National Travel Survey and cycling policy in London

[Rockets]

The DFT's National Travel survey is used to determine policy on transport usage and infrastructure and this year's report made very interesting reading and really begs the question whether local and regional authority investment in transport are focussed in the right places. Now, cards on the table, I read the report and thought it validated my concern that there has been way too much focus on cycling in London which has come at the cost of public transport (buses in particular). So the question is, if these trends outlined in the DFT survey keep becoming reality is it time to admit that the vision of huge increases in cycling Will Norman et al have been selling to justify the £1bn investment in cycling infrastructure may never be realised and now is it now the time for more a pragmatic and balanced approach to road transport policy in the city, and our local area, and a look at how we start giving equal priority to bus travel and other active travel like walking? And let's ground this discussion on the almighty row between TFL and our local councillors on the impact the Dulwich LTNs were having on bus journeys through the area.

 

Here is the report but it is incredibly detailed and it is based on surveys only but there is some fascinating stuff in there, especially considering this is what is used to mould transport policy.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2022

 

Some highlights when comparing 2022 to 2021:

 

• Increases to all modes trip rates nationally compared to 2021 except for cycling and tube. 
• Nationally people are walking more (now higher than 2019 rates)
• Bus trips up 59% in London (35% outside of London) but still below 2019 numbers
• Tube use flat year on year and still below 2019 numbers
• Cycling trip rates now 5% lower than in 2019 nationally from the 2020 peak but those cycling are cycling further
  • Cycling trip rates remained broadly similar between 2002 and 2022, with a slight increase shown in 2020. In 2022, there were 15 cycling trips per person, similar to the previous year (15 trips per person) and 5% lower compared to 2019 (16 trips per person). The relatively small number of cycling trips in the sample means that this series can be volatile, but it has remained between 14 and 20 trips per person per year since 2002.
  • There has been a general upward trend in the average cycling miles travelled from 2002 to 2022, with a sharp increase in 2020. In 2022 there were 57 cycling miles per person travelled which was similar to the previous year (55 miles per person) and 4% higher than in 2019 (54 miles per person). Overall, average miles cycled in 2022 was 46% higher than in 2002 (39 miles per person).
     

Some have taken the data and done some detailed analysis of it for London and I have to agree with Vincent that it must now be time to start asking why there is so much focus on cycling from Will Norman et al when a more pragmatic approach may yield better results for everyone - the ten-fold increase that was mooted by Will Norman is absolutely nowhere to be seen.

 

 

 

 

[malumbu]

Disappointed that as a cyclist you are not championing this mode of transport.  You've got a lot of valuable experience.  (That's a positive comment)

[Rockets]

This has nothing to do with whether I am championing cycling or not (your post does, however, read like another one of your barbed attacks and your usual diversionary tactics - that's a positive comment too! ;-))

 

You're a cyclist too Malumbu so let's put both our valuable experience into the discussion.......

 

Do you have any thoughts on the data presented by the DFT survey - it makes pretty grim reading for Will Norman's "more than ten-fold increase" in cycling in London that he wrote in an op-ed/interview in BikeBiz in May 2020 doesn't it?

Do you think there comes a point where you have to admit you can't keep pouring money into a project that clearly isn't delivering against it's stated goals - and one that significantly disrupts other forms of transport (buses) and the growing users of buses whilst doing so? Or is there something else that is missing that needs to be done to get the massive increases in cycling needed to justify the spend and the disruption? Could it be perhaps that the grand vision sold by Will Norman and the cycle lobby when they inserted themselves into the process at all levels selling the notion that London could be the next cycle-equivalent of Amsterdam wasn't ever likely to happen - that it was nothing more than a ludicrous pipe dream that is turning into a very expensive white elephant?

[Kurt_Lane]

I feel that hardly any money has been poured into cycling. Driving standards are bad - you experience reckless driving most commutes and there are still no segregated routes to get into central. It’s no wonder that there aren’t more new cyclists. 

Busses are slow, but that is generally due to parked cars and roadworks. Sometimes the overall volume of car traffic is crushing. Too many cars in the way of busses remain the problem.

Finally, bus routes don’t change to reflect the evolution of rail transport, which would be an easy way to increase usage. 

We can’t “invest” our way out of cars parked in a bus lane making a dual lane road a single lane that is nearly stationary and full of cars. It’s about priorities not budget. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Kurt_Lane

[Rockets]

In 2013 Boris committed to spend £913m over ten years on cycling and there was even more significant investment around Covid in cycling infrastructure.

