London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[dellzeqq]

Very small gains? You call a factor of 2.5 in 5 years very small?

He or she does. Because it's not an instant 100% conversion that would result from an overnight reworking of London.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

It's very difficult to measure, and very few people bother.

You what? These are TfL statistics, from the same report you are drawing your figures from. When figures for cycling go down, it's because they are hard to measure, but when they go up, they are irrefutable? Is that how this works?

Very small gains? You call a factor of 2.5 in 5 years very small?

No I don't, and only someone dishonest would selectively edit what I have written to make it seem like I do. Would you do me the courtesy of not lopping off the relevant section of my sentence next time?

Hold on. A moment ago you were hyming the praises of separated and signposted cycle routes, because they'd encourage lots of cycling. What's changed?

In what sense are the Superhighways "separated"? Come on. This is laughable, it really is.

 

[dellzeqq]

I make you right. The LCC's campaign for more cycle parking is a good one, but a lot of employers do nothing to accommodate bikes. Few office buildings have car parks, and, to be fair, space in most offices is at a premium. Hence the popularity of Bromptons, and, also, the hire bike scheme.

And the drawing...........(you can buy the maps from ProMap, but it's cheaper to go to the library and photocopy them)

 

[jonesy]

...For instance - the results of the survey conducted by TfL show that only 1% of the users of the Cycle Superhighways had started to use their bikes because of it (with the caveat, of course, that the survey respondents were a self-selecting group).
...

Again, as with the Boris Bikes, the CSH aren't even fully completed yet; you can't possibly expect to be able to draw conclusions about their ability to attract new cyclists at such an early stage in their implementation. You are assuming behavioural change takes place overnight, which simply isn't the case with travel behaviour. I'd always expect existing cyclists to be the first users of any new cycling scheme (assuming it is worth using...), potential new users need to be made aware it exists and that it provides them with some benefit, and that will always take time.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Again, as with the Boris Bikes, the CSH aren't even fully completed yet; you can't possibly expect to be able to draw conclusions about their ability to attract new cyclists at such an early stage in their implementation.

Of course. I would add, though, that this caution about prediction cuts both ways. We have other people in this thread making claims about the success of the Superhighways based on little more than anecdotes.

 

[jonesy]

WGF: I noted you quoted the following:

"Cycling‘s highest modal share in the UK is in Cambridge with 28% followed by York 19% and Oxford 17%."


It is important to note that none of these places have extensive segregated cycle networks; the vast majority of cycle trips take place on normal roads. Indeed, Oxford's main growth in cycle use took place in the late 1970s and 1980s, before there was significant implementation of cycle facilities of any kind. While I can see the attraction of Copenhagen style segregated paths alongside the busiest roads, we are constrained by the practicalities of needing to provide pedestrian space, bus stops, loading bays etc in our urban areas. The busiest cycle route in Oxford is the Cowley Rd, which is also the busiest bus corridor, has lots of shops and cafes needing deliveries etc etc. It is a narrow single carriageway. There simply isn't room for segregated cycle paths, nor indeed for proper width on-road cycle lanes.


I know you've criticised bad cycle facilities, but unfortunately one of the consequences of telling politicians that segregation is the only way to get people to cycle, is that you end up with poor quality segregation, which is a waste of money and worse than useless for existing cyclists.

 

[MacB]

I make you right. The LCC's campaign for more cycle parking is a good one, but a lot of employers do nothing to accommodate bikes. Few office buildings have car parks, and, to be fair, space in most offices is at a premium. Hence the popularity of Bromptons, and, also, the hire bike scheme.

And the drawing...........(you can buy the maps from ProMap, but it's cheaper to go to the library and photocopy them)

But it's got a bit chicken and egg Dell, folders and Boris Bikes are only a partial solution at best, they're very poor at addressing issues when it comes to utility and replacing car journeys. As a kid I did everything by bike and it went everywhere with me, yet I never owned a bike lock. I also didn't need to do shopping etc hence why I now own things like racks, panniers and lust after trailers. But I digress...what happens if desires are met for increased cycling and you actually get people out of cars? Forget about whether it's via segregated facility or improvement to shared use. All these new cyclists run smack bang into an epidemic of bike theft. Is it a case of get the people cycling then we'll tackle bike crime?

When I started all I wanted to do was cycle to and from the train station, 7 miles a day, a bike theft on the first day led me to a full commute. But that was a lot to do with my sheer bloody mindedness I could just as easily have gone back to the car. Reading on the net will lead you to a very security concious version of cycling with an acceptance that every so often you'll lose a bike, or a part of one. In fact some forums will positively mock a newbie for being stupid enough to leave their bike in the wrong place or secured in the wrong way.

So new riders need to accept that they sacrifice many of a bikes conveniences in favour of security. It doesn't take much to swing things back in favour of a car in those circumstances.

 

[srw]

Indeed, Oxford's main growth in cycle use took place in the late 1970s and 1980s, before there was significant implementation of cycle facilities of any kind.

