CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Cycle Network

(360 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by Simon Parker
  • Latest reply from wingpig

  1. Kenny
    Member

    Looking at the map it appears that the suggested routes for a proposed cycle network closely align with some of the most busy and unpleasant roads in Edinburgh to cycle along. For example, St John's Road in Corstorphine – you couldn't pay me to cycle along that road

    I suppose this is where there won't be one ideal design for everyone. Although I don't cycle along this road daily, I certainly go along it when I'm heading into town. I find it a breeze to head along, plenty of room on the bus lane except for outside the Carvery which can occasionally get a bit clogged up. But ultimately, some cyclists will happily take the main roads, others want to take the back roads. Can one cycle network document both without confusion? I suspect not. Much like cyclestreets, maybe we need two or three cycle networks depending upon whether you want speed, directness, empty streets etc.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. SRD
    Moderator

    Morningsider - near the start of is thread, you mentioned data that went into ATAP. I saw this same presentation today (or at least I presume it was the same). Quite interesting and robust, as you say. But not quite what I was asking about - I wanted to know if they've actually looked at what routes people use to go from x to y before deciding what routes we 'ought' to use.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. Simon Parker
    Member

    Hello again.

    I have been doing some more work on the map. (Sorry, rbrtwtmn. I signed up to GitHub and ITO World, but I find them both a bit confusing. I am still using Google maps, I'm afraid.)

    I have also been able to consider at much greater length the various points that people were making. Thank you again for all the input.

    So how do I kick this off again? You may recall that I encouraged Morningsider to read my blog on New York City. This was based on a presentation given by Janette Sadik-Khan and hosted by TED talks. According to TED, her mantra is as follows: Do bold experiments that are cheap to try out.

    I often hear (down in London) many cycle campaigners saying things like, "If you're going to do it, then do it properly." However, it turns out that finding evidence in support of this philosophy is not that easy. (Please, give it a go.) Better advice, it seems, is as follows: "If you're going to do it, then do it."

    In New York, said Janette Sadik-Khan, they "moved quickly to create an inter-connected network of lanes." If it was up to me, I would go quicker even than the New Yorkers went. They took six years. I would take six weeks. Seriously. As Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, puts it: "Done is better than perfect."

    Have you seen Manchester's proposed cycle network? I think the plan is to spend £20m in Year One, and then £10m a year until 2025. By then they are looking for 10% of all journeys to be made by bike.

    I think they have lots of ideas about this, but I will say now, I don't care how high the quality of the engineering on their proposed network is, the fact is that their network lacks density and connectivity, and it therefore falls at the first hurdle. I do not expect them to get anywhere near a 10% modal share.

    Who is this 10%? It's not just anybody. It does not include my brother-in-law, for example. No, it's "the mass of non-cyclists who are most likely to take up cycling again" (to quote Cycling: the way ahead). It's the people on the margins, people like you and me. And for us, safety is not actually the biggest problem.

    The right-to-ride guys think that (or used to think that) recreating the conditions which suit them would encourage other like-minded people to give cycling a go. The thing is, however, these people only make up about 1% of the population.

    I believe that recreating the conditions which suit me would encourage other like-minded people to give cycling a go. If Roger Geller is right, people like me make up about 8% of the population.

    Of course I value space for cycling on the busy roads. Of course I do. But I am not waiting for it to happen before I take up cycling (as my brother-in-law is).

    If Manchester would spend £20m "introducing" a network like this one, and then another ten years developing it further, including putting roads back differently after road resurfacing work, they would reach their 10% target as easy as winking. I would also add that, broadly speaking, this approach is properly what is meant by Going Dutch (note the verb tense).

    Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to discuss these ideas with you. At some point fairly soon, I will get in touch with Spokes.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. le_soigneur
    Member

    Nice job taking on board some previous points.
    You could join up the Lindsay Rd end of the NEPN with the Seafield/Portobello path. Commercial St has a painted-on cycle strip. Cycle on any part of this leg at commute time and you will see a 2-wheeled commuter pedalling by every 2 or 3 minutes. Then again, you might consider me a right-to-ride guy so you'd probably need to ride this route yourself to see if it has "conditions that suit Simon Parker".
    What is all this stuff about brother-in-law?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. Simon Parker
    Member

    Thanks for the feedback, le_soigneur, much appreciated.