 

The argument that build more and they will come doesn’t seem to be bearing fruits, there has been a huge amount of infrastructure built around in, out and across London since Covid yet cycling levels are heading close to 2019 numbers in London - that’s not a trend that can continue to sustain the level of investment - the numbers have to be going up and showing a trajectory to get to the ten-fold increase.

 

And the issue with buses is that much of the bus lane infrastructure is being torn out and replaced by cycle lane infrastructure and buses are being forced into the remaining lane with other road traffic - just look at any one of the bridges across the Thames like Blackfriars or Waterloo that used to have dedicated bus lanes and now no longer do have, which is adding to delays. Locally TFL cited the Dulwich LTNs displaced traffic as the cause of bus delays in the Croxted Road/Herne Hill area.

 

Cycling seems to be struggling to break out from the white MAMIL demographic and these trends were being seen before Covid too - with many suggesting that cycling in London had been reaching its natural saturation point years before Covid. Perhaps if there had been a MAMOB (middle aged men on buses) lobby group then buses may not have been so overlooked!

 

 

[Kurt_Lane]

I don’t think that you can base anything on a spending pledge that didn’t happen. A first mistake would be believing Mr Johnson in any respect.

Re the bus/cycle priority, the examples around bridges relate to central London and not local roads for which mention an LTN. The LTNs are not cycling infrastructure but rather active travel infrastructure so I don’t see the connection for them to Johnson’s fictitious cycle budget from 2013.

I’m sure we would all love better busies locally, but  the issue is too much local traffic. Letting some of the too much traffic drive through LTNs isn’t going to help busses much. I’d love to see busses pass through some of the bus gates that make up LTNs but bus routes are a TFL decision and busses are not a TFL priority. 

[heartblock]

Buses through LTNs is an excellent idea... if I remember locally the vocal Melbourne Grove residents that campaigned for a closed road, also campaigned to stop the 37 going down their road 5 years before - as it impeded traffic...

If the 37 went back down Melbourne now it would benefit the School and would relieve some of the issues for that route as bypassing LL and the queue the other way into ED Grove.

I also think Black Cabs as well - my friend with mobility issues relies on black cabs - as roomy for her multiple issues, but it's now a longer route adding 30 minutes to a previously 15 minute journey due to LTNS.

If current LTNs are inspected, rejigged and rethought - along with some A road and boundary road spend to make these roads safer, less polluted... then.....

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Kurt_Lane said:

I don’t think that you can base anything on a spending pledge that didn’t happen. A first mistake would be believing Mr Johnson in any respect.

Re the bus/cycle priority, the examples around bridges relate to central London and not local roads for which mention an LTN. The LTNs are not cycling infrastructure but rather active travel infrastructure so I don’t see the connection for them to Johnson’s fictitious cycle budget from 2013.

I think it is widely accepted that the money in Boris' cycling plan did materialise  and in Will Norman's most recent cycling plan he was pledging £150m a year to continue the level of spending the Boris administration started.

 

But LTNs are causing problems for buses just as much as the removal of bus lanes more centrally - the TFL vs Dulwich councillors debacle was triggered because TFL dared to publish a report that said the Dulwich LTNs were causing bus delays.

And sorry not buying the LTNs aren't cycling infrastructure argument - you're probably going to try and convince me Will Normal gives equal weighting to plans for walking as he does cycling....;-)

Heartblock - I agree, allowing buses through LTNs would be a very good idea but given the opposition from the council and their supporters to let emergency vehicles through LTNs it might be a big ask to let buses through.

[malumbu]

Rocks - fair question why did you not just raise this on the LTN thread.  Why start another one.  This is your point isn't it?

[Kurt_Lane]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

And sorry not buying the LTNs aren't cycling infrastructure argument

No need to apologise. I don’t mind people being wrong. 

Black cabs should be near the bottom of the list next to Ubers (but above HGVs). I’m not sure why they should be allowed on bus lanes. They are as efficient as cars when there is a passenger in them and the least efficient transport when there are no passengers because they drive around making congestion worse without even providing mobility to anyone. Happy to park that thought for another day 😆

[Rockets]

Yet more diversionary and derailing tactics Malumbu?

Admin has been very clear on the rules of this discussion forum so if you have something to add that can be considered part of the discussion go ahead - if not, then please don't post your constant attempts to derail thread after thread - it is becoming very tiresome....

