Scrapped HS2 bike path 'five times better value than HS2 itself'

[furnessvale]

The sort of question that comes to my mind when I see various proposals for longer distance cycle routes.

There was also a mention above that quiet country lanes are good for cycling. Definitely not, when cyclists are mixed with other traffic they need good sightlines and room to pass.

Every weekend I see dozens of cars and 4 x 4s coming along the A6 from Manchester with bikes on the roof or back, making their way to the Peak District to cycle on the converted Buxton- Matlock line.

They tell me it's green. I know what would be green and that is putting the railway back in and getting more of the stone off the roads and back on rail.

 

[PeterC]

Every weekend I see dozens of cars and 4 x 4s coming along the A6 from Manchester with bikes on the roof or back, making their way to the Peak District to cycle on the converted Buxton- Matlock line.

They tell me it's green. I know what would be green and that is putting the railway back in and getting more of the stone off the roads and back on rail.

Do Sustrans consider the additional motor traffic that their schemes generate?

 

[AndrewE]

Do Sustrans consider the additional motor traffic that their schemes generate?

Maybe they accept it as a necessary evil, to be put up with until people have regained their confidence by cycling on traffic-free ex-railway routes.
I also deplore the amount of road traffic taking bikes out to somewhere to ride them, but I can see what makes people do it. When it becomes safer to ride on local roads again and there is a better network of cycle-friendly junctions and trains then maybe there will be fewer cars with bikes on top.

Of course quiet country lanes don't contain many vehicles needing to pass, hence why they are preferable to cyclists.

There is a problem though, in that motorists assume there will be no other traffic and drive as though they were competing in a car rally with the roads cleared specially for them. I would like to see the WI's proposal of a blanket 40 mph speed limit (unless specifically raised) applied on minor rural roads.

 

[Meerkat]

I would like to see the WI's proposal of a blanket 40 mph speed limit (unless specifically raised) applied on minor rural roads

That would be outrageous. Slowing down local folks every single trip so some non-local MAMILs can feel a bit safer as they ride in and out without adding anything to the local economy. And make law breakers of almost everybody as from experience barely anyone observes such arbitrary limits.

Yes, I commute through the Surrey Hills back roads and since the Olympics the roads are plagued with arrogant wannabe road racers. If they were so concerned about their safety they wouldn’t wear all black.....
I am a cyclist myself so always try to look out for others when driving but the MAMILs very rarely offer the same consideration to other road users.

Rant ends.
MAMIL - middle aged man in Lycra

 

[AndrewE]

That would be outrageous. Slowing down local folks every single trip so some non-local MAMILs can feel a bit safer as they ride in and out without adding anything to the local economy. And make law breakers of almost everybody as from experience barely anyone observes such arbitrary limits.

Except that it's not just "non local MAMILs." Cycling is an acceptable form of transport for most people and for quite a high proportion of journeys , e.g. going shopping and kids getting to school (even getting to a station to commute)- except that people are too afraid of the traffic to do it.

 

[Via Bank]

That would be outrageous. Slowing down local folks every single trip so some non-local MAMILs can feel a bit safer as they ride in and out without adding anything to the local economy. And make law breakers of almost everybody as from experience barely anyone observes such arbitrary limits.

Yes, I commute through the Surrey Hills back roads and since the Olympics the roads are plagued with arrogant wannabe road racers. If they were so concerned about their safety they wouldn’t wear all black.....
I am a cyclist myself so always try to look out for others when driving but the MAMILs very rarely offer the same consideration to other road users.

Rant ends.
MAMIL - middle aged man in Lycra

Maybe if there were high quality protected cycle tracks on such roads, then it wouldn’t just be daredevil middle aged men in lycra, and you’d continue to be able to zoom along in your car at 60mph while Doris from the next village can go to the shops at 10mph on her electric Pashley.

Shame we never seem to build them here because “no one will use it in the middle of nowhere,” “there’s no space,” etc.

This attitude is why so few people cycle for transport in the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except that it's not just "non local MAMILs." Cycling is an acceptable form of transport for most people and for quite a high proportion of journeys , e.g. going shopping and kids getting to school (even getting to a station to commute)- except that people are too afraid of the traffic to do it.

