I've spent today on the site of a shortly to be built 700 pupil primary school and 200 child nursery.
Surrounded by hundreds of new homes, first 1/3 already built. 2- 3 miles flat along a river to city centre. The furthest a child will travel to the school is 1.5km.
There's no sustainable travel plan (yet).
There's no safe routes to school planning.
There's no cycle lanes at all yet, or currently planned.
There's no park and stride planned.
There wasn't a plan to access the school other than by main entrance, with a car park and drop off area (naturally).
The focus of the design was a grand front entrance with disabled and visitor parking front and centre.
You can't get to the new supermarket via a traffic free route, and you have to cross a busy roundabout to get to the supermarket - or walk an extra few hundred metres up the road to old underpass and few hundred metres back down. There's no local shop/corner shop planned
The housing developer had objected to the bus going through the estate roads, as new owners don't like the noise. Current round 2,3 and 4 of housing has no way of a bus going through estate and turning round - so unlikely to ever get a bus service on the estate.
At present the plan is to bulldoze all the trees on site, including ancient oak and Scots pine, so that the building can 'sit in the landscape'.
All houses have garage and double drive (apart from the token few social houses)
It's the perfect pro-car plan.
Is it me, or do we as a nation just not have the appetite for change...?
Less cars?
Less cars?
Yes. I'd like that.
😜
Cars are cheap and convenient, therefore people use them.
Houses with no garage or parking facility are worth less.
This won’t change while oil is cheap enough.
I wish it would change, but i doubt it will.
if car drivers had to pay ther full cost of their driving it would soon change - and with decent town planning the worst effects can be reduced. this sounds like awful planning to enforce car dependency.
Yes it's dismal stuff, no steer from central govt. who are happy to bleat on about "war on the the motorist" rather than take the opportunity to legislate to engineer sustainable travel into new developments.
You cant hear the Electric buses coming past my house so that argument from the site owners is a poor excuse.
no steer from central govt.
While this is true, planning decisions are down to local authorities. Many put in additional obligations on the developers to include sustainable transport links etc.
LPA's are poorly resourced and big developers have deeper pockets and can always appeal to the planning inspectorate, in reality the priority is a numbers game with little thought of quality.
Sounds like where we live. It's ****ing desperate 🙁
US model. Single occupant cars for all. No walk/no cycle. Cookie-cutter developments. Identical retail parks growing like mushrooms. As are 'megafarms' (consolidated agriculture, US-style intensive animal farms/factories)
Almost as if Henry Ford, Big Oil, Big Macfastards and Monsanto all hatched a plan to keep us fed and hyper-mobile so we could we could travel regularly to the retail parks to eat shit and buy cheap imported goods that last mere months before buying again/upgrading. Healthcare is looking like a juicy low-hanging fruit, especially the diabetes market...
We've been playing a barely verbalised yet cute game of 'keep up with Uncle Sam' since post-WW2. Once free of the EU it can and will happen much faster for investors and developers.
This won’t change while oil is cheap enough.
And it won't even change then, because buying new electric cars will be the norm within 10 years. Has to come from Gov. who still seem unwilling to force real changes.
Don't have the imagination, agency, legislators with the will to make it too expensive to do the wrong thing.
Individuals can't arrange their lives to live a different way until employers, governments, developers etc start making a world where it is possible.
Why are we still planning around buses? We need a but more innovation than that.
Hear hear. The future banning of domestic gas heating is a joke in tho light!
No, we don't have the appetite for change on any significant scale.
In Groningen, 61% of trips are made by bicycle. I find that incredible, and it is amazing that the Dutch chose to work towards that 40 years ago, and have been building since then. As a society, their heads are in a completely different space on urban planning.
Going back to the OP's original example, it's disgraceful that we're not putting in cycle routes for new housing that is less than 1.5km from a school, in the 21st Century. I'm still pinning my hopes on driverless cars for the safe cycling revolution, because we're never going to get universal cycling infrastructure.
That's only in the city centre though. Drops outside there. Cycle infrastructure isn't the answer either. There just aren't enough of them and the way the housing is laid out precludes it for many.
Self driving cars are a terrible idea. Why spend all that innovation on making one of the problems even more convenient?.
The requirements for new housing developments/estates are woefully lacking in not only sustainable transport links but also energy requirements. Why are developers still not required to utilise rainwater harvesting systems, solar and wind energy generation, recyclable/recycled building materials? The list I’m sure could go on.