And anyway, given your recent restrictions on posting in certain East Dulwich specific related threads I would have thought you would have welcomed the chance to join a discussion, maybe if we don't want to give you the ability to derail everything we just need to add East Dulwich to the title! 😉 and you will be unable to comment!

But all joking aside, and to give you the chance to actually engage in the discussion, maybe let me ask you, yet another, direct question (which I very much suspect you will not answer because you never do) -  Malumbu, do you think the significant investment in cycle infrastructure and it's associated impact on other modes of transport can continued to be justified if we don't see a marked upturn in cycling numbers?

P.S. My name is Rockets not Rocks - only my close friends get to address me as Rocks! 😉 

[malumbu]

Yes. 

Out of interest the Conservative Manifesto states:

We will support commuter cycling routes, so that more people can cycle safely to work and more families can go out together. We will create a new £350 million Cycling Infrastructure Fund with mandatory design standards for new routes. 

We will extend Bikeability – cycling proficiency training – to every child. And we will work with the NHS to promote cycling for healthier living.

Not a fan of this useless government, and perhaps they should have gone much further in terms of active travel, but no issue with the general principles above.

So not quoting from the Manifesto benefits of cycling:

Improved mental and physical health of the cyclist

Health of the pedestrian (through reduced emissions

Contributing to climate change objectives

Personal mobility for those who are too young to drive, don't want to learn to drive, don't want to own a car and/or would rather not drive

Generally quicker journey times

Lower cost than other modes of transport

Less cars parked on the road, as well as less car journeys

And available to virtually all, adapted bikes and electric assistance for those unable to ride standard push bikes or just want a helping push.

Try it you will love it.

Here's some homework on social prescribing for you to consider

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/active-travel-social-prescribing-pilots-local-authority-allocations

www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/social_prescribing_active_travel_toolkit.pdf

I'm not put off by fluctuating statistics I'm into the principles, and if there is a problem with any long term significant demand then I expect my elected representatives and my prime minister to address this.

[Spartacus]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

I'm not put off by fluctuating statistics I'm into the principles, and if there is a problem with any long term significant demand then I expect my elected representatives and my prime minister to address this.

The question you have to ask is "was the increase in cycling during Covid a fluctuating statistic and levels are now returning back to the normal?"

Unfortunately a lot of potential cyclists are put off by what feels like a large number of aggressive cyclists who jockey for prime position at junctions, jump lights, use pavements and race anything that moves* 

 

* other forms of cyclists are obviously also available. 

[Rockets]

I think Malumbu is agreeing, even though they seem to be punting the decision to others, that if the numbers aren't being delivered then it has to be looked into.

And I think you're right that the positive impact on cycling numbers was a fluctuating statistic but one that was used as the catalyst for increased investment by pro-cycle lobbyists (promises of ten-fold increases) but the long-term trend is that, even after the installation of masses of new infrastructure, cycling growth has stalled (I read recently that Santander bikes saw a 22% drop in usage year-on-year which TFL put down to bad weather)

Will Norman and others have built the huge investment and disruption of cycle infrastructure on the back of a premise of "if we build it they will come" but can anyone see anything that they are coming in the numbers needed so perhaps it's time for those installing these measures to do some proper analysis into why London is not turning into their poster-child Amsterdam (of course some of us know why and were posting about it for ages but were being called cynics - or worse). 

 

[Kurt_Lane]

On 12/10/2023 at 08:45, Spartacus said:

Unfortunately a lot of potential cyclists are put off by what feels like a large number of aggressive cyclists who jockey for prime position at junctions, jump lights, use pavements and race anything that moves

 

Is this your personal speculation because it doesn’t correlate with any official polls that I have seen. The reasons that most people quote in polls are poor road conditions/potholes, bad drivers and inclement weather with two of those three being overcome by well maintained cycle infrastructure. 

[Rockets]

So Kurt, given that you say two of those three are overcome by well maintained cycle infrastructure do you have any explanation why the cycling numbers in London are continuing to decline given the amount of new cycle infrastructure now in place - is it inclement weather or something else?

[Spartacus]

Kurt, it is from conversations with friends, family, work mates who mostly believe that other cyclists are too aggressive and they don't feel safe amongst them. 

The issue with polls is that cyclists are mote likely to respond than non cyclists on subjects relating to cycling. The "not my thing so I won't respond" syndrome. 

It might get a more realistic response if it is part of a general poll where cycling is a small part so that people feel they have areas that relate to them.  

