In this blog post I'm going to address some of the issues that I've seen stated about the proposed cycleway from Shepherds Bush to Notting Hill Gate.
Before I start, one thing I'm not going to discuss is the proposal to remove some trees along the route. All I will do is urge readers to make sure they have the facts: look at the specific proposals themselves, visit the actual trees, and form your own personal opinion.
Myth: Cycle lanes cause an increase in pollution
The graph below shows the data from a pollution sensor on Upper Thames Street, where the main East-West cycleway opened in 2016. As you can see, the pollution has slightly reduced since it opened. It’s also worth noting that the pollution sensor is located next to the traffic lane. For pedestrians, pollution levels will have dropped further, as they are now further separated from motor vehicles:
research has shown that walking away from the kerb can reduce your exposure to pollution by a third.
Myth: Cycle lanes cause congestion
Immediately after a cycleway has been built, it’s not surprising that there may be some increase in congestion at a local level: the cycleway has taken space from the road that was previously used by motor vehicles. However, the principle of cycleways is that over time they will allow people to journey using a bicycle instead of a car. What is interesting to look at, therefore, is whether this strategy does actually work in the long-term once a comprehensive network has been built.
To analyse this, I’ve picked some random cities and compared the overall length of cycleways in a city with the amount of congestion. As you can see, the trend tends to be that the more cycleways a city has, the less congestion. London’s position is slightly skewed upwards by its large amount of disjointed cycleways (e.g only within a park) which are not particularly useful. The dot would be lower if only counting good quality routes consistent with those in other cities.
London is no different to any other city that is going through this process. All cities have spent many years with motor vehicles taking priority; the process of changing this will not happen overnight. As a ratio to the number of inhabitants, London has fewer tourists than other cities such as Amsterdam where cycling has been prioritised. With 50% of all car journeys in London being less than 2 miles, there is a lot of potential for the future.
Myth: Cycle lanes negatively impact retailers
Studies have
found that bicycle infrastructure improvements can have a positive overall impact on business, and that people who walk or bike to a commercial area spend more money per month than those who accessed the area by car. Reports show that adding facilities such as bicycle racks and bicycle lanes can actually increase economic activity. A passing cyclist is much more likely to make an impromptu stop at a shop than a passing motorist. The number of pay and display parking bays on Holland Park Avenue is proposed to be reduced from 17 to 14, which will still enable people to visit the area by car, and this loss is offset by the proposed additional large loading bay so that delivery vehicles will not need to use parking spaces.
Myth: Cycle lanes are not for local people
An occasional misconception is that cycleways are only built for commuters travelling long distances, or for the “male, pale and stale” demographic. It’s actually the opposite: before a cycleway is built it is often only the former demographic that brave a busy road; naturally they form the bulk of the demographic immediately after one is opened on the same road.
Research shows that there are twice as many men cycling than women on roads without a cycleway, but by building a cycleway this gap can be greatly reduced.
Myth: Cycle lanes are discriminatory against disabled people
The opposite is true. Contrary to what many assume, many disabled people can actually ride a bike, but it can be difficult for them on a normal road due to the individual either needing a specially-adapted bike or because they may be less stable on a normal bike. In London 15% of disabled people use a bicycle as a mode of transport, compared to 18% of non-disabled people. The most common barrier to cycling cited by disabled people is a lack of cycling infrastructure.
Myth: Cycle lanes should not be on main roads
Keeping cycle lanes off main roads has been the approach used for a number of years in London, but it doesn’t work in practice, as we have seen from the under-utilisation of such facilities. Side roads are not direct enough to be of much practicable use (there is no parallel route the whole length of Holland Park Avenue), and they often still require main roads to be negotiated. Many side roads are narrow due to the number of parked cars and they still have a lot of vehicle movements, which makes them feel dangerous.
Myth 6: Cycle lanes inconvenience bus users
Whilst sitting on a bus you may not realise it, but buses spend a lot of time negotiating with cyclists when pulling into bus stops. Often a bus will need to wait for a cyclist before it can stop. By removing bicycles from the equation, a bus journey is smoother. The price of this is that bus users need to cross to a floating island to board a bus, but this is only a few feet wide and a zebra crossing is provided. And of course, if a return journey is being made, then the whole road will need to be crossed twice anyway for the bus stops on the opposite side of the road.
Myth 7: The process is undemocratic
Sadiq Khan pledged in his election manifesto that he would continue investing in new cycle routes, with a focus on segregated provision. He is merely delivering on that pledge. Whilst there have been pockets of opposition on a route, schemes have been supported overall by all legitimate highway users. Clearly a scheme is only worthwhile if it is implemented throughout its length – there would be little point in having gaps in it to account for specific local views. As the inspecting officer stated in a recent inquiry: “those who suggest that those passing through should be disqualified are asking the views of legitimate highway users to be ignored.”
