National Travel Survey and cycling policy in London

[first mate]

Problem is it isn't simple and the many barriers to cycling have already been outlined. Perhaps there is not more that can be done at the moment, it has to be a matter of individual choice.

I think Heartblock has the right idea in encouraging more walking- arguably better for overall fitness than cycling (especially e-bikes or scooter use). A combination of walking and public transport is a winning formula and more pragmatic.

Edited November 10, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

10 hours ago, malumbu said:

Rocks, for the umpteenth time, you've avoided my question, which was what would you do to increase the uptake of cycling, and active travel as a whole?

The answer to your question is clearly in my response above and you have made my point even more strongly as you are doing what so many in the pro-cycle lobby do - you focus first on cycling - cycling is one part, not the ONLY part, of active travel. There is a cult-like obsession with using active travel as a way to further cycling's growth and going searching for a ten-fold increase in cycling was never going to be viable - it was never going to happen - it's what happens when you put cycle-lobbyists in positions of power to lead the rollout.

I think the mistake was to double-down on cycling as the cure-all and as FM says...if you improve public transport that will encourage more active travel as it gets people out of cars and walking/cycling to and from train stations and bus stops. Just think how TFL could have strengthened public transport with some of the money spent on cycle infrastructure. I would love to see the walking stats for Dulwich now and I bet you walking is down due to the number of children now cycling rather than walking to school.

 

Here's a question for you - what do you think went wrong and why do you think cycling is declining year-on-year in London?

 

11 hours ago, malumbu said:

From my understanding this is a community forum that encourages debate, rather than monologues.  Thanking you in advance.

I love your sense of humour and your wonderfully ironic self-deprecating posts! 😉 

[Penguin68]

Not everyone subscribes to the idea that over promotion of active travel is a good or necessary thing. Removing obstacles to active travel is I believe appropriate, where those obstacles make a (free) choice of active travel difficult or dangerous - and making progress on pavements without obstructions or hazards is clearly an appropriate use of tax payers money. But deciding to travel 'actively' should be a personal choice (which is supported by society) and not an imposition. For many people such a choice, through age, infirmity or other social obligations or work requirements may not be possible or desirable. To focus only on active travel options at the expense of other choices is not, to my mind, the mark of a free or democratic society, and to pretend that we are all in favour of such prioritisation at the expense of others is simply not true. I will not stand in the way of your active travel, if, and only if, you are prepared not to stand in my way in making different choices. 

And choosing to favour only one 'brand' of active travel is a further, and undemocratic restriction. As it happens, I do walk, for pleasure, but not, necessarily, or at times at all, as my prefered choice for getting from A to B (I walk from A, scenicly, back to A again!). 

I find being told what I should do, in the eyes of others, an imposition. And an unwelcome one.

Where one brand of active travel, cycling, occupies discordant amounts of road space against other forms of transport, including public transport, and where the use of that space is not meeting, or coming close to meeting, planning expectations, it can and should be challenged. And a mindset which believes that making other forms of transport impossible, so as to force users into a choice they have not entered into willingly, is simply undemocratic. I do not want self appointed health police deciding what health choices I should be forced to make. And the idea that the active travel of anyone on this board, in Dulwich, is actually improving the health of others is simply absurd. Particularly where all that is happening is traffic displacement (e.g. LTNs locally) or buses being late.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Penguin68

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rocks - The report does not comment on cycling in London - it does not as you suggest, state that active travel in the capital has fallen. The 'analysis' you're quoting is from a guy on Twitter who has posted some homemade charts he says is based on their data. 

So I guess the question is whether a professionally commissioned report on cycling in London is a more credible source than a guy on Twitter known for his anti-LTN stance.

Tell me this - do you really believe that there hasn't been a massive increase in cycling in London over the last decade? Really? Because, if you commute into town every day as you claim, I don't believe it.