Additionally, there is no requirement in place for the lifespan of a new build. Your 10 year NHBA (or whatever toothless and unaccountable organisation is actually called) warranty is all the purchaser gets. I do wonder if, in 30 or so years time, insurers will ask for the date of build and adjust their premiums upwards accordingly for those built around the turn of this century.
As an aside, near to us, a new and very large housing development is to get its own new high school! Unfortunately, the school is not going to be situated conveniently within the curtlidge of the new development, it’s to be built a mile or two outside, on the site of the current park and ride car park. Yep, go figure...
It felt yesterday like the decisions made by planning perhaps 5 years ago are the issue.
The perfect alignment of pro-car planning.
At least I can fight my bit - but that bit has been made much harder by the unchallenged assumptions and lack of adherence to planning good practice.
Unfortunately, the school is not going to be situated conveniently within the curtlidge of the new development, it’s to be built a mile or two outside, on the site of the current park and ride
West Dunbartonshire?
People are lazy and self entitled. Walking takes longer than driving and my time is more precious than anyone else’s. That seems to be the prevailing attitude. It also doesn’t help that your average joe sees cycling as a sport and/or public menace. Sad state of affairs isn’t it.
Maybe it's a good thing we seem to be discussing this every other week now, though the reactions in the last thread tell me along with the OP just how far we have to go.
That’s only in the city centre though.
It's still an incredible level of bicycle use compared to the UK, and you have a city centre that is much nicer to travel around than most UK cities.
Self driving cars are a terrible idea. Why spend all that innovation on making one of the problems even more convenient?.
One of the biggest deterrents to cycling is perceived danger. Take out the human drivers and your existing road network becomes cycle friendly. Self drive also opens up new opportunities to sell cars as an on demand service, instead of owning your own car, combining journeys, etc, so you can reduce the total number of cars in use.
Planning is a farce. A new school is to be built here, withing 5 years. No one knows where but the three sites proposed will all increase car use.
My wife works at Ayr hospital, it's half a mile from the edge of town, there's a pavement all the way there, but...
To get there, you have to cross the A77, one of the busiest trunk roads in the country, at a roundabout, with no crossing, underpass, **** all. I meet her at work on a tuesday to go for a run with her when her shift ends, getting over that road is a bloody nightmare.
We just don't have the appetite to change, too ****in lazy.
It is disappointing that there is not more being spent on cycling infrastructure...there have been some new roads built near us and their idea of cycling infrastructure are wider pavements that just spits cyclists out back onto the roads at junctions and roundabouts...the very places where cyclists are mostly involved in accidents.
But there is no need to reduce cars on the road. Public transport really is not a viable option for people who don't live and work in and in the near vicinity of cities or where they work. People should have options and alternatives, but no 'policy' to recude car ownership is needed. We should be getting people out of fossil fuel burners and into EV's or at least hybirds...whcih is happening, but these things don't happen overnight. People made the switch to diesel cars from petrol cars quickly enough, over the course of ten years, so not overnight but relatively quickly, so the transition to EV's should be just as quick. But people need to get real about their car usage. The overwhelming majority of car users use their cars for small journeys...so excuses like "there are not enough charging points around" is just nonsense...most people's daily car usage is well within most EV's range capabilities, so there are no excuses for most of us to not swap over to EV's when we next change cars...but attitudes still havn't changed. I'm currently having this argument with my wife who is about to change her car, but for some reason just wont consider an EV. Its a battle i'm not giving up on, but so far she's just not considering it. I just don't understand the mentality.
On my commute to work (hmmm, I drive) there are several new housing estates going up. Not one of them as far as I can see have any kind of cycling infrastructure planned for. They are situated within easily cycling distance of the nearest large towns, but yet the main entrance in/out is onto a large fast A-road so the chances of anyone favouring jumping on a bike is minimal.
Meanwhile, there is one of the largest road development projects currently being undertaken in Europe taking place on the A14 & again I have seen no real placement of cycling infrastructure alongside this road or on the surrounding roads that are all being heavily modified.
The whole thing is a bit of a joke.
All the time, I see people on local facebook groups bemoaning the one cyclist who held them up for 5 seconds on their commute into work, while making no mention of the thousands of cars clogging up the road or the fact that they could probably have cycled their short commute themselves & taken a car off the road.
And they could add decent sustainable provision for pretty much free at this point.
Yup, the UK is broken.
I'm always reminded how bad it is when I travel around Europe.
Effective and reasonably priced train travel/public transport. Copious cycle lanes. Pedestrians and cyclist are the priority. Strict speeding enforcement.