    Regarding your suggestion concerning Lindsay Road and Commercial Street, what do you think about this?

    As for the other point you make, "conditions that suit Sara Dorman" would perhaps be much more my preference. I say this as a regular reader of her blog. If there were any roads on the network which she felt were "too dangerous", and which she wouldn't use because of this, then these can be marked on the map in a different way. (In Portland, for example, they use a dashed line to show a "difficult connection".)

    Actually, I have just checked out that blog on Portland, and was reminded of a video from Mark Ames of ibikelondon.

    http://www.naden.de/blog/bbvideo-bbpress-video-plugin -->

    [+] Embed the video | here

    " target="_blank">Video Download
    Get the Video Widget

    This shows very quickly what sort of cyclist I am talking about. "Conditions that would suit the people in this video" might be a better way to phrase it, then.

    The case is, developing a cycle network which is "just as suitable for children, inexperienced cyclists and disabled cyclists as [it is] for faster commuter cyclists" is a big ask, particularly when you haven't even got the basics in place. It sounds wonderful, but to speak of this matter practically, it doesn't seem very likely that this would happen in the short-term.

    Besides, for the time being, the needs of children should be considered at a much more local level (safe routes to school, etc). It is simply not sensible to seek to provide for them at a strategic level at this stage.

    I hope that has answered your questions. Regarding my brother-in-law ... oh, let's not worry about him.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. le_soigneur
    Member

    I would have taken it off Seafield Rd at Fillyside Rd and onto the shared use path all the way to Portobello Prom and then back onto the road at Joppa Sq through to Musselburgh where there is another path down the seafront to come out at the racecourse.
    It would also join up with the Restalrig path at Seafield Crematorium. All suitable for less confident cyclists.
    Not sure about the realism of the London video, traffic seemed non-existent. Anyone cycling there in daytime must be pretty assertive to mix it along the Mall with scooters/motos, lorries and cars. And no kids.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. Simon Parker
    Member

    Cool, thanks.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. Simon Parker
    Member

    Just to say that, during the last five days, the proposed design for an Edinburgh Cycling Network has generated over a thousand views.

    Rules is rules, and I am not allowed to swear on this forum, otherwise I would express my astonishment in much more colourful language, but Wow!

    A resident from Rotterdam has commented on Mark Treasure's recent blog on how cycling is - or should be - fun. He wrote: "If you live in a city, can walk and the distance you need to travel is less than 5 km, there’s no need to own or use a car."

    I regard this view as consistent with the available evidence, which says that, first and foremost, cycling needs to be able to provide good accessibility (network criteria available here).

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    This thread reads like the script of a Turing test on a very good chatbot written by a bicyclist.

    Simon - if you are a chatbot, I have a bike trailer and will happily take your hosting hardware to Pedal on Parliament 2014. If you're not, why not come along with us and do some real influencing?

    http://pedalonparliament.org/

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. Simon Parker
    Member

    I have written to Pedal on Parliament as follows:

    Dear colleagues,

    If you have been following the debate about cycle networks on the City Cycling Edinburgh forum, you will know that some people are of the opinion that planning a network is "a paper exercise" and "internet whimsy". However, that's not how I see it.

    "Good plans shape good decisions. That's why good planning helps to make elusive dreams come true." — Lester Robert Bittel

    and,

    "To accomplish great things, we must not only act but also dream; not only plan but also believe." — Anatole France

    It has also been suggested that if I wanted to do some real influencing, I should join the thousands of others who are planning to Pedal on Parliament. A link was posted to your website, and of course, I've had a look around.

    In the blog entitled, Why £10 per head is not enough, you write: "If people are to use their bikes to get about, they need a network in their area that is extensive and densely connected."

    In the blog entitled, A mountain to climb, you note that between 2001 and 2011 the number of journeys to work made by bicycle increased by 0.07%. Clearly whichever strategy has been in place during this period hasn't made the slightest bit of difference. However, as you also point out: "There is a simple solution."

