London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[gaz]

So whilst we aren't owning these high streets, what will 'you' be doing to get those 86% of people on a bike?

 

[srw]

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.

You may call something from a doubling to a quintupling (depending on how percentages have been rounded) negligible. I do not.

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

A fascinating link. And one which is rather more complex than the "bike lane = good" message you seem to be promoting.

Section 1.2 distinguishes between those cities which have in the past had an explicitly pro-car development policy and have seen bike use drop and those that have not. So pro-car policy is bad for bikes. Score one for central London - it's got an anti-car policy now.

Figure 8 explicitly, and clearly, supports the "safety in numbers" argument.

PDF page 15 - Groningen - an anti-car policy has resulted in lots of bikes.
PDF page 16 - Amsterdam - creation and maintenance of a bike network is only part of a raft of measure, headed by increasing bike parking.

Chapter 4 - the measures that the Netherlands thinks are important in encouraging cycling:
1. Town planning
2. Traffic infrastucture (not just bike infrastructure) which improves traffic safety (not bike safety), is direct, comfortable, attractive and cohesive for cycling - and which discourages private car use
3. Bike parking
4. Tackling theft
5. Education

The section on infrastructure is particularly interesting - it highlights that cyclists will tend to prefer quiet mixed roads to dedicated lanes on or near arterial roads, for instance. And that completely separated cycle networks become unpopular because they're perceived not to be safe.

 

[srw]

Cycling levels will continue to stagnate while the road environment stays as it is.

What was that about cognitive dissonance? A somewhat selective reading of the TFL literature, I think.

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.

And the Dutch literature, to boot.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

You may call something from a doubling to a quintupling (depending on how percentages have been rounded) negligible. I do not.

Granted. But you do realise that the percentages could also have been rounded from 1.4 to 1, and from 1.6 to 2? That would not look quite so impressive.

And - if we do grant that cycling's modal share has doubled - we were working from a very small base in 1993. That was my point about 'small percentages". I certainly don't think it would be wise to suggest that it will go on doubling.

(Don't get me wrong - I want an increase to happen. I may sound like a grumpy miserable pessimist. It's just that I have heard so much talk about targets that continually fail to be met it is no surprise that I have become a little cynical.)

A fascinating link. And one which is rather more complex than the "bike lane = good" message you seem to be promoting.

Section 1.2 distinguishes between those cities which have in the past had an explicitly pro-car development policy and have seen bike use drop and those that have not. So pro-car policy is bad for bikes. Score one for central London - it's got an anti-car policy now.

It has one anti-car policy. One. The congestion charge, the logic of which is steadily being eroded by exemptions for taxis, blue badge holders, private hire vehicles, electrics/hybrids, and - from 2011 - vehicles with emissions less than 100g/km.

What other 'anti-car' policies are there? From where I'm sitting, London roads are entirely geared for the motorist. Cycling - as always - is fitted in around the margins.

Figure 8 explicitly, and clearly, supports the "safety in numbers" argument.

Does it? If there is a correlation, there is not necessarily causation - or at least, not running the way you want it to. It is not true that safety in Holland and Denmark comes purely from "numbers". The "numbers" have come from safety. Let's not put the cart before the horse.

PDF page 15 - Groningen - an anti-car policy has resulted in lots of bikes.
PDF page 16 - Amsterdam - creation and maintenance of a bike network is only part of a raft of measure, headed by increasing bike parking.

Yep. All good. Not sure what your beef with me is here. I have never suggested that good infrastructure is the only thing that needs to be done. Secure and plentiful bike parking is something we need, as well as making car journeys more impractical.

Chapter 4 - the measures that the Netherlands thinks are important in encouraging cycling:
1. Town planning
2. Traffic infrastucture (not just bike infrastructure) which improves traffic safety (not bike safety), is direct, comfortable, attractive and cohesive for cycling - and which discourages private car use
3. Bike parking
4. Tackling theft
5. Education

Ditto. This is precisely what I think we should be aiming for. Because it has a proven track record of success.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

The section on infrastructure is particularly interesting - it highlights that cyclists will tend to prefer quiet mixed roads to dedicated lanes on or near arterial roads, for instance.

The quote that most matches this statement is - "More interestingly: cyclists often prefer a quiet residential street to an autonomous bicycle path alongside busy traffic arteries." Is that right?



That's fine. The Dutch don't segregate on quiet residential streets. There is no need, because traffic speeds and volumes are low. Dutch cyclists probably feel equally safe on both these streets as they do on autonomous paths beside busy roads. That's the essential point. If it's busy - segregate. I certainly don't think you will find Dutch cyclists suggesting they prefer cycling on a busy arterial road to cycling alongside it on a separated path.

