I am a self-confessed map
addict. I can’t even look at a map without wanting to draw lines on it.
About twelve years ago
now, I stumbled upon a signing strategy which uses colours to indicate the
direction of travel, compass colours. Although I find it to be an extremely
flexible design tool, I have to concede that it is not so flexible as to allow
me to code all of the routes – or rather, sections of route – that I would
like. This is in fact a shortcoming. Only one person has pointed this out to me,
Professor John Parkin from London South Bank University, who otherwise described
my proposal as ‘technically flawless’.
He suggested that the main
problem I have is a PR one, and in this I feel I am not alone. Cycling also has a PR problem. Indeed,
when considering
the development of the cycling infrastructure in London over the past couple of
years, it’s actually impossible to avoid the impression that things are going
backwards.
Recently Transport for
London have more or less explicitly stated that, as far as they're concerned, the
convenience of the motorist is now more important than the (safety and dignity and spiritual well-being and)
convenience of just about everybody else. For the life of me I don’t understand
this one little bit, and would be indebted to anyone kind enough to explain
their thinking.
I mean, what actually are the benefits to society
attached to the use of the private car in the built-up area? Anybody? No? It
doesn’t seem that difficult a question to me. Let’s try something else. What is
the point of living in towns and cities if you can’t access local facilities,
such as schools or railway stations, safely and conveniently on foot or by
bike? No really; what is the point?
The major advantage of high-density conurbations
is that these facilities are usually fairly close to hand, and easier and
quicker to reach by ‘the humble bicycle’, which has so many benefits, both to
the individual and to the wider community, that it is, I suggest, no surprise that
a Radio 4 poll from a few years ago determined it to be the best invention of
all time. “It was an easy victory for the bicycle,” this BBC report says, “with more
than half of the vote.”
Did you get that? More than half of the vote! In
Britain! The bicycle! In a poll to determine the best invention ever! (The
internet, by way of comparison, received just 4% of the votes cast. Second was
the transistor, with 8%.)
On the one hand, then, we
have these horribly inefficient machines, which nobody can find a good word for;
and on the other hand, we have these wonderfully efficient machines, which even
a child can enjoy.
I wonder, then, how is it
that Boris Johnson can tell a Conservative Party Conference, that everything
they do at City Hall is about bringing the village back into the city, receive
the warmth and laughter of an appreciative audience in return, whilst at the
same time actually making conditions worse for cyclists and pedestrians, in an
attempt to smooth the traffic-flow, which was mentioned not at all in his speech, and which takes us about as far as
it is possible to get from the ‘nothing more villagey’ scene so vividly
conveyed?
What’s going on there? And Peter Hendy, TfL’s
Commissioner of Transport, echoing the Mayor’s theme, explained in his inaugural lecture to the Chartered Institute of Transport and Logistics (UK) that:
“Making cycling itself more attractive means overcoming
some challenges, such as: improving its 'reputation'; removing barriers to
cycling; [...] using more green spaces to make more attractive cycle ways
[...]; and increasing the understanding of cycling design considerations
amongst professionals and ensuring these are adequately reflected within scheme
designs – particularly in road schemes.”
Now what Peter Hendy is saying there sounds
absolutely bang on the button to me. And yet, these words are not being
reflected in schemes such as Blackfriars, King's Cross, Vauxhall, the Elephant
and Castle, etcetera, etcetera, and I have to ask why not.
More recently, TfL’s Director of Environment,
Kulveer Ranger, issued a statement about improving cycling safety. He said:
“Historically our roads have been designed with
motorists in mind, but that must change, and the Mayor intends that with
thousands more Londoners taking to two wheels, their needs be given greater
attention.”
Sounds promising. Let’s read on.
“Sixteen cyclists have been killed in London this
year, and nine of those deaths involved a heavy goods vehicle. There is no
doubt we need to address that horrifying connection.”
Hmm. I wonder if a penny has finally dropped? Following
the death of Sebastian Lukomski in 2004, Rose Ades, then Head of the Cycling
Centre of Excellence at TfL, said that the best solution would be for cyclists
and HGVs to ‘safely’ share the same road space. I suggested that this was like
asking surfers and sharks to ‘safely’ share the same stretch of coastline.
Maybe TfL have finally realised that segregated cycling is the only proper way to resolve ‘that
horrifying connection’.
“The Mayor has asked TfL to commission an
independent review of the design, operation and driving of
construction-industry vehicles such as […]
skip lorries, tipper trucks and cement mixers […]. We will look at how
we can make those vehicles safer through physical improvements such as side
bars, extra mirrors and sensors; and through better training for drivers.”
They’re planning to make some of the sharks safer
in other words. No bad thing of course. I mean, who wouldn't want to go surfing
when there are safe sharks around? And there’s a safety review planned of over
300 junctions, including Bow Roundabout. But not the least indication that TfL
are thinking in terms of a network; nothing at all about a reduction in the
road capacity; and nor is there any evidence that they are serious about
‘removing barriers to cycling’.
· too
much traffic / congestion
· not
trusting other road users
· lack of
cycle lanes / routes
· not
knowing where to go
The first two can only properly be addressed
through the creation of ‘clear space for cyclists on London's main roads’, as
the LCC's Go Dutch campaign is calling for, and the last
two can only properly be addressed through the development of a comprehensive,
city-wide cycle network.
The benefits of developing a network are beyond
dispute. As Olaf Storbeck explained in one of his blogs:
“Two economists independently drew my attention
to another issue: network effects. ‘A few isolated bike lanes don't help much
if you still have to go through dangerous stretches on most trips,’ Matthias
Doepke (Northwestern University) wrote me. ‘Once there is a connected network,
the attractiveness of biking goes up a lot. That's where we are in Chicago now
- good number of lanes, but no real network yet.’
“Greg Ip, US economics editor with The Economist, puts it this
way: ‘Just as you are likely to buy an Ipad the more applications it has, you
are more likely to switch from car to bicycle the more bicycle lanes (and
therefore destinations reachable by bicycle) are available. Doubling the number
of bike lanes more than doubles the number of cyclists likely to use them.’”
Jim Davis said, “If we don’t […] think in terms of [a]
coherent network instead of piecemeal ‘solutions’ that act like a Band-Aid on a
laceration, then […] the bicycle will continue not to be taken seriously as a
mode of transport.”
A good question to ask at this point is, Which routes? I
understand that the LCC is drawing up a list, borough by borough, of those main
roads which they think should be given the Go Dutch treatment. I imagine this would largely be based on the LCN+.
Obviously I am very interested to see the detail, but to be quite honest with
you, it’s not my concern whether this road gets treated first, or that one. What
does matter to me is that I am able to code whatever it is that people think is
worth incorporating into a network.
This is why I have developed
bikemapper.org.uk, and this is why I am writing an open letter to all advocates
of cycling in London.
For what it's worth, I think Matthias Doepke has it absolutely
right: 'Once there is a connected network, the attractiveness of cycling goes
up a lot.' Indeed, once there is a connected network, the only way is onwards
and upwards.
No comments:
Post a Comment