The UK feels about 20 years behind and it won't change.
But there is no need to reduce cars on the road. Public transport really is not a viable option for people who don’t live and work in and in the near vicinity of cities or where they work.
Car usage peaked in the 1980's, and has stayed roughly the same since at about 85% of all journeys made. The growing wealth, cheaper cars, cheap fuel, and large road building schemes all encouraged people to live further away from their jobs. What also helped was the total lack of investment in public transport/privatisation.
This used to be a choice, but now its become in a lot of cases a necessity, due to the cost of housing, people are now forced to live further away from where the work is.
but no ‘policy’ to recude car ownership is needed. We should be getting people out of fossil fuel burners and into EV’s or at least hybirds…whcih is happening
That may help the environment we exist in, but it won't solve the very large issue of numbers. EV's still take up pretty much the same amount of space as a diesel or petrol vehicles on the road.
The overwhelming majority of car users use their cars for small journeys…so excuses like “there are not enough charging points around” is just nonsense…most people’s daily car usage is well within most EV’s range capabilities, so there are no excuses for most of us to not swap over to EV’s when we next change cars
Can't disagree with that, but it still doesn't solve the numbers game.
There has been a lack of transport policy by Government for a long time now, and recently a willful lack of one by failing grayling, leaving it "to the market" to decide, which has inevitably led transport in this country to where it is today. Jammed.
I’ve spent today on the site of a shortly to be built 700 pupil primary school and 200 child nursery.
Did you drive there ?
Askin fo’ a freeend..
In Milton Keynes new developments have Redway cycle and walking routes incorporated into the development. I think it is on all developments but do not live in Milton Keynes so others may know more. They are already miles of redroutes that get used alot.
Sounds like where we live. It’s **** desperate
Same here. Durham County Council declared a 'climate emergency' a few weeks ago yet are still ploughing ahead with a retail park (including a drive through KFC ffs) and have cut a load of trees down to enable the site traffic to access it across the shared use cycle path. They'll also be out a dozen times this year to scalp the grass on petrol mowers. The place is a ****ing shithole and nobody seems to care.
The problem is capitalism-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change-end-capitalism
A timely release by the Department for Transport today, in light of this thread:
[url= http://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/786654/future-of-mobility-strategy.pdf ]Future-of-urban-mobility-strategy[/url]
A pretty comprehensive report (which i consulted on for the "EV bits") and setting out a path to a more sustainable future for transport. yes, it's a government report, yes they are mostly useless, but it's a step in the right direction, and shows there IS a desire to change the way we move ourselves around and break the dependency on the private car. (No, it won't happen overnight, and probably not in my life time (/oldgit] but it's a start, and we have to start somewhere)
The high cycle use in NL isn't just in the city centres - I've worked in Eindhoven, staying in the centre but travelling to a work site in the surrounding countryside. Cycle lanes were in heavy use everywhere, and you'd come across village bus stops with multi-layer bike racks that were full (people doing bike and bus park and ride). In Denmark they just wheel straight on the trains and all taxis had bike racks.
We have one new build estate with proper bike (and bus / rail) infrastructure, but that was a massive redevelopment of a major industrial site so they probably had to jump more hoops to get permission in the first place. Everything else (built piecemeal) is woeful.
The local council is currently running a "Green Links" consultation. The spiel is "green links underpinning all development, connecting people to parks and green spaces, active ,health, leisure, home , work" blah blah blah. The reality was the questionnaire didn't even ask about healthy transport, or biking / walking for anything other than leisure. All they want to do is justify easy hits by spending money on parks and a new leisure centre. In comments I did manage to point out the miles of proposed traffic free green links that have been dotted lines on the council cycle map for the last TWENTY years which have now been totally removed from the latest print run 🙁
The only bit that exists is a comical 50 metres of tarmac to nowhere:-
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7125121,-2.7016723,127a,35y,281.04h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
The high cycle use in NL isn’t just in the city centres
Yes, I've spent a couple of holidays cycling around The Netherlands (one with young kids) and the most striking thing about the cycling infrastructure is that it is ubiquitous. Everywhere you go, there's a route (even in the country, I saw minor roads with on-road cycle lanes that were bigger than the car lane) and it all joins up, so it's dead easy to get to wherever you want to go. Loads of people cycling simply because it's convenient.
Need to copy threads like this to the planners and councillors but the odd planner (and odd counciler) I have met would be keen to implement some of these ideas but is up against the system, business models and the ‘men’ (a plural of ‘the man’)
Did you drive there ?