Which brings us back to dedicated infrastructure. Country lanes are good for sport cycling. They are grim for utility cycling.

But that dedicated infrastructure is more use in towns and cities where people might actually use it. Old Mrs Jones of Coventry might cycle a mile to the shops if there's a Dutch style dedicated path, but Old Mr Smith in Littletown-in-the-Sticks isn't going to cycle 10 miles to the shops, however nice the cycle path is.

Sport cycling is not to be discouraged as it's a healthy activity, but it's no more to be encouraged than any other sport (as it's no better or worse), so does not deserve dedicated infrastructure funding, or at least not in excess of that spent on other public sports facilities. Utility cycling removes cars from the roads and reduces pollution as well, so is worth that spending. And utility cycling (a) has most benefit, and (b) is most accessible, in towns and cities, therefore that is the best place for the spending.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except that it's not just "non local MAMILs." Cycling is an acceptable form of transport for most people and for quite a high proportion of journeys , e.g. going shopping and kids getting to school (even getting to a station to commute)- except that people are too afraid of the traffic to do it.

Cycling is a very good method of transport in cities. Outside of cities, journeys are too long for it to be preferable for most people, even with electric cycles.

Dedicated infrastructure is therefore best targetted at cities.

As for 40mph limits on country lanes, it isn't really possible to exceed 40mph on most of the kind of lanes you're talking about anyway. I'd support a reduction to 50 on single carriageways generally (basically for the reason that you get a major safety gain because lorries no longer need to be overtaken), but not beyond that.

 

[Meerkat]

Except that it's not just "non local MAMILs." Cycling is an acceptable form of transport for most people and for quite a high proportion of journeys , e.g. going shopping and kids getting to school (even getting to a station to commute)- except that people are too afraid of the traffic to do it.

There is almost no utility cycling on the roads that cyclists want at 40. That is sport cycling and utilityjourneys that only real die hard would cycle.
In town is a different story. There the thing that most increases safety is numbers - the more cyclists there are the safer they are.
There is restricted scope for coherent dedicated cycle lanes in our tight little road systems, what we need is numbers. That needs convenience which means lots of secure bike racks and secure cycle storage made mandatory in new build housing.
And for god’s sake stop going on about helmets. No wonder people are scared of cycling when they are constantly told you need a sodding helmet!!

 

[gallafent]

I'd support a reduction to 50 on single carriageways generally (basically for the reason that you get a major safety gain because lorries no longer need to be overtaken), but not beyond that.

There's also a huge and advantageous reduction in fuel consumption (and thus CO2 emissions) by taking that step.

One would definitely need to install rear-facing dashcam though, since one would be perpetually tailgated by said lorries (from personal experience cruising at 50mph on 50-limited roads, both dual carriageways and single), who seem to take the approach that 50mph=56mph (at which their speed limiters are set). And don't get me started on the small goods traffic on non-motorway dual carriageways travelling at over 70mph when their limit is 60mph on such roads). But I digress.

Yes to more cycle infrastructure both within and outside cities. There's an interesting example local to me, http://www.b4044path.org/, which is intended to link the city with nearby villages. Note that the existing road already has a 50mph limit. It's currently fairly unpleasant to cycle along due to the weight of traffic, certainly. Note “This 5 km stretch of 50 mph winding, single track carriageway is dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists” … (I can see no stats to back that up, and the only recent fatality which comes to mind locally was a cyclist closer to the city centre on a large junction, killed by a bus, in an area which could certainly do with improved cycling facilities) … point being that it's interesting to see good progress being made with a ~5km project. It would be great to see more “utility cyclists” using the route if the path is built, and I hope that measurements are taken after it's had time to bed in. I've never used that route as a utility route (since I've never had cause to), only sportingly.

 

[furnessvale]

One would definitely need to install rear-facing dashcam though, since one would be perpetually tailgated by said lorries (from personal experience cruising at 50mph on 50-limited roads, both dual carriageways and single), who seem to take the approach that 50mph=56mph (at which their speed limiters are set). And don't get me started on the small goods traffic on non-motorway dual carriageways travelling at over 70mph when their limit is 60mph on such roads). But I digress.

