Cycling the quiet way

How do you bicycle to work and home again? Do you fight through the traffic? Or have you discovered a quiet way to the office, school, shops, pub, restaurants and back home again?

I returned to London in June after an absence of fourteen years to find that it had become a more vibrant version of itself. When I lived in London from 1998 to 2003 as an investment banker, I lived on Shaftesbury Avenue.

I left for Sydney when the Mayor Ken Livingston had just introduced congestion charges. Why did I leave? Love. I had met my now-husband at a party in Farringdon in August 2002.

In the midst of the heat wave last month, I stayed with a friend and her family in North London. Chris, a Sustrans Volunteer, and his girlfriend were kind enough to take me around London that first Saturday. Bicycling together along the Quietway from Finsbury Park to Clerkenwell, Hyde Park, Westminster and getting cut off by youngsters in flash cars on Pall Mall suddenly reminded me of Sydney. And that’s when I realised I could cycle in London.

At first, I mostly relied upon Google Maps to commute to my meetings in Central London. Having traveled along Liverpool Road while breathing in bus fumes, I eventually found my own way via Finsbury Park Road, along Drayton Park, to Barnsbury Road and Penton Street. Later I would use Margery Street to make my way further west to the centre.

After about five days, I had a quiet route mapped out with variations as necessary. Chris introduced me to Rox who works at Sustrans in London, and when she suggested taking me for a ride on Quietway 1 from Waterloo to Greenwich, I was game.

I felt nostalgic going past Smithfield Market after departing from the office on Cowcross Street. It was one of the first places where I had played tennis upon landing in London in 1998.

Making our way across the Blackfriars Bridge, I rode through the barricades installed just a few weeks prior. 

Eventually, we made our way to Q1 which was noticeable because of the lack of traffic noise.

Rox explained to me that Q1 was chosen because it provided a direct and quiet alternative to a busy main road.

However, one of the first turns left onto Q1 from Blackfriars Road was not for the faint-of-heart.

At Waterloo, this left turn was in two stages. When the light turned green, cyclists needed to wait in the left turn box in the middle of the road.

It reminded me of the necessity for hook turns in Melbourne’s wide streets. My preference at this intersection would have been to continue on the green light to the far right hand corner of the intersection.

Waiting at the red light, with wheels now pointing in the direction of Q1, I would have been a little more comfortable. Kids and less experienced bicyclists would be too.

And after this, the way was indeed quiet. I enjoyed the cool air of today versus the 32C of yesterday and Rox and I chatted because it was possible to have a conversation while riding side-by-side on many parts of Q1.

She explained how Q1 was the first pilot of this new type of route, designed to encourage more people to cycle, more safely, more often. She pointed out parts of Q1 which had been heavily engineered and less so. And then we came upon the gates at The Borough on Trinity Square. 

Residents here had been adamant about keeping the barriers in place to prevent motorcyclists from coming through, she explained. These barriers have been widened, but I could see that it was also an impediment for people with children on cargo bikes or in trailers. One way around it would be to mount the footpath but I have also heard of people’s frustration with this barrier via social media.

We continued and Rox explained the consultative process that Sustrans took to engage the community to create Q1. The positive and most successful means of installing bicycle and walking infrastructure for people is often developing a trial of new infrastructure, after a lengthy process of discussion which involves several alternatives from which people can choose. 

I have heard of this approach being used successfully in San Francisco and many other US cities. It is difficult to appease everyone and to be truly inclusive.

However, a trial enables people to use infrastructure and see it in action.

Later along South Bermondsey, Rox pointed out a brand new covered cycleway at Ilderton Road with a rest stop and parking close to South Bermondsey train station.

We continued alongside Bolina Road on a completely separated cycleway that was newly constructed. This was an excellent way to avoid the heavy traffic on this road later during rush hour.

This area was heavily industrialized but on the fringe were flats and houses. No doubt this area would continue to transition with the popularity of brownfield development as popularized in Brooklyn, New York. Dr. Steven Fleming, an expert on the built-environment and bicycle-oriented architecture, has written extensively about this type of development which often is without transport links.

The bicycle has been instrumental to the success of such areas around the world.

We passed through beautiful Folkstone Gardens where I saw Weeping Willow trees.

They were a reminder of my youth in Minnesota and the lushness of England. 

Australia is a parched land and very few of these willows are native. They too have immigrated to foreign lands.

Approaching Greenwich via Tarves Way, I found the cars parked on the kerb to be anachronistic. Cars didn’t seem to fit with the architecture of the terrace houses lining the road. 

Rox and I were both hungry after such a great ride to Greenwich and we stopped at a local market for a snack.

We took a quick photo of Canary Wharf where I spent most of my time in my late twenties working in investment banking. 

It had been a struggle commuting to the office back then. The Docklands Light Railway (DLR) was a long and slow commute from Bank. The Jubilee Line was under construction and constantly delayed when it commenced operations. The ferry from the Embankment was wonderful but one needed to be on time to catch it. There was no ability to run to it after it had left the dock.  Why didn’t I cycle back then? Having come from the US, my excuse was that I didn’t know how I would react in a crisis traffic situation. How silly (and lazy) I was!

