
Proposals of the evaluation group,
Module: Communication and Education 
No. and question in the questionnaire: 22. What initiatives  Achieved level: Ad-hoc – 12.50 Target 
level: Isolated – 26.0+ 
are taken to encourage life long cycling? 
Objectives: 
Priority Time 
horizon 
Positive Synergies with Possible 
Preconditions needed 
opposition 
To promote/encourage long life cycling in 
Medium-High  Medium 
Current Safer Routes to 
 
Appointment of a Cycling 
Liverpool 
Schools initiative been 
Officer; Identification of 
carried out in the city 
funding mechanisms 
Target measures 
Time horizon 
Main actor 
Further actors 
Possible financing 
Provision of adult cycling training 
Medium/Long 
Liverpool City Council 
Merseyside 
LTP top slice  
TravelWise 
Publisise the benefits of cycling through marketing 
Medium/Long 
Liverpool City Council 
Merseyside 
LTP 
campaigns (e.g. cycling roadshow, leaflets etc) 
TravelWise 
 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
 
35 

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objectives and Measures 
Proposals of the evaluation group,
Module: Evaluation and Effects 
No. and question in the questionnaire: 32. How are the 
Achieved level: Ad hoc – 12.50 
Target level: Isolated – 26.0+ 
effects of cycling policy measured? 
Objectives: 
Priority Time 
horizon 
Positive Synergies with Possible 
Preconditions needed 
opposition 
To realise the objectives in the CTC 
High Medium-Long 
BYPAD+ 
process 
 
Appointment of a 
benchmarking action plan 
Cycling Officer; 
Identification of funding 
mechanisms 
Target measures 
Time horizon 
Main actor 
Further actors 
Possible financing 
Identify monitoring requirements of CTC benchmarking action  Mid-2005 
Cycling Officer 
Transport Policy 
LTP 
plan – identify resources to monitor aspects of this plan 
Team Leader and 
Transporation 
Services Manager 
Set up 6-monthly evaluation periods to review meeting 
Mid-2005 
Cycling Officer 
Transport Policy 
LTP 
cycling policy objects and set new targets 
Team Leader and 
Transporation 
Services Manager 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
 
36 

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORT BICYCLE AUDIT IN LIVERPOOL 
  37

---

Document Outline

• ��
• ��
  • ��
• ��
• ��
  • ��
    • ��
    • ��
    • ��
    • ��
    • ��
    • ��
    • ��
    • ��
    • ��
  • ��
• ��
  • ��
  • ��
  • ��
  • ��
  • ��
  • ��
• ��
• ��

---