[Rockets]

Earl, as I said before you are wrong - you can keep repeating the question but the data is there - the datasets for regions, including London, can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts03-modal-comparisons

 

Maybe you can analyse the data and come up with a different set of results - but until you do I will lean in on Vincent's analysis because I don't have time to do it.....

 

And he isn't some random guy on twitter but Vincent Stops who "worked for 20 years for London TravelWatch, London’s transport watchdog. For much of that time he worked as their Streets Policy Officer covering, amongst other areas, disabled access. Vincent was a Hackney councillor for 20 years and for some time led on transport for the borough. Vincent is now retired from both roles". - I took that from a submission he made to a parliamentary committee not his twitter profile just in case you chose to question it! 😉

 

Of course cycling has gone up in the last ten years - I have never said it hasn't - and I am one of the cyclists who joined the revolution over 10 years ago - my point is that since Covid (and since the £2bn+ spend on active travel) cycling has been declining significantly in London - and seemingly nationally too.

And please, don't hit me with the claims of a 40% increase from the TFL report (unless you caveat it that the 40% increase was seen for one week comparing the same week in October 2019 to the same week in October 2022). That is not an annual increase - it's a weekly increase with no established baseline for comparison - it is utterly meaningless in this discussion I am afraid - publish that data over the whole year and you have something to discuss - which is what Vincent has done with the DfT dataset.

 

[malumbu]

You've lost me Rocks, your posts can be a little discursive.  And Penguin similarly it is good to keep posts short as you may lose your reader.  Only comment is there are times when the authorities should intervene, when this is for the national good such as reducing criminality, protecting the environment, and improving health.  There will be a similar debate on food, now much free choice should there be when obesity and type 2 diabetes is on the increase - should government ban, discourage or just leave it to consumer (often bad) choices.

Rocks, what a shame that there is no scrutiny of government.  Oh wait a second, what does parliament do?  What do Select Committees do?  What about the NAO?

Here's some reports I made earlier children:

www.nao.org.uk/reports/active-travel-in-england/

This is a tad critical of DfT so that should please you.  Main finding on value for money is that over £4 return for every pound of tax payers money spent.  That is pretty spectacular for government spending

And here's another one https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01097/

 

[alice]

Mal your patronising posts alienate the people you try and convert.

[malumbu]

I'd argue my points are factual.  A lost cause in any case persuading  the most vociferous posters to change their opinion.

Oh and other stuff is just good natured banter.

[alice]

its only banter when you actually know the other person.

[first mate]

This particular poster always resorts to provocation when their case runs out of steam. But let's not focus on that. I felt Rockets was simply trying to address the various points raised by Earl, so a bit dodgy to say Rocket's posts are discursive. P68 generally has something useful to say when they do post and others often write at length too, those who don't wish to read are under no obligation to.

Edited November 15, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

Oh Malumbu - you are sailing very close to your old diversionary tactics again. But let me help you get back on track shall I (to avoid another censure from admin).

 

Whilst you encourage people not to post or change their style I recommend you keep doing what you are doing because your posts are excellent - for example, did you actually read the report you just posted, like actually read it and took time to look at the conclusions and recommendations........I don't think you can have because it actually validates my position rather than yours...www.nao.org.uk/reports/active-travel-in-england/

 

Let me show you.....look at Page 10 of that report:

12 DfT’s progress to date suggests it will not achieve three of its four 2025 objectives for increasing active travel, and progress on the fourth is uncertain. DfT’s objectives relate to increasing overall walking and cycling activity, with specific objectives for school journeys and short journeys made in towns and cities. The latest survey data, from 2021, show little overall progress against its objectives. Whilst one measure was close to its 2025 target, this may reflect changes to travel patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic which appear not to have been sustained. For the other three, levels of activity are lower than they were when the first Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy was published in 2017.

 

And now look at page 26 of that report...