After a restorative snack, Rox and I rode back to Sustrans and I saw Q1 in action. Packs of bicyclists in mostly athletic wear went past us in the other direction.

Closing thoughts

I believe that the effect of a cycleway, such as a Quietway 1, serves to grow cycling in conjunction with the separated cycleways in London. People begin to realise its effectiveness by using it more often.

Drivers begin to realise that bicyclists are present and begin to alter their driving habits by avoiding it or driving more attentively. And children begin to see their parents use the bicycle as a form a transport which normalises its use.

No doubt the lessons learned from Q1 will be put to good use for the next series of Quietways in London and beyond.

My hope is for more people to use the Quietways dressed for their destinations. We saw 50/50 women to men on Q1 during peak hour. I saw two women in a dress or skirt. I look forward to seeing more next time.

In the meantime, happy riding on your own Quietways! I’ll be doing the same in Sydney.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8239590 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/cycling-quiet-way
via IFTTT

source https://ukresinboundsurfacing.tumblr.com/post/163528641888

Growing cycling in cities: Lessons from the Cycling City and Towns programme

Lynn Sloman, a Board Member of Transport for London and a former Board Member of Cycling England, writes about the evaluation of two cycling programmes.

This week, Sustrans publishes a series of long-awaited reports about the monitoring and evaluation of Cycling England’s ‘Cycling Demonstration Towns’ (CDT) and ‘Cycling City and Towns’ (CCT) programmes, which received government funding between 2005 and 2010, before Cycling England was abolished by the incoming Coalition Government.

The reports show that cycling in the 18 towns and cities supported by the two funding programmes increased by an average of 24% (in the CCTs over 3 years) or 29% (in the CDTs over 5.5 years).

Cycling levels increased in all 18 towns, and the overall rate of cycling growth was comparable to cycling growth rates in international cities that had a sustained long-term commitment to cycling. The increase in cycling in the CDTs / CCTs appeared to be city-wide, rather than being confined to those locations where new cycle paths had been installed.

I was fortunate to be a board member of Cycling England throughout its existence, during a period when there was a real commitment to invest in cycling, and to do it in a systematic, thought-through way that would make a difference. Other national funding programmes have been used to invest in cycling since then, but in my book none of them have measured up to the quality and thoroughness of the programme that Cycling England devised.

The CDT / CCT programme set out for the first time to provide funding to towns and cities that was comparable to funding levels in Europe. We estimated that leading cycling cities in Europe were (at the time) spending about £10 per head of population per year on cycling – although we later concluded that this had been an underestimate.

In contrast, the average spend in English cities at that time was about £1 per head per year. The CDT / CCT programmes awarded funding to bring the towns’ and cities’ total annual spending up to £10 per head.

The funding was a mix of capital and revenue. This enabled a whole new way of thinking about cycling investment to develop – we realised that it was essential to tackle all of multiple reasons why people did not cycle. So as well as building cycle paths and cycle parking, the towns were able to develop large-scale cycle training programmes (this was the origin of Bikeability), work with schools (Sustrans’ BikeIt programme came out of a pilot initiative for Cycling England), work with employers (this was where the now widespread workplace cycle challenges first happened), and do lots more to tackle the social and psychological barriers to cycling as well as the physical ones.

That five-year period was an incredibly fertile one, with lots of new ideas being tested in the 18 towns and cities, and the ones that worked being scaled up and adopted elsewhere.

The 18 towns and cities met with each other and with Cycling England on a regular basis, to learn from each other, discuss problems and share ideas.

Cycling England’s Chair, Phillip Darnton, and two board members (me and former Sustrans Chief Executive John Grimshaw) tracked closely what all the towns were doing. We critically engaged with their strategy, and if it didn’t make sense, we worked with them till it did. If there was a problem, Cycling England was onto it straight away – visiting the town, meeting the Council Leader and Chief Executive, and making sure the problem got sorted and things got done. In contrast to the laissez-faire philosophy of more recent programmes, our philosophy was that if places were going to receive public money, it was their – and our – responsibility to do our very best to make sure it was being wisely spent.

The relationship between Cycling England and the officers and councillors in the cities was hugely positive and constructive – the officers appreciated that Cycling England actually cared about what they were doing (whereas in the past, local authority cycling officers had often been low down the pecking order), and we appreciated their commitment, dedication and enthusiasm to make a difference.

For the first time in the UK, we set up a proper monitoring programme – led by Andy Cope of Sustrans Research and Monitoring Unit – so we could understand what effect the investment programme had had. We also tried our utmost – although ultimately we failed – to persuade politicians and the Department for Transport that what was really needed to achieve ‘lift off’ for cycling was a sustained investment programme targeting the same places over at least one decade, and ideally two, rather than a ‘stop start’ funding programme with periods of plenty alternating with periods of funding famine every few years.