 

[malumbu]

Then it is a common perception rather than a reality as most drivers and most cyclists are courteous and happy to share space.  TfL did a good poster campaign about sharing the road.  Maybe national government should do too although the loud petrol heads and conspiracy theorists will no doubt read some woke agenda into this.  Although maybe woke should be used as a positive term rather than pejorative.

[Spartacus]

Thats a great suggestion mal 

Whilst it is a perception, as a driver I can see why when I stop at lights and get surrounded by cyclists jostling fir prime position (lol the ones who stop at the lights that is) I personally wouldn't want to be sitting in my Raleigh sit up and beg type cycle amongst them all.

Maybe the campaign should be about sharing the road, it's not a velodrome and respect the highway code 🤔 

I think that will encourage more people to cycle for leisure 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Spartacus

[Penguin68]

Isn't it quite likely that it is cyclists being sampled as to what puts them off cycling - they are less likely to site aggressive cyclists, I'd have thought, than non-cyclists who had considered, or even tried cycling, and had been put off by others. People who don't (now) cycle are rather less likely to be sampled on polls about cyclists attitudes to cycling.

[Rockets]

Aggressive cycling, whether intentional or not, is an issue but one that gets diluted if you are able to attract more people from more diverse backgrounds to cycling. The problem is that if the majority of your user group is middle-aged white males on hugely expensive racing bikes then a certain style of cycling is bound to be prevalent (the number of times I have been shouted at for daring to stop at a red-light if it impedes the cyclists behind me and when they overtake you can always predict the kit and the type of bike they are on). Cycle groups, TFL etc are desperately trying to get a broader, more representative, demographic and I suspect trends (nationally) in that regard could be seen from here but I don't have the time to look at it: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1180737/nts0601.ods

[Earl Aelfheah]

'Aggressive cycling' lol. Not sure it's people travelling under their own steam by bicycle who seriously kill or injure 30,000 people each year. Rockets is relentlessly against any scheme which seeks to reduce car use / makes roads safer.

If you want faster buses, you need to reduce on street parking, and bring in measures to disincentive / counteract the massive growth in vehicle sizes (not just fill up side streets with more cars).

You're so obviously stuck down an 'anti-bicycle' Twitter rabbit hole. Try and climb out for crying out loud. People travelling by bicycle is a good thing, we should encourage it.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

Earl, save your breath, you I and others have said this so so many times, but for some reason the anti-cycling stuff continues!

But if this is a cycling thread, which I expect the intention always was here are my issues:

Lack of training - particularly delivery riders (something government should tackle).  Recommend free training for all, which this government is committed to:  www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/sustainable-travel/training/free-cycling-lessons

Lights, I really don't get this as the basic ones are so cheap, and it is not just youngsters

Mobile phones, as per above not just youngsters and this as lack of light endangers the rider more than others (as opposed to tin boxes where you have a steel cage to protect you).

That's my moan, the only thing that deters me from cycling is theft, having had a bike stolen about every ten years locked to street furniture.

Safely doesn't bother me as I am trained, I have lights, don't use hands on mobile and the benefits far outweigh my personal safety.

If this is a general thread about transport trends I'll talk to my contacts who are experts and report back.

[Nigello]

We should encourage safe and conscientious bicycle use, driving likewise. Far too many cyclists don’t have lights and/or cycle on footpaths, ride through red lights, don’t have bells… Far too many drivers refuse to indicate, slow down at zebras, park illegally. To pretend that any one group of road users shouldn’t be criticised because other groups are also bad or worse is irrational. 

[Rockets]

Earl, I am a cyclist (and someone who has commuted to work on my bike across London so probably well versed in what constitutes aggressive cycling) so I agree people cycling, and more people cycling, is a good thing.

 

But surely you must be even a slightly bit concerned that over £1bn of tax-payers money has been spent on huge swathes of cycling infrastructure in London, which, in turn, is causing delays to buses and challenges for those who use them. Yet despite all this investment and infrastructure the numbers of cyclists in London are decreasing not increasing. Surely that concerns you - that all of the efforts to make cycling more popular are failing? Will Norman lauded a potential ten-fold increase in cyclists post-Covid yet if the numbers continue to decline at the rate they are we will be at the same level as pre-Covid and won't have even reached a one-fold increase.

So whilst you aggressively accuse me (be careful of the new forum rules in relation to personal jibes BTW) of being down an anti-bicycle Twitter rabbit hole I am anything but - but I am a pragmatist and realist and the data is indicating something is not working.

 

Any ideas on what you think needs to be done or do you subscribe to the "keep building it and they will come mantra"?

 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Rockets