Boris's Superhighways "not very good" shock.

mybreakfastconsisted
mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
edited December 2010 in Commuting chat
http://crerar.standard.co.uk/2010/11/no ... r-all.html

While his bike hire scheme is generally viewed as a huge success (we'll gloss over the teething troubles), Boris's cycle superhighways have not been quite so popular.

The distinctive blue routes have been called into question today after it emerged that the majority of cyclists feel safer on ordinary roads. Two pilot schemes — running a total of 16 miles from Barking to Tower Gateway and Merton to the City — have attracted just 5,000 cyclists each day since they opened in July at a cost of £23 million.

Boris hopes that by 2015 there will be twelve routes — total cost £166 million — providing safer journeys and generating 120,000 additional cycle trips a day. But a survey by the transport committee of the London Assembly raised doubts about whether they were an effective use of resources. Sixty per cent of cyclists said they felt no safer on the superhighways than they did on ordinary roads.

Almost two thirds — 66 per cent — said the routes were not respected by motorists who regularly drove in them and parked in them.

Cyclists also reported other problems, including the lanes being too narrow or disappearing altogether at busy junctions. Just one per cent of cyclists said they started cycling specifically because of the superhighway scheme.

Val Shawcross, chairwoman of the transport committee, said

: “There are clear lessons that can and should be learned from the superhighway pilot schemes before we can be sure they are delivering on their objectives and are an effective use of scarce resources. The committee’s report said:


“The superhighways will have to deliver a significant increase in cycling if they are to justify £166 million investment.”

Comments

  • iPete
    iPete Posts: 6,076
    And from another publication...

    It said its own research found more than 70% of people said the cycle superhighway roadside mirrors had made them feel safer.

    And 61% of people said the blue-coloured cycle lanes improved cycle safety along the routes, it said.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11869462
  • fossyant
    fossyant Posts: 2,549
    It's an awful lot of dosh for blue paint - don't see how it can be any better than green :lol:
  • Stu T
    Stu T Posts: 127
    fossyant wrote:
    It's an awful lot of dosh for blue paint - don't see how it can be any better than green :lol:

    Because Barclays are paying for it :P
    I wear Lycra because I like the way it feels
  • iPete wrote:
    And from another publication...

    It said its own research found more than 70% of people said the cycle superhighway roadside mirrors had made them feel safer.

    And 61% of people said the blue-coloured cycle lanes improved cycle safety along the routes, it said.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11869462

    See the headline?

    Cycle superhighways 'missing goal' in London The report said cycle superhighways may not be achieving their goals.

    So-called cycle superhighways in London may not be achieving their goals, a report has warned.


    End quote.

    Painting the road blue, but allowing cars to park in it is not a very good Superhighway.

    I think the danger may also come from drivers who view cyclists OUTSIDE the blue paint to be interlopers.
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    How the hell have they managed to spend £23 million on 2 schemes? Absurd.

    The whole thing is absurd, at the very least they should have been green - some motorists actually know that green = cycle lane. My limited experience of the CSH's is that motorists think Blue = 'mmm I should investigate this blue road by driving on it.'
  • mtb-idle
    mtb-idle Posts: 2,179
    have attracted just 5,000 cyclists each day since they opened in July at a cost of £23 million.

    5,000 cyclists each day sounds pretty good to me. how many did they count before they painted them and what was their target?
    FCN = 4
  • snooks
    snooks Posts: 1,521
    fossyant wrote:
    It's an awful lot of dosh for blue paint - don't see how it can be any better than green :lol:

    I think the major part of the money went on improving the road surface i.e. getting rid of the chuffing great big potholes, before painting it with the "it looks very slippy" blue paint.

    They are working on the MER (Mile End Road) at the moment, and they have resurfaced the 1.5 metre wide lane, and left the rest of the road as it was.

    I'd rather they just put a bus lane in, they are enforceable :)
    FCN:5, 8 & 9
    If I'm not riding I'm shooting http://grahamsnook.com
    THE Game
    Watch out for HGVs
  • MTB-Idle wrote:
    have attracted just 5,000 cyclists each day since they opened in July at a cost of £23 million.