Good spot. Indeed, when I first started commuting in London (1996) I was used to Oxford. London is a positive breeze for cyclists compared with Oxford - the roads are much wider, the traffic speeds considerably slower, the drivers in general more professional, the cyclists considerably less suicidal.

 

[dellzeqq]

here's a little experiment. Since our junior segregationist isn't going to do a drawing, here's one I made earlier. It's probably not perfect, but it only took me fifteen minutes....

Islington Green. Busy road, carrying lots of cyclists. Many of them dodge down Colebrooke Row, but most continue on to the Angel, with many turning right on the Pentonville Road, and some more turning right down Rosebery Avenue. I'm talking morning run here rather than evening.

Start by putting.......2.4 metre lanes either side. We'll colour them pink. Forget the kerbs - let's assume that kerbs have infinite strength and no thickness. Whoops! We've reduced the width of the road to 5 metres - not enough for buses to pass each other.

So let's use 1.8 metres which is a bit crappy, but, again, assume the kerbs are of infinite strength and no thickness. We'll use Wondercrete!

hooray! Buses can pass (but only just), but if one bus is stopped at the bus stop, no other bus can get round it - so the 70 or 80 or 90 passengers on the bus are delayed. Never mind.

So then let's look at the morning cycle lane. And let's make allowance for vehicles to get in to the side streets - including bikes coming northeast on Essex Road and turning right in to St. Peter's Street. We'll colour those bits green

So, we'll now colour the bus stops in blue (only allowing one bus at a time to turn in - the rest will be vapourised) and and then get really inclusive and allow the pedestrians to cross the road. We'll colour the pedestrian bits in black. Of course they'll ignore this and hop over the kerb, but at least we'll have the satisfaction of making those pesky wheelchair users take a considerable diversion. And, to show really willing we'll have a little bit, a tiny bit of parking for shop deliveries - we'll put that in yellow. Which leaves the cyclists with the pink bits (I'm sorry, but I simply cannot be arsed to do the evening run, which is, believe me, still more complicated)

fantastic! Of course the cyclists are going to ignore the entire thing and go straight down the main carriageway because going round the parked buses and vans is going to be both inconvenient and dangerous...

This is a street of average width, certainly not narrow. It's not even in the centre of town, and it has five bus routes down it -the 341, 76, 38, 56 and 73. Compared to, say, the Farringdon Road, or Rosebery Avenue, it's easypeasy.

Now - at the moment you have bus lanes. Not all of the way - the road is too narrow to have bus lanes on both sides, but for most of the morning run. And it works beautifully. Which is why peope use it - indeed, it's one of the most popular bits of road in the capital.

 

[stowie]

Putting lines on maps in-between existing architecture isn't the point. In cities which have succeeded in increasing Cycling modal share above a few percent, they have fundamentally altered the streets to accommodate (even, dare I say it, prioritise) public transport and cycling.

And try looking at say, the deeply unpleasant A11 into Stratford, or the A10 Tottenham Hale Gyratory, or Stratford one way system and tell me that there is no room for segregated cycling. These are multi-lane race-tracks where traffic speeds to the next junction and the inevitable hold-up. Removing a lane from these roads is possible and probably wouldn't even affect traffic flow very much.To get "normal" people cycling (and bear in mind the vast majority of Londoners haven't cycled since childhood) these roads need to be attractive to cycle on. Because they are the main roads, so more direct, and they intersect "quiet" routes anyway.

Provide cycling infrastructure on these really difficult roads and link up with on-road cycling where the roads have been redesigned to help cyclists (or at least not make their journeys more difficult). Then non-cyclists will start to cycle.

CrapWalthamForest may be pretty aggressive in his opinions on cycling. He may be pretty negative on many initiatives. He may also be a bit unfair on cycling organisations who face the combined apathy of the general population and government to cycling. But it doesn't mean that he doesn't have a point.

 

[stowie]

WGF: I noted you quoted the following:

"Cycling‘s highest modal share in the UK is in Cambridge with 28% followed by York 19% and Oxford 17%."

It is important to note that none of these places have extensive segregated cycle networks; the vast majority of cycle trips take place on normal roads. Indeed, Oxford's main growth in cycle use took place in the late 1970s and 1980s, before there was significant implementation of cycle facilities of any kind. While I can see the attraction of Copenhagen style segregated paths alongside the busiest roads, we are constrained by the practicalities of needing to provide pedestrian space, bus stops, loading bays etc in our urban areas. The busiest cycle route in Oxford is the Cowley Rd, which is also the busiest bus corridor, has lots of shops and cafes needing deliveries etc etc. It is a narrow single carriageway. There simply isn't room for segregated cycle paths, nor indeed for proper width on-road cycle lanes.

I know you've criticised bad cycle facilities, but unfortunately one of the consequences of telling politicians that segregation is the only way to get people to cycle, is that you end up with poor quality segregation, which is a waste of money and worse than useless for existing cyclists.

It is a point. I don't know York, but I would say Oxford and Cambridge have a road system that is very tricky by car, but far easier by public transport, cycle or walking. I remember driving in Oxford centre and simply being herded by the road system around a huge diversion when I could have walked more quickly. So maybe these cities have calmed down the streets in this way and provided incentive to cycle or walk. And of course having huge student population probably helps.

