Kensington to Hanger Lane cycle superhighway

[Wheeledweenie]

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Checked out the proposed route last night and, in my view it's ridiculous. A lot of it relies on the A40 cycle track, much of which is very narrow, overgrown and/or full of pedestrians who have no alternative to use it as their bus route goes along it. It's also a very roundabout route (ie long) and, for beginners, would be off-puttingly hilly.

I reckon they'd be far better off spending the money on improving the Uxbridge Road provision.

Anyone else used that route and have an opinion?

 

[Origamist]

The Uxbridge Road (even though it can be a bit hectic) would make far more sense as an East to West radial as it is direct and continuous which is supposed to be the hallmark of a cycle superhighway...

 

[jimboalee]

I used to ride that route in the eighties.

From Acton Vale to my digs near the Target pub.

Will have to take my bike in the car to Hillingdon tube and see how the traffic has increased.

 

[yello]

It's years since I rode the A40 cycle path - I used to come into London along it from Ruislip to Park Royal. It has to be said, whilst it wasn't the best it was the most direct route. Things I didn't like; peds and glass around Hanger Lane and Park Royal, sleath cyclists coming the other way, it's closeness to fast moving traffic. But I think it has potential as a decent facility.

It does strike me though that a cycle 'super highway' is a bit of an odd concept. I mean, bikes aren't like cars that travel miles to get to a fast A to B trunk route. I think cyclists have a completely different set of priorities when deciding the a route, and journeys tend to be the shortest and/or most direct - a cyclist's speed being more even and consistent than a cars.

I can only see a 'super highway' being of use if it meets the cyclist's 'direct journey' requirement. I can't see cyclists going miles off route to get to/from it.

 

[Origamist]

Here's the likely reason why the A40 cycle path has been proposed over the UxB Road (from Mayoral Questions):

"Value for Money: To make best use of existing resources, cycle highways will concentrate on pragmatic and simple measures and will not depend heavily on engineering interventions."

 

[akaAndrew]

That was my fear. It might well represent value for money but that's no guarantee it will be used. Or is someone hoping 'build it and they will come'.

 

[jonesy]

That was my fear. It might well represent value for money but that's no guarantee it will be used. Or is someone hoping 'build it and they will come'.

If it isn't used, specifically if it doesn't lead to a significant increase in the number of cyclists, then it is not value for money. Irrespective of how cheaper it is than the other options...

 

[yello]

that was the point I was making

 

[jonesy]

It's years since I rode the A40 cycle path - I used to come into London along it from Ruislip to Park Royal. It has to be said, whilst it wasn't the best it was the most direct route. Things I didn't like; peds and glass around Hanger Lane and Park Royal, sleath cyclists coming the other way, it's closeness to fast moving traffic. But I think it has potential as a decent facility.

It does strike me though that a cycle 'super highway' is a bit of an odd concept. I mean, bikes aren't like cars that travel miles to get to a fast A to B trunk route. I think cyclists have a completely different set of priorities when deciding the a route, and journeys tend to be the shortest and/or most direct - a cyclist's speed being more even and consistent than a cars.

I can only see a 'super highway' being of use if it meets the cyclist's 'direct journey' requirement. I can't see cyclists going miles off route to get to/from it.

You hit the nail on the head. Cycling is principally a short-distance mode of transport: the average cycle trip is 2.2 miles (National Travel Survey), 58% of trips are under 2 miles, 90% are under 5 miles. Cycle networks that do not recognise this basic fact will never attract large numbers of users, because using them will be too much of a detour for the majority of potential users. This is part of the reason why large sections of the National Cycle Network carries very few cyclists, the routes are too indirect and don't conveniently connect centres of population with trip destinations at the distances most readily transferable to cycling.

See:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...ns/personal/focuspt/2005/2howpeopletravel.xls

 

[DJ]

The problem with these cycle highways is going to be the people who are designing them, ie, non cyclists, they are more interested in making the finances work and working within the perametters layed down to them.

I should imagine that these peoples view of what commuter cycling actualy involves is somewhat inacurate. Possibly they have the view that we are happy to pootle along on a largley indirect route that is not really suitable for transporting cyclists quickly and efficiantly to there destination.

Where is LCC in this design stage? are they involved at all? They, in my view are meant to be the ones putting [our] views to the road and cycle path planners!!

 

[Origamist]

The LCC are involved:

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1425

 

[dellzeqq]

The irony is that there are times of the day when the solitary cyclist is the fastest thing on the A40 (and it's been known out to J5 of the M40, ahem).

I'm going to do what no sane person should do - disagree with Jonesy on transport. I do think there's considerable potential for longer radial commutes in London, and the wide differential between (say) the number of cyclists on the A24/A3 on the one hand and (say) the A404 on the other makes me think that if the A404 could, by some miracle, by made more congenial to cycling then there would be a great deal more cyclists.

 

[jimboalee]

You hit the nail on the head. Cycling is principally a short-distance mode of transport: the average cycle trip is 2.2 miles (National Travel Survey), 58% of trips are under 2 miles, 90% are under 5 miles. Cycle networks that do not recognise this basic fact will never attract large numbers of users, because using them will be too much of a detour for the majority of potential users. This is part of the reason why large sections of the National Cycle Network carries very few cyclists, the routes are too indirect and don't conveniently connect centres of population with trip destinations at the distances most readily transferable to cycling.

See:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...ns/personal/focuspt/2005/2howpeopletravel.xls

According to these stats, the vast, vast majority of cycle commuters in West London will be CROSSING the A40, not riding along it.

They may use the A40 'cycling superhighway' for a couple of hundred yards of their journey to get to a crossing point. Does this make it useful?

 

[dellzeqq]

I think I've sussed this one out. The obvious route, which is the A4020 Uxbridge Road, goes through the borough that really doesn't want bus lanes - Ealing.

If we were to look beyond our own sectional interest for a second, then I think the question might be - what can the transfer from car to bike or from car to public transport do for the street or town. The Uxbridge Road, last time I went down it, was a traffic jam. Prioritising (dread word) buses and bikes, and discouraging cars would make deliveries easier, bring more people to the doorstep of the businesses on the road, and make walking along the street an altogether more comfortable thing.*

I accept that there is an argument that goes 'few people use what could be an important radial route, and linking of the cycle paths along the A40 will encourage more to do so', but it looks doomed to me.....

*and that goes for Streatham High Road as well......

 

[Origamist]

Although it's 10 years old, quite a lot of the issues in this paper are still relevant:

http://www.ealingcycling.org.uk/SubjectPages/Reports/UxbrRdRoute.html

With the proposed A40 - TFL are looking for an easier/cheaper alternative, instead of grasping the nettle with the Uxbridge Road.