Askin fo’ a freeend..
Rumbled.
Mebbes.
(TBF, there were three in the car and we visited two other schools in the same city. And, for some reason, there is no public transport or cycle infrastructure...)
The high cycle use in NL isn’t just in the city centres
No but the specific example quoted was - but it not clear from the way it was phrased.
It’s still an incredible level of bicycle use compared to the UK, and you have a city centre that is much nicer to travel around than most UK cities.
It is and you do unless you have mobility issues, then you are on the outside looking in, literally.
It doesn't translate well to the broader issue because their particular geography lends itself well.
Self driving cars are so far really bad at pedestrian detection. Start by addressing whether the perception is real, then figure out a way to do away with cars period. Mini-trams?
eh. For everyone saying it's the public's fault, it's really not. Much greater use of public transport and bikes in continental Europe is down to governments making it easy to switch. Give people an affordable, safe, convenient replacement to driving everywhere, and make it difficult for them to park, and they'll use public transport. But it requires huge investment from layers of government that are equipped with neither.
So we're at the "complain about use of vehicles while not giving them any alternative" stage - and I'm not accusing anyone on this thread of doing so, I mean more in the generalised pro-green lobbies.
So it's totally unsurprising that people continue to use cars.
Government gets sheds loads of tax from folk driving. As they do people smoking ciggies, which kills them. Putting costs up isnt a deterrent, theres no alternative for most people as most people dont want the hassle of anything other than driving to the shops / school etc. I've recently worked with 3 different people who live about half a mile from work and they all drive and moan about the traffic / potholes.
It's not that we don't have the ambition, or the desire. For most people it's not even on the radar, there is no understanding. For ambition and desire you need something to aspire to, and the vision just doesn't exist in this country.
If we focused on building affordable housing close to where people can get public transport or cycle to work, we could revolutionise UK urban areas. Cars will still be required in more rural areas or for some peoples jobs, but the European model shows it can work, but we are 30-40 years behind the curve. The electric bike could totally change how people choose to do the majority of their journeys but they won't do it. Crazy world.
I had an idea earlier. Instead of building new roads all the time, the government should just give every adult a free electric moped, with free electricity. Insurance would be personal so it would cover you for driving anyone else's government moped, so you could use someone else's if you need to pop out from work or whatever. They get refurbished and re-allocated when you die or become too old to ride one.
You'd have to have council allocated parking though - having said that if you can park a car now you can park a moped. But people living in flats wouldn't want to miss out.
@trumpton
There are redways everywhere in Milton Keynes. You can travel from one end of the city to the other, going right through the town centre, without ever cycling on a road. My usual commute is about 8km each way - I cross two quiet roads, that’s it.
The redways seem like they’ve been designed by someone who’s never seen a bike, let alone ridden one: they meander, they have unnecessary elevations, when they cross a road the road always has priority even if it’s a piddling little side track, there are blind corners, they are badly lit and signposted, they are often in poor repair. Mostly I think they exist to prevent motorists having to consider cyclists
... yet still it is better cycling around MK than anywhere else I’ve lived. It’s a joy not having to consider cars, and being away from pollution, and having quiet as you ride. I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t commute by bike here.
It is and you do unless you have mobility issues, then you are on the outside looking in, literally.
Why would a Dutch city where people are cycling instead of driving be worse for people with mobility issues than a UK city full of cars? Are you really trying to suggest the Dutch can't do accessible travel?
It doesn’t translate well to the broader issue because their particular geography lends itself well.
There are lots of areas in the UK where geography is not an issue at all, and Dutch style solutions could easily be applied, if we had the will. I have a four mile commute and it's pan flat.
There's always someone who will try and pick holes in the Dutch transport infrastructure, but if you are used to cycling in the UK, I'd defy anyone to actually experience it and not say "I wish we could do this". I took a six year old on a cycling holiday that included industrial areas, busy towns and rural lanes. It was effortless and totally safe. It really is that good.
My commute from home to work, when I do bike it, has a large chunk going through the ancient heart of old Theocsbury, which isn't bad, because a number of side roads don't go anywhere much, so little to no traffic, then along some old railway line, which doesn't have trains any more, which is nice, then down a country lane (no through access, almost no traffic) and then through a new (ish, ~10yrs) estate, along a cycle path which astonishingly connects one end to other with only one quiet road to cross. That part is great.
T then have to go along a country road precisely wide enough for two cars, used as a ratrun, which is woeful and many times unpleasant, although it is out in the countryside so gets no chance of ever being changed.
