National Travel Survey and cycling policy in London

[malumbu]

Then work with us to make it main stream.  I'm sure we would appreciate your knowledge, campaigning experience and enthusiasm.

[Raeburn]

What are you talking about Rockets? The policy was there, it was bought forward in Covid to enable safer, better travel for people to get about their lives.

[Rockets]

Are you referring to the Our Healthy Streets programme?

[Rockets]

What was I saying.....and so it starts and now look for the government to pass the buck to the likes of TFL and local authorities on how they have been investing the billions: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/198260/active-travel-government-programme-offtrack-as-funding-reductions-hold-back-progress/#:~:text=The Government is not on,travel%2C including cycling and walking.

 

Quote from report:

The report further warns that the impact of £2.3bn in funding for active travel infrastructure remains unclear.

DfT’s efforts to increase active travel have seen disappointingly slow progress. Objectives include a doubling of cycling rates, and a 6 percentage point increase in the proportion of children walking to school. There has been no sustained increase in cycling rates, and fewer children now walk to school than when targets were set.

 

[DulvilleRes]

Given this is a South London forum, I would have thought this is more relevant to a discussion about cycling

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/southwark-among-london-boroughs-with-highest-rate-of-cycling/

Southwark has the second highest rate of cycling in London. I would also question the tired old assertion that cycling is white middle class men. In my experience it is predominately young, and approx 35 - 40% female. 

[malumbu]

A reminder of my earlier post Rocks, it would be great if you put your energy into promoting cycling rather than dissing it.  You know you want to 😊

[Rockets]

Malumbu - a reminder you have been warned not to try and divert threads. This thread is about whether the cycle-first policy has been working.

 

Now a parliamentary cross-party committe has said that despite £2.3bn spent on active travel measures: 

There has been no sustained increase in cycling rates, and fewer children now walk to school than when targets were set.

So despite many coming on here assuring us there are more people cycling we have seen one report from the DfT and a report from the cross-party committee contradicting that position.

 

The active travel measures aren't working are they - it all looks like its been a massive waste of public funds that hasn't delivered on its promises. Who do you think needs to be held accountable?

 

4 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

I would also question the tired old assertion that cycling is white middle class men. In my experience it is predominately young, and approx 35 - 40% female. 

I am afraid the DfT report suggests otherwise.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Rockets

[first mate]

I have little doubt the numbers go up in the hottest and driest months but reckon they plummet in the kind of weather we are having now. Build all the infrastructure you like, the weather conditions and local geography remain a massive problem.  
Forget the discomfort aspect, it just does not feel safe cycling when there are massive puddles hiding potholes, add in early nights and it is a no brainer.

Edited November 4, 2023 by first mate

[malumbu]

If you want to feel safer FM I fully recommend a cycle lesson - it's free and supported by Southwark (although the money comes from government via TfL).  Changed my life.

www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/sustainable-travel/training/free-cycling-lessons

[first mate]

Quote

 

The active travel measures aren't working are they - it all looks like its been a massive waste of public funds that hasn't delivered on its promises. Who do you think needs to be held accountable?

Locally, I think Southwark have got to snap out of appeasing niche but (disproportionately) influential lobby groups who have meddled and shaped local policy and interventions. Now is not the time to be throwing public money down a black hole. We all have ears and eyes, the masses have not taken to cycling for work or for leisure.

[Rockets]

It's all starting to unravel - some of us on here have been saying for a long time that these measures have not been working and that the numbers being put out by activist researchers and councils weren't right and now the reality is coming to light....let's see how those who have been cheerleaders for these measures and responsible for the debacle try to spin their way out of it and take zero personal responsibility for what has happened (or not happened in these cases)...

 

Unfortunately, too many have been led down the garden path and hoodwinked by vested-interest lobby groups.

[malumbu]

wOW

[malumbu]

S'pose I'd better add a few more words.  I get that you are angry Rocks about some aspects of roads' policy and consider that LCC, Southwark LCC, Mayor Khan, the tree huggers at DfT, Chris Boardman, Peter Walker, ex-Mayor and ex-PM Johnson and Andrew Gilligan are to blame.  I don't agree with those views but such is life.

But surely you believe that more cycling and walking is a good thing, particularly if that results in less driving.  That we both want the same ends even if we don't agree on the means?

Otherwise that suggests you want national and local governments to continue with the car-central policies of the last 60 years or more, with the odd blip (ray of hope?) we had under early Blair (fuel protests caused so much longer-term harm....), Coalition government and under PM Johnson.  That would be sad otherwise.