And that completely separated cycle networks become unpopular because they're perceived not to be safe.

Where does it say this?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

So whilst we aren't owning these high streets, what will 'you' be doing to get those 86% of people on a bike?

Good question Gaz. I don't think there is an easy answer. I have to go to bed - I'll mull it over tonight and get back to you.

Before I head off. I think a fundamental problem here is that when you say the word "separation" to a UK cyclist, the image that immediately springs to mind is

And not

A) I don't want crap separation.

B) I don't think separation is the only solution, or the solution everywhere.

C) More people cycling is a good thing.

Hope this is clear.

 

[dellzeqq]

show me the drawing. Putting a picture of some asphalt path from some other town in to the thread is just foolish. Get the 1:1250 map and start overlaying these separated lanes.

(here's a hint - watch out for pedestrians, junctions, bus stops, crossovers, zebra crossings, deliveries to commercial premises and so on........)

 

[srw]

Granted. But you do realise that the percentages could also have been rounded from 1.4 to 1, and from 1.6 to 2? That would not look quite so impressive.

Here's the LCC in 2008:

Cycling in London has soared in the past five years by more than 80%. Overall modal share across Greater London remains low at less than 2% of all journeys (including car, tube, rail, taxi, bus and walking) but it is much higher in some parts of London. In the morning peak in Central London the ratio of bikes to private cars is now 1 to 3. In Hackney cycling’s modal share is estimated at more than 10% of journeys. Cycling‘s highest modal share in the UK is in Cambridge with 28% followed by York 19% and Oxford 17%.

http://www.lcc.org.u...asp?PageID=1142

[edit]

Figure 13.3 (PDF page 335/379) of the TFL doc is instructive, too. It shows that between 2000 ad 2003 cyclist numbers were, on average, static, with gradually increasing summer peaks. They then took off in 2003, with continuous increases since. There is no obvious "bomb-dodger" effect in 2005. The summer 2010 peak was more than two and a half times the summer 2000 peak.

It is instructive to note that these counts are taken on the road network that TFL is responsible for - that is, the main arterial roads in central and inner London. So even though people say that they are put off by traffic, that is increasingly not the case in practice.

Dellzeqq's challenge is an interesting one. Personally I'd love a network of well-maintained paths with very limited traffic. But it ain't going to happen in London - except in central London, where the congestion charge has effectively created it.

 

[dellzeqq]

the 1 to 3 bike/car figure disguises wide variations. Southwest London radial routes managed by TfL are way up on the rest of London, although there are isolated routes that have lately become very popular - the A206 corridor up from Greenwhich which benefits from a 24 hour bus lane springs to mind, and the A12, again bus-laned.

I suspect that there are specific reasons. One factor we don't give sufficient credit to is the role played by antipodean cyclists who arrived in London, moved to the southwest, and just got on with it. The 7/7 bombings had the effect of widening the demographic, particularly to young women and southwest London is the chosen location for middle class young men and (particularly) women.

I've said that the hire bike scheme has widened the demographic again.

When all is said and done you just have to stand by the side of the road to realise that cycling in London is booming. The overwhelming reason is bus lanes, which afford cyclists a competitive advantage and clearer sight lines in addition to their main purpose, which is to allow buses to move freely. That's a sort of win-win thing, with civic pride, transport efficiency and greater personal mobility running in to one another.

TfL's task is to somehow recreate the success of the A24/A3 segment around the compass. And that they are absolutely dedicated to doing.

(still waiting for that drawing........)

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Here's the LCC in 2008:

Cycling in London has soared in the past five years by more than 80%. Overall modal share across Greater London remains low at less than 2% of all journeys (including car, tube, rail, taxi, bus and walking) but it is much higher in some parts of London. In the morning peak in Central London the ratio of bikes to private cars is now 1 to 3. In Hackney cycling’s modal share is estimated at more than 10% of journeys. Cycling‘s highest modal share in the UK is in Cambridge with 28% followed by York 19% and Oxford 17%.

http://www.lcc.org.u...asp?PageID=1142

What I find interesting is that Hackney's modal share - so proudly trumpeted here by the LCC - is, in the latest TfL document, back down to 4%. This runs rather counter to the breezy optimism displayed in that article. Explanation?

Figure 13.3 (PDF page 335/379) of the TFL doc is instructive, too. It shows that between 2000 ad 2003 cyclist numbers were, on average, static, with gradually increasing summer peaks. They then took off in 2003, with continuous increases since. There is no obvious "bomb-dodger" effect in 2005. The summer 2010 peak was more than two and a half times the summer 2000 peak.

It is instructive to note that these counts are taken on the road network that TFL is responsible for - that is, the main arterial roads in central and inner London. So even though people say that they are put off by traffic, that is increasingly not the case in practice.

