Britain's Forgotten Bike Highways | Hacker News Reader

Britain's Forgotten Bike Highways

citylab.com

115 pointsjamesbowman52 comments

I think there must be a large disconnect in the UK between people who cycle and people who design road infrastructure. It's especially evident here in Cardiff, a city which by all accounts should be an amazing cycling city; largely flat, open, low-ish traffic, nice parks etc. But it's surprisingly terrible, either due to budget constraints or incompetence. I don't ride here any more, as I've found the risk just isn't worthwhile.

One of the most entertaining examples might well be this road, which is perfectly straight and about a mile long. It is perfect for cycling, and to any reasonably sensible person, an easy road to build a cycle lane on: https://goo.gl/maps/8FjYE67SCfM2

But see if you can spy where they actually built it. Not on the side of the road next to the railway, which is 1 mile of unbroken flat land with no junctions. That's where I'd build it (and you probably would too).

No, instead they built it outside the front entrance of the apartments that line the other side of the road, broken every 100 yards by a junction, with a fence directly across the cycle lane. So cyclists have to merge in and out of pedestrians, wait at junctions, and they're directly outside the front entrance of buildings, making residents cross the cycle path to get to the pavement.

And don't even get me started on this magnificent idiocy: https://goo.gl/maps/8EBCSXXJHcP2

The UK is such a land of contrasts. Are we pro cycling? Anti cycling? The record shows that we provided the world with its finest cyclists over the past decade, but the experience as a cyclist on the roads is not pleasant.

Are we pro-car? Anti-car? Driving is usually miserable anywhere but the hinterland, and yet we supply the world with almost all its F1 cars.

The answers seem so obvious and yet we struggle to bring about change. This is the land of Newton, Maxwell, Hawking for God's sake! Why is this land of progress yet so stunted in ambition? It confuses me.

Racing vehicles (let's include bikes with that) are not really comparable with a daily commute though? If you assume that most bikes and cars are just trying to get to work or the grocery store the stark contrast seems a bit more muted.

But surely that renders the contrast still more poignant, not less - the juxtaposition of the rarest exception with the commonplace?

Quite a few of team sky/team gb is from the same youth club in wales, Wiggins started as a track cyclist and froome never lived in the U.K. The yates' started cycling - according to Wikipedia - as a result of their dad getting HIT by a car. So a lot of the great UK cyclists have their roots in track - which was heavily supported (£££) before the 2012 olympics and served as the foundation for further investment by team sky - the richest team in cycling. GB's success in cycling defo doesn't correlate with cycleability of her roads.

People have a code of ethics about the correct way to behave on the roads. And the most aggressive nutty drivers tend to believe they are following those unwritten rules. And anyone who breaks that code is rude and selfish.

Actually British roads are a chaotic free-for-all. Some users tend to cooperate for their own benefit (cars) at the expense of other users (pedestrians and cyclists). This creates a culture that gives preferential treatment to motorists based on misplaced politeness. People hate to be seen as rude and selfish so they just go along with it. The only way to change that is to redefine what counts as rude behaviour. Driving cars in busy city centres would be a good start.

I don't think it's just cycle infrastructure. In the UK we seem unable to do all infrastructure, it's not an engineering problem because as another comment has pointed out we have world class scientists and engineers, it must be a political and management problem. Compared to countries such as the Netherlands and Germany, we seem to just bodge our infrastructure rather than properly design it.

I think a large part of the problem comes from not having enough people with science/engineering backgrounds at high levels within politics, the civil service and local authorities. There is also the fact that science/engineering lacks respect and prestige in the UK.

At the political level, short term dogma triumphs.

It is more important to be seen saving money now than _potentially_ saving money and improving living conditions in the future.

There is a distrust in design; it's the market that is always right, isn't it?

And the ruling generation is _very_ pro car; it gave them a freedom that they witnessed growing up.

In Nottingham our planning department seems obsessed with traffic lights. Positively anti-roundabout. They get rid of them whenever they can and litter every road with tons of traffic lights. I think at one point we counted 12 traffic lights between our flat and the train station, a 5 minute drive away without all the traffic lights.

There's even one roundabout that they turned into a traffic light hell and it keeps getting redesigned slightly because it sucks, but that just means for the last 10 years there's almost always some sort of works on it yet the west end of Woolaton road is just a constant traffic jam in rush hour:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Nottingham/@52.9549769,-...

I used to live in Essex, where they were extremely pro-roundabout, even to the point of introducing a roundabout made up of roundabouts:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Colchester/@51.8841752,0...

That two planning departments in the same country can have such fundamentally different philosophies, that there's no consensus and still no consensus 20 years since I moved, boggles my mind.

> “At the time, the feeling among cycling groups was, ‘We deserve our place on the road. We don't want to be relegated to a secondary system,’”

This matches a lot of my experience in Britain. When there's a cycle lane alongside a road drivers will often get aggressive about you cycling in the main roadway, even when (as is so often the case) the cycle lane is unsafe or unsuitable.

IMO we should focus less on distinct cycling routes, and more on making road junctions safer for cyclists.