Limiters are set at 56mph PLUS a tolerance which means they can be set at virtually 60mph.

 

[PeterC]

I also deplore the amount of road traffic taking bikes out to somewhere to ride them, but I can see what makes people do it. When it becomes safer to ride on local roads again and there is a better network of cycle-friendly junctions and trains then maybe there will be fewer cars with bikes on top.

So better facilities will mean that leasure cyclists, possibly with children, will ride 10 or 15 miles in order to ride their bikes somewhere pretty when they could strap them to the back of the car?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Milton Keynes has over 200 miles of cycle paths, these are not very well used by cyclists, I rarely encounter another cyclist when I'm on them, and that's in a 'city'. A linear cycle route in the middle of nowhere is likely to be even less well used

 

[AndrewE]

So better facilities will mean that leisure cyclists, possibly with children, will ride 10 or 15 miles in order to ride their bikes somewhere pretty when they could strap them to the back of the car?

Has it occurred to you that the 10 or 15 miles might actually become their family leisure ride? There are infinitely more ride possibilities starting and finishing from one's house (maybe helped by a short train ride) than there will ever be dedicated cycle routes.
It's what my dad did with me in the 1960s until I was old enough to go out with a schoolfriend. I remember a family ride from Tring to Aldbury to fetch our first pet rabbit, which came home in a box on someone's carrier.

 

[HowardGWR]

Reading this discussion, we are in any event agreed that a cycleway alongside HS2 is a waste of resources, are we not? There are thousands upon thousands of locations where cycleways are needed for safe local cycle journeys, is that not so?

 

[jon0844]

I wouldn't cycle on a country road even if there was a low speed limit, never sure if a wannabe rally driver will come around the last corner and wipe me out. I wouldn't expect for one second that everyone would adhere to the limit.

I hardly ever see anyone riding on such roads, bar the local cycling clubs that often use the roads at weekends.

They tend to cycle a lot faster and many are confident enough to keep away from the gutter, whereas many cyclists would be slow and likely risk themselves by being taken out by all the buggered drains and crumbling road surfaces.

And that's no mention the risk of flooding for anyone who dared cycle in rural roads this morning in the heavy rain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reading this discussion, we are in any event agreed that a cycleway alongside HS2 is a waste of resources, are we not? There are thousands upon thousands of locations where cycleways are needed for safe local cycle journeys, is that not so?

I would say so, yes. Cycleway money needs primarily spending in cities where short journeys are the ones you will have most success moving to cycling. They also provide a good level of freedom for children - if you can get around the city without cycling on main roads (as you can in MK) parents are more likely to let their children roam a bit more.

 

[gallafent]

Limiters are set at 56mph PLUS a tolerance which means they can be set at virtually 60mph.

I didn't know that, interesting, and not ideal. Forgot to mention that when I say I'm travelling at 50mph I really mean a GPS-verified 50mph too … so my experience isn't just due to having a very conservative car speedometer that's misleading me into cruising well below the limit

 

[Grumpy]

I'm always suspicious when people are making up financial benefits to try to justify spending other peoples money on their own pet projects. If there really are health congestion and economic benefits then surely the beneficiaries, in this case the cyclists, should be willing to pay, either through a toll or a general tax on adult cyclists.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm always suspicious when people are making up financial benefits to try to justify spending other peoples money on their own pet projects. If there really are health congestion and economic benefits then surely the beneficiaries, in this case the cyclists, should be willing to pay, either through a toll or a general tax on adult cyclists.

I think you completely misunderstand the concept of "health, congestion and economic benefits".

 

[gallafent]

Outside of cities, journeys are too long for it to be preferable for most people, even with electric cycles.

Not sure I completely agree that it's the distance that's the key, for me it's much more the characteristics of the route. My parents live in a “semi-rural” (I think that's what upmystreet used to say when it still existed and had ACORN classifications available!) village, and it's a 6km (20 minute) bike ride from there to the railway station in the nearby town. That's really not very far on a bike, and I've done it many times. It should be well within the capabilities (and desires, since avoiding congestion, parking time and cost, etc., in the town, all make any alternative which avoids those aspects attractive!) of the vast majority of the population.