 

This shows that DfT made little progress against its active travel objectives between 2017 and 2019 (Figure 7 on pages 26 and 27). In 2020 and 2021, travel behaviour was significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic as more people worked and attended school from home. Cycling increased in 2020, largely because of a surge in leisure cycling, before falling back in 2021. Progress in increasing the proportion of short journeys cycled or walked in towns and cities appears more positive but this may reflect the large decline in use of motor vehicles during the pandemic which appears not to have been sustained. The time-lag in DfT’s active travel statistics means that data for 2022 are not yet available and the longer-term impact of the pandemic on changes in active travel behaviour remains uncertain.

 

Or Page 28.....what is the top graph showing.....exactly what many are arguing is not happening....

 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Rockets

[malumbu]

Glad I was of service

Here's another recent report to government, one I am sure you will agree with:  https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmpubacc/1335/report.html#heading-1

My particular issue is nothing to do with funding active travel, which is the right thing to do, but that the government does sfa on hearts and minds.  Extracting from the above

"4. DfT’s communications to the public have not been enough to help tackle perceptions that active travel is unsafe or to encourage more people to take part. People’s perception of the safety of active travel is as important as actual physical safety. There is significant public concern around safety and this remains a substantial barrier to getting more people cycling and walking. We are not convinced that DfT’s messaging around the positive changes that have been made to improve safety, such as revisions to the Highway Code, or the benefits of active travel have been communicated effectively to the general public. There are also concerns about the impact on safety of new forms of travel such as e-scooters. DfT accepts that there is a need for greater clarity around the role of e-scooters, including a better legal framework. With the proliferation of e-scooters being used for both leisure and commuting, in and beyond the 23 current trials of rental schemes, there is a pressing need for better advice and guidance from DfT for the public and stakeholders.

Recommendation 4: DfT should, by December 2023, set out to the Committee how it will lead a proactive and coordinated approach with other stakeholders to: better promote the benefits of active travel; identify and address safety concerns; and encourage more people to participate in active travel."

[note the report is full of wishy washy recommendations - they need to be SMART - as I am sure you know: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound As my reports were on in different market sectors two decades ago.]

I like Sustrans response following the NAO, rightly critical but unlike some not wanting to diss active travel:

www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/news/2023/june/sustrans-says-active-travel-targets-are-in-tatters-due-to-persistent-underfunding-by-the-government

Very critical of lack of funding by government in taking their goals forward, "The failure to meet Department for Transport objectives will directly impact future generations and their ability to walk, wheel and cycle safely, leaving a legacy of poor air quality and reduced public health." and "It also found that, despite the targets to increase the numbers of people walking and cycling, and the percentage of children aged five to ten walking to school, all activity levels are now lower than when the objectives were set in 2017"

So rather than campaigning against LTNs and CPZs wouldn't it be better to do your bit to promote active travel. Note Sunstrans looked to a joined up approach between cycling and walking advocates, so all this bikes vs pedestrians nonsense is exactly that.

Thinking outside the box, Rocks, as a cyclist why don't you become active in Soutwark LCC?  You could be a sort of Geoff Norcott character bringing in some common sense.  Here's one he made earlier: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX4nlogynYI

I'm back off to Piston Heads, some real gritty discussions going on, you wouldn't imagine you'd g to Piston Heads for some particularly astute criticism of GB news.

 

 

 

[Rockets]

Malumbu, you've done it again....

 Some clips from the report you link to....

The Department for Transport (DfT, ‘The Department’) has made little progress against its objectives to increase active travel and it is not on track to meet its 2025 targets. There has been no sustained increase in either walking or cycling since DfT set its objectives in 2017.

There has been no sustained increase in cycling rates and, in some cases, for example the proportion of children walking to school, levels of activity are lower now than when the targets were set.

 

And I would be very surprised if Sustrans were to diss active travel - they are responsible for the roll-out of a lot of the active travel measures so they are part of the problem that has failed to deliver. So blaming a lack of spending as part of the reason for the failure is completely understandable from them! 😉 - they are trying to cover their own backsides!