 

[first mate]

Rocket's response to the current situation seems more pragmatic than, as you suggest, emotional. 
 

If more cycling were happening locally it would be a good thing but the indications are this is not the case. Are you saying that is completely untrue?
 

Malumbu, you seem to be backsliding and adopting an earlier style of posting where you started stating that you had some sort of inside knowledge of other poster's mental and emotional states. Please stop. It does you no favours and does not advance any counter argument you are attempting to mount.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

But surely you believe that more cycling and walking is a good thing, particularly if that results in less driving. 

Yes absolutely 100% but the current measures being installed are not delivering anywhere close to what some claim or some promised or what is needed. Additionally, the negative impact on other transport modes (public transport in particular) and the people who use those modes is huge.

And remember these conclusions have been reached by a cross-party parliamentary committee - so not some angry right-wing rag - and they say:

There has been no sustained increase in cycling rates, and fewer children now walk to school than when targets were set.

That is a devasting inditement of the failure of the £2.3bn spend on active travel. Some of us could see what was happening - others didn't want to see it or refused to acknowledge it.

 

And P.S. Malumbu - I am not angry (thanks for your concern) I am sad that a once in a lifetime opportunity to make positive active travel change has seemingly been wasted because those who were given the power to initiate the change (many of those who mentioned in your post) put their own cycle-centric ideology ahead of a more balanced pragmatic approach. And I suspect that as the Tories start flinging mud ahead of the general election that a lot of those who have been part of the machine will come into the cross-hairs (and that they will all try to blame one another for the debacle as they look to avoid being accountable).

Fasten your seatbelts, fasten your bike helmet and charge your e-bikes and cargo bikes - this is going to be a very bumpy ride.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 27/10/2023 at 09:09, Spartacus said:

Therein lies the rub.

Two surveys, producing different results. 

What is needed is a commonly defined survey that is unbiased and the metrics recorded are agreed in advance so that there can be no question of the outcome.

I may be wrong, but I think the Dft report only quotes numbers on cycling nationally. It doesn't really comment on cycling in London. The Tfl report is (naturally) about London specifically, and suggests that cycling is up 40% on pre-pandemic numbers.  

Still, for those who would ignore the evidence of their own eyes and claim that cycling in London has not boomed over the last couple of decades, the Dft report is something to latch on to I guess.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

On 10/10/2023 at 13:09, Rockets said:

 

 

 

Earl you are wrong.

 

The DfT report does look at London and the results taken from the data in the report are pasted above - both of which show a continued decline in cycling in London post-pandemic - you can see average cycle trips per year is just above pre-pandemic levels but below those from 2014-15 and miles travelled as a proportion of all trips continuing its year on year drop since the pandemic.

And you're "doing a Will" with the 40% figure. That is not an annual figure but TFL comparing two (as far as I am aware undefined) periods of time in the Autumn of 2019 with the Autumn of 2022. It's a bit like us comparing the number of people cycling last Thursday (when it was torrential rain and Storm Ciaran) to those cycling this Thursday (when the weather is set to be much better) - a massive increase between the two dates but no way indicative of whether there a more cyclists per se.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It’s not from the report. Read the report - after all you’re the one who started a thread on it.
 

It’s from a guy on Twitter who says he’s using data the dft collected and on which he has done his own ‘analysis’, sharing his graphs with anti LTN folk on social media.
 

And if you follow the link I posted on the TFL report, you’ll find that their data is specified, linked to, and covers the same period one year apart. It is also specific to London.

But all that aside, honestly.. as someone who claims to cycle daily in London 🤨, can you really say that you have not seen the increase in cycling that has taken place over the last ten years? Really? 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, you're wrong again I am afraid. Look at the link I shared and then click down to the links that say data tables. It's all in there, data for London, data for every part of the country - maybe you can extrapolate the data for London and see if you agree with Vincent's summary?

 

The TFL report you shared is flagging an increase for one week in October, comparing one week in 2022 to the same week in 2019. Hurrah, a 40% increase for a single week but why do you think TFL, the authority responsible for the build out of huge amounts of cycle infrastructure, chose that week? Perhaps it was randomly selected....;-) So again, for you to claim that cycling is up by 40% on the basis of that stat is wrong, misleading and needs to be caveated.