> even when (as is so often the case) the cycle lane is unsafe or unsuitable.

Near me there's a mixed-use cycleway alongside a main road (put in 10-15 years ago). Driveways cross it regularly and you have to stop at every side-road to cross, but the big problem is commercial buildings with lowered kerbs and driveways. We have a drive-through restaurant, two car washes and a business park. Cycling along there is lethal because the drivers don't look before turning in or coming out. I choose to cycle on the road because while annoying drivers I feel safer.

The difference is that in cycle friendly countries the cycle lane has priority over the driveways and small roads (same priority as the road it is next to). In the UK the cycle lane is usually given the lowest priority. This makes a massive difference to safety and usability.

The fact that there are bad bike lanes is not a reason to stop building bike lanes, it's a reason to build better bike lanes.

The modal shares of cycling in the Netherlands or Denmark (segregated provision) vs, say, the UK or US (largely no distinct provision) are a pretty clear indicator that segregation gets more people cycling. If the collateral damage is that a few roadies have to slow down and use bike lanes in cities, I'm not uncomfortable with that, even speaking as a confident on-road cyclist myself.

> The fact that there are bad bike lanes is not a reason to stop building bike lanes, it's a reason to build better bike lanes.

Perhaps, but I think it's worth recognizing that, counterintuitively, a bad bike lane can be worse than no bike lane.

> The modal shares of cycling in the Netherlands or Denmark (segregated provision) vs, say, the UK or US (largely no distinct provision) are a pretty clear indicator that segregation gets more people cycling.

Not convinced; there are many differences between these countries. I've heard it argued that e.g. much greater legal liability for drivers who injure or kill cyclists is what makes the difference.

"IMO we should focus less on distinct cycling routes, and more on making road junctions safer for cyclists."

I disagree, if I can cycle far away from the road, than I happily avoid all the smell, noise and danger.

But sure, where I have to use the road, I'd like it to be as safe as possible ...

> IMO we should focus less on distinct cycling routes, and more on making road junctions safer for cyclists.

While it's no big deal for experienced cyclists, mixing with motor traffic on busy roads is a big psychological barrier for those who are new and less-experienced.

For that reason, distinct cycle lanes, when built to a sufficiently high standard, result in significant increases in cycle uptake. More cyclists on the road means more safety for everyone, because drivers are more likely to look out for (and behave more considerately towards) cyclists when there are more of them about and cycling becomes "normalised".

Of course, none of this is an excuse for building crappy, useless cycle lanes. We have enough of those in the UK. Thankfully things are improving: London is worlds away from where it was even 5 years ago thanks to investments in infrastructure that is genuinely safe and useful.

Hopefully some of the best new cycle infrastructure there (the new Cycle Superhighway along Victoria Embankment to Tower Hill, for example) can serve as a model for future investments in other UK cities.

I really hope that the bicycle makes a comeback that we can attribute to increased urbanisation. It makes so much sense as a mode of transport in and around cities.

If you are carrying nothing. If you need to carry anything larger than a laptop bag / backpack then a bike becomes highly impractical very, very quickly.

How often do you travel around town where you need to carry more than a backpack would hold, but less than what you can jam in a small car? For me, I could probably use a bike about 90% of the time. I don't always, but it's mostly because I'm lazy.

About once a week, maybe more. Visiting multiple stores (where it's already annoying to lug your prior purchases in with you) or just buying something like toilet paper will quickly achieve this qualification.

Nearly all the grocery chains in the UK let you order online and have the goods delivered.

Even if cars were only used by each person a couple of times a week that's still a massive improvement over commuting everyday. (I also think you're exaggerating, toilet paper can easily fit in a backpack.)

I carry a couple days worth of groceries home regularly -- on a skateboard of all things. I can even get eggs back home without breaking them. And there's also a laptop in my bag since I'm picking these up on the way back from work.

Um, what? Bikes are literally the most effecient form of cargo transportation. Get a rack and a bag. Or a milk crate. It's not impractical at all.

Or: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freight_bicycle

Or a bike trailer[1]. There's one for every job. Cheaper [than a low volume bike] and you get to keep/have a regular bike for when you're not carrying freight.

[1]https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/bicycle-cargo-chapter-2-bik...

You can't do a week's worth of shopping but in an urban environment it's easy enough to stop by a supermarket every couple days on your way home from work/school. I can fit 2 supermarket shopping bags in the front basket and strap a bale of toilet paper to the rear package holder no sweat. Around here furniture and electronics stores typically offer same- or next-day delivery for free or cheap.

Exactly. Weekly shops are a thing for suburbanites!

When you have easy walking/cycling access to multiple grocery stores, you just go shopping whenever you need something and never buy more than you can carry.

You can even do a week's shopping, using a bicycle-pulled trailer (otherwise used for carrying small kids). As a side-effect you even benefit from the courtesy of drivers, who may think you are carrying your children as usually.

You can carry significantly more than nothing, but it's true that since I've started regularly needing to schlep sound recording equipment around cycling has become an increasingly impractical means of transport.

With a rack and a set of panniers, you can carry significant weight and volume.

