That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[Red Light]

This is one of the contradictions. There's a perception that cycling is dangerous and this needs to be overcome to increase the take up of cycling. When you've reached critical mass with take up then this perception disappears. Cycling infrastucture one way but not the only one to overcome this. Other things may be more achievable and beneficial in the long term.

I read a report from the GLC Traffic Committee from the end of last year which suggested the Boris Bikes had been 20 times more effective at getting new people cycling in London than the Boris Blueways. The former cost about a quarter of the latter. And for 1 mile of Blueway you could put 100,000 people through Bikeability training.

 

[MartinC]

I read a report from the GLC Traffic Committee from the end of last year which suggested the Boris Bikes had been 20 times more effective at getting new people cycling in London than the Boris Blueways. The former cost about a quarter of the latter. And for 1 mile of Blueway you could put 100,000 people through Bikeability training.

Interesting. So Boris bikes were 80 times as cost effective as the cycle paths. Are cycle hire schemes cycle infrastucture? They're certainly not segregation.

 

[Red Light]

Interesting. So Boris bikes were 80 times as cost effective as the cycle paths. Are cycle hire schemes cycle infrastucture? They're certainly not segregation.

In Dublin effectiveness is even better. Their big strategic cycle facilities network build was accompanied by a drop in cycling of 15% in commuters and 40% in school students compared wtih over 5,000 journeys a day on their new BB equivalent, DublinBikes. Dublin plans to increase its bike numbers from 450 to 5,000. 40% of the users of DublinBikes had seldom or never cycled in Dublin before. It seems that if you can make cycling appear accessible to ordinary people, then people will start cycling.

 

[snorri]

The speed may vary but it is all leisure.

Point taken Adrian, I tend to think of leisure cylists as being be non-perspiring.

 

[Richard Mann]

I read a report from the GLC Traffic Committee from the end of last year which suggested the Boris Bikes had been 20 times more effective at getting new people cycling in London than the Boris Blueways. The former cost about a quarter of the latter. And for 1 mile of Blueway you could put 100,000 people through Bikeability training.

Boris Bikes can't really work on a mass scale in most cities - there isn't enough space to park the bikes. Private bike parking is more space-efficient.

And it's the distance / how often those new people cycle that matters, as much as the numbers. How many newbies try Boris Bikes to do a bit of one-off pottering and never take it any further?

 

[Dan B]

Popularity is an overrated concept

Most people would disagree, I think. Statistically anyway

 

[Red Light]

Boris Bikes can't really work on a mass scale in most cities - there isn't enough space to park the bikes. Private bike parking is more space-efficient.

Seems lot of cities are managing.

And it's the distance / how often those new people cycle that matters, as much as the numbers. How many newbies try Boris Bikes to do a bit of one-off pottering and never take it any further?

Eight in ten use it regularly once or more a week and two in ten 5 days or more a week. Six out of ten had taken up cycling in the last three months and seven out of ten London residents. Doesn't seem much like one-off potters to me
TfL Travel in London Report No 3

 

[Richard Mann]

Eight in ten use [Boris Bikes] regularly once or more a week and two in ten 5 days or more a week. Six out of ten had taken up cycling in the last three months and seven out of ten London residents. Doesn't seem much like one-off potters to me
TfL Travel in London Report No 3

"one-off potters" was perhaps an exaggeration too far.

But I'd still like to see some stats on how many miles boris bikers do compared to newbies induced by the blueways. Cycling within the congestion charge zone isn't the same as the rest of London.

And we're getting a bit away from the OP - the question isn't really whether Boris Bikes or Bikeability or Blueways give a better payback - that rather depends on the sponsorship deal - the question is why some people are so adamantly against cycle lanes/tracks, and what (practically) it would take to persuade them to support the (apparent) consensus view that they're a good thing. As I said, the compromise we ended up with in Oxford was to regard "tracks" as a slow facility, and "lanes" as a fast facility, with both required for different purposes.

 

[Richard Mann]

The one that Tommi described. You can argue about whether cycle lanes/tracks are 10% more or less safe til the cows come home, but there's pretty much a consensus that lanes/tracks - of some kind - are a good thing.