 

Are there more cyclists, of course there are? Are there double, triple or quadruple the number than before - nope? To be a success does the cycle infrastructure need to be attracting double, triple or quadruple the numbers - absolutely yes? Are there fewer cyclists than during the pandemic and are the number of cyclists decreasing year on year according to research - yes? Is there disruption caused to buses by the building of more infrastructure? Yes. Are more kids cycling to school? Yes. Did many of them switch from walking to cycling to make their journeys? Yes. Is that a good thing? Yes as it gets then cycling but no in terms of active travel as the very best form is walking.

 

Now the question we should all be pondering is, is the focus on cycle infrastructure delivering the results necessary to sustain that level of investment and is the impact on other modes warranted? We seem a very long way off the mooted 10-fold increase.......

Edited November 7, 2023 by Rockets

[malumbu]

All this begs the question, Rocks, how would have you increased active transport.  My view is that we needed a stronger message from the centre (ie government).  Eg we've introduced LTNs, you may find it a bit of a pain, but ultimately active travel is good for you, unnecessary car journeys are not good for society and the environment etc etc.  But they didn't.  Because the Tories are pants.  Don't vote for them. 

[first mate]

I am sure we can all agree that walking is an important part of active travel. Having visited Nx road recently I was shocked how bad the pavement is, with lots of the brick pavers sticking up and clearly loose. I would prefer to see more effort on the basics.

[Nigello]

Agreed. Pedestrians and wheelchair users are far down in terms of provisions, despite the fact we are - cyclists, riders, drivers - all very likely pedestrians or wheelers a lot of the time. Conway’s Special Ponding Pavements and Dropped Kerbs are sadly not unusual around here…

[Rockets]

On 07/11/2023 at 23:58, malumbu said:

All this begs the question, Rocks, how would have you increased active transport. 

And here I think is the problem. The focus was so much on active travel, and cycling as the major investment area within that, that it actually lost sight of the real goal - which was to reduce the reliance on cars and you can do that equally, if not more effectively, by investing in good public transport - since Covid the opposite has happened and TFL and the Mayor's office have been happy to plough billions into active travel yet reduce public transport spending.

Those in power decided that the bike was the solution and saw this as an opportunity to turn London into the new Amsterdam but failed to realise that London is not Amsterdam. There are many, myself included, who think cycling in London peaked around 2015, that it reached a natural saturation point - that people like me were happy to cycle to and from work because we were fit and able enough (and hardy enough) to do so but it didn't mean that everyone was in the same position.

 

Covid pushed cycling up beyond those levels, the pro-cycle lobby latched onto it and convinced everyone those growth rates were sustainable (ten-fold increases etc), got more investment on the back of it and are now struggling to demonstrate much growth at all when much about people's willingness to cycle in London is actually all about London. Maybe the best we could have hoped for post-pandemic was a small percentage rise in the number of cyclists.

 

Those drawing up the cycle-centric active travel policy failed to acknowledge that London has a huge number of barriers to entry for people to cycle - its size, its topography, its housing stock, its growth on the basis of developments along public transport links and its weather. It also failed to acknowledge that London is a walking city - look at what happened around here - we walk more than many other parts of Southwark yet Southwark kept telling us cycling was the way forward and did nothing to facilitate better walking routes and facilities. I look at some of the kids cycling to school and wonder how many of them were walking before and are now cycling - we seemed to be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Walking remains, by far, the best form, and most popular form of active travel but it doesn't have industry lobby groups and lobbyists trying to influence policy.

 

If only those in power had shown a more pragmatic approach to dealing with the issue in hand, instead they kept doubling down on the policy they believed was best for us, ignored and vilified anyone who didn't agree with them and now are probably realising they backed the wrong horse.

 

[heartblock]

If anything,  walking is now more of an obstacle course in the morning for me - cyclists on pavements, scooters on pavements, abandoned Lime/Forest bikes.

Walking is cheap, free and accessible and very good for a healthy life - Councils should do more to provide clean, even and pleasant pedestrian access.

Southwark was influenced by the cycling lobby through LCC which is predominately run by white. middle-class men and by long-term lobbyists that wanted Calton/ Melbourne/Ashbourne and Gilkes closed, so they could live in a 'nice' quiet street. The council took advantage of cash from this Tory Gov to make really bad policy, that has no effect on active travel or reducing motoring pollution.

It hasn't increased active travel, it has made bus journeys awful for many and it has increased traffic on roads with high density housing.

[malumbu]

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?

Let's make this simple, do you see benefits in active travel?

Do you think more should be done?

What do you think should be done

If the answer to the first two is "no" I'd be interested in why you think this way.

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