In some places there are rays of hope. In others, not so much.
Those saying it will be a decent 'joined up' planning policy that drives any change are right. Maybe we'll get one.
The thing is we, and this city, have low carbon plans, sustainable development plan, sustainable transport plan, officers in post to deliver this.
Yet.
Nothing.
Happens.
This is a huge new development and school, a real opportunity.
As someone said earlier, there's no vision, there's no demand or appetite.
Why would a Dutch city where people are cycling instead of driving be worse for people with mobility issues than a UK city full of cars
Because people with mobility issues can't ride bikes!
? Are you really trying to suggest the Dutch can’t do accessible travel?
Oh they can do it. Just not well. Nobody does.
There are lots of areas in the UK where geography is not an issue at all, and Dutch style solutions could easily be applied, if
Not a lot of UK cities ringfenced by a canal, creating easy opportunities for entry control. not lot of cities outside Europe are as well designed for cycling infrastructure due to the 1000 year old design of the cities and the lifestyles they have created.
Not poking holes in the Dutch efforts, they've done well. They have a situation that doesn't translate well to other places though. Part of their success is that they recognised they have to come up with solutions that suit them, not copy from others. These things tend not to generalise well.
There’s always someone who will try and pick holes in the Dutch transport infrastructure
I don't pick holes in it, but I question to what extent it's possible in the UK. We need our own transport revolution not a Dutch one.
Why would a Dutch city where people are cycling instead of driving be worse for people with mobility issues than a UK city full of cars
Because people with mobility issues can’t ride bikes!
Dutch cycle lanes are also used by all manner of small vehicles including electric scooters, one-person mini buggies, single wheel things with balance boards attached, large bathtubs with electric motors (for cargo purposes) and normal petrol mopeds, which I think it lunacy tbh as it's dangerous as hell. But it doesn't invalidate the idea and it's fully accessible.
not lot of cities outside Europe are as well designed for cycling infrastructure due to the 1000 year old design of the cities and the lifestyles they have created.
Which would be the really bad design for cars too, think we are now back in the last thread...
Wide streets make a cycleway, make a bus lane. Narrow streets close them to cars.
Increase park and ride at the perimeter, reduce inner city parking, heavily restrict on street parking. Before this invest in the light rail, tram and bus infrastructure so that when you hit drivers it makes more sense to not use a car.
But as usual we will just carry on doing what we are doing....
On a plus side saw loads of people on busses, trams and bikes in Edinburgh today.
Because people with mobility issues can’t ride bikes!
Of course not*, but why is that a problem? I saw people in The Netherlands with mobility problems using mobility scooters and powered front ends that plugged on to their wheelchairs. I assume they also do really crazy stuff like just driving their cars down the street to the shops. Dutch cities are not compulsory cycling-only zones. They merge all sorts of different transport solutions, and give people choices, whereas we structure everything else around one dominant form of transport.
Not a lot of UK cities ringfenced by a canal, creating easy opportunities for entry control. not lot of cities outside Europe are as well designed for cycling infrastructure due to the 1000 year old design of the cities and the lifestyles they have created.
Most of the Dutch towns I cycled through were not ring fenced by canals and didn't have any form of "entry control" because you never leave the network.
Sure, if you have a mediaeval city, it's harder to come up with solutions, but as the OP pointed out at the start, we can't even do it for a greenfield new build development.
They have a situation that doesn’t translate well to other places though.
There's a load of stuff we could directly copy in a lot of UK locations, if we wanted to. None of it is rocket science, we just don't want to spend our money that way.
* Of course, some people with mobility problems can cycle, and bikes actually offer them more freedom.
Cars are cheap and convenient, therefore people use them.
Houses with no garage or parking facility are worth less.
I disagree, cars are actually really bloody expensive.
Even owning, fueling and maintaining a used one digs into people's income more than most realise. Tott it up and then imagine what else you could do with all the money you spend each year on car ownership and use...
Yet it's seen as one of lifes "fixed costs" like paying water rates or council tax...
That unthinking car culture is really a big part of the problem IMO. In order to get people out of the mindset of cars being the default transport choice there need to be viable, convenient alternatives, and as the OP is highlighting, as a society we seem to be actively excluding those alternatives in our town planning and infrastructure...
Which would be the really bad design for cars too, think we are now back in the last thread…
I think you both misunderstand. European cities have feature which make living around bikes and walking more practical. They have created lifestyles which translates quite well.
