London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[dellzeqq]

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)

great - you overlay cycleways on a 1:1250 of the City. I'll take a look at the result. I'm not holding my breath.

As for the safety thing - life's moved on. The bomb-dodger generation of cyclists took to London't roads because they were fearful of taking the tube. They did the sensible thing and piled straight down the main roads, ignoring LCN+ which became more or less obsolete overnight, and totally disregarding the DfT advice that roads of 10,000 vpm were not suitable for cycling. They swept down the A24, the A3, the A12 and even the most ardent admirer of CS7 would concede that actually the job was done for TfL by cyclists of all types simply taking to the road. Where once I used to go round the Elephant on my own, now women on shoppers with high heels do the thing without a second thought.

Now, take a look at the people riding bikes in London (not least the hire bikes). They're a broad cross section - by class, gender, age (possibly not by ethnicity). These people have decided to ride a bike. The people who don't have decided not to ride a bike. They may do so in the future as more of the main roads reach a critical mass, but, in the mean time the hire bikes have broadened the image if not the demographic of cycling and their success can only mean that more people associate cycling with the everyday. It's all good and getting better.

Now show me the 1:1250 plan.........because otherwise I really am not interested. It's not wanted, it's not affordable, it's not sensible and the best bit is it's not going to happen.

As for WalthamForestCrapBlogger - I can't be arsed.

 

[gaz]

As for the safety thing - life's moved on. The bomb-dodger generation of cyclists took to London't roads because they were fearful of taking the tube. They did the sensible thing and piled straight down the main roads, ignoring LCN+ which became more or less obsolete overnight, and totally disregarding the DfT advice that roads of 10,000 vpm were not suitable for cycling. They swept down the A24, the A3, the A12 and even the most ardent admirer of CS7 would concede that actually the job was done for TfL by cyclists of all types simply taking to the road. Where once I used to go round the Elephant on my own, now women on shoppers with high heels do the thing without a second thought.

And thats a reason why CS7 was built first, it was already a popular route that was continually growing and it's easy to follow with it running along side tube lines and bus routes.

 

[dellzeqq]

And thats a reason why CS7 was built first, it was already a popular route that was continually growing and it's easy to follow with it running along side tube lines and bus routes.

absolutely. It was both an easy hit and an ideal testing ground.

I've read that CS7 has seen a 25% rise in bike traffic. What do you think, Gaz?

 

[gaz]

absolutely. It was both an easy hit and an ideal testing ground.

I've read that CS7 has seen a 25% rise in bike traffic. What do you think, Gaz?

On the whole, maybe. But not many people cycled pass tooting and not many took the long/slow route around elephant and castle.
So if you measure it on the whole, you might get an increase, but looking at the busy sections between clapham and say oval, i don't think the numbers would have increased by much. And as they opened it at the end of july, which could be argued is the busiest time for commuting, how can we be sure that the 'increase' isn't just the summer trend.

 

[dellzeqq]

I make you right. The general trend is still up, though - and there are other routes, with greater potential gains to come.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

great - you overlay cycleways on a 1:1250 of the City. I'll take a look at the result. I'm not holding my breath.

I imagine - based on the direct empirical evidence of continental towns and cities where this approach has been tried and tested since the 1970s - that cycling's modal share will rise to around 30 or 40%.

Still, keep ignoring that.

As for WalthamForestCrapBlogger - I can't be arsed.

I'm not really surprised, given that you seem to rely heavily on anecdotes about how cycling is going "up and up", rather than actual statistics.


"Sharing the road" and "safety in numbers" has been the mantra for well over a decade, and what has it achieved? A modal share in the outer London boroughs of barely 1%. In some boroughs, the modal share is zero percent. Zero.

The evidence is in, and has been in for years. The vast majority of people - and I mean the majority, not the odd person you happen to see wearing heels, or the occasional granny - do not want to share the road with heavy flows of fast moving traffic, and no amount of preaching to them is going to change that.

 

[srw]

"Sharing the road" and "safety in numbers" has been the mantra for well over a decade, and what has it achieved? A modal share in the outer London boroughs of barely 1%. In some boroughs, the modal share is zero percent. Zero.

And in central London, and on the main arterial routes, it's seen a bumper crop.

I've been cycle commuting now from Marylebone to the City for 14 years. At the beginning I was one of only a handful, and no-one used the Marylebone Road. Now cyclists are ten a penny - there are a dozen or more on my train alone - and you can't cross the Marylebone road without getting mown down by a racing snake. Much of that was achieved purely by "safety in numbers" and "share the road". There's one (well-used) stretch of segregated route through Bloomsbury, the congestion charge was a great kick, and so were the tube bombs.

There's your answer for outer London - congestion charge, a few bombs, and sit back and watch.

[edit]
You talk about people not wanting to share the road with heavy flows of fast-moving traffic. Can you point to one bit of London where there is a heavy flow of fast-moving traffic and no realistic alternative?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

And in central London, and on the main arterial routes, it's seen a bumper crop.