If vehicular cycling is going to attract non-cyclists it needs to be on the cyclists' terms, or at least not completely dominated by vehicles.

 

[dellzeqq]

Putting lines on maps in-between existing architecture isn't the point. In cities which have succeeded in increasing Cycling modal share above a few percent, they have fundamentally altered the streets to accommodate (even, dare I say it, prioritise) public transport and cycling.

And try looking at say, the deeply unpleasant A11 into Stratford, or the A10 Tottenham Hale Gyratory, or Stratford one way system and tell me that there is no room for segregated cycling. These are multi-lane race-tracks where traffic speeds to the next junction and the inevitable hold-up. Removing a lane from these roads is possible and probably wouldn't even affect traffic flow very much.To get "normal" people cycling (and bear in mind the vast majority of Londoners haven't cycled since childhood) these roads need to be attractive to cycle on. Because they are the main roads, so more direct, and they intersect "quiet" routes anyway.

Provide cycling infrastructure on these really difficult roads and link up with on-road cycling where the roads have been redesigned to help cyclists (or at least not make their journeys more difficult). Then non-cyclists will start to cycle.

CrapWalthamForest may be pretty aggressive in his opinions on cycling. He may be pretty negative on many initiatives. He may also be a bit unfair on cycling organisations who face the combined apathy of the general population and government to cycling. But it doesn't mean that he doesn't have a point.

Stowie, that is a completely exasperating post. The LCC has been pushing town centre redesign for 20 years, for which WalthamForestCrapBlogger gives them no credit whatsoever. There is a cycle/bus lane through the centre of Stratford, and you can thank the LCC for it. There is cycling and bus priority through Shoreditch and you can thank the LCC for that too. There's even cycling priority through the centre of the Vauxhall gyratory, and you can thank the LCC for that. There's also, best yet, the redesign of Brixton town cente in which there is no separation, but the traffic is cleverly managed in order to give pedestrians safer, more congenial space - again the LCC can take a bow for that, although they didn't get all they wanted. The LCC would remove the Tottenham gyratory in its entirety and make the high street two way, probably without any separation - just like Brixton.

You have to be careful, though. Crayford, Sutton and Croydon all have pedestrianised centres with ring roads around. Sutton and Croydon allows cycling under certain conditions, but Crayford doesn't - but the main point is that constructing inner ring roads and the associated car parks can act as a trip generator. The key to successful town centre redesign is 'traffic evaporation' and, while Brixton does embody the theory 'traffic evaporation' is not TfL policy.

There are real gains to be made, not just for cyclists, by restricting traffic flow. Lambeth and Merton (and other boroughs besides) have home zones which have restricted entry for cars, reducing through traffic through residential areas.

WFCB isn't interested in the achievements of the LCC - his angle is that London should be somehow re-made in the image of Groningen. That's bonkers. He's proposing precisely the course of action that my little drawing so neatly undermines. That's bonkers. And, as you say, he carps about the LCC in a way that is entirely disreputable.

 

[srw]

It is a point. I don't know York, but I would say Oxford and Cambridge have a road system that is very tricky by car, but far easier by public transport, cycle or walking. I remember driving in Oxford centre and simply being herded by the road system around a huge diversion when I could have walked more quickly. So maybe these cities have calmed down the streets in this way and provided incentive to cycle or walk. And of course having huge student population probably helps.

In the 1970s and 1980s, when cycling increased so dramatically in Oxford, there was no diversion, and no disincentive to drive. Everything was geared around getting cars through the middle as quickly as possible. The tide turned when the High Street was shut and car parking was made massively more expensive, which happened some time in the middle of the '90s.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If you really want modal share to go up in town you've got to do something about the simply dreadful route signage. Too many times on a Boris or my own folder I've set off only to find myself following little blue signs that disappear at, say, a T junction. Useless. Cycling London's shared use infrastructure as a serious alternative to bus or tube, as it is for me for business use, should not require membership of some gnostic sect in order to navigate.

I now take a garmin with me on trips to town!

 

[jonesy]

If you really want modal share to go up in town you've got to do something about the simply dreadful route signage. Too many times on a Boris or my own folder I've set off only to find myself following little blue signs that disappear at, say, a T junction. Useless. Cycling London's shared use infrastructure as a serious alternative to bus or tube, as it is for me for business use, should not require membership of some gnostic sect in order to navigate.

I now take a garmin with me on trips to town!

Problems with poor signage are common on the NCN as well. There are some sections near to where I live where I've been a volunteer 'ranger' for several years, where we've finally gave up trying to get the signs improved. The little signs aren't big enough to be visible, especially for on-road sections, but the underlying problem is that a lot of the routes are simply impossible to sign effectively, because they are so complex and lack legibility. If cyclists have to keep leaving the main flow of traffic and take fiddly routes around crossings and junctions, sometimes on road, sometimes on the pavement, and then have to take indirect routes round the back streets, then those sort of routes are always going to be hard to signpost properly. Whereas by following the direct route along the main corridors, the CSH avoid that problem.