It's a bit of a !oving target - we started out with how well it works in groginen and now we are into all the places you've cycled.
There’s a load of stuff we could directly copy in a lot of UK locations,
Like?
Like?
At a very basic level, building comprehensive local networks of properly engineered cycle routes that are joined up, easy to navigate, and go directly to where people want to get to. There are lots of places in the UK where that could easily be done if we had the will and were prepared to spend the money. To return to the OP's example yet again, the Dutch just wouldn't build a new housing development 1.5km from a school without full cycle access. It would be designed in from the start.
European cities have feature which make living around bikes and walking more practical. They have created lifestyles which translates quite well.
You just made the key point yourself. "They have created".
It didn't magically happen because of "European city features". The people in the places with sensible transport infrastructure chose to make it that way. We make excuses about weather, terrain, etc, but as a society we just don't want to do it. If that is the "will of the people", fair enough, but we can't kid ourselves about why we're in this situation. The Dutch were heading in exactly the same way as us in the 1970s, but they collectively chose to do something different.
not lot of cities outside Europe are as well designed for cycling infrastructure due to the 1000 year old design of the cities and the lifestyles they have created.
Have you been to the netherlands / amsterdamn? Plenty of 1000 yr old cities adap-ted to cycle use.
Narrow streets - 20 mph limit and "shared spaces" ie no traffic lights or road markings and bikes and pedestrians have priority.
Unfortunately, the school is not going to be situated conveniently within the curtlidge of the new development, it’s to be built a mile or two outside, on the site of the current park and ride
West Dunbartonshire?
Nope, Norwich.
Would people use cycle paths/lanes? Clearly not here in sunny Broadland where a few years ago a cool several million £’s was spent developing the Three Rivers cycle path, which is used by some cyclists but not all. The ones who use it are the holiday/recreational users, those that don’t are the solo and group club riders who still insist on their peloton using the narrowish road adjacent to it. Apparently, the purpose built path is ‘dangerous’ and messes up their Strava... 🙄
Dutch cycle lanes are also used by all manner of small vehicles including electric scooters, one-person mini buggies, single wheel things with balance boards attached, large bathtubs with electric motors (for cargo purposes) and normal petrol mopeds, which I think it lunacy tbh as it’s dangerous as hell
Man who rides bicycle in lane with 2-24 ton motorised vehicles between 30-60mph claims sharing with <25 kph limited personal transport solutions to be "dangerous as hell" am I the only one that sees the irony there ?
...dangerous as hell
I've cycled in NL with young kids and to be blunt, the idea that it is dangerous is nonsense. It's some of the most relaxing and enjoyable cycling I've ever done.
I wasn't keen about mopeds using the cycle lanes, but in practice it wasn't a problem at all.
New developments really need to be designed and built a lot better
While i agree with the sentiment , if you read those articles - people need to realign expectations.
a mile to get a pint of milk is not exactly a hardship. - most folk could use the exercise tbh.
Cookeaa
‘I disagree, cars are actually really bloody expensive.
Even owning, fueling and maintaining a used one digs into people’s income more than most realise. Tott it up and then imagine what else you could do with all the money you spend each year on car ownership and use…’
Yet, people on pretty low incomes can still afford to run a car.
How many private cars do you think you would see on the road if fuel was (say) £20 a litre?
a mile to get a pint of milk is not exactly a hardship. – most folk could use the exercise tbh.
Very much this.
martymac - problem is a lot of them don't really. No insurance mot etc and cars in dangerous condition. I see this amongst my colleagues. Cars with bald tyres, cars with obvious faults etc etc.
I agree that’s an issue tj, but i know plenty of people who are on (dual income, and they do plenty hours) minimum wage who can manage to run a safe legal car. Not exactly a rolls royce, but safe and legal.
My point is that cars are still relatively cheap.
If fuel cost £20 a litre I reckon we would see a vast reduction in car use (or a vast increase in car theft)
Most people could reduce their car use quite easily, it’s just they don’t want to because cars are convenient.
I would bet if you actually checked those cars you would find serious faults.
Its a mindset thing. I have on many occasions surprised my colleagues by cycling to places. When they find out its actually quicker than driving and no parking issues they are amazed.
My point is that cars are still relatively cheap.
Yep, cheaper than buses and trains and the time saving to me is worth a lot more than any saves I would make by cycling or walking. I simply do not have the time to cycle everywhere.
I would bet if you checked plenty of quite modern and decent looking cars you would find faults too tbh.