The problem is that about half the route (maybe a bit less) is on unlit rural roads with the national speed limit. This makes it feel pretty unpleasant for cycling, especially in the dark or in bad weather. Even at the best of times, cars, vans, and lorries, belt along relatively narrow “old fashioned” roads (at high speeds, often ignoring even the 60/50mph speed limit), which don't have enough width to overtake a cyclist while remaining on the left side of the centre line, and so things generally feel pretty precarious at times. Better cycling provision (protection) would make it much more likely that more people would use the bike over the car (or the limited bus service).

Having said that, of course the number of people that would benefit remains very small, and so it's clear that when there isn't unlimited money, that money should be spent instead on infrastructure upgrades where the highest numbers of people will benefit for the highest number of journeys … and that's clearly, for now, in the larger towns, and cities, for people travelling to and from work and daily life (shopping etc.).

It's going to be really interesting to see how things pan out with the major (I hope!) upgrade to the Botley Road in Oxford — https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/resi...future-transport-projects/botley-road-phase-1 — “Work to provide major bus, cycle and pedestrian improvements along Botley Road.” (whole article too long to quote here initially but I'll add it if someone really needs it!). What's encouraging is that “The study confirmed the value of a high-quality route that prioritised sustainable transport modes. Alternative options were considered but rejected because they either did not deliver strategy objectives or required significant works outside the highway boundary.”, which sounds very pragmatic and forward looking.

To get back to the core question of this thread, the cost-benefit analyses clearly haven't been done yet, but it'll be interesting to see how they look w.r.t. these proposals, how the ROIs of improvements which are targetted at pedestrians / cyclists / buses compare, and so on. This is on a single-digit kilometre route, which has heavy traffic consisting of private, commercial, and public, motorised transport, as well as human-powered vehicles and pedestrians.

 

[tbtc]

I'm all for better cycling facilities - I'd welcome a dedicated facility alongside HS2 - I think that having that kind of long distance cycling could be a huge benefit to the perception of both the railway and cycling - great.

My problem is the way that HS2 ends up being criticised for this not happening - it seems another thing that HS2 is getting bashed for (that wouldn't even be on the agenda for 99% of construction projects).

Maybe we should say that every new road and every new railway should have an equivalent segregated bit of cycle path alongside if - fine - sign me up - but some of the reaction in the press was along the lines of "HS2 are bad because they aren't paying for a cycle track" which felt a bit unfair when (other than the Cambridgeshire bus way) most infrastructure projects don't offer much to cyclists.

 

[PeterC]

Has it occurred to you that the 10 or 15 miles might actually become their family leisure ride? There are infinitely more ride possibilities starting and finishing from one's house (maybe helped by a short train ride) than there will ever be dedicated cycle routes.
It's what my dad did with me in the 1960s until I was old enough to go out with a schoolfriend. I remember a family ride from Tring to Aldbury to fetch our first pet rabbit, which came home in a box on someone's carrier.

I am talking about the ones who drive from places like Harrow in order to ride around Aldbury.

 

[AndrewE]

I am talking about the ones who drive from places like Harrow in order to ride around Aldbury.

and my point is that if they felt safe on the roads around their home (and there was a suitable train service) they might cycle, maybe as far as Watford Junction, for a train out to Tring. They might even come home from Berko, or Leighton Buzzard.
They have also got the Chiltern route within spitting distance and the GW main line less than 10 miles away, plus the option of the LNER not much further away. Sounds like a good place to be based to me...

 

[Bletchleyite]

and my point is that if they felt safe on the roads around their home (and there was a suitable train service) they might cycle, maybe as far as Watford Junction, for a train out to Tring. They might even come home from Berko, or Leighton Buzzard.
They have also got the Chiltern route within spitting distance and the GW main line less than 10 miles away, plus the option of the LNER not much further away. Sounds like a good place to be based to me...

...as someone who likes train travel.

Train travel, other than to London, is not part of the mentality of the residents of leafy south Buckinghamshire. One has one's Range Rover for that.

 

[si404]

Train travel, other than to London, is not part of the mentality of the residents of leafy south Buckinghamshire. One has one's Range Rover for that.