 

Can we all agree that the billions invested in active travel have failed thus far - can anyone (bar Aldred/ Goodman and co) show that they have come close to delivering on their goals?

 

 

[Dulwichmudlark]

A ban on kids in cargo bikes would be a good start 

[malumbu]

Why?  And how would you achieve this???  There is nobody enforcing illegal scooters and illegal e-bikes.  Why on earth would they choose to stop parents using their own free choice, on a legal mode of transport? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The Travel in London report for 2023 is out. https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s21482/board-20231213-item08b-TiL 2023 Overview Report.pdf

Daily cycling journeys increased to 1.26 million in 2023. Up 6.2% since 2022, up 20% since 2019.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

Cycling has grown pretty impressively the past few years and especially the past couple of decades. It's the only form of transport that's increased above pre-pandemic levels in London. The number of cycling journeys on any day adds up to around a third of all Tube journeys (imagine if all those people were to switch). Probably making up a far bigger proportion in central / inner London, but couldn't see if they've differentiated.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[sally buying]

As its one of the few travel options where you can break every rule in the book and nothing will happen to you its no surprised if true why cycling has increased.

Blink in a car and you end up with a fine.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yeh, motor vehicles are over policed, despite killing or seriously injuring around 30,000 people every year in the UK. War on motorists isn't it 🙄

BTW, there is plenty of evidence that people travelling by bicycle are much less likely to break the rules. Probably because you're more vulnerable on a bike. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

Slightly under 30k killed or seriously injured in 2022, and of those around 1500 actually killed. Both figures down by 3% since 2019 (pre pandemic). Still too many, of course. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

48 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Slightly under 30k killed or seriously injured in 2022, and of those around 1500 actually killed. Both figures down by 3% since 2019 (pre pandemic). Still too many, of course. 

Yes, around 30K as I said. And yes, far too many. Doesn't suggest that motor vehicles are being overpoliced. 

Now just waiting for the usual suspects to explain how the TFL report actually shows the opposite of what it says it does and that cycling is falling / the methodology is flawed / it's been manipulated by shadowy anti-car forces etc...

...in 3, 2, 1...

Edited December 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Nigello]

>>>>> BTW, there is plenty of evidence that people travelling by bicycle are much less likely to break the rules. Probably because you're more vulnerable on a bike. 
 

I’ve no car, no bike but a decent pair of eyes and a large minority of cyclists do break the rules. No lights, no bells, no stopping at lights/zebras, footpath riding are all very common and I’m not anti-cyclist or pro-car. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Nigello

[richard tudor]

How many of these deaths or injured were caused by cyclists not adhering to the rules. Do the figures show this?

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 hours ago, Nigello said:

>>>>> BTW, there is plenty of evidence that people travelling by bicycle are much less likely to break the rules. Probably because you're more vulnerable on a bike. 
 

I’ve no car, no bike but a decent pair of eyes and a large minority of cyclists do break the rules. No lights, no bells, no stopping at lights/zebras, footpath riding are all very common and I’m not anti-cyclist or pro-car. 

Yes, but when those travelling on a bicycle break the law it often is easier to see. The fact is speeding is endemic, the use of mobile devices at the wheel is common, and some drive without valid insurance, MOT or tax. Then you can add drink driving, illegal parking, idling etc.. Studies have shown that law breaking by those using a motor vehicle is more prevalent than when travelling by bicycle (probably not that surprising as motorists have more laws that apply to them). There is good reason why driving is more regulated (see above), they are exponentially more dangerous to others. I am aware that there is a common belief that when people travel by bicycle they break more laws and are more dangerous, but it’s demonstrably (and when you think about it, obviously) false

Edited December 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Yes, but when those travelling on a bicycle break the law it is easy to see. 

Not if they are riding at night without lights they're not 😎🤣