    You invite us to consider the case of Seville, which has seen cycling numbers increase tenfold in just six years. As you say, this was achieved "through a concerted political effort to build a joined-up safe cycling network".

    The LCC report on Seville (which you link to) explains how Jose Garcia Cebrian, head of urban planning and housing at Seville city council, took the view that for any city-wide cycle project to be a success, "cycle lanes had to form a joined-up network that people would really use". Cebrian approached Manuel Calvo to help design and rapidly implement such a network [my emphasis].

    Seville's cycling group A Contramano has also helped to push the cycling agenda forward. Co-founder and former president, Ricardo Marques Sillero, said that getting the basic network to work very quickly was one of the keys for their success in Seville. "Sometimes politicians want to check first if the idea works," he observed, "for instance making one or two isolated bike paths before making a stronger decision. But isolated cycle paths are almost useless if they’re not connected, making a network from the beginning. Therefore people don’t use them and the politician becomes disappointed.”

    Point 2 in your manifesto states: "Each local authority should commit to creating a dense network of direct and dedicated cycling routes with separation from traffic where needed, particularly on busy roads."

    Clearly this is an area where we have common cause. Interestingly, you refer to Cycling England's Cycling City and Towns project, and here they developed cycle routes which ultimately proved to be more convenient for motor traffic than for bicycle traffic (that is, they went around the houses). Little surprise that this project returned such a relatively modest payback when compared to the other initiatives you refer to.

    You are asking for proper funding for cycling, and that's right, but I am saying to you that you need to be absolutely clear about the best way for this money to be spent. The Cycling Demonstration Towns and the LCN+ were poorly conceived, and do not make for exemplars of good practice.

    Plan, study and then "introduce" a cycle network. Why not? What's the better plan?

    Regarding a time-frame, I have suggested that the network be "introduced" in just six weeks. On second thoughts, it might be that sixty days is more appropriate (as explained here).

    Finally, Point 8 in your manifesto demands solid research on cycling. Have you seen this study from the States? The final report — Selling the safety paradox — is well worth a read. "Talk about safety only if you have to," it says.

    Best of luck on the day. I hope that the sun shines for you.

    Regards,

    Simon

    P.S. I have already written to Spokes (i.e. several days ago) and I emphasised my very strong desire to work cooperatively on this. Of course I would like for you to be involved as well.

    P.P.S. I like that Alasdair Gray quote.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. wingpig
    Member

    '"But isolated cycle paths are almost useless if they’re not connected, making a network from the beginning"'

    You've probably not seen any of the threads where people are noting the non-interconnectedness of things like the Meadows paths and the canal and the NEPN. These things have been noticed.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Regarding a time-frame, I have suggested that the network be "introduced" in just six weeks. On second thoughts, it might be that sixty days is more appropriate (as explained here).

    "

    I admire your optimism (the plan is fine too).

    What is the political (and more importantly legal) position in Seville?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  13. Simon Parker
    Member

    What is the political (and more importantly legal) position in Seville?

    I have no idea, actually. Today is the first time I have seen that LCC report.

    And it's not optimism, it's hope ... :o)

    “Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.”

    (Vaclav Havel)

    The relevant case law in England (I presume also in Scotland, but maybe not) is informed by Gorringe vs Calderdale. (I blogged about it here, but the long and short of it is that road users must be responsible for their own actions - "taking the road as they find it".)

    As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, "difficult sections" can be marked on the map differently (with a dashed line, say). And if people would accept the prudence of "introducing" a network to a minimum level of functioning, then why not sixty days?


    Image from bicycledutch.

    The case is, cyclists are using probably 98%+ of the network already. Okay, the majority of these cyclists would be "experienced" — and we would naturally be very hesitant to give the wrong idea to novice cyclists — this is the reality — but as long as we set clear and concise scheme objectives — we're "introducing" the network — we want to climb to the top of the ladder, and first off, we're just making sure that the ladder is located on solid ground — this is Step One of a long journey — the only thing to stand in our way is ideology.

    For as long as we insist that all of the routes on the network "must be just as suitable for children, inexperienced cyclists and disabled cyclists as they are for faster commuter cyclists" we have got no chance at all. "Should be", yes of course; but not "must be".

    A network which could be used by "the mass of non-cyclists who are most likely to take up cycling again" is doable.

    Safe routes to school are different. Please do not conflate the introduction of a strategic cycle network with safe routes to school. They're not the same.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. Morningsider
    Member

    Perhaps my previous posts weren't clear. You cannot "introduce" a cycle network, which is anything other than advisory cycle lanes, in the UK within either six weeks or 60 days.

    The Traffic Regulation Order process requires a 21 day period for public consultation. Police, public transport and freight bodies MUST be consulted. The local authority is required to consider any comments received.

    If a TRO restricts loading and unloading between specific times or creates a one-way system then a hearing (public inquiry) must be held.

    Add in general public consultation on plans for a cycle network, detailed design work, public contracts and the rest and it will take many months - probably many years. That's before we even deal with politics and money.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. Simon Parker
    Member

    @ Morningsider

    I think this is wrong. Cycling officers do not need planning permission to put up signs (for example), and would not therefore need planning permission to "introduce" a cycle network.

    As I have said before, a consortium of five London boroughs had sought to "introduce" a high-density, low-engineered network, and they didn't say anything at all about your objections.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    "Cycling officers do not need planning permission to put up signs (for example)"

    Perhaps not.

    This isn't about planning or signs.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  17. Simon Parker
    Member

    This isn't about planning or signs.

    What do you mean by this? What is about then?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

    "What is about then?"

    Well, apart from legal constraints (which Morningsider is very qualified to write about) there's political will (Cycling Officers don't have that much autonomy up here - and I suspect they don't in London either!), 'liability', Police Scotland, etc. etc.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  19. Morningsider
    Member

    Simon - in a previous post you stated that:

    "I am not talking about "simply signing routes"!"

    So I assumed that your network involved something more than route signs.

    The procedures I mentioned above are set out in The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, as amended. They are currently in force. If you want on-road cycle infrastructure (other than advisory cycle lanes) then you need a traffic regulation order. To get a traffic regulation order, a local authority must follow these procedures - very similar procedures are in place for England.

    Traffic signs don't need planning permission, although generally they do have to comply with the provisions of the Traffic Signs Manual.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  20. chdot
    Admin

    "If you want on-road cycle infrastructure (other than advisory cycle lanes) then you need a traffic regulation order."

    That's surprising.

    I thought you needed TROs for just about everything except I-bars - and CEC takes years to put them in!!


    Still waiting for a(n agreed) I-Bar

    Posted 10 years ago #
  21. Simon Parker
    Member

    Morningsider, I am not talking about "simply signing routes". This much is true. More than anything else, I am talking about establishing a solid foundation from which to build upwards. Signing routes is a means to that end.

    Risk is something else, however, and is dealt with in Manual for Streets. The bottom line is as follows:

    "It is essential that the risk assessor fully understands the relative risks of various options."

    and,

    "The assessor should determine if the proposal improves upon the existing situation and whether any risk is justified when compared with alternative solutions."

    As I have said before, a network "introduced" to a minimum level of functioning doesn't make cycling conditions any worse, that's for sure. Probably it makes conditions better (even if only just a little bit better).

    The following is taken from that US-based research I referred to earlier (in my email to PoP):

    Leslie Carlson, a Portland communications consultant, noted that [...] biking in Portland and San Francisco [isn't] actually dangerous, but only that people think it is.

    "The perception of safety is what we're dealing with here," Carlson said. "If we were all concerned about actual safety, we wouldn't drive in cars. They're not very safe at all. But we have a seat belt and we have steel and glass around us. It makes us feel safe."

    Carlson said she thinks the solution is to create "cues for people on bikes" on the street that "make them feel better about getting on their bike."

    Dill's research suggests that at least one such cue — a physically separated bike lane — is disproportionately attractive to people who fear for their safety on the road.

    (Dill is Professor Jennifer Dill, and she is the one who confirmed Roger Geller's Four types of cyclist. The people who fear for their safety on the road are categorised as the Interested but Concerned and the No Way, No How.)


    Image from peopleforbikes.org

    90% of people who own bikes but don't use them often regard the image above favourably. I am not saying even for a second that I would not like to see this type of infrastructure installed the length and breadth of Britain.

    However, this type of infrastructure is not the only "cue" which is available (granted, it is very close to being the best).

    This is what Sam Saunders of Bristol has said:

    "The development of a settled culture of city transport will depend on consistency, predictability and regular physical cues. Consciously wondering what rules or possibilities are likely in a given situation, while trying to find a route or deal with an immediate problem overloads the attention span, increases anxiety and increases errors – for all."

    Now these regular physical cues can take the form of ... repeat markers painted on the road surface. Not great, I know, but better than nothing, surely?

    I have said in one of my blogs that we need to have a proper discussion about how we treat the functioning parts of the network. Because the functioning parts make up 98%+ of the proposed network, the functioning parts are being used each and every day by cyclists. And it's going to take us years and years just to "introduce" these routes? No, I am getting very close to breaking the No swearing rule.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  22. Simon Parker
    Member

    "There's an alternative explanation for why Whitehall is so poor at promoting and organising the economically important modernisation of British infrastructure, which is that ministerial and official thinking is often not rigorous enough, and individual ministers and civil servants are often too scared to take personal responsibility for their actions. True risk taking of the war-time sort, some would say, is about analysing risks with great care but to a tight timetable. It's not about ignoring risks."

    Robert Peston, BBC R4

    Posted 10 years ago #
  23. chdot
    Admin

    The only risk most politicians care about is that of not being re-elected.

    Most perceive 'cycling' to be a vote loser.

    Best not to do anything too controversial/bold.

    Hence 'balancing competing demands' and consequential compromises.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  24. Simon Parker
    Member

    Best not to do anything too controversial

    The only people who would regard a cycle network "introduced" to a minimum level of functioning as controversial is the cycling lobby. The ball is in our court.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  25. chdot
    Admin

    "The only people who would regard a cycle network "introduced" to a minimum level of functioning as controversial is the cycling lobby"

    If only.

    I don't think the (Scottish) minister of transport is in the "cycling lobby". He already thinks the roads are safe.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    You seem to think 'cycle campaigners' want 'all or nothing'.

    A surprising number seem to want nothing - except 'man-up'! (Allegedly)

    I'm sure there's an element of 'it took 20 years to get 20 metres, so how can we get a network overnight'.

    Which you might regard as 'traditionalist' or 'defeatist'.

    You may recall that the Dutch got some action after mass demos.

    At least we are about to get thousands of people out on the streets for the third year next month.

    It would be possible to give them all signs and zip ties, but I don't think it would be enough.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  27. Simon Parker
    Member

    He already thinks the roads are safe.

    So do I.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  28. Simon Parker
    Member

    At least we are about to get thousands of people out on the streets for the third year next month.

    I think it is great what you guys are doing. And it's thanks to people like you that we've got the wind in our sails again.

    But why not also campaign for the development of quality infrastructure within the framework provided by a functioning cycle network? No, come on: why not? That would be acceptable to the politicians, surely.

    Leith Walk is different, I believe. There I would be saying, let's just try something bold, using temporary materials, à la Times Square, and see how we go for six months. If the traffic is horrendous, if shop sales are down, even by a penny, we'll try something less radical.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  29. chdot
    Admin

    "Leith Walk is different, I believe. There I would be saying, let's just try something bold, using temporary materials, à la Times Square, and see how we go for six months"

    Done that.

    It's beyond their understanding.

    It's a major achievement to have got a roundabout removed.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  30. Simon Parker
    Member

    Done that.

    Well, sure, but don't give in. Do it again.

    But to go back to the 'Network first' idea, think about your flickr group:

    http://www.flickr.com/groups/barriers_to_cycling_in_edinburgh

    Most of the barriers you talk about should be able to be dealt with during the Introductory phase ("smooth")

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin