Make Cyclelanes Work Petition

[StuartG]

Just gone to the ePetition and shocked (perhaps not expectantly) that cut fuel duty has come from nowhere to No 1 - pushing aside the even more unexpected victory to the anti-capital punishment petition.

This is the sort of petition IMHO we should be supporting to change the balance of power on road/pavements:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/5127 (only 17 so far. Could we do a viral on it?)

 

[Red Light]

You may be both right. Improved cycling infrastructure alone will not cause modal shift from cars. The evidence points towards only reduced motoring infrastructure/pricing will cause people to leave their cars.

That done - then a good cycling infrastructure gives the 'dispossessed' a real choice between cycling and public transport.

It has to be a two pronged strategy for success. In pragmatic terms one may need to support each prong individually. In political terms 'pro-cycling, anti-car' combination is not going to win us too many much needed friends.

But building cycle facilities, especially segregated ones, is extremely expensive*. If you are going to spend that sort of money out of the cycling budget you need to be really really sure its going to have an effect and there are not far better ways to spend that money getting people cycling such as training. Plus if you are not cycling because of a lack of cycling facilities, you presumably will not cycle until there is a continuous cycle facility from start to finish of your journey. Otherwise you are going to have to face cycling on the road anyway.

I do wish we could get away from this intense focus on "cycling with traffic is extremely dangerous". Cycling on the roads is very very safe, despite perceptions, and we need to concentrate on getting the message across about the positive benefits of cycling not harping on continually about needing more protection from the dangers. Six million Boris Bike journeys in London mainly by inexperienced city cyclists with few cycle facilities has led to zero serious injuries and just a handful of minor ones.

* The cycle lanes in Brighton and Hove that were in the news recently cost £800k to build. A single Boris Blueway costs £8-11m and that's not even segregated. Even the recent simple No Cycling signing on a short length of London's Southbank cost £5k. Think of what could have been done if that sort of money had been put into cycle training in schools and for parents for example.

 

[StuartG]

But building cycle facilities, especially segregated ones, is extremely expensive*.

Or does your evidence suggest the opposite?

A single double decker bus (as destroyed in Tottenham Saturday) is approx £150,000. This is probably the cheapest and quickest way to provide mass public transport. It works - well in London anyway.

What governments like about motoring is that public expenditure is limited to roads. The motorist pays the rest. Whereas with that bus (plus bus lanes) the costs just keep on coming. Driver, insurance, maintenence, operating company, operating company profits ... for ever and a day.

In that cycling infrastructure is cheap compared to public or private vehicular transport. Compare the costs you quoted with, say, the repair costs of the M25 'incident' Friday. And after that it is the cyclist who pays the rest.

We can argue about the allocation of spend. But it is in a different and much lower league to the wheeled alternatives.

 

[Riverman]

Thing is roads are expensive. Isnt the root of the problem that the cycling budget is too small?

Ah edit.. Didnt see your post as im mobile

 

[dellzeqq]

8 signatures so far. Another 99,992 required for parliamentary time.

 

[Red Light]

Thing is roads are expensive. Isnt the root of the problem that the cycling budget is too small?

But lets say you had an extra £1m in the budget. What would give you the most bangs for your buck in getting people cycling. Spending it on a mile of cycle lane or 100,000 Bikeability training places?

 

[StuartG]

But lets say you had an extra £1m in the budget. What would give you the most bangs for your buck in getting people cycling. Spending it on a mile of cycle lane or 100,000 Bikeability training places?

Or allocate it to the parking revenue budget, remove £1 million worth of parking meters, cycles could use the available space (I leave it to others to decided whether to paint/kerb it or not) and force motorists to look for another route/mode.

Nearly all my generation did Bikeability courses (then called National Proficiency) and nearly all went on to drive not ride. So no i don't think that is going to do anything beyond making cyclists safer (but then you say they are safe anyway). You seem very confused.

Next?

 

[Red Light]

Improved cycling infrastructure alone will not cause modal shift from cars.

All the evidence including from London and Amsterdam is that the modal competition is between public transport and bikes, not cars and bikes.

From the Travel in London Report No 3

• Respondents were asked how they would have travelled for their selected trip before the introduction of Barclays Cycle Hire. Six in ten trips made by Barclays Cycle Hire bicycles have replaced a public transport trip, primarily Underground (35 per cent) and bus (23 per cent), and 4 per cent have replaced a trip by car or taxi.
• The most popular reasons for using the scheme were that it was quicker,
healthier and more convenient than the previous mode.

Nothing there about someone built a cycle lane.

On the Boris Blueways, those that had switched from another mode of transport said

"The aspects of the route that had encouraged them to switch were the directness to their destination, the visibility of the blue road markings, the quality of the road surface and the number of other cyclists on the route."

 

[StuartG]

All the evidence including from London and Amsterdam is that the modal competition is between public transport and bikes, not cars and bikes.

Aha - you are beginning to understand what I'm saying.

To replay: the key is getting a switch away from the motoring mode. This is probably best achieved by removing motoring infrastructure (directly or by pricing). Then by providing or reallocating towards cycling infrastructure it becomes an alternative choice to public transport. OK for shorter trips for fitter folk but those are badly handled by public transport anyway.

 

[Red Light]

Or allocate it to the parking revenue budget, remove £1 million worth of parking meters, cycles could use the available space (I leave it to others to decided whether to paint/kerb it or not) and force motorists to look for another route/mode.

Danish studies show that makes it more dangerous for cyclists with car turning into side roads to look for parking spaces.

Nearly all my generation did Bikeability courses (then called National Proficiency) and nearly all went on to drive not ride. So no i don't think that is going to do anything beyond making cyclists safer (but then you say they are safe anyway). You seem very confused.

Yes, I did the Nationals Cycling Proficiency test and still have my Knights of the Road certificate from the News of the World for passing. But it was all done in the school playground not on the roads and in an era where I played in the street. My parents had no worries about me cycling the the two miles to primary school on my own. So very different road conditions. Bikeability training is done on the roads as well and the good ones in schools involve parents in the training and on weekend school rides with their children. See here for example with not a single mention of painting a white line.

 

[Red Light]

Aha - you are beginning to understand what I'm saying.

To replay: the key is getting a switch away from the motoring mode. This is probably best achieved by removing motoring infrastructure (directly or by pricing). Then by providing or reallocating towards cycling infrastructure it becomes an alternative choice to public transport. OK for shorter trips for fitter folk but those are badly handled by public transport anyway.

If you remove motor traffic from town and city centres then you have no need to build facilities - cyclists and pedestrians will colonise the streets without the need for any white lines as seen in the Netherlands and as is happening in London post Congestion Charging. Interestingly though a Dutch study of ten cities and their cycling levels found that one of the reason cycling was low in e.g. Manchester was that the public transport provision was so good.:

• A high bicycle share (more than 30%) for Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede and Copenhagen;
cities that never saw the arrival of a ‘bicycle use-consuming’ public transport
system and where bicycle traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy:
‘Accepting the cyclist as a “normal” traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and
’60s has been (...) a crucial factor: the realisation of a motor car infrastructure is not at
the expense of the cyclist; the collective bicycle picture is fairly positive and especially
“rational”.’
• An average bicycle share (ca. 20%) for South-East Limburg and Hannover. Here, the rise
of the motor car coincided with a more manifest pro-car policy and a spatial structure
which was more in line with the motor car.
• A low bicycle share (ca. 10% or below) for Antwerp, Manchester and Basel. Here it is
especially the car-oriented traffic policy that explains matters, and the manifest influence
of an early, properly functioning public transport system (Manchester).

 

[StuartG]

Danish studies show that makes it more dangerous for cyclists with car turning into side roads to look for parking spaces.

Yes, yes I want London to be as dangerous as Copenhagen for bikes!

Get a grip. Or rather take a ride through Copenhagen. Are you more or less likely to be right/left hooked here or there? Ditto for being 'doored'.

Removing the destination (parking place) is an effective way of reducing both real and perceived risk. It also magically creates new free space for public transport and/or bikes. Space that is better utilised by both making for a better urban environment and ironically reducing journey times.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Sorry Downfader, make cycle-lanes history and assert your right to the road.

+1

 

[StuartG]

If you remove motor traffic from town and city centres then you have no need to build facilities - cyclists and pedestrians will colonise the streets without the need for any white lines as seen in the Netherlands and as is happening in London post Congestion Charging.

It is not as simple as that.

If you reduce the number of cars but not their road space then they will travel faster and the speed differential kills. You need to manage that. Secondly because city streets are unbalanced this will speed traffic towards the bottlenecks. Pall Mall in London is an example. Four solid clogged lanes all day. If you want people to bike Pall Mall then you need to provide biking space. There is currently none but the pavements (covered in City of Westminster penalty notice signs). Reallocating and reserving space is probably the only solution there.

Cyclists need space. If they do not have it then they feel very unsafe. Its about vulnerability and scared people don't stay with cycling. How you create and preserve that space is tricky. Sometimes its dedicated cycle lanes, sometimes it is legislation or another way. Being dogmatic one way or another rather than responsive to the situation in hand is what we cyclists have suffered for too long.

So to return to kids. Remove car parking/stopping around schools. Provide secure cycle parking. Give a kid a prize if he cycles to school. Get the head to cycle to school. I bet that would change modal shift more than pushing Bikeability courses. Ironically (sorry its my favourite word) it may subsequently increase the demand for Bikeability.

Bikeability is more for people who have chosen to ride. We need to address those that haven't.

 

[Mad at urage]

Sorry Downfader, make cycle-lanes history and assert your right to the road.

On major NSL roads that go directly to my destination?

I do, but most (including many on here) won't.