So that's the challenge - 90% want some kind of cycle facility and 10% want no cycle facilities. Is there any compromise or does the 90% just give up and ignore the 10%?

 

[Red Light]

And we're getting a bit away from the OP - the question isn't really whether Boris Bikes or Bikeability or Blueways give a better payback - that rather depends on the sponsorship deal - the question is why some people are so adamantly against cycle lanes/tracks, and what (practically) it would take to persuade them to support the (apparent) consensus view that they're a good thing. As I said, the compromise we ended up with in Oxford was to regard "tracks" as a slow facility, and "lanes" as a fast facility, with both required for different purposes.

No, the question is why some people are so adamantly wedded to cycle tracks that they want them against everything else. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. Its incumbent on those proposing facilities to demonstrate that they will deliver, not on everyone else to prove they won't. They've been around long enough that you can hardly say you don't know and will have to build some to find out. Value for money is important because it cost £1m a mile to put in a segregated facility or Blueway that's an awful lot of money you are asking for for even a basic network.

So show me the evidence that if you are given £1m a mile to spend that a) cycling is dangerous enough compared other daily activities to need an intervention, b) that the cycle facilities will produce a significant increase in safety and c) they will produce a significant increase in numbers cycling.

And sponsorship is irrelevant. You are paying for the Barclays sponsorship directly or indirectly through the fees Barclays charge their customer which will include an element to cover the sponsorship costs. So one way or another we are all paying for it whether its obvious or not.

And there is no concensus, just a vocal minority intent on imposing cycle facilities on everyone else.

 

[Red Light]

The one that Tommi described. You can argue about whether cycle lanes/tracks are 10% more or less safe til the cows come home, but there's pretty much a consensus that lanes/tracks - of some kind - are a good thing.

Define "a good thing"

I forget the study which surveyed cyclists views of tracks and lanes and the vast majority said they preferred them to the road. But when it came to their actual riding the vast majority didn't use them.

 

[Red Light]

Where does the space for 'private' bike parking magically appear from?

The same place as they found it in London where they aim to have them no more than 300m apart in the centre. e.g. in many places they took out a couple of parking bays, widened the pavement into them and stuck the docking station on it. Apparently the biggest problem was resident objections in some areas but since its been found out that house prices are higher near docking stations. Where there's a will there's a way.

 

[Red Light]

Love to know where you get your statistics from.

Didn't you know, 65.2% of statistics are made up?

 

[Richard Mann]

There isn't a consensus on this discussion thread, no, but this is hardly representative, is it?

I think you get to a "consensus" when most people are saying the same thing, or looking bored/incredulous and there's only a handful of people making a noise and nobody much listening. Usually I let that go on for a bit, to see if the noisy ones really have any genuine points (because I like to be generous and take on board their concerns if I can). But then I move to a vote and discover there's an overwhelming majority.

We've had this debate over a few decades in Oxford, and the consensus is a dual network. If I was advocating cycle tracks alongside main roads, cost would be a relevant factor, but cycle lanes are pretty cheap, so cost is pretty much irrelevant.

Seriously, what problem do you have with cycle lanes + traffic speed reduction (confinement to 30mph; aiming for lower)?

 

[marinyork]

The same place as they found it in London where they aim to have them no more than 300m apart in the centre. e.g. in many places they took out a couple of parking bays, widened the pavement into them and stuck the docking station on it. Apparently the biggest problem was resident objections in some areas but since its been found out that house prices are higher near docking stations. Where there's a will there's a way.

You could theoretically find the place for Boris bikes in some cities outside London, but there just wouldn't be the political will for it. It would be a very alien concept doing that sort of thing (been a few examples). Nevertheless bits of London do have a lot more space to play with than quite a few UK cities. If you do a detailed analysis of where you can put private parking as I have done for my city, the comparison is very clear. Usually when I and other people ask and survey for cycle parking, the main issue is money. It's also worth pointing out that obviously cycle parking tends to be put in as 2x sheffield stands -5x sheffield stands in cities with less of a cycle culture. The more popular the former is very much smaller than a row of Boris Bikes (although it is unclear how large the need would be in a UK city other than London).