Earl

							Cambridge
Cycling
Campaign
For better, safer and more
cycling in the Cambridge area
• Is cycling a serious mode of
  transport?
• Does it matter?
• Alternative futures for cycling in
  the area
          The Cycling Campaign


Formed in 1995 to give a voice for
cyclists in the Cambridge area
  • A voluntary pressure group lobbying
    for better conditions, safer roads,
    increased convenience and more
    provision for cycling
• Around 700 members
• Spread evenly across and around the
  City
• Wide range of ages and
  abilities
Why does Cambridge need a cycling
campaign?
  • A good place to cycle?
  • Years of increasing traffic
Why does Cambridge need a cycling
campaign?
  • A good place to cycle?
  • Years of increasing traffic
  • Blue-sign-on-the-pavement syndrome
Why does Cambridge need a cycling
campaign?
  • A good place to cycle?
  • Years of increasing traffic
  • Blue-sign-on-the-pavement syndrome
  • Bike bans in City Centre
        Cycling – a serious mode


Is cycling a serious mode of
transport?
  • Does it matter?
  • Does the question even need asking
    here in Cambridge?
  • What does „serious‟ mean, especially
    when viewed in a European context?
              Does it matter?


• Drivers might not care, but should
   – Marginal nature of congestion (wet weather,
     school holidays)
   – Cycles using Trumpington Road corridor
     alone would stretch to Harston if in cars

• Of course it matters to cyclists
   – A sizeable proportion of Cambridge‟s
     population
                Cycling Futures


What might happen to cycling in the
area in the future?
  • Driver behaviour; cyclists‟ frustration
  • Perception, especially presentation
  • Settlement and work patterns
     – Impact on existing cyclists
     – Ability to generate cycling
               Cycling Futures


National Cycling Strategy
  • NCS targets – double journeys from
    1996 to 2002; treble by 2010
  • “But we‟re different here”
  • Trebling unlikely
  • Doubling feasible only with primary
    focus (e.g. Groningen)
                    Scenario A


Cycling levels collapse dramatically
  • Base of regular, committed, serious
    cyclists disappears
  • Only really envisage two triggers
     – Cycle helmets made compulsory
     – Use of „cycle facilities‟ made compulsory
                  Scenario B


Cycling levels decline gradually
  • Increasing traffic levels
  • Negative Images
  • Bad weather
                  Scenario C


Cycling levels stay about the same
  • Proportion of journeys inevitably falls
  • Traffic levels rise, but constrained
  • Quality of provision significantly
    improves
  • Road space reallocated
                 Scenario D


Cycling levels increase markedly
  • Transport strategies focussed on this
  • Positive marketing
  • Major incentives/disincentives
  • New settlement generates trips
              Cycling Futures


Where next?
 • In a state of resisting decline
 • Much depends on development patterns
 • Impact of new settlement on cycling
 • Capability of new settlement to support
   and generate cycling
          Development impact


• Traffic levels will rise
• A proportion can be absorbed
   – Public transport, park & ride, guided bus,
     cycling

• A proportion could be deterred
   – Levy, restrictions
          Development impact


• Traffic levels will rise
• Not convinced settlement location makes
  much difference to this
• New traffic widely distributed
   – Mitigation needs to be everywhere
   – New facilities shouldn‟t just benefit new
     communities
• Employment areas more concentrated
           Journey generation


• Cycling culture less likely in newcomers
• Self-contained settlements internal
  cycling
• Unlikely to be much externally if
  distances large
   – Rules out all but City proposal or similar
   – Lots of other reasons for and against
          Journey generation


• Settlements offer opportunities hard to
  do elsewhere
• People friendly environments
   – Home zones and low speed zones
           Journey generation


• Settlements offer opportunities hard to
  do elsewhere
• People friendly environments
   – Home zones and low speed zones
   – Cycle friendly traffic calming
   – Links between streets
   – Local services linked to and near housing
   – Safe routes to school built with the school
              Driver attitudes


• Not just traffic volume, but also
  behaviour
   – Widespread infringement of speed limits
• Tempers in Cambridge on a knife-edge
   – A proportion of highly aggressive drivers
   – Using cars to intimidate
   – The „Milton Road‟ effect
            Driver attitudes


• Marked contrast to European
  experience
  – Infrastructure not the main impression
  – Driver tolerance and politeness
    exemplified by right turns
                 Infrastructure


• Is important
   – Needs to cater for a wide range
   – Legacy of poor quality
   – Continued limited vision
• Recognise scope to treat cyclists
  differently
   – One-way
   – Traffic signals
               Infrastructure


• Not just „cycle facilities‟
• The whole road environment
   – Speed limits
   – People-friendly environments
   – Junction treatments
   – Bus lanes (but usefulness threatened by bus
     driver behaviour)
   – Left-turn lanes
           Examples abroad


• Always continuous
• Both sides of road
• Integration with signals
       Positive images & safety


• Cycling isn‟t an unsafe activity
• Somewhat riskier than using a car
   – In this country
   – Not the same as „unsafe‟
   – Need to take the benefits into account
• Depends how you measure it
   – Exposure to risk
   – Dilution effect of long fast journeys
       Positive images & safety


• Over-emphasis on safety
   – Leads to a wholly negative image of cycling
   – Outweighs positive effects in minds of potential
     users
   – Used as an excuse not to cycle
• Results in paranoia
   – Look at „Give-Way‟ issue again
   – Effect is to put cyclists in the wrong
       Positive images & safety


• Helmets say to people
     „cycling is dangerous, don‟t do it‟
• Dutch experience
       Positive images & safety


• Perceived safety
   – Remedial measures based on casualty statistics
   – Personal behaviour based on risk balanced by
     gain
   – the two don‟t match
            Some conclusions


• So many people cycle here it must be
  considered seriously
• Prospects for cycling not good if traffic
  increases
• Vicious circle as more people turn to cars
• Without physical and financial restraint
  on traffic we get the vicious circle and
  gridlock – consequences for cycling
           Some conclusions


• Mitigation from new settlement must be
  City and area-wide
• Local expansion round Cambridge is
  more likely to lead to cycle trips
• High levels unlikely given intake
• Cycling not the only reason to build
  people-oriented environments
           Some conclusions


• Quality of provision for cycling, though
  improved, is still an order of magnitude
  below the best
• Much more effort needs to be devoted to
  improving the cycling experience
• Continued public emphasis on safety is
  having a negative impact. We need
  positive marketing and images
             Penultimate words


Grounds for pessimism
  • Little to match European cycling
    experience
  • Many positive things aren‟t happening,
    many negative ones are
  • Could end up with „Brookside‟
    developments
  • Groundswell of dissatisfaction among
    committed cyclists
             Penultimate words


Grounds for optimism
  • Doesn‟t have to be like that
  • There are solutions
  • Could raise our eyes beyond the
    mediocre vision
  • Translating the intellectual acceptance
    that cycling is a serious mode, and does
    matter, into a practical result
         Realized visions


Cycle parking in
Groningen and Münster
Realized visions
Cambridge
Cycling
Campaign
For better, safer and more
cycling in the Cambridge area