London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[jonesy]

Fair enough.

Do you know when the next assessment is going to take place? I am sceptical that there will be a significant change, but like I said - we'll see.

I don't know what evaluations are planned, but would expect it to take at least a year of full operation for its users to extend significantly beyond the early adopters. The first main group of users will be existing cyclists, but this might save them from having to take a bike on a train, so that leads to wider transport benefits straight away. Bearing in mind Dellzeqq's point about there being limited car trips that start and end within the area currently covered by the hire scheme, the main opportunity for modal shift from car will be for bike + rail for longer distance trips from outside the central area. But that requires drivers to make two changes of behaviour: to start using public transport and to start cycling. That won't happen overnight, it will require people to become familiar with the hire bikes, for word to spread around workplaces, social circles etc, for their use to become accepted as normal. Of course, the scheme could expand to cover a much wider catchment area, so providing a more direct alternative to driving from or between the between the suburbs. And the hire scheme will also interact with other cycling initiatives, so people who start off trying rail + hire bike might get sufficiently into cycling that they'll start riding the whole distance on their own bikes, especially if CSH are successful in making such routes more cycle-able, but this would lead to some users moving away from the hire bikes. So there's a lot of complex travel behaviour to take account of here, and we can't judge the success until a lot more time has passed and we've got a lot more information.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Less than 1% of Boris Bike users have switched from cars for their journeys

You missed the rest of Joneys's post: Boris bikes will always be used for short journeys, thus the shift will be from tube to bike. This frees up tube capacity for longer journeys. Thus the modal shifts will be from tube to bike, and from car to bike.

 

[dellzeqq]

WGF - I'm saying that, setting aside the astronomical cost, it's not possible (buses have to pass other buses as the first bus waits at a bus stop) and it's not desirable - it introduces an additional obstacle for pedestrians crossing the road. In fact I would muster as big and as comprehensive an objection to the planning application that I could manage. If you're going to mess with Fleet Street then footpath widening at the widest lenghs of the road would be best, and bus lanes would be excellent.

As for weeping with gratitude - when I contemplate that rubbish cycle lane at Tavistock Square I weep with frustration that so much money could be put to so poor a use.

 

[dellzeqq]

As opposed to the one along Goodmans Yard (I think) which although having no apparent use must at least have been provided for free, possibly by the same people who normally do crop circles when on an awayday to the big city in search of pavements made of gold.

Is that the segregated cycle lane to nowhere off Mansell Street. A complete mystery. I sort or expect to see WalthamStreetBlogBoy riding up and down it every time I pass.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

As for weeping with gratitude - when I contemplate that rubbish cycle lane at Tavistock Square I weep with frustration that so much money could be put to so poor a use.

Unless you think I am suggesting that money should be spent putting in rubbish infrastructure, I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Is that the segregated cycle lane to nowhere off Mansell Street. A complete mystery. I sort or expect to see WalthamStreetBlogBoy riding up and down it every time I pass.

Ditto to the point above.

I would also suggest that you are being slightly unfair to Freewheeler - he is highly critical of poorly designed infrastructure. Look at his blog if you doubt me.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I haven't seen a cost per bike (other than £300 you're charged if you lose one), but the total costs are £92 million for 6000 bikes. That includes the bikes, docking stations, IT, marketing costs and operational costs.

 

[dellzeqq]

Ditto to the point above.

I would also suggest that you are being slightly unfair to Freewheeler - he is highly critical of poorly designed infrastructure. Look at his blog if you doubt me.

I've looked at his blog. His basic thesis is bonkers, he spends most of his time rubbishing the efforts of others and, for good measure, he quotes me selectively and unfairly.

 

[dellzeqq]

the Committee's table shows a net cost of £60M for 6000 bikes at the end of 2011. That doesn't take in to account the sponsorship from Barclays, which, as I've said, Johnson isn't telling anybody about, not even his own GLA members!

From then on the intention is to break even. Well, that might happen, or it might not happen, but I think it behoves us to wait and see.

If it does break even and the management of the scheme ensures that further extensions eventually break even then London will have got itself one heck of a bargain.

I've been cycling around London for forty years. Even fifteen years ago I'd never expect to see another cyclist going round the Elephant and Castle. The Congestion Zone, bus lanes and the hire bike scheme could, with luck and courage, help to transform this city in to a far, far nicer place to live. Even now, as I over take three Barclays Bikes travelling abreast on the Farringdon Road I can scarcely believe how far we've come in the last ten or so years.

I sometimes ride home from Islington against the morning flow,and somewhere along Kennington Lane, or on the Clapham Road, I just stop and watch the bikes go by, grinning like a loon....

 

[gaz]

I sometimes ride home from Islington against the morning flow,and somewhere along Kennington Lane, or on the Clapham Road, I just stop and watch the bikes go by, grinning like a loon....

That explains the crazy looking guy on a bike i sometimes see not going anywhere.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

His basic thesis is bonkers

Hmm. He thinks we should broadly follow the Dutch approach to increasing modal share. This approach is proven, with 30-40% of journeys in Dutch cities being made by bike.

Disagree if you like, but that is hardly "bonkers."

Also - not disputing your claims - where has he selectively quoted you without attribution?

 

[CopperBrompton]

the Committee's table shows a net cost of £60M for 6000 bikes at the end of 2011. That doesn't take in to account the sponsorship from Barclays, which, as I've said, Johnson isn't telling anybody about, not even his own GLA members!

Apart from the press release on the TFL website, of course …

 

[dellzeqq]

Hmm. He thinks we should broadly follow the Dutch approach to increasing modal share. This approach is proven, with 30-40% of journeys in Dutch cities being made by bike.

Disagree if you like, but that is hardly "bonkers."

Also - not disputing your claims - where has he selectively quoted you without attribution?

he thinks we can make divided or segregated cycleways throughout London. I call that double bonkers. Even if it were desirable (and it isn't) it would be physically impossible, and cost zillions. Amsterdam has very few cycleways and lots of bikes. It's about sharing the road, being considerate, and having great public transport.

 

[CopperBrompton]

As for the quotation thing - it's on the what's wrong with the CTC page. There are three quotes, and they're partial and taken out of context.

Really? The quotes are partial? Blimey, anyone would think that's how quotes work ...

As for being out of context, I recall one of those threads and they look perfectly in context to me.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

he thinks we can make divided or segregated cycleways throughout London. I call that double bonkers. Even if it were desirable (and it isn't) it would be physically impossible, and cost zillions. Amsterdam has very few cycleways and lots of bikes. It's about sharing the road, being considerate, and having great public transport.

It is not "physically impossible". It may be politically undesirable, and expensive. But that is not the same as physically impossible.

Amsterdam has plenty of segregated cycleways in areas where traffic volume and speed is high. Look at streetview. Of course, there is no segregation on narrow quiet streets - but that is because traffic volume is low, and (thanks to traffic design) it's actually quite unpleasant to use the car. The Dutch - sensibly - do not segregated everywhere. But the key point - the one that needs to be continually restated - is that the Dutch design streets so that people feel safe on bikes, and that their journeys are more direct and convenient than by car.

That is why large numbers of people use them to get about in Holland, and why modal share in London is flatlining.

Simply telling drivers to "share the road" gets us nowhere. You or I might feel approaching comfortable going around Elephant & Castle, or Hyde Park Corner. At least 90% of other adults will not.

This is the fundamental problem.


(Not sure where your response to the quotation issue has gone btw - Trikeman has quoted something, but it has disappeared)