"Uncovering and reusing these old tracks could prove far cheaper than constructing new lanes."

- I guess that seems key to me. Those lanes are nearly 90 years old. How much cheaper would they be vs new ones? And is that savings (10%, 30%?) really the thing that's holding back adding a nationwide biking network?

Having the land and access rights is a lot of the cost. Often there isnt much space by new roads.

I think the key point is that they already have a right of way reserved for cycling use, so even if they all need to be rebuilt the cost is merely that of breaking up and laying down concrete. Generally any bike infrastructure project has to contend with the politics of taking space away from cars.

Building a new cycle lane has all of the same costs getting it approved as a new road does - planning, buying the land, landowner negotiations, navigating planning permissions, public consultations etc. A bit of digging and tarmac on an existing one avoids most of that, it's just a case of finding the money - and the national government has announced a funding pot that councils can apply to.

In Lansing the community is building out a network of bike trails but its patchy.

Detroit has gotten very aggressive creating dedicated lanes taken off not so busy roads and using old railroad right of ways. You can go almost anywhere in the downtown area by bike. There are even rentals available.

http://detroitgreenways.org/bike-map-and-parking/

Some of the trails that slice through industrial areas even feature artwork like the famed DeQuindre cut

https://www.traillink.com/trail/dequindre-cut-greenway/

I didn't know much about bicycle paths in the Netherlands in the 1930s, so I googled around a bit. It turns out that creating an organization of people campaigning for bicycle paths, like the Kickstarter described in the article, is a quintessentially Dutch thing to do. In the early 20th century, bicycle path associations popped up all over the country, some just campaigning, others also (partially) funding paths. In the 1950s interest waned, as constructing bicycle paths was seen more as a duty of the government. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rijwielpadvereniging (Dutch)

Sustrans (https://www.sustrans.org.uk) has built, and is continuing to expand, a wonderful cycle network across the UK.

Wonderful network isn't the word is use for it. It's more of a patched together hodgepodge. One minute you are on a nice bit of road, the next you are diverted on to some weird alleys round the back of a housing estate. Then you can't see the next sign so you make a guess and hope for the best. Then you say fuck it I'm just riding on the road now.

I'd say it's 90% (by mileage) good, and I've cycled a few thousand miles of it so that's based on significant experience. But there are certainly poor quality bits. Sustrans is currently doing a mile-by-mile review of the network with the intention of bringing it all up to a quality standard, and withdrawing those sections which can't reach it.

The BayTrail is a similar project for San Francisco Bay area: http://baytrail.org/baytrailmap.html

Around the US there are tens of thousands of miles of trails that have been converted from railways. Rails-to-Trails is one nonprofit that focuses on converting unused railways: https://www.railstotrails.org/about/about-us/

Rails to trails has occasionally happened on an ad hoc basis in the U.K. too. When Beeching's axe fell [1] at least some were converted. I used to cycle from Fareham to Gosport largely along one, the main challenge being that the other path users included a significant population of enthusiastic bottle smashers, so changing tubes became a fine art.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts

Yeah, built but not maintained. Here in Iowa some arteries get some funding but the spurs have grown over. They are full of gopher holes and trees grow through the path now. Some get occasionally mowed; others have eroded away.

It was an enthusiastic surge of conversion 15 years ago, but with no revenue (no road tax for bikes) who pays for patching, grading, mowing?

I think you'd be surprised how many cyclists also own(and pay taxes on) a car.

...which are used to maintain roads. Here in Iowa, they only pay half of what it takes to maintain the roads. Nothing left over. So bike paths are under 'parks and recreation' sadly.

In the Seattle area, we have many railroad corridors still there. But in the push to create light rail, they've been completely ignored, creating new right-of-ways nearby at incredible cost.

Some of them still have (unused) rusting tracks still sitting on them.

It's especially baffling as the area has horrific traffic gridlock that is expected to get much, much worse due to the city's prosperity.

I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but in Canada, the old railroad corridors are often siting there, unused, because the railroad company owns the land and is trying to sell it some obscene fee (land that the government originally gave them for free).

That isn't the case here. The city owns the corridors.

Which corridors are you referring to? What neighborhood? You've piqued my interest, as someone who knows way too much about light rail & commuter rail in this city.

The eastside rail corridor is one. It stretches from Renton to Bothell.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bellevue,+WA/@47.5681081,-...

Look on the west side of 405, there's a faint grey line. That's it. It used to be labeled on Google maps as "Eastside Rail Corridor", but that has been erased.

Given the total silence about it during the Seattle Transit debate, the Seattle Times never ever mentioning it in any of their articles about light rail in King County, and the gradual removal of it from maps, would almost suggest there's a conspiracy.

Converting it to light rail would double the trackage of Seattle Transit at minimal cost, and would connect the entire east side to Seattle and the airport.

Vancouver had a big win in the last year where they tore up a railway going north to south (Broadway to 70th) and turned it into a mixed use path. One of the biggest reasons I started cycling this year.

In the north east of England, the old railway tracks were pulled up and turned into footpaths, I use one of these to cycle into work every day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com