I've been cycle commuting now from Marylebone to the City for 14 years. At the beginning I was one of only a handful, and no-one used the Marylebone Road. Now cyclists are ten a penny - there are a dozen or more on my train alone - and you can't cross the Marylebone road without getting mown down by a racing snake. Much of that was achieved purely by "safety in numbers" and "share the road".

Again, these are just anecdotes. Where are the figures? I'm not disputing what you say, but we cannot extrapolate from your commute to the pattern of cycling in central London as a whole.

The most recent figures show that the modal share of cycling in inner London is 3%. This is not anything to get excited about, because it has been at or about this level for a decade. Cycling is not on the up and up. It has plateaued.

You talk about people not wanting to share the road with heavy flows of fast-moving traffic. Can you point to one bit of London where there is a heavy flow of fast-moving traffic and no realistic alternative?

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you are asking me - what do you mean by "realistic alternative"? The roads I am thinking of are arterial roads like Euston Road.

 

[gaz]

Do you have a source for that 3%?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

The 2010 TfL Travel In London Report -

http://www.tfl.gov.u...on_Report_2.pdf

The relevant data on modal share is on pages 70-72.

 

[srw]

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you are asking me - what do you mean by "realistic alternative"? The roads I am thinking of are arterial roads like Euston Road.

You use the fact (which I'm not going to argue with) that a lot of people don't want to use fast, busy roads to cycle on as an argument that we should build a complete network of cycle tracks. But every fast, busy road in London has a realistic alternative that is not fast and busy.

To use your example, depending on where you're going you can avoid the Euston Road either by going up through Regent's Park or by going south through Bloomsbury.

 

[srw]

The 2010 TfL Travel In London Report -

http://www.tfl.gov.u...on_Report_2.pdf

The relevant data on modal share is on pages 70-72.

Cycling has progressively increased its mode share over the
period.

Page numbered 43 (page 51 of the PDF file). That's referring to the period from 1993 to 2008. And it directly contradicts your assertion that cycling has plateaued

On pages 70 - 72 you're reading too much into very small percentages. You might just as well say that in some outer London boroughs no-one travels by taxi. Which is patently absurd.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Page numbered 43 (page 51 of the PDF file). That's referring to the period from 1993 to 2008. And it directly contradicts your assertion that cycling has plateaued

Yes, and when you look at Table 2.4 on p.43, we see that this claim is based on a rise from 1% in 1993, to 2% in 2008. This is far from stratospheric. In fact - given that we are dealing with "small percentages"*, it is negligible.

Meanwhile here are some modal share figures from across western Europe -

At the rate of increase seen in London, we'll be up - perhaps - to 3% by 2023. I don't really see that as grounds for getting particularly excited in the light of the above table.

On pages 70 - 72 you're reading too much into very small percentages.

*I think this is called "having your cake and eating it"?

 

[dellzeqq]

I imagine .
...........

show me the drawing. The rest is bollocks. Not that you will, because you can't. A lot of people talk this stuff, but walking it is a different thing entirely.

When this nonsense comes up I'm always reminded of my time on the TfL Greenways Committee. Somebody (probably me, in the sense that I contribute to the GLA precept) paid £1.3 million to 'improve' the Wandle Way. Nice for a bit of an afternoon out with the kids, but rubbish as a transport route. Anyway the £1.3 million made it worse, as is the way with spending on cycle facilities. And the Greenways Committee decided to study traffic flows. I suggested that they also survey Garratt Lane which runs parallel and has fifty times the number of cyclists because a) it is a road and b) it is an A-road, so it gets there in a hurry. Cue denial. Cue refusal. Cue my thinking that my time was being wasted.

It's not possible, it's not desirable and it's not going to happen. And do you know why it's not desirable? Because actually cycling in London is going to civilise the very roads that the LCC of yore and WalthamForestCrapBlogBoy so disdain - our major radial routes which are also our high streets. Tooting High Street and Clapham High Street have been civilised by cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers to such a degree that they've ceased to function as a trunk road. Green Lanes and Mile End Road will follow. While the last devotee of segregation oscillates down some path in a park we'll be owning those high streets. Your pathetic lack of ambition, your purblind suburban fixation with wiggly green lines going nowhere is a thing of the past. It might be nice in some out-of-the-way small town like Groningen that nobody in their right mind would go to without taking the precaution of being lobotomised first, but this is London, pal, and there's a whole city to play for.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

While the last devotee of segregation oscillates down some path in a park we'll be owning those high streets.

I hate to break this to you, but no - no, you will not be owning those streets. This is because the numbers of people willing to cycle in heavy and/or fast traffic is far too low. 86% of people are afraid to cycle in London because of traffic. Few parents are ever going to let their children cycle to schools along roads they have to share with HGVs, van drivers and taxis. Cycling levels will continue to stagnate while the road environment stays as it is.

You might "own" the street for the brief periods when there are a large number of 20-45 year old male commuters heading in to and out of work, but the rest of the time, fat chance.

I suspect - deep down - you are fully aware of this, and your unnecessary diatribes about Holland are a rather desperate attempt to deal with the cognitive dissonance.