We (as a society) need to get away from the idea that ‘travel’ generally means ‘car’
I agree re journey times, if I’m up the town on my ebike, i can easily match my wife on the journey home (Renault clio) mainly due to it being a fair bit straighter on the bike.
Man who rides bicycle in lane with 2-24 ton motorised vehicles between 30-60mph claims sharing with <25 kph limited personal transport solutions to be “dangerous as hell” am I the only one that sees the irony there ?
Cycle lanes are quite narrow, and the scooters are driven by teenagers on phones (I'm not kidding) rather erratically, usually veering across both sides with impunity. I'm not anti-cycle lane or anti cycling, I'm just telling you how it was. I liked the Dutch cycle infrastructure, I just don't think mopeds should be allowed on it!
I’ve cycled in NL with young kids and to be blunt, the idea that it is dangerous is nonsense. It’s some of the most relaxing and enjoyable cycling I’ve ever done.
I wasn’t keen about mopeds using the cycle lanes, but in practice it wasn’t a problem at all.
It was for me. Nearly got taken out numerous times by bone-headed teenagers on phones. Like I said, my problem was with mopeds using them. As for it being relaxed - guess you weren't heading in our out of city centre at rush hour. It was pretty mental, and I've cycled extensively in London. The experience is basically the same as it is on the cycle paths in London. Cyclists don't pay attention (most are staring at a phone), and many don't seem bothered about road rules just like here. And there are thousands of them. I'd see many many near-miss collisions between people who are used to taking right of way for granted - people fading in and out of lane position or trying to turn right or left across others' paths. One difference was that in London there are lycra clad roadies zipping through the shopping bikes at double the speed; in Amsterdam it was mopeds or e-bikes. Although few mopeds close to city centre.
Have you been to the netherlands / amsterdamn? Plenty of 1000 yr old cities adap-ted to cycle use.
I put some thought into this. Amsterdam has some advantages for cycle infrastructure. It's by the water, so you cannot go 'through' it, which means there are no through roads. When it was growing up people moved goods around via canal, so there was no need for big through roads either. So the major routes don't go through town they go around it. So there are loads of small routes in the city centre that were easy to re-purpose for bikes.
I think it's significantly less easy in say London, because of the way that the city has evolved. Other cities in the UK though have a similar advantage of being by the water, but not the canal transport bit. The Dutch have excelled in showing political will to make changes, which is the best part - but don't assume it would be as easy to change UK cities (because of how they've evolved) as it seems to have been for them.
We'd have to spend a vast amount of money to dig-up and change loads of roads. Personally, I think we should, but you can see why it's a hard sell in the UK and would be very difficult politically. I think the Dutch have a different relationship with government than we do.
Funnily enough I was in Groningen last night.
Walking from the station to my hotel at around 6, it was pretty crazy with the huge number of bikes. More than other Dutch city I have visited. As a pedestrian you really have to look out for them.
However, my guess is most of these journeys by bike are to avoid walking not driving. Also, the number of young joint smokers who were cycling was quite a surprise, I have never noticed it in other parts of NL before. Even smelt it at 7.30 this morning, waiting outside my hotel.
I would love to have even half of their infrastructure in the UK, cycling in Holland and Belgium is excellent.
However, there is one key difference, the lack of hills. Can you imagine trying to ride one of the traditional Dutch bikes around Durham or Edinburgh? But you see late middle aged people quite happily trundling along over there. That simply wouldn't be possible in some of our Cities.
I disagree, cars are actually really bloody expensive ... Yet it’s seen as one of lifes “fixed costs” like paying water rates or council tax
It is seen that way because that's the way it is. For those of us born into 'commuter' towns, where the local career opportunities go no higher than 'production operative', and where all the nearby services have been taken away one by one, and the only entertainment available is driving straight out of that place, owning a car is by far your best option to achieve a basic standard of living.
That is the whole point which the OP is making. Our infrastructure makes it inherently difficult to carry out day to day activities without the use of the car. And while this topic swings from one extreme to the other, it's really about having some basic fundamentals in place, like the ability for kids to walk or cycle safely to school.
If we focus predominantly on motor vehicles as a means of travel then that is what we will use. And once you have your own, you're very unlikely to choose any other option when it is so inconvenient or unpleasant to do so.
However, there is one key difference, the lack of hills. Can you imagine trying to ride one of the traditional Dutch bikes around Durham or Edinburgh?
What we need is some kind of technology which makes it easier to pedal...
Can you imagine trying to ride one of the traditional Dutch bikes around Durham or Edinburgh?