    5,000 cyclists each day sounds pretty good to me. how many did they count before they painted them and what was their target?

    That's the question, you need to see how many NEW cyclists they've encouraged.
  • iPete
    iPete Posts: 6,076
    iPete wrote:
    And from another publication...

    It said its own research found more than 70% of people said the cycle superhighway roadside mirrors had made them feel safer.

    And 61% of people said the blue-coloured cycle lanes improved cycle safety along the routes, it said.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11869462

    See the headline?

    Cycle superhighways 'missing goal' in London The report said cycle superhighways may not be achieving their goals.

    So-called cycle superhighways in London may not be achieving their goals, a report has warned.


    End quote.

    Painting the road blue, but allowing cars to park in it is not a very good Superhighway.

    I think the danger may also come from drivers who view cyclists OUTSIDE the blue paint to be interlopers.

    Yes but its a bit more balanced in taking some positives from the scheme.

    At the end of the day, this is London, it has narrow streets and an old infrastructure, we can burn it all down and start again or accept that there is going to be compromise. I'm happy lane or no lane but from my limited use of the blue lanes, its been quite good.
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    mybreakfastconsisted Just out of interest, how would you have done it?

    Theres no blue route on my ride in so I can't really comment. But tbh, I tend to prefer to ride with the traffic rather than apart from it. If there was a "cycling super highway" on my route I wouldn't like to feel that I *had* to use it.
  • MTB-Idle wrote:
    have attracted just 5,000 cyclists each day since they opened in July at a cost of £23 million.

    5,000 cyclists each day sounds pretty good to me. how many did they count before they painted them and what was their target?

    From the TfL document:
    In the first few months, TfL has reported a 25 per cent increase in cycle trips on the two pilot cycle superhighways (Merton to the City – CS7 and Barking to Tower Gateway – CS3). These are being used by 5,000 cyclists per day.1 TfL believes that it is reasonable to conclude, at this stage, that this increase is not due to cyclists diverting from parallel routes.2
  • notsoblue wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted Just out of interest, how would you have done it?

    Theres no blue route on my ride in so I can't really comment. But tbh, I tend to prefer to ride with the traffic rather than apart from it. If there was a "cycling super highway" on my route I wouldn't like to feel that I *had* to use it.

    How would I have encouraged cycling?

    Many cycle lanes are worse than useless, spashing blue paint around is not especially helpful.

    I would have adopted the measures I've used in Germany and The Netherlands where car drivers know that any collision with a cyclist would be very expensive. This works so well that when you are pootling along in the right-hand side cycle lane a car will pull up on your left and wait! Quite a culture shock after London commutes.

    I would appoint a Traffic Ayatollah who would confiscate the mobiles and licenses of drivers using one, crush it roadside and upload the footage to Youtube. Life bans dor culpable drivers who kill. Untaxed cars cubed. Compulsory cycle tutoring at schools and as part of the driving test, free cakes for cyclists and the expansion of Boris bikes across the entire capital with the ability to use Oyster cards to hire them.

    Job's a good un.
  • Butterd2
    Butterd2 Posts: 937
    There are so many side entrances onto the road that cut across CS3 I have given up using it. I think on some the cyclist is even expected to give way and either way cars will often nose out across the lane, but not out into the traffic, so I think you're safer on the road proper.
    Nice idea and it may suit slower / more cautious cyclists but I'll stick to the roads thanks.
    Scott CR-1 (FCN 4)
    Pace RC200 FG Conversion (FCN 5)
    Giant Trance X

    My collection of Cols
  • ndru
    ndru Posts: 382
    At the end of the day, this is London, it has narrow streets and an old infrastructure, we can burn it all down and start again or accept that there is going to be compromise. I'm happy lane or no lane but from my limited use of the blue lanes, its been quite good.

