London East-West and North-South Cycle Superhighways

[CopperBrompton]

I do hope this idea works for London but I just can't see it happening.

I'm optimistic. Maybe we should import a few of these. :-)

 

[srw]

People always seem to imagine the Netherlands always had the cycling culture it has today; that's not the case. It was in large part created by the infrastructure:

Not even the segregation-enthusiastic LCC claim that.

Here's their page, which is worth a read:
http://lcc.org.uk/pages/holland-in-the-1970s

Segregated cycle lanes came relatively late in the day, after political intervention to slow down traffic and widespread safety measures. THey also came on the back of an already substantial cycling population - at 20% modal share nationwide. I can't find a modal share history, but this graph illustrates the issue nicely:

Incidentally, in looking up data for this reply I found this, which shows one of the unique things about London - for a major international city in the developed world it has a very unusually high proportion of public transport journeys.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share#Modal_split_of_journeys_to_work

I also came across this graph for the irst time, which focuses on central London, and illustrates what TFL has managed by spending almost nothing:

and this, which illustrates the rise in cycling on London's main roads, where there is almost no segregation:

Stats fans, that's a 150% increase in 10 years - an increase of about 10% a year. More here: http://londontransportdata.wordpress.com/category/subject/cycling/

 

[CopperBrompton]

The kind of infrastructure planned now will make 10% a year from a pretty small base look like fiddling around the edges.

The Netherlands has a cycling modal share of 30%; the UK 2%. These numbers are not coincidence.

 

[srw]

The kind of infrastructure planned now will make 10% a year from a pretty small base look like fiddling around the edges.

The Netherlands has a cycling modal share of 30%; the UK 2%. These numbers are not coincidence.

It's because the Netherlands started from 20% and is a small country. If you think a strip of concrete will increase the number of cyclists on the Embankment (which is already overloaded) you're nuts.

 

[CopperBrompton]

If you think a strip of concrete will increase the number of cyclists on the Embankment (which is already overloaded) you're nuts.

You're ignoring the evidence. Sure, the Netherlands started from a higher base, but everyone is a utility cyclist in the Netherlands. That came about as a result of the infrastructure.

 

[srw]

I am more concerned about how the new cyclists will get to the start and from the finish of their route.

Flying carpets?

 

[srw]

You're ignoring the evidence. Sure, the Netherlands started from a higher base, but everyone is a utility cyclist in the Netherlands. That came about as a result of the infrastructure.

No. I've put piece of evidence after piece of evidence in front of you in this thread - all of which demonstrate that the infrastructure is only one small part of what contributed. Go on believing if you like, but at least have the humility to recognise that others who recognise evidence disagree with you.

 

[CopperBrompton]

No. I've put piece of evidence after piece of evidence in front of you in this thread - all of which demonstrate that the infrastructure is only one small part of what contributed.

It's hardly a small piece: it's the single most important one by far. You can argue against that all you like, but look at Denmark if you don't like the Netherlands: infrastructure was provided and the cyclists followed.

 

[EthelF]

No. I've put piece of evidence after piece of evidence in front of you in this thread - all of which demonstrate that the infrastructure is only one small part of what contributed. Go on believing if you like, but at least have the humility to recognise that others who recognise evidence disagree with you.

I'm confused now. Were the higher rates of cycling I have witnessed in the likes of Groningen, Copenhagen, Münster and Freiburg achieved thanks to the installation of cyclist-favouring infrastructure, or did the powers-that-be say to themselves "I say chaps, we have a jolly bunch of bicyclists, why don't we give them some roads of their own even though they appear hunky-dory as they are"? Actually I have a theory on which might apply.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I'm confused now. Were the higher rates of cycling I have witnessed in the likes of Groningen, Copenhagen, Münster and Freiburg achieved thanks to the installation of cyclist-favouring infrastructure

It's just coincidence, apparently.

 

[EthelF]

I am more concerned about how the new cyclists will get to the start and from the finish of their route.

In the same way as they would get to the existing choked up routes/tipper racetracks (depending on prevailing conditions) at present. Or, as I suggested earlier in this thread, we have well signposted quiet backstreet routes (non-circuitous, please - "feeder routes", as it were) linking to segregated rotes along major roads ("arterial routes").

 

[EthelF]

We have those, they are the roads.

I know. Your point being?
A lot of people are scared of cycling on roads*. Or rather, in traffic. Motor traffic. The more you do to reduce the real or apparent threat posed by motor vehicles in people's minds, the more appealing cycling becomes (this is my subjective view based upon a host of conversations I have had with lapsed cyclists and those who like to cycle, but not in traffic). So I fully encourage what the likes of Hackney have done to boost cycling by creating more direct routes with less motor traffic. But ultimately, such routes are still slower and more circuitous, and inevitably encounter busy interchanges. Enter stage: direct arterial routes - often but not necessarily A roads as these tend to follow ancient routes, which were the most direct. But the novice cyclists (and indeed those who just don't like the vehicular cycling all but required on British major roads) don't like mixing it with all that traffic. Which is where high quality (dare I say it: Dutch-style) segregation comes into play.
Or we can carry on as we are, in the vain hope that one day motorists will start being nice to us. I won't hold my breath.

*Yes I know, some people use this as an alibi for not cycling. Remove that and they will say it's the weather. Or the lack of changing facilities. Or lack of parking. But not everyone.

 

[EthelF]

Segregated cycle lanes came relatively late in the day, after political intervention to slow down traffic and widespread safety measures. THey also came on the back of an already substantial cycling population - at 20% modal share nationwide. I can't find a modal share history, but this graph illustrates the issue nicely:

I also came across this graph for the irst time, which focuses on central London, and illustrates what TFL has managed by spending almost nothing:

/

So the Netherlands started installing high quality cycling infrastructure from the mid-70s, and has seen a steady recovery in cycling rates, whereas the UK has not, and has seen a steady decline?

The figures regarding cyclists entering central London are very encouraging. But I see no evidence that this was achieved by TFL, rather than by external events such as demographic changes, transport overcrowding, terrorism, etc. (Anectdotal evidence alert) My own experience of cycling in London since 1995 is that general awareness among drivers has improved, but that the number, if not the proportion, of driving numpties has also increased, thus I am now encountering more bad driving than I have ever done before. Critical mass, we have not achieved.

 

[EthelF]

(segregated routes) certainly have their place.
I haven't studied the proposals in detail, but what I have seen is far too much of the compromises that make too many segregated paths unattractive. Bus stop bypasses are just nuts, and the idea that a bike path should switch from one carriageway to another is bizarre.

Sorry, I missed your post last night (the perils of following a thread on a phone)
I have a pretty clear idea of where you think segregation does not work, so I am interested to know where you do favour such routes?
Personally i don't think bus bypasses are "nuts", though they do require more care.
But yes, the idea of bike paths switching from one side of the road to another is bizarre. In fact, I think it's nuts. So we appear to agree on some points! :-)

 

[EthelF]

It's because the Netherlands started from 20% and is a small country. If you think a strip of concrete will increase the number of cyclists on the Embankment (which is already overloaded) you're nuts.

Is the size of the country relevant? 16 million Dutch vs 65 million in the UK - population density certainly is high, but what about in comparison with just the SE of England? Not so different then. It's not as if anybody is cycling from Maastricht to Alkmaar, or Groningen to Vlissingen, just as nobody cycle commutes from Norwich to Andover or Telford to Watford!
Would the new Embankment path encourage more cyclists? Maybe I'm nuts, but I thin yes. My wife, for one. Does this make her doubly nuts, one for preferring segregation, and two for marrying a pro-segregation nutjob?