Yes. I cycle 4 miles into Edinburgh every day. Apart from ascending several metres to cross one railway bridge, my route is pan flat.
Of course there are hills in Edinburgh, but lots of the principal routes are not hilly at all, and the hills that do exist don't stop people cycling (however, the cycling infrastructure is piecemeal, doesn't join up properly and is downright dangerous in places).
The "special issues" that exist in some UK locations don't stop us from improving the situation in places that are amenable to cycling (even within a city) if we wanted to.
I simply do not have the time to cycle everywhere.
Why do you think you have to cycle everywhere?
People keep talking about this in absolutes. If we made it convenient and enjoyable for more people to cycle some of the time, that would be a huge win. I reckon it would take me up to twice as long to drive to work, and I can't be the only person in that situation.
properly engineered cycle routes that are joined up, easy to navigate, and go directly to where people want to get to.
So unlike any transportation link built so far? Are you willing to forcibly take property from people to do it because to fit all that criteria you are almost certainly going to need to. You didn't mention distance though. Where does that factor in?
You just made the key point yourself. “They have created”.
Failure of communication there - either I wasn't clear or you don't fully understand. The cities, as they have evolved over the centuries, have created circumstances which modern planners have taking advantage of. Unless you are willing to raze and rebuild entire cities elsewhere you cannot copy or translplant their ideas.
@tjagain see above re: communication faliure.
not lot of cities outside Europe are as well designed for cycling
Perhaps I should have said are as easily adaptable to cycling.
@molgrips you put what I was trying to say like I was trying and failing to.
Yes. I cycle 4 miles into Edinburgh every day. Apart
You are very fortunate to be able to live that close. That is a nice short commute. The problem with the "infrastructure" question is that it is often viewed in isolation. If there were better infrastructure, would nmore people cycle? Strange to say on a bike forum but some people don't like cycling so you're probably not going to get them out. Some like it but don't want to show up at work with their hair a mess and feeling all ick when it's warm. Then there are people who might be willing to bike 20 mins to work but can only afford to live 45 mins by motorized vehicle away. And so on. If you want to build cycling infrastructure so people who already cycle can cycle more to more places and enjoy it more, fine. Let's not pretend we are going to create a nation of cyclists by building a bike path though. We need far more thought, imagination, and innovation than that to achieve fewer cars.
Vancouver and Calgary struck me as two city's that took cycling as a mode of transport seriously. in a retrospective way. They worked around existing infrastructure.
Vancouver has the advantage of weather and it's abikitie to spread is limited by geography, so cycing across town is viable.
I cannot imagine trying to cycle in Calgary in January. Don't they have a system of tunnels so people don't have to go outside?
Let’s not pretend we are going to create a nation of cyclists by building a bike path though. We need far more thought, imagination, and innovation than that to achieve fewer cars.
That pretty much how the dutch did it. in 1970s cycling rates were similar in the netherlands and the UK. In the UK cycle use has decreased, in the netherlands it increased massivly. The main focus was on making citys people fri9endly not car friendly but infrastructure was a huge part of it with lagre amounts of road space taken off cars and given to pedestrians and cyclists and giving bikes right of way " shared spaces"
All it would take is political will and time.
Yes. I cycle 4 miles into Edinburgh every day. Apart from ascending several metres to cross one railway bridge, my route is pan flat.
Of course there are hills in Edinburgh, but lots of the principal routes are not hilly at all, and the hills that do exist don’t stop people cycling (however, the cycling infrastructure is piecemeal, doesn’t join up properly and is downright dangerous in places).
I cycle 9 miles into Edinburgh twice a week and there's a nice big hill in the way. My wife cycled once or twice when we had flat-ish 4-5 mile commutes but won't do it now and the bus journey is painfully slow so she drives. Council aspirations are mince - the development plan includes acceptance that public transport is mince and has the lofty goal of possibly getting a link into town that can do it in less than an hour door to door.
But the journeys we most need to target aren't the 9 mile commutes or arguably even the 4 mile flat ones. If you could get all of the 1 mile car journeys on foot or two wheels then that would take 6% of traffic off the roads. Probably a meaningful difference. If you can get 5 mile journeys done by foot/bike/whatever then that's potentially 50% of journeys in cars got rid of. Put in decent infrastructure and it takes care of itself, because it becomes a pleasant way to move around.
We holiday in the Netherlands reasonably often and I have absolutely no problem doing rides of several miles with the kids to go places. Couple of miles along Lanark Road? No thanks.