    It's a myth that London doesn't have enough room for decent segregated cycling infrastructure. The space is used mostly for on street car parking and some such.
    The point is the cycle highways were supposed to make people that don't yet cycle to do it, instead of just making it nicer for people who already cycle. Most of people here are (pardon the expression) hardcore and mostly vehicular cyclist who don't mind riding in traffic. On the other hand people who don't cycle are not - which is why they don't cycle.
    There are bits of CS3 that start to look like proper cycling infrastructure (bit along Cable street or Newham way)- though it's way to narrow and not thought through. And it's been there before it's just painted over (or resurfaced).
    A proper superhighway would be continuous and of the same quality along it's entire length - that would definitely make people want to cycle it. Instead it's sometimes simply dangerous. I wanted to say - better that than nothing, but to be honest it's time to finish with settling for the second best and time to go for the real thing.
  • zanes
    zanes Posts: 563
    Untaxed cars cubed.

    Is this not already done? I'm sure I've seen DVLA ads threatening to do just that
  • sc999cs
    sc999cs Posts: 596
    zanes wrote:
    Untaxed cars cubed.

    Is this not already done? I'm sure I've seen DVLA ads threatening to do just that

    I think they threaten to do it but I've never heard of it actually happening except one hi profile 'show' crushing which I think was just a publicity stunt to highlight that they now have the power to crush cars.
    Steve C
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    notsoblue wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted Just out of interest, how would you have done it?

    Theres no blue route on my ride in so I can't really comment. But tbh, I tend to prefer to ride with the traffic rather than apart from it. If there was a "cycling super highway" on my route I wouldn't like to feel that I *had* to use it.

    How would I have encouraged cycling?

    Many cycle lanes are worse than useless, spashing blue paint around is not especially helpful.

    I would have adopted the measures I've used in Germany and The Netherlands where car drivers know that any collision with a cyclist would be very expensive. This works so well that when you are pootling along in the right-hand side cycle lane a car will pull up on your left and wait! Quite a culture shock after London commutes.

    I would appoint a Traffic Ayatollah who would confiscate the mobiles and licenses of drivers using one, crush it roadside and upload the footage to Youtube. Life bans dor culpable drivers who kill. Untaxed cars cubed. Compulsory cycle tutoring at schools and as part of the driving test, free cakes for cyclists and the expansion of Boris bikes across the entire capital with the ability to use Oyster cards to hire them.

    Job's a good un.

    I do not diagree with some of these measures being helpful. The problem is they are mainly not things TfL or the Mayor can introduce as they would need Primary Legislation - ie Parliament.

    In the absence of Parliament doing the necessary, surely these are better than nothing happening
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • zanes wrote:
    Untaxed cars cubed.

    Is this not already done? I'm sure I've seen DVLA ads threatening to do just that

    In Tottenham, up to 8% of the cars on the road are not insured. Trafpol have been slashed to cope with street crime.
  • zanes
    zanes Posts: 563
    sc999cs wrote:
    zanes wrote:
    Untaxed cars cubed.

    Is this not already done? I'm sure I've seen DVLA ads threatening to do just that

    I think they threaten to do it but I've never heard of it actually happening except one hi profile 'show' crushing which I think was just a publicity stunt to highlight that they now have the power to crush cars.

    Ah, that might would make sense.
  • boneyjoe
    boneyjoe Posts: 369
    Personally, I think they'd be far better off developing and publicising some good routes on the quiter side roads, than encouraging novice riders to mix it with buses and HGVs on A-roads during rush hour. :? A sure recipe for conflict, accidents etc IMO.

    Been commuting by bike for about 4 years now and much prefer the side-roads where possible - might take a few mins longer, but are a lot safer and less stressful. :D Only take the A-roads if its a bit icey, as they get gritted, while the side-roads generally don't.

    So its a waste of £166mill IMO!
    Scott Scale 20 (for xc racing)
    Gary Fisher HKEK (for commuting)
  • It seems 4 in ten cars in Tottenham are uninsured:

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... ttenham.do