Correct to a large extent (trains for IC journeys is also valid, and its SUVs rather than Range Rovers nowadays) however none of the places mentioned in this part of the discussion are in Buckinghamshire...

and my point is that if they felt safe on the roads around their home (and there was a suitable train service) they might cycle, maybe as far as Watford Junction, for a train out to Tring.

Or cycle to Harrow & Wealdstone and get the train out to Tring? Seems a bit more logical for Harrowites to do that, saving their legs for cycling through scenery, rather than suburbia (you know, the reason why they go out to Aldbury in the first place)!

 

[HSTEd]

The problem with these sorts of cycle paths is that the optimal alignment for a cycleway is not the same as the optimal alignment of a road or a high speed railway.

A cycleway will prefer a slightly less direct route if the gradients are lowered by doing so - after all most cyclists are limited by power available and not top speed caused by road curvature and the like. (Steep hills defeat utility cyclists who will potentially have quite a lot of stuff in a backpack or pannier)

In addition, due to the low weight of cycle vehicles, bridges for cyclists are cheaper than for roads.

So forcing alignments to be the same as road alignments is a fool's errand.
We should start with a map of population centres and the like and determine where people want to travel between and lay out segregated bike routes between those places using criteria that are suited for the nature of cycling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So forcing alignments to be the same as road alignments is a fool's errand.

Ideally. But not following them (and thus creating isolated paths) promotes antisocial behaviour and discourages people from using them through fear.

 

[Grumpy]

I think you completely misunderstand the concept of "health, congestion and economic benefits".

Quite possibly. I don't understand why the taxpayer should provide a free playground for (predominantly) young men in Lycra riding their Childrens Toys when most other sporting/recreational activities usually involve paying a fee of some sort. Most of these could also have similar benefits.

 

[AndrewE]

The problem with these sorts of cycle paths is that the optimal alignment for a cycleway is not the same as the optimal alignment of a road or a high speed railway.

A cycleway will prefer a slightly less direct route if the gradients are lowered by doing so - after all most cyclists are limited by power available and not top speed caused by road curvature and the like. (Steep hills defeat utility cyclists who will potentially have quite a lot of stuff in a backpack or pannier.)
In addition, due to the low weight of cycle vehicles, bridges for cyclists are cheaper than for roads. So forcing alignments to be the same as road alignments is a fool's errand.
We should start with a map of population centres and the like and determine where people want to travel between and lay out segregated bike routes between those places using criteria that are suited for the nature of cycling.

Not so. I agree that for a regular commute it might be worth finding a slightly more level route, but I happily commuted by bike from St Andrews to Temple Meads (and Bath Road depot) for a year and my dad cycled from Tring to Aylesbury and back up Tring Hill for about 5 years. Getting up Cotham Brow to university in my last year was quite a challenge though... Bikes do have gears, you know, and a lot more than the 5 that he and I had then!
Bikes pre-date cars by a long way so we expect the road network to be open to us - and by the way the road surfacing standards were actually adopted from those published by the cycle union of the time. Cyclists have the absolute right to use the road, a motorist can do so only as long as they hold on to their licence...

Ideally. But not following them (and thus creating isolated paths) promotes antisocial behaviour and discourages people from using them through fear.

Exactly. Get motorists to behave themselves and the roads provided at public expense become useable by everybody again.

Quite possibly. I don't understand why the taxpayer should provide a free playground for (predominantly) young men in Lycra riding their Childrens Toys when most other sporting/recreational activities usually involve paying a fee of some sort. Most of these could also have similar benefits.

There's none so deaf as those who will not hear... Cycling as a part of one's normal routine is nothing to do with any of that bile. Just be grateful that I, on my bike, have not taken the last car-park space in front of you, or put you another place back in a traffic queue, even though I am being exposed to your car exhaust fumes and the risk of being knocked off my bike and injured. I'm also less likely to put up your taxes by needing help in a heart clinic because the only exercise I ever get is walking from my door to the car and then from the car into a shop and back.
p.s I'm 65 and I don't think I have a single item of Lycra in my wardrobe (and the car lives in the garage most days, although I did clean it today and then do an errand in it to dry it off...)