I don't doubt that we are seeing an increase in arterial cycling in at commuting periods. I would suggest that this largely due to a number of commuters pragmatically switching modes, after getting fed up with congestion in outer London, which has increased over the same period.

But these are very small gains, set alongside the picture of cycling across London as a whole, and it's hard to see how they can be sustained. Increasing numbers of people on bikes means congestion eases - the private car becomes more attractive again. And the appeal of cycling alongside heavy traffic is limited to particular groups - males aged mainly between 25 and 50. Further gains are going to be much harder to achieve. For instance - the results of the survey conducted by TfL show that only 1% of the users of the Cycle Superhighways had started to use their bikes because of it (with the caveat, of course, that the survey respondents were a self-selecting group).

Take a look at these pictures.

These are the demographic groups that are barely represented in cycling in London. They will not figure in any future increase in cycling at all, unless they feel safe.

Why don't we start thinking about them, and what they want?

Personally I'd love a network of well-maintained paths with very limited traffic. But it ain't going to happen in London - except in central London, where the congestion charge has effectively created it.

You think central London has "very limited traffic"?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

(still waiting for that drawing........)

You've been waiting since you last asked me because I have not been online today.

Anyway, you post the map, I'll scribble on it. I don't have many 1:1250 maps of London to hand.

 

[MacB]

I would question the fear of riding in traffic stats, I'm aware that it's often put up as an example but was under the impression that it was a bit of a red herring stock excuse. In the same way people would like reducing congestion measures etc for others but would like to be one of the select few not impacted by these measures. A lot of the people claiming fear of traffic as a reason still wouldn't cycle if this was addressed. Getting people on bikes is one thing, keeping them on them and enabling replacement of car useage by bike is another entirely.

I note on one of SRWs posts that fear of theft is pretty high up the list of things inhibiting cycling use. Before taking up cycling I wouldn't have given it much thought, now it's my main consideration. Traffic, getting lost, weather, distance, they all pale into insignificance next to this fear. I can see how this has been addressed, in some respects, by the Boris Bikes, but there's a long way to go. For me this is a key difference between leisure and utility cycling and decisions around transport choice. Car drivers are able to assume their car will remain safe and secure in their absence, along with anything stored within, or attached to it. Leisure cyclists are secure in the knowledge that they won't be leaving their bikes unattended or, if they do, it will only be at a pre-determined point. It's utility cyclists that suffer, whether it's commuting, shopping or just generally going about their daily business. The evidence of this is scattered around every station and highstreet, bikes that only look fit for the tip. The net abounds with security information around bikes and making it harder for thieves.

I reckon secure cycle parking facilities would be a huge boost to cycle useage as long as the cost isn't foisted directly onto the cyclists.

 

[srw]

You've been waiting since you last asked me because I have not been online today.

Anyway, you post the map, I'll scribble on it. I don't have many 1:1250 maps of London to hand.

Here's something to get you started:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=goo...code_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ8gEwAA

 

[srw]

What I find interesting is that Hackney's modal share - so proudly trumpeted here by the LCC - is, in the latest TfL document, back down to 4%. This runs rather counter to the breezy optimism displayed in that article. Explanation?

It's very difficult to measure, and very few people bother.

I don't doubt that we are seeing an increase in arterial cycling in at commuting periods. I would suggest that this largely due to a number of commuters pragmatically switching modes, after getting fed up with congestion in outer London, which has increased over the same period.

But these are very small gains,

Very small gains? You call a factor of 2.5 in 5 years very small?

the results of the survey conducted by TfL show that only 1% of the users of the Cycle Superhighways had started to use their bikes because of it

Hold on. A moment ago you were hyming the praises of separated and signposted cycle routes, because they'd encourage lots of cycling. What's changed?

 

[dellzeqq]

You've been waiting since you last asked me because I have not been online today.

Anyway, you post the map, I'll scribble on it. I don't have many 1:1250 maps of London to hand.

I don't want you to scribble. I want you to draw it. A 3M wide cycle path at 1:1250 is 2.4mm wide. You go to the library, you get the maps, you draw the parallel lines 2.4mm apart. It's not difficult to draw the lines, but it is impossible to draw the lines without coming up with a scheme that causes a whole lot of inconvenience and stupidity (see list above and add wheelchair accessible kerbs with the proper gradients).

This is the thing. You people post pictures of streets that look like something you might see in Milton Keynes (where nobody uses the redways) but you have no conception, no understanding, no desire to understand what makes a street in London. None whatsoever. Yours is the kind of abstract adolescent theorising that is the blight of the internet. You talk, but you can't perform. Show me the drawing.