The CDT / CCT programme, and Cycling England, were very widely seen as a success – in fact, I’ve not come across anyone since who has spoken about them in anything other than glowing terms. But changing political fashions meant that subsequent sustainable transport programmes learnt next-to-nothing about why it was a success.

Instead, the philosophy was to be ‘light touch’ which meant giving local authorities the money and then leaving them to largely get on with it, except for asking them to fill in a survey once a year or so.

In a way, the most significant long-term effect of the CDT / CCT programme was that it helped to normalise the idea that if you invest in cycling, more people will get on their bikes, even here in the UK. Politicians and policy-makers bought into the idea that it was worth spending money on cycling.

That change of perception at the top has – of course – been a hugely worthwhile ‘win’. And many of the interventions that were invented in the CDT / CCT real-world laboratory, like Bikeability and BikeIt, have continued and grown, and that has been a worthwhile ‘win’ too.

But I sometimes wonder whether the investment in cycling that we’ve seen through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, and now through Cycle City Ambition, might perhaps be more effective if some of the high-level policy delivery lessons from the CDT / CCT programme had been learnt.

Thankfully there is still innovation, creativity, strategic thinking and consistency of purpose focussed on cycling in at least one place in the UK: London, where there has been consistent political support for cycling for the last 17 years. But elsewhere? …I think it’s about time that Transport Ministers stepped up their ambition for high quality, long-term, proactively-led cycling investment programmes that made best possible use of public money.

Then we might really start to look like a cycling country.

About the author: Lynn Sloman was a Board Member of Cycling England, and is currently involved in evaluation of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund and Cycle City Ambition programmes for the Department for Transport. She is a Board Member of Transport for London. This blog represents her personal views.

Download the CCT and CDT programme reports

Andy Cope explains why investing in cycling in towns and cities works

• Cycling
• Policy

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8239590 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/growing-cycling-cities-lessons-cycling-city-and-towns-programme
via IFTTT

source https://ukresinboundsurfacing.tumblr.com/post/163253713178

Investing in cycling in towns and cities works

Sustrans, in partnership with Transport for Quality of Life, Cavill Associates and University of the West of England, conducted a study of phase two of the Cycling Demonstration Town (CDT) and Cycling City and Towns (CCT) programmes. In every one of the 18 towns and cities involved in the programme levels of cycling increased.

The Cycling City and Towns programme was a DfT funded programme of investment in cycling in 12 towns and cities from 2008-2011. The CCT programme involved funding a mixture of initiatives such as improvements to cycle routes, training for children in schools and marketing and promotion work.

The Cycling Demonstration Towns follow-on programme was in six towns that had received investment in 2005-2008 and again in 2008-2011. All of the towns implemented a range of wider initiatives with the potential to increase cycling levels.

Newly released findings show that cycling trips increased across both programmes overall, and also individually in all 18 towns and cities, by different amounts. From automatic count data, there was an overall increase of 29% for the six CDTs in 5.5 years (range across towns: 6% - 59%); and an overall increase of 24% for the 12 CCTs over three years (range across towns: 9% - 62%).

The annual rate of growth for the CDT and CCT programmes overall (5.3% and 8.0% respectively) is comparable to rates of growth seen in international cities which have demonstrated sustained long-term commitment to cycling.

In all 18 towns and cities, the focus of the programme was on encouraging more cycling for short ‘everyday’ urban trips – that is, those trips which when made by car contribute disproportionately to congestion. Taken overall, the annual expenditure per head of population was £17 for five-and-a-half years in the CDTs and £14 for just under three years in the CCTs. Expenditure comprised both capital (about 80% and 70% for the CCT and CDT programmes respectively) and revenue (20-30%).

Towns with a range of characteristics and baseline levels of cycling were able to deliver increases in cycle trips

The similarity of the scale of effect in the CCT and CDT programmes gives us confidence that a similar effect might be expected if a comparable investment programme took place in similar areas – that is, we can say that the results of the programme appear to be replicable.

The results vary across the towns. The analysis has not identified a clear pattern of which factors determine the extent of impact, but obvious factors that differed between the towns included the nature and extent of delivery (including the capital and revenue split), the target groups, the profile and extent of support for the initiatives that were introduced, changes in political support at different stages of the programme, baseline levels of cycling and baseline levels of car dependence, amongst other factors.

The CDT / CCT programmes took place in a context which was not ideal. Improvements in the towns were limited by political expediency; there were problems with funding uncertainty in the final year and the programme was of short duration.

Changing behavioural patterns is a long-term, difficult task and we should be realistic about what is possible within short timeframes and in a policy context which is not always fully supportive.

Both the quality of cycling provision and the levels of cycling in the CDTs and CCTs remain modest in relation to that observed in much of continental Europe.

But, despite the challenges, the evidence is clear – increasing levels of cycling in UK cities is very much possible.

See the full study and reports

• Cycling
• Policy

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8239590 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/investing-cycling-towns-and-cities-works
via IFTTT

source https://ukresinboundsurfacing